Review
stringlengths 6
10.3k
| Rating
int64 1
10
|
|---|---|
I've read the books and absolutely loved them and now watching the series, I'm falling in love again with the story . Thank you to whoever thought it was a good idea to depict this trilogy through media . | 8 |
I get it. The Queen's Gambit is about a super smart, almost alien person. That's why she's so unemotional and strange.
The thing is, viewers don't like to root for unemotional strange people. We want our heroes to be likable. I suppose we can root for her because she's an orphan, but she immediately gets a good mother. She wins all her matches. Where's the tension?
It's such a white privilege to be able to make a living from playing chess, a game where the players hands move by inches. That's the action.
I didn't sense kindness in Beth. She has almost no reaction to anything. This was not the show for me. | 5 |
Of course the book was way better. The civil war spanned the entire marvel universe (or at least the us). It wasn't just centered on the avengers. This could of been an even bigger movie deriving the culmination of mini series and other films just off this one movie. This movie was a hit but also a miss. Movie by itself without background info is a 7-8. | 8 |
5/10 - good acting, but this movie felt like a science fiction rip-off of A Quiet Place | 5 |
This movie left me wondering if, toward the end, all the characters would sit Bradley down and reveal some elaborate scheme they had ingeniously devised so that, ultimately, they would set him on the path towards sanity--AND to explain to the viewer why reality had seemed so warped in the movie up to that point...or SOMETHING that could demystify how every character acts like they need to be heavily medicated.
I have a few minor issues with this movie:
~The story line has little coherency. ~Each character is incredibly-emotionally invested in the most trivial of matters. ~In every scenario each character behaves as if this is how people regularly interact and communicate with each other...well, minus Bradley and Jennifer...and Chris Tucker...and Bradley's Dad...and Bradley's friend Pat...
Okay, so I guess this movie says crazy people tend to cluster together, even outside of an institution. That's all I could come up with.
Nonetheless, I give this a 6 out of 10 because, aside from the plot that leaves the sane baffled, the actors' performances are hugely entertaining. It's like a piece of modern art you see in a museum that catches your eye enough that you stop and stare for awhile; however, if you were asked to evaluate the artist, you couldn't bring yourself to regard it too highly because you know it's just a painting of random splotches and gravity at work (no paintbrush required). | 5 |
I agree with most of the imdb reviews on this series - as them, I absolutely love Stranger Things. Being able to follow children growing up through a TV screen is a privilege, and reminds me of the same closeness you feel to the characters in the Harry Potter films. It's quirky and original and I love every character.
BUT. I don't agree with the praise of the 3rd and 4th season. Starting in season 3, I found that the story started getting less of a serious feel to it. Suddenly I wasn't afraid anyone was actually going to die. In the first two seasons I found that the humour stemmed from funny, well written characters and good directing of the scenes. But now it seems that every character is supposed to be funny which doesn't suit many of them. The type of humour also reminds me more of parody now than it did before (here I see similarities with the evolvement of the Umbrella Academy and the disappointing 3rd season - unfortunately). At last, I found that the Stranger Things 4th season had sooooo many cliché lines.
I'd never vote less of an 8 because I love this type of series and there are many things I still love. But I guess I prefer the Harry Potter evolvement - the story, characters and problems getting more serious as they grow older - not less serious. | 8 |
Had high hopes for this one because of the first film. Was not disappointed! | 9 |
your story is great!!!its so GREAT...the first time i watch it i was hooked, actually watched it 9 time and i kept watching it..but i want to know the girl's name,it's not mentioned...it is really a true to life?but anyway it was great....it's a masterpiece...the one in the mountain the way the girl say sorry to the guy it was great its my favorite part and the ending it was coincidentally isn't it?
When I first saw you I already knew There was something inside of you Something I thought that I would never find Angel of mine
I look at you, looking' at me Now I know why they say the best things are free I'm gonna love you boy you are so fine Angel of Mine
How you changed my world you'll never know I'm different now, you helped me grow You came into my life sent from above When I lost all hope you showed me love I'm checking' for ya boy you're right on time Angel of Mine
Nothing means more to me than what we share No one in this whole world can ever compare Last night the way you moved is still on my mind Angel of Mine
What you mean to me you'll never know Deep inside I need to show You came into my life sent from above (Sent from above) When I lost all hope, you showed me love (Boy you showered me love) I'm checking' for ya, boy you're right on time (Right on Time) Angel of Mine (Angel of mine)
I never knew I could feel each moment As if it were new, Every breath that I take, the love that we make I only share it with you (you, you, you,you) When I first saw you I already knew There was something inside of you Something I thought that I would never find Angel of Mine
You came into my life sent from above (Came into my life, yeah yeah yeah) When I lost all hope you showed me love (Boy You showed me love, uh huh) I'm shaking' for ya, boy you're right on time (But boy your right on time) Angel of Mine (Angel of mine, oh mine)
How you changed my world you'll never know I'm different now, you helped me grow
I look at you looking' at me Now I know why they say the best things are free I'm checking' for ya, boy you're right on time Angel of Mine | 10 |
Fitfully amusing for around 20 minutes, most on the strength of trying to get by on Prieto and the art/costume teams' efforts. When the movie actually starts, it suffers a lot from the Ferrara and Gosling strands, which give the movie its emotional beats, remaining at odds with each other. I did enjoy Michael Cera a lot. Baumbach's hands feel like they are all over it, dragging the film into the worst of his didactic tendencies, bizarre. The most meaningful and affecting thing about it is how it is a collection of very skilled people whose every effort seems to be towards surviving the assignment. | 4 |
Peter has a more personal conflict with the villain than in previous movies, along with the fact that in the end he must make a responsible decision that will bring him consequences, it is a pity that this only happens at the end, most of the time committing stupidity after stupidity , he does the spell out of sheer selfishness, he doesn't think of a better way to use the spell, like making them forget Misteryo, he lets the super villains go to his house since they had previously betrayed him, I don't complain about green goblin, although it was never established in sam raimi's spider-man that he was a split personality, one could assume it, here they confirm it and manage to capture how intimidating and cruel he was in the first movie. I can't say the same about Otto or Strange, they became a joke for this film, the secondary characters are decent except for ned and MJ, the worst characters in the three movies. There are some inconsistencies with the. | 4 |
I think this is my first review. This series is so bad I had to write one. I don't understand the good score. I have tried on 2 separate occasions to watch this show. Haven't even gotten past the 2nd episode because it is SO BORING. I played the games and enjoyed them so I really thought I would like this series. Henry Caville is gorgeous and a perfect cast for this role. That is the only redeeming quality and why I gave a 4 instead of a 1. Perhaps this show takes a long time to become interesting. But first you must entertain and grip people. Game of thrones started off slow too but you knew if you hung around it would get good. This, I cannot. The dialogue is also awful. You don't care for any of the characters. The story just starts.. doesn't lead into things correctly. The forced diversity... I mean do they think we are stupid? I honestly do not know who is doing these reviews. | 4 |
It couldve been very tense and interesting but switching from past to present every 5 mins took all the mystery away for me. The ending was meh, character development boring. But if there's nothing else on your watchlist why not | 4 |
Im not a critic or reviewer by any stretch of the imagination, and, to be honest I've never written a review nor given advice about what anyone should watch - but with this everyone should give it a go... It's just incredibly, incredibly good. From the casting, performance's, set/location, story and writing, to the music in the background it's all perfect. Loved every minute - this sends my viewing into a whole new direction! | 10 |
I'm not coming at this from a political or ideological angle. I will laugh at anything from any perspective, whether I agree with it or not, if it is funny. My husband and I made maybe 2 or 3 small chuckles during this movie. It was visually very stimulating, but the dialogue was so dull, and the jokes felt so forced. I didn't feel anyone had any natural chemistry, and the acting didn't land for me. I came in with a very open mind for this film, and I loved Barbie growing up, but my main issue was that it wasn't funny. I was so bored watching this and almost fell asleep a few times. That's my sole reason for saying to skip this. I expected a comedy, and I got this weird mix of forced jokes and deep attempts at long, heartfelt monologues... nothing meshed well here. | 2 |
It's not quite as magical or amazing as Harry Potter but there is definitely something there.
This is a good start to a new story in the Magical World of Harry Potter. Hopefully, sequels don't let it down. | 7 |
12 Years a Slave receives a 3/10 from me, primarily because I found it challenging to watch. While the film is a poignant and historically significant portrayal of slavery in America, its depiction of the events and characters felt skewed, particularly in its representation of white men.
The film, based on a true story, is undoubtedly powerful and evokes a strong emotional response. It unflinchingly showcases the brutality and inhumanity of slavery, which, while important to acknowledge, can be distressing to watch. The narrative is impactful and well-acted, but it seems to focus heavily on casting white men in a negative light, which felt somewhat one-sided and overemphasized to me.
While the intention might be to offer a raw and truthful representation of that historical period, the film's approach can come across as overly critical of one group, which may not sit well with all viewers. The portrayal lacks a certain nuance and balance that could have made the story more universally resonant.
In conclusion, 12 Years a Slave is a film that succeeds in depicting the harsh realities of slavery but does so in a manner that might feel unbalanced in its portrayal of characters based on race. It's a difficult watch, not just for its graphic content but also for its seemingly biased perspective. | 3 |
This was an attempt at being deep and thought provoking, and instead was a total mess. | 2 |
Very slow and pretty sappy. Thank God Sam Elliott saved me from taking a two hour nap after I blew $20 to see this borefest. | 2 |
A 7.9?! Do we now put filmmaking techniques over story? If that's the case, then the SW sequel trilogy is a masterpiece according to this rating. Anyhow, let's get to the review.
From a technical standpoint, this is an outstanding movie with gorgeous cinematography, editing, sound design, visuals and shots. It really is a gorgeous movie to look at and I do think the use of no dialogue helped with the feeling that there is war and there are stakes and I do like the idea of the story being told from 3 different perspectives. Very efficient way of storytelling there.
With that said, let's move on to the bad. This movie was really boring. Sure it's short but I just wanted the movie to be over and the movie moves at such a slow pace unnecessarily and it's so repetitive with nothing interesting happening. I also rally didn't care about the characters. They could be replaced by pieces of wood and I wouldn't notice a difference. I felt no emotional connection to them, I didn't care about them, I never felt any emotion and I didn't care what was happening.
This movie also doesn't feel too much like a war movie. I don't mind the lack of blood but everything is so quiet with little tension or action.
Overall, this is a really disappointing effort from Nolan and how this movie got so much recognition shows that apparently storytelling doesn't matter if you get your technical aspects right. Watch Inception or TDK trilogy. Now those are real movies, not this documentary. | 6 |
There were two story lines basically . A) the life of movie star Rick Dalton on set B) Brad Pitt after he picks up the hitch hiker. Then a climax. After watching this film, storyline a is way way way too long. Almost 2 hours. It's a unique film as it potrays life on a movie set I suppose but I didn't fancy watching Leonardo DiCaprio " as an actor acting as an actor "...for two hours . Only once Brad Pitt arrives at the Ranch is when things really start to become intriguing. Looking back on the film now, the first part did not have to be that long. The only thing that connects the climax to story line A is that the characters are the same. Nothing that happened Rick Dalton shooting scenes (story line A) had anything to do with the ending of the movie really. | 3 |
Great film and a great story. Loved the way it was told by the director. Deserves a higher rating hence my 7. | 7 |
All this posturing about power- should be an exciting subject. Instead this is a House of boring people, who are not helped by sluggish writing. So many Lord this, Ser that and Lady so-and-so come and go with little impact on the plot. And the look of the production is just plain cheap looking. Perhaps the omnipresent dim lighting is trying to hide the fact that there's nothing to look at. I seldom found GOT slow; on those rare occasions there was usually something interesting to view. And I didn't have to struggle to see what was on the screen.
It's apples and oranges of course, but visually alone, the Rings of Power is light years ahead of this series. It's full of brilliant visuals that are filled with beauty and wonder. Is the plot better? I'm not so sure yet, but it seems like a lot more more fun. | 5 |
Estranged survivors of a dysfunctional school for superheroes are brought together by the death of their mentor. Can the heroes get over their past long enough to save the future? There's little "superhero-ing" here, and the story's probably better for it. But characterizations are strong, the stakes are high, and production is fun and stylish for its budget. | 8 |
Once you watch the first movie you want to see them all. The way the family and mafia story was told is very attractive narratively and visually. The actions that lead you to be in history every moment and live it as if you were there. The photography during many scenes that were performed in low key is beautiful, they add drama to the dialogues and emotions. Definitely a classic to see. | 10 |
Every Indian should watch this movie... Just awesome.... Jai Hind... | 10 |
Obviously, it is so highly-rated because of its lofty ambitions & qualities for a "TV show", sort of like Twin Peaks & only a couple of others. It is also fun to spot the '80s artifacts & references, esp to films. Did everyone catch the Ferris Bueller one? It is also hard to stop watching anything with some kind of "TBD" monster waiting to be shown. However, the problems: ET-worship goes overboard by the 4th episode. The good-girl-trying-to-go-bad schtick is a main reason for Freaks & Geeks being canceled after 1 great season. The characters and their relationships are ALL Cliché. Every single character has been done basically exactly like this in a previous (multiple) film or TV show. Here's one: where have you seen anti-social-male-teen-from-wrong-side-of-tracks interacts with world through photography before? Stock character. Check. Starting in episode 3 or 4 (iirc), characters started to make inexplicable decisions, e.g. the sheriff breaking into the top-secret federal base, the good-girl-trying-to-go-bad entering the Upside-Down, etc & the show started to go off the rails.
I will almost certainly not watch Season 2. The Duffers get "A" for synthesis but "D" for originality. | 6 |
While the movie undoubtedly delivers in terms of stunt work with breathtaking sequences that push the boundaries of what's physically possible, despite that I can't say that the action scenes are good. Everything is recorded in such a boring monotonous way, the film does not have an exciting style like in the first movie, the story is not interesting. It unfortunately falls short in terms of storytelling and emotional depth, and it's ultimately just boring.
An action scene will not be interesting or exciting just because it has good stunts. For example, the first Mission Impossible movie didn't have such good stunt scenes, but it was still 100X more interesting, because the movie simply had a soul and the action had stakes. Here I had the feeling that I'm not watching a real movie, but a stunt show.
While the film moves at a breakneck pace, it never takes the time to develop a meaningful and engaging story. The plot feels disjointed, merely acting as a vehicle to transition between action set pieces rather than offering a coherent and engaging narrative arc. As a result, the movie feels more like a series of loosely connected action sequences rather than a cohesive whole.
Honestly it's just boring. | 5 |
"Pirates" is a fun adventure film that breaks out of its "based on a Disneyland ride" chains and delivers a near-perfect summer family blockbuster.
The film is aided tremendously by the casting, especially Depp and Geoffrey Rush. All of the performances are very good, and it adds immeasurably to the quality of the film. The production is also very well done, right up to the great visual effects. However, one let down was the music, which features a pounding quality heard in many Bruckheimer action films.
The characters are brought to life with the skill of the "Indiana Jones" or "Harry Potter" movies, yet somehow the overall film seems to be just a few notches of "The Mummy" and "Tomb Raider" movies. Unlike the latter movies, however, it seems a sequel or two could really help lift "Pirates" out of that same category and into the heights reached by "Indiana Jones".
The verdict: about as good of a summer blockbuster as could be hoped for. | 6 |
Lol, that wasn't Dhaka shown in the film!..That was kolkata clearly can be felt. Even their bengali accent was like pure Indian-bengali accent. Totally failed to present Dhaka! I expected something realistic from this film. It was so unexpected! | 1 |
One of the most overrated movies i've ever seen. The hype was for nothing and everything was predictable. | 2 |
This film establishes the tone of Captain America and his series of movies, since it takes a deep dive into the corruption of the American government. Black Widow finally becomes an interesting character (this being her third film in the MCU). The fight scenes are awesome. Most of the characters are enjoyable, this film is a fun watch. | 8 |
Spider-Man 2 is a god damn excellent movie. It manages to improve upon the first movie and be way better than the first movie. The story is way better, the villain is way better, the characters and acting are way better, the score is still great, it's still beautifully shot, and even the action and visual effects are so much better, and for what it is it's just an exciting fun movie. Even all the corny stuff is great, it's really entertaining and charming. Everything that this movie needed to have improved upon the first movie this movie does and does well. Upon rewatching this movie, it's way better than how it was remembered in memory. All the best stuff in this movie is everything going on with Peter Parker, between him trying to balance his real life and him being Spider-Man was really interesting, him constantly struggling and messing up and him quitting so he could get his life together, and he decides to come back to being Spider-Man was all perfect. It captures everything I love about Spider-Man and why he is my favorite superhero. It's an incredibly creative, entertaining and fun movie with that same style that hold together the movie. Purely based on my love for the movie and what this movie gets right it's kind of a perfect movie, nuff said. | 10 |
Putting The Avengers (which is an entirely different level of cinematic entertainment) aside, The Winter Soldier ranks as the best among the whole Marvel Cinematic Universe. With great action sequences, suspenseful moments, and emotional unravelling flow of events, this film strengthens Marvel Studios' status as not just giving quality entertainment, but also giving fans & audiences the thrill of cinematic experience, while also adding new dimensions to the easily predictable superhero genre.
The film starts a bit slowly by re-accounting viewers with Captain America and his story, so it sets up the situation & emotion for the main plot. The first half an hour felt rather boring & casual, but it didn't really matter when the remaining one and a half hour is full blast entertainment filled with action, drama & suspense. The action sequences are great, despite being less superhero-ish, employing hand- to-hand combats, gunfires, and shield bashing. So, after a specific event happening in about the half hour mark, the movie takes a turn, and suddenly Cap finds himself surrounded by enemies & shrouded by trust issues, and the suspense takes over.
The strongest aspect of this film is the unfolding plot. Now, Marvel being Marvel means there will be twists & reveals in between. For the sake of this review, I'm going to throw a bone and divide it into the little twist and the big twist. The little twist (comic book fans will know) is what accounts for the existence of drama, striking hard into the personal life of Steve Rogers himself. Meanwhile, the big twist is a game changer. It changes a big part of what we know in the universe, and brings in a bigger threat in place, thus changing the future of the cinematic universe.
On the little pieces, this film (as compared to others in the MCU) is the one which has the most connection to the other films, both past and upcoming. This film has drama flowing through in the personal life of Steve Rogers, and one good thing is that it didn't follow Thor: The Dark World's sense of humour (otherwise it would be a permanent identity of the franchise) but still manages to give audiences the laugh. And yes, this film has mid-credits scene and post-credits scene, and they are the best yet, so I highly recommend you to stay back until the very end.
On a side note, SHIELD being a major part of the film, introduces the sense of a political thriller and the vague concept of intelligence, which is what I previously mentioned as the extra dimension in this film. The soundtrack plays a part too. While not every minute of it is great, but when it needs to, it brings added suspense & thrill to the action. And with the help of it, the Winter Soldier's presence on screen is chilling and worthy of a mysterious yet ruthless villain. The fight sequences between Cap & Winter felt awesome, both physically & emotionally.
Note 1: I will be writing a spoiler-filled discussion in two weeks time.
Note 2: My claim is fixed: The Winter Soldier is now my favourite character in the Marvel Universe.
VERDICT:
Good: Great action sequences, Full of thrill & suspense, Brilliant unfolding plots, Decent soundtrack, New dimensions to the genre
Bad: Slow start
SCORE: 9.0
(blockbusted9.blogspot.com) | 9 |
The hype around this film is staggering. As the film unfolded, I predicted all but two of the things that happened. It just seemed like such an obvious stream of events other than the surprise half way through and the Tarantino -Lite ending.
There's an almost complete lack of sympathy for, or empathy in, almost all of the selfish, unpleasant characters. Maybe that's the point, but if you want a film where there's someone to root for, this isn't for you.
Although you can see the point the film makes writ large from an early stage, it does a poor job of making you think the downtrodden deserve any sympathy. | 3 |
So, the name of this film came up for an answer in a March 2022 crossword puzzle. "War film, 2010 Best Picture Winner." I have a Masters, am well read, even had 5 of the letters and I'm usually up on the latest trends. But I had to look it up. I was shocked. I had never even heard of this movie. This was the Academy wanting to be inclusive. Let's have a woman win!
Pathetic! An Oscar no longer means anything as witnessed by the 2022 ceremony. | 5 |
This series is clearly not made for a one time view. Everything is brilliant about this series. Powerful acting+script. Benedict Cumberbatch has got to be one of the best portrayals of Sherlock (I've actually only watched two - Hope you guessed the other one - Deduction). But what even exciting is the build up. Every episode is taken to a perfect spot and completed. Next episode,next case not like other series where you have to wait and watch and hopefully connect them. And the reason why i ask you to buy the DVD is because of this
-----The Science Of Deduction-----
If you watch sherlock episodes again,you will notice a lot of things you normally miss out.Thats what makes the series special. You are made to watch the episode again with more curiosity and you are not disappointed. Clearly, sherlock speaks fast so you are not meant to understand everything at first sight. So when you go over them again a second time, you'll be like Ahh(No pun intended with Scandal at Belgravia)! Now it makes sense or That's why.Every episode is a movie long but With powerful editing+beautiful score, generates a certain flow and you are simply washed down by it.Plus (Enough with the pluses already) by giving a case within a case (I call it case-ception) scenario, you are clearly not given enough time to think, and the suspense is delivered with a punch.And when it does hit you,it's not a " that's so obvious" either (well, at least not always).
Okay, Minuses (This is only for me) I hate the portrayal of James Moriarty,again just how he is portrayed, not that its a bad acting but just doesn't seem to suit the series, Moriarty has to be the opposite of Sherlock, not behave like a psychopath and the war sequence in the beginning. Ruins the masterpiece. | 9 |
This movie was heavy on action and thin on plot, but I liked what plot there was, the action scenes the interaction among the characters, and the introduction of Spiderman to the ensemble. This was a good entry to the Marvel Comics movie universe. I think the special effects were good, and I loved Stan Lee's cameo.
**1/2 out of **** | 8 |
This was at best a 5 episode story. It dragged on mercilessly and had a less than satisfying final episode. Holly's part was just awful after greatness from the Holly of Mr. Mercedes. It's amazing to me that film adaptations of King's books are so lacking. Maybe it's me, but I feel like I wasted 10 hours. | 6 |
Antother Marvel flick and a bad one indeed. CGI is very good. Standard these days but the rest....simply unwatchable. Completely insane story like so many other movies.... | 4 |
I had heard that this comedy was a hilarious must-see. Well, it's probably due to my personal sense of humor, but I didn't find it that funny. Sure, the story is entertaining enough, with some comical situations and characters (I specifically liked the scenes with Russell Brand!), and there were several chuckle-moments, but that was about it. My biggest problem was Jason Segel as main character Peter. He may be known as a comedian, but I only saw an unattractive, sulky, depressive whiner, slouching and stumbling his way through the movie. To me it was totally unrealistic how two such gorgeous women (Mila Kunis and Kristen Bell) could catfight over this big baby, who by the way for some unfathomable reason treated us to some extended views of his penis - is there anyone who considers that even remotely funny?!? | 6 |
The show is pretty formulaic and hasn't explored much of the lore in 2 seasons unfortunately, especially the daemons. I'm mostly going to keep watching in the hopes that I get to see Peter Knox get murdered. That guy is either a great actor or a horrible person. | 6 |
Agonisingly boring. Watch at your own will!. Had to stop at episode 5 | 5 |
It's not as good as the original, but this isn't unbearable; decent start, good build up, great middle and okay ending.
This one's more character leaning, Janelle Monáe is very entertaining to watch, and all the rest of the cast did not miss a beat. The suspense is weaker, because it is spelled out at middle acts. And I find the last act very satisfying. The narrative is less sound structurally, but a bit more laid back because of it being all over the place, and I don't mind it as much. And I always found Blanc's detective work a bit of a stretch, both in this one and the previous one anyway, so I didn't expect too much mystery. And I was right to do that.
All that being said, I could see myself watching it again because it being camp and slow pacing. This is no Knives Out (2019), but this is a worthy follow up. | 8 |
Amazing movie really entertaining.....but it has a very slow first half......and the movie would be quite boring and meaningless if not for its 22 support movies. | 4 |
I am really open to a lot of movies and different genre and it does not have to be a full throttle action/road movie or anything, but this one just was one of the plain boring once.
It started to introduce the characters (which is done in a good way at first) and then they just repeat and repeat over and over useless scenes which are just not necessary for anything. We already know everything that is shown inbetween lets say minute 30 to 100 of the film.
I like LD and BP as characters and they are well played, but cut this movie... just get rid of 1h inbetween and it is a good movie. But randomly introducing characters which are not at all telling you anything useful?
You really need to like the 60-70 to like this movie. Otherwise it is just not worth watching. And sorry, a 10/10 for this movie is just plain wrong. Even if you like the lifestyle and stuff like this, this movie is never ever a 10/10.
For me this is a mix of three things:
It is not the movie itself why people watch it. Just because the movie itself is not worth the time to watch it. | 3 |
I think is a very good movie that reflects the today's society. Jennifer Lawrence and Joel Edgerton are fantastic in this movie as Dominika Egorova, a former ballerina turned spy with a short temper but determine to do everything it takes to get the job done and who cares a lot about her family and Nate and Nate Nash respectively, a CIA operative who cares a lot about Dominika and his co-workers and who is known as a good agent. Also the supporting cast is very good and diverse with breathtaking performances. Very good job from all cast and crew! | 10 |
A mix of Hancock staring Will Smith and an unanimated version of The Incredibles. Enough said. | 7 |
We only made it 15-20 min in. Maybe we missed an explanation but every talented actor in this film somehow reverts back to freshman year drama club level skills. Even the extras get hit with this sudden curse. I have no idea what they were told but I can't imagine worse direction in a film than whatever they got. Plus it's shot like no one was ever available at the same time. Constant awkward two shots of characters that they claim to be in the same scene but who knows. Chris Rock in particular will just have quips thrown into scenes like the studio felt the scenes needed a little something and did reshoots. | 3 |
The sequel to the 2008 Box Office hit does not disappoint.
The only real qualm that I had with the first Iron Man was a weak villain, thankfully the studio corrected that in this iteration of the Iron Man.
Whiplash, Ivan Vanko, stands out as a worthy adversary in both the physical and intellectual field with Tony Stark, his meek upbringing contrasts nicely with the flashy and arrogant Tony making the dichotomy of the characters simply wonderful. You get this raw and vengeful character in Ivan and a flashy slick character from Tony that create the perfect amount of friction to start a fire. Sam Rockwell also plays Justin Hammer to perfection, but to be honest I'm just a HUGE Rockwell fan, if you haven't seen Moon...do yourself a favor.
Fantastic MCU film that scratches a little deeper into the Avenger Initiative, will absolutely watch again. | 10 |
Woody Harrelson (Carnage) brings nothing to anything, just his annoying personality. Perfect tool for Carnage. It is all about Woody Harrelson being Woody Harrelson. If you have seen him ranting in Zombieland and the sequel, you know what I mean.
Tom Hardy (Venom) has to be the most over-rated actor in the history of cinema. He looks like some kind of klutz, Deputy Doofy from the Scare movies, a mental defective carrying around a psychotic sociopathic parasite that wants to be a comedian. Just the most bizzarro dumb & dumber you can ever imagine.
Perhaps the most blatant point that everyone ignores is that there is no SPIDER-MAN in the Venom movies. Spider-man is the arch-nemesis of both Venom and Carnage. There are literally hundreds of comic books about Venom or Carnage or both of them fighting Spider-Man. Dozens of trade paperbacks. So how do you do a series of Venom/Carnage movies without Spider-Man? WTF??? How lame is that? | 1 |
Argo (2012)
The preview for "Argo" made me think of a dozen recent political thrillers, and the clichés lined up in my mind to the point I didn't want to see it. Then it won the Golden Globe, and I'm thinking there must be more to this than meets the eye. I wrote this review at first with the rush of having seen a really well made political thriller, but the blush has faded and I'm revising down a hair. It's good, but it really is formula movie making in some ways. And yet, in other ways, it's fast and fresh and funny.
The first minute, the first ten minutes, are so riveting you can forget any doubts about the previews. In some ways this sets an unmatchable pace for the rest, outlining the history leading to the hostage crisis in Iran that is the crux of the plot later on. Mixing found footage (or what looks like real period stuff) with new shots, and editing in a whirlwind that will, even when it calms down, make your head spin, the pace and the energy is great. Gradually it becomes clear what particular focus the movie will take--the six embassy workers who avoided being taken hostage in the crisis (this is late 1979).
When the plot broadens to include not only the Canadian Ambassador's house but a bunch of small time Hollywood professionals (played by big time Hollywood professionals named Alan Arkin and John Goodman), the fun begins. And as much as the movie is painful and gut-wrenching, it's actually fun, and in Goodman's case, downright hilarious. It's that famously classic mix of tragic and comic that makes the movie click. It's a bit glib and maybe even dumbed down, at times, but it still gets some sincere laughs.
Ben Affleck directed and stars as the leading operative who tries to get the six out of Iran using a crazy concoction of chutzpah and genius. Whether it works you'll see. But the movie is filmed, and edited, with unusual clarity and intelligence. It's not just fast, it's kinetic and logical and irresistible. It's an artistic job of putting several plot lines together into one dynamic energized whole. It creates a really stupidly Hollywood fantasy of an ending (the airport stuff) that isn't true, and the personal life of Affleck's character is further sentimentalizing (also not true--check wikipedia).
The only downside to the movie is that it is what it is--it's history, it has no surprises if you know the history, and it's laden slightly with the feeling the "we" are the good guys and "they" are not. And it's a conventional--though highly effective--action adventure political thriller beat the clock movie. I mean, there are ways these movies are put together and this follows the rules. I don't know if the Iranians are presented fairly, overall, but an Iranian student of mine (born and raised in Tehran) said it looked really authentic to him. It is, however, an very pro-American view of things, for better or worse.
In the end "Argo" is just so smartly made and paced, you'll get sucked in. Guaranteed. | 7 |
When it released, my page was filled with its reviews stating it was a good movie and it was a huge hit. I got so excited and finally watched but I didn't like the movie. Maybe I expected too much but one thing is true, it is still better that last years movie "Batman v Superman'. That movie, I couldn't watched till end but this movie I could at least complete it. The only thing good about it are the actors but the story sucked. Watch it if you are a big fan of Gal Gadot. | 5 |
This movie was anything but scary. I totally think they tried too hard. The previous movies were pretty good, but this one felt like a kids version lol Wanted to love it... definitely disappointed. | 4 |
This is season 3 of True Detective with zero likable characters. There was no fun. No entertainment. No reason to keep watching besides already having invested time in it. Anyone rating this above a 3 is a joke reviewer. | 1 |
Missing some the mahor key elements from the animated one so cant fully call it a remake or like maybe a reimagine. I sure wont watch it again. Impressive special effects though. Least they kept the opening theme song. | 4 |
A story, no doubt, with a good premise - after all, who nowadays won't enjoy a slice of fantasy with a shade of xenophilia? I certainly can say that I do enjoy such things. Well, what a disappointment. Premise may be satisfying, but everything else is terrific. Atmosphere that starts to build up from the beginning of the film is constantly shattered by cheap symbolism and something that I could call "not going with it all the way through". Obviously, the movie is one that holds a purpose of disturbing feelings with good storytelling and aesthetics - unfortunately, it lacks in both of these areas. Components lead nowhere and keep viewer wondering why they were placed here in the first place. Scenes are either not disturbing enough or not beautiful enough. The fact that these little things ruin something potentially good and precious, well, is very sad. I don't know why this film is so widely appreciated - there's nothing special, nothing disturbing and nothing magnificent about it. If you want to watch something with similar dystopian-ish atmosphere and aesthetics, better spend your time on La Antenna (2007). It doesn't contain any monster-loving, but it is a good example of dystopian fairy tale like story. | 3 |
1) The original lost in space had a doctor who was mix between Amy Poehler and Hamlet. A trash talking robot, the kid from twilight zone who could melt you with his mind and a handful of forgettables. There was no legacy here and if there was, it wasn't in the characters or story - it was in the setting. This reboot has done a much better job creating a rich setting, with the Resolute, the conflicted robot, explaining initially why the Jupiter was lost, putting the Jupiter 2 in proximity to other survivors and create a much more dynamic environment.
2) Diversity shmiversity. I'm far from an SJW, but I don't see the cries of "oh no diversity". Maybe because I don't live in the west (where this social divide seems to prick more ears and hearts), but I felt the mothers dominance in the marriage was very clear. Her husband had essentially abandoned the family for his job, she needed to step in to fill that role - not because she is alpha, but because he was willing to step away from the family and seemed willing to divorce had it not involved separation from his kids. Also, yes Judy is not white, so what, she is John step-daughter from Maureen's previous marriage (that's the official explanation). Given how well Judy and Penny relate as sisters, I had no problem with this. Why should I, step-families happen. In fact that makes the show more relatable, not less.
I'm not saying the show is brilliant, but it's remotely kid friendly (no sexual or extreme violence). It is faithful to create the sense of wonder that the first series did - but with more realistic intonation. I'm not sure I'd recommend it, but I'm not panning it for diversity issues either. I'm also, not sure what the "writer" issues are. Kept my attention. | 7 |
Some stuff like "I got shot in the penis" was just wrong, but the "Racoon not Zombie bite" and "Unicorn Sighting" are very good! They take famous you tube clips, movies, and news and creates a spoof off of them. However I miss the "Bad Luck" skits and "Deal of no Deal" spoofs on Mad TV. The on stage jokes and skits that were done in front of an audience need a lot of work on, it can be funny from time to time however they tend to be stretched from what actually happened, for example, how key talks about how he cant sit in his seat while he laughs on a plane. Needs work but it seems like there is a lot of potential for this show. | 10 |
We loved this movie until about 3/4 of the way through when it all fell apart. It was well acted, well directed and the photography was awesome. But 3/4 of the way through the story became so bizarre that we had no idea what the heck was happening anymore. I defy anybody to explain what did happen! | 5 |
No character development en top many hops to different time spans | 1 |
The movie was overall.
"Dil Se," starring Shah Rukh Khan, is a film that left me with mixed feelings and ultimately failed to live up to my expectations. While the movie attempted to explore themes of love and passion, it fell short in delivering a compelling and believable story.
One of the major flaws of "Dil Se" is its unrealistic portrayal of love. The movie presents an exaggerated version of love at first sight, which is difficult to relate to or find convincing. The character's infatuation with a woman he barely knows becomes the driving force behind the entire plot, making it difficult to invest in their relationship. The lack of depth and development in their connection makes it hard to believe in the emotional journey the characters embark on.
Moreover, the character played by Shah Rukh Khan, though initially portrayed as a good-hearted individual, displays questionable behavior throughout the film. The scene in which he kisses the female lead without her consent is problematic and sends a disturbing message. It is disappointing to see such an act portrayed without any consequences or reflection on the importance of consent. This aspect of the movie promotes an unhealthy notion of romance and disregards the importance of boundaries and mutual respect.
Furthermore, "Dil Se" fails to provide any valuable lessons or insights through its main character. Despite his misguided actions, there is no clear growth or redemption arc for him. This lack of character development leaves the audience without any significant takeaways or a sense of closure. It would have been beneficial if the movie had explored the consequences of the protagonist's actions and highlighted the importance of self-reflection and personal growth.
In terms of storytelling, "Dil Se" suffers from pacing issues. The plot meanders through unnecessary subplots and fails to maintain a consistent narrative flow. This makes the viewing experience tedious at times, as the movie struggles to find its footing and deliver a compelling story.
While "Dil Se" boasts impressive visuals and some well-executed musical sequences, these elements alone cannot compensate for the film's fundamental flaws. The movie's unrealistic portrayal of love, problematic depiction of consent, lack of character development, and pacing issues make it difficult to recommend to others.
In conclusion, "Dil Se" falls short of its potential and leaves the viewer with a sense of disappointment. Its unrealistic portrayal of love, problematic scenes, and lack of character growth hinder the film from delivering a meaningful and engaging story. If you're looking for a movie that explores love in a more thoughtful and respectful manner, "Dil Se" might not be the best choice. | 1 |
Good CQB demo. But lacks reality. Army can hardly be controlled by a drug dealer. | 1 |
It beggars belief that it this day and age they should attempt to get away with such an unrealistic offering. It's so full of basic continuity errors that whoever is responsible for them should struggle to get another job. The story is super shallow and it's an insult to think that people will be won over by the stunts alone. After all the hype, I felt really let down. | 3 |
Outstanding settings, beautifully filmed, two fantastic leads a great supporting cast, atmospheric locations and magic thrown into the mix, I've been captivated from the very first episode. A series worth watching I'll be there for the second and third series too. | 10 |
Lost in Translation was one of those films that the critics adored. It was a quiet and quaint film that delivered an absorbing story without explosions or over drawn out comedic moments. Yes subtle and entertaining....some will find this film slow. Did anyone understand this? The pacing is slow, nothing is forced in any of the conversations....or shoved down an audience's throat. Its about two people making a connection. Bill Murray was amazing...very funny scenes happened when they were shooting his commercial. The bar scenes dragged but the music was good. The landscape and photography is amazing... yet not appealing in the communication areas....I guess we are all lost in translation. When these two characters connect.....the chemistry works well. I like a bit more action and movement so its not something I could recommend if you get bored easily. Not a bad flick....but there are far better ones out there to spend your time on. My vote for this would be 4 out of 10. | 4 |
So disappointed with this title. Can't believe its Christopher Nolans movie. Boring, predictable, repeating scenes, terrible acting. Yeah, real planes and ships but feels so cheap. Plastic windows in buildings in the beginning and Tom Hardys Bane voice again. I'm just after watching Platoon, Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers. Didn't expect flying body parts and blood everywhere in Dunkirk but still couldn't go through the whole movie twice. Last 30 mins on fast forward. Couldn't find one thing i could connect to or identify with except Hans Zimmers score which was rather dull and unnoticeable. Nowhere near the best war motion pictures. Waste of Time. | 2 |
Yet another film from the school of thought that thinks special effects compensate for no plot or character development. At least Keanu isn't given an opportunity to act; that really would have made this film horrendous. Instead, it's an o.k. action film that has its fun effects and its dull moments. Consider it a lukewarm appetizer before Star Wars opens next month. | 4 |
How can a movie about multiple dimensions, so stunning in 3D, fall so flat? Marvel is losing it. Eternals was stupid and so is Dr. Strange. Maybe this is what happens when shooting movies in COVID times??? The actors are working from home, too. The acting was so dull, the dialog didn't add anything to the story. I found myself thinking, "did they just say that? I could come up with these lines." Truly, I nearly walked out, and I never leave a movie. | 3 |
2 years after the first movie, Peter Parker (Tobey Mcguire) has never had time with Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst) whom has became a model/actress or for class because he's always late because there's always a crime happening at the wrong time. Suddenly his powers fade away which makes him realize that he must give up being Spider-Man, however as Dr. Otto Octavius (Alfred Molan) has made a robotic suit with monstrous tentacles as suddenly a lab accident occurs making the suit fused to his body as he controls it telepathically to become Dr. Octopus with a plan on eliminating the city. Sure Peter is happy with being normal again, but with the crime rate high and Doc Ock on the rampage can he return back to Spider-Man or will the city be doomed.
This is a rare sequel that can surpass the original much like "Terminator 2", "Aliens", "Godfather 2", "Dawn of the Dead (1978)" or "Empire Strikes Back"! Sam Raimi and company knew what they were accomplishing when they made this fantastic sequel to their instant crowd-pleaser "Spider-Man". Packed with more emotion, more characterization, better action then the last one, better special effects and more comical moments that make this movie superior to the original. J.K. Simmons along with Rosemary Harris, Bruce Campbell and James Franco return for as the acting is really great here and more true to the comic then the original movie ever was.
A Must see! Can't wait to see "Spider-Man 3" with Spidy's Black costume, Venom and Sandman. | 10 |
I've long found the idea of Batman—a billionaire playboy who dresses as a bat to fight crime—just a little too ridiculous to take seriously (and I guess I'm not alone in that thought, given the cartoonish approach taken with the character in the past); however, after the Clooney-Schwarzeneggar debacle that was Batman and Robin, which took camp to a whole new level, a darker, grittier look and feel was inevitable for any franchise reboot.
Directed by Christopher Nolan, Batman Begins portrays Bruce Wayne/Batman (played by Christian Bale) in a far more sober and reflective manner than ever before; the script, by David S. Goyer focuses strongly on Wayne's inner conflict between seeking revenge and delivering justice (while neatly addressing some of the character's more questionable issues—most notably, how he learnt to fight and where he gets his cool gadgets from).
With a fine supporting cast, impressive production design (Gotham city is suitably gloomy and rain drenched and Batman's suit, accessories and vehicle are impressively utilitarian) and top-notch special effects, I certainly can't accuse Nolan of not pulling out all the stops.
And yet Batman Begins still feels strangely lacking. Nolan's fussy direction is partly to blame, the action scenes a chaotic blur of close-ups and quick edits that seriously diminish the level of excitement, but perhaps the film's biggest problem is the simple lack of fun and imagination. Compared with the 80s/90s movies, Batman Begins' new approach feels frustratingly conventional, afraid to be even the slightest bit daring or playful for fear of being compared to its immediate predecessor.
I'm not for a second suggesting the reinstatement of rubber nipples on Batman's body armour, but Nolan's grim vision has gone just a bit too far in the opposite direction for my liking.
6.5 out of 10, but not good enough for me to round it up to 7 for IMDb. | 6 |
I've read the reviews - not all but enough. I've heard my friends talk about it. I was curious so even though I wasn't even remotely interested I decided to watch an episode. What I got was..."stranger things."
Wow. This show is so lame. I've heard people say it has the same atmosphere and feel from the 80's. It doesn't. They say it's like the new "stand by me" it's not. They say the kids are going on an adventure..maybe they are - but the adventure sucks. How do I know? I grew up in the 80's. I'm an 80's baby. This show sucks.
The story line doesn't make me want watch another episode..it's like watching the X-Files when Chris Carter just gave up and started making those episodes with HUMOUR.
Stranger things isn't scary, it isn't funny, it isn't interesting, it isn't anything new. The most interesting part of the show is the little girl and unfortunately the show is just so lame, I can't spend the time to figure out what happened to her because I just don't care.
There are so many good shows and if you want to watch one with paranormal activity then watch Outcast on HBO. Now that's a show for an adult with drama instead of this PG13 trash.
I'm not sure why people like this show..but it definitely doesn't get a 10..and Netflix did not "do it again" or "get it right" or "bring real TV back" or "hit it out of the park" | 1 |
A couple of episodes in, I'm struggling to remain interested. It's a lot like Game of Thrones S6/S7; it's a competent production, but it lacks a lot of the intrigue, wit and humor of the first four seasons of that series.
It's also increasingly clear that Martin has a few tropes he comes back to again and again, and House of the Dragon feels like a rehash with fewer stakes, a smaller variety of characters, and less interesting personal stories. He doesn't seem to have much to say, no big idea that shines through in the narrative, and he thus seems stuck in describing one cycle of violence after another. This series has made it quite obvious why he is unable to finish his books, and why he left HBO to fend for itself in wrapping up Game of Thrones. His shtick was fun the first time, but it's not particularly thoughtful or interesting and thus makes for a pretty mediocre second showing.
One notable miss on the production side is the music. It's such a big step back that it was surprising to learn Ramin Djawadi is also behind this series' score. It's nowhere near as compelling or interesting as his music for GoT, where it was a big part of the presentation and was rightly recognized as such with various awards.
The actors can't be blamed for their characters, and they all seemed to do fine. Paddy Considine as Viserys makes for a compelling cautious king, and every scene with Eve Best as Rhaenys is better for having her in it.
All in all, House of the Dragon doesn't come close to the first four seasons of Game of Thrones. But neither did the second half of that series, so I suppose it's not a huge surprise. Given the struggles of similar competing American fantasy series like Wheel of Time, The Witcher, and Rings of Power it might be a while yet before we get a truly next generation big fantasy series. | 6 |
Can't help but always think of Bewitched!! Love the color details to the reality | 9 |
The other nominees for Best Picture of 1994 were `Pulp Fiction', `Four Weddings and a Funeral', `The Shawshank Redemption' and `Quiz Show'. ANY ONE of these would have been a deserving winner (my personal favourite was probably `Quiz Show'). Yet, of course, the award went to `Forrest Gump'. I took this as a deep personal affront. I took every undeserved success and wreath of flowers laid at the door of this miserable film as a personal affront. It was a standing insult to my belief that `Forrest Gump' was just too stupid to succeed for very long. Ah, well. Life imitates art.
Make no mistake: `Forrest Gump' is not just stupid but a hymn to stupidity, an extended celebration of stupidity as a virtue. Gump is as innocent as they come and we're clearly meant to think that this is a good thing. The trouble is that Gump has purchased his sainthood too cheaply. He does not, for instance, display any real courage in the Vietnam War: he gives the appearance of courage only because he's too dumb to work out what's going on. (If only a bomb had landed on his foot. It would have knocked some of that insufferable self-assurance out of him, at the very least.)
The film is just one big, long appeal to the Pope to have Forrest Gump canonised, and is about as bearable as any such appeal - and, as is so often the case, the subject of this appeal is someone you wouldn't want to spend five minutes with.
`Forrest Gump' is one hundred and forty-two minutes long. | 2 |
But, I get it...well played... I haven't been this excited about upcoming episodes in a very long time. | 9 |
This is my third time watching this movie and I finally decided to write a review.This is one such movie that you can go for when your mood is down and you want to watch a feel good movie. RomCom at its best. The lead actress Jun Ji-hyun does a fabulous job in portraying "The Girl". Cha Tae-hyun is funny and fits smoothly in his character. Even after so many years this movie remains one of the highest grosser movie of all time in Korea.I must say Koreans are too damn good when it comes to depicting emotions. P.S : For those who don't know Windstruck is like a prequel to this movie with the same actress in lead. The final scene in Windstruck kind of joins both the movie. | 9 |
The action sequences are still amazing, even though we have the same flaws from the trilogy : ennemies think guns are knives, rushing toward an unarmed John, as if they want to shoot him point blank.
But the action must serve a plot, like in the first movie, or sometimes the second, to a lesser extent. Otherwise, it's just bland violence. And John Wick 3 has no plot. | 4 |
I'm not going to spoil it, just says a few things of the first quarter of the movie: They pass a car through the border with many bullet holes. A nurse records every underground surgery and random happening of a top secret project. Many kids gets thousands in cash just by chance. Bad guys don't shoot but wait to get killed. Oh and it's super predictable. Really? Did I see the same movie everyone's praising. Without the plot holes or inconsistencies it would be at most "a good movie", but with so much being wrong: it's awful. | 5 |
Season 1's original take on superhero's was a slow grow. It takes a few episodes to get to the down and dirty, but when it does it is great dark comedy. The final episode is a climax with a very happy ending. Season 2 looses all that made Season 1 great, rehashing the same ideas and delving into "serious" romantic relationships dragging the whole season way down. If Season 1 is a solid "8," Season 2 is barely a "6." | 7 |
Strongly recommended movie to everyone not only for animal lovers to but for everyone who understands the language of love and sacrifice. This movie successfully wins every aspect, be it good story line, perfect emotinal content "na kam na zyada", fine cinematography and direction supported by soothing music.
If you have time must go and watch the rollercoaster ride of emotions with Dharma and Charlie, you will not regret it.
I have seen first movie which released on less screens and after one week shows are increased instead of dropping. | 10 |
While this movie is good enough to use up some time watching, it certainly is not Oscar worthy at all. | 4 |
Anurag Basu hits the home run with LUDO! I am writing this review after seeing the mixed reviews by some film critics and some illiterate people who seem to have no clue about film-making as a medium or as an art form. I hope more and more people watch this film as its entertaining and beautiful to watch. I could only find one or two faults or missing pieces which pale in comparison to the actual plot of the movie and how deftly it has been crafted. Anurag Basu is the most underrated director in Bollywood. Hopefully Ludo will give him the adulation and fame he deserves. Heartening performances from Rajkumar Rao and Pankaj Tripathi! | 9 |
This movie was probably relevant in the 70s and may have been a benchmark at the time it was made. Watching it in 2006, I can see how it added to the movie landscape and that effect that it had on subsequent film making.
Some of the film is amazing, but mostly it goes on and on. It is very long, with some of the scenes taking an age, without really adding to the atmosphere or the point. These are not impressive pauses, silences, looks, stares, or useful dwelling time, simply editing that never happened.
This film is worth seeing as a history lesson in film, to get an understanding of the development of the genre, but anybody who has seen goodfellas, casino, or any other mob flick is unlikely to find the moral tale worth the journey. | 2 |
There are people who are so enamored with JKR and the genre that they will love this movie no matter what. But, the movie was bad. It was more of a JKR indulgence. I went with my daughter, and spending the time with her was the only good part. It is true that the movie does not try to develop characters, it just presumes that you're already engaged conceptually. You simply get no backstories and things are just happening; I never understood why I should like or hate a character, and I could not get attached in any way, because I didn't know why things were happening and how it affected the story-line... For people already in love, they are not objective, but the movie was really bad from a "good story" perspective of critical review. It was simply an excuse for a movie. I love movies, and this was simply a bad movie. It was a bad movie for the genre or for any genre. | 2 |
Well, it does hold the tradition of movies selected for awards that really suck. I went into this expecting a good film but I was disavowed of that notion rapidly. I am not sure what the entertainment industry is trying to accomplish lately other than sanctimonious, social justice crap. This had zero entertainment value for me.
Big fan of Sci-Fi, horror and action genres. Should have known better. I asked around but couldn't find a single acquaintance that watched this and was impressed. Quite a few didn't even watch it all. This isn't a science fiction film. Not a horror film. Not an action film. Whatever one calls it I didn't enjoy it at all. Expected better from del Toro. | 4 |
The storyline of this movie is too real. Acting is also superb. I think, it is a true story. | 8 |
Overall I only started watching this cause it is game of thrones and the first 2 episodes were soft but interesting enough to have me tune back in for episode 3.
I really wish they had less screen time on the King and more time on the crab feeder and the war.
As it stand my only interest is Daemon Targaryen. Who confirms this in episode 3.
Overall I tuned in cause this is GoT not as good as the first show but good enough to tune back in.
Rhaenyra Targaryen does peak my interest but time will tell. She is interesting at times but off at others.
CGI is OK but far from perfection as I said I tuned in and kept watching cause it was GoT but overall they have done enough to keep me tuning in for the next episode each week. | 7 |
When I was I kid and was waiting in the queue for an epic terrifying rollercoaster I counted how long the ride took and then I knew how long I had to hold on. That same feeling I experienced again when I saw Talk To Me in the cinema! I almost wanted to look at the time. Because I really felt terrified and I wanted that the film was over and the lights went back on.. So I would felt less terrified.
How they did it? Fortunately not with too many jump scares but the Philippou brothers did an excellent job! Even if you realise this is the first feature film of them. Everything was great. Especially Miranda Otto who made the film a little bit lighter with her humoristic mother role. I really needed that. The story was original and the horror elements were quite realistic. Best horror film I have seen in a decade! Maybe since The Blair Witch Project? | 9 |
To start off, due to the settings of the series, many imageries and sounds were already borrowed from existing 80's arts, cultures and clichés.
Then, the endless stream of influences could be a tad too obvious at times - the Terminator, Exorcist, Hellbound, Harry Potter, zombie movies, Twin Peaks, Alien, Koyaanisqatsi (music), Akira, ET, etc. With a better sleight of hand, these influences could be better hidden or transformed so that they're less distracting and everything could be more coherent with a singular theme. Otherwise, it could be perceived as a mélange of the "80s greatest hits", and not something sui generis. | 7 |
Grace Jones looking chics :) That was your first clue... Don't mess with Grace Jones.
That was cold.
Tough job interview. I'll stick with sweating it out on the whiteboard. I hope this is not how the Brits do it.
Sneakers :) Good movie.
Cool bridge lights.
Smug villain :)
What Bodie and Poot did is coming back to haunt.
Say something! Excruciating.
Some cool stuff, but disappointing story. I wanted to like it but, not compelling. Glad I didn't go to the theatre for this. | 4 |
The new "Shaft" is an improvement that also represents a decrease. Whatever that might now look like (the term is already meaningless), it's not a "blaxploitation" film. It's more like a crudely traditional, amusingly junky badass action comedy made for the megaplex. However, given that the movie shares its title with both the fun-in-a-violent-forgettable 2000 John Singleton remake and the audacity - or maybe it's just blatant huckster savvy - of the 1971 Gordon Parks original, you might be wondering: What is this, exactly? A continuation that doubles as a reboot yet keeps the same cast?
Additionally, it is a film about a father and son coming together because the main protagonists are JJ Shaft, a son that his father abandoned 30 years ago, and John Shaft, a down-and-out private dick (in every sense).
JJ, who was raised by his mother and is a respectable millennial with an MIT degree, works as a data analyst for the FBI in New York. Not that the contest is fair. In his capacity as a desk-jockey hacker, JJ is portrayed as a smart but overbearing lawman who is so responsible that he is fundamentally diminished in masculinity.
Enter Samuel L. Jackson as Shaft, a pleasure-loving Dirty Harry of Harlem who follows his own set of laws because he is so ingrained in his street ways that he has become a lethal relic. Due to all of this, "Shaft," despite being undoubtedly conventional and even frivolous, is a movie that is just in time to appear nearly topical. | 6 |
Christopher Nolan has been one of the most influential directors in the past 17 years. Memento, Batman Begins, The Prestige, The Dark Knight, Inception, The Dark Knight Rises, Interstellar. All with financial and critical success. Dunkirk is my least favorite. From the technical standpoint movie delivers, but when it comes to delivering true depiction of survival,war and event itself, the movie fails.PG 13 rating is just not enough to show true horror those soldiers endured. War movies are very tricky to direct, and it is either great or bad. There is no middle ground. Viewer has to able to feel in their gut what those people experienced. I just did not find this movie intense and for me it did not look real. I've been thru 4 years of war and I know what Im talking about. The director has to show blood, true fear, desperation, fighting for survival, panic. Every single emotion related to this kind of event. I gave it 7 stars for technical and visual achievement and couple of good performances. | 7 |
May be it is because of the 10 out of 10 opening episode that I feel a little disappointed after 4 episodes now. And it is not because of episode 3 because I actually liked that episode, but it was to soon for a background story imo. And now episode 4 also didn't pick up the pace. To be honest it is getting boring...
I still have high hopes because they showed how good it can be in the first and partly the second episode.
I still like the world building and the relationship build up between the lead characters. But where the first 3 episodes demanded my attention, they lost me in the 4th episode.
For me it is going a point down each episode so I am now at a 7 out of 10. Let's hope it will climb up again to the excellent start and will end somewhere between an 8 and a 9.
Update: after episode 6 for me it is back to an 8. It is a different serie then I expected but somehow it gets me emotionally. Great acting and the story is really about the relationship between the two leads. Can't wait for the rest of the season!
Episode 7, another letdown, long and boring with nothing really happening... back to 7 out of 10
Episode 8, better but gona leave my score at 7 till I have seen the season final.
After episode 9 still a 7 out of 10. Not going into spoilers. Just want to say this could have been one of the better shows but a couple of episodes bring it down and allthough they do make it up with a couple of really good episodes it doesn't really recover.
Still worth the watch and it is a good show, but it could have been great. If I was to rewatch it I would skip ep 4, 5 and 7 (may be 3 depending on my mood) and will love it!
Looking forward to season 2. | 7 |
Season 3 Episode 1. There is no alp mountains like that in Soviet Union. The Caucasus mountains is the closest and does not look like that. The Ural Mountains is covered by the Taigan, so forrest. Otherwise very good and realistic!
Season 3 Episode 1. There is no alp mountains like that in Soviet Union. The Caucasus mountains is the closest and does not look like that. The Ural Mountains is covered by the Taigan, so forrest. Otherwise very good and realistic!
Season 3 Episode 1. There is no alp mountains like that in Soviet Union. The Caucasus mountains is the closest and does not look like that. The Ural Mountains is covered by the Taigan, so forrest. Otherwise very good and realistic! | 1 |
The Marvel Universe has been lacking A LOT as of late having been releasing a round of second rate shows featuring second rate hero's that few fans have ever followed or read about. Wandavision, Falcon and the Winter Soldier have been mediocre at best and Disney has said that these were both hit shows HOWEVER, the viewership numbers have been cards kept close to the chest, making many wonder WHY Disney would do that unless they have something to hide.
My belief is that the ratings have been relatively poor as far as reality goes and that expectations for these shows were significantly higher than what they got.
Well that's just f8ne because Disney needs another big hit tv show since they haven't had anything since The Mandalorian thanks to Jon Favreau. Kathleen Kennedy from Lucasfilm tried to make popular movies and shows but failed miserably and is on the way OUT the door thank goodness!
Loki is so far fantastic! I am one episode in so far (the same as everyone else) but I can tell you it's great thus far. There wasn't too much "woke" insanity to the episode thank goodness, since that's what's been killing shows of late. That said Disney just made a massive news release picked up by nearly every single news outlet in saying "Loki is Gender Fluid!". The left wing press seemed to be celebrating this news like it was groundbreaking progressive news....even when Marvel comic fans have known this information for years. Disney marketing knew this would be massively newsworthy getting traction everywhere and they were right because news companies round the globe made stories on this information.
The first episode was great primarily in thanks to top notch grade "A" acting by Tom Huddleston and Pablo Hidalgo. The writing could have been bad and these guys with their acting chops could have made these scenes great. Loki the protagonist from the Avengers movies plays his part to perfection, it could have been another Marvel movie and we wouldn't have noticed! Agent Mobius played by Pablo was also very well done making me wonder just how Pablo prepares for such a show because his character is just so different when compared to his characters in other films like Wonder Woman 1984. His character in Loki has a different accent and personality type that is very well done! What we get is two powerful actors that play off each other in a grand acting of scenes! Well done!
The story is good, the writing is good also yet the actors make good into great! The TVA is a strange and powerful organization run by three "Time Lords" who have incredible power over the universe with their authority. Who are these three lords of time? When will we meet them and what is their true agenda?
I was hoping for a binge watch option for Loki, but the powers that be at Disney have determined to proceed with their stupid weekly release schedule. Their anticipation is, is that Loki will be the next Game of Thrones on TV hoping to match or even exceed their viewership numbers. While a good show, I am doubtful Loki will achieve such aspirations, but we will see! For now please go and watch the show! The entertainment value is VERY high! 9/10 rating after watching episode one! | 9 |
This film is overrated in my opinion: from the first to the almost last minute every character is only yelling and screeming and there are no interesting dialogues at all. The story is predictable at any time.
Yes, Sandler really does his job great to show a busy jewish guy, but for me it was really hard to watch this movie till the end. | 2 |
So... after a non-stop run of sequential violence (That's the story line of Marvell), now comes the PC curve, really? Trying to hit the brakes, and do a cerebral attempt at a show, is a noble change up (not really), but doesn't work. it smacks of raw inauthenticity; it's the Marvel style and now a writer wants to be PC and sincere(?) Never mind the convention to be violent and then say you're not, and make the viewer feel guilty. Never mind the violent-tepid-violent frame, which throws the viewer off (it's like domestic violence syndrome... victim calls police, they show up, offender immediately feigns calmness and points to hysterical victim, which is what cops only see. And victim is at fault for thinking that!). Never mind that hypocrisy. At least make sense whilst being confusing. An Accord? Aliens blew up the world each move, Heros battle (gee, can't imagine why any global damage spillover), and so get rid of Avengers...? They should have said, "Okay", and go hide. See what happens. How about next time an alien race invades earth, the General stops them and has them sign a damage control accord. Maybe asks them to say "sorry" whilst they are fulfilling their agenda on destruction. Yeah, that feels right. And, in the story line, only Capt. Amer. sees footage? No one else sees the security camera of "psychiatrist:, just go to war. Man, we had enough of that damn Stark conceited arse! (like previous movie said, he can't tell the difference between creating and destroying the world. That's who should be deciding things?) "Now, lets be sensitive...unless we're not, but feel should be, while not to be... unless saying sorry, but don't...". Same approach-avoidant contradictions. What you bet, to mix you up with Marvel's writer hypocrisy, the next epic movie is usual stock violence again. Hey, wait... it is! (Infinity Wars). (From the nice old comic writer that brings you Jessica Jones). | 5 |
Season 1 was entertaining enough that I looked forward to Season 2. But boy was that a fustercluck. I found myself looking at my phone for Pinterest ideas on Postage Stamp Art -- in the middle of fight scenes! | 7 |
My new favorite series. Great acting, great story line. Definitely recommend to others looking for a fun and entertaining series. Sad to see only three seasons. | 9 |
I clearly remember the premier of the original Lost in Space. Even more I remember talking about it with my little friends the next day while we made spaceship models out of cardboard boxes and other found objects.
Now at 60 years old I just watched the first 2 episodes of the 2018 reboot on a Sunday afternoon. Am I going to talk about it with anyone afterwards? No, I'm going to take a hike deep into the backwoods and drink too much beer to try to stop the pain and erase the memories.
And I still have a hangover from mitigating my disappointment over the 1998 motion picture disaster called Lost in Space. What is it about this series that makes it so difficult to do an acceptable reboot? Is this Netflix produced nightmare a sci-fi version of "Springtime for Hitler"?
The one saving grace is that you need a Netflix account to be offended by this snorefest. I don't have one, I watched this on my friends TV while petsitting. I hope the dogs and cats attack me and the chickens peck my eyes out so that I can never, ever make the mistake of watching this bowel movement again.
400 thumbs down! | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.