Review
stringlengths 6
10.3k
| Rating
int64 1
10
|
|---|---|
I will be purposefully vague.
The game, first did NOT play the second, was ok. Joel had a soothing voice and everything else was simple grind.
I originally intended to NOT watch the series.
But I have grown somewhat fond of Pascal. He is very similar to Nathan Fillion in LOU. Sounds like, looks like. And even moves like him.
Actually if they make a new version of Firefly he could play his son. Thus allowing two generations on screen at once, if Fillion chose to guest star.
Ellie really grew on me. Dry Brit wit, slightly Asperger look and seemingly fine acting ability. Then again what else would be expected of a Brit actress?
And she swears like a sailor.
Obviously the writers did not think through the noise factor. Everyone seems to have attached junk that would clink making sounds which the beasts may hear.
Everything was tooling along smoothly though a bit slowly until episode 3.
Sadly the game character arc of the two characters in that episode was way more involving than in the series. I know they were tossed in to placate the audience,In the game the reveal was at the END of the activities reading a note. That minuscule aspect won the game an award and accolades.
Ep3 was a waste of characters. Taking a fully fleshed out game character, having Joel warn Ellie about him, then NEVER meeting him. Simple throw aways.
And dumb at that.
One scene where the well seasoned character stands in the middle of the road, everything blazing with fire, and using his scoped hunting riffle fires out into the attackers.
Duh, well lit, scoped rifle, hide behind something and zero in then move to the next cover.
Every ten year old who has played a first person shooter understands that.
Even the worst episodes of walking Dead were better planned and executed than this. Truly this could have been slipped into TWD reruns and no one would be able to tell the difference. You know the early weepy seasons, maybe after meeting Herschel.
If the creators intent is to simply copy instead of ADAPT the game then we get a single season.
Ellie gets two stars, pascal gets two stars, Torv gets honorable mention.
This is not the show I eagerly await all week long.
That would be Doom patrol. Or maybe even Fringe reruns.
See how I worked Torv in there. | 4 |
The Panda returns! And it is a great movie. I really enjoyed the movie. Almost a bit more than the first Panda movie. Jack Black and all the other voice cast are just "awesome". The story flows right, the jokes are there, everything fits neatly into place. While Pixar has not to be too afraid yet, another animation studios have proved they can put out great animated movies too.
While the Panda probably won't get an "animated" Oscar (and I'm sure it won't go to Pixar either, no offense against Cars 2), this shouldn't be the way this movie is judged. Fun for young and old, this is a great movie with some neat (3D) visual effects! | 8 |
One of the best comedy films I have ever seen. A perfect movie to suggest at a party or with your friends, definitely not family friendly. Perfect rendition of teenage high school life and what that looks and feels like. Went in with low expectations that it was going to be a simple gross-out flick with a lot of "I'm swearing, isn't that funny" type humor, but was blown away by how funny the writing and acting was. Hilarious, and kind of touching, the B-plot with the cops made this movie for me. Highly recommended film that I think most should see if they want to know what a good comedy is. | 8 |
Season 2 ruined this creative , sharp, funny , cynical and very dark series for me , it was rushed and dull , ipso facto won't watch season 3 if there ever is one. | 6 |
To tell the truth the movie was meh. It made little to no sense and was severely over hyped. I only watched it for Thor. Who both marvel and the other characters made fun of. | 3 |
It have good cgi but story is as stale as a food can be.
Basically it's a very average family movie story.
Jake sully the main hero of the movie was not used at all. They could have made this movie without him.
No magic moments in movie, just a good cgi and VFX.
They wasted this part in introducing his children and specially Grace daughter that she could be a superhero in Avatar movie.
Representative attempt of losing kids and fighting to get them back was a loop.
Apart from new kids, all old characters are live now as a Avatar no that itself a bogus attempt to continue story.
It just doesn't make any sense. | 4 |
Seriously, critics? This movie borrows so much from Scorsese's previous gangster pics, that it feels derivative and boring. Pesci is the only actor that shines, giving more nuance to his role. De Niro and Pacino play another version of their usual characters. I would have liked it more as a limited series, but as a three-and-a-half hour film with no intermission, it drags. At least the last thirty minutes are really poignant. That and Pesci save it from being a miscalculated disaster in my book. | 3 |
I truly cannot describe how uncomfortable season four made me. After 3 seasons of frequently handling uncomfortable topics okay at best, they somehow managed to make the season with the fewest uncomfortable topics the most uncomfortable to watch. I can't even put into words how frustrated I am. I have no idea how this made it from script to television. | 7 |
I loved the treatment, the retro atmosphere impeccably recreated, the lighting, and the good intentions... but I must admit that, nostalgia aside, this was painful to watch. I got to catch many details hinting something big underneath the silver facade but it just did not cut it for me. Paul is not a very charismatic guy and the pace of these two first episodes do not help you get interested in what i asume must be a big shocker ahead. That being said, I did not hate it, there is quality in the making but I just hope this gets better soon, not for the fans who loved it but for many of us who love MARVEL but not necessarily in a blindly way. | 5 |
The jokes are entertaining and the movie has the just correct amount of dramatic storyline to make it more than an empty comedy.
The repetitive use of patriarchy is rather in the movie because it to wants to make sure that everyone understands the message and not because it thinks men = bad and woman = good. Already after the first 30 minutes the message is super clear and thats where it gets a bit empty. It fights so much against stereotypical masculinity, consumerism and capitalism but still puts a 4 minutes long chevrolet commercial (which screams how rugged the brand is) in the movie that entirely destroys the credibility of the movie. | 8 |
This series is one of the best ideal for the kids who were born after 2000 and somehow missed the craze of Harry Potter. Its not as equal as HP movies. Still the idea of sticking up with friends no matter what in a world where everyone is wearing glasses of self goodness and depression, that's where it rang the bell. And introduced todays youngs who cool things were before snapchat and weeds came. And a group of nerds has not to be boring and book driven always. They also can be cool if they want to. But I will recommend not to watch season 3. It doomed all. Why series like this extends I don't understand. All the cast did very bad acting tbh. And the charm of 80s vanished as well. Some scenes gave me nausea. | 7 |
What utter rubbish. Rubbish plot Rubbish continuity Impossibly instantaneous/absurd changes from one situation to another Unnecessary overload of conscience numbing violence - begets the very thing the main protagonist claims he's trying to rid the world of. The basic idea has something too it, and had the potential to be a genuinely clever, fun and entertaining film. But alas this was not too be. Unfortunately the makers have sold out to bargain basement crap to smear all over our screens. Your time could be so much better spent. | 5 |
Captain America Civil War
Marvel knows how to please audiences and after seeing how Warner Bros. largely failed to please the general public with Batman and Superman's first big-screen debut together, audiences are going to question if with Civil War, (which is essentially "Captain America v Iron Man") will it really be worth investing time and money into another hero-on-hero mega-budget superhero flick.
Well, this is Marvel's answer to DC's failed attempt, and they know these characters, we've seen most of them around in a few movies now over the past 8 years or so, (some of them more recent and some of them for the first time in this film's cinematic universe). And I truly believe the film is a triumph. Unlike the last Avengers film, there are not really any subplots that don't serve as an important piece to the overall story, directors Joe and Anthony Russo did a great job weaving action scene and character-driven scene together to drive the story forward in 2014's Captain America the Winter Soldier, and they do the same here. What makes this even more impressive is that they are handling roughly twice the amount of characters than what Winter Soldier had, but they do it as near-perfect as you could expect from a big-budget, studio-produced blockbuster these days. Though it had it's strong aspects, Star Wars the Force Awakens was a big money maker for Disney, but as a film, it left much to be desired. This film surprised and impressed me, more than any big budget film in the past 12 months save for Mad Max. It was better than Ant-man. Better than Age of Ultron. It was better than Furious 7, Jurassic World, Force Awakens, Batman v Superman and even Jungle Book which I also was impressed with. The film doesn't take any huge risks and does play it fairly safe to being what we've come to expect from Marvel, but it knows what the formula for success at Marvel is and it works with it. It knows how to still be impressive and wholly satisfying while still playing things fairly safe. Marvel, they takes risks with certain movies, and being that this is called "Civil War" which is based on a Marvel comic where major characters DO die, the movie doesn't quite follow that and is really more like a "Civil Dispute".
And then there are moments where Tony is acting like he and Steve used to be friends even though earlier in the film he explains to Cap how his father always talked highly about him to Tony and that he just wanted to punch him in his perfect teeth. There are moments where this built-up rage shines through Downey Jr's performance as Stark, after he finds out a truth regarding his parents, that shows Robert actually put a lot of care into this character, more than we've ever seen from him since Iron Man 1. Lately it has felt like he's been phoning in his performances, but not here. Here he really acts the hell out of what the script asks of him, and counter's Chris Evans' strongest performance of Captain America to date, too.
Lots of other big players here, Jeremy Renner, Scarlett Johansson, Paul Bettany, Elizabeth Olsen, Sebastian Stan, Paul Rudd, Anthony Mackie, and Daniel Bruhl gives a strong performance as a villain character who isn't given the most fleshing out or devotion to, but he serves the story well enough and it will be interesting to see if he gets any future roles down the line.
If you're a fan of Spiderman, well the studio finally worked a deal out with Sony that allows them to use Spiderman in their shared cinematic universe and he is a very well introduced character played by young actor Tom Holland who probably does the best job as this character we have seen on screen yet, he fits in very well and plays off the other actors very well and proves to be quite a visual spectacle in the film's second act. He gets his own film next year and I look forward to seeing how it turns out, as this film introduced the character properly, and you could tell the directors had a full understanding of what makes this character so great. Overall, if you're looking for a superhero universe to stay committed to and always have faith in, I'd say just stick with Marvel because they know what they're doing and everything are building up to is unlikely to disappoint given the rate they are going now, but I guess we shall see you until then I would definitely recommend this film 9/10 | 9 |
Phillip Fawcett says it is hard to choose which single Godfather movie should go into the top 10 at the expense of the others. The saga really needs to be taken as a whole - even the 3rd installment, generally seen as the weakest, rounds the epic story off in poetic fashion - and as such would go into my personal top 10 of all-time movies as a trilogy.
That said, I single out Godfather II if I must. This is the most self-contained in theme and form, tracking the origins of the Corleone dynasty and the rise to crime of Michael Corleone. It is the ultimate portrayal of a man allowing himself to fall to the corruptions of power , and lose his morality to murderous evil. He is both victim of fate, of forces which seemed to compel him into this monstrous world, and a willful sinner.
The final scene, as he sits alone in his spacious grounds reflecting on his life, encapsulates the true theme of this tale: not 'the mafia', not 'murder', not 'American-Italian culture', but that of a human being losing his soul. | 10 |
Not a single article or description of the ninth episode of this series, perhaps because it was never aired on T.V, and is only on Netflix. It is mostly interviews with the actual persons depicted in the series: Sandy Grimes, her husband, Jean,among others, responding to off camera questioner. Then there are extensive segments of Ames being interviewed by Ted Koppel.
This final segment is the key to the entire series, as it shows just how accurate the dramatization was. Once they had the smoking gun from the final Russian source and home recordings Ame's conversations with his wife, without knowing that the final episode would be a documentary of the series, I thought it would be created fluff, perhaps an extended trial and marriage issues. I had thought that many scenes were the writers taking liberties, as they seemed so implausible to me, but that last episode confirmed that the dramatization right up to the personalities of the main characters were spot on.
There was the touching scene of the the Soviet General that we knew had been betrayed by Ames with his granddaughter, that I thought was such a flourish. In this final episode the actual now-grown woman showed up at the signing of the book this series was based on, "Circle of Treason." We learn that the General, unlike Ames, made his decision not for money, but out of belief that those who controlled the government were destroying his country.
This, along with the in depth interview of Ames raises profound issues of the fine line between bravery and treachery that is being asked this day about Ed Snowden - who some claim betrayed his country while others consider a rare patriot. The first eight episodes was a diverting drama, with the ninth it became a rare provocative event. | 10 |
I will be honest when I'm saying that I was hesitant to watch this show. I thought will be some lame comedic superhero template tv show. Oh boy did I was wrong. Quite a good show to watch. I can't say I like the gore and weird nudity at moments, but those things fit the narrative well. Butcher is heck of character, he makes the series great. The other are great too, but he keeps the party going. Good to see Giancarlo Esposito in yet another tv show, playing you guess it, a villain. There is something about this guy, he is really chill in his interviews, but when he play a role he is like another person. Corporate evil in disguise, ready to pull some trick on you, having a plan in advance. I won't be surprised if he plays major role in S03.
There was once very memorable element and that was the behind the scenes of Marketing and PR. The "sups" are just personalities that follow a script and must behave in the way their masters who pay them told them to do. It sounds very like every famous person in real life, just pretending, acting. That was very realistic moment in mostly fictional show.
Can't wait for Season 3, you saw the eyes of Butcher did we? I knew it, in order to beat them you have to become one of them. | 8 |
Nothing is scary in this movie , i was waiting and waiting and waiting for a jumpscare , and here iam still waiting ! | 1 |
What impresses me the most is that you can feel/see the breakthroughs from S1 to S3, and the improvements are in every aspects: editing, sound mixing, music and story writing. I'd only give S1 6/10, but with the amazement in S2 and S3 I really believe the crews behind Umbrella Academy are constantly evolving. As for S3 confusing ending, I still feel they successfully break their own loop-- the umbrella without an apocalypse is really something to look forward to in S4.
The music was handled so PERFECTLY in S3, really built a strong emotional tone and mood to the show.
As for character depth, Umbrella Academy handles emotionally breakdowns and trauma carefully and reasonably. You can see where the anger, frustration, and sadness come from.
It's been a long time since a film made me feel this deeply touched, and brought me as much joy as much sorrow. | 9 |
The biggest risk in doing an adaptation of a videogame which is as story driven and cinematic as 'The last of us' is that if you're not careful, it may end up looking like a poor remake. And that's what's clearly happening with this show, as some of the most pivotal scenes have been handled badly and the acting of the main protagonists in those scenes often pale in comparison to what we've seen in the videogame. Unfortunately more and more I'm starting to believe that 'The Last of us' didn't need a TV adaptation, as the videogame gave us everything we could possibly want and some... Would have made more sense to expand its world by creating a whole new story, with new characters, instead of giving us an inferior remake of a videogame which you could hardly do justice, let alone improve upon. | 6 |
This TV show is a mix of brilliant (Geralt, Ciri), mediocre (Yen, Jaskier) and horrible (Fringilla, Triss, Foltest) casting. Fringilla is from Toussaint, not Zerrikania, there are neither Zerrikanian elves nor Zerrikanian generals in Cintra. Triss has obviously skipped her body transformation classes in Aretuza and has been aging fast ever since. All these and many more other inaccuracies are stopping this show from being great. | 1 |
It's okay but its basically just the story of a woman who isn't good with children running from gusts of wind and the occasional madman. | 6 |
As an action movie, just staring at from the beginning to the end,awesome action! Nice camera work but Dhaka looked a bit yellowish out there. Moreover,I won't say it was a 'very good story' type of movie. Although,Chris did very well !! | 7 |
Oh jeez ... I don't understand why this movie has such high reviews, it has some of the worst dialogue I have seen in years and is really really boring | 3 |
First of all I admit that I am probably the biggest fan of Nolan and a true admirer of him.His past few films are like Bible to me. However being a true movie buff, I must say that this is not the best of Nolan. Neither this is will come in the top 5 war movie movie list. Nolan's specialty is building characters, great dialogues,thrills, engaging climax etc. I am sorry to say that all these are missing here. You do not feel for any of the characters in the movie. My verdict is this that this is the worst movie from Christopher Nolan( I am really sorry to say this!!)) | 6 |
Patronizing, Unrealistic Dialogue by so-called "Scientists" is little "science" and much more "fantasy" (with an attempt at being poetic).
Complete lack of self-discipline in editing making the film an hour too long. Every nuance in every frame shot is not critical...Cut/Edit the crap out of this film!
Waste of valuable movie viewing time.
Maybe if a 90 minute version came out, it MIGHT be passable, but plot line and dialogue integrity would still be in question.
Really hard to experience viewing the frequent moments when it's botched so badly - Could've been a contender, but Interstellar fails to deliver the type of epiphany moments done so much better (and in less than 30 minutes) in the 1950s by Rod Serling with his 'Twilight Zone' TV series.
Biggest Space-Fi Sci-Fi fail of all time. 💣 | 2 |
I watch BBC dramas a lot and usually really enjoy them but this was way off the mark. Perhaps I just never bought into it from day 1 but the acting was atrocious. Richard Madden is wooden and all he does is stare. The overly PC nature of casting women in too many roles made it feel like woman's hour. Gina McKee was awful. The plot had so many wholes it in my wife and I were actually laughing. The realism was low, especially the suicide vest scene. Pretty hard to find anything good to say about it. | 3 |
With amazing, heart-pounding action sequences, an intriguing character-driven storyline and several fantastic character introductions, 'Captain America: Civil War' is definitely of the MCU's best and also one of the very best in the genre. This is largely due to the way in which its 'superhero' aspects come second to its 'thriller' ones, meaning that the film is about much more than CGI extravaganza. All of the action feels entirely grounded, despite the inclusion of various clearly ungrounded superpowers, and the focus on practical hand-to-hand combat makes the film feel much more palpable. The movie is also full of emotion, as we see characters that we have grown to love pushed to their limits and forced to do things that go against their 'hero' personas, which again adds a sense of weighty realism to the picture. It's a constantly enthralling political thriller, and a lot of fun that never drags, despite its 147 minute run-time. 9/10 | 9 |
Enola is over acting so badly she keeps talking to the cam/audience which makes it so annoying .. and sadly Henry cavill is a terrible sherlock holmes .. the story is boring and slow and the writer have no knowledge of history what a disaster of a movie disappointing .. | 3 |
The production and the costume design is absolutely wonderful, same goes to the most of the cast. With beautiful attention to detial, uncluding actual cars and houses that we played with.
But the message of "patriarchy is bad" seemed to be shoved down your throat too aggressively, with the whole thing seeming a bit misguided and hateful toward men, and i dont believe in battling hate with hate. Dont understand me wrong i am a woman in engineering (world dominated by men), but the concept of feminism is not men vs women and what most feminists strive for is not matriarchal, which the barbie word is. Pinning us against each other is not helpful, as we should work together to reach equality, one cannot work without the other. What could be a wonderful message turned confusing and too strong in my taste. | 3 |
I have been looking forward to this for a while. Overall, dont get me wrong, it started off strong and has the potential to be a great mini-mini series. BUT, I dont know what goes through directors heads when they just let the camera person run around. The end product looks terrible. Its hard to concentrate on a couple of elements when the camera is that shaky. PLEASE stop doing this on TV shows and Movies. Its just as bad as having motion sickness.
Probably not the creators issue, I dont know the ins and outs of movie/tv show making but 6 episodes is not a series. Disney+ has a bad habit of making small series and each episode gets shorter and shorter. If it isnt at least 12-15 episodes at 45 minutes or more in length per episode (not including credits) dont bother, just make a movie instead.
Its these small things that can ruin a great show! | 5 |
I like this show. Season1 10/10 season 2 8/10 season 3 9/10 | 9 |
"
just the beginning of the end". That is what the first part of the final chapter in the Harry Potter says to me. With the first six films being a mere premise to the last two films of the franchise, to think about coming end to the cherished series cause me a bit of sadness. Being a die-hard Harry Potter fan, this particular "Part One" did not disappoint.
This film opens with an epic struggle for survival as seven "Potters" attempt to smuggle Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) out of his Aunt and Uncle's house given his upcoming birthday. The dynamics of the scene give an immensely powerful first statement for the film. The screenwriter Steve Kloves does a brilliant job in my opinion of manifesting the action from the novel on the screen. Throughout the movie we see a different turn from previous Potter movies. We see a lot more of the dynamics in the characters relationships with each other. We see a little bit more romance, lightly played but obvious. We see present well within the movie the idea of Harry's dependence on Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint). We see a lot of team work present and suiting the feel well, the story begins to slow down allowing bit more room for back story explanations. This time the feel of the film is one of a slower pace, which in my opinion serves well to ease the audience into the films inevitable end. I whole-heartedly agree with the decision made to split the film into two parts. I think that it gives more space for the storyline to spread out and really capture the whole big picture, as is illustrated well in Rowling's book. Plus it brings even more money to the franchise.
The actors also have done an amazing job throughout the whole decade that this film has taken to rise to its current and immense glory. We've had the privilege to watch as Daniel Radcliffe, brilliantly portrayed as the scrawny bespectacled boy we grew to love in the first book and movie, to the mature, beastly looking hero, taking an even greater leap from the books' descriptions and making the change from Daniel to Harry on screen all the more powerful and beautiful. Watson also grew from slightly annoying and cute little girl to a smoking hot, mature British woman, despite her recent hair change. Rupert Grint even did a bit of growing up. He's gotten a deeper voice, but remains that endlessly loyal companion to Harry throughout all the films. The actors and actresses have always played their given parts brilliantly. It surprises me that most of the whole cast and crew have been there from the beginning (except for the directors). It's further touching to reflect on the brilliant family these people have become in the production of this amazing franchise.
In retrospect there are some things that I do wish had been done better. Like some of the finer ends of the movie were a little left out. But I think overall David Yates did a great job with this film, as he has with the previous films he's directed in the series. He definitely seems to me the most familiar with the tone of the movie and though shaped the film in a way that suited him, his taste suits the novel and the rest of us just fine. I definitely look forward the final installment of the franchise this upcoming summer. It will be a bittersweet birthday present, considering I began my journey with Potter on my birthday nearly 10 years ago. I recommend this movie to any who'll watch. It will not disappoint. | 10 |
This movie is bad. It has a great IMDB score, but I think that's wholly undeserving. It's pretentious garbage. Robert Eggers has made two stinkers now, and some people are lapping these up. Meanwhile, I'd rather see Jordan Peele and Ari Aster continue to refine 'Artistic Suspense", since they've created the two strongest films in this new sub-genera with Get Out and Midsommar.
Like he did with the "The Witch", Eggers puts a ridiculous amount of research onscreen, here mid 20th century lighthouse rigmarole. The problem, which is the same "The Witch" has, is that the characters, plot, you know, the movie-ness of it all, is shoe-horned into a visual exhibit. There is no plot here. There are lines, weird visuals, allusions to insanity; none of it goes anywhere because it was an afterthought. Eggers next movie will probably be a silent film. He seems made for it.
The big injustice, is that Willem Dafoe and Robert Pattinson are amazing actors. Even here, they do some justice to the horrible routine of it all. Dafoe has never looked crazier, and Robert Pattinson does a fair bit of physical transformation. It's all for naught though; these people appear to go crazy, or they don't. There might be a mermaid, but probably not. The sea-gull might have been possessed. Maybe. Ultimately, ambiguity is a clichéd plot device you use when you haven't figured out how things should fit together.
I doubt people really enjoyed this movie. It seems to be made for talking points. | 4 |
Good cast,i like Sandra Bullock and i liked the idea of the movie but in the end its just a "meeh"/ "what i just watched?" Movie | 6 |
Review By Kamal K
S1 Review
A brilliantly gripping season that has you wanting to solve a story along with its compelling structure and beautiful acting that keeps you hooked into a heartbreaking teen story with its cool way of storytelling and smart ideas.
S2
A great follow up season especially to the fans of the first follows a cool structure of a story adding new ideas and developing characters further even if sometimes they arent explained completely are still entertaining enough to make you satisfied and entertained by the incredible cast, mysterious movements and storytelling that will leave you happy and sad by the end of all 13 episodes.
Season 3
Season 3 is not as strong as its previous seasons, but that does not make it any less relevant. ... 13 Reasons Why repeatedly indulges in the "angry young man" trope, but Season 3 sees Clay become more of an impediment to his own benevolence than ever. Last four episodes of this season was great..
S4
I enjoyed this season overall with a different atmosphere to the others that made it sort of unique and creative to understand with a brilliant cast, decent plot point and connections that will keep you intrigued, It's stupid, overstretched and boring sequences throughout the midway of the season will keep you from feeling engaged even with its great beginning and end. There are much more explanations and connections but loses everything that the first season was and shifts completely from what 13 reasons should be. | 7 |
Loved Steve Martin in the 80-90s comedies but this comedy/mystery is too strange and gonzo. Short and Gomez doesnt help. | 5 |
It's extremely childish and a waste of time please can I have my money back | 2 |
This film feels much longer than it is, and it's a fairly lengthy film. It starts off like it might be going somewhere, then it just gets boring.
That's not to say it's a slow movie. But it gets so repetitive and directionless that it becomes hard to keep caring about it.
By the end, I simply didn't care what happened to the characters. You won't either.
In a lot of ways, it reminds me of Blow. Even has Escobar in it. But unlike Blow, the characters aren't that interesting. The scenes are much more dull. And the production isn't as nice to look at.
Not the worst film I've ever seen, but it's one that you certainly won't love or remember all that much. Trust me. Skip this one. Totally forgettable. | 5 |
Fantastic show but nearly ruined by Sonoya. Her horrible acting is a constant distraction. Sincerely hoping this is rectified | 8 |
A good friend of mine, the writer Mark Shulman, once pointed out that our standards are being gradually eroded, so that sadly, we are left with less and less in lieu of a threshold of acceptability, finding ourselves not unlike frogs in a pan being brought to a slow, imperceptible boil.
Christopher Nolan and some of his cast are telling the press that Interstellar is a love story. I will take them at their word and assume that whatever else I picked up on was left there unwittingly, for the rest of us to parse through.
Considering how much pain is involved in traveling to and from a crowded movie theater on a Saturday night, I feel like it's my prerogative, when I have paid good money, to take a film apart if I am still hungry for substance at the end of it; and I WILL get my nourishment from something or other, if not from the movie's plot itself.
The first thing that strikes me, when I think back to the experience of Interstellar, is that it leaves me with nothing, emotionally - no takeaway. I did not care about any of its characters, or believe they were real, and I did not really worry about the fate of humanity (any more than the film itself actually does, beyond paying it casual lip-service).
I wasn't awed like I may have been by other wondrous space movies that Interstellar measures itself against (or steals from), and I am not compelled to go back and see any part of it ever again. (I suspect most viewers won't either, once the collective neophile contact high has passed.)
For starters, I do not like the moral core of the story: Interstellar is a film about "saving humanity" but it is unclear who will pay for humanity's failures. The film offers a great debate over where to repopulate, but none about what we have learned from having to leave our home in the first place. There is no therapy, no penance, no sacrifice. In a way, this represents a subconscious confession about our culture's moral failures: when we run out of spaces to consume, and out of fertile ground to slash an burn, we will have to look for new worlds to expand out into, since we cannot show self control and learn to care for what we have...
But enough psychobabble. A dysfunctional moral compass is not the worst thing about Interstellar.
The worst thing about the film is that, to quote my girlfriend, "It's OK to for characters to talk in pseudo-scientific gobbledygook when the show is Star Trek, because in Star Trek, they all have pointy ears."
Interstellar may be worth a glance, certainly for the photography and exciting visuals, but it is a buffet of messy ideas that fire in all directions. Clearly the script is not written by career screenwriters, but by a director who has freed himself from gravity and has achieved his own artificial self-sufficiency amid the vast nothingness.
The result is an often far-fetched and unintelligible, outlandish tale which takes an awfully long time to suspend the viewer's disbelief (and cringing), to finally arrive at a tepid plot after about an hour or so.
In hindsight, it makes perfect sense that Nolan's 'tightest' film is Memento, a dis-cognitive story told from the point of view of a man who is unable to string two events together, or to remember where he started.
Interstellar is not an intelligent picture, but a pseudo-intelligent one. It seems designed to appeal to the sort of audience who loves to be flattered with cheap shots - a sort of space odyssey version of "who wants to be a millionaire?" Its success resting entirely on the fact that every member of the audience gets to feel superior. To whom? No one knows. This technique seems to be trending within the Nolan's filmography.
For the rest, the picture is a narrative mess that trivializes space travel on a galactic scale, (black hole, wormhole, same difference,) and is often plagued by ridiculous star-studded cameos that shatter the viewer's concentration by landing in the middle of tense emotional scenes like a cockroach in your soup.
The film is oddly timed with elliptical cuts that compress the action into some often confusing edits, and only leave in lieu of dialog some awful scenes of trite, contrived exposition, filled with emetic pseudo physics, sure to give an immature modern audience raised on Batman a sense that they are building their cultural ego by agreeing with this farce. Worst of all, it feels long and never ending.
Sadly, good science fiction is hard to come by, harder than a good ordinary film even, and although this picture is somewhat entertaining, it fades away from the heart and mind, like the flickering green of the traffic light we just passed, as we head home from the cinema, once more. | 1 |
Don't bother.
Starts off great but soon dwindled down to fragmented illogical Americanism.
Let' skip this one. | 1 |
After viewing this movie I thought, what was wrong with it? When it got to about 10 minutes of thinking I realized that this was a hopeless effort.
Honestly, if you can't give this film a 10 out of 10, what other movie deserves one? This film is the perfect mix of comedy, drama, romance, some of the best storytelling I've ever seen, and even some surprise action scenes! And what's best, it's universal. I'm sure some would avoid this film simply because it's Korean - but that's where you'd make a mistake.
This film makes sense to anyone who's a teenager or has been one (recently.) Both college students, the clumsy, laid back Gyeon-woo and "The Girl", a whimsical tomcat, make for one interesting couple for the main characters. And everything that they encounter throughout the film magically comes together in the end, and it's truly heartwarming. You'll laugh, you'll cry, no matter who you are. I guarantee it. It couldn't be any better! | 10 |
I'd never heard of Hannibal before, but I was a huge fan of the books and the movies (well Silence of the Lambs and Manhunter), so I decided to give it a try and I was blown away. This show has a very Kubrickian feel to it, meaning that not only are there a lot of references to his films, but they film the show in such a beautiful way that everything has a deeper meaning. What you see on screen is not always cohesive with what you hear the characters saying. It's a total mind-game, and it requires you to think about everything you see. I do have to admit, it is a little gory at times but if you follow the story as much as I do you realize that the gore is portrayed in a way that makes it art. Hannibal Lecter sees things that us mere mortals consider horrible, as beautiful and gorgeous. The way they film the show, gives credit to that. The blood and the death is romanticized in such a way that allows the audience to question where their sympathy lies. Is it okay to sympathize with Hannibal? Is it okay to feel sorry for him? If you haven't seen the show, the answer may come easy to you. He's a cannibal so yes. He is a terrible person and deserves to be thrown in jail. However, you may think differently after watching the mesmerizing performance of Mads Mikkelsen as he attempts to befriend Will Graham (Hugh Dancy), and discover some friendship in the lonely life of Dr. Hannibal Lecter. | 10 |
Consider myself a fan of Marvel movies, watched the first episode and wasn't expecting much to be honest. Glad to say I was happily proven wrong in my apprehension about this TV show. Enjoyed both the story line and action thoroughly.
Haven't watched or planned to watch wanda vision, but now I probably will because I was so impressed by this. | 8 |
I cannot understand why this sequel got actually a rating of 7.5. I mean there isn't really a hot story behind. I saw it in rates on different evenings when I didn't have anything interesting to do. Just to explain you that you won't miss anything when you would skip this movie. I found the first one much better. Read my review. It's all said. 4/10 | 4 |
A boring movie about boring people acting bored and being bored and boring the audience. A few good lines in the movie where one might crack a subconscious smile, but not a real smile, certainly not a giggle. There is no action, just Bill Murray playing Bill Murray, moping around Tokyo, boring everybody he meets. Scarlett Johanson sitting around looking bored. This is the worst movie I've seen since Neighbors. Anyone who watches this movie will sit there thinking, hoping, that eventually something will happen, that there will be a laugh, or something, anything, will happen to break the slow motion dragging along, wondering if they should get up and leave now or have faith that maybe something is going to happen, but it never does. If theaters gave refunds when people were dissatisfied with a movie, this turkey would have been dropped like a hot potato the third day out. I have lost all faith in critics. I guess they think this movie was deeeeep. | 1 |
Truly awesome comedy with heart warming story line. This was one of the funniest movies ever and I would rank it as good as the first Hangover. The actors they chose are beyond perfect for the parts. Ryan Reynolds and Jason Bateman are beyond awesome together, one as the lazy, partying single bachelor and son of a wealthy father and the other married to a perceived nice wife and two great infant children working as a lawyer. It is great to see with other guys that have been or are married as they can relate! A must see and I bought it on Blu-Ray for future viewing when I need some good laughs! It is not suitable for children as there are some serious sex scenes and strong language.
Wayne Gorsek | 10 |
It's a very competent high fantasy show. If you don't know the source material, you'll still get a kick out of it if you're fan of the genre. If you liked GoT, you'll probably like this one. The fantasy elements are are much more pronounced, but ultimately the characters, the moral choices they make and what they go though is what really drives the show.
The CGI is a bit lacking at times, this will certainly improve. The action is splendid.
People find the timeline confusing, to which I respond... WTF? In some scenes it's irrelevant when it takes place, in others, when you see characters who previously died, so it's kinda obvious that, "oh, that's from before", in other cases it's revealed by context, but even if you miss it, it's not that relevant. You don't have to constantly keep track of it. If you watch it till the end, it reveals itself, and it gives a little rewatching value to the season.
This season is sorta episodic to build the world of The Witcher and its characters, and jumping back and forth in time serves that.
I think in time people will appreciate this more, and praise the artistic decision not to hold your hand with title cards like "10 years later". I found it part of the fun that the timelines slowly converge in the end. It also helps to draw out the backstory of younger characters this season.
If this still isn't your cup of tea, everything will be in one timeline next season where the "real" story begins. | 9 |
This film could be entertaining if you leave science and logic outside the room/cinema. The script/plot is certainly a fiasco considering any science graduate with sane mind.
Unlike many other SF movies, this one had a theoretical physicist as the part of the production/direction team. And the result is a movie that absolutely denies the knowledge of human biology and astronautical engineering. | 1 |
"The human whose name is written in this note shall die."
Light believes that the world is rotten, and so vows to create a world without evil, using his 'Death Note'. The mood of the series is dark, and it follows the chilling battle of wits between Light, and a detective known only as 'L'. The sheer brilliance of both characters creates a mind game that will have you shaking with excitement as strategies and plans unfold.
The show also challenges ideals/moral values and you'll have to think hard about your idea of justice as you pick a side- or are unable to.
The only negative I can think of is that it felt forced after around 3/4 of the way through, but don't let that stop you from watching- it truly is an incredible series.
Notes: Watch with subtitles- the English voice acting simply isn't as good as the original Japanese.
It's very important to watch the first 2 episodes. I can almost guarantee you'll be hooked.
*The Verdict* Death Note is a dark psychological thriller and you will enjoy watching characters make impossible deductions and work their way out of impossible situations. By far one of my favorite series, I absolutely recommend Death Note as a must see. | 9 |
The story has many different plots, while watching it feels like watching 2-3 different series, but they get seamlessly merged to one plot. Each character and plot of the story is interesting.
Only Nancy's character should decide whether to stay with Jonathan or.other guy. That character seems confusing, I think writer was confused while writing that character.
Some characters in the story come and go, like it was mistakenly added, that could be avoided while directing.
Bob's character, Nacy's mother attraction toward Willy was unnecessarily added.
But overall it is amazing series.
Season one and 4th was most interesting! | 8 |
If you, like me, didn't watch Agents of Shield, read the recent comics or watch and read all the other extended content Marvel throws at you, the first hour of this movie is going to be boring and confusing. It doesn't really pull you into the story (if any) either.
We get a movie with a boring political premise, after that, characters and heroes we've come to love over a couple of movies suddenly go haywire. Characters we've seen bonding over several movies, been through almost 326 apocalypses and were ready to die for each other 47 times suddenly hate each other. Why? Because politicians divide them. Or something, I'm still not quite sure.
Then popcorn time starts. Special effects splatter the screen in a fantastic manner, the colors in this movie are simply awesome. We gaze at superheroes clashing it out and it simply looks extremely good. Black Panther does some awesome stuff, some talking, more fighting. Fighting. Fighting. And eventually it ends. The movie is 3,5 hours, but feels a solid 5.
If you forget the story (which is easily done) this is a visually stunning movie. Too bad that's all it is. | 6 |
Talk about timing. In the news as I watch this film was this: "A large hoard of cash has been found at the home of Sudan's ousted president Omar al-Bashir ...". India faces a similar problem in tax avoidance by conducting business in cash & hoarding it so that it can't be reported to the government. A couple of years ago India removed two lower currency notes (over 80% of transactions) because of tax avoidance. This film dramatizes & compiles into one raid some true past tax avoidance schemes. Now if only we could do the same in America corralling the wealthiest who use lobbyists, politicians (especially one notable politician famous for tax avoidance), tax shelters (especially unreported overseas), and deductions all resulting in wealthy individuals & corporations paying relatively/nearly nothing (or even nothing) for years. Addendum 5/8/19: Trump paid taxes for only two years between 1985-1994. | 9 |
The story of avatar is actually a copy of last samurai, but last samurai was a lot better in terms of character development and story. While avatar is highly overrated by critics and fanboys by its seems to be stunning cgi and story, actually it's quite unconvincing in most aspects. While the CG backgrounds and actions was great at the time, the aliens are too unrealistic and rubber plastic. The character's decisions are as well quite unconvincing and lack of emotion due to immature facial expressions, with mind blending pseudo science crap that couldn't even convince a student. Also waging war against an alien settlement and to exterminate them for some silly resource is just flimsy, since the cost would be much even higher, which also brings much moral issues that is unreasonable to execute in today's standard. Avatar is another highly overrated movie by james cameron besides titanic, and the movie's has an extremely predictable ending. | 4 |
Jason Segel plays Peter a somewhat lazy musician who specializes in scoring tv shows. He's dating actress Sarah Marshall played by Kirsten Bell. Right in the beginning of the movie, she dumps him causing Peter to drop his towel and to show all of his goodies. I almost pee'd on myself from laughing so hard.
Peter is heartbroken so he heads to Hawaii to get away but guess who is there? That's right Sarah Marshall and she's there with the guy she cheated on him with, rock star Aldous Snow (Russel Brand). Mila Kunis plays a front desk clerk that feels bad for Peter, gets him a great suite and tries to help get him out of his funk. Funny stuff happens from here, Mila Kunis and Peter fall in love and there is a very weird puppet show at the end.
It's a predictable Rom-Com in a lot of ways, has a decent amount of laughs but is too long. | 6 |
Loki is one of the most charismatic and memorable characters in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Several appearances of the God of Deception in Kevin Feige's projects allowed the character to fully reveal himself, turn from a villain into a kind of antihero who clings with charisma, smile and actions. In my opinion, Alexander Gavrilin's dubbing played an important role for the Russian-speaking space. The voice of the actor is now firmly associated with me and many with the character of Tom Hiddleston.
Another wild twist in the plot of the fourth "Avengers" led to the fact that Loki (another Loki) found himself in completely new circumstances for himself. These circumstances are also becoming new for the audience. Managing temporary changes, jumping back and forth along the timeline, deleting Options - all this is new to viewers. However, the undoubted merit of this series is that it competently tells and shows what all these events are. It is the format of the series that makes it possible to fully get acquainted with the new rules for the already familiar universe of superheroes. This is being done gradually and without any kind of race, which would necessarily be if this project became a separate film, and not a TV series.
There is a decent and at the same time unusual picture on the screen. The audience is presented with a mixture of styles: futurism and retro. It turns out to be interesting, unusual, and the presented world is qualitatively worked out. This approach of the creators has always been inherent in Marvel. It's nice to see created worlds as if they really exist.
"Loki" clearly demonstrates that the format of the series does not affect the entertainment of the project in any way. The series look cheerful, the visual component and special effects are at a decent level. Everything presented is in no way inferior to the studio's full-length projects.
The Marvel project is located at the start of the opening for the audience of its next phase, which concerns the multiverse. This is an important puzzle in the general view of future events that will unfold later. However, it is here that viewers are presented with the laws by which this multiverse develops and lives, the possible consequences of interaction with it and the future dangers that can break out.
I have to thank Tom Hiddleston. He plays Loki, but completely different. After all, this character of the series is a different version of the Loki that we have seen before. Here the main character has not been able to reconcile with his brother, to do a bunch of other things that we have already seen in past films. The hero develops in a different way. And Tom's game shows that Loki can be different. On the other hand, perhaps this rapid transformation has its drawbacks. Viewers see the awareness of the actions of the alternate God of deception by this Loki. All this seems to change the hero in an instant, what we see here and now. It seems that this cannot be the case. Such a "jerk" is being made to please the script. But there's no getting away from it.
Minor characters look decent. Sylvia performed by Sophie Di Martino and Mobius performed by Owen Wilson stand out in particular. Everyone is good in their own way and plays an important role in the transformation of Loki.
The events of the series are twisted well. There is an intrigue that will be with us until the very end credits, there are a lot of references that Marvel loves so much, there are also a lot of questions about how the sequel will come out.
"Loki" is undoubtedly an important project of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It needs to be seen as an independent project. He is interesting, fresh, watchable. However, this is also a kind of starting chapter of a new phase of the Cinematic Universe, in which you will have to face many important things, learn more about the multiverse.
8 out of 10. | 8 |
Bad story. Bad acting, terrible accent, want a spy female kick ass movie watch something else | 2 |
It is very complex to fall in love with a character who is not lovable whose only talent is the cult of stupidity. We are in a movie where animals interact with each other in a civilized way and where they are so liberal as to consider it acceptable that a bird be considered the father of a panda bear. Added to that is an invitation to disbelief when you must give way to a story where the weakest character is the protagonist. The plot is an invitation to forgive unsustainable ideas such as "you can always be whatever comes to mind if luck is on your side" or "if there are feelings everything is acceptable". It is not a happy film for children and for adults it is a guarantee of suffering. | 2 |
Although most movie sequels never equal the original this is certainly not the case of The Godfather: Part II. Many would argue it surpasses the original. With both films declared the Best Picture by the Motion Picture Academy in their separate years, I'd hate to argue the difference.
In this case we should thank the executives at Paramount for retaining both director Francis Ford Coppola and the original The Godfather author Mario Puzo to put their talents to this film. I'd hate to think what would have happened in other hands. Certainly these two men knew their characters and knew how to expand on them. And the best thing about The Godfather: Part II is that one can pick up the story, at least the modern portion of this one without reference to the original. In fact viewing this film will give you a burning passion to see the first.
Unlike The Godfather and The Godfather: Part III, this film runs on two parallel tracks. The modern story is a continuation of Al Pacino as Michael Corleone now residing on the shores of Lake Tahoe and now directing the family affairs from Nevada where the Corleone family is heavily into gambling as we well know organized crime was back in those days of the Fifties and Sixties. He's going into partnership with Lee Strassberg playing Hyman Roth, a thinly veiled portrait of Meyer Lansky. But there are a lot of things making Pacino hesitant about this move into Cuba under the Battista dictatorship.
The prequel parallel story is how young Vito Corleone came to this country as an orphan and worked his way up to establish himself as a crime boss. Here Coppola does a brilliant job in capturing the flavor of pre-World War I New York in the Italian ghetto. Robert DeNiro is young Vito Corleone and won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar. Remarkable when you consider that two of his rivals were Lee Strassberg from this film and Michael V. Gazzo playing Frankie Pantangeli from this film as well, the Mafia kingpin turned Senate witness modeled on Joe Valachi. DeNiro and Marlon Brando have the unique distinction as players of winning an Oscar for playing the same role.
The woman do better in this film as in the original. Talia Shire got an Oscar nomination in the Supporting Actress category as Connie Corleone Rizzi. You remember her husband betrays the family and is killed in the original. She now is a drunken dependent on Pacino. Diane Keaton's character of Kay Adams Corleone is expanded here as well. She's a cultural outsider and the Sicilian vendetta code that she's expected to approve without comment becomes too much to bare. Her scene with Pacino when she tells him she's leaving him is one of the best for both in their respective careers.
Overlooked unfortunately at award time was John Cazale as Fredo Corleone. He's the middle son who's passed over for succession after eldest son James Caan is killed in The Godfather. Fredo's big moment in The Godfather is being unable to fire his weapon in defense of his father being shot and how he breaks down.
Fredo's got feelings as John Cazale dramatically points out. He does something really stupid in this film and it costs him dear. Cazale has some of the best moments in this film.
If the first Godfather film doesn't do it, The Godfather: Part II will have you permanently hooked on the inner workings and dynamics of the Corleone family both in the criminal and personal sense. | 10 |
I only know a little background of the show from interviews with the 2 stars promoting it. The way first show starts you have no clue what its about nor after. Are these two married ? One is an android the other appears to be human. Where are they heading. Why are they together? A million ques and no answers. | 8 |
I thought this film was enjoyable and kept you guessing in parts. I think Jennifer payed a good part. All is revealed at the very end. I just think that some people are never pleased even if the movie of the decade was reviewed and 99% of people gave it a ten you will always get that 1% who are never happy and leave bad reviews for the hell of it. | 9 |
Having been away on holidays I went to see Ready Player One without knowing anything at all about the movie. There was one thing which totally surprised me about the movie. At the end as the credits played was shocked to see "Directed by Steven Spielberg" flash on the screen. I really couldn't believe I'd just watched a movie by Spielberg.
Ready Player One is the story of life in the 2040's where people tend to shun the struggles of real life in favour of playing a virtual game the Oasis. Anyway the creator of the game as left some easter eggs in the game which need solving to gain access to a great fortune. Most of the movie is played out in the virtual world and Parzival is the online persona of Wade. He makes allegiances with various players including Art3mis. In common with lots of movies of this type you never really get much empathy with any of the characters. The plot is secondary to the visual effects, but they don't really have much impact as you don't really care less who triumphs in the game.
To be honest still haven't really gotten over the shock of Spielberg directing this. There is one thing for sure ... You can no longer rely on his name being involved with good movies. | 4 |
Started off with potential and ended with a great speech - but the the rest of the plot in the middle was yuck.
Looks like it was written by a collaboration between 1970s Disney hacks and I really don't know who. What were they thinking. They had a chance to contemporize the plot in a more realistic fashion and completely lost it in its translation into the script.
By way of comparison, examples of two movies on minimal budgets that have caught the spirit of the underdog in very different ways and relevant to our times were Minari and Nomadland.
Over the last years the world, except for US Republican voters, has dramatically changed. Unless they become more relevant to the times, this franchise will go nowhere. | 4 |
I have vague memories of the old series. I also may be one of the few people who enjoyed the 1998 movie. I found this series to be interesting to watch, however the Universe seems to be populated by people who make stupid decisions.
Without getting into spoilers, the characters are going to be different from the past iterations. West is not military (and really my biggest complaint about the series is how he is treated), the Robinsons are not the perfect family, Will is still bright, but not the usual prodigy. On the plus side,we get some better rounded female characters who are not just add-ons.
Dr. Smith is still Dr. Smith, however a darker version than the original one. One of my favorite lines from the movie "Evil knows evil" would fit this new version very well. And the infamous robot - completely different from before.
And Debbie even makes an appearance, albeit very different from the original and 1998 version.
Overall they seem to have modernized the original concept, added some family tension which fits more with today's society, removed some of the humor and light heartedness, and planted them on a planet where if something can go wrong, it will. If you remember how many disaster movies came out in the 1990's, this planet may have been the inspiration.
I'm not the best judge of acting, but I liked Molly Parker a lot in this, found the kids did a good job, as did most of the cast. Toby Stephens reminded me of John C. McGinley, so I didn't see John Robinson as much as I did Dr. Cox from Scrubs, but I really did like the way he handled the role of basically a shunned father.
If you're looking to see the original series redone with new fx and in color, you're not going to like this. If you remotely liked the 1998 film, you'll probably like this. If you don't mind some stupid decisions made by characters (and writers included) and can just enjoy something, this makes for a great weekend binge. | 7 |
This was my first visit to a 3D cinema and I am sorry to say the film was a major disappointment. The 3D in Gravity is great, but it does not carry the film nor make it worth paying to see. I feel I've been tricked by the critics, who either saw a different film, or have a hidden agenda.
Gravity has very few characters and they're exceedingly shallow, especially Clooney with his ridiculous chirpy optimism, totally unrealistic lack of fear and preoccupation with mildly sexual references. His only role is to help the main female protagonist survive a series of very similar obstacles put in her way.
I got the feeling that the goal of the filmmaker was to simply get the message across that "women make as good astronauts as men", while hoping that hype alone would bring in viewers and thereby negate the need for any discernible plot, dialogue or audience engagement.
The "no no no no" line Bullock repeats ad nausium (which is taken from Prometheus) as well as painfully obvious and patronising references to 'our frailty and dependence on earth' etc etc, only highlight Gravity's derivative nature.
This film is the end product of a huge hype exercise, it is just 3D special effects with a thin plot and an undercurrent of social and environmental messages, dare I say even propaganda. Its been done since the 1960s and rehashing it, not even very well, is just boring.
I saw people secretly looking at their watches in the theatre after about an hour.
Film of the Year? You've got to be joking!! | 1 |
I just love the feel the tempo and the actors , and the CGI omg I've watch dreams come to reality Kudos to Marvel Disney , and the Actors . A treat to old and new fans along with the previous 2 shows and more to come in the time line I am excited. | 9 |
I think the cast did a great job bringing their characters to life despite a terrible script that is a ghost of the material it came from. Henry Cavill is Geralt. Geralt is The Witcher. I won't watch without him in the role. If Netflix had any sense they would make him producer and bring his creative approach into the mix. To dismiss someone for being a true fan and for standing up for what fellow fans want (which is to give us the stories we fell in love with and writing that isn't cringe)...it's disrespectful and the platforms that promote these money grabbing productions should not have been given the rights to use widely loved source material. Hemsworth will unfortunately drown in the backlash from this careless and arrogant decision. Shame on Netflix for consistently ruining well loved series. Still have not forgiven them for Sabrina. | 6 |
I don't know where to begin. The movie was simply very bad. Watched an hr and gave up, I seriously doubt it got aby better in the remaining 1 hr. shaky camera, constant and confusing editing cuts.Plot is very thin. just skip it | 1 |
The soundtrack on this film is so loud that it is physically painful. People with me said that their chairs were rocking at certain points. I put my fingers in my ears and after I left the theatre, my ears were ringing. I happen to carry a sound meter with me and it constantly was registering 90+ decibels -- that is power tool level.
As someone else commented, an aircraft cannot fly without fly, the one in this film glided around during daylight and ended landing in the dark -- ridiculous. This is not a film that is anything other than painfully noisy. Don't waste your money. | 1 |
The best written tv series ever made so far, its not perfect but allmost, its a very simple story about good fighting evil but it has everything u need, love, hate, sadness, wisdom and humor. The heart o the series are the characters, each character has an own arc and these arcs are essential to the storyline, its on the characters in which direction the story envolves, every decission has a noticible impact on the plot future. The major reason this show is good is because its for both kids and adults any age, and the reason for that is that the characters, even if they are kids,they are written like adults, they have dialogues like kids and act also like kids, but the situations they are confronted with and their reactions to them are very mature, u could easly cut off the goofy humor out and make the protagonists adult and make a live action and it would be still the same quality. | 10 |
I was a huge fan of the book and was very excited to see the film adaptation. Boy was I disappointed. The plot and story changes were horrible and the entire movie was dumbed down for the mass audience appeal that I am sure the studio demanded. The more I think about it, the angrier I get. They should have made this a trilogy if they really wanted to make some money. At least then they could have included more of the pop culture references and backstories of the characters. If you have only seen the movie and not read the book, do yourself a favor and read it. It is infinitely better than the movie. | 6 |
I feel like everybody saw this coming, if Disney was remaking all their classic movies, then The Lion King had to be one of them. Just like all the other live-action remakes, this movie is really not good, and should've stayed as an animation because some things just work in an animated movie that don't in a live-action one. I do have a few good things to say though, the battles and fights in this movie are much better in this movie, because it's a lot more intense and raises the stakes by being realistic. The final showdown in this movie is one of few scenes that I really enjoyed. Donald Glover, Seth Rogen, and Billy Eichner in specific really had their performances stand out throughout their scenes in the film. Pumbaa and Timon being easily the best part of it. Now onto the main issues. Throughout it's entirety, there aren't any facial emotions or expressions because it tries to be so realistic, and that's what I mean when I say some things are just meant to be left in animation. It's something that bothered me throughout the whole film because it makes scenes so underwhelming and makes things so emotionless. The main issue is that the film is a direct copy of just about everything from the original, just without emotions and expressions. Some scenes being missing and others just brought down due to how realistic the movie tries to be. One thing in specific that really stood out is that the film was not formatted to 16:9 in my showing and the actual movie was like watching YouTube without zoomed to fill, it was just annoying and took so much away from the immersion. It's probably not an issue for IMAX but definitely is for normal viewings. The scene with the song "Can You Feel The Love Tonight?" was sung and presented in daytime, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I will say that the work they've been able to do with the realism is great, but just makes the movie feel like a test demo or something like that, due to not bringing anything new to the table. | 4 |
'12 Years a Slave' is a film I never wanted to see. Now that I've watched it, I never want to see it again.
I hated this film almost as much as 'Django Unchained'. Not because it's a bad film. On the contrary, its very well made with fantastic performances. I hated it from an entertainment perspective, though, as there literally was not a single scene in this movie I enjoyed. Films like this should not be made anymore, as it stirs hatred. I hate racism. I'm a white man and I hate the white people responsible for these inhumane deeds from time gone by. It's disgusting. The mere thought of these accounts send shivers down my spine. These (black) people were referred to "property" as opposed to human beings, and they were treated like filth. I can fully understand the importance (mostly for black people) for the story to be told, but it doesn't mean I appreciate these kind of films. The film is filled with scenes of abuse, fighting and hate, and was depressing from beginning to end.
Chiwetel Ejiofor stars as Solomon Northup, a musician who was tricked into believing he was to showcase his musical talent in a circus. Instead, he was sold as a slave. Based on fact, this is the disturbing reality of what happened so many years ago. Slavery has been around for thousands of years, and is one of the most inhumane deeds humanity made themselves guilty of.
The performances are excellent, and - as mentioned - this is a very good production, but honestly I never want to see it again and somehow wish I'd rather not have watched it. Based on production value, the film deserves a high rating and the universal acclaim it received, but from an entertainment value (for me) this was 2/10. I'm sorry, but I hated it. | 2 |
The show has a good story but it sold horrible through bad writing filled with chiches. The plot in many places hinges on characters doing abnormal things that nobody would ever do, for the sake of the plot. A lot of the dialogue in many places makes no sense. It seems as if it was written by someone who didn't care about how people actually talk but rather just wanted to carry the story along.
All of this makes it very hard to relate to the characters and makes the show less enjoyable and makes you very annoyed at what you're watching as a lot of the conflict can very easily be solved by one or two rational decisions. | 6 |
Just won Oscars cz concept was new, but this itself doesn't make it a better movie than Joker. Over hyped, Mediocre and people reviewing it in mob mentality. Nothing against Korean movies. | 5 |
The first season was awesome but the second season is extremely disappointing and the biggest heap of garbage in the history of television. The writers need to be fired. | 1 |
The first season and half of the second season were good... Then it just got awful. Season three was hard to watch. The "Viktor" part was ridiculous and not needed. Don't waste your time. | 5 |
Absolutely overrated. Too bad that i lost 2 hours of my life watching this film | 4 |
Promising start, rapidly falls into a house prison for the viewer. Whole budget must have gone to a small explosion and Johanson's paycheck. Can't believe the director got paid for that and already discourages any consideration of watching his future Star wars movie. There was some certain potential, but movie felt cheap and not worth of a cinema ticket or my time. I walked out in the middle and went to watch Curon series which was more interesting | 2 |
Shockingly poor story line and dismal character interactions. If the pull was purely the visual art (let's not worry about story), then just produce an instrumental, dialogue free film displaying the art. The failure of the characters' verbals distracted from what I presume took so long to produce. The core values of the world and spirit of the first film are lost, or just brushed over. I wanted to enjoy the film but it was not possible, it was laughably bad at times. Avatar was a 10, the way of the water was a 2. (Avatar Flight of Passage in Disney was a life time experience, this just frustrated) | 2 |
I dunno who did this kinda suicidal choreography. But he should have judge the environment of Bangladesh.We, the Bangladeshi people don't talk in that accent that you showed in the movie, our culture and environment is as good as of other developed countries. We have so many beautiful sites and natural beauty. Moreover our transportation system in much advanced. We don't play stupid Indian songs and musics. We have our own culture. I'm not gonna argue about your scripts. But how you showed our defense, our culture, our people, our people's dresses, our traditions, in one word our country does not represent us. It represents West Bengal's (India). | 1 |
The Martian is the heavily-hyped movie based on the novel by Andy Weir about a man who is presumed dead during a storm on Mars and left to survive completely alone on the planet until he can be rescued. Due to the incredibly high amount of praise this movie received and my own interest in the idea itself, I, naturally, had some expectations. Unfortunately they really weren't satisfied all that well.
The plot of The Martian is one that I like, but it's not one that we haven't already seen in 2015. It felt relatively similar to The Revenant, and while both movies are based off of books that I assume came out with a fair amount of time in between, I just think that maybe the timing wasn't super great. Now we've got two critically- acclaimed movies about people being left in a desolate location by their peers to survive on their own. Only The Revenant is more revenge-driven and The Martian is much more light-hearted. Anyways, The Martian's plot was, while a good idea, presented in an extremely predictable way. There was never a single moment of real, genuine tension, because it was blatantly obvious how the movie would end. It was too light-hearted to go in the way that I hoped, which was down a much darker, less fortunate path, and that's just fine. There's nothing particularly wrong with that but it just adds another layer to the already high stack of predictability in this movie. Furthermore, this movie felt like it was introducing certain conflicts for the sake of an extended run time. A lot of the problems that the characters have didn't affect the movie at all. Something happens, it gets fixed almost immediately, and then everything goes back to normal as if nothing ever happened. Maybe it's just me, but I felt like a lot of this movie's conflicts were just filler over actual plot driving- scenes. Nevertheless, I thought that it was paced relatively well, and I only started to get bored more towards the end when I realized that I knew exactly what was going to happen.
The characters were alright as well. None of them are developed particularly well, but then again I didn't even know who most of them were by the end of the movie. I recognized their faces, and I think that that's the important bit. But even Mark Watney himself wasn't super great. Yeah sure, he had his moments. But his character wasn't particularly original. It seemed like the majority of his team was almost an exact replica of him, only they didn't demonstrate as much anger as he did. Which I guess makes Watney a bit more realistic as a character, considering he goes deeper than just humor, but then it only goes down to humor and anger. Other characters, particularly Donald Glover's character, were blatantly built around clichés that have been so used to death that in a movie like this it really doesn't work. Basically I didn't think that the characters were super well- developed, but it's not like I didn't care enough about them not to see where the plot took them. They were averagely well developed at best.
The visuals were pretty good. While it was a lot of the same, that's probably what Mars is like. Just a lot of the same. Nevertheless, it was pretty to look at for sure, and I'm certainly happy that I decided to watch this movie on a television screen over a small computer screen.
Overall The Martian is just a decent movie. It's not great if you ask me, but it's not like it wasn't worth my time. While it was a little overlong, and it certainly did wear out it's welcome by the 2-hour mark, I still think that it was good. The plot is interesting but extremely predictable, the characters are average, and the visuals are great. Will I watch this movie again? I highly doubt it. I think that I'd probably end up hating it if I did that. In the end I'd recommend this movie, as I'm sure that you'll love it more than I did. | 5 |
Like good science fiction does, Black Mirror showed us a view of our future. A future of great technological advancement, but with diminished purpose and meaning. Right out of the gate, BM was brilliant and daring. It might have been the first television show that warned us of the dangers of modern technology.
The problem is now, that the technology that BM predicted has basically come true and passed BM by. So season 6 really has nothing new to say, and what's more the stories it tells are pretty boring. I was not thrilled with season 5. I felt the showing was getting too cute, and that it had lost its edge. So 4 years later, season 6 finally arrived, and it's just not good at all. I was so curious, that I immediately watched episodes from season 1-2, and yes our memory is correct, the show used to be brilliant and innovative. Season 6 feels like the CW has tried to do a copy of Black Mirror.
My only hope is that in the last 4 years, Booker has written some film scripts or has another show in the works, because BM seems like it is over. | 1 |
Well that was terrible, I'm truly disappointed, the first Annabelle was middling to be generous, but definitely watchable, the second in my opinion hit all the marks for me, a real treat, the third however is basically a feature length episode of Are You Afraid of the Dark (yes the old Nickelodeon show) I'm stopping the review here as there is nothing else to add sadly. | 2 |
Then don't waste another minute, go BINGE WATCH that son of a mother! Its riddled with it! Also the characters are generic and void of anything interesting. It took a story boiled it with the usual formula and guess what ? It came out even more diluted than the previous generic show! But do not worry, seeing as people are dumb enough to watch grays anatomy for 12 seasons, this has a big chance of continuing for years as well! As long as there are idiots who will eat anything they are served, we shall keep getting our well deserved generic diluted fastfood shows and movies! What are you doing? Still reading this?! Go watch you silly! | 1 |
This is a really great show. I think Selena Gomez is really good in it. Martin and Martin are great as usual. This is well written and keeps you interested. I do not find it funny tho. At least not yet. | 10 |
I never thought the trio containing two famous comedians, i.e. Steve Martin and Martin Short, and Selena Gomez is one of the things I needed in this world! I've watched some mystery and crime movies and series and I found Only Murders in the Building truly fascinating. It's fresh. The concept, the comedy, the way they portrayed the city of New York and its occupants. It's a must watch! | 10 |
Yet another trite marvel movie overly pushing "the message" This is boiler plate movie fodder designed for the lowest common denominator.
Lazy writing, confusing narrative, and overuse of CGI. | 3 |
We're introduced to the Axe Gang, a mass army of suited henchmen who command sway over the hotspots of 1920s China, with a brutal slaying worthy of Scorsese. They summarily break off into a choreographed dance routine over the opening credits, and it's clear that we're back in Stephen Chow's world. In the provincial towns, a burly landlady screams at her tenants with such force the ground shudders and the windows smash. An Axe Gang leader is given a bad hairstyle by one of the town's folk, and soon the whole village is under attack. Sing (Chow) wants to be an Axe because 'being a bad guy is cool'; he helps the protagonists get the 'Beast' out of a mental asylum so he can defeat the screaming landlady and her dithering spouse in kung fu combat. Chow's inspiration is as much Western as it is Eastern, with obligatory Bruce Lee parodies in tow alongside brilliant takes on Gangs of New York and The Matrix. The madcap surrealism of Shaolin Soccer is at the film's heart, but the greater scale of this production (partly financed by American money) dictates a much more polished, accomplished piece: Chow's maturity as a director has blossomed, the sets/costumes/characters are vividly imaginative, while the pace of the humour is expertly complimented by a much more sinister, darker overtone, something Chow seems to have embraced full heartedly. While Chow the comedian has never looked better; with a heavy endorsement of CGI responsible for the more irreverent comedy, Chow's performance sees him fine-tune his Chaplinesque timing, cuddly dexterity and Bruce Lee intensity to absolute perfection, underlining the fact that if Hong Kong comedy has any future at all, its firmly up to the fate of Stephen Chow. This is a delightful kung fu romp. If you don't find something to love about this movie then you should check if you're still breathing. | 9 |
While the visual effects were incredible and the memes coming out of this movie were entertaining, I don't think marvel really put too much work into this ending. I went into this movie interested in watching mcu movies and came out completely against them. Probably will never see an mcu movie again. | 2 |
Engaging story. Good character development. Highly suggested. | 9 |
I want my 2 hours back, this 100% waste of time. I don't understand nothing | 3 |
Its the best M.C.U movie ever created. Russo Brothers have done it once again. Properly interwoven which has ultimately resulted in a visual as well as intellectual wonder.To sum up, it's a MUST WATCH. It was the one of the best in the Avengers franchise. I can't wait for Doctor Strange, Infinity War 'cause it will set up a new world for the M.C.U. According to me, the movie should have been released only in 2D & IMAX. Other than a few popping-out-of-the-screen moments, the 3D does not add a lot to it. But once again I will recommend you fans from MARVEL as well as DC that it is one of the best superhero movie ever made.
N.B:- Deadpool is some other thing, don't compare with it. | 8 |
While the story line is good, the majority of the characters are terrible. They are annoying, it's almost like the writers wanted the viewer to hate most of the characters. The graphics aren't bad at all, so for me personally the show in general is half hate, half enjoyable. The chicken made me smile at least! | 8 |
I'm the type of guy who usually loves this type of sci-fi movie with far-out concepts, especially if it involves dreams. After finally being able to watch Inception, I must admit I fall somewhere "in-between" in my appreciation of this film. In-between best movie ever and horrible illogical mess but strongly leaning towards the positive side. The trailer, for once, doesn't tell you much but certainly wets your appetite. Avoiding spoilers, "Inception" refers to the concept of planting an idea deep into the subconscious of a person through dreams. A team of specialists usually extract secret informations from minds but doing an "inception" is much riskier because apparently people always know where they get their ideas from (really ?!). While the "architect" of the team builds a believable landscape (so the dreamer doesn't notice he's dreaming), the others infiltrate and try to influence the dreamer for their own purposes. You would expect flights of fancy and crazy visuals from dreams but it's fairly restrained here (except for the training of a new architect and one of the ending dream layers with crumbling buildings). It is explained by the fact that the dream must remain realistic to the target otherwise projections of his subconscious will attack the intruders and/or he will realize he is dreaming.
So despite the fact I would have enjoyed more imagination in the dreamscapes (as hinted at in the wondrous architect's training), I understand why they were fairly normal. I could not help but feel a bit disappointed by that though. The action scenes were frenetic and exciting with particular praise going to the anti-gravity fight scene in the hotel. This is a great anthology moment if I ever saw one. Cinematographically, this is great with director Nolan going from spectacular bird's eye city views to closed-in face shots to show the emotions with a whole variety of angles between the extremes. The shooting is masterful. We're never really lost in the action except perhaps when the characters look too much alike in the snowy dream layer. Speaking of which, this part felt very much like a James Bond movie and I kept thinking the "hero" was too good to be true. Then again, we're in a dream and who knows how much training the operatives have... I was also bugged by the fact that rules were explained for the dream layers and yet some seemed to have been ignored. I know it's "dream logic" but if you intentionally explain them, mostly stick to them so we can continue suspending disbelief. An example of this is how the guy in the hotel is supposed to have 2 minutes left until something has to happen, yet if you combine his sequences (because it alternates between 3 different stories/dream layers at that point), it's way more than the time alloted. For more, see the list of goofs on the main IMDb page (after watching the movie).
Inception is praised as being complex and smart. Compared to the majority of other summer blockbusters, it certainly is. In the absolute though, I don't think it's the most brilliant or completely logically coherent movie out there. The base concept is better than the actual execution, which to be fair is pretty good. The interesting plot is certainly understandable for the majority of normal people so perhaps it makes them feel smart (therefore good about themselves). People who don't like it as much as they do, or point out logical flaws, are therefore not as "smart" as they are or simply "don't get it". It sometimes feels to me as if there was a mass "inception" (from peer pressure, the director's reputation or marketing?), planting the idea that this movie is amazing before even watching it and that if you're not totally enthusiastic about it, there's something wrong with you. I think people should be allowed to fall somewhere in-between. Enjoying it very much, recognizing its many qualities, but not seeing it as one of the best movies ever done (top 5 currently on IMDb is ridiculous). Why ? Because if you really think about it, I'm sure you've seen many movies that had a much more powerful emotional impact on you.
Rating : 7 out of 10 (very good) | 7 |
Fantastic Beasts, the first one, was good, not great, but it was a good watch and I enjoyed it. I particularly enjoyed the twist at the ending of the first film.
So when I heard that a sequel was being made that would focus on Grindelwald, I looked forward to it, hoping to see a conflict that took place that I always had an interest in seeing put to film.
Sadly, what we got was a romance love story that really trails off into a borefest. The pacing is wrong. The editing is a mess. The film itself is a mess. One of the few times that I wish they cut off at least a good 20-30 minutes off the time. 2 hours of this was just far too much.
The film has very few saving graces, but ultimately, the script, pacing and editing all combine into a really bad film. | 2 |
This is a well worn formula. Prize fighter over doing it. punch drunk. Daddy looses his baby daughter has to get her back. How many times can you write this story? But his name" "BILLY HOPE" are you kidding? Billy is always a victim name. Billy Budd, "Billy don't be a Hero" It was just too dreadful to see through. I think Jake Gyllenal is better than this. He gave a good performance, but a good actor needs a decent idea and a decent script to work, He mumbles his way through the performance; was that embarrassment at how awful the script was?
If you are a woman l(or gay) with the hots for Jake you might find this entertaining. | 2 |
I couldn't watch more than a half of this movie. Although the story is decent, acting is absolutely awful. After each scene I was wondering why is this movie so hyped and appreciated. I guess politics overrules talent and art. | 4 |
After reading on line that this was up for an Oscar and saw the many celebrities in the cast I was anxious to see this film. I think I laughed once during the entire film. Maybe I am dense or maybe I am the wrong nationally to enjoy this flick, but I just didn't get it. I actually fell asleep I was so bored. I was very disappointed as I love Ralph Fiennes but I felt this role was totally beneath him. Also the portrayal of a main character when he was older was totally off...confused me terribly. I did however enjoy the scenery thought it was beautifully done. Perhaps I should read the book and then I would understand exactly what was going on. Again it bored me, I was waiting for something exciting to happen and I felt as though it never did. | 3 |
I had high hopes for this movie. I have enjoyed most of the franchise immensely. This movie though, is very poor. The broad picture is one of a super computer, with the power to destroy humanity. Think Skynet. Most unoriginal. It's ability to predict the future has been done in movies many times. It's achilles heel is the same. It has the ability to be everywhere, all the time. Yet somehow, it's fate is tied to one piece of hardware. I would have expected far more originality for such a big production. On the small scale, the plot is littered with a way too many moments where suspending disbelief is the only way to get through. Everyone is an expert pickpocket. Accept all law enforcement personnel, who are totally incompetent. On the whole, a very predictable, unimaginative movie. The silliness of it all could have been softened with a bit of humour, but it takes itself way too seriously. I for one, won't be looking forward to the second installment. | 2 |
Subsets and Splits