AcidCasual

It's the first time i've tutted and shook my head at a Spielberg film... he's created some below par movies in recent years but this just felt off - Until it was semi saved at the end. A mix of pacing, annoying characters and a bit of Spielberg virtue signalling. It felt more like what the director would like the world to be rather than a fully thought out movie designed to captivate. At no point was there any genuine peril or danger to the main characters - nor was there any part of the story that made you grip on to and get behind. Really interesting themes - just not executed well.

Style over substance - After about an hour, it was clear that nothing was going to be revealed or explained enough to make it rational. I like artistic films just as much as the next guy but this film seemed like it was deliberately being vague, with no pay off. There were moments early on where it felt like it was building up to a classic horror - but it seemed to coast all the way till the end.

Gosling seems to be only getting better in the humour action genre and he's really good in this. Really well written, absolutely impeccable cinematography and overall a really good watch. Yeah - the film does start a little slow but it soon gets in the swing of things and you can't help but sink into your seat and enjoy.

Everything was there - good actors, good vision but the execution was just lacking. No real pay off - Just seemed to float around the idea of depression, love and angst but never really tackling any of these subject with real conviction. The look and feel was just gorgeous top to bottom but it just ended up being a little boring. shame.

Having a couple of cliches, quite a lot of comedic elements but them a hell of a lot of horror elements **** face value it doesn't bode well. But it works, it pays off and actually it was quite good. In my opinion it had the same feel as the original IT movies, even Pet Cemetery. The story held up, the characters were solid, the casting was great. Shanice Brovlowsky was a treat.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Like usual, the visual are exceptional, the set design, costume and CGI is on point. But sadly the story and the film just didn't have any oomph. Johansson was just hanging around in the shots, not actually doing anything and the other characters just didn't make you care for them. The idea of having the cast split in two, is nothing new - even JP3 did that, but this time, the family were just outright annoying. From cliche characters to just getting in the way **** storyline. The film felt like it went from classic Jurassic park to more science-fiction, when the tunnels, the buildings, the whole aesthetic became somewhat futuristic. There was so much they could have done with this but they stayed safe all the way and didn't even deviate, which created a story with no depth.

By the 30 minute mark I was close to turning it off, it was like a sit-com that didn't have the energy to keep me entertained... I just kept watching and it got better and better. it was a fun film with a good level of comedy and action. Level par with 'The other men' or 'The nice guys'... At first the scenes are small and mainly in rooms, so it gave this sit-com feel but when if finally opened up the story was able to progress is a more fun way. The acting wasn't groundbreaking or special, but fun enough to make you laugh out loud more than a few time. that's rare.

Garland seems to have a serious problem with flow - in this film and others there's a concerning lack of ability gel story telling with visual language. (if that's the right way to say it). The film just didn't work as a whole piece but rather small sections of well made cinema, individually they look and feel good, evoking a lot of emotion and tension, but overall - overwhelmingly shallow and moat of the time just baffling. There's these interjecting moments where visuals from other sources are edited into the scene and they are fantastic - they give meaning where there is none and and in some areas, create a sub current of pure horror when there yet none, building tension. But it's all fruitless. The story isn't simple enough to allow you to get behind it, nor is it complex enough to be interesting - it's just visually impactful and that's it. The acting is somewhat subdued and even whimsical - no matter how angry or happy they are, they just don't convince you... Reminds me of the acting in Clockwork Orange.

The concept is cool, the visuals are cool and even the casting is cool... But the execution is a bit wet. It's the 1930's but the way they talk, act, hold their guns etc feels modern. Probably by design but its a little odd. Holding your guns like Denzel in Training Day just doesn't feel right. However, the pacing and build up is great - you do actually get invested in it quite early, however, it soon becomes apparent that it's the story that matters and not the characters, so it starts to feel shallow - No character is taking the lead - moreover a lack of focus. The film is long, but they seem to cram most of the story in with around 30 mins to go, so it becomes rushed. Hailee Steinfeld is really comfortable in a more serious role. Overall the film wants to do a lot of things - Have a cool story, juggle cool visuals, but it ends up being this half arsed Tarentino'esque fantasy, just with less time and story.

A nerdy guy wants retribution, he doesn't have the skill or the balls, so he uses what he's has - his brain. Turns out he's about as clever as Skynet, cunning as batman and as much as diva as Kim Kardashians kids, who get exactly what they want, when they ask for it. That's the problem with this film - It's Jason Bourne, but self made... he shouldn't be this good, or clever - because it's impossible, so it's all together unconvincing and predictable. Yet, still a worthy watch.

So many movies are being made for dumb watching, absolutely zero prospect of mystery or guess work by the viewer... Visually impressive but zero for authenticity. and when I mean authenticity I mean like most new films... The protagonists are invincible, everything they do works... it's so boring. The bloke shoots a rifle at a bottle that's placed in front of a window and nothing... Just lazy.

I mean, what is it meant to be? Absolutely not enough storytelling or acting to even get you to be interested... It's not scary, nor interesting in any shape or form... When the story does pick up and start being sinister and there's some conviction, it's five minutes before the film finishes and even then you're like what? Puzzles me how these films even get made.

The director seems to sacrifice a good story for art direction. The storytelling is so tedious that instead of creating tension and relieving it, theres just a constant battle with anxiety. The characters are so frustrating to the point you're rolling your eyes. Hoult and Taylor-Johnson were in my opinion miscast for this film, they don't seem to be able to really get gritty with their emotions and furthermore, Taylor-Johnson just ends up whaling in a screechy voice for half the film. There are genuine moments that are brilliant, but it's not the acting, more the atmosphere and the nod back to old cinema. The classic horror trait of once you see the bad guy they're not scary anymore really hurts this film. Since count Orlok looks like a 400 year old Alexander Usyk. (No dis to Usyk)

This film doesn't want you to like it, it wants you to be angry and shout at the screen, because they people in it are annoying, arrogant and don't know how good they have it. In the meantime, slowly taking you on a glitsy, gruesome horror show. Acted impeccably and with so many Kubrick easter eggs... you will either love it or not get it.

A classic movie where they lay it all out on the table and the whole film is about how the character come to a certain conclusion and in that is where the suspense lies. It does a great job at that however...Hoult and Deutch are not convincing as a married couple - a clear lack of chemistry. Furthermore, Hoult appears way out of his depth in this type of role. Shame because he fits it really well, he just can't convince you enough.

Well made. but it was like two movies running alongside each other interjecting a shallow conceived plot. One movie is a hilarious slasher gore movie where all the actors where dog crap but helped the overall B movie aesthetic. And another, more serious thriller inspired by the original evil dead and Nightmare on Elm Street. Never complimenting each other or aligning to a clever climax. Lauren LaVera obviously was the only convincing character and to be honest - out acted the film. There is moments where if this wasn't a mess, the visual macabre and horror would have been refreshing to horror fans but nothing even close to a solid movie.

You know what, it wasn't that bad, this film was more about the creativity and absurdity that Burton brings and for most part, the story was not the focus. The acting as a whole was lacking in conviction, nothing was too serious to care about that much, and within 15mins of the film, you realised that it wasn't going to be this diverse, interesting story. So you let your guard down and just go with it. It was funny to the point you giggle **** was good to see how the Burton world had evolved whilst talking an old concept. In my opinion, Keating and Ryder have seen better days - they don't seem to be convincing in anything they do, unless the subject matter really fits their persona (like birdman). Ortega, even though she's really young, is showing common expressions and traits she uses in all films and it's starting to be a bit monotonous. She reminds me of Cailee Spaeny in her first couple of roles - hopefully Ortega gets challenged like Spaeny did and also has chance to shine.

I have to give it a 7... It was predictable, it wasn't even that scary but it had a charm, a nostalgic aesthetic that shined through, throughout the film. It had an almost absurdity to it, just like the original Pet Cemetery. The direction and colour grading was awesome so even though it wasn't amazing, the trickle of influences kept it going. The characters were not give enough time to develop, the bad guys were way too timid, but a good watch with the family, who appreciate all kinds of horror.

This film does a great job at creating atmosphere in the simplest of ways... but the squeals, suspense, artistic shots of nothing but the tops of trees and symbolism, don't give way to anything resembling an interesting story. It goes nowhere, making what could be an interesting folklore story utterly frustrating. Neither the characters or background of the story is explored enough to really care where it goes... then it just becomes a countdown to the credits. It starts off well, but takes the eddy the eagle express to blandness.

It certainly starts off on the wrong foot, looking desperate and shallow like a thoroughbred Netflix special. However, this film even though always skimming around the edge of being an exiting film, managed to pull it off. The chemistry of the three main characters is great and the story is solid, even though bombastic. Too many films recently fail miserably because they think the audience want novels worth of dialogue, over simple action interaction. This film gets it right, because what it does say, when they do is to the point.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

The movie tries so hard to be original... but falls drastically short. The execution is just not quite there. The characters, tilt just on the edge of ridiculous, the storytelling tilts just on the edge unbelievable. You are left trying to convince yourself that it will pay off, but it doesn't. There's genuine moments that are good, convincing and interesting, but that just adds to the yearning you get, wanting this movie to work.

The film struggles from the get go to relate to the characters because they neither delve into who they are or what they're capable of, even though you can tell the two main characters have more to give... There's moments where you can genuinely see the director having some vision, and are some really clever shots, angles and imagery... But not enough to warrant it to be artsy or intelligent.

The first was original, had great flow. It had a good mix of character exploration through adventure - literally they traversed the girls conscienceless. Inside Out 2 is purely about the girls emotions and how they affect her at a time when she has to start making big decisions about her life... Sounds like a natural progression BUT. Unfortunately they replace any sort of adventure with internal conflict and emotions, to the point the story doesn't really go anywhere other than an ice rink, literally. The ideas are good, they just ponder far too much one one theme and it drags out with no interesting pay off. It's more a young teenagers film (12-15) not like the original that was more accessible because of the universal themes.

From social media I knew the movie was not going to be anything like Fury Road, but I didn't expect a film like this... Maybe i'm bias because I love all things Mad Max but Furiosa was breathtaking. Most of all was the ability to make the movie feel epic, everything was turned to 11... the cinematography, the score and the acting was all on point. For the first 30 mins you do feel the movie can go either way, as Hemsworth's character is at first whimsical and comedic... but as it progresses the story opens up and it becomes a whole new beast. There's genuine moments where you're blown back in your seat because of the imagery and music working in sync... You need to see this in the cinema. Only gripe - there was many occasions where certain characters were enhanced with CGI, but the same way we see on social media AI... which stood out. There was a particular scene where Mary Jabassa is on a motorbike circling a sand dune and the CGI is really odd.

Funny and interesting for about 30 mins, then you just get bogged down with the fact this is actually two movies in one. A 'B movie' style action film, and a romance drama. Both intertwine to such an extent they harm the overall flow of the film. There's just too much dialogue... This is sold as an action film but you find for long periods of time you're just watching two people eek out their love for each other... in a sarcastic, but charming, but also boring way. Gosling is always good, and carries the film, but Blunt is just too soft edged, just like Marion in raiders of the lost ark, never really getting to express herself, just there to aid Gosling's role.

This film is really likeable, the characters still manage to retain their charm throughout and it's shot really well in lovely locations. It's just the actual story and narrative, isn't that interesting. It's more of a nice, laid back Sunday movie for people who appreciate the levels films go to really immerse you in a certain time period.

Guy Richie has just lost his edge and this film solidifies that. I mean, its neither clever or exciting and the characters aren't likeable either. Just like most action films, each character has their own traits, a thief, a strongman, a genius etc. This film tries to do that, but in a Tarantino copy cat whimsical manner which isn't exciting at all. The gun fights are ridiculous, I don't why it's that hard to make your characters struggle? All the best movies in history, acknowledge each characters flaws and makes them pull through... This is like those new Marvel films where just because they have powers, or they are oppressed, they always win, no matter what, without struggle... IT'S BORING. The art direction and aesthetic is on point, some part of the film are beautiful, but only in a perfume commercial way

The script was all laid out for the main actor with no real surprises, It felt all the nitty gritty or any logistics of the movie was taken out, so they say something, they just appear there, so it felt rushed and obvious.

The film was so subdued... The main actress was always in a state of paralysis, emotionally. The flow was the same... The film was full of the classic scenes you get in high school, adolescent horror movies but without any interesting lore, character building or action. It was almost like the film didn't have time to make it interesting, because if had to fill it with scenes full of people who looked at each other awkwardly and didn't get each other.

They try and win you over purely on whether you like Jennifer Lawrence or not. When it come's to comedy's she's like the female equivalent to Adam Sandler, just with an incredible figure and looks. Really obvious, never trying hard to win you over but forever coasting along. The male lead was young, awkward as expected, but couldn't quite manage the part where it all clicks together. You will enjoy it, but only because you enjoy watching Jennifer.

the pacing of the film was all over the place, none of the characters were believable, and most of all, there's no plot, in terms of foundations to believe what's going on. The demon isn't explained or explored enough... the root the characters take to the ending is far too obvious. The biggest gripe is that within the film was some really good editing and symbolism, Kind of like how even horizon did it... They showed you evil literally. and this film tried to, but decided to stay linear to the whole demon possession thing and go out with a colossal... 'What is this it?'

The film is well made and has a certain district 9 feel to it...regarding the character design and typographic aesthetics. Washington does well, but overall the film struggles to create any meaningful relationships, even with the two main characters. With how much fighting and explosions etc, nothing really packs a punch, it's impressive but muted, soft. So you never feel like things are truly going to s**t. It's worth the watch, but you will be left without too much to think about. Great films always leave a mark, this one won't. The star of the show, the girl. She was great.

It's ridiculous to critique the art direction, cinematography or the choice of actors at this point, because Nolan and his peers have that all locked in. There's something that still amazes me about the minimalism that fills all aspects of his productions, like how the sets are never bloated, how the characters are understated, from set design, to makeup and wardrobe. So many directors want you to know it's 1945 or 1980 so damn hard, in all shots. Nolan doesn't do that, and in turn, you forget it and start living in the moment, which is whatever he says it is. My problem with Oppenheimer was that it was the first Nolan film that had taken the interesting narrative elements from his other films in a really obvious way. Like the parallel black and white scenes like in Momento. Actors who were like chariciture's of real people, like in his Batman films, and it actually took away the authenticity of the story itself. It seemed like it was almost done to reign the film in and make it more approachable, but in return, took something away. It just didn't seem grounded as all his other films were... in that sense. The acting was just phenomenal, Emily Blunt, what an amazing role, everything that came out of her mouth was convincing. Overall, couldn't fault it and even with the actors that only had little roles. They all were authentic. Except for Florence Pugh, out of all the characters, her's didn't feel relatable, and if anything, not real at all. Like Cobb's wife Mal, in Inception.

I really don't know what the film was trying to do other than paint Marilyn as a complete manic depressed wreck. The film does well to character build but doesn't reign anything in for the whole film, so it becomes unnerving to watch. Clearly she was a good actress with so much potential but the whole narrative is about how bonkers she is, because of her past. This is no way a homage to her - it actually is so far detached from realism that it seems pure fiction, all of it. It's like if the Cohen brothers directed Trainspotting. The cinematography and overall aesthetic is beautiful, and Ana De Arma's visual storytelling is mesmerising, but it just all falls of a cliff with how wreck-less the film is.

Another example of don’t give into the hype. The acting was average at best, the story was tailored to a series rather than a movie, just not enough impact or epicness. The main character set off on the right foot, like all the classics, you know…I’m not worthy so I will make myself worthy. Rather than, the worlds oppressing me so I deserve to win 2022 mantra. But it was all a bit too much Buffy and not enough Revenant. It’s a predator movie, where’s the suspense. Where the big chases, traps. The original predator was paced beautifully, this wasn’t. The cinematography just didn’t make it feel epic, you know it probably was all done in 4 weeks on the same stretch of forest. There’s certainly moments that look cool and it is of high quality. It’s just not cool.

You could tell even with the initial plot making scenes that this wasn’t a film that was going to focus on acting and visual language. I don’t know if it was the acting or the mix of direction and editing - but either way it didn’t feel authentic. It felt like an obvious Nexflix movie and not a film made for cinema. The angles and sets, didn’t utilise the space to really make it feel cinematic. The film, did pick up to a steady speed until the end, then it just droned home, with a blend of not that exciting fighting and no sense of direction. Effron, meh.

Couldn’t even get though an hour. Just felt all over the place, the quality of acting smothered the ability to care about the story a enough to hang around. Even the CGI felt glossy.

Just watch the original. It’s a film you have to see… Not because it’s an amazing film, it just has a real visceral feel to it and actual terrifying scenes. This film has absolutely nothing in common and frankly, just needs burying.

Underwhelmed, if you’re going to go up against the colossal ‘Dark Knight’… you either go epic, or just change it so much that it becomes it’s own thing. It didn’t quite manage to get there, Pattison was dark, tormented, but also a bit boring. He just didn’t have the character traits to be interesting. The acting overall by the cast was good. Just not amazing. Like a lot of big budget, well made films. They seem to have splashes of brilliance, but lose momentum. This film did just that. Unlike Nolan’s masterpiece, it manages to keep pace and intrigue over a long period of time. Worth the watch nevertheless.

A deep dive into all things Tony Hawk… pretty much a biopic, in a documentary setting. Well made, and quite personal.

What’s obvious straight away is that the CGI is outdated, but limited in such a way it doesn’t matter. What this film does really well is a consistent art direction and and good acting. The cinematography is similar to Nolan in the sense of depth and symmetry mixed with rugged motion and beautiful scale. But just not as grand or executed as good. It upholds it’s cultural symbolism, which makes it interesting. The only let down is the pacing and the monster. Great Film.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

It had all the hallmarks of a bond film, just stripped back to something less epic. This time, the story was really personal and didn't feel like it had the air-miles like other bond films. You know what i mean! One minute we're in Siberia, then Tunisia, then Somewhere else. This film didn't seem to have that. And certain locations were so obvious that it was a set (like in Cuba) if just felt fake. The storyline was solid, the acting was good overall. it just came across overly scripted and in turn, not as believable. The action at first was good, but as the film when on, it took a back seat. Bond going into the villains complex and sticking one bullet into every person without blinking, endless magazines and bad guys that were more like NPC's set to easy mode. Just boring. Lea Seydeoux - Absolute dreamboat, but just used as an extra with a lot of lines. The Bond Villain - Has to be the worse villain in any Bond film. What made this film good, was the consistency of the story telling. Underneath it all was a good script. Just executed in an average way.

I’m sorry. Nothing happens, the storytelling babbles on, to an enormous nothing. Critics need not blow the horn of Hollywood A listers for the sake of it, just because it’s a directorial debut. For a first film, you have to set your president of what you’re capable of. At least intellectually. This film wasn’t clever, it was simply personal.

Starts off charming but descends into repetition - it’s fast paced in the most important storytelling parts and drawn out in the meaningless bits. Overall a mish mash of nothing too exciting. The art direction is good. The music that’s not pop songs from the 60’s seems really out of place.

Just not convincing enough. The story was interesting enough but didn’t have the epic moments that made you think ‘wow’. Tom Holland, doesn’t do a convincing American accent and for some reason makes his role a little less authentic and likeable. The film really was more a biopic of Spider-Man and all the other actors etc are there to support his storyline. In many Marvel films, there’s bigger stories weaving it’s way throughout to add depth, But here, none. Just Spidies internal struggle. Dr Strange’s role in the film was whimsical. The bad guys were mainly just their to fill the narrative and not create any real surprise. (Except one major surprise). Worth the watch but forgettable.

Starts off like a retro slasher film, a bit cheesy, a bit predictable but you let that slip because you think they might do something better than the 2018 film… No, it just spirals into exactly the same film as before, just worse because this time they rely on a dozen characters pulling the story along. There’s no plan, just people running around either being killed or trying not to be killed. None of the cast do a convincing job, and some are basically exactly the same as before. The only thing that makes you keep watching, is how creative Mike Myers gets at killing people. I really don’t know how this film was allowed to be made. Come on. Kill this franchise off already.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]