Unnamed: 0
int64 22
574k
| text
stringlengths 50
9.87k
| label
int64 0
1
|
---|---|---|
435,643 | I saw this yesterday. I'm a HUGE fan of the stage musical. I was a little worried that the brilliant score would be shoved back for the shock effect of gore and outrageousness . Oh. My. God. I have never seen such a perfect translation of a stage musical to film. It flowed seamlessly. Every person was perfectly cast. It was a visual feast. It was stylized, keeping the "melodrama" aspect, but still managing to paint an emotional, poignant portrait of people so broken by circumstance that you know they cannot be fixed and yet you follow willingly into their insane world. I could have sat and watched it over again immediately. I will definitely be seeing it again, probably at least twice before it leaves the big screen. Hopefully your theater has state of the art sound, because every bit of this should be heard. If you are familiar with the musical, you do have to accept that The Ballad is there only musically, because it's purpose is as a device for theater, and, IMO also to in some ways alleviate the horror of the story. Here, you don't have that, nor do you need it. It's unapologetic in any way about the tale being told. But it is not unsympathetic, which is the brilliance of this musical in any form and I think heightened in the film. Unlike the stage play, the humor is not there to break the tension, but unfolds naturally to underscore the madness. If you can accept that this is a painting, of a tragic story, in music and shadows, you will be in for a real experience, not just a movie. | 0 |
140,854 | I don't why I'm adding the 848th review to this thread, but here goes. Count me in the this-movie-is-overrated camp.I absolutely hated the international market minimal dialog approach to screen writing. Not only subliterate, but it gives Ryan Gosling an opportunity to do a bad imitation of Keanu Reeves. I'd never really seen Gosling before, but have no reason to seek him out in other pictures. I also couldn't get over the idea of Carey Mulligan as a struggling waitress with $500 haircuts.I Netflixed this on the basis of rumors of Albert Brooks' performance. I found it competent, but oddly bland. Dare I suggest that Barry from "Storage Wars" would have put more edgy psychotic humor into the character while retaining the West LA marginal showbiz player gone wrong persona? The pacing was odd. It took forever to get the movie started, but did pick up after 30 minutes.Plot clangers. There is no way to get a car onto the LA river for a casual drive. The Chevy Impala is not best selling car in Southern California. Every one I've seen has a rental car barcode in the back window. The Toyota Camry has this distinction as sales leader, but you'd get tripped up on installing sufficient horsepower into this muffinmobile. And who in the movies is dumb enough to steal a million dollars from the Philadelphia mob? Could be trouble! Finally, what's with the Star of David garage door in Shannon's shop when Brooks slices his veins open? That and Brooks reassuring him of the lack of pain and finality of this killing method suggests Kosher butchering technique. I haven't read all 847 previous reviews, so I'm probably not the first person to detect antisemitism here. I guess they thought they were just being cutely transgressive, but it was repulsive nevertheless. | 1 |
40,251 | The year is 1964. Communists are coming in at all sides, America's biggest fear is to succumb to the nuclear bomb and the Soviet Union. So a movie is made, and Stanley Kubrick is at its helm. The result is Dr. Strangelove.A movie about a meglomaniacal general wanting to foster a war, it starts with its dark comedy right off the bat. I found Peter Sellers in all of his various roles in this movie on the top of his game, I was laughing with every line and thinking about every other line. The framing of each scene was also exquisite, I found myself rewatching countless dialog scenes just to take in all the ambiance.The plot itself was a little tough to follow, with its abstract story structure. That being said, the plot itself I think was taking a backseat to all of the thematic structuring of the United States love affair with the atomic bomb and death and destruction.A fantastic movie, worth watching for any history major. | 0 |
141,055 | I can't piece this movie together to even save my skin. I'm not a regular movie reviewer, but this was terrible, and I have to get my words out just to ease the pain. I was falling asleep about half an hour into the film that I expected to be packed with thrilling stunt car scenes, but I got the complete opposite. The movie opens with one of only two car chase scenes which are hardly exciting at all.Ryan Gosling's character is pitifully dull and boring with such little dialogue. He alone, apart from the horribly vague story would have been enough for me to want to just walk out. For some I've seen, he comes off as just ogling, heart thumping material for the young girls, which I will say - if you want to burn your money just for an actor's looks over his actual character's depth (which there is none), go right ahead. The conclusion was done poorly, I'm sitting in my seat expecting a good wrap up scene, but the screen just abruptly cuts to black and on come the credits.There should be no justification in why the producers could pass this off as a finished, well scripted film, because it more than evidently lacked a compelling story, interesting characters, and overall: just plain effort. I almost pity the producers for wasting any period of time on this, because it did not show one bit. Do not waste your money on this.0/10. | 0 |
60,578 | The Indiana Jones saga is very popular for action films today. I have seen all three of them on a recent date but never really thought about what makes them so good. When watching a movie in the theater or at home you don't realize certain techniques or qualities or characters that make it so appealing to people.In Indiana Jones the camera is used to show the point of view stressed in the movie. It is in third person and depicts the events of his life- from his growing up as a boy to being a man teaching classes to a school and still exploring as a man.When you think about characters from the movie, you have to start with the two most important roles: Indiana and his father. Indiana starts out as a young man trying to do what is right. He seems to grow into a man with priorities like his teaching career. He accepts a job to look for the Holy Grail almost trying to live up to his fathers glory, then he finds out his father is already on the same mission but missing. Indiana and his father have a rough relationship with each other. His father was not around much because of work when he was little so they're still trying to accept one another for who they really are. Indiana's father is different from Indiana in that he thinks before he acts and is almost more "kind" than Indiana. Their relationship grows throughout the movie, and it seems very real like a normal family would grow up. Most families do not have perfect relationships just like Indiana and his father, but they work it out to accept one another.Unlike some movies, The Last Crusade moves from past to present. It explains Indiana Jones in his boy hood years and how he grew into the hero he is today. He spends his time searching for the cross which leads its way into the present adventures and the search for the Holy Grail. It works out well because both enjoy going on adventures and this time they are working together- almost ironic since his father wasn't around when he was a boy. Besides searching for the Grail, I think they are searching for acceptance and a better relationship together. One of the final scenes in the movie shows Donovan shoot his father so Indiana would keep the quest for the Grail to save him.Throughout the movie Indiana Jones tries to live up to his father and his approval. You notice this because when searching for the Grail, no matter what he does Indiana cannot do anything right. Everything is made right by the end of the movie and there was realistic appeal because it sounded like a normal family and not just scripted.There are also technical parts of the movie that made it seem real and more enjoyable. The director uses cameras with different angles and changes views to see Indiana throughout his chases. Another technique was dim lighting and framed camera work to show mood, and what was made to think of certain places. The library is made to be creepy so the lighting was low and dim. Certain camera shots showed views that made is seem like you were really in Indiana's shoes, like when they showed the side mirror in one of the chases.Until now I never realized what actually went into a movie and not just acting. There are so many aspects that you don't appreciate when just watching a movie for entertainment. After critiquing a film you actually understand how much work and energy it took to complete a film like Indiana Jones. Although I'd rather just watch a movie for fun, it was interesting knowing the different techniques put into films. | 1 |
214,195 | My title reflects a line from "American Sniper," Clint Eastwood's reverent biopic of Chris Kyle, a sniper during the Iraq War credited with 160 kills, the most in American military history. It also reflects iconic films from Eastwood's career. He, of course, is famous for his roles in westerns, portraying lone dispensers of justice in a world beset by evil. "In the universe of his films," writes N.Y. Times critic A.O. Scott, " a universe where the existence of evil is a given violence is a moral necessity, albeit one that often exacts a cost from those who must wield it in the service of good." The narrative goes like this:People are besieged by pure evil in the form of villains with no conscience who will stop at nothing to destroy what is good. Most of the good people are impotent to stop the evil ones. One man rises up with extraordinary gravitas and courage to take a stand. He will not be persuaded to do otherwise. Evil does its best to compromise or destroy him. However, the good man is better and more skilled at dispensing violence, and evil is conquered. He is also able to come to terms with himself and the impact evil has made on him. American Sniper is, at its heart, a cowboy movie. It's a great one too, a well-acted, gripping, old-fashioned shoot-em-up that will have you cheering when the good guys win and the bad guys bite the dust. Its morality reflects pure black and white. It's a hero pic with hordes of faceless enemies and one grand villain (though is not characterized beyond a few mentions of his back story). The dusty streets and rooftops could pass for the wild west, Kyle has a "posse" of faithful sidekicks, and his woman waits nervously at home, wondering if he will ever make it back to her.Chris Kyle is played by Bradley Cooper, who does a stellar job portraying Kyle as a gentle giant with a job to do to preserve the American way of life. His character was formed by a daddy who raised him well, teaching him to shoot and take care of his gun, and giving him a simple, compelling moral view of the world. He tells him there are three kinds of people in the world: sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. Most people are sheep, they need protecting from the wolves that threaten them. The boy better not think of being anything but a sheepdog -- strong, protective, using whatever means necessary to guarantee the safety of his own.And that about sums up the depth of insight we gain into Kyle's character. He has no demons of his own, only those inflicted upon him by contact with evil. Honorable from youth, he bides his time riding rodeo until the events of 9/11 move him to join the military. He serves four tours in Iraq. Some of his kills involve women and children and we see the pain this causes him. On his trips home between deployments, Kyle's wife struggles with how distant he seems. The aftereffects from combat leave him increasingly estranged, and on occasion he shows a few signs of PTSD. But these are wounds inflicted from without, by his engagement with evil. He is not like some of Eastwood's other characters, dark, mysterious men with secrets in their hearts and past. Chris Kyle is a pure hero.One of the weaknesses of American Sniper is that it doesn't develop any other characters. Even Kyle's wife, played by Sienna Miller, is given the limited role of worrying about her man, keeping the home fires burning, and expressing hope that one day he will come all the way back and devote himself to the family again. Kyle's buddies trade banter with him, there's a lot of talk about "team," and you know he's there for them but it doesn't get much beyond that. Eastwood's Chris Kyle is truly the lone "Legend" in this film -- set apart from everybody else.The movie has been a huge box office success, and has generated a fair amount of political controversy. However, American Sniper ignores politics altogether to focus on this one man doing his duty. I, for one, am glad of that, because soldiers like Chris Kyle and his mates should not be caught in the middle of political wrangling. If you want to argue politics, let's talk about the people who sent them to Iraq and the policies they enacted which made it necessary for young men and women to go into harm's way.No, American Sniper is not political, it's something else. It's mythical. That is why audiences are filling theaters to see it. Here in the conservative heartland where I live, the movie house was packed and it was hard to find a seat. People hunger to see something with moral clarity and heroes, a story which validates their underlying beliefs. It doesn't matter to them if it is 100% accurate or reflects all the complexities of war or the human psyche. Literalists will never understand this, but people are more shaped by their mythos and ethos than they are by analysis and reasoning based on facts. Chris Kyle represents a deeply ingrained American myth, one upon which director Clint Eastwood has built his entire career: One man. Doing his job. Standing for justice. Protecting others from evil. Resorting to violence when necessary. Coming to terms with himself.In my view, myths are fine, if you understand that's what they are. They can be entertaining, inspiring, and thought-provoking. Who doesn't love a good western? So I accepted and appreciated American Sniper for what it is: a well-crafted movie representing a great American mythos and ethos.Whether or not I actually buy in to that mythos and ethos is another question entirely. | 0 |
117,304 | I've hooked up on this show like three years ago and never stopped watching it. I own all seasons on DVD's and watch one season monthly/weekly (as the time allows me). I've grew up to love characters, story and everything about the show.It has comedy, drama, thrill, mystery and it's very darkish - my taste. I'm kind a surprised actually that the show didn't win Emmy - actually, I was disappointed. I like Mad Man and follow series for a long time, but, honestly, the show is no where near Dexter. Acting is good, plot here and there, but it has nothing that Dexter owns or that Dexter needs to own. But, I guess, not all have the same opinion as I do.Show is addicting from the first episode and it's kind a thrilling to actually enter killer mind, to see how he thinks and how he sees things. The show embarks you on the journey you'd never thought to have : it's thrilling to the last second of episode, humorous, not cheezy at all, without flaws in plot and above all : it's honest.I'm looking forward to Season 6 and hope that show won't stop on that. | 0 |
148,180 | I remain a fan of the original Planet of the Apes movies, which, aside from the first one, were slightly cheesy, but remain one of the most inventive franchises yet. I loathed Tim Burton's abortion from several years ago, and had washed my hands of any further attempts to revive the franchise, thinking perhaps the films were, and perhaps ought to remain, firmly rooted in their sociological place in time. But I kept hearing murmurs that this was a good film (one friend called it "the best movie he'd seen all summer") and, well, okay, when it came out I broke down and checked out a copy.They changed the story little; this is really a revamp of the third movie, Escape From the Planet of the Apes, explaining the genesis of how intelligent apes came to be among us (the original version features a delightfully impossible cause-and-effect loop where intelligent apes sprang from
a pair of intelligent apes who traveled back in time). In a nutshell, Dr. Rodman (James Franco) is working on a cure for Alzheimer's when he discovers a concoction that heightens cognitive functions in chimps. When he tests it on his ailing father (John Lithgow), it displays enormous promise, but not as much as it does with little Caeser, a chimp born of their most promising test case. The original batch of super-goo proves unstable, however, and Franco is sacked. Fast-forward a few years (and throw in Frieda Pinto as a love interest, because, hey, she is really really beautiful), and Caesar is now adolescent sized, and incredibly smart. An incident with a snotty neighbor lands him in what is essentially an ape jail (run by Brian Cox and the dude who played Draco Malfoy, so you know it's a bad joint), and Caesar, by dint of his intelligence, takes over the place. From there it's just a hop, skip, and a jump to the apes running the planet, although we'll be saving that for future installments (watch the credits, you'll see what I'm referring to).The Apes movies in their initial run were really more about what humans feared, and apparently in the Seventies what we feared is that we would screw things up and wreck the world and someone else would take our place at the top of the evolutionary ladder. Now that most of that has come to pass (save for the top of the ladder bit), it turns out what we are most afraid of now is that in trying to avert some horrible disease, we will
screw things up and wreck the world and someone else will take our place at the top of the evolutionary ladder (well, again, in the next movie they will portray the actual taking our place bit). Whereas in the earlier version of the saga we shot ourselves in the foot with nuclear weapons, here we shoot ourselves in the foot because of greed and big pharma, which again, is a tad more realistic (though nuclear Armageddon was not so far-fetched in 1970). The story approach is different, but the underlying fears remain.Much like in the original, the human actors are almost completely disposable; we spend a lot of time with Franco, but he could be any well-meaning shmuck, and Lithgow, while he's very good, is merely a maguffin to create the super-ape serum (the rest of the humans, even the radiant Pinto, are utterly forgettable). The take on the apes is different here they look much more ape-like, and less like humans in prosthetics, although honestly I loved the 60s/70s apes (and so did Oscar, they won an award for inventive make-up). The guy who played Gollum played Caesar as an adult, and of course he's crazy good and convincing in his movements; that helps sell the believability of the film. But even with flawless effects, I felt there was something missing from this version of the story, some element that sold me on the other, admittedly lower-tech and cheesier version, that did not sell me here. Maybe it was the casually boring treatment of man being mean to lower animals, or maybe it was just that it took way the hell too long to get things going; but this movie, while technologically impressive, has no heart. We don't bond with Caesar the way we bonded with Roddy McDowall's version of him; he seems a cold and cunning conqueror, almost more of a villain than a hero (while he rejects the evil humans, naturally, he also rejects the embrace of the one who loves him, which I understood from a plot point but nonetheless found curious). Caesar is less a protagonist to root for than a warning that it will likely be some innocent bystander we hardly give a second thought to who will eventually topple our way of life. He was far too callous for me to embrace. I also didn't care for the slapdash ending, where the apes find temporary sanctuary after besting a squad of policemen. So? The next day they'd simply be gassed, end of story (or it would be if not for the financial allure of potential sequels, which is why they keep trying to revive this franchise).I didn't find it a bad film, but I did find it an oddly cold and sterile one, and admit to being a tad perplexed as to why, technological achievements aside, everyone seemed so taken with it; granted, we humans are simply living high on the hog in an epoch between glacial periods (most likely), but I don't really find the notion that we will be displaced one that deserves much cheering. I find the whole premise kind of creepy, myself. Maybe without McDowall's humanity underneath it all there's some spark lacking in these new apes one I would label empathy. You'll certainly be impressed by the effects in this film, but I was left cold by the story. | 1 |
131,569 | I really liked this movie because I accepted it for what it is: an erotic comedy with a hint of drama. I'm a straight male so I could not take my eyes off of this movie, partly because of the beautiful cinematography and partly because of how beautiful the 2 protagonists are. The negative comments relate to how the storyline was confusing or there were lies on top of lies, but come on...2 strangers meet for a 1-night-stand and they tell the truth about their lives? Give me a break. I also bet half of the bad reviews are from women who don't come close to looking like these 2.The storyline was a bit corny and trite yet kept you wanting to know more. Some of the banter is witty and some didn't make much sense. There is romance, art, humor, culture, heartbreak, and triumph all rolled in one movie. Natasha's acting was inferior to Albas, but I was interested in how it would end, and I liked it because it kept you guessing. This movie falls short of Sex and Lucia, which I loved and t's from the same director. Would the movie be as alluring if 2 obese and unattractive women were in it? I doubt it, but that's for the viewer to decide. | 0 |
351,477 | Just finished watching the machinist, and I must say that this was one of the better movies I have seen for a while. Dark and brooding, and nice use of suspense played out thru the movie, some nice little gotcha's thru out the plot. It kept me engaged for the entire film, and guessing all the way to the end. I am glad that the gore factor was kept down to a minimum, as when it was used, it certainly heightened the viewing experience. Bale is superb and I feel that its a pity that he does not get the credit that he deserves, both his physical transformation for this, and his acting was some of the best I have seen for a while. I am glad that as an actor he takes varied roles, American Psyco and Batman begins are great movies. | 0 |
462,929 | The superhero/superhuman has often been scrutinised, parodied, or brought down to earth within the world of the comic book or movie screen. The Incredibles looked at how superheroes would cope if forced into civilian life. The Civil War posed the question of whether superheroes are subject to the law or, by virtue of the work they do, immune from it. The Civil War also looked at how superheroes and superhumans would react to the question. Kick Ass, showed what would happen if real people decided to become masked vigilantes. Watchmen, even though based on a graphic novel written before either The Incredibles or Civil War, takes the scrutiny and parody in a different direction.In what is Snyder's best movie to date, the superhumans are "super", their abilities beyond other humans. However, their "hero" status is dependent on the public's perception of them. Masked vigilantes, with abilities, are popular when they first emerge in the pre-war America (1920s-1930s); they can pose with the police, they smile for the camera, they are depicted on war planes and can act gay in public in early post war America, and are also happily received if they reveal their secret identity. Their "hero" status is only sustained because of positive public opinion. The Comedian a sadistic, racist, womanizing, rapist, who shoots his pregnant girlfriend (all unknown to the public) is a hero because he fights for his country. Whether people know or even care about his tendency to delight in burning Vietnamese alive is another matter. Ozymandius, is popular because he has given up heroics, and is the Bono of the movie. Roarscharch is hunted and regarded as a criminal because he is a masked vigilante, even though he gives low lifes the what for.This movie, also questions, just what is the hero. The person who saves people, the person who protects, the person who punishes? The Comedian protects his country, but has no altruism about him. Roarsharch still has childhood issues, and still holds a grudge to women, even though he is incensed at the murder of a girl, but inflicts punishment on crims and we may say, good, the guy deserves it. Ozymandius decides to protect people, by killing people, sacrificing lives to preserve life, and honestly believes he is doing the right thing.In the 1970s they become unpopular, possibly seen as thugs without oversight. In the 1980s, any superhuman who acts outside the law is regarded by the public and listed under the law, as a criminal. This deconstrunctionist approach to the super hero mythos is one of the strengths of the movie. The characters are just so interesting to watch. Even if they're unsympathetic, this makes the "heroes" a joy to engage with, and a help make the 2 1/2 hour length more than worth it.The other joy in this movie, is seeing ratbags suffer. There is a certain joy in seeing muggers, child killers, and prisoners, mutilated or dying in gruesome. I actually laughed Roarshach gave the child killer what for, tossed cooking oil on the inmate, shove the guy in the tilet, and when the priosner got his arms sawed.I reckon inside a lot of us, there is a desire to see people like that, to get it, and get it good.Another good thing about the movie, is Silk Spectre II. Snyder had strong women in his last films, and he keeps up the trend in this one.Another point of this film I like is the twist it puts on the portrayal of communist and American leaders. Breshnev is not the fat, balding stibble faced gorilla, and Castro is not pudgy, with a bushy beard chomping on a fat cigar. They are tall, well built, serious, and know what they're doing, Nixon and Kissinger by contrast are fat, bloated, balding, slugs.The other strength in this film is it's solid story, even though may predict the twist, it's well told, and has momentum and keeps it going, it balances action, character development, story, and background, and it has few if any loopholes. It also looks at the inherent violence, and self destruction of humans.This whole movie, is just all round engaging. I was never bored when I watched it a year ago. Interested all the way. Only looking away to make comments about it, to my friends.Snyder has made great films in his career; Dawn Of The Dead, 300, and now this; his best one yet. I'm looking forward to Suckerpunch.Thnak you Snyder, for Watchmen. | 1 |
352,870 | The folks who actually like this movie are the reason Hollywood makes very few quality movies any more. If you don't care then why should they? This movie is so bad from the beginning. Numerous tornadoes pummeling a West Coast city and there are actually people flying in helicopters to get a closer look. That's a brainy idea. Buildings freezing and crumbling yet the people outside don't seem to be affected so much. The "walk" from Philadelphia to New York? And in record time no less. I do like the fact that they had the foresight to have Antarctic weather gear handy for just these occasions. What of the tent that was able to withstand the chill but not the Empire State building? Call your local Army Navy store....they really need to stock these tents. I also found it amazing that any lines of communications were not really affected, including the under freezing water pay phone. The only ones who had communications losses were, of course, the main characters.....ah drama!! I know they were in a library but you think they could have possibly tried to burn all the wooden tables and chairs around them? Seems that they would burn warmer and for longer than books. The acting was horrific, the directing was terrible, the script was unbelievably bad and the special effects were anything but special. It certainly rates up there with Godzilla 2000 and Armageddon......it actually makes Independence Day look like one of the all time greats! | 1 |
200,250 | Fun though it was before A Good day came along, I think Live Free was an unnecessary sequel, then once along came A Good Day I was captivated and came to the conclusion that Live Free was probably a hypothetical early treatment for the fourth installment that by some glitch in the script filing department was grabbed by a studio exec in a hurry mistaked as a different script and by long term accident by the crew that had not been informed what the actual aimed project was, it made it through full production and it wasn't until filming was complete that they realized 'oops, wrong script', and A Good Day is the real worthy definitive standalone fourth installment that faithfully with heart explores what McClane is up to in the 21st century, and really just a perfect in every sense of the word sequel as a father son movie, and overall just a sequel genuinely faithful and worthy to the originals and not just some silly shoddy sequel of the devolution of the 2000s, so for this sequel time just stood still. | 0 |
512,075 | This could have titled "Issac Newton" because the story bears about as much of a resemblance to his life as it does that of Wyatt Earp's. Some filmmakers will never learn that the truth or a semblance of it can be just as interesting as their imagination. This movie is a historically inacurate tale purporting to be about Earp and is actually nothing more than a plotless, western soap opera with some shootings. I gave it a 2 out of 10 instead of a 1 simply because the visual effects and cinematography are good. | 0 |
123,937 | Title- 2 Movie hours where i can definitely say: they were not wasted, but.... well spent.Wow, what a great film. One of the few 2 hour films that i have been glued to screen for the whole of the film. The quality of the picture and sound in this movie is of the utmost quality for what they were working with. You can easily see how if not enough budget was given or bad decisions on cinematography how plain the film could of looked: because of the nature of the film. Justin finally arrived on screen after about an hour and he fitted in well. Strong performance for such a renowned artist in a different area being singing. He looked very much at home. His qualities appear to have expanded. The all round acting was top notch and from the actor Jesse playing Mark . Z i was definitely impressed. A lot of congratulations has to be given the script writers as it was pretty much flawless. 9/10 for me and definitely would recommend to watch, even more so if you use Facebook. Which is pretty much everyone. There are small relations that you can make to yourself and experiences which adds to a personal nature. Finally it shows that determination in face of all emotional/ phycological/ physical pressures can be defeated if you just stick to what you know and never give up. The world of business is ruthless__~ ! | 0 |
272,484 | Very, very, very badly made film indeed. Ron Howard's direction is totally wanton and gutless. The cinematographer obviously thought that if the camera went squint for about.99.9999% of the film it would mean that he was being creative. A little note to all: diagonal camera shots do not make good photography. It looks moronically awful.The art and set design is cheap too. Everything is way too close together and cramped looking. You cannot really make anything out at all. And in some shots you can see the roof of the sound-stage. I reckon about $50 in total was spent on production design.Half the film was pointless effects that did nothing for me. They did not make the film look magical. No, they certainly did not. The Whos look really stupid too. What on earth are they supposed to be? They look like the Beagle Boys from Duck Tales. To sum it up in 2 words they look 'totally ridiculous'. In the scene where the Grinch shaves the Mayor's head.why do they start screaming and running away? That whole scene was the worst directing I have ever scene. I know that this is a kid's movie and, believe me, there were many kids in the audience. There were hardly a couple of laughs among them.The type of humor in this film is the kind that expects you to laugh when someone walks into a lamppost or falls into a custard pie. Come on. This is the 21st century and we're STILL getting this trash that passes itself of as a movie?Not even the hugely talented Carrey can save this steaming pile of trash. I don't think anyone could. He simply is NOT funny. You'd think that playing the Grinch would be a role he could twist and manipulate. But no, it's a kiddie's movie. So he just acts stupid without being funny. The cartoon is way better. I suggest you watch that instead. | 0 |
463,628 | Where to start? My main problem with the film was there being NO Sherlock Holmes or Watson characters, and NO mystery plot. Seemed more like some strange action/fantasy hybrid.I have a feeling we'll find out where there going with this in the sequel. Perhaps Jude Law is actually playing Sherlock Holmes? I think Robert Downey may be covering for him, as Jude seemed to be the one more likely to be the Sherlock type.Other than the lack of plot and characters, I had a major problem with the ridiculous action scenes. I guess I should have been ready for them from seeing the trailers/commercials but there's more ridiculous action than I could tolerate. Especially for a film labeled as a Sherlock Holmes film.1/10. Can't recommend it for any reason. | 0 |
338,493 | The best thing that happened before I saw Ang Lee's Hulk, was being warned how long it was. I was prepared for a film that would run slowly in parts, but took its time exploring its characters. As such, this film was one of the best of the year.Lee created a very moving and emotional telling of the seminal comic book hero, and does so with a wonderfully innovative use of split-screen technology, which is normally a turn-off. It reminded me of what Dennis Hopper was trying to do with his flashing segeways in Easy Rider. But where Hopper failed, Lee perfects. It is not recommended that anyone try split-screen, ever. But if someone does try, they must use this film as a reference.The cinematography and performances are stellar, especially Eric Bana, Jennifer Connelly, and Nick Nolte. The film is far from perfect, however. The dependable Sam Shepard is an annoying ham here, and the script does sometimes push our suspension of disbelief too far. Such is the consequense of filming the story of a monster, who only manifests when some convenient character can make him mad.Anyone who judges this film badly because the computer generated Hulk looks synthetic, ought to stay away from this genre of films altogether. | 0 |
262,584 | The amount of bad horror movies are great. It's a genre that it is far between those who are good. But then it pops up a few that make it worth the time to watch such films, and this film is an example of it. What I really like about the film is first and foremost that it is true to the horror genre, but at the same time is innovative and has many surprising moments. But it is first and foremost very scary. All of the action takes place mostly in a room, and one could assume that it would be boring. But no. The action and excitement builds up slowly. The film gets more and more exciting, not to mention scary. I think the two who play the lead roles are very good, they manage to produce an autopsy in a credible manner. The film is also about the relationship between father and son, and is sympathetic and good. If it's a really good horror you're after, look no further. But you should bear to see both blood and quite grotesque scenes too. This film is not for those with weak nerves.... | 0 |
163,737 | I was so let down by this movie.I had been really looking forward to this and had been harping on to my wife about it for weeks.When we got to see it she actually fell asleep watching it, to be fair i really don't blame her it has to be one of the most boring movies i have watched in quite some time.I really liked the soundtrack and the way the era was captured in many scenes but besides that the whole film was a massive let down.I was really excited by the cast and reviews were really good i don't think i was wrong to have high expectations but i never imagined i would be so disappointed.I watched it again a second time to try and give it a chance, big mistake it was still just as terrible the second time around i could not find any humour in a film described as a comedy.The two children are painful.Two mentally disturbed kids who fall in love, to be honest they don't even seem like they even remotely like each other let alone have developed a sense of love.Major let down. | 0 |
289,768 | People say Jim Carrey is an over-actor.Well, he pretty much overacted in Ace Ventura, but in this movie god, he is GOOD! He played both guys as if he were two people and I almost believed that there were two of Jim Carrey. Both are distinctively different (aside from the physique)! Renee Zellweger was also good, but she didn't give the Cold Mountain performance in this one. This is a light, hilarious comedy and I think that's why it wasn't nominated for any Oscars. But if the storyline is twisted to be a bit heavy and mind-twisting (as all Oscar-winning movies are), I think Carrey would definitely bag the gold statuette for his great acting. Did the critics hate this movie? Who likes those critics anyway? | 0 |
441,393 | As a huge fan of the books, I was so excited to see this movie. I was obsessed with the movie before it even came out. I watched every interview, every trailer, every spoiler, etc.So on November 21st I was just about jumping up and down I was so excited to see this movie. I went straight after school to see it. When it started I almost screamed with excitement.The first 5 minutes of the movie I liked. It pretty much stayed true to the book, but then things were happening all over the place. After that nothing was the same as the book, which made it confusing for someone who hasn't read the books.So I was throughly let down because everything was out of order, but on top of that, THE ACTING SUCKED! It was boring and monotonous the whole movie. No emotions were expressed at all. Plus, I didn't see this chemistry that everyone was talking about. Kristen and Robert look like they want to kill each other. I blame the director, Catherine Hardwick.Another thing that bugs me about this movie is the blue-undertone. I guess it supposed to give the feeling of gloom but it carried on through the whole movie and was quite distracting. On top of all that it looked like it was trying to be made into an action movie instead of a romance. It didn't even touch on Edward and Bella's love at all, which is supposed to be the deepest love ever known.One good thing that I can say about the movie is that the baseball scene is PERFECT!! Exactly what I imagined it to be.So all in all it was a let down. I was mad when I left the theater.So the next day I went to see it again, and after I knew what to expect, which isn't a lot, it was better, because I wasn't looking for the mistakes that the movie is made up of.So after the second time I think that if you didn't read the books then you would like this movie, except you would be a little confused because it's not explained well. And if you have read the books then I feel that this movie is a let down.I hope New Moon will be better than this. | 0 |
55,129 | I am enthralled by the movie and would watch it again.I was taken back in time to my own college days and really for a moment I thought as though I was in involved in the story. The senseless competitiveness unmindful of the dreams of children and their ambitions was the central theme of the story. The song " Give me some sunshine " was a real tear jerker. I also wish I could go back in time and get a chance to do something different.Acting by the leads were awesome. Boman Irani as the professor VIRUS was outstanding and I think one of the best too. Not to mention Silencer, (OMI) who plays the rattu popat also was very good indeed. Chetan Bhagat from whose novel (3 point someone) this movie based deserves credit, but unfortunately his name is not included. I look forward to watch such great Bollywood movies in the future. This movie has left such an impression on me, that I find it hard to watch any other movie lately. Kudos to the director for a fine movie | 0 |
330,159 | I just rented this film and it really is pretty good. Good enough to register (despite having to fire up IE) specifically to disagree with the headline "User Comment" for this film. The plot jumps about and has a drunk camera man (which seems to be all the rage these days) but the overall impression is pretty good. You can watch 99% of mainstream films and turn off half way but still be able to describe the entire film in pretty good detail. OldBoy has unexpected plot twists / memorable imagery / unpleasant imagery / flawed main characters and is in all ways better than any standard blockbuster.General summary - I liked it and it will stick in my memory for some time. Well worth watching. | 0 |
190,646 | 'We're the Millers' follows a drug dealer, a stripper, a runaway and a geek, who come together pretending to be a traditional, all American suburban family to smuggle a whole heap of drugs from Mexico into the US. Fortunately for us, Jennifer Aniston plays a stripper. With all the actors playing surprisingly likable characters, who's opposing chemistry works impeccably when put together. I usually find that most of the time, films that parade around claiming to be comedies, usually with one famous face to show, are often just not funny. But 'We're The Millers' was actually a good comedy; probably not in a witty sophisticated way, but it made me laugh. This film also has its emotions, in their own little unconventional ways, considering the leads were not exactly your average person. If I had to think of the one thing that I found extremely obnoxious, it would have to be Ed Helms. Everything about his character and his acting, was just annoying, which is probably why the ending made me quite happy. Worth watching if you need a no-brainer to spike your mood. And if not for the laughs, I'm sure Jennifer Aniston stripping would do the trick. | 0 |
162,448 | OMG! Such a waste of money and time. This movie was bad on all the levels that it was trying to portray itself. A totally incoherent and fragmented plot trying to link back and forth without any success. Bad acting, cheesy dialogue, massive holes in the plot, however did this get on the big screen, and how is it possible for it to get any positive reviews. The make-up? Are you kidding me..it was downright hilarious and I was laughing out loud at the sights of caucasian people made up to look like asians, and the other way around. Halle Berry was a real bad addition to the movie as well. This was one of those movies that was so pretentious in its own image of being a deep spiritually significant movie. There is better action in B grade TV series. | 0 |
373,809 | I went to a sneak preview of Just Friends and let me be frank -- it just sucks.Just friends stars Ryan Reynolds (Van Wilder) and Amy Smart (Rat Race, Road Trip). Let me say that the performances of Mr. Reynolds and Miss Smart where not the downfall of this sad attempt at a romantic comedy.Reynolds plays Chris who we first see as a high school senior. Overweight, awkward, a sissy and head over heels in love with the most beautiful girl in school Jamie (played by Smart). Jamie and Chris are "Just Friends" and when Chris attempts to convey his feelings to her through a year book signing at a senior party the book finds itself into the hands of a mean jock and the lovely private words find themselves being read to the entire party.Of course this demoralizes Chris and we find him saying he is leaving this town, etc etc etc. Of course Jamie doesn't want him to leave and tries to defend him. It is all for not.Fast forward ten years. We see a slim, fit, good looking Chris surrounded by girls and money. He is conceded, charming and finds himself in a tight spot at his job. Oh, his job..he is a rock star manager.Events unfold and Chris reluctantly finds himself back in his old town -- which he hasn't been back to in ten years. He enters the town bar and meets old friends, enemies, and imagine this -- Jamie.The rest of the move is a slapstick, gimmicky attempt at humor as Chris tries to 'score' with Jamie.This is your typical boy loves girl, girl doesn't love boy, boy wants revenge on girl. girl loves boy story. There are parts that will make you chuckle and parts that will make you feel something for the characters. But these parts are scant as the director smacks you with more physical comedy than an Abbott and Costello movie. | 0 |
421,059 | All my friends hated this film. Most of them said that this film was just a waste of time, with horrible plot and confusing ending. I think everyone would think that Josh Brolin (Llewelyn Moss) would actually become a hero, a good guy with a good luck to found two million dollars cash and had a potential to kill the psycho-killer man. But for me, No Country for Old Men is ace.This movie shows us that evil sometimes win. That a hero sometimes lose everything and life isn't going as well as we hoped. That you should always make small decisions to change your life forever, like choosing one side of the coin. And no matter where you go, death is near. One day you find your money, and another day you'll lose more. Javier Bardem performance was exceptional. Chigurh character haunted me for days after I watched this movie. He's the most perfect villain I ever saw. Every little thing he does is scary. The way he walks, smiles, stares, drives or even asks questions. Javier Bardem played him exquisitely, impeccably wonderful. Although some people say that there are a lot of scenes had been cut out from the movie, I don't mind to watch it over and over again. | 1 |
182,001 | I came into this movie wanting to see big ass robots fighting big ass monsters from the sea and the movie completely delivered on it and it was bad ass. If you're looking for action you'll get it here. And the acting is OK I guess. Story was mediocre but it didn't try to be something it was not, IT'S ROBOTS FIGHTING ALIENS AND IT LOOKS COOL THAT'S ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW. | 0 |
89,034 | This movie shows us how all countries in the world are able to make a good movies. South Korean movie "Salinui Chueok" (Memories of Murder) is a very good movie for everyone to watch. Movie is based on real events. Film is about one murder that happens in one little city. Local investigators are on the job in very strange circumstances (it appears that no one knows what to do when something like this happens). Local cops got help from a detective who came from the big city to solve the crime. The story is usual and this is not something new. But this movie is good because it's well directed and at the beginning you can't say how it's going to end. I can only say that I'm satisfied with the movie. You can easily imagine Hollywood stars in roles and script like this, but these actors were very good and all I can say is that this is a very pleasant surprise. | 0 |
244,154 | I was, as much as everybody else, very hyped to watch "Suicide squad". I had been watching previews and trailers since last winter and been eagerly waiting for a new spin on the endless parade of super-hero movies. However, I must confess myself bitterly disappointed. There is a number of problems with this film. 1. The super-villains are not evil enough. From the get-go of the movie, we are presented to the different villains, who are all imprisoned. And the first mistake that "suicide squad" makes is already within its first five minutes. It presents its villains as oppressed and mistreated prisoners. They are shown being beat up, electrocuted and served horrible food. And it creates a sort of sympathy for the characters, that you don't really want to feel, because these people are supposed to be the evilest of the evil. But instead the movie shows you, that there are actually some, that are more evil - prison guards. And the same story goes throughout the movie, as we see these super-villains (who are not really THAT evil) transforming more into super-heroes.2. Too many characters (!) I understand that DC wishes to create a new superhero-franchise and universe, but this movie just reeks of a wish to jump-start this whole thing and create a lot of action-figures and merchandise, along with a sloppiness towards giving their characters real personality. You cant, I repeat, you CAN'T introduce seven new super-villains/heroes all-in-one and meanwhile create a realistic character-development for each of them and meanwhile have an interesting action-story-line. A lot of the movie falls to the ground because there is simply too much going on. And it's a shame, because Margot Robbie, Will Smith and Jared Leto do a very decent job with their characters. Had DC only decided to kick-start the franchise with these three (and maybe El Diablo too) and then afterwards added the rest in sequels, they could have had a very strong team of characters. But you aren't allowed to enjoy the performances of these aforementioned actors, because they are constantly interrupted by other characters, which you don't care about seeing or hearing. 3. It is NOT a new spin on the endless parade of super-hero movies. Basically, it unfolds itself much like the first "Avengers" in the overall story-line. We are introduced to a group of misfits, who are forced to work together to fight a villain, who one of them is guilty of unleashing. Despite some internal disputes, they are able to overcome their differences and become some sort of friends. Then they fight a whole lot of alien- looking creatures and destroy a city before the character, who all along promised to be the one least invested in the project decides to give an ultimate sacrifice to give the others opportunity to save the world. 4. Cringe dialogue and non-believable friendships. This goes hand-in-hand with the fact that the super-villains in this movie just aren't evil. Otherwise, Deadshot would have had no problem killing Harley Quinn (whom he had known for like one day) in exchange for his life and daughter back. Furthermore, the dialogue is at some points just toe-curling. From Amanda Waller's line "Go get it girl", to El Diablos declaration that "he has already lost one family, he won't lose another", when he never at any point appeared to have any real connection to any of the team-members. This problem also originates from the "too many characters"-problem. In the end, Margot Robbie, Jared Leto and Will Smith earns this movie a star each and then another star is awarded for beautiful special effects. But this movie does not amount to more than that. | 1 |
54,343 | There are spoilers throughout this review.This starts at the "Dawn of Man". A bunch of apes find a black monolith and start to evolve slowly. Then it cuts to 2001. A black monolith has been discovered on the moon--buried. When the light hits the monolith it starts to emit a message to the moons of Jupiter. Astronauts David Bowman (Keir Dullea), Frank Poole (Gary Lockwood) and some other astronauts (in suspended animation) are sent to Jupiter to investigate. However their computer HAL (with the creepy voice of Douglas Rain) goes crazy and kills everybody except for Dullea. Dullea gets to Jupiter and "enters" a black monolith floating in space. He's then in a room being watched over by alien beings. He ages rapidly and dies...but becomes a "star child". It seems he has been chosen (for whatever reason) to show the next step in evolution to man. Basically the monolith is a gift from some alien beings who watch over the entire universe. They helped the human race evolve. The monolith on the moon was buried so man would dig it up. When they got to it the signal sent to Jupiter was to alert the aliens that man was ready for his next step.That's MY view of it. Everybody has different interpretations of this movie.I have vague recollections of seeing this back in 1968 at the age of 6 (the film is G rated). I remember the apes at the beginning scaring me...and then falling asleep. Since then I've seen it multiple times at revival theatres and, on one occasion, saw a brand new print with stereo at a play house. Yes--the special effects are impressive. Yes--the music is great. But the movie is long, far too slow and just boring! It moves at such a slow pace that it's sleep-inducing. There's very little dialogue but that's a blessing because what there is is pretty lousy. The human characters have no personality whatsoever and speak in monotones and simple short sentences. Lockwood and Dullea are supposedly buddies but I never got the feeling that they even liked each other! This isn't anything against either actor--these poor guys are given nothing to work with. For instance when HAL kills Lockwood and the other astronauts what's Dullea's reaction? Nothing. He barely raises an eyebrow. I don't blame Dullea--I think he was just playing it like director Stanley Kubrick told him. How can you care about characters who are given no personality or motivations? You know there's a problem when HAL comes across as more real than Poole and Bowman! Also HAL gets paranoid and kills Frank. Could someone please tell me how a COMPUTER gets paranoid???? They give an explanation (sort of) in "2010" but it was pretty stupid. There are a few good things about this. Douglas Rains' voice of HAL is suitably creepy. Lockwood strips down to his shorts at one point showing his muscular body. The entrance into the star gate is still impressive (if far too long).People seem to forget that a lot of people hated this movie when it first came out. MGM executives thought they had a disaster on their hands and most people couldn't make heads or tales out of the plot. During a break in a premiere screening for studio executives someone said, "Something better happen in the second half or we're dead!" But, inexplicably, audiences seemed to love it and it's now regarded as a masterpiece. Aside from being thoroughly bored by it I find it cold and impersonal too. The message seems to be that man is an insignificant little thing in the universe. It's all in the hands of these gods and you can't do anything to change it. That's a pretty creepy message but the movie drags out everything to a ridiculous degree. Boring, slow and sleep-inducing. The 2 is for the special effects and Dullea and Lockwood (I like both actors despite this movie). | 1 |
57,871 | Good Will Hunting is a great film. It brings, heart, good (and bad) nature, and many other things in this tale of a janitor at MIT who is terrific at math. This man Will Hunting (played remarkably by Matt Damon) has many flaws though, and soon, he meets his match- Sean, a psychologist (Robin Williams gives a well deserved Oscar winning performance here) and little by little, starts to change. The way the film shows us Will , Sean and the supporting characters is spectacular and nothing is funnier than a Boston accent. Great all around. | 0 |
385,023 | I would admit that I'm a big fan of horror films and this one is certainly a surprising piece of work, which makes you feel tense as much as Saw does.After one year since the deaths of Sarah's husband and daughter, Sarah's friends invite her to have a cave adventure to help her get through the tragedy. However, Juno, who's responsible for leading the way, brings them to a not-yet-named cave. During the exploration the tunnel collapses so they can't get back to their way in. When they get deeper to the cave, they understand that some people have been to the save long time ago but never managed to get out and some kind of unknown creatures are inside the cave...The whole film is so thrilling and addictive as you are like the group that you don't know what's ahead. A lot of incidents also make you feel worried for them. This is better than those so-called horror films that only try to frighten you by the sudden appearance of someone/thing.The unknown creatures also surprised me as when the film goes I thought those might be something like those in The Cave that makes the film so terrible. They make more sense to me as their existence is rather possible (though I don't think it's possible for the women to beat them that easily).I like the first part more as it's more adventurous. The second part, especially after Sarah finds Beth, is too bloody and there's a pond of blood all of a sudden. It's just not necessary.Of course this is another film describing the weaknesses of human beings. What you'll see are betrayal, hiding, cheating, selfishness and revenge. I would say they are quite true and happen in daily life.I would strongly recommend this film to any film lovers, especially horror film ones as this is much better than those bad mainstream horror films. The story surely makes up for the wrongly-put bloody scenes so just go for it and you'll find it's worth it. | 0 |
461,760 | This movie is good...for a movie. But in the Harry Potter franchise it just doesn't cut. Most of the movies haven't. I am an avid reader of the books and I go to every midnight showing. I read the books at least once a year. When I saw the trailer for this movie was super psyched. It looked as if they had finally gotten one right. It looked brilliant. I came out of the movie not knowing what to think. I know that it's not possible for them to put everything in...but not to put some stuff in and then add some completely unneeded scenes is just upsetting. The burrow scene was useless.All the movies have had one great thing about them...and that's the cast. They have all been perfectly cast. Almost every actor captures the character they are portraying. I had some reservations when I heard that Jim Broadbent was going to be Slughorn, but I have to say that he was great. Helena Bonham Carter is terrifying is Bellatrix. Rupert Grint is the perfect Ron and the same thing goes for Emma Watson. Daniel Radcliff doesn't always capture Harry in my mind, but he is such a difficult character. Richard Harris was the all time perfect Dumbledore. He had the voice that seemed calm but seemed to have this electrifying power behind it. I was so sad when he died. Then Michael Gambon steps in...I didn't like him. That is until this movie. I think he started to finally get Dumbledore right. Alan Rickman steals pretty much every movie he does. He is one of the best actors out there...and he knows how to pick his roles. Severus Snape was written for Alan Rickman. It feels like the character is part of his essence. It's brilliant. truly.The movies have the cast...just not the script. I can't believe that JK Rowling lets them do this to her work. They needed to be more true. Overall as a huge fan of the books I was disappointed.I give it a 6.5 as a fan and a 7.8 as a critic. | 0 |
220,726 | I'm writing this at the two thirds mark of a very long film, mainly out of sheer boredom. The film starts well enough but the acting of the lead boy deteriorates as he ages and the character becomes more and more dull. Watching hours of some mumbling kid does not make for good entertainment. Patricia Arquette is good in the earlier scenes when she has some drama to get her teeth into but basically does nothing much for most of the remainder of the film. Ethan Hawke puts in a good turn as the caring but mainly absent father. Overall a bit of a disappointment after all of the acclaim. | 1 |
572,117 | Good story, plenty of action. The Oracle is very "Yoda-ish", in her speech. Antonio Banderas was excellent, as were the other actors (male & female). I especially liked the way the director tackled the language change from norse to english, and did not use subtitles. Definately one for my collection. The comments of Muhammed Arrabi are well worth a look(another imdb member). I was surprised that our local UCI did not show this film, and that the Odeon only put it on twice a day. 9/10. | 0 |
336,082 | I went into Daredevil expecting an incredible movie hyped for around 8 months. As is often true, movies don't live up to their hype and Daredevil is another fateful example of this. Other such dissapointments include X-Men and Episode 1/2.Daredevil, while indowed with plenty of incredible action scenes, falls short in the department of something that every film needs. That department, the audience's care for the characters, is ultimately far underdeveloped. We, the audience, fail to care for these characters packed into a 90 minute mini-movie of a great comicbook. Daredevil, a second tier character, would seem to be a very good person to base a movie on; however, it falls short due to his portrayal. He is a dark, destructive character who places revenge above morality. Normally, it would seem that the vengeful human race would find solice in a character such as this. This mess of a film throws us into the live of Matt Murdock in the capable hands of Ben Affleck. BA gives a generally stand-up performance normally uncharacteristic of his skills. The great Kingpin isn't given enough screen time and the audience doesn't really care about him. It mattered nothing to me if he died or killed hundreds of others. He simply wasn't given enough time to formulate an evil presence.The same is true with Bullseye, the "main villian" of this Daredevil picture. Although the writers tried to portray him as this evil assassin, I ultimately thanked him for his victories. I wanted that old hag to die just as much as him and thought the whole paper-clip death was fun. However, it just didn't create an evil persona for him and he comes off almost as comedic relief. This here is one fan that thinks Colin Farrell is probably the most overestimated actor out there right now. As of now, he has yet to star in a movie that I could sit through without wincing in agony every few minutes(I.E. American Outlaws).Lastly I think that Jennifer Garner was perfect as the Deadly Electra. She fits the role to a "t" and doesn't falter even with the few lines that she is given. Plus, who wouldn't want to look at Jennifer for a 90 minute film. *watches the complete lack of raised hands*.I give it the popular consensus of 6/10 just below X-Men, but far off from the glory of Spider-Man. | 0 |
191,173 | Here is a list of the main problems with this movie.1. The plot: A group of youngsters accidentally summon a demon that must obtain 5 souls by first possessing them only to finally crawl out of the ground in a weaker and more easily killed form? Really? 2. Even though the premise is ridicules the movie takes itself seriously resulting in a movie that comes across as stupid, rather than being fun and enjoyable like "Cabin in the woods." 3. In order to care about what happens to the characters (which is where the "horror" comes from) you must first be presented with actual characters. Cardboard cut-outs don't really do the trick.4. So many stupid little things that I can't list them all. At least make the god damn movie fun if it's going to be this stupid. Why not have Mia riding a motorcycle while fighting a flying demon monster with her chainsaw hand and sawed off shotgun? A little camp goes a long ways! | 1 |
530,638 | I just went into the movie theatre to see my all time favourite movie, Titanic by James Cameron, in all its brilliance.It's just like those 15 years have never happened. It's so utterly sweeping to watch this huge vessel rising up in the screen. Cameron outstandingly managed to shoot his sequences comparing sizes against each other which - by their contrast - brings so much emotion to something we only perceive in real life: size.After watching the movie, I can't believe this is a 2D to 3D conversion. This is not just a diorama kind of 3D conversion; watching the movie it's hard to believe it was not shot in 3D originally. Even in real life action scenes Cameron stems the task of creating realistic 3D perspective throughout the movie. It must have been hell to mesh all the fringes in each and every of the frames. Well, as I learned now, it took 60 weeks and 18 Million dollars to work on this. That gamble payed off very well.Not to mention all the emotion that comes with the story. Cameron is a wizard of timing. One moment the audience is just deeply moved by romance, when it gets torn out right the next moment by fear, anger or laugh.This is a very emotional film. There are so many different fates one can as easily think his/her way into. In 1997 I have been crying about what I saw in a movie - I was baffled, because this happened for the first time in my life... Now in 2012 I was crying, laughing, fearing so much all the way again, together with my girl friend.We personally feel so much like Rose and Jack. There are so many details in the movie that match our situation, up to tiny things like dancing barefoot or the butterfly as a symbol for freedom at heart and escape from family's restrictions.To all those who don't like the movie, here's my advice: NEVER watch this film on TV! You can only appreciate this precious work of art in a movie theatre. - I never saw this movie on TV and I never will. But when it'll come back to the theatre's in a couple of years, I'll be right back to watch it there. | 0 |
439,178 | I saw this movie when it premiered at the Rhode Island International film festival. It was the main attraction of a sci-fi block that I went to without any knowledge of what the file was about, save the IMDb plot summary. What I saw was much different than what I expected, and I must say that I was pleasantly surprised.The film starts very simply with the main character John packing his truck, and then joined by colleagues of his who have come to wish him farewell. His colleagues, however, cannot help but express how puzzled they are about him leaving, since he has established himself very well as a professor and is well liked. Each time he is asked, John either avoids the question or gives an evasive answer. He eventually responds to them by posing a hypothetical question to the group (which by now have been established as Ph.D.s in fields including anthropology, biology, and history) about what a man would be like if he had lived since prehistoric times and had the appearance of the same age for sixteen-thousand years. This question starts an innocent discussion, but changes in tone as John implies more and more that the situation is not hypothetical. The group all have diverse reactions that become more intense as they pose questions to John regarding the story he has put forth.One of the producers who was in attendance described the film as a science fiction Twelve Angry Men, and I found that statement to be very apropos. The focus of the story was the interaction of the people in the situation, rather than the situation itself. You will find that as an audience member you are put in a similar position as John's colleagues in thinking about the logistical aspects of living for such a long time and what you would say if a friend came to you with the same story. The writer, the late Jerome Bixby, did this well by presenting people that could analyze the finer points of the hypothetical situation by being experts in many relevant fields. I highly recommend this film if you enjoy the more human side of science fiction, or if you like pondering what-ifs. | 1 |
283,221 | What a disappointment. If you wish to see real drama at sea, rent "Das Boot", also directed by Wolfgang Peterson. It is difficult to believe he directed both movies. The storm delivers 'perfectly'amazing movie effects, but it is not enough to compensate for the sloppiness in the script. We are presumed to be truly interested in the personal side of the fishermen and the townspeople after merely receiving rudimentary introductions. One character's inability to remember the name of a new acquaintance is perfect allegory for the audiences (lack of)interest in the town folk characters. Regrettably, we are left to wonder if a story following the story of Diane Lane or Marky Mark's mother might hold more intrigue than the completed film. The Coast Guard scenes are sometimes spectacular, although again, seem totally disengaged from the rest of the film. There are a couple of very nice supporting roles in the film; however, I found myself chuckling at Karen Allen's role. Most of her (few)lines are left inaudible due to the dramatic effects of the storm. Both George Clooney and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio are beautiful, tanned people, yet unbelievable as captains - at home only on the sea. If you are looking for special effects, this is your movie. If you desire high drama at sea, check out "Das Boot". | 0 |
170,124 | The great production design is the best thing about this disappointing movie, which falls well short of expectations. The emotion is so muted it's non-existent. No one seems to show fear. On most actors' faces, it looks like passing indigestion. These are people facing imminent death!! The poetic licence taken with the real events is very disappointing. Why ignore the fact the Canadians were the ones who in real life sheltered the escaped US embassy staff? It's wrong. The plot, obviously, is thrilling, so why does the script plod so much? For once, the soundtrack is not intrusive enough, it doesn't help build tension. The dialogue between the fugitives is mostly flimsy. Their characters aren't clear. John Goodman is a great presence as the Hollywood special effects man. The Hollywood producer is great, too. Ben Affleck doesn't have enough gravitas as the CIA hero who goes undercover as a movie producer in Iran. He must have been too tired to think about acting. The visual look of the film is one positive - the clothes, hair styles and furniture are all beautifully restrained and look authentic. | 1 |
463,444 | Hollywood cannot please all of the people all of the time. Hollywood cannot please Alan Moore any of the time.... And it's a real shame, because if Alan Moore had not chosen to distance himself from the movie adaptation of "Watchmen", and made it clear that he had no intention of seeing the movie, he would realise that "Watchmen" was a very good movie indeed. Possibly the best adaptation of the legendary comic book that could be made.True, "Watchmen" wasn't perfect. The dialogue was more comic book than movie. Carla Gugino and Matthew Goode were underused. Some of the popular music cues were misplaced. (Simon and Garfunkel's "The Sound Of Silence" is a beautiful and evocative song, and was used well, but appeared in the wrong time period in the movie. Compare and contrast with the perfect use of Dylan's "The Time's They Are A Changing" over the opening credits.) There was a tad overuse of slow motion action sequences. Some of the density of information of the original book was missing. (Then again, to have fitted it all in, how long would that movie have had to be?)When "Watchmen" worked, it worked perfectly. Excellent period detail, realistic violence (so brave of Zack Snyder to not compromise on showing the hard violence of the original book to get a more audience friendly certificate), massive scope and beautifully pitched performances. (No better performance than that of Billy Cudrup. A walking, talking special effect, to be true, but his calm serene voice hinted a unknown reserves of power and philosophical intelligence. He was the perfect Dr. Manhattan.)There is a small part of me that feels sad that he will now never see the Gilliam/Aronofsky/Greeengrass versions of "Watchmen", but Zack Snyder made a great film. It was a hard movie to pull off. He should be proud. | 0 |
500,976 | True romance had all the ingredients needed for a mind blowing movie mixed in Tarantino style. Can you ask for something better? NO!!!! I just finished watching True Romance and I could not believe the fact that I missed this movie and am watching it 16 years after it was released!!!I am a HUGE BIG fan of Quentin Tarantino as you would have realized by now. He proves it every time that he is the master of the trade. So to start with the movie would not have been what it is if it wasn't for the script, the witty dialogue and the dark humor, which was expected from Tarantino
So that was not the highlight of the film
For me the USP of this film, the thing that this film had which normally most films don't have were the brilliant acting performances by each and every actor
This film had greats like Brad Pitt, Christopher Walken, Sameul Jackson, Dennis Hopper in character roles!!! Every scene in the film is memorable and has been done with perfection and style... In the lead both Christian Slater and Patricia Arquette were superb
The movie's pace is fast it won't let you take your eyes of it even for a second
So if you haven't seen it you don't want to keep yourself away from it... or you will regret
I highly recommend this film
P.S. Do not watch the film with children or let them watch it by themselves ;), the film has a lot of explicit language, violence and adult themes attached to it
| 0 |
494,155 | I think this is one of the best war movies ever made and was way ahead of it's time in terms of the gore that was to come in movies much later in "Braveheart" and "Gladiator". I can watch this movie anytime it's on and feel it is one of Madsen's best although I am a huge fan of "The Insider" and "Heat". I think this love story along with the horrors of war during that time are very much reflected throughout this movie. | 0 |
102,718 | Steven Spielberg's "Jaws" was a revolutionary motion picture for its time. Before its release, the notion of a 'summer blockbuster' simply didn't exist. Then, this movie came along and became an unstoppable pop culture phenomenon, grossing a then-record $123 million dollars at the box office amidst a wave of critical praise.The story is a fairly simple one. In the sleepy island community of Amity, the normally placid waters are disturbed by an unwelcome visitor in the form of a deadly great white shark. The police chief immediately senses the danger but the town's mayor is reluctant to close the beaches just as tourist season is kicking into gear. When matters escalate the police chief takes it upon himself to recruit a grizzled fisherman to hunt down the dangerous predator.Since the producers wanted to make the shark the star of the picture they didn't go out of their way to cast any big names in leading roles. Instead, they went for talented actors best known for supporting or ensemble roles. To that end, they decided on Roy Scheider as police chief Brody, Robert Shaw as grizzled fisherman Quint and Richard Dreyfuss as shark expert Hooper. All three gave memorable performances, especially Robert Shaw, whose 'U.S.S. Indianapolis' speech is one of the movie's high points. Apart from these three, the acting is ably handled but fairly undistinguished except for Murray Hamilton as the fast-talking mayor.Spielberg's direction is superbly handled, yet he was unaccountably snubbed by Oscar voters. His handling of the film's suspense is so assured that I found the hairs standing up on the back of my neck when watching scenes that were already deeply embedded in my memory. The fact that the mechanical shark didn't work very well was actually serendipitous since it meant that Spielberg had to employ a 'less is more' approach that left more to the viewer's imagination. Another absolutely essential part of the film's allure is the iconic theme music. John Williams' score ratchets up the tension to an almost unbearable degree.Ultimately, the movie brings together fine actors and a compelling script, guided by a master director just beginning to come into his own. The effects may not be absolutely perfect but given all of the difficulties faced, that's no surprise. Minor imperfections aside, "Jaws" is undeniably a top notch thriller that could very well make you afraid to go into the water. | 0 |
481,497 | SPOILERS!!!!!! SPOILERS!!!!!!!!! SPOILERS!!!!!!!!! This film is a romanticized and sympathetic look (finally) at the Native American side of US expansion in the 1800's. A solitary US Army officer is sent out to manage a vast area of territory and is befriended by the Native Americans, without whom he would not have survived. Eventually, though, the Army comes through and is not pleased to find that he's "turned Injun". The film accurately paints the white man as encroaching upon land that they had signed a treaty that gave that land to the Native Americans. The white man indiscriminately kills the Bison that the Native Americans needed for food and shelter. Altogether, not a pretty picture of the white man and a somewhat romanticized picture of the Native American. The acting is superb and the story, unfortunately, is most likely similar to one played over and over again in the west. | 1 |
357,333 | when Dillon and his now ex-partner are outside the police station and Phillipe is about to tell him that he has a new partner. when Dillon grabs him and says "you think you know who you are but you have no idea." i think this was the moral of the story. how he's a "racist" but ends up saving the same woman's life and the "good" cop shoots the passenger (rightfully?) but throws him down the hill in the middle of nowhere and burns his car for evidence. and ludicrous also, how he is an armed car jacker but ends up freeing the china men and gives them 40 bucks - instead of giving them up to be slaves to the Russian guy who offered to pay ludicrous $500. | 1 |
479,776 | The Godfather Part 3 is for me the best in the trilogy. It is much more realistic and has religious issues attached. The new Pope is elected and dies...the Archbishop is murdered and Don Corleone's nephew Vinnie becomes Don when Michael suffers from a stroke.This film has to have the greatest ending ever. Michael and his daughter Mary are walking down the steps of the Opera House in Sicily and are shot at. Mary is shot through the chest and dies on the scene. Michael is sobbing and crying and screaming and shouting. It then cuts to a scene of Michael Corleone many years later when he is very very old and sitting by himself in a chair outside. He put on his shades. His head drops into his chest and he falls out of the chair...he is dead. The EndBrilliant | 1 |
484,375 | First and foremost, this film was never going to get any good press no matter what, that has to be said. Stallone had become about as fashionable as flared trousers after all the Rambo movies and at the time was a character there to be mocked. Sometimes we need to watch a movie years later to maybe give it its fair dues. Rocky V was by no means a terrible movie and for me certainly better than Rocky IV, which seems very naff when you watch it now. Rocky V tried too hard to get back the atmosphere of Rocky and Rocky II and Balboa dressing in his old style clothes was just too much. A decent soundtrack was also missing. Taken on their own, some scenes were actually quite well acted, like Tommy Gunn thanking Duke instead of Balboa, having just become world champion. Overall, average movie.. | 0 |
53,313 | Director Mulligan did a really good job of keeping true to the book of which this film is based, that was released only a short 2 years prior. Through brilliant framing, subjective pov, and long takes that often included monologues; this told and showed the story that has been a staple in America's history. It was highly culturally significant when it was penned, and it remains something that we look at today, because it dealt with more than just race, but also the stereotypes we place on people and how those are usually wrong (easily seen in Boo Radley's case). The film shows strength, cruelty, bravery in all of the everyday ways in which it as experienced, and that teaching doesn't end at with youth. That the student can just as easily learn, and then become the teacher. The best example is Atticus to his daughter Scout, who then speaks to Mr. Cunnighamn. She does so calmly and casually; she reminds him who he is when he isn't filled with hate and rage, and that her and her family are people just like him, reminding him that his son goes to school with her and of her father saying "thank you" after an act of surprise kindness he had done a while ago. She learns and grows throughout this experience, and is the vehicle through which the learning curve can be taught and seen to an audience that would have been conflicted during those times (the 1960s). | 0 |
558,555 | Stanley Kubrick has always been a unique Film Director as any of his films. Mixed comments have emerged since the release of his latest film "Eyes Wide Shut". I believe the story unfolded at the right pace and at the right time, revealing the information needed to the viewer to assimilate the nature of this Film. The cinematography was impeccable so was the acting. Much of the natural light was used without the need of extra lights on the set, therefore creating a much more natural look of the ambient, even if I believe a faster film stock had to be used to achieve this and so more grainy. If you are a Stanley Kubrick fan I believe you will like and understand this film, if you are not, this film will give you the opportunity to understand why Mr.Kubrick was so unique. | 0 |
19,189 | The best western so far (we are talking 36 years). Clint Eastwood plays one of his best roles ever. He is the soft but tough guy from nowhere (as usual?). Use 3 hours and watch this western and you will use 6...9....12...hours. This is what western movies are all about....... | 0 |
285,602 | MI2 was all purely entertainment from start to finish. The only actor that stood out or left an impression on me was Tom Cruise. He gave a good performance here. The opening sequence to the film, on the plane, was exciting and set the film up very nicely. The movie went down a little from there and wasn't able to pick up again towards the end. Thandie Newton also was underused in this movie, I felt she had alot more talent that was portrayed in this film. Overall the ending was jam packed with action, alot of it too far fetched, but still enjoyable. It deserves either a 6 or 7 out of 10. | 0 |
163,748 | Moonrise Kingdom (2012)It's hard to see anyone not liking this movie on one level or another. It's really really well made, top to bottom. The art direction almost takes front row in this one, in coordination with the photography, creating a plasticky, beautiful, fluid, and highly stylized view of mid-1960s summer camp on an island in Maine. It's breathtaking and flawless on that visual, physical level. It even breaks rules with impunity--rain bashing the windshield and then it's sunny and bright, or waters savaging the town and people surviving by hanging like paper dolls from a church eave.Okay, you should know by now that this is a fable, a fairy tale set in rustic beautiful coastal America. The stars are children even if the famous actors are adults. (You want a list, you haven't yet heard that the cast includes Bill Murray, Edward Norton, Tilda Swinton, Harvey Keitel, Francis McDormand, and Bruce Willis. Yes!)The first analogy that came to mind was "Night of the Hunter" for all the slightly and playfully surreal elements in a serious story of children striking out on their own. This one, in color, is less brooding, for sure. In fact, one of things to love is the bright humor all through. It's either hilarious or witty or clever every single second. When it's touching, or even deeply moving, it remains airy and perfect, too. The references, subtle and obvious (from Tang to Boy Scout patches to nods to the movies and their romantic distillations), are part of the content. You know you are watching through a filter. Unlike, say, "The Artist," which sort of re-creates the past and makes it clean and bright and shiny, this invents a new kind of reality that seems to be a perfect example of the past. It doesn't just mime it. It becomes it, fresh. Though utterly false, too, on purpose. Like a memory polished in a mirror.Of the adult actors there isn't much to say. They play their exaggerated parts with restraint (a great trick) and the over-the-top plot keeps finding little things to keep it in check. The movie never quite gets carried away (though the end with the storm does push the limits, switching to an almost-not-quite black and white for awhile, beautifully). The movie does carry the viewer away, however.I saw this with my girlfriend who isn't from the U.S. and she liked the film but didn't love it. It might partly be sense of humor or taste, but I think it's partly how imbedded the nostalgia for the real 1960s is for many of us who grew up then, in the U.S. Everything was, as in the "Truman Show," a kind of nod to a seemingly ideal, safe, happy, ridiculously simple and moral time. Even the immorality here is limited to a touching of hands, as seen through some binoculars.The one thread that I somehow predict will become a problem for born-agains and do-gooders (no offense, to either, I think) is that there is an implicit sanctioning of teenage touching, pre-sex, and running away. I know, it's a fairy tale, but when the main boy is smoking a pipe, he isn't just miming his dad, he's smoking a pipe. When the girl says the boy can touch him where he shouldn't, he does. It's amazingly innocent, but it does imply a freedom unthinkable in the movies of the 1960s, if not in real life.By the way, this is set before the hippy 60s. There is no hint of drugs or even rock and roll. The adults as much as the kids are pure as snow. Just a bit restless and wanting more than what they have. Which is maybe the story of all of us, one point or another.See this. See this. See this. | 0 |
46,900 | Kane's dying words are so simple and yet so powerful "Rosebud".Rosebud's the name of Kane's sled which he lose when he's taken away from his mother. Its the moment when he also lose the innocent of being an child and youthful happens. Those are replaced with the prospect of becoming an adult in an hostile world. That brings noting than just misery and unhappiness. Thus the meaning of Kane's final words's right in front of everyone sight yet nobody see through them. Because they themselves have also gone through similar prospect as Mr. Kane when going form youthful child to an unfulfilled adult. Citizan Kane's far as i'm concerned is just one of very few movies that make me cry every time I watch. Probably because I feel deeply connected with the change of going from child to an adult. Which I find highly depressing. Deepdown I feel like child trying to survive in the hostile world of acting like an adult, just like mr. Kane had to do in the movie. | 1 |
141,798 | David Fincher in recent years has grown to become one of America's best known directors working today. He has an interesting, oftentimes dark visual style that he features, and usually he has an interesting story to tell. Unfortunately, in this film, the story is just not interesting enough. It's kind of a typical murder mystery film, with some twists and turns, and an ending that really isn't too shocking. What raises this up from being completely mediocre is Rooney Mara's performance as the title character. Otherwise, this story here doesn't have enough weight or originality to stand out over other pretty good mystery films.Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) is a journalist who's fallen out of favor after possible slanderous reporting. He is called upon by Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer), the ex- CEO of a company, to solve the mystery of his missing and presumed dead niece who disappeared 40 years ago. He ends up being partnered with an anti-social computer hacker, Lisbeth (Rooney Mara), who uses her skill and research to help solve the case. Mikael and Lisbeth ("The girl with the dragon tattoo") don't meet up until halfway through the film, and the first half features them each working separately. All the scenes in the first half of the film focusing on Lisbeth are very interesting. While Mikael gets immediately thrown into the main story, Lisbeth is given almost a character study (that furthers along the plot) for the first half of the film. Rooney Mara is really great here, giving the character layers, with such understated acting. The character is emotionally disturbed and apparently "crazy" but any trait is hidden beneath this straight and unflinching face. Daniel Craig's character, on the other hand, is not nearly as interesting, and for some reason, he mumbles here a lot, so he's also hard to understand at times. The mystery he's trying to solve is interesting conceptually, but visually it's often hard to convey excitement when he's sitting alone reading up on research.When the characters finally meet, about 75 minutes into this 160 minute behemoth, the mystery story gels a bit more, mainly because Daniel Craig finally has someone interesting to interact with. Where the film is lacking is largely in the story. The revelation at the end as to the connections of murders, and potential villains aren't that interesting. The resolution of the film must take darned near 30 minutes, and the main thing I took away from the film, was what a great performance Ms. Mara gave, and what an interesting character she played. The plot is by-the-numbers mystery, and the film does at times drag. David Fincher's direction is alright, but he doesn't make researching the murder much more than mundane. He throws in a few disorienting movements of the camera's placement, but other than that, this doesn't feel like a really great David Fincher directed film. It feels more like an O.K. mystery thriller, that has a great performance, some tense moments, and overall just kind of slips out of one's memory after a while. This film isn't bad by any means, it just doesn't have enough going for it to make it anything more than somewhat generic, other than the character of Lisbeth. It is overlong, though not bloated, and really not a lot could have been cut out without either cutting the story, or getting rid of good character scenes. The mystery is sort of interesting, but not nearly engaging enough. The final scene in the film was very good however, and mixed character development with a sort of sadness, giving the film a bittersweet feeling. The title character basically saves this film, and rises it above mediocrity, though not quite enough above.My rating: ** 1/2 out of ****. 160 mins. R for violence, sexuality and brief nudity. | 0 |
254,963 | Oh it's been a long time that I enjoyed a sci fi movie like this. In fact I don't like today's sci fi at all, but Passengers has that existentialistic feeling that I love so much from the 1970's sci fi movies like Omega Man and The Andromeda Strain. The visuals and the acting are amazing. Watching the spaceship interiors is like living there. The futuristic design is fantastic. Chris Pratt looked never more honest and sincere and Jennifer Laurence is a always a natural. In the end the story becomes somehow a bit cliché, but I don't mind. | 0 |
80,221 | It's a real shame that people are so easily led astray. Kill Bill was the movie equivalent of of a Sean Combs song. Nothing original, just "samples" that attempt to draw similar feelings that the viewers/listeners may have felt when they first saw/heard the subject matter. The real shame is that when I look back at the other Tarantino "classics" that I genuinely enjoyed before I find that by and large they suffer from a similar malady. The main difference is that the other three films at least have compelling dialog and some attempt at subtext. Kill Bill was the kind of mindless schlock that I can generally avoid since I stopped watching predictable action cartoons when I was 12. It was particularly sad to see the ham-fisted attempts to create interest in its characters. The way in which Tarantino practically clubs us over the head with the fact that we don't know Thurman's character's name, for instance, seems particularly amateurish when compared with David Fincher's handling of the same sort of device in Fight Club where, if it weren't for the scene where Helen Bonham Carter's character brings it up, you could watch the movie multiple times and probably not notice that you never learn the main character's name. My advice to movie viewers everywhere is that rather than watch a movie that is a remake or "homage" to another movie or genre of movies, just watch the originals. They are almost always better, anyway. | 0 |
365,041 | Dodgeball is one of the most stupid, retarded movies I ever saw, and I absolutely loved it. The jokes in this movie are so bad, they're actually good. The story is standard good versus evil. The good guys are the underdogs from Average Joe's Gym, the bad guys are the muscular show offs from Globo Gym. And of course there's the love interest in the middle of the two protagonists: Christine Taylor (aka ms. Stiller). From there on it's all about slap stick and absurd dialogues. Try picturing a bunch of losers getting hit by wrenches thrown by a lunatic in a weelchair. Picture Ben Stiller as a wacky mustached work out guy getting aroused by putting a slice of pizza in his pants. This is what Dodgeball has to offer. One of the sparkling high lights of this movie is Stillers overacting in contrast with Vince Vaughns easy going 'play'. You're in for some stupid dialogues, man o man. If you want sophisticated humour in the likes of Woody Allen, than you rang the wrong door bell mister. But if you're actually smart enough to see through this thick layer of stupidness, and you can picture with how much irony this pic was made by Stiller and company, then you'll be a Dodgballer for life! I dare you: watch this movie without being cracked up. If you pull it off, I'll buy you dinner. If you can't: surrender yourself to the ball for it is your god. | 0 |
235,955 | to be quick: all the people involved in this movie (director, producer, writer, actors, FX artists, technicians, chopper pilots, car dealers, toilet cleaners,...) should be banned for life to be involved in another movie. Also all the viewers (including myself who watched at this movie on TV because I had nothing to do on a thursday night) should be sentenced to watch at all The Rock movies (but maybe this would be a crime against humanity). | 0 |
194,363 | Dude, what is the point in having CGI for the zombies to climb up the wall? Seriously that's just a stupid lazy way to put on a action/horror film! I have to tell you this, this is one of the worst movies that Brad Pitt has ever been dragged in.Thank the Lord I didn't watch the whole movie because I would be bored out of tears and seriously be going crazy. It would do your head in! Yknow nowadays with CGI, it doesn't always work out in some movies especially ones that involve with Zombies! I would rather watch Michael Jackson's music video of "Thriller" then looking at this!I don't understand why it has a IMDb rating of 7.1 and a 63 metascore. It really didn't deserve it, it needs to be rethought again because realistically, I would be expecting bad reviews or a bad metascore from critics.....p | 1 |
421,573 | Joe Wright (the BAFTA Award-winning director of Pride & Prejudice), has reunited with his film-making team and his Academy Award-nominated actress, Keira Knightley (one of my favorite actresses), for another classic British romance, starring James McAvoy as her leading man. I had read the original novel and I thought it is a good W.W.II romance/unsolved mystery story.I would quiver and twitch during the suspension in the film, like when Briony saw Robbie (her crush) and Cecilia (her older sister) by the fountain. And also when she read the letter written with sadistic-perverted undertones when in reality it was a second draft that Robbie deemed to silly to use. Briony assumes that Robbie is a nymphomaniac and it is with this notion that she accuses Robbie with the rape of Cecilia, but really they were making love...HEL-LO! she's only 13, she shouldn't see that! So overall, my last word is that this is an great film to see. | 0 |
162,905 | I gave up on this film twice but returned just to make sure the ending didn't redeem the film somehow. It didn't.. Completely confusing with cringing moments of cheesy pandering. The scene in the Scottish pub is unbelievable. Some great acting from Hanks and Neil wasted in a completely awful film.Even if I wasted another 3 hours of my life and watched the whole mess again it still wouldn't make any sense and I would stop caring if it did after 12 mins.I honestly have no idea what the film is about, just jumping around between various random stories with obviously some deep and meaningful connection. A cult classic for the beardy woolly jumper brigade.. | 0 |
167,819 | Let's break it down:● The new *amazing* Spiderman has suddenly lost his healing powers: During the entire film Spiderman gets scratched and injured, and the wounds just stay. In one scene Gwen even gives Spiderman a medical assistance for just a few scratches. What's next? A hospitalization for a broken foot or a stomach upset?● No Mary Jane, no Daily Planet: In an outward appearance, this movie is a crude remake of Spiderman (2002) film and it copies everything but the important parts: Jonah Jameson from the Daily Planet and the romantic tension between Peter Parker and Mary Jane. Why are you trying to retell a story which is already perfectly told?● Unclosed corners:Why did Peter Parker's parents die? What was the briefcase that they left him and why?Why does Peter Parker stops to search for his uncle Ben's murderer for absolutely no reason, and continues with his life as usual?What is the idea behind Lizard's attempt to infect the city if the impact is temporary anyway? Even by injection Dr. Curt Connors stays as The Lizard for less than a day. Why is there no press in the movie? A new superhero comes and no press opinion? Why does Spiderman keeps revealing the man behind the mask so damn often? Why is Aunt May like a ghost in this film? Does she really can't have more impact than cooking dinners?★ You cannot reboot an already perfectly done franchise! ★Bad. Awful. Horrible. | 0 |
263,062 | TL;DR The worst adaptation with the label "Star Wars" to date. Real fans will be devestated. Dont spend money on this atrocity. I wont spend anymore money on future Disney movies. It has been 4 days and i am still devestated, my friends and i are still discussing everyday how stupid this movie was.I have just returned from the midnight premiere of "The Last Jedi" and i am baffled...The first 10 minutes already give me PTSD flashbacks when i think of them, they got a fricking mother joke into star wars...Have the people responsable for this movie actually ever seen a single Star Wars movie ? I guess not.
I am looking at this review score on here (8,4 at the time i am writing this) and am thinking to myself if the people who voted this movie up have ever seen a Star Wars movie before ? I also guess not. Episode 8 has NOTHING to do with what Star Wars is for us, what our childhood was, what the universe means for us fans. Disney is trampling our favourite franchise with their boots. Ever since the prequels came out the community always saw them in a negative light, oh boy i tell you the prequels are gold in comparison to this.
Somehow Disney thought that Star Wars is a comedy franchise, they bombard the viewer with jokes left and right and most of them are horrible, cringy and far from fitting to the actual situation. The Story is absolute banana bullshit, but shhh no spoilers in my review. Oh and i have to add that everything Episode 7 is introduced is shat on in Episode 8, it is liek the new Director didnt even want to think about plotline that J.J created so he just ended them as quickly as he could.Tbh i cant really find the right words anymore thats how devestated i am. I need to stop now, i could ramble on and write a novel on this matter and somehow it would be a better movie than Episode 8. | 0 |
272,540 | When the Grinch came out I was excited though I thought it was going to be a happy go lucky film and it was. Though it did have a little Nightmare before Christmas touch to it. You know kind of dark and spooky. I loved this film because it helped fill people with the Christmas spirit. So mostly the Grinch saved Christmas. And what happened then well in Whoville they say that the Grinch's small heart grew three sizes that day. MERRY GRINCHMAS! | 0 |
466,978 | The Baltimore-set movie of interconnecting story arcs deals with the challenges of reading or misreading human behavior. The worst part about the 2009 romantic film He's Just Not That Into You is the entire plot surrounding this couples there are a few good ones like Ben Affleck and Jennifer Aniston who are easily the best part of the entire movie, the Jennifer Connelly, Scarlett Johansson and Bradley Cooper trio was entertaining but it could have been much better and then there's the absolutely worst part of the film which is this girl named Gigi played by Ginnifer Goodwin and i don't think that the actress was the problem she was actually decent the reason why she was annoying it was the character itself i mean i have seen movies where a girl tried to kill herself because she "lost" that one true love and of course the other way around as well but this chick is so desperate to be with someone to the point where you can't even take her seriously anymore it just feels cheesy and dumb and i'm sorry but she ruined the entire film for me. The father - daughter relationship between Kris Kristofferson and Jennifer Aniston was also another aspect i really liked, Drew Barrymore's character is almost forgettable and Kevin Connolly is just not that interesting. Overall to sum it all up 'He's Just Not That Into You' is a below average comedy/romance film with some good performances but also some pretty useless characters plus the running time of 129 minutes is absurd for a film of this kind because there's like 2 or 3 scenes that could be removed very easily. (5/10) | 1 |
140,679 | This movie is more like an ensemble piece, in which every couple has to deal with a certain pain to become ready for love. Usually it is sugar-coated, these movies. And yes, it is not a deep- layered structure of in-depth character exposition. But somehow, between the easy script lines, there is an unusual aspect in all of these people that makes you being surprised. What aspect? Its honesty. Honest script-writing. With that comes an undeniable fun that the actors have, when portraying their characters. And their love for their character radiates on us.I have seen this movie many times and i can recommend you to be uplifted by it. We all need sometimes to be remembered that love exists. But not the fairy tale-version..... What better advise then: love cannot breath without pain...? | 0 |
292,424 | There is only one reason why this flick will never have its rightful place in Hollywood history. With great anticipation, I watched Denzel Washington (who I believe walks on water) take on his first roll as a bad guy. Even though his performance was stellar, there was just something significantly wrong with this film throughout. While contemplating the thin line between art imitating life and its opposite, consider the following.A Hollywood good guy who takes on the role of a bad guy is best served by pairing with someone who is also reputed as good. Remember the movie "Heat"? Ethan Hawke is not that guy.While the movie was set in the most notorious urban jungle, the good cop managed to do some things that simply can't be done by a white cop in a real environment of the same notoriety. Even people from the squeaky clean suburbs know that downtrodden minorities have no love (or trust) for white police officers simply because they are white (the oppressor). I could go on criticizing Training Day for other little quirks, but it really would not matter. There truly is only one reason why this potentially great movie (great like Gladiator) won't ever be regarded as such. Somebody made a fatal casting mistake. If Cuba Gooding Jr. had been the rookie, you can bet that this movie would have been in line for several Oscar awards. As fate would have it instead, Denzel Washington's first performance as a bad guy may go down in history as a forgettable moment. Imagine a sequel to this movie starring Ethan Hawke now as a veteran. Would you go see it? What a shame... Denzel did such an awesome job! | 0 |
249,920 | Okay, to begin with, I don't understand why everyone is hating on this film. Most of the critics have pounded it. A couple have gone back to watch it a second time and come away with a more favourable opinion. I have to confess that I am a major geek and I was so looking forward to this film. Finally, Superman and Batman together. YAY. What more could a geeky fan girl want. The movie is dark, but that seems to be the DC universe right now and that's fine with me. Gritty and dark works, especially for Batman. Remember the Nolan trilogy? But now a lot of people are complaining that it's too dark. But that is the way that the Batman universe always was. I am not counting the campy 60's TV series or the downright foolish comics during the height of the comic book code that neutered the stories down to ridiculous levels. The Nolan trilogy worked for me because that was the world that Batman was living in. Now what people have to understand that is DC and Marvel are different. That does not mean that one is better than the other, both are great along with their siblings Dark Horse IWD Boom etc. But they are different. So I am not going to compare DC with Marvel, I love them both but spending the better part of fifty years reading and collecting comics I know enough not to make that mistake. Now after getting all that out of the way, why the movie works.First of all, the grimness which is what seems to be a major thing and why Kevin Smith said it had no heart. Now I love Kevin Smith and I know that he knows comics but like many people, he is falling into the 'if Marvel characters can crack jokes and be tongue in cheek, then why can't Batman and Superman?'Because Batman and Superman aren't Deadpool, (which who the way a freaking loved, and a review will follow shortly)and they are not Ironman or any Marvel character. Batman is deeply flawed, he was traumatized as a child by the death of his parents. This was something that has haunted his all his life. This is not the guy that's going to be cracking one-liners.Superman is different to Batman as day is to night. Superman in this interpretation is just setting out on the whole hero thing. He is still finding his legs and living on a farm in Kansas didn't really prepare him all that well. This is not helped by his father who wants him to keep has head down and draw attention to himself. But Superman is doing the best he can. He wants to help people, he just hasn't got it quite right yet.Batman is driven by his inner demons and this particular take on his character is a rather frightening. This is a Batman that really doesn't mind bloodshed. Hell, he even brands the bad guys, YEESH. (Sorry but it is kinda Sin Cityish isn't it.)Both Cavill and Affleck are excellent in their roles, Affleck surprisingly so. I think that is one thing the Critics can agree on if nothing else. By the way, kudos to Jeremy Irons, best Alfred ever. Jesse Eisenberg was good as Lex Luthor but personally he would not have been my first choice. Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman was perfectNow to the movie itself. I loved it, but then I went in wanting to love it and I did. I know I am swimming upstream from so many people that hated it but the movie worked for me.Now that's not to say it was a perfect movie, it wasn't. The Doomsday arc in the storyline felt rushed and I think, took away from the conflict between Superman and Batman which I think could have been explored a bit more.The action was great and it didn't let up. The chemistry between Superman and Batman was great, from the time of their first introduction right to Superman taking the roof of the Batmobile off and God, wasn't that awesome. But I think Zack Snyder made a mistake by resolving the conflict to quickly. Once again it felt a little rushed.The fight against Doomsday was great though and Wonder Woman was in her element. That little smile as she picked herself up from the rubble and rushed into the fray again was terrific. You could see she was having a ball. It was also a joy to see a more hands on and somewhat snarky Alfred doing his thing. The hints about the Joker and Robin's fate were well done and I am hoping that future movies will expand on this. Especially wit Suicide Squad on it's way. (Looking forward to seeing Jared Leto's Joker)All up, I think that critics have been too harsh and I hope that people keep going and seeing Dawn Of Justice, it's not perfect but it's fun and leading towards bigger things. After all, catching a glimpse of Aquaman and the Flash was cool. Hmmm, wonder how they are going to put Green Lantern in there. | 1 |
160,007 | My cousin showed me a very nice film , I cried very much liked me I would recommend a period our souls in this I am glad that you are anonymous movie paylaşo my house my mother-in- law rented We 're home of his uncle Ibiza care was now safe in the apartment site our pool you have bestowed more beautiful to those who ask God : > Mia mate Hugh jack man God drew you to catapult him very comfortable very successful bi I pray for our brothers drew so much I explained to him in the film itself already has in itself already something like this was a man Valle what you would expect to get halal I say shame on stores Adviser my friend to everyone come a little Mia from Germany GeKD hacks until | 1 |
84,059 | The director takes you where he wants to. Somewhere between third story your mindset is completely transformed and you are approvingly awaiting something explosive, violent to happen. It awakens something wild in the viewer and it doesn't try to morally justify the violence portrayed. It just makes you connect with something primitive and approving of the character's behaviors. I loved the music, in the very first story It helps to accomplish a thrilling, exciting beginning. You'll find it hard to choose your favorite one but i bet the third one will be the winner most of the times. It is just amazingly savage, crude and somehow funny.The film really flies by but it doesn't leave an unsatisfying feeling which happens often after watching compilations of short films.pd: excuse my English | 0 |
180,457 | The Great Gatsby is a 3D film adaptation the 1925 novel of the same name that stars Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, Carey Mulligan, Joel Edgerton, and Elizabeth Debicki.It follows the life and times of millionaire Jay Gatsby and his neighbor Nick Carraway, who recounts his encounter with Gatsby at the height of the 1920's.This serves as a tribute to F. Scott Fitzgerald on the 116th anniversary of his birth and the 1925 novel of the same name.It was co-written and directed by Baz Luhrmann.It is the spring of 1922, an era of loosening morals, glittering jazz, bootleg kings, and sky-rocketing stocks. Chasing his own American Dream, Nick lands next door to a mysterious, party-giving millionaire, Jay Gatsby and across the bay from his cousin,Daisy and her philandering, blue-blooded husband, Tom Buchanan. As Nick bears witness to the captivating world of the rich,he writes a tale that consists of impossible love, incorruptible dreams and tragedy that similar to our own struggles in the present.This film is definitely a visually great.It won two Oscars for best production design and best costume design.Too bad that the viewer feels that too much effort was placed in it rather than Fitzgerald's story itself.Also,we get lost in following the material especially when we are continuously amazed with the visual effects of the movie that is so excessive just like the parties hosted by Gatsby himself. Too bad the this great story was presented in a boring and dull manner that one does not hold interest in the tales and themes it is trying to convey.In the end,lessons that could have been learned gets lost somewhere in this film.As for the performances,there is nothing really worthy to be mentioned despite of the talented cast involved in it.Too bad that it is only a minor improvement of the Robert Redford and Mia Farrow-starrer of the 1974 The Great Gatsby.But nevertheless,this film is definitely what Jay Gatsby would say if he were alive today,"A visual splendor,old sport!!!" | 1 |
566,551 | The World is Not Enough By Dean Kish Pierce Brosnan's third outing as James Bond and a slew of controversy if it will be his last. Feeling responsible for the death of a British oil tycoon and a friend, who died in an explosion in MI6 headquarters, James Bond takes position as bodyguard to the tycoon's daughter, Elektra (Sophie Marceau), who has a mysterious past and hidden agenda. In recent weeks, Brosnan has gone on record saying he wants more revealing and sexier love scenes in Bond and he would love to see Bond killed off. He has also said he wouldn't mind leaving Bond behind. Are these the greatest things to be saying upon the opening of the film? It would be such a shame when he finally seems to be playing Bond right and having a script that finally wants us to see more Bond. After the dismal `Tomorrow Never Dies' I was wondering how the franchise was going to rebound. In the two past Brosnan/Bond films, we had superficial scripts which never had any depth. The stunts and deliveries were setup like other action films of the times but none really addressed why Bond is Bond. The last two were just basically action films with Pierce Brosnan. I guess the next question to ask is who or what is Bond? And why that element makes a good Bond film. A superior Bond film is always in the script and the intrigue associated with a spy. In the latest film the script always has two levels going on coupled with a pain within Bond himself. These play off each other as the perpetual hero shows the signs of being human. In the past 5 Bond films they have been trying to make him more human and it really isn't till this one that they seem to have located the angle they sought. Betrayed, injured, and scorned are just some of the emotions I haven't seen in Bond in years. And that's exactly why this one works and why its the best Bond in ten years. With this revelation, director Michael Apted's action sequences and locales seem to be fleshed out and in the highest of Bond form. Apted pushes the envelope with a great Bond finale which pivots Bond and the villain dueling in a submarine spiraling towards the bottom of the ocean. This sequence is true Bond and reminds me a lot of the great climaxes of the 80's pictures. Within the cast is the always brilliant Sophie Marceau who's innocent but brutal Elektra is going to be a fondly remembered Bond girl. Wasted is 2nd Bond girl Denise Richards who seems to be quite out of her element and made me thinking that these two could be father and daughter instead of lovers. Richards looks like a teen and is supposed to be a `Lara Croft type nuclear expert'? Rounding out the rest of the cast is `the man who can feel no pain' Renard played deviously by Robert Carlyle. Carlyle reminded me a lot of Sean Bean's 006 in `Goldeneye'. With this entry into the Bond vault I hope Brosnan comes back for at least two or three more. Connery and Moore did over six each why can't Brosnan. So here is to the continuation of the franchise. (4 of 5) So Says the Soothsayer. | 0 |
150,298 | I can't say you should not watch this latest installation of MI series. In fact, if you have 2+ hours to kill, if you like beautiful set pieces, spy gadgetry and BMW product placement and if you want something that has Tom Cruise in it - this is your movie. Except that you need to remember one thing Ghost Protocol is lacking everything that made 1st and 3rd MI movies good, and 2nd - bearable.MI series have always pushed the believability envelope with outlandish spy tech, but that played only second fiddle to the moments of true tension, thrilling action sequences, and all of it was glued together with somewhat acceptable logic of the events. Mission was well defined, the enemy had the depth and the reason, and the conflict between good and evil felt real.Sadly enough Ghost Protocol fails on all these counts. The story is extremely bad, even dumb, I could literary come up with a better plot in 15 minutes.Despite lots of action there are no intense moments here, you never feel Ethan Hunt is one step away from death or that he is under the enormous pressure of making a critical decision.If there is a room with a door that good guys want to get access to, it is guaranteed they will choose the most absurd, most expensive, most pseudo-hi-tech way to do it using most ridiculous gizmo they could find. In fact the amount of unnecessary tech toys and super-duper spy stuff is so over the top here the movie looks like the parody of itself.The major flaw (and the amazing one at that, since no experienced production team would ever overlook this) is that the villain's character is not developed at all, we're given almost no explanation of his actions or motives. Actually he barely speaks two words during the entire movie, which is such a mind-blowing contrast to Philipp Seymour Hoffmans's stellar portrayal of Owen Davian in MI3. As always everything taking place in Russia looks retarded, which is a common Hollywood's problem, it's a mystery to me why it is so hard to avoid stupidity when showing Eastern Europe. Movie locations feel more forced than ever, like Burj Dubai, that has no business being in the movie other than for the picturesque purposes.The lack of logic in everything that takes place is quite impressive, I actually suspect someone at the studio had a bet regarding what level of idiocy movie audience will tolerate without starting Occupy Hollywood protests if only they infuse this moronic script with multi-million dollar budget.Brad Bird was clearly a wrong choice for a MI director, considering that the only action comedy he ever made was The Incredibles, which is my favorite cartoon, but still just a cartoon, and much more of a comedy than action. In comparison, MI1 was directed by Brian De Palma, MI2 - by John Woo, and MI3 by JJ Abrams. I have a feeling Paramount executives secretly wish for MI series to go out with a lame fizzle, and doing their best to achieve that.To avoid descending into spoiler hell I will not delve into multiple WTF moments where either laziness or lack of common sense resulted in directorial decisions that poorly translated to the screen.To sum it up if you decide to go watch it come in with low expectations, that will make Your Mission a success. | 0 |
206,150 | There is a bit of the King's Magic Suit Of Clothes about this film. A bit like "modern art", lots of people will pretend that they like it when in reality they don't. It is self-indulgent for sure and at times Anderson is clearly amusing himself. There is a similarity of style between Anderson and Jean-Pierre Junet (Amelie etc) but Junet has real style to go with his wit whereas Anderson is lacking in these subtleties a lot of the time. I also had a problem seeing what was going on for some of the time. Everything was very dark and perhaps my cinema has a poor projector, but I have never encountered this problem there before and I go frequently. Also the editing was very erratic - some shots needed longer because there was lots to take in that was relevant to the plot. Others were indulgently drawn out. I think I need to see this film again because I think I missed some of the plot and some of the clever "only on for a second" shots. On the plus side, the characters and the actors were excellent. The sets were stunningly brilliant. The story is fascinating and some of the dialogue sparkles with humour. Some of the shots such as the red lift scene are beautifully made and the actors and camera movements are clever before they become repetitious. So, don't expect a European-Quality film but it has way more quality than the vast majority of US films. If you go to see it, I would sit fairly close to the screen in a good central position and be prepared to watch very closely so you don't miss anything. You'll probably really enjoy it! | 0 |
92,348 | So this is the first Thor movie I've ever watched and while I was watching it, something about it seemed off.I won't go into a detailed review since other people have already done a good job of doing that but...I realized the style of humor really just reminded me of one of those Family guy parodies just as they did with Star Wars.That's why I didn't really enjoy it. Oh well. :/ | 0 |
376,820 | Whether or not you have read the great Douglas Adam's book version's or not, I really must recommend that people who are interested in seeing something a little different see this.The plot is definitely original: Human Arthur Dent and his alien mate hitch a ride on a ship just before the earth is destroyed to make way for a galactic space way!! With the help of the Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy, they join two other characters on a journey through the universe, with may mad cap adventures occurring.Considering that they crammed five books into one film, they have done a stellar job of keeping the great British humor intact, even though some great book moments were left out. Even so, this is a thoroughly enjoyable ride through a wonderful universe, and a worthy introduction to a world many hold dear. | 1 |
334,731 | When I went down to the local video shop as I do most Fridays I happened to glance upon Bruce Almighty. I had of course heard of it before but that day was the day I decided to finally watch it. Being a Jim Carrey fan I was excited and thought it would be a good movie as the plot was original and I also happen to like Morgan Freeman. I'm not sure if it was my high expectations that ruined the movie of the fact that is just wasn't that great. A few 'run of the mill' type jokes, and it dragged on a bit without much interesting happening a couple of times. Still, it is a good 'blob out infront of the TV' type movie, and I would recommend it to anyone who has nothing to do, or wants a movie to fall asleep infront of.4 out of 10 (and yes, I still like Jim Carrey) | 0 |
330,270 | Over the past 5 years there has been an explosion in Korean movies, non however as powerful and memorable as this one. Director Park Chan Wook is able to deliver this nightmarish plot almost to beautifully. His carefully choreographed one take fight scene with have you breathless, and the use of violence is used only to further the story. Like kill bill this is an all out revenge movie,however were it differs is in the unexpected twists and turns that will have you stunned for days. Add to that the performance of Min-sick Choi and you are left stunned. On top of everything the movie has an unforgettable soundtrack full of compositions and Tecno- ballads. This movie will blow your mind and will certainly be something you will never forget, even if you didn't like it. | 0 |
126,180 | Rarely do you get to see a movie that promises a lot and then, lives up to it's promise. The King's Speech is a rare piece, indeed.The movie starts off with a stammering speech and signs off with a staggering one, with hardly any glitches in between. The basic premise of the movie is fairly simple. A king with a stutter is helped by a maverick speech therapist to overcome his problem and become an inspiring orator. That sounds like a very known territory to most movie goers. But few minutes into the movie, and you realize that this one simply pushes the bar a notch higher.It is a very pleasing movie, doesn't lead the audience into a lot of uncomfortable questions. However, the artistry lies in the overall balance of the movie. You slowly start getting gripped by David Seidler's screenplay. The actors are superb, takes it slow and steady with superb grip on each of their characters. While Colin Firth puts in a spectacular performance (one you can't miss), Geoffrey Rush goes a bit more old school and pulls off a subtle and deep portrayal. One that fills up your heart but also keeps your brain active. Humor comes in here and there, with a very easy flow and steady pace. Not for a single moment do you perceive the movie as dull. Helena Bonham Carter is good. Guy Pearce is appropriate, though he does look a bit too casual at times (maybe that was an intentional character flaw).Most of the movie had been filmed indoors, albeit with eloquent art direction. But the occasional sequences shot outside had been filmed very beautifully, portraying a very dreamy picture of the then England. Sometimes, the camera goes in too close to the characters, and stays there for a while, just long enough to give us a sense of suffocation, quite an artistic equivalent of a speech disorder ! But then again, negative shades had been whitewashed with joyous ones and you never perceive it as a dark movie. Direction wise, Tom Hooper is bang on ! This is the kind of a movie where you want to give a lot of credit to the director. The set-up is such that the dramatic elements are high but needs to be tamed, so that it doesn't goes over board. And Mr.Hooper hits the bulls eye ! Perfect balance.All points considered, it's a brilliant movie and a must watch. And a very strong competitor at the Oscars this year ! | 1 |
568,454 | I have not seen the original movie but, definetely, this remake deceived me. I didn't like neither Brosnan or Russo's performance. A few times in my life I have told myself "what a waste of time!) but after watching The Thomas Crown Affair, I did. In my honest opinion, when a remake is done, it has to be better than the original. I doubt that this is the case. My rate: 4/10. | 0 |
196,239 | The story is well told and gives you a good idea of how a man named John Reid becomes the Lone Ranger. The kind of film that proves that a small story can be much more meaningful than a larger one. Johnny Depp stole the show for his portrayal of Tonto, I thought. The cinematography is stark and bare, with only the soundtrack adding some effect. From an artistic standpoint, there were some plot elements and character developments I didn't think were totally needed. They do however drive the story, which seemed to be their purpose, so I can accept them. Heartfelt and riveting from the first frame to the last. My only problem with the film was the supporting cast. | 0 |
141,581 | this is my favourite film at the moment. It's so good. The only thing i wish they did was make Lisbeth look more like how she did in the book with the hair a short as a fuse and the clothing. And also those little changes that don't make a big difference but i wish the didn't change. Like not mentioning Lisbeth's mother and Mikieal finding out about Lisbeth's incompetence and the incident with her father when she was a child. But i didn't actually mind the ending i though it was actually just as good a the original ending. Apart from that its the best film i've ever seen :)you should definitely watch if your looking for a clever, complicated and interesting film. | 1 |
158,105 | I saw the movie, and found it crap, if IMDb permitted me to review in less than 10 lines, my review is over, but fate.So if you ask me why am I writing this review, than the point is that I didn't came out of the mental; tortures of the twilight series, watched every movie with an expectation that this one will be better, but it only proved that previous one was not bad. Book series can't always supposed to be as good as Harry Potter, no offense to book fans, the book is good, but not supposed to be a movie and if you do this, the results are disastrous, and moreover, the ratings of the movie are approving this dumbness. But what to expect in a generation of Justin Beiber and Twilight series to be happening... Sorry folks but nothing to read in the review, nothing in the movie also. | 0 |
129,140 | Now I'm not one for cowboy films or the Spaghetti Western despite my father roping me in to watching repeated screenings from multiple editions of classics like The Magnificent Seven (1960) and The Big Country (1958). However, the Coen Brothers re-make of True Grit (with good ole Spielberg overseeing the project as producer) is timeless in its execution of both its cast and set.The film opens with an establishing shot, first used in 30's cinema, of the tumbleweed, down trodden, good-for-nothing patriarchal cowboy town. One recalls not so much John Wayne, choking at the dustbowl on horseback, but the menacing Clint Eastwood shooting down one deputy after another in Pale Rider (1985). The establishing shots in True Grit (2010) are reminiscent of the ES's we see in Charlie Walters musical re-make of the Grant, Hepburn and Stewart trio in The Philadelphia Story (1940) called High Society (1956) starring Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra and Grace Kelly respectively. However, the scenic views aren't so beautiful yet mesmerising. This is also not so dissimilar from Baz Luhrmann's experimentation with the establishing shot in his recent production of Australia (2008) starring both Kidman and Jackman. There are beautiful panned ES's and WS's of the endless Australian outback.Hailee Steinfeld more than earned her award for best young performer and her nomination as best supporting actress (in the Broadcast Film Critics Association) for her portrayal of the feisty outspoken 14 year old girl who spins us rhetoric far beyond her years. She confronts her male supervisors with articulation and dexterity. They are flabbergasted even angered by her sharp wit and tongue to boot. Even Mr. La Boeuf, proud Texas sheriff (played marvellously by our almost unrecognisable Bourne hero Matt Damon) utters at one point that he doesn't know whether to kiss Mattie Ross (Steinfeld) or give her a good smacking for speaking out of turn. To which Ross retorts, with a perfectly serious and stern look, "neither would be pleasant." Although I am not ofay with the 1969 original True Grit, Steinfeld's character manages to cleverly manipulate both La Boeuf (Damon) and Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) through challenging their egotistical and proud nature; although both males seem to disagree on what is deemed to be right and wrong. The 'trial and tribulations of the famous trio' plot line is a familiar narrative device also featured in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969) as well as briefly emerges in the killer couples hit and feminist favourite Thelma and Louise; with the smooth and sexual introduction of Brad Pitt and his 6-pack! Although this platonic bond between our three favourites, in True Gritt, is not without its problems. The camaraderie between La Boeuf and Cogburn is restored when Cogburn saves La Boeuf's life. This reminds me of the climactic scene where the prodigal son (played by Aidan Quinn) saves his father (Anthony Hopkins) in Legends of the Fall (1994).The emerging success of True Grit not only paves the way for the future film career of Hailee Steinfeld, as something tells me she's not going to repeat the Macaulay Culkin disaster, but that the Spaghetti Western genre is becoming ever more prominent and popular among audiences of today. 3:10 to Yuma (re-make of the 1957 classic; produced in 2007) directed by James Mangold and starring Russell Crowe and Christian Bale, as well as Brokeback Mountain (2005) also starring Damon are both prime examples of this. The latter obviously is more contemporary in its portrayal of the traditional Western genre but its originality was both commended and rewarded for this.For me, the Coen Brothers 2010 production of True Grit would have received 10 out of 10 if it wasn't for the peculiar appearance of Ross as an adult woman in 40's/50's. It destroys our vision of Ross as a child character. Coupled with the reported death of Rooster Cogburn, the narrative then appears to lack substance. If this is the Coen brothers attempt at moving the fictitious tale into a legend, it is a poor strategy that should not be repeated.Despite this, and certainly last but not least, Jeff Bridges (nominated as best actor by several ceremonies with some yet to come including the Academy Awards) portrayed as the cantankerous drunkard yet hero-of-the-day is flawless. Casting, setting, characterisation and re-invention of this re-make is purely sublime! You'll be sitting on the edge of your seat from the opening scene! THIS FILM MOST DECIDEDLY HAS "TRUE GRIT!" | 1 |
106,982 | This is a mash-up of Goosebumps series, with a dash of cult and a generous flashback to the 80's. Reminds me of The Goonies. Reminds me of E.T. Reminds me of M83.It's confusing at first - I'm 33. So I can relate with everything here.One of the kid looks like Macaulay Culkin. Familiar. The chief is like a lovechild of young Jack Nicholson and Dexter (Michael C. Hall). Winona Ryder looks like Winona Ryder. "Should I stay or should I go?" and many other synth M83-like sound. Bald, adorable, bad-ass girl escaping from lab. The monster is ... basic monster you'd imagine whenever you read teen horror novels. Tacky and predictable ending.So I'm confuse whether this is for teenagers or adults like me.On the fair side - it's nice and entertaining. I like how I don't have to think too much and just enjoy those cute kids running around in the forest chasing monsters. Makes me miss my childhood and how I used to enjoy those cheesy Goosebumps serials. | 0 |
252,354 | There are a lot of issues with this picture, and the well-publicized 'whitewashing' of it's cast is the least of it's worries. Zhang Yimou attempts to present us with complex action set pieces, mysterious antagonists and balletic, choreographed fight sequences but unfortunately he misses the mark by a wide margin. The CGI for example appears to have been rendered in two minutes flat and when the production had run out of cash. It is reminiscent of the levels of CGI quality not seen since the original Power Rangers movie (not too good). The fight sequences are so over the top, one wonders why a person need carry out five front rolls and a back flip in order to dispatch an enemy when a simple thrust of a spear will do...it's difficult to find something to like. However, all is not lost. Matt Damon puts in a not too terrible performance (Strange quasi-British accent aside), neither does Tian Jing. The story is a relatively original and I would be lying if a said wasn't left somewhat satisfied with some of the action sequences, regardless of the poor CGI. In short, not worth the price of admission but maybe worth a bowl of popcorn when it's on the telly. | 0 |
420,191 | Fox Searchlight pictures presents a film directed by Jason Reitman starring Ellen Page, Michael Cera, Jennifer Garner, Jason Bateman, Allison Janney and J.K Simons in the hilarious comedy about a teenage pregnancy called Juno.I thought Juno was such a brilliant movie in that, it shows a lot about what really goes on when you're a teenager sometimes and how some people go about facing it. I've never been in a situation like this before, but it really does show what can be the outcome of teenage pregnancy. Diablo Cody did a great job of having the plot be serious, but have funny one-liners that can keep you laughing throughout the movie but still be aware of the situation. Ellen Page who plays Juno, I've never heard of her before I watched Juno, but I have to say she is one of my favorite actresses now because of how much life she put into her character. I really enjoyed the movie Juno and I hope that people feel the same way about it too! | 0 |
178,779 | Let me just say it - I loved "Frozen"! It takes me back to the 1990's golden age of Disney, and I think the quality of this one is just way up there right alongside titles like "The Little Mermaid", "Beauty and the Beast", "Aladdin", "The Lion King" and "Pocahontas" from that period. I feel like Disney may have hit a new stride with three out of the latest four tiles *("The Princess and the Frog", "Tangled" and now "Frozen") in the same league as those movies. I think that with "Frozen" Disney have once again demonstrated why they are still 76 years after "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" undeniably the number one cartoon and animation studio in the World - with only Studio Ghilbi giving real competition. The story, while loosely build on the story "The Snow Queen" by Hans Christian Andersen, is very inventive and contemporary. The main characters present a variation and though some are fun and likable they are not all that obvious. At the same time the sidekicks are very good and very funny and they work very well in the story without ever taking too much of the focus.Some people have complained about the music and the singing. I love it. I must say that I feel this music and the songs are on the same level as in "Beauty and the Beast", "Aladdin" and "The Lion King" and I think it is both very, very nice and quite honestly high time that Disney returned to the animated musicals that were so very successful in the 1990's, and with "Frozen" I think they did just that and they did it very, very well.I am very much looking forward and hoping to see more Disney releases like this in the (near) future. And did I say - I love it! | 0 |
53,388 | Before the movie came out, I had already read To Kill a Mockingbird at least 3 times. I was in junior high then and one of my friends gave me a copy and told me that I HAD to read it. I think I was only through about two chapters when I bought my own copy and returned hers. I finally wore that copy out I read it so many times.I really didn't want to see the movie. I was afraid that it would somehow profane a book that touched my soul more deeply than anything I had read up to that time. But the same friend who gave me the book told me I HAD to see the movie. I went to see To Kill a Mockingbird by myself. I wanted to be able to leave the theater if it wasn't as good as I had been told.It was better than I had been told. It was as good as the book. Gregory Peck, Mary Badham and the others in the movie gave faces and voices and an outside to people I already knew from the inside. It was a profound and profoundly moving book that became a profound and profoundly moving motion picture. And in one small way, it was even better than the book - the music. It has one of the most beautiful musical scores ever written for a movie. The music does not dominate or overwhelm, but it enfolds the story with grace and beauty.If I were required to pick the greatest movie ever made, I would not be able to choose between To Kill a Mockingbird and The Shawshank Redemption. Other movies are, perhaps, technically more perfect. Some movies, such as Citizen Kane, have influenced the art of making motion pictures in many ways. But To Kill a Mockingbird touches the soul and leaves you feeling cleaner for having seen it. | 0 |
443,387 | This film can't take anything seriously enough to be taken seriously. So why bother? Robert Downey, Jr's shtick and Tom Cruises' aggressive but cool dancing' producer Les Grossman. Ben Stiller & Justin Thoroux's film uses an infectious "art mocking art mocking life" to accompany these two blow away performances. Being that the movie is very well shot and has top notch production helps as well, but it's Downey and his staying in character routine that keeps the DVD in rotation, although Stiller sets up the laughs. "Let's face it, the kids aren't exactly dressing up as Scorcher for Purim anymore." With lines like that, let the film roll and don't stop until the DVD commentary is over! | 0 |
383,481 | Although comedies generally don't make very good movies, this movie was surprisingly good. I went to this movie thinking that, like the first one, it would be horrible, but I ended up liking it. I guess it was because I could actually relate do some of the things that happened to the kids. I also just didn't like the first "Cheaper by the Dozen". I just liked the characters more in this one, and the addition of another family to the movie I think made it more interesting, as this meant that there were more characters. I also thought that it was a little more funny (example: a part with the main character working on the dock near the house they rented, while another part the dock falls apart behind him, sending part of his family floating away from shore), and I liked the setting more. I also thought that the ending was nicer than the first movie. | 1 |
176,314 | Synopsis:"Life of Pi" Yann Martel's 2001 best-selling novel, is a magical adventure story of a young boy, Pi Patel, son of Santosh Patel, a zoo owner living in Pondicherry, India. The family decides to move the zoo to Canada, hitching a ride on a huge freighter. After a shipwreck, Pi finds himself adrift in the Pacific Ocean on a 26-foot lifeboat with a zebra, a hyena, an orangutan and a 450-pound Bengal tiger named Richard Parker, all fighting for survival.Review: Novel "Life of Pi", and film director Ang Lee's version seems, I never imagine its possible to combine the philosophy into the film screen. The imagination through the novel was fantasy in my opinion when the film version is magically realistic. The use of modern highest resource of 3D technology is a merit of success achieved by the art-direction team, I salute. The film made me speechless even after it ends I was sitting and waiting to watch more and more. I was thinking where the digital entertainment is sailing the boat for the NextGen?The movie contains good sense of humor regarding the dialogs. In market, Pi was following a girl he saw at the dance class. When she catches Pi and asked why he is following? Pi innocently asked at the dance class she ended two wrists joined loosely cupped hands, what does it mean, he wonders. The girl tells him, the lotus hides in the forest. Pi asked, "Why lotus will hide in the forest?"At the end when Richard Parker, the Bengal tiger left unceremoniously, Pi says, "All of life is an act of letting go but what hurts the most is not taking a moment to say goodbye."Is God exists? The narrator promises at the beginning that he will prove God exists. Well, in Yann Martel's book he did, but in Ang Lee's movie, did he or not? In 2012 film "Life of Pi", you see the floating island of vegetation with its own ecosystem that could be boarded and had animals living on it out in the middle of the ocean. It seems far-fetched, but does anything you notice in the movie?Pi Patel's confession of faith was regarding Lord Vishnu, the Vedic God who masters the past, present and future, the one who supports, sustains and governs the Universe and originates and develops all elements within. Its called Vishnu sleeps in the ocean of milk with his companions. Did you see very carefully the structure of the floating island? The art-director shaped the island like sleeping Lord Vishnu! I was surprised to see the art work at a glance.In my opinion the movie is a lifetime experience, so don't miss the movie and as well if you did not read the book then read it too. This is one of the remarkable philosophy of film-art. | 0 |
546,603 | [WARNING: A movie review cannot be written without "spoilers." You have been warned. As extra comment, IMDB can shove their blacklist.]This film makes the predictable dead end by attempting an artsy war film. War is hell. It has been said that this film depicts war through the eyes of poets and writers. Consider this, would you want to peer at poetry through the eyes of an eighteen year old G.I?The viewer is in trouble from the start, as the film maker attempts to craft, "another world." This world is the idyllic realm of native people who live their care free life while technological nations attempt to blow themselves apart. This cliche is so tired that it amazes me how often it is repeated, with the usual disastrous effects.The "War is Bad" theme is propped up and replayed throughout the entire film. The vehicle is a plodding narrative which produces a sleep like stupor for the viewer. Of course, one can overcome this affect if we take the high moral ground the film attempts to achieve and claim it as our own. Interestingly enough, this tact is risk free and much easier than the difficulties that the subjects of the film are presented with. Nice try, but I'm not biting.Sanctimonious humbug is not my strong suite. The fact is Guadalcanal was beyond nasty. However, there was a reason U.S. forces were there in strength and Japanese troops defended the island so desperately. These reasons did not involve a sadistic attempt to "blow the world up," as the gasbag film makers would have you believe.Despite these flaws which are fatal to the film, Nick Nolte and John Cusack deliver strong performances which are to be commended. However, they are not enough to save the film. | 1 |
213,139 | couldn't help but feel a little underwhelmed when watching this movie, i'm not sure if my expectations were too high or what (I've seen a lot of high praise/ 'movie of the year' comments). but regardless, this movie is still a really solid film. First of all this movie is for the most part carried by Gyllenhaal's performance/character. This is arguably one of his best performance to date (up there with Zodiac and Prisoners). Gyllenhaal/Louis is for sure the best quality of the movie. The pace of the film was good, cinematography was good and couldn't help but think of Grand Theft Auto 5 from some of the scenes that showoff the LA scenery. The concept of the story, at its roots is pretty interesting but as far as entertainment goes, i feel thats where it gets underwhelming for me personally. As far as the other characters go in the film. Didn't really care for them at all, but that's probably intentional on the directors part, since this movie revolves heavily around Louis Bloom. | 0 |
359,930 | Although I was comPLETEly engrossed in the drama between these characters (on the edge of my seat even!), I have to say one of my friends totally passed out in the movie theater--clearly, this movie is not for everyone.Mike Nichols' "Closer" almost seemed like a French movie in English: it is dialogue-driven, with complex characters and relationships. The viewer is not spoon-fed a storyline, and watching it does require some intellectual participation.I suspect many of the negative reviews were the result of unmet expectation--this is not lighthearted romantic fare, nor is it thinly-disguised softcore porn in the form of a Hollywood movie. That being said, I am truly surprised at all comments from viewers horrified by the 'dirty language.' There is a LOT more disputable things in Hollywood these days (heads blown off, gratuitous sex scenes) than a few naughty words. It's really nothing you've never heard before (come on), and I found the lewdness to be necessary and real, and not inserted just for shock value.At times the banter between the characters had a stage-play feel to it, making "Closer" a stylized version of reality, but the acting was just about always superb. Even if none of your relationships have ever been so deceptive and twisted, you will DEFINITELY find some aspects of the relationships in "Closer" applicable to your own experiences, and you will leave the movie with a lot to think about.If you read the user comments, it seems like people either loved or hated this film. I think that any film that elicits such a wide range of passionate response is worth seeing. | 0 |
281,865 | Batoru rowaiaru is one of cult director Fukasaku's last, and in a long-lasting career most famous film. It obviously pays homage to Stanley Kubrick - especially A Clockwork Orange. The film is set in a post-millennium Japan on the brink of collapse. Unemployment stands at 15% and kids are running riot. The govt. passes the B.R. Act and a group of 42 7th grade students and put on a deserted island for three days. Their mission is surviving and being the last left alive. If at the end of three days, more than one is left alive, all die. Each student is given some survival essentials and a weapon according to their pot-luck. A weapon can be dangerous an axe, a machine fun, a rifle or something as innocuous as a big lid for a pot.Very quickly, the 42 students, or whats left of them when mayhem and a few deaths ensue in the briefing, quickly disperse. Typical behavior patterns form quickly: boy and girl in love, mad killer, computer geeks trying to find a technical glitch, girl groups and the group trying to find a way to escape the island. The great thing about the movie is that despite a very large cast, you quickly get an idea of each character or group and towards the last half hour, know which people must still be alive. It requires considerable mastery to involve the audience like this.Battle Royale is a great actioner and may pass itself off as an intellectual Darwinian battle or Kubrick like. It isn't. There is no greater message or theme and its just a well paced and VERY violent actioner thriller. Of course, given the territory you will see all manner of decapitation, but and while I personally found it palatable, not all people would. The acting was manic and too over the top at times. However, this film will appeal to quite a few people and I personally enjoyed watching it once. | 0 |