Review
stringlengths 6
10.3k
| Rating
int64 1
10
|
|---|---|
The degree to which they recreated the style, tone and atmosphere of movies from the early 80s is incredible. Every detail - sets, clothes, props, music, etc. - is exact. I happened to watch The Terminator (the original, 1984) not long after, and you would literally think Stranger Things was made by the same people, in the same year (if you like Stranger Things and for some reason haven't seen The Terminator, watch it now). Throw that movie, Poltergeist, the Goonies, Stand By Me, the Breakfast Club, and numerous other movies from that time period into a blender, and you have Stranger Things.
The story is interesting, and the acting is mostly very good. The only negative is that being an 8-part TV series (so far), the pacing drags at times. Some of the actions and events are illogical, and there are a few plot holes. The basic story is kind of standard sci-fi/horror, but it's done very well.
Those are minor gripes. The longer format also allows it to cover a wider range of its influences. It's not perfect, but there are few TV shows or movies being made today that are better. | 7 |
(UPDATED) Review based on episodes 1 to 5.
The set is believable, the atmosphere is great, as is the acting (although there's no russian-ness to it).
Without spoiling, I can't give details, but these are my issues:
1. The biggest factual error is in episode #2, beginning at 51 minutes in and starting with "between two and four". Chernobyl could have been worse, but not that bad. As this is a topic that has relevance for today's energy and climate issues, accuracy is of great importance.
2. One of the main characters is invented.
3. There are some other factual errors. After you watch you may want to check the web to see what some of these are.
4. I don't know enough about conditions in the USSR to be sure, but while I'm no fan of that system of government, this portrayal is very harsh, perhaps too harsh?
All in all, a very good production. | 9 |
An absolute trash! It's so senselessly violent, and definitely not suitable for kids. I was really looking forward to the series after WandaVision but the confusing storyline, child-like characters, and cheesy scripts just wanna make me cancel Disney+ for good. | 1 |
Such an awfull, idiotic plot based, disrespectfull stupid movie!! No homeworks! India and Bangladesh is not same! They have differences! Dhaka is not Kolkata! And Bangladesh Army is not a terrorist organization like US Army!!!
Mongol Shovajatra does not happens in evening! Its not that poor either! The language is not that rubbish to listen! And those songs!!
Um annoyed by your cheap c graded potraying, and your rubish politics!! You show Bangladesh so negetively because you need to get the indian market on NETFLIX!! Right??
You should not humilliate any nations pride!! You better say sorry for this stupid film!! | 1 |
Since this story is fictional i would love to see after 20 years later kind of idea it would have been a nice send off. Overall cute picture enjoyed the humour with the reality. It was a nice surprise. I believe this maybe one of those movies that it will be years before people really appreciate bit for now it was cute | 7 |
The one primary criticism that comes to mind here is the distinct unevenness with which the title shifts between moods. There is striking, barbed, sardonic wit throughout as Cord Jefferson, adapting Percival Everett's novel, speaks directly to racial stereotypes, and disparity in society between white privilege and the black experience; white treatment and perception of black people, and the performative, contortionist, prostrating act of whites desperately trying to not be racist that is itself illustrative of backhanded racism; and in no small part, the experience of writers that in multiple ways amounts to "if you don't laugh, you'll cry." At such times I'm pointedly reminded of the shots that Boots Riley fired with his fantastic, fantastical, absurdist directorial debut 'Sorry to bother you.' On the opposite end of the spectrum are beats and ideas that heavily emphasize deeply heartfelt and/or dour drama, the troubles in the family and personal life of protagonist Monk, and Jefferson comes close to approaching the downbeat meditation on mortality that is Charlie Kaufman's seminal directorial debut, 'Synecdoche, New York.' Less frequently filling the gaps between these vibes are more conventional, lighthearted airs of comedy-drama as Monk tries to keep multiple plates spinning and has better days of warmth and good humor, and at such points some keen sagacity gets dropped. All of this is worthwhile, and all of it does smartly blend together, yet the back and forth does tend to be a tad jarring, at some times more than others.
Imperfect as the conglomeration is, however, far more than not it's wonderfully enjoyable and satisfying. Outwardly outrageous and cutting as much of 'American fiction' is, there's earnestness, depth, and intelligence to the writing, and meaningful rumination on identity, experience, perception, and racial politics, with additional healthy doses of family, and honesty. Cinching together these effective two halves of the picture, the last several minutes bring it all to a close with a sequence that ingeniously introduces meta humor to bring oblique closure. One may reasonably argue that despite everything, overall the feature lands more softly than expected, yet I think that quality somewhat feeds into the wryness of the humor and helps to smooth the rough edges between the competing airs. One way or another I'm ultimately so pleased with how shrewd Jefferson's film is, and I can see how it's earned so much recognition. From the more over the top scenes and dialogue to those that are most down to earth, and certainly with respect to the overarching plot just as much, Jefferson's writing is splendidly sharp with all that it does and addresses. Moreover, even in his debut his direction is equally keen; if not with absolute flawlessness, Jefferson deftly weaves all the odds and ends together into a tapestry that on the balance ends up feeling like a more ordinary comedy-drama, just with some extra spiciness peppered throughout. I don't know that I'd call it a total must-see, but the movie is thoroughly entertaining and gives us a lot to think about.
As audiences should expect it's all rounded out with fine contributions from all those involved. The cast is a joy as they breathe life into the story and characters; Jeffrey Wright is perfectly solid as protagonist Monk, and Sterling K. Brown brings his own bright spark to the proceedings, but that's to say nothing of the even more well-rounded and welcome ambience shared through Erika Alexander, Myra Lucretia Taylor, Raymond Anthony Thomas, or their co-stars. I appreciate the production design, art direction, and costume design, and those stunts and effects that are employed; from cinematography and editing to sound and music, everything looks and sounds good. Still, the core strength of the title is in its writing and direction, and Jefferson is to be congratulated for such excellent work in his first venture into cinema. Given the cultural quagmire in which 'American fiction' treads I dare say it earns a bit heartier recommendation than it already does on its own merits otherwise, but such details are nitpicking. Any subjective faults are fairly minor when all is said and done, and though it's not as immediately grabbing as some other flicks, I don't think there's any going wrong here. Don't necessarily go out of your way for 'American fiction' but if you do have the opportunity to watch then these are two hours well spent. | 8 |
Decided to watch Ludo as it had invaded the mindspaces of most whatsapp groups. Here's my take on the movie.
Ludo is a cryptic comedy crime thriller by the maverick filmmaker Anurag Basu . The film is themed on the premise that "Ludo is life & Life is Ludo". It has four story tracks representing the four shades of Ludo - which are connected by a comic villain serving as the dice that connects the four quadrants of the game of Ludo. The story is delivered in a sutradhar mode - with Yamraj (Anurag basu) & Chitragupta (Rahul Bagga) discussing the philosophy of life and the shades of gray that blur the boundaries of good and bad in the real world. Yamraj - the wise one who understands life a little better in its entirety - and hence is the one controlling the narrative. Ludo attempts to extract pragmatism out of the chaos of life - by looking at it from a distance and by realizing all the coins of Ludo eventually are ordained to reach the center. This storytelling scheme in someways also defines Anurag's approach to film-making in recent times as one sees shades of this in Jagga Jasoos as well. However unlike Jagga which bombed, Ludo manages to keep us by and large engaged. There are times when it does seem to meander a bit, but a quick transition to one of the other tracks helps restore sanity and coherence. If the above description starts sounding a bit cryptic - well that is what the film is - and while it might sound a bit "over the top" - it is actually not so. Perhaps what works to keep the film adequately engaging and entertaining is the enviable starcast Anurag has assembled for Ludo. The inimitable Pankaj Tripathy as "Sattu Bhaiya"- the comic villain and the common thread across the 4 colors of Ludo is astoundingly brilliant. Rajkumar Rao (Alu) as the silent foolhardy romantic, committed to pluck the moon if need be, for his childhood love, once again delivers a fantastic character which has the potential to live through the times. I wont be surprised if "Sattu" and "Alu" find their way into neighborhood skits & school plays. Abhishek Bachchan playing to his strength as Bittu - a hardened criminal of the past, now in transformation do some good for the sake of his child makes quite an impact with the silent & poignant scenes which are relatively few in this film. Aditya Roy Kapur, Sanya Malhotra, Fatima Sana, Asha Negi, Rohit Saraf, Pearle Maane, Shalini Vatsa create a well hued ensemble by playing their parts as one of the four colored coins in the Ludo of life with measured panache. Despite all of them having a bagful of strong performances in the past - which so often color audience's perception of them (and at times even their perception of themselves!), in Ludo they seem be tailor made for the roles Anurag has cast them in. The film has some amazing shots that define the narrative - across action, romance and plain simple reflections on life. Apart from story, screenplay and direction, Anurag has donned the role of the cinematographer (jointly) in this film - and so deserves a lot of credit for the strong visual impact that gets created on the whole. Despite the fast pace, the intense and somewhat cryptic storyline and a bit of dark comedy thrown in, all credit to Preetam for the music that manages to stand out - in fact it serves well to temper the pace and soothe the chaos which is otherwise overarching and overwhelming, in all likelihood by design. While all the songs are good, "Humko Abbad Kar do" and "Hardum Humdum" by Arijeet clearly stands out in the sense that these songs will live beyond the movie. Lyricists Sayeed Quadri and Sandeep Srivastava should also be called out for these two compositions. Overall Ludo is a fascinating weekend watch if you don't try to be too cerebral about it. Most importantly it re-establishes Anurag Basu as a storyteller with a difference who loves to experiment - which in turn hopefully makes this industry richer and breaks the notion that "Large Canvas crime thrillers"and "Larger than Life feel good romantic dramas" are the be all and end all of commercial Bollywood.
#ludo #ludothefilm #ludothemovie #anuragbasu #abhishekbachhan #pankajtripathy #pritam #arijitsingh #sayeedquadri #sandeepshrivastav #Sanyamalhotra #Adityaroykapur | 7 |
Call me biased if you will, because I admit I was completely taken with the first movie, but I absolutely loved this film. I went into it knowing I would enjoy it either way, but fully prepared to admit it if it wasn't good. There are a lot of people saying this was disappointing. Those people are everywhere, in every board, for every film. Pay them no mind, and I encourage you to go and see this film for yourself, make your own judgement.
With amazing effects, and just the perfect balance between character development and action, this movie has it all. It picks up directly where the first one left off, and gives us everything we loved from the first film and then some. The suit got more advanced, the bad guys got badder, and the tension between Tony and Pepper went up a notch. Any loose strings from the first film are tied up nicely, and I'm happy to say that Stark is every bit as egotistical and brilliant as he was in Iron Man. As for Potts, while some complain about her, I really don't see the problem. Pepper is easily the most relatable character, not just in Iron Man, but in every superhero film, as far as female leads go.
Comparisons should not influence your decision, because there is no film quite like this one out there, aside from the first installment. A firm ten out of ten from me. | 10 |
Wasn't expecting the series to be very good but the main character was great, plot until the end of the season was intriguing and interesting. Not much of a fan of the main woman, acting just felt very amateur. | 7 |
I had hopes of an action packed thriller but oh no, this is not that. I watched the episodes and never once was entertained. It was boring. The characters deserved better. | 1 |
People kept recommending it so finally I pushed through to the end and what a drag it was. It seriously too about 11 tries to finish it. Slow, boring, unlikeable characters, disqusting. It had good photo so 2 stars.
Train to Busan is a different genre (or rather it has a genre) and is a much better Korean movie. This was just boring. | 2 |
Enjoyable in patches, it just doesn't engage. Hollywood has a long history of silly accents, and the accent adopted by Daniel Craig is just plain daft and simply not needed. Why oh why do actors agree to do such things. The biggest irony for me is there is a clip of an episode of 'murder she wrote' and every episode of that Angela Lansbury series was better written and acted than this film. The director can't make his mind up whether this is comedy, pastiche or a real murder mystery. Some of the acting is appalling and none of it that good. The script is badly written and the continuity dodgy in places. There have been other films that have tried such plots with dysfunctional families and none seem to work but such stories seem to on the small screen. | 6 |
I know next-to-nothing about chess or how it's played, but I was entranced by this. Anya Taylor-Joy is absolutely mesmerizing here. I hope this is what finally shoots her to superstardom. The stylish presentation really makes the game of chess look kinda sexy and I'm not at all surprised to hear that online chess has gotten a significant boost in players since this premiered. I might have to give it a try. | 8 |
I've quite enjoyed this first season even though I think it has some flaws and some highs and lows. I must say I haven't read the comic books. I've appreciated the tone of the series : it's fun but it's still quite sombre. I've mixed feelings about the story : there are some surprises but they happen in the midst of quite predictable storylines. The ensemble cast is good, the actors are all talented. But I was above all interested in three characters (numbers 4, 5 and 7). Robert Sheehan is excellent as number Four. Aidan Gallagher manages to deliver for a difficult role (given he incarnates an adult in the body of a teenager). I very much like Ellen Page but given the character she plays we mostly see only a part of what she can do (no spoilers). I've been less interested in the other characters even though they have some depth too (I found them less compelling but de coloribus et gustibus non est disputandum). In comparison, I was more interested in Cha-Cha and Hazel : there is much fun with that part of the show and the travels of number 5...
The cinematography is good and the using of music is effectively magnificent in this series. I'm really curious to watch the next season. I hope it will alleviate some aspects that were less convincing in this season. | 8 |
I'm a little torn, here. Oscar Isaac did remarkably well considering his scene partner was usually himself. The dual anchors of Egyptian mythology and mental health opened the show up to a myriad of possible arcs but the shift of complete episodes from one to another was jarring and worked against the flow of the action and the story. When the last episode ended, I found I had lost all interest in the characters and their world (although, the evolution of the first Egyptian Superhero was a bright spot). The after credit scene was at once, predictable and confusing. I'm going to give the series a 6 (fair) out of 10. {Psychological Superhero Action Adventure} | 6 |
I was not a great fan of Captain America before the first movie came out in 2011 with impressive sequence and strong story line. Not that I loved the first movie, I was waiting for this movie to be released and just watched and I loved it. Visual treat as well as story are well framed and flawless. The winter soldier is portrayed very nicely. A whole lot of techs and thrills are filled from the beginning to the end of the movie. As a personal opinion, the black widow from Iron Man and avengers looks better than in this one. The movie is filled with humours which being an action movie, I had a lot of reasons to smile. Anyways, a must watch to all marvel lovers and DON'T MISS THE END.... u know what mean :) | 9 |
The Wolf at Wall Street is an utterly awful movie and a complete waste of three hours. The movie offers absolutely nothing in terms of depth or insight beyond 'these stock brokers are bad'. There is no substance, with a plot that moves painfully slowly and characters that, by design, don't change one bit throughout the entire movie. Okay, we get the idea. These guys suck. And they will never change. And the justice system is screwed up. You could have showed us that in 5 minutes. Instead we get three hours of shallow, meaningless, repetitive, and most of all completely unfunny nothingness, with stock brokers screwing prostitutes and snorting cocaine. There is no depth here. This is nothing but cheap entertainment, and if you don't find something as shallow as what is portrayed as entertaining, then you'll be staring at your watch for three hours, wondering how time can pass so slowly. The one redeeming feature is Dicaprio's acting. A complete waste of time and money. | 2 |
When I first started watching the show I really wasn't sure if this show was going to be any good at all. Especially after the pilot I felt like it was far below my already low expectations. However every week the episodes raised the bar for the next episode. The acting gets better, the characters develop more, the writing gets more exciting and it leaves you with a bigger cliffhanger each week. I am kind of a Marvel fanboy but this really is my favorite show on television. It gives you the feeling of the marvel universe without the need for a big superhero and makes it feel much more real and awesome. Great show, I hope it continues to get greater. | 10 |
I'll start as all reviews should start: I thoroughly enjoyed the series. If you're wondering why this is a web-series rather than a TV Series, the answer is that TVF Pitchers is simply ahead of it's time. The clumsy Indian television is not ready for this gem.
The thing that stands out most in this is the writing. The writing has a soul, and there isn't a moment where any scene seems out-of-place. I simply haven't seen this magic in Indian TV and frankly, I don't expect to.
It is shot in such a way that it feels very true-to-life rather than an empty candy wrapper on expensive sets (balika vadhu; cough! cough!).
The casting is absolutely perfect. Traditional well-built handsome models give way to the more humanistic "common-man".
Quite frankly, I didn't expect the casting to be good. But Naveen Kasturia and Jitendra Kumar will give you shock of your lives by touching your hearts. Must admit, did not see this coming.
This series will give you everything in the right amount: Emotion: The non-cheesy breakup scene got me. Clichés: There are none. Comedy: TVF is an expert in this; but doesn't over blow it (which is commendable). Dialogue: The dialogue is the spine of the movie and it's just perfect with the right pop- cultural references and unapologetic cursing. Character Arc: Each and every arc is beautiful, especially Jeetu's Romance: Your only chance to see a realistic romance. Pacing: Each episode will make you wish it was 10 times longer.
In conclusion I would say that there are some series that are made for money, and I have nothing against them. Then there are some series that are made from the heart. You end up falling in love with them.
Do yourself a solid, go watch it on YouTube now. Thank me later | 9 |
The show went from 7.5 to 7.7 after the 4th episode dropped. That's pretty funny. | 8 |
I can not believe Daniel Craig has put his name towards this, it is so boring and cliche. | 2 |
I'm really sorry. I so much wanted to like this film. So much has gone into it and the concept is good, but it just didn't work for me.
I found this to be a compact and fanciful story stretched up to intergalactically implausible proportions. It didn't ring true, and it was full of Hollywood formulae, like clumsy cliffhangers. And why did we have to have a Western-style fight scene on an icy planet on the other side of a black hole? There were no punches thrown in 2001.
People will say it was too long but it wouldn't be any better if it was shorter. It is also an unremittingly dark and depressing film except for certain aspects. The brilliant special effects, loud sound track and music served to mask the shortcomings.
On the plus side it is thought-provoking about space and physics, the actors gave everything, especially the main character, he was brilliant - it didn't have George Clooney in it a big plus. The concept is excellent, and it dramatises aspects of Einstein's theory of relativity such as meeting your children who have grown older than you.
I hope a lot of people like it, as I wouldn't want all that effort and commitment to go to waste, so just ignore my opinion! Go and watch it and make up your own mind! | 5 |
I never liked netflix creation in the past, but this one is one of the worst.
this show isn't cataloged as science fiction, but this is one of the most ridiculous science fiction I have ever saw.
a blinded man the fight like Bruce Lee, jump out of windows like spider man, move like batman,has ears of superman and and can kill room full of armed man(guns,m16) using his bare hands.he can also see a inanimate objects(like a fence) with is hears only.
I mean I liked watching batman,spider man,superman... , simply because you believe for 90 minutes that there is a man that can fly like spider or like bird, that is the concept of scfi. In this show you just get the filling that something is missing credibility, you simply don't "dragged" into it.
Another thing that disturbing is the extreme violent, this show tries to get some points by showing awful violent scenes,like: behead man head with a door car, or creating knifes from human ribs or smash head with bowling Ball...
I definitely recommend to skip this one. | 1 |
I have been watching this show since it released back in 2005. I have seen every episode countless times and I cannot express how much I adore this show. No this show is NOT just for kids and NO the Live Action Adaption by M. Night Shyamalan and Korra will NEVER live up to the original show. There are things in this show I have never seen on any other show and it absolutely nails it. There is unbelievable character building and character development. The voice actors are exceptional and perfect for there characters. There is a history and a fully written background to almost every single character in the show and the world itself (World Building). I want to say that the characters in this show and there personal struggles are so well represented and manifested that it blows my mind. I cannot begin at my inner artistic struggle to try and explain how amazing this show is. There is so much about every character that even after 15 years I cannot decide who is my favorite character. There is so much world building and plot development that I cannot decide which episode is my favorite. There are scenes that are so well directed that to this day I get unending chills when they come on. Everything about this show is so amazing. It has a ton of good laughs and a lot of really sad moments too. The directors seemed to really put themselves into each characters shoes and try to make there choices realistic but entertaining and sometimes comedic. Sometimes it feels like you can really connect with a character because of this. The plot itself is another discussion which is also beyond thousands of shows levels. We are given so much political discussion on the basis of what is right and wrong in this show and we are never forced to agree with any of the decisions made by anyone in the show. It brings up several philosophical questions and situations along with very deep and versatile discussions of war, race and society as a whole. The show is very consistent with it's writing and plot- It is never too difficult to understand with tons of plot holes or useless dragging on the story. While the animation is old it's still fluent and to this day holds up as being extremely impressive. I would recommend this show to anybody. That's really all I can say. I could say "G" but I don't need to. It's just amazing. Absolutely amazing. | 10 |
Amazing movie! Just like I was expecting! I really liked Leta Lestrange and Grindelwald | 7 |
The plot of A Beautiful Mind is relatively simple, as we follow a brilliant math student who climbs the academic ladder but also dives into the dark waters of mental illness.
The way this story is told, though, elevates the movie to the next level. It's not easy to fit an entire lifespan in two hours, but the movie flows naturally and handles the various changes in mood (it jumps from comedy to romance to thriller to drama). Any trick or technique used isn't meant to show off, it feels like an organic part of the story. Another thing the movie achieves is offering us a glimpse of schizophrenia's effect on the human mind, making us question what's real and spreading a sense of doubt that can't be shaken off.
However, all the above is secondary and the elephant in the room has to be addressed, namely the absolutely mesmerising performance delivered by Russell Crowe.
Apart from the increasingly disturbing scenes that show the development of his state of mind, there are many other memorable scenes as well, for example his social awkwardness when flirting with a girl and informs her that intercourse is merely an exchange of body fluids, or his first date with Alicia where he creates any shape with the help of the star system and of course the scene where he receives the pens of his peers and with them their recognition.
As it often happens with biographies, it isn't 100% accurate, there are some changes for dramatic effect. The most obvious example is probably his relationship with his wife, which was way bumpier than portrayed here and actually led to a divorce at some point. Also, the fact that his son suffers from similar issues could have been brought up, but the movie was fully invested in a feel-good ending, declaring love as the winner that overcomes any problem. | 7 |
I rated each season differently. Season 1 (10 stars), season 2 (8 stars), and season 3 (6 stars). Season 1 is beyond amazing, the story and the mysteries perfectly to each other. There are many memorable moments and it is simple, fresh story, and also darker tone. I love mystery mixed supernatural story and it embark its mysteries in small town. Season 1 is a sensational. Then, we're going to season 2. I like to see the developing relationship between Eleven and Hopper. It's lovely. Season 2 give more plot holes than season 1, but it's still alright for me. Even, i still confuse with Eleven's sister and Eleven background story. I still dissatisfied to the her past stories. But, my favorite scene is when they're in the hospital. And the last season disappoint me. It lose its unique. The story become more light, and it's actually more suitable for young or the children. I don't feel the mysteries atmosphere again, it become the usual teenage drama with monsters. I hope in the fourth season, they uncover the mystery, like how could the down side appeared and what is the down side actually, and etc. Stranger Things should gain more focus to reveal its mystery, increasing the darker tone, and stop playing character's personality (like they do to Hopper's role). | 8 |
One of the best tv shows, waiting for renewal! Very good acting, well made. I was hoocked at once. | 10 |
My question going into the latest "pay-us-for-your-nostalgia" Disney-remake was, "Why do we need this? What new can it bring?". Technically, the CGI animation is impressively state-of-the-art and new. Otherwise, my worst fears were warranted. It's not just similar to its source material but is 100% the same in almost every aspect. From moment one, when the iconic "NAAAH SA-VIN-YAAAH!" bursts forth, I realized they were so beholden to the '94 classic they didn't even bother rerecording that vocal. It sets the stage for both the larger things (story beats / scenes), as well as the smaller things (specific line deliveries), to be a lazy karaoke tune. So frustratingly unimaginative, it makes 2019's Aladdin look like a feat of original storytelling. Thankfully, the greatness of the story is left untouched, though it was already plenty great without being redone. The few things that are changed don't expand the story, but just extend scenes past the point of reasonable story economics. We're forced to sit through self-congratulatory animation montages that are useless beyond "look what we did!" Crowds seem to be going for the cast, and many of those performances are the highlights. Listening to Glover & Beyonce sing together is special, Scar is decently rendered, and Rogen & Eichner offer the most unique and successful moments. Still, with dialogue so slavish, you can sense the actors desperately trying not to copy what they grew up hearing. Honestly, even the technical brilliance is often a hindrance. By making the animals photoreal, we take away individual personalities, physical nuances, and even facial expressions, all of which help us relate to their plight. So, again I ask, why do we need this? | 3 |
"Once upon a time in Hollywood" is the latest movie of director Quentin Tarantino. As expected, he takes no account of his audience and does whatever he wants. The movie contains many allusions that you don't necessarily understand if you haven't prepared for this movie. But don't worry, the movie is still a lot of fun! The main actors also perform brilliantly especially Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio. Although the film does not meet the expectations but it is surprising and unpredictable. Another masterpiece of Tarantino! | 6 |
Good premise for a movie. But man the acting is absolutely horrific. Main villain seems like she it trying to push out a kidney stone with every line. I really wanted to like it but it is just too hard when I physically cringe and nearly every spoken word. To boot the science and plot resolution is beyond terrible. They just make something up everytime the first solution fails. The second solution is always a beyond better idea that they "oversaw" while they tried out their doomed initial plan. Half the ideas are plot thickeners with no purpose than to reach proper length of an episode.
Just terrible acting is the main reason for my 1 star review. Can't stand it when the cast can't deliver a line worth garbage. | 1 |
Dumbledore sends Newt after Grindelwald.
It has an interesting but convoluted story that gives some decent backstory to characters like Grindelwald and Dumbledore. It has moments that work nicely, such as the allusions to conflict in 20th Century and the final act that everything builds towards, but the focus changes so much between various characters that the overarching plot does not flow particularly well.
If you are a fan of the Wizarding World you will likely not be disappointed, considering the screen time it gives to certain characters. All performances are strong, but some actors, such as Johnny Depp, are underused because of the amount of time spent elsewhere.
Visually it has plenty of action and effects that are all pretty spectacular if you value this aspect of movies. | 6 |
First of all, when I first watched the official trailer of the movie I kinda liked it and I had high expectations about that movie, mainly because of the cast. Eventually, it wasn't as good as I had imagined and I didn't really enjoyed that movie. The plot of the movie was very interesting and mysterious, but not really innovative because there are too many murder mystery movies. The storyline was kinda well-written and well-explained, even though there were too many characters and it was kinda difficult to understand what was going on. The characters were very interesting, well-developed and kinda likeable. The casting of the movie was incredible, most of them were well-known actors/actresses and their acting was really good. Sadly, it wasn't a very intense movie and there weren't any action-filled moments. Also, the murder mystery thing of the movie wasn't very well portrayed and I didn't really liked it. The opening scene was kinda unpredictable, but it was very boring and not promising, at all. The ending scene was definitely unpredictable and it was probably the best part of the movie. Overall, "Amsterdam" was an average movie, not intense, nor funny and probably I wouldn't recommend it to my friends... | 5 |
Though EK HASINA THI will never be considered a great classic I was pleasantly surprised that this Bollywood thriller was better than expected. The story is sorta hokey and the acting is campy but what's fun is how entertaining it was. Very few films today are entertaining, per se, so you can imagine how unexpected it was to see an entertaining thriller from Bollywood.
EK HASINA THI is not your typical Bollywood movie: there's no musical numbers, the violence is realistic and it looks modern enough. What's amazing is EK HASINA THI succeeds were many Hollywood produced films fail. Films like KILLING ME SOFTLY, which made me laugh nonstop, looks like a complete joke compared to EK HASINA THI.
Saif Ali Khan gives a good performance but the movie belongs to Urmila Matondkar, who is over-the-top and yet believable, which is amazing. There's a good balance of craziness, campiness and seriousness in her performance. Kudos to Urmila for giving such a memorable performance and basically making the film for what it is. Credit should also go to the director in creating such a fun film. | 7 |
The Barbie movie had a very easy going start with parties, colors, and making fun of stereotypes. It's all very musical-like untill Barbie asks the question about dying which can be seen in trailer.
The movie slowly starts to take itself more seriously and when Barbie goes to the "Real World" she faces problems that modern woman has. Ken also has to face the "Real World" but does it in his own way. It was very cool seeing two characters detached from reality and having completely different view on the world face the "reality" and carry themselves with it. It makes the characters more fleshed out which the movie does well, as i've got a feeling that Barbie and Ken in particular are behaving just how they were imagined to since they were first made.
Time and Change are factors that are actually displayed through small cameos and at the ending itself, but have a very important meaning and are factors that should be thought about after you watch the movie.
Ultimately, the "agenda" goes from funny jokes to actual rants towards the end of the movie but it all comes a full circle and sends a strong message.
The music and cinematography are very cartoonish and nice, so is the dialogue. The references to other media are very cleverly put throughout the movie as well. The dialogue at the beginning is made to look like kids actually playing with those dolls but facing the reality is actually a very good space for character development, and Barbie used that very good. Even tho some "agendas" are pushed throughout the movie, it ultimately sends a good message, and does what Barbie is supposed to do : to inspire girls and make them feel strong for who they are. | 8 |
I get that the film versions are never as good as the book, so I didn't go in expecting it to be. However, almost EVERYTHING was changed for the film except the general premise and character names. Everything good about the book was missing here. There is no character development whatsoever, everything is completely predictable, and there is no depth to the plot at all. Spielberg is washed up! What a joke this film is. Ernest Cline has to be furious. | 2 |
Am I watching a different show to these other reviews? This is honestly one of the worst series I have ever stumbled upon, and I've sat through an entire season of Geordie Shore.
The good: The cast are capable. Teresa Palmer does what she can with a two-dimensional character. Mathew Goode deadpans his way through terrible dialogue, and deserves an Emmy nomination just for the ability to suppress the temptation to roll his eyes. The scenery is stunning and the location scout deserves a bonus for their attention to detail.
The bad: The script is unbearable. I thought if I persevered that it would get better as the series progressed. Nope. Diana comes across as an affection starved high schooler with her first crush, and with not a shred of resemblance to an honoured historian or an independent woman who made a conscious decision not to develop her magic. Several times the plot moves forward solely because of the dialogue rather than letting the action unfold more organically - "you're a witch", "you're a vampire", "it's illegal for us to be romantically involved". It's like being sledgehammered in the face with a plot point.
This had such potential to right the wrongs of fluff like Twilight. Although perhaps it's target audience is over 30 women looking to recreate the soap operatic borderline abusive relationships of Twilight.
These other reviews must have been written while high or after a significant cash donation because A Discovery of Witches is just awful. | 1 |
Brainless sluggishness turns what could have been a decent little thriller with a halfway decent cast into mush. There's "slow," and then there's pointless, agonizing, painfully wrongheaded shots where we follow trucks across fields, where we see a man dragging a milk can, where we watch a man fill a trash bag with leaves until... eventually... a truck drives up to him so its driver can talk to him, so that we can eavesdrop on a conversation that adds very little to what we already know or surmise.
If you go to any spot at random in the series the odds are extremely good that nothing will be happening, and that nothing will be happening for a while, or that whatever we're watching will take 2x to 3x as long as it needs to to unfold, or that most of a conversation will be pointless, banal, or repeat something we learned previously.
In short, the worst of Stephen King's bloated, bland writing translated to the screen without wit or any understanding that film is not writing.
It will take more than a minute to show a guy reading a book in a prison. It'll take another minute to watch a different guy show up at a barn after pointlessly stopping to whine about having to go to the barn, wizz on the ground, go into the barn, see nothing, maybe see something in the shadows that startles him, see him react, see him yell something several times, then we'll cut to boring, low budget credits, then to a cop watching a scene on his laptop we've already scene four times before we cut to the previous guy agonizing over whatever it was that stung him in the barn.
For an ordinary conversation in a diner there will be all sorts of pointless cutting, extreme interior long shots that add nothing to the scene, an insert at an angle so oblique it only serves to distort what we're meant to see. The series gets nothing right, finally, pushing each episode to an hour when each could probably be 40 minutes without losing more than a trivial amount of actual content.
Oh, and it'll typically be underlit even with contrast and brightness cranked to 100.
Skip this dog, or turn the captions on and keep your finger tapping the fast forward button. | 1 |
Nothing new, reminded me of so many movies like "a quiet place" and "happening", and also pointless with a loose end. | 3 |
Is that the series have a very slow start. Once you finish the second season you realize it gets better with every episode. The writing, character building, the action, the story....it feels like a book that slowly starts to be a page turner. Why just the 8 instead of a 10? Well, i haven't seen the 3rd season yet! | 8 |
I literally could not turn it off , binged watched till the end - what a great journey! Enjoyable plot, characters are so relatable, it's raw, funny and at times course! Loved it! The directing & acting was first class! Thank you for the joyride! | 9 |
It's quite a fun movie, I got the murderer right at the very start because the detective keeps on repeating the clue. Everytime he repeated that clue I am more sure and turn out I was right. I wish he didn't constantly saying it so I can have some doubt.
I was hoping for some big twist but there isn't one.
It still a great fun movie. The set is beautiful and I love all the actors actresses. Love the fashion.
The child games concept in the box is fun, I thought it going to be an island full of cryptic clues to solve but no it pretty straight forward crime solving
I thnk having the detective constantly narrating kinda ruin the mystery.
In summary, a fun and predictable movie, a silly glamorous child play but still quite enjoyable to watch. | 7 |
Clearly I watched a different film to everyone else. I came away with only one feeling: boredom. Hardly anything happened. I felt no emotional connection to any of the characters. I didn't care that the teacher was an arse and I didn't care about the kid. Almost the entire film was kids drumming in a room. I must've missed the point entirely because I finished it and just thought what a pointless waste of time. | 2 |
I had to jump ahead with the book, and season Three is Here y'all! I'm so excited I set myself! This is one of the more favorable Spielberg type films to hit the TV screen in ages. Hang on for a rough ride this season, as your every fear will be highlighted and ignighted this time! Enjoy, pax, Murf | 9 |
I didn't dislike this movie, 5 out of 10 is not terrible but I would not tell anyone to watch this. I actually watched it on the recommendation of my parents.
I am not the biggest fan of musicals but I recognize when a song's lyrics explain a characters feelings and help progress the plot but I did not get that much with the songs in The Greatest Showman.
There seemed to be a new song 30-60 seconds after the last one had finished because the plot was so thin and then the song was just a dance-number, not adding anything to the movie.
If you like watching dance numbers then this is a movie that you enjoy but if you are looking for a musical with a great plot and character arcs then I don't think you will want to watch this again. | 5 |
I'd read some gushing reviews about this film in the press that claimed it was a masterpiece of originality, so I decided to go watch it. My gut instinct with superhero films is that if they're made by Marvel they are very formulaic and if they're made by DC they tend to be an overlong mess. This film just confirmed that I should trust my gut instinct. Benedict Cumberbatch is well cast, in fact I don't think I could quibble with any of the actors performances, but the script was a typical superhero origin film with no surprises. They gave Dr Strange spiritual powers instead of the usual "medical experiment gone wrong"scenario, but that just added to the feeling of overall silliness about this film. Nothing in the script made me care about any of the characters and plot-wise this was an attempt at ripping off the Matrix but with magic instead of Kung fu etc. And for the umpteenth time in one of these films it ended with a big CGI fight to save the world. I mean really? Can't these people come up with anything different? The sight of Cumberbatch and the rest running around the city streets in their silly capes and LOTR style costumes was laughable. I've seen some terrible films this year, like Suicide Squad, Star Trek Beyond, Ghostbusters, Batman v Superman, Independence Day, Magnificent Seven, to name just a few. What a complete lack of originality we're having dumped on us this year. I think Independence Day was the worst one but this runs it pretty close. Really naff. | 3 |
Tom cruise is overrated. Time for him to retire. If you are going to show a map of a country, get it right. Do some research on the Indian subcontinent. | 1 |
I took my nephew to see this today, expecting a wonderful memorable film. Instead, it was dull and full of cliches - a stale rehash. I feel that the critics are afraid to tell the truth about this film because it certainly does not deserve a 98% rating on RT. It's sad that our society cannot be honest about ratings due to fear of ostracization. Usually Marvel heroes use humor to charm the audience, but the Black Panther uses old, worn out cliched formulas. Although it's not a terrible film ,it is certainly not deserving of anything over 50%. There were too many negative racial overtones, and I believe Marvel/Disney need to keep their political ideologies out of the moves. THe visuals were good, but the story line got lost. | 2 |
Moon Knight blends mythology with an exploration of a fractured psyche to offer one of the weirder MCU shows that doesn't live up to the potential but is still great, hitting enough highs to balance out the few lows. It's not as dark or intense as was promised but it still has those moments.
Oscar Isaac as both Mark and Stephen is the best performance in the entire MCU. Finally given a chance in a major franchise to show what he's really capable of, he makes both identities feel distinct and brings a level of emotional vulnerability never before seen here.
Ethan Hawke is another mid tier villain, there's very little on the page but his performance is so calm yet generally unsettling he remains a magnetic presence wherever he's on screen, until the CGI takes over in the finale which is incredibly frustrating.
Mohamed Diab and Justin Benson & Aaron Moorhead all do a great job directing, making sure the show never feels voiceless with some impressively mind bending imagery (episode 3 in particular is a major highlight for that) and the odd horror element.
Even when the finale inevitably devolves into another rushed, big CGI fight and a sky beam, which couldn't feel more out of place here, that's still staged in a more inventive way than the majority of these projects tend to frame them. | 8 |
I purposely waited until I had watched the whole first series before I commented largely because the first two or three episodes of every series are not enough to really gauge where a show is going. Now that I've seen it I rated this show as a 7 because I think it has a lot of potential and I am looking forward to more but the 1st season really went too fast. Certain elements of the story looked like they were thrown in there just to get them in. As someone who has read the books I was able to follow things pretty well but I'm not sure how a non-book reading audience has managed.
This is one of the most faithful adaptations to a book that I've ever seen. Still some key elements to the story were left out. I am hoping the show has reasons for this and we will find out in the next two seasons.
The show is beautifully shot and most of the writing is pretty good (make sure that Sarah Dollard writes most of the shows next time around. Her episodes were the best.) The special effects needed some work but they were serviceable.
Since Sundance has joined the mix of the financing please let that mean that there will be more episodes. This series DESPERATELY needed more time to tell the story. Another 2-3 episodes would have helped immensely with character building and believability. Here's hoping Bad Wolf has someone reading these comments and will look into that. | 7 |
Superficial, boring superpowers show with TV Drama most of the time to drag out time and bring cost down while peppering the boring passages with a bit of mystery a la Harry Potter. Final touches of extreme Hipster color-grading, angles and focal lengths round off this "wonderful" work. | 4 |
Before watching "Superbad" I really expected little but I decided to watch it anyways because of all of the hype it generated on IMDb.
Then MTV somehow viewed and gave it's trust by trying to promote it like the new "American Pie" or new teen comedy that could generate new rules for the genre.
That lowered my expectations and I didn't felt like watching it. Things got worse when it got such a quick transfer to HBO.
And my opinion didn't change just after 15 minutes of viewing... I must say that I'm not a teen by any means but I've watched the groundbreaking teen comedies from the 80's and 90's and that's why I'm not easily offended and I know what to expect... but after 15 minutes all I could resume from the movie were cursing, not funny and grotesque sex jokes, and stereotype characters. I thought: "what a waste of time!":... but I can say I was wrong.
As the movie progresses you can feel a vibe that tells you that it's a new classic and will generate a cult. I can't explain why but it truly delivers extremely funny moments, some hilarious acting, and best of all; situations that make you think "I wish I was a teenager again!".
The acting is truly hilarious and the three main characters deliver truly memorable moments... that McLovin' is just the best character and probably the new Jason Biggs.
The idiotic cops were something to consider... With such stupidity and the typical funny display of white trash, you can't help but laugh.
There are offensive jokes sure, but what comedy does not have them? Here most of them work...
I didn't like that the movie displayed the two sides of behavior: good and disastrous. You can either feel sympathy for the good ones that take the good moral decisions or go with the flow and follow what will make you "Popular".
Watch this movie ONLY IF YOU ARE IN THE MOOD for mindless offensive comedy that won't make you a better person but that will make you forget about daily life. Let your brain on the couch and enjoy! | 8 |
After losing her brother in Age of Ultron, being forced to kill Vision in Infinity War and subsequently being turned to dust for five years, before coming back and kicking ass in Endgame, the first couple of episodes seem appropriately strange for a lady who's spent her life dealing with loss and still hasn't come to terms with, effectively, being an Infinity Stone powered superhero. Olson and Bettany are great playing the parts of the unconventional couple, living a sitcom life, that has viewers questioning what is going on. There is a lot to unpack and compared to the very brief conversation that Wanda has with Clint at the end of Endgame, this series is like a therapy session for a couple of the most powerful characters in the MCU. It's not the standard MCU format, but that what makes it stands out.
If you're a Marvel fan, you'll probably watch it to move the story forward regardless, in preparation for Phase 4. If you like Olson, Bettany, then you'll enjoy it as they shine through out, especially with support from Dennings, Park and Parris. If you're looking for a post Endgame adventure, then maybe wait till the next Wanda film comes out and see this after if they don't do a good enough job with explaining what's going on. | 8 |
When I watched the first couple of episodes I must admit that I was not happy about what I was seeing. You see I grew up with the original Lost in Space and it was good family show where the Robinson's stuck together. What we get we get with the 2018 reboot is a family at odds with each other and Ma Robinson not happy (to say the least) with Pa Robinson. And as for Dr Smith I wanted to climb into my TV and do some hurting. But it grew on me and now I wait eagerly for series two. I like the way Ma and Pa got close again, I like the story lines are good. So I have watched the first season and I eagerly look forward to season 2. | 8 |
I love the whodunit stuff. I quite enjoyed the first Knives Out. Rian Johnson actually did something good to follow up his disaster Star Wars movie. This movie however is a step down from the first film. It feels cheap and extra corny.
In the first film Daniel Craig's character is the really eccentric one while the rest of the cast are a bit kooky but reasonable as they were all money hungry jerks. This movie is filled with a bunch of eccentric characters making Craig's character feel like an after thought.
Also the movie just feels like a streaming movie. The original released in theaters and had that wonderful cinematic feel. Nicely shot. This just feels cheap.
This wasn't horrible but a big resounding "meh." Not something I would care to watch again. Netflix is largely filled with garbage these days. However even back in the golden age of the platform 90% of their movies were bad and that has carried through to the present. | 4 |
One of the more divisive and maligned entries in Marvel's ever- growing Cinematic Universe, 2010's "Iron Man 2" was a strange beast indeed. Filled with eye-popping visuals and phenomenal performances, yet suffering various issues with pace and focus, the film has gone on to become one of those rare examples of a "Marvel blunder"- one of the only entries in the entire series that isn't universally hailed for its high quality. And yet, I can't help but feel it was too harshly judged and receives far too little credit for its major accomplishments. In the grand scheme of things, sure it might be in the bottom tier for the phenomenal franchise... but it's certainly also an entertaining and oft-thrilling installment that's worth giving a second shot to if you haven't seen it in a while.
Things are changing for Tony Stark, once again played to perfection by Robert Downey Jr. The public adores him and his superhero alter-ego "Iron Man", he's virtually untouchable by any government agency, and he's just kick-started a year long convention (Stark Expo) that is set to bring together the greatest minds in science and development. Yet not all is well... he's recently discovered that he is being slowly poisoned by the arc-reactor that keeps him alive (the thing that is saving him is also killing him in an ironic twist), he's contending with vile corporate rival Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), and a new villain has emerged with ties to his own past- Ivan Vanko, also known as "Whiplash", portrayed by the delightful Mickey Rourke. Stark must rely on his cunning to juggle these intertwining developments in order to save not only the world once again... but to also save himself.
The film is often cited as being a disappointment for placing too much focus on setting-up and "sequel baiting" the various upcoming releases that were set to follow, leading to an overstuffed story-line that sometimes confused rather than enthralled. And to an extend, I can see the problem and admit its presence. Certain scenes do feel out of place and a little too much focus is given to secondary characters like Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson) and Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), often at the expense of screen time for more primary characters. Motivation becomes a bit iffy at times, and some of the major sub-plots at play often go for long stretches without being addressed.
And yet... I don't see it as that big of a problem. Sure, it can be annoying during a few key scenes, but to me, there's just too much to like here to dismiss the entire experience. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, as they say. And its admitted problems with structure and focus cannot stop top-notch performances, wonderful visual direction and some clever writing from shining through.
Everyone is at the top of their game here. Downey had by this time cemented himself as the perfect player fir the role of Stark, and he is magnificent. He was born to play this role. Rockwell and Rourke make for a great evil duo, both playing their parts uniquely... Rockwell as a hammy and troubled businessman that feels like what Tony would have become if he never "grew up", and Rouke as a hulking, seething mountain of a man with a major chip on his shoulder... but also a savage sense of humor. Gwyneth Paltrow and Johansson round out the major players as the women supporting Stark- Pepper Potts and the aforementioned Romanoff. They both do great work here- especially Johansson who is revealed to of course be an undercover SHIELD agent (that's not spoiling anything, it's in the trailer) that would go on to become a greater presence in future films. Don Cheadle takes on the part of James Rhodes from original actor Terrance Howard, and I think he improves on the part in every way. Howard introduced good-ole Rhodey... Cheadle defined him. And even minor roles by the likes of Jackson and director Jon Favreau get a lot of good business in the film.
Visually, the film is stunning thanks to director Favreau's keen eye for thrilling and exciting imagery. I particularly admire how he is not just content in filming everything in bland, shaky closeup. He's a director that likes to give you long, wide shots where you can appreciate the beauty of the carnage and the furious action, and only relies on shaky-cam to emphasize emotion and desperation in a few calculate, key moments. He also has a knack for expertly combining practical and digital effects, leading to a near-perfect blend that really pulls you into the film. It is a shame that after this movie, he took a step back into a producing role for the series- his work as a director was inspired.
Finally, despite some hiccups in the pacing and structure, I actually quite liked the script by Justin Theroux, who had previously worked with Downey on "Tropic Thunder." There's some really great quiet moments and a lot of genuinely entertaining beats of humor that I appreciated. One stand-out sequence involving a drunken brawl between Stark and Rhodes, both in Iron Man armors was one of the highlights. And I also really gotta commend Theroux's ability to constantly build and ratchet up tension... the entire film seems like its building to the finale in a very appropriate and organic way, and when it finally pays off in a flurry of explosions and effects, it feels earned.
In the end, "Iron Man 2" might not have quite been the film we wanted. But it was still a great time at the movies. It has some fundamental flaws that will certainly turn a portion of audiences off, but I think if you can soldier past those issues, there's too much here to like to not have a great time. It's not perfect, but it's still perfect fun. I give it a solid 7 out of 10. | 7 |
When a failed presentation nearly leads to the entire project being shut down, research scientist Will Rodman (James Franco) finds himself raising both a newborn monkey (saved from 'disposal') and his elderly Father (John Lithgow), who is stricken with Alzheimers, the very disease the serum being tested was meant to cure.
The junior chimp is dubbed Caesar, and as he grows it is evident that his mental abilities are clearly in advance of children of a similar age, let alone other apes. Caesar and Will communicate by sign language, and he is trusted to the point that he is allowed quite a level of freedom around the home.
Unfortunately as fast as Caesar is developing, Will's Father continues to regress.
This leads to some drastic measures being taken which in the early goings have an indisputably positive impact.
The following year sees more developments, Caesar is growing and maturing, now too big for the modest home he accompanies Will, his Father and girlfriend Caroline (Frieda Pinto) to outings in the local redwood forests that apparently fringe San Francisco.
Here Caesar has all the freedom he can handle, thanks to his understanding and a bond forged by trust between he and Will.
But even now the signs are not great, Caesar is in ape years an unruly teenager, he starts resisting forms of control, and exhibits aggression and displays of physical strength at times, one of which leads to him being admitted to an institution for a huge number of monkeys, apes, gorillas and orang-utans.
Caesar's increasing intelligence and awareness of his surroundings are evident even before he enters monkey jail, but once inside and thrust among his own species for the first time in a fiercely competitive – almost tribal – ape hierarchy, Caesar is almost always deep in thought and planning 'bigger things'.
There are the obligatory mistreating handlers to be railed against, onlookers who don't understand and of course greedy corporate types who see only profits. After the initial half hour Franco is mere window dressing, which is at least more than the under utilised Frieda Pinto can say. She has but to look amazed, in love or surprised, depending on the news she is receiving, in a role that suggests she should be the audience barometer:
"I am surprised by this. You should be too!". "Now I/we am a little bit upset."
There is some action in Ascending Apes, though not of the gung-ho blood n guts variety, the entire film is extremely PG 13 all over.
Finally the most obvious thing I took away was that this all ain't over, this was the rise to be sure, and there is far more to come. I think Caesar and his gang have done well with 'Rise' to build a platform, I hope the monkeys, gorillas and apes in the inevitable sequel ratchet things up a notch and start administering some ass whippings. No point rebelling against your masters if you're just going to chill in the local forests.
I shouldn't be disappointed. Rise of the Planet of the Apes was a good popcorn flick and I guess everything I expected. I just wanted to be blown away with a balls to the wall Man Vs Wild thing, and was a little less surprised with what was essentially a prison break film with the escape lead by a hairy CGI monkey John Connor.
Final Rating – 6 / 10. We want our pop-corn flicks to have brains so I should applaud, especially when Caesar has a higher IQ than 95% of action stars combined. I just hope that the sequel allows a little more chest beating. | 6 |
I watched this movie after hearing that SRK is the only actor to act in a real NASA camp.What was the movie?Swades,we the people.The movie starts in the USA where a young Indian scientist working in NASA,longing to get back to his motherland to bring back the person who brought him up since young.From there,the movie takes you in an adventurous journey in rural India showing the differences between a city life and rural life in the 21st century India.This movie shows the natural beauty of India in a splendid manner.Be it the journey of SRK from the city to the village,or even from the village to a even more rural area,it was shot so beautifully,you would have never seen India this way.This movie touches on every possible social problem in India,which really provided me a lot of knowledge about India as I'm not an Indian national.The cinematography was merely brilliant capturing the feel of the village in the camera.A.R Rahman,what else can you expect from him,his music and songs were great though captivating all the way through.The songs in this movie was really meaningful,some may even allow tears passing through.Ashutosh Gowariker has probably become one of the best Indian director's of all time.Movies like Lagaan and Jodha Akbar is one of the best Indian movie's of all time.He has brought Indian cinema to great heights.SRK has proved that he is a good actor to all that thinks otherwise,this movie also shows that SRK is a responsible actor for the Indian society.Hats off to Ashutosh Gowariker,SRK and A.R Rahman for creating this masterpiece.We the people love it.A glimpse of true rural India. | 9 |
Despite the fact that Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is such an egotistical, relentlessly uncompromising man, he can't help but earn one's sympathy in Iron Man 2, the sequel to the overwhelming success that was Iron Man. Stark must deal with a Russian physicist named Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), who believes that he stole the complicated plans for his own personal Iron Man-technology from his father, his other arch-rival Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) who is establishing an gigantic uprising of metal monstrosities, and Congressional jurisdiction attempting to make Iron Man property of the Defense Department rather than his own personal technology. Talk about Atlas shrugging. On top of this, his company is now run by his longtime assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and his best-friend Rhodey (now played by Don Cheadle) may now become his sidekick to stop Vanko.
Iron Man 2 is probably the most kinetic, fast-moving, briskly-paced sequel that could've been made to such a surprisingly elegant, intriguing film. Initially, with all this stuff going on, this sequel looked like it was going to follow the messiness and unfocused nature of Spider-Man 3, but director Jon Favreau manages to, for the most part, keep things moving steadily.
I begin by reiterating the main element I praised in the original film and that is Downey's wonderful, wholly spirited performance as one of the most narcissistic males to take the screen in years. Stark is a tricky character to play, on one hand being a generous philanthropist and an uncompromising genius with a love for chemistry and science, but on the other, being hopelessly cocky and basking in the light of his own self-centered arrogance. How does one make a character like that watchable, let alone likable? Downey Jr. somehow pulls it off, using tactile energy and quick-witted humor as a means to convey a character we simply enjoy watching.
Another fascination I have with Stark is his ability to be and remain public about his abilities as Iron Man. Most heroes prefer reclusion, resorting to closeting their abilities by acting as if they are darker, more elusive alter-egos. It's at least fascinating that Stark doesn't play by these old constraints and chooses to be as open about his alternate persona as a person who just took up a new job.
With that said, there is more of a focus on Stark as a human rather than Stark accompanied by a large, straining iron suit. This way, his problems appear more humanly to us (not wanting to give up something that is rightfully his, trying to establish peace amongst large groups, etc) and his agony feels more close to home. If there is an unfortunate element to be found in Iron Man 2, it's that the focus too often shifts and there are really too many things going on here for them all to be truly explored in one-hundred and twenty-four minutes. This isn't as half-baked as it could've been, but it's not as deeply involving or as nourishing as it should have been either. And just when you think the ideas have all shown themselves, out pops Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), leader of the organization S.H.I.E.L.D, to inform Stark about his father and how he could be valued in the organization. And just when you think that's the final plotpoint, a twist features Scarlett Johansson's Natalie as someone that is more than just Stark's latest piece of eye candy.
The idea of Stark refusing to surrender over his technology and advancements to the Defense Department alone could've made for an unbelievably interesting story about staying true to one's inner-self and holding on to what is rightfully yours, regardless of price or negotiations. However, could you see that being the main point of a superhero film? Neither could I; too many bad guys and too little time.
Iron Man 2 is at least an ambitious sequel, looking to tackle a wide-range of ideas and central conflicts had by its title character. The problem is it takes enough plot from a potential Iron Man 3 in its quest for ambitiousness and variety. The action sequences remain fluent and grandiose, the actors all fill their parts nicely (if only Mickey Rourke was given more time to shine), and the sense of fun and excitement is still present. There's just a sheer listlessness of execution that needed to be discussed when implementing so many wonderful ideas.
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Scarlett Johansson, Sam Rockwell, Mickey Rourke, and Samuel L. Jackson. Directed by: Jon Favreau | 8 |
Action scenes are weak.
Another super hero's intro is very bad.
Not Comics accurate.
Comedy, Romance, Dialogues are having best timing. This series is very perfect super hero series. | 7 |
TVF never fails to produce quality TV series for the Indian audiences. The dedication, search of motivation, the struggle and the emotions that an Aspirant goes through is perfectly reflected in the 5 episodes. But the series is slow in the beginning and failed to grab full attention from the start. Also compared to other quality TV shows TVF has produced, I think Aspirants falls short. | 8 |
I'll begin with what I appreciated; the fine acting of Michelle Yeoh's and the ability of the writers, directors and crew to manage all that was going on.
What is my problem? Over time movie editing and tone shifting has become quicker. Quick cuts are down to 15 seconds as they are in Everything Everywhere. In addition the tone of the story in Everything Everywhere changes about every 30 seconds from serious family drama to over the top comedy to action scenes.
The problem with mixing in a screw ball comedy into a movie which changes tone every minute is that all the drama parts no longer are important. It is all a joke after all. So, I didn't care about the daughter, the father, or the family. What did it matter when a minute later there would be a fight with inserted sex toys and minute after minute there would be more fights with abrupt character shifts.
The overall tone of the film was of an over the top comedy. Did I laugh? No. Which for a comedy is deadly. I didn't care about the story or the characters. After 2/3 through the movie I asked why I was torturing myself watching this. Then I gave up. | 3 |
Answer this questions and find out if you will like the movie.
Did you like the movie gravity? Yes I did (go to the next question) No I didn't (dont watch the movie)
Do you think gravity should be bigger? Yes I would love to see it deeper (go to the next question) No for me was long enough. (dont watch the movie)
Could you watch the movie Gravity if it was 3 hours long? For sure. (Go watch this movie it fits you) No way. (Dont go watch this movie).
This movie is like a bigger version of Gravity, with more drama, more physics and space travel.
Is it good? Maybe, depends on your taste.
I will give it 7/10, because the movie did not have to be 3 hours long, it gets boring so easily. Aside from that, good movie in general. | 7 |
If you enjoy films with zero credibility and the sort of film in which there is crisis after crisis for the heroes to deal with, where you are supposed to feel happiness for them after resolving one problem only for yet another unbelievable disaster to arise, then go and watch Gravity.
But if you have any self-respect, do yourself a favour and give it a miss.
If you think it's got great graphics, then go and watch some REAL YouTube videos, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=uR4xB83h76k | 1 |
I'm sorry but this is a bad movie, the type of movie you would never watch again. I have nothing against Adam Sandler, but he has several bad films, including one that has another annoying character, Punch-drunk love. I respect the 10 stars reviews, I understand that Sandler acting is good, but for most people this is not the idea of a good movie. | 2 |
This is my first review on imdb because this show is just that awful. Glorifying suicide is not ok. | 1 |
It is a must watch recommendation from my side. It is a more than 2 time watch movie. Just watch it ,it is diff. Type movie . | 10 |
A disastrous waste of my 6 hours. Apart from some occasional puns to lighten up a few odd minutes, the entire series was, for lack of a better word, pointlessly wasteful. | 1 |
Most netlfix movies i saw end up feeling short, this one brings nothing new to the table, i did not even finish it, i watch the losers 2010 instead.
There is a lot of action but i feel its over the place everywhere, all the actors where boring | 4 |
Many open ends. They try to convince Sergei's girlfriend. You made Sergei's disappearance so easy and why are you keeping her alive??? | 3 |
"Glass Onion" is a fascinating film; by no means as consistently riveting as its predecessor, this sequel takes a good hour or so before finally sinking its hooks into the meat of the mystery it's trying to solve. And so, before viewers even know what that mystery is, they have to sit through an arguably slow 60 minutes full of lighthearted comedy masquerading as plot and character development. Director Rian Johnson loves his visual gags, and there are a lot of them during this movie's first act. While I personally didn't find many of the jokes to be laugh out loud funny, mileage may vary - humor is subjective, and my audience seemed to be going along with it; I, however, couldn't wait for the actual plot to kick into high gear, and once it did - oh boy - "Glass Onion" suddenly became one of the most exciting whodunit film's since, well, "Knives Out."
Yes, Rian Johnson gets overindulgent (per usual) during this movie's first act - it's slow, it meanders, and it has the potential to test your patience. That said, the borderline excruciating pace does help in the sense that you feel like you are spending time, for better or for worse, with all the movie's characters; or should I say, caricatures. Authenticity is a lacking character trait here - no one really feels like a real person, and every character is just a little too ridiculous, a little too hyper stylized. While it can make for an energetic and entertaining viewing experience, it doesn't necessarily make for engaging characterization. This more aloof style of character development did, admittedly hinder my enjoyment at first - that is, until "Glass Onion" begins to set its pieces up and then knock them down.
By the time the second act started, "Glass Onion" had me in its grip; Rian Johnson is no stranger to subverting audience expectations, which he did marvelously here by introducing a mystery that no one could have predicted. And everything just gets better and bigger from there. A movie like this that balances an almost ungodly amount of twists and turns risks collapsing in on itself from the weight, but Rian manages to weave together a nonlinear narrative that expertly builds tension, setting up many a mystery for both its audience and its characters to solve. Sure, you might have to sit through a while before you get to it, but I can undeniably say that it was well worth the wait due to the sheer excitement and entertainment value that "Glass Onion" offers during its last two acts. And honestly, that's the highest praise I can give this movie - the mystery engaged me, entertained me, and had me so enthralled that I could forgive the movie for its shortcomings.
"Glass Onion" delivers a clever thrill ride that will be sure to engage and entertain viewers of all ages. This isn't a perfect movie - perhaps too silly for its own good, the film focuses more on comedy than suspense during its first hour, which can potentially alienate audiences. However, once the plot really begins, I believe that you will find yourself having a good - no, a great - time and, like me, you'll be able to look past the negatives and enjoy this movie for all of its many positives. | 8 |
The mother and daughter characters had potential. But the writing was insurmountably bad. Worthy of a kids movie but attempted complex themes which it couldn't pull off. Do not recommend.
To be completely honest, I didn't see the last 20 minutes as we walked out. It just wasn't worth any more lost minutes of our lives. We chose the movie based on reviews but am dumbfounded that this movie has anything above a 6/10. Poor execution of a poorly written movie.
The physicist that consulted in this movie has admitted he wants science to be more entertaining than accurate. Let him be a writer but stop giving credence to these bad movies as anything but silly. | 4 |
Roger Ebert was a little harsh. My opinion this is just a recycled script with a lot of (sometimes funny) dick and fart jokes. | 5 |
First off "Hollywood" can you please quit casting Woody Harrelson. He's a garbage person and a terrible actor. I'm tired of looking at his ugly mug of a face, his horrendous hook nose and underbite, his nappy teeth, and lastly his ear wrenching speech impediment and the way he talks.
On to the garbage movie that this is cookie cutter band wagon movie is. Carnage is a ruthless, sadistic, serial killer in the comics, he's merely a puppy in this movie and to make it even worse, Woody Harrelson was cast as him. There's nothing redeeming about this movie minus a few good comedic moments, which is why I didn't give it one star. It's so intertwined with snowflake social warrior justice garbage propaganda that before this putrid bile and toxicity became intertwined in what seems almost if not EVERY MOVIE THAT COMES OUT THIS DAY IN AGE, the old cookie cutter assembly factory formulaic style movies were still tolerable and bearable to watch. Yeah you knew it was nothing new or ground breaking but you also knew what you were getting yourself into going to watch it. Some action, some comedy, a tried and true movie making formula that worked. Not anymore. These movies are so full of political PC snowflake garbage propaganda that now they are even watchable or enjoyable and just need to be done away with.
Hollywood, quit trying to force your views and opinions down the country's throat using generic movies as your soapbox. You're ruining movies and everything that used to be enjoyable about them for everyone.
So that all being said this movie is nothing special, like so many other movies of its kind unless you're just a hardcore fan of these, you can skip it and not be missing out on much of anything. | 2 |
I've read the books and played the games so I was really looking forwards to the series. The first season didn't dissapoint me, the fight scenes were great and the plot stayed true to the original story (more or less). However, the second season was the complete opposite - confusing story, not likeable characters, Geralt played by Henry seems "stiff" and kind of "copy pasted" from the books but not in a good way... Game-Geralt had something of his own, a combination from both worlds - the books and developers/readers fantasy.
Second season lacks charm, common sense and creativity. I am no longer excited for the next season and will stick to the games and nostalgia. | 6 |
Bangladesh is modern country now but they make like iran afghanistan 🇦🇫 like Bangladesh | 5 |
First things first, this movie is not realistic, it was never meant to be. I doubt the whole kung-fu genre requires realism to work so please stop nit-picking about this factor.
Kung Fu Hustle is a fresh and original film which re-vitalises both the comedy and action genre. Their is an almost perfect balance between the two genres, at one side of the spectrum you have witty tongue in cheek and slapstick but on the other side their are well constructed fight scenes which breathe new life into kung fu movies.
As goofy as the visuals appear in the film, the plot is well constructed and focuses through a variety of character development, all characters are full of life, from the dominant land lady to the oppressive gang leader.
In conclusion this film has a perfect balance between comedy and action as none of the separate genres destroy the other ones mood. Some of the fight scenes may be considered a little too goofy for some viewers but apart from this kung fu hustle is a good film. Yes it is silly and unrealistic but this is used to almost satire other kung fu films.
The Comedy and Action unify as well as the ying yang in this funny thriller. | 9 |
Season 1&2 were truly great. Season 3 is really dumbed down to the level C class unfunny comedy. Characters are unrelatable, unlikable and really annoying. All that's left of unique atmosphere is shallow, hipstery fascination with esthetics of the 80-ies but without the substance. Don't get me wrong - story is still gripping but for me - magic is gone. | 6 |
Watched it twice and enjoyed it even more on the second watch. Definitely not the all-enlightening and god-saving movie to the feminist movement but it does touch on a lot of issues in such a beautiful, greta gerwig-esque way.
The Barbie-Gloria, Gloria-Sasha, and Barbie-Ruth interactions are so impactful for mothers and daughters. Teared up a few times and would have definitely full on cried if I was home alone while watching the movie.
Ryan Gosling was so good at playing Ken and making the audience laugh at him, laugh with him, feel bad for him, get mad at him, and understand him.
Margot Robbie is just overall the perfect Barbie. | 8 |
This film made me finally understand that achieving mindless action that is actually entertaining is a skill. Even if you shut your brain off to enjoy the exciting shots and punches thrown, you will eventually wipe the drool away and realize that the plot is ridiculous. The character motivations turn from questionable to directly contradictory. The protagonists clearly become the bad guys, but not in a way that feels like the director wants you to think they are the bad guys. I am surprised Russo wrote this screen play and even more surprised that he let it materialize. Great action though. | 5 |
The film has gained a lot of popularity among the young audiences. The reason is obvious, the agony of young star crossed lovers depicted through few emotional sequences. To be fair, the film doesn't create the flair of a nice melodrama. Perhaps due to lack of a better script, the characters somewhat don't appear sympathetic which they ought to be. However in certain instances, the film does work; and particularly, the performance of heroine overshadows the hero's role, which unfortunately doesn't look very natural. Nowhere the signs of disability or the affliction appears in the hero's character. The biggest flaw in the script of the film was its failure to depict the dreadfulness of the cancer they are ongoing which makes the film appear not more than a feel good time passer. The affliction of the disease and their scorn or desire with life doesn't just come in this teenage romance. Only the sequence shot in Anne Frank's museum catches the agony of the protagonist.
Rating: 1.5 stars out of 4 | 5 |
Do watch it..The best movie to be watched... Excellent acting, story, screenplay | 10 |
As so many is saying, too political. And as a true American story, they are saving the world. Can't they just stay in America. The rest of the world is so tired of Americans that always going to save the world. It is old boring stuff. Marvel, you failed big time with this one. | 1 |
Seems that after spending money and time on special effects, animation, technology and character make-up and costumes, the studio ran out of money for script writers. After spending 3,5 hours in theatre, you are left with thinking "What the hell was that chaos about"?
The movie picks up where the first movie ended. The problem is that the movie never progresses past the initial introduction.
This movie reminds of all the Bollywood "masala" movies of 70s and 80s. Characters avenging their the death of their loved ones, the "sweet and gentle at heart" characters, clansman ship, animals remembering their past and helping the characters at time of peril ("Haathi Mere Saathi", "Maa" or "Teri Meherbaaniyaan"). All the sub-plots in this movie have been done to death by Bollywood.
Yes. We understand the allegory here - about European invasion of America. But that allegory is fun to watch when it is subtle - not drilled on the viewers' forehead by the director. Yes - we can see that James Cameron suffers from "white guilt", but he does not need to spend 3.5 hours to show that.
I hope the next Mr. Cameron tries to focus more on script and less on the technology on Avatar 3. | 2 |
Nothing, just nothing can make bollywood work now. Justice for ssr. | 1 |
Had to split this into 3 viewings and had to check the ratings twice, because it was so boring. No special "Mission Impossible" tricks for solving hard cases (maybe one - the switch). Saving the world in the end is done by luck, not some "impossible" plan. | 1 |
Unoriginal plot and bland writing. I got to watch the original series from the 60's and expected something else from Dr. Smith character. Visually stunning, scientifically inaccurate. | 6 |
The most disappointing work of Scorsese I've ever seen. It was a total waste of time! | 4 |
Anyone else getting tired of people who trash perfectly good shows for massively pedantic reasons. This is a perfectly watchable show, the script isn't fantastic but is not terrible either. The actors are from shows like House of Cards, would they really employ people who can't act! The stories are believable, in keeping with the spirit of the original, Dr Smith is suitable evil as she should be, the kids are likeable enough and the leads do a perfectly fine job. Too many reviewers are far too critical and award one out of ten simply because it's not the best show ever made or the science doesn't quite fit together. IT's SCI FI. | 7 |
This movie was full of online slap-shot laughs that won't work on you a second time. You hear or see them once, they're funny, you see it again, it's not funny anymore. This whole movie was pointless, it wasn't even that entertaining. It was just a way to waste a bit of time. I expected SO MUCH MORE after seeing Knocked Up, but apparently...Supergay was all they could come up with.
People who've gone to see this movie or have given this movie a high rating must be high as well. I must be getting old (ripe ol' age of 23) and out of touch with the younger generation or kids just have bad taste. | 3 |
"the virgin suicides" by sofia coppola was a good movie, and since this one got good reviews everywhere, I watched it.
to give the conclusion first : I did not like it at all, indeed its one of the weakest movies ever.
as you may know, the story is about some old actor which meets a young girl during his stay in tokyo and for a few days they share their depression. the point is : thats all way to uninteresting for me. after about 30 minutes it started to bore me watching two very upper-class people looking all sad and talking about their problems. It simply has nothing to do with me. If I go to a movie I either want to see something totally fantastic and far out that I know its not even close to reality, or a movie about certain parts of reality, which are so special in itself that its interesting for me. An example for the latter might be "my life without myself" (as a recent movie). But watching these two rich and bored people celebrating their depression just made me sick. In my opinion coppola knew why she made this happen in tokyo, imagine this movie in new york or similar, and I think more people would see it as what it is : boring.
also, I cant understand how a woman like sofia coppola can take part in the usual sexism in hollywood and even tries to push it even further. the movie starts with the highly disturbing image of the female star lying on the bed, shot from behind so we see her butt through a pink slip. I know that for some people this is a good start, for me its really not. I dont like movies which think they have to start off with exposed parts of a female body, especially when it has nothing to do with the story. no, I am not gay, I am simply sick of sexism and soft-pornography in movies. this first impression carried on trough the whole movie, because the director did not miss any chance to display the female star in underwear, whenever possible. another scene is in a stripclub, where we are forced to watch the performance of some japanese table-dancers, which had nothing to do with the movie at all, while a song by "peaches" (a very feminist songwriter, does she know this, btw ?) was running in the background. apart from this visual sexism also the role of Scarlett Johansson is higly questionable, all the time she is looking around like a little bambi-girl which cant think or decide anything without the help of men. I am sick of these kind of clichès of small and frightened woman. And no, Scarlett Johansson cant act. I doubt she can do any other face than she did trough the whole movie.
The third thing which really made me upset is the high use of music, there is always something playing, often paired with images of tokyo and such, so my advice to sofia coppola is to make musicvideos instead, she surely has the ability to link nice pictures with music, but obviously she is not able to make a full-length movie with a decent story.
in my opinion this is a very, very overrated movie and I will cry out loud if it gets any oscar or similar. as the headline says ... its 90 minutes of shallow, empty and colourful imagery without any interesting story and a weak cast. what a turn-off after "the virgin suicides".
(After we watched this one we went home to watch "bridges of madison county" and although I dont like meryl streep and clint eastwood at all and normally a movie starring both would make me run the other direction as fast as I could, this was exactly the kind of movie that "lost in translation" wanted to be. go watch this instead, I mean it.) | 1 |
I have never been a fan of the superhero Daredevil, but this show does the character justice. In this series, he's not so much a "superhero" as he is a man trying to do the best he can. The show is a bit on the dark and violent side, but is well produced and fun to watch. | 8 |
But it still seems like a show half for adults and half for kids. Why does this werewolf look so cartoony. Its so stupid looking. Also...why in a school full of werewolves, is this the only one called a monster? It sure as heck looks like a werewolf. Why did the writers not understand that in order for us to believe it is a monster, that we would need to compare it against another werewolf? Unless its part of the "Twist" which will probably it was all devised by her mother to get her to like school.
I keep seeing tim burtons name...and i also keep seeing the werewolf...put those two together and you have a goosebumps episode. I do not lhink these episodes should be a hour long each. There is just too much filler per episode. | 8 |
I really enjoyed the series. It really takes you through the events in a way that explains the kind of urgency and tragedy that can happen when working with science. I felt like this series did everything right, save the fact that their was not nearly enough actual Russian/Ukrainian actors in this series as a whole. Especially among the Russian command. Whom I recognized many of the British actors. Which kinda killed the atmosphere a little for me. But all is fair in Love and Warfare and this series did a great job of showing us that grey area in between. And how the aspirations of the few can muddy an entire mixture. My favorite part of this series was the scientific breakdown of the event the show is based around. While I am only a laymen when it comes to nuclear fission and the history surrounding Chernobyl, this was a great introduction and very informative (even if it was dramatized). Overall worth a watch I give 9/10 thnx for reading. | 9 |
Depiction of Bangladesh couldn't be any wrong than what has been shown in this movie. I don't know how a big budget movie like that be this much inaccurate. 2 starts for the action sequence and Hemsworth. Netflix, please stop these kinds of nonsense. | 2 |
Great story, not scary but great! I liked it could have been more scary but the story was recreated in a great way. | 7 |
This is my first review on IMDB. I invested a whole night in a binge watch. I kept waiting for pacing to pick up, characters to get over their issues, and to see real superheroes. I feel like this show had potential but they screwed up by stretching it out from 5 episodes to 10.
Another issue: where's the beef? Where's the superhero powers? Here is a good example: 2 and guys start shooting up the house, Rumor does not use her powers, Number 1 with superhuman strength gets his butt kicked, and no one can hurt the assassins. Pathetic. You have to wade through hours of drama to get any superhero action. And it's all weak.
I did like the Ben character and plot, and other visual elements. The time travel butterfly effect plot is really the plot of the movie. This is a time travel drama show, not a superhero action show. Go in with that expectation, and you will like it better. | 1 |
Watched this film based on the idea that it was a classic. Of course everything Tarentino or Scorsese touch turns to gold according to the critics by virtue of their names being attached to it.
The strength of this movie is that it shows the mundane life that many people experience where their only purpose is to wake up the next day and pay the bills until they run out of years. It also shows how without purpose people can end up in some pretty desperate mental stages where they lose touch with reality.
There is a lot of intrigue built up throughout as you are just wondering when he is going to have his violent break out. This anticipation adds some entertainment value but the end result of it is a bust. The violent scene is anti climactic and it just felt like they could have done more with it.
There is also a lot of time dedicated to scenes that led nowhere. This isn't uncommon for Scorsese and what he seems to deem cinema and detests films that don't have all this back clutter. Some of it perhaps adds to the bizarre nature of De Niro's character , but it is a bit excessive and doesn't necessarily produce a thrilling story.
Maybe it was better back in the day, but I think the creepy obsessive guy genre has surpassed this now. | 6 |
Extraction offers the familiar action-movie combination of breakneck pacing, a paper-thin storyline, and dazzling set-pieces. As the title suggests, it's about a mercenary by the name of Tyler Rake (Chris Hemsworth) carrying out the extraction of a little boy (apparently, the son of a drug lord in India) from the clutches of a Bangladeshi drug lord. Aiding him covertly in his mission is a team led by Nik (Golshifteh Farahani, who's best known for About Elly). A subplot brings Saju (Randeep Hooda), the Indian drug lord's enforcer, into the scenario. What ensues is a series of ultra-violent, well-crafted (and tastefully shot by Newton Thomas Sigel) action-movie clichés.
Hargrave chooses to cover up the fallacies in the script, some inane casting choices (Priyanshu Painyuli, for example, is a particularly bad one), the lack of locational authenticity (most of the film is shot in India, not Bangladesh except for plateshots), and disjointed Bengali lines mouthed by the gangsters, with neatly choreographed action. One such set-piece (shot like it's a single take) that gets going shortly into the 35-minute mark, is probably the best I've seen in recent memory (which is why it gets a 3 and not a 2.5). The action is punctuated by bullets whizzing past narrow alleyways, hand-to-hand combat that we've seen done better in Asian films, and a sufficient amount of blood-spilling.
Heck, in what seemed like a minor nod to The Raid films, Tyler uses a rake (which is also his surname, mentioned later in a scene) to dispose of a thug. The single-shot-set-piece is straight out of the books of "Call of Duty", with the camera splendidly juggling between first-person and third-person action. Even for a hardcore action flick, Joe Russo writes in a few scenes that attempt to humanize the characters of Tyler and Saju. They aren't exactly acting showcases, but they get the job done. Plus, the presence of Randeep Hooda subverts the 'white savior' cliché to a certain extent.
While the scenes involving the Bangladeshi drug lord (dressed in awkward costumes) were the weakest (in terms of writing and performances), I did like how Hargrave portrayed the plight of underprivileged kids in the Indian subcontinent and how they were being used as gun-wielding henchmen. It's a template action movie alright, but there's enough machismo, explosions, and gore to please fans of the genre. It, however, needed better writing, a (much better) baddie, and more heart, to rise above its surface-level coolth. | 6 |
Ridley Scott has not crafted a good film in years. This latest installment is unfortunately no exception to this pattern.
Taking a broader perspective on Scott's career as a director, one can easily see that he loves to depict a humble protagonist, one who displays nobility of heart, stands up for his/her beliefs and has a moral struggle but tends to choose the "right path" even if it is the harder one. I do not mean to say that path is necessarily morally sound from a viewer's perspective, or even from Scott's perspective, but instead it is "right" for that character and what they believe is right. Scott is quite practiced at this kind of character, as he's done it in several films: American Gangster, Exodus: Gods and Kings, Gladiator, Robin Hood, Body of Lies, and Kingdom of Heaven, to name a few.
In this film, The Martian, Scott attempts to break away from this formula a little bit. We are still centered around one main protagonist who is struggling, but not morally - instead, for his own survival. There's no hard choice to make, no pros and cons to weigh; he is simply fighting for his survival and has to face the reality that he may not get out of it at all and end up dead on Mars.
At first I was relieved that finally Scott is trying something else, as his last several films have been formulaic and tiresome. I was even looking forward a bit to seeing what he would do with such a film. But this film brings almost nothing to the table, almost entirely devoid of substance. It is as if the tried and true formula Ridley Scott is known for is actually all he is capable of as a director. I don't mean to say he should never do anything else, because certainly that formula is getting very tiring. I just mean that it says something disconcerting about his directing when his precious formula is taken away and this is the result: a large forgettable black hole of a film.
The struggle of survival is a theme tackled by many films, and I do not attack this film thematically. The theme indeed has the potential to deliver something very powerful, emotional, gripping, something that jibes with the human experience as a whole, something that, even if we cannot relate to directly, we can feel for the character going through it. 127 Hours is a great example of a survival story which was done well. We feel the brutality of the situation; he is broken down to the point of drinking his own urine and eventually his spirit breaks down enough to the point of severing his own limb off. Things actually happen that show the character's suffering, brutal things that justify the extreme action taken.
Nothing really happens in this film. The plot is virtually null, and the emotional content is non-existent as well. One would expect a survival story to actually contain a bit of struggle, perhaps even some brutality or exploration of extreme states of the human condition, but this films lacks all of those. Almost right away, since he just so conveniently happens to be a botanist, he figures out a way to grow food, and you fully trusted he would do so given his profession. As for water, there is plenty aboard the station. As a viewer, your comfort level in his biological state is very high; he has plenty of food and water to last him quite a while. So that's taken care of promptly. Secondly, the social factor. Loneliness of that scale can be a powerful cinematic element.to take advantage of, but this is also ruined by the film constantly cutting back to Earth, and then he finds a way to start contacting Earth also. So that is also taken care of. Thirdly, missing his friends and family. That just wasn't ever brought up even one time, so that wasn't taken care of so much as it was entirely absent. All this together shows basically zero struggle. Somehow Scott has managed to make a survival story into a cushy, comfortable ride; I never once doubted or was afraid for his life. I don't state this with revere, this kind of contrast is simply baffling and doesn't make sense whatsoever. There were a few occasions where the film tried to throw in a sense of looming doom, like the food supply would reduce or the situation back on Earth would seem hopeless, but these ultimately felt contrived and were tossed in purely superficially; it definitely didn't fool me any.
Right in line with the empty plot, character development is also nil. Our protagonist learns nothing, does not change in any fundamental way, nor does any supporting character. He gets left behind on Mars and gets rescued at the end, going back to normal life afterward. Oh, he starts to teach survivalism in extreme space situations, but this is more of an afterthought than a fundamental character change. Jeff Daniels plays the director of NASA; he honestly could've been completely cut out of the film and no significant difference/loss would've occurred. His role was to be the face to the public, as we constantly see him babbling on and on in press conferences about Damon's current state and what NASA is doing to try to rescue him. In fact, most of the scenes and characters on Earth felt pretty pointless. To some level they were obviously needed, as they are the ones who must rescue him, but that didn't make them enjoyable (not that the Mars scenes were much better).
I'm not entirely sure how much can be blamed on the novel the film is based on, as I have not read it, but I do believe a director has full control of a film and if a novel is a bit drab, a director can and should breathe more life into it. I have a hunch the novel is not so bad and it is just that Ridley Scott was assuredly the wrong choice for its adaptation into film. It also might seem appropriate to blame the script writer, Drew Goddard, but the dialogue was not so horrible, aside from the mostly banal attempts at humor - though some lines were funny. While I do not ignore the significant role that source novel material and screenplay have, I'm still placing most responsibility onto Scott's lap. He didn't portray any character change, he didn't use a cinematic eye to communicate any substance.
As far as acting goes, nothing is particularly terrible, but not much was required either. As a counterexample, Damon's acting in Interstellar was one of the worst performances to ever appear in motion picture history, but this was because it tried to be a very dramatic scene where he attempts to murder the whole crew. His acting simply wasn't good enough to carry that kind of role, so it came off as simply laughable. This film on the other hand doesn't call for much, so his caliber of acting was just fine for it.
All this said, there is one thing Scott shines at that I cannot deny, and it is present here also. He makes watchable films. It's hard to describe precisely what this means, but I'll try. It means a film that is entertaining enough, moves along quickly enough, is not completely laughably awful in every way, never gets too slow or boring - I should point out that this is completely different than a film having substance, which I've already said this film lacks. But it is watchable, I'll give it that. Entertaining enough in a popcorn sense - you don't need to pay attention much, because there's really nothing to pay attention to. This makes it more of a lighter affair, which completely contradicts its theme as I've already pointed out. So yes, I admit The Martian is not entirely boring as you're watching it, but after you watch it, there's nothing much to reflect on or take home. | 4 |
Subsets and Splits