Yes, the acting is bad (even from Jennifer Connely), Yes the script is sometimes pretty questionable, Yes some of the effects looks kind of dated (but some really hold up though!), Yes the score is pretty unmemorable (It's a Danny Elfman score! This guy is supposed to be great), but man, i can not deny the tons of fun i had watching this film. It is very flawled, but it is extremely entertaining, and pretty much every age group will like it. A fun action/comedy dressed as a superhero flick, who doesnt want to see that? :)
What a big fat disappointment ''Spectre'' is, the things they would have done, the opportunities they had, the actors they had, they had double Oscar winner Christoph Waltz for christ sakes and they didnt use him AT ALL, he was just another paint by numbers stereotype Bond villain, who does bad things, because it's bad, and he likes bad. ''Spectre'' has just another cliche storyline (in combination with, that the end of this movie is practically the same as the end of MI:5, a much better spy thriller who came out earlier in 2015), a cliche bond girl, a cliche villain.
When i watched this movie i saw what a stylistic achievement it is. Spike Lee was 32 when he made it, assured, confident, in the full joy of his power. He takes this story, which sounds like grim social realism, and tells it with music, humor, color and exuberant invention. A lot of it is just plain fun. Do The Right Thing is an extremely powerful, important and also fun movie that needs to be seen.
This is the kind of movie i always love seeing, an incredibly smart thriller. I always love when movies move me mentally or maybe even physically, this is a movie that messes with you, when you're watching this movie it makes you paranoid just like the leading man Van Orton, which is a rare feat, it's a special experience which i always love. Movies like The Truman show, The Prestige, Shutter Island, A Beautiful Mind, and Black Swan, are some of my favorite movies, what they have in common with The Game is that they all move the audience mentally and maybe even physically, they mess with you, which is a movie experience i like or even dislike when it's done incredibly well. This is one of them. It's executed so well it made me paranoid whilst watching and maybe the occasional nightmare. (I had a nightmare i was put in The Game, as well) Phenomenal. The Game is an incredibly intense psychological thriller.
I decided to watch 'Patton', the all-time favorite film of James Berardinelli, someone i respect a lot, and someone who has a very profound taste in films, which i like, i always love reading his reviews. Me, as usual going in to any movie with high hopes and high expectation, since it is the #1 film of someone i respect, but boy, o boy was i disappointed. This is a lifeless, patriotic, American piece of propaganda. In a very, very negative way. It has no redeeming qualities, and every battle scene you get showed, you don't care about who gets bombed and gets shot at by infantry, because everyone that gets killed in the battle scenes are faceless puppets, something an emotionally driven war picture needs. The whole movie is about George S. Patton, an eccentric and controversial American war general with a short fuse, you might think that will result in some fantastic scenes. No, not really. The whole movie is really about how great Americans are, and how great this maniacal war general is, showing manly decisions, epic battles (battles that have no gravitas at all), how great he handles everything, etc, etc. Each scene in 'Patton' could've easily been cut 2 to 4 minutes, resulting in a dragging and overlong movie with an unneeded runtime of 172 minutes. All in all, i still gave 'Patton' a 1/10 because George C. Scott undeniably gives a powerhouse performance, and i respect Franklin J. Schaffner a lot, attempting to make a memorable war picture.
An over the top, messy, crazy, incoherent, poorly structured, japanese take on ''Alice in Wonderland'' Except the beautiful animation (like with every Miyazaki film) there really is nothing here for me to like
Okay, there is a lot of controversy surrounding Paul Greengrass' 2006 masterwork ''United 93'' and i get why, sure i do, but i read a great deal of ignorant commenters pulling arguments out of their asses to have a reason to hate on this movie which is just plain ridiculous. They're saying things like ''It's bad because its unrealistic, the United 93 plane was shot down, they never reached the cabin, they didnt even have telephones to call, and things like that, which pisses me off, because if anyone does the slightest bit of research in what went on in and around the United 93 plane, they can figure out this movie is very close to the truth. (How far it is legitimately known ofcourse) Calls were made, they have exact timestamps of when, they did reach the cabin there is proof of that from the sound from the Blackbox, the plane was not shot down, but crashed as depicted, because where it crashed it left like a 28m deep crater, and you dont get that by being shot down, you create that by flying into the ground with 900 km/h. Now i have that out of the way i just want to say that ''United 93'' is an incredible film, it is realistic, visceral, pulse-pounding, gut wrenching, heartbreaking, emotionally heavy film. People might say ''Why choose this subject matter to entertain people and make money off of'' well my reply to those is, if there is one thing this movie isnt, it is entertaining, this movie is far from entertaining, its a heavy and visceral movie experience that you wont like, but it will move you. This isnt a movie you'd want to pop in on a Friday night to have a good time with your pal's. No it defenitly isnt. As for the money making aspect, i dont think this movie made much money and it wasnt intended to do so (Unlike 'World Trade Center' which is also a very known 9/11 movie, that is most sertainly a bad film, United 93 is a harrowing chronicle and has scarcely a hint of Hollywood. ) , it treated it subject matter meticulously and paid respect to the victims of the horrible attacks. United 93 is by far the best movie about terrorism, and certainly the best movie tackeling the heavy subject of the 9/11 attacks.
'Room'' might very well be one of 2015's best movies, however I seem to be in a minority of not liking it 100%. ''Room'' is a very special movie, a one of its kind really, the story was original, the acting was one of the years very best, but it missed a dramatic flair and some scenes dragged on for too long and a noticeable off balanced structure of acts. Room may be an annoying film for some (including me for some parts) thanks to its impressive and original initial premise and frustrating because of all the missed opportunities. However the chemistry and love/hate relationship between ''Ma'' and Jack is impeccable and a feast to look at. Room has great potential, but soon in the movie it decides to leave behind all the possibilities/potential for a more solid and overwhelming drama, which is good but could've been great. Overall ''Room'' is a very good film, but not flawless and ''the best in years'' like many people are claiming it to be.
Tim Burton's ''Big Fish'' is by far Tim Burton's second best movie he has made in his career running close second behind ''Batman (1989)''. This is before Burton's crazy mind and love for make-up, big sets, special effects and other shenanigans got the better of him, because in this movie his crazy mind and love for make-up, big sets, special effects and other shenanigans still worked very effectively. Tim Burton may be the biggest name attached to Big Fish, but its really screenwriter John Augusts' movie, as he masterfully adapts a book about storytelling into a movie about storytelling with ease. ''Big Fish'' is simply put a great film, it has everything to succeed as a heartwarming and charming, emotional yet funny, family film. Great acting from an impressive cast including late and great Albert Finney and up and coming Ewan McGregor both playing the same character. The story is absolutely brilliant and fun, it's original and special, i absolutely love it. In the end you'll just have to experience this one of a kind movie, and i guarantee you'll love it. It's a movie for young and old.
''Gran Torino'' proved audiences and critics all of the world yet again why Hollywood legend and veteran Clint Eastwood should still be IN FRONT of the camera and not just behind it directing. Mr. Eastwood gives a pitch-perfect performance whilst he's also masterfully directing. ''Gran Torino'' is a heartwarming and charming, yet heavy and emotional movie, with oddly enough a lot of satirical laugh-out-loud moments, about an improbable friendship. ''Gran Torino'' is simply put a great film, one of the best of the 2000's, and up there with ''Harald and Maude'', ''Intouchables'', ''E.T'', ''Cinema Paradiso'', ''Lost in Translation'' (just to name a few) in the list of unlikely friendships in great movies.
This is a movie where i had some of the most fun watching a movie ever. It has every component this movie needs, it has snappy dialogue, great physical humor, a perfect story, great acting as always from Simon Pegg (and the rest of the cast), suspenseful and eerie moments, and just moments of sheer banter. I recommend this movie to every moviegoer out there, even though you might not like Zombie movies (I'm not even a fan of zombie movies, only a select few) you're still going to have a great time watching Shaun of the Dead.
'Spy'' is an incredibly hilarious and smart comedy, one of the best in years. ''Spy'' has great characters that are all memorable, perfectly portrayed by the actors. (Jason Statham in particular) It's a very smart satire/parody on the famous Spy genre, making fun of Bond, Bourne and Mission Impossible, which the movie does with ease and not to abruptly. Also compliments to ''Melissa McCarthy'' breaking her stereotype of only playing stupid fat girls that are constantly made fun of, now she plays a strong heroin that you dont want to F with. (there still are moments where there is poked fun at her so called ''large-ness, but those are in the minority) Is the overall plot original, no, is the villain original and special, no, but does this movie bring in the laughs? BIG TIME! I want to keep it short, ''Spy'' is hilarious, you'll have a great time watching it with whomever, whenever. Is the movie flawless, no ofcourse not, it still has its cheesy moments, but those dont ruin the film. You'll have a great time watching ''Spy''
I really dont get why people dislike this movie so much, and why it (rightfully) won so many Oscars. The English Patient is a sweeping epic that is complex, moving, and very powerful. It's breathtakingly shot, and the score astonishing. Juliette Binoche, Ralph Fiennes and Kristen Scott Thomas give emotional, powerful performances on top of everything that is so great about this film. It has a non-linear structure which is perfect for a longer film like this because it **** you into it more and keeps you focused on the edge of your seat. The script is perfect, the costume design is beautiful, the production design is believable, the cinematography is top notch, the editing is flawless, and this grade A, all star ensemble cast is one of the best you'll see in years. Dont believe the haters, watch '''The English Patient'', it's an absolute masterpiece.
Let's cut right to the chase, 2015's Best Picture nominee ''Brooklyn'' brings fairly anything original and surprising to the table. With few bewildering moments in this movie, story wise it isnt as strong as other Best Picture nominees this year. (discounting Mad Max which is a disgraceful nominee in itself) But what this movie does have going for it is it's heartfelt and impeccable performance by Ronan (one of this years very best to not say the least), and a handful of rich and vibrant characters. Also the whole style and feel of the film is beautiful. With Brooklyn you get **** right into the glossy feel of 50's New York City with exquisite costume and production design, and accurate unblemished art direction. Despite not bringing anything new to the table, ''Brooklyn'' is a great film and well worth your time, because everything else is top notch.
Why do people like this movie so much? Except the ludicrous over the top high octane purposeless 1 hour and 45 minutes of action sequences (This is something people apparently like?) it has nothing going for this lifeless shallow Best Picture nominee..... Ugh. This movie is probably the worst best picture nominee since god knows how long ago. Let's face it, compared to the originals 2015's Requel/Seboot Mad Max: Fury Road is story wise disgraceful, because it barely has any, the only thing this movie does have is purposeless and lifeless action scene upon chase sequence upon explosions upon crazy characters and other ridiculous stuff, the story is non existence (The things they could've done in 2015 and with all the resources George Miller had available, they did this?!?), the characters are stail and bland, the performances were bad because it mostly consisted of stares and grunting, the dialogue it did have was kindergarten level laughable, and overall as a fan of the originals this was just a massive disappointment and a disgrace towards the Academy for nominating it 10 times. Of Course i'm not here to solely hate, so what were the positive things? The score was great (why wasn't this nominated), the costume/production design was impeccable, and the use of practical effects was sort of impressive. As a final note, i've seen this movie once in the theatre, i liked half of it after that it got incredibly boring because it pretty much is a 1 hour and 45 minute car chase with cringe worthy moments in between because George Miller thought it should have at least SOMETHING of a dramatic element in this. I wanted to watch it again because of how high it was rated after looking it up on IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes. To my full surprised even Critics were raving about this. HOW? So i wanted to watch it again, but i didn't want to give Miller more of my money and i didn't want to go through that painful experience again.
Legendary filmmaker Ridley Scott (Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator, Thelma & Louise!)is back in action with 2015's sci fi masterwork ''The Martian'' Ridley Scott shows us why he is still relevant and still a great filmmaker in hollywood, because he blew everything away with one of this years best movies. Going in i was afraid this movie was somehow going to be bad since Ridley Scott hasn't done a deal of great things since Gladiator, so me expectations were low, and on top of that i was prepared to witness an incredibly depressing and dower but great survival story (like The Revenant), but man was i wrong, I had some of the most fun watching this movie, i laughed so surprisingly hard at many points throughout the film, man what a special treat. When a movie like this can achieve both incredible, emotionally driven story and acting (Matt Damon was phenomenal by the way, also one of the best in years for him) and be hilarious, uplifting and witty at many points throughout the film, a movie like this gets my vote as (one of the) Best Picture ('s) of the year.
''The Tree of Life'' is Terrence Malick's magnum opus, one cannot speak of a Malick films without mentioning composition. Only a few living filmmakers pay as much attention to cinematography and music as Malick. The dialogue in The Tree of Life is scarce; composer Alexandre Desplat fills in the gaps in which we might normally expect talking. His music, like the images brought to the screen by the greatest cinematographer alive today, Emmanuel Lubezki, add color and depth to the emotions of the characters. They emphasize without being ostentatious. Also, early in the proceedings, there is a 15-minute interlude that depicts the creation of Earth, the beginnings of life, the era of the dinosaurs, and the events presaging the rise of man. Many people dislike this part of the film, they say that it takes them out of the experience, and i fiercely disagree, i think this segment is The Tree of Life's most awe-inspiring, interesting, technically brilliant, and powerful scene in the whole movie. The location of this segment within the movie is also perfect. The movie starts of with Mr and Mrs. 'O Brien hearing the news that one of their 3 boys has died, we see grief and grace. Then, as a viewer you wondered how that happened, you want to know why and how he died. Then the movie takes us back in time, to the beginning of the story, not a couple of days before he died, not a couple of years before he died, no the story takes us back to the beginning of time, and from there it guides us through the movie. Absolutely phenomenal! Ofcourse as many Malick movies are, they arent flawless, and as for ''The Tree of Life'' i have 3 minor problems with it. -Malick's distaste for dialogue comes to stab him from behind again which results in long stares, and quite moments where you think something is going to be said, or should be said. -The editing throughout this movie is very hacky, and in my honest opinion sloppily done, because the editing is pretty poor, and the lack of (some) dialogue, it results in awkward stares and things of that sort. -The Sean Penn scenes offer little beyond an assurance that Jack grows up to be a man who's unsure of the meaning of life. They seem largely superfluous except as a way to provide Sean Penn with some screen time. The "modern day" Jack scenes are unremarkable except in that the photographic composition remains outstanding (there are a lot of low-angle shots which make the **** more imposing than they might otherwise be). Penn's version of the character is poorly developed; it's difficult to get beyond the actor. The danger in having a well-known thespian appear in this sort of part is that the performer never becomes buried in the character. As good an actor as Penn is, he is larger than life, and we find ourselves seeing "Sean Penn" not "Jack O'Brien." Contrast this with Brad Pitt, who has the time and opportunity to become submerged in his role. This may seem like something very bad, but it's okay, there are only a couple of Sean Penn scenes so it's not like half of the movie is bad, it really isnt, maybe only like 15 minutes. This might sound like a lot of cons but only a few pros but the flaws of the movie get diminished by the sheer brilliance of the rest of the movie, so there is nothing to worry about. I absolutely adore ''The Tree of Life'' and it is a very present contender for Best Movie of the decade. Go ahead and take away my credibility **** film is one of the most emotionally affecting and profound experiences of my life, regardless of how recent it is.
Billy Wilder dark and sometimes disturbing movie ''Ace in the Hole'' is yet another apex in Wilder's long and impressive filmography. With this movie there really is nothing to complain, all of the performances are great, the screenwriting is, as always, spot-on, original and attention-grabbing. Whilst sometimes wildly disturbing because each and every character in this film is bad, and has done, or will do something bad throughout the film, even the poor guy trapped by the cave-in is bad because he was there to find ancient Indian pots and stuff, to sell them for a hefty amount of money. ''Ace in the Hole'' is dark, entertaining, enthralling, interesting and original and yet another masterpiece by one of the greatest directors who ever lived.
Technically brilliant, but lacks an interesting/flesh-and-blood story to keep the movie structured. Birdman is a thrilling leap forward for director Alejandro González Iñárritu, and it is an ambitious technical showcase but aside from that it has very little to offer. While I personally do not believe this film should have won "Best Picture", it is still a fine film due to incredibly strong and personal performances from both Keaton and Norton. It does get a little impressed with itself at times, and has about ten different endings before concluding on a ambiguous note.
''Spotlight'' is one of this years most powerful Oscar movies, with a great ensemble cast, great/powerful story, well-paced. There is not a single dull moment in this fine movie. Spotlight is the true-story behind the 2002 expose into the Catholic Church's cover-up of decades of sexual abuse and it is unflinching in its focus and animated by its outrage, which is the best and worst part of this awards-caliber movie. Spotlight is a terrifically scripted and performed journal thriller. The actors never seem like they want to overshadow the other, but instead all work towards the common goal of the film's story. Mark Ruffalo is great while Michael Keaton and Rachel McAdams are decent. The cineomatography is smooth and the editing is tight. The screenplay is terrific and delivers an accurate representation of journalism. However the movie just feels so empty and simplistic. Stanley Tucci and Liev Schreiber are really good in the small amount of screen time they get. Overall while Spotlight is good but it isn't really anything special and failed to give the characters much depth. Not one character in the film apart from Mark Ruffalo's has any development or motivation to do what they do. The whole thing just feels shallow and completely forgettable. I feel The Revenant was far more deserving of the Best Picture Oscar
nterstellar was phenomenal up untill the last 30 or so minutes when that movie implodes in itself and completely destroys my love for it. Even with enormously ambitious ideas and a overwhelming score beautifully composed by Hans Zimmer, this dazzling but flawed science fiction film suffers from lots of ''In-Your-Face'', expository dialogue and other forms of explination, plot holes and inconsistencies throughout the whole movie where this reaches an all-time high at the end, which is contrived and almost impossible to make sense out of. Interstellar is a fun and entertaining movie, but definitely doesnt deserve the immense praise it is getting, because it is ultimatly a very flawed film. (Like C'Mon it's in the higher end of the top 50 on IMDb)?
Let's start with the positives, the way Miller's Crossing is made is flawless, the cinematography is seamless, the performances are stellar, the costume design and art direction is pitch perfect, the movie is very well made. But this slick and sharp movie does not have an narrative magnet to interest us and get us through the movie, i just watched it and i couldn't describe what the movie's actually about, things happened, people got killed, the end. Nothing much really happens where we as audience members care much about the storyline. A handful of characters are instantly, slowly or barely introduced throughout the movie, at least a dozen that have some role, but not a single one you care about nor do you understand completely what they are doing and why they are there. (With an exception to Bernie beautifully portrayed by John Turturro) All in all Miller's Crossing is a well-made film, but the narrative is far from compelling to pull is through this movie experience and it never fully convinces in terms of either period or plot, but it sure has its moments, and when they land, they flourish
1974's Badlands will go down in the history books as one of the best first feature films by a director, alongside Citizen Kane, Reservoir Dogs, District 9, Dances with Wolves, The Maltese Falcon, etc, etc. This movie is made with such precision and confidence, it's impeccable One word summarizes the whole movie. Simple. Simple characters, although messed up. Simple dialogue, Simple incidents. Kinda reminds me of Fargo. Also Kit is one of the most interesting characters ever, how he's portrayed by newcomer Martin Sheen, is brilliant. This movie put Sheen on the map, Apocalypse Now made him a star, although this performance is superior.
1974's Badlands will go down in the history books as one of the best first feature films by a director, alongside Citizen Kane, Reservoir Dogs, District 9, Dances with Wolves, The Maltese Falcon, etc, etc. This movie is made with such precision and confidence, it's impeccable One word summarizes the whole movie. Simple. Simple characters, although messed up. Simple dialogue, Simple incidents. Kinda reminds me of Fargo. Also Kit is one of the most interesting characters ever, how he's portrayed by newcomer Martin Sheen, is brilliant. This movie put Sheen on the map, Apocalypse Now made him a star, although this performance is superior.
1978's Days of Heaven was Terrence Malick's second feature, and last featue before he took an abrupt 20 year leave to teach Philosophy in France, and then came back smashing with The Thin Red Line. However. Days of Heaven is a great film, right after he made Badlands which was also impeccable, the performances are great, Richard Gere as an up and coming star shines as the hot-tempered lover, and Brooke Adams is impeccable as the lover of both Bill and ''The Farmer''. The script is intelligent, but might be predictable, as i thought aswell, but it isnt, it keeps you guessing as of how the movie is going to flow, and how it is going to end. Terrence malick's beautiful masterpiece has to be a must watch for true cinema lovers. Another malick masterpiece into his reduced filmography. Considered at that time an instant classic and a rare and beautiful film, still now absorbs that tittle with its infinite imagery and vision. Probably richard gere's best film alongside Primal Fear, Hachi, and the infoumasly loved Pretty Woman. Days of Heaven is an achingly tragic love story, filmed in a strange yet appealing quasi-documentary style. A beautiful masterpiece composed of breathtaking cinematography, subtle acting, smart writing, and ingenious direction. Malick is known and revered for his cinematography, and elements of nature within his movies, but this is where it all began. His second movie, Days of Heaven is a visual feast. Stunning landscapes, minute images of nature and incredible use of light. Even 35 years later it cannot be faulted, cinematographically. You could hang almost any shot of this movie on a wall and call it art.
1974's The Conversations shows us once again why Francis Ford Coppola was the god, and definitive filmmaker of the 70's because he presents us, yet again, a masterpiece. This movie is mysterious, thrilling, exciting, yet slow and also sometimes dragging in pace, which is the only complaint i can think about. The leading man, called Harry Caul, as he is portrayed by Gene Hackman, is an expert wiretapper and one of the most affecting, tragic and interesting characters in the history of cinema. The writing is superb, it keeps you guessing, and the camera work is methodically slow and beautiful. At the first viewing, you might be a bit confused or 'bored' because you have some sort of a clue what's going on but it doesnt seem all that interesting, but when the final moments hit towards the end of the film, you see the full picture, which makes latter viewings even more rewarding. The Conversation is yet another masterwork by Francis Ford Coppola
I feel like i cant review this movie honestly, and without prejudice since i'm a huge fan of the original 'Firefly' show, but man does this movie deliver on all levels. To enjoy this movie fully you would have to have seen the series first, It's sheds (more) light on things we did and didn't already know which makes this movie so much more fun to watch. The fun characters are back, Whedon's always great snappy dialogue is also top-notch yet again, the better big budget special effects really enhance the movie as well, which was something the show didnt have the money for. It answers many unanswered questions, and informs us on things you didnt really wanted to know, but are still cool to know, but then again, the movie makes us ask questions that leave unanswered, and it doesn't answer ALL question we had about the show, which is the only reason why i dont give it a full score. All in all 'Serenity' is immensely satisfying, and great on all levels, and it surely doesn't disappoints. When watching you'll just feel great to see this fun group of people back on screen for 1 last adventure.
I was very impressed by HERO, the movie runs in a way like Rashomon (Kurosawa's famous masterpiece that came out in 1950) (although under a completely different concept) - almost entirely through flashbacks during narration. Because its a period film about a very much fantastic and romanticized time, the dreamy quality of the photography is brilliantly suited. The look of the film is fabulous, although it sometimes indulges in video game beauty (the fight scene on the lake, the waterfall fight, and the calligraphy sequence that could be a shampoo commercial), just as Zhang the director indulges in melodrama, especially in the second half of the film, which is filled with slow-motion shots of people running and crying and saying goodbye. But the first half is so calmly powerful that I can overlook the overly stretched second half. However it seems to me that the most blatant fault of the film is the dialogue, the dialogues are so cheesy. Of course this is an epic film with a lot of stuff to take care off, and Zhang does something better than the others, but there is no excuse for the amateurish dialogue writing. All that being said, I still think it's one of the great movies that Zhang Yimou made, when he was still trying to make great movies - he used to use Chinese culture, instead of exploiting it. It's a little sad to see what he's doing now, whatever the reasons that he's making those craps for. A beautifully crafted film by Zhang Yimou with a great story and an all star cast. Jet Li, Tony Leung, Maggie Cheung, Zhang Zi Yi and Donnie Yen all performed portrayed their characters in a fine way with style and technique with outstanding stunts and martial arts. Exotic production designs by Tingxiao Huo & Zhenzhou Yi, colorful with dark looking costumes by Emi Wada, beautifully photographed by cinematographer Christopher Doyle, fast & smooth editing by Angie Lam and a relaxing musical score by Tan Dun. The metaphorical use of colors enhances the emotion of each "chapter" of the film while telling the audience exactly what the tone of each is as well. Possibly the greatest Kurosawa film not filmed by Kurosawa. Zhang Yimou's masterpiece combines beautiful martial arts action with ingenious Rashomon storytelling in this historical epic.
Like some other reviewers, I was not impressed by the writing and the way the narrative was presented. It felt very disconnected, and sometimes confusing, with rough jumps between scenes, often making characterisation deficient. Perhaps it was a conscious decision aimed to convey Marcello's neurotic state and his need to belong, yet I felt that the camera-work alone did the job pretty well, especially the lighting (e.g. in the scene when we first see Guilia, in a striped dress, with moving light source patterned by the blinds, it reflects Marcello's mixed feelings about her), and the unorthodox angles. Also, I still wander if the narrative is objective, or maybe some of the scenes are Marcello's wishful thinking - while watching, I had a theory that the blue light indicated these, but it didn't quite hold up till the end. And, next to the ambiguous episodes, there are some annoyingly blatant parts. The metaphor of blind fascists was just too in-your-face. I wont give examples, look them up, there are quite some. The bit I liked about the plot was the suppressed homosexuality theme, under-stressed but sustained throughout the film with several moments of restrained homoeroticism, and the ending. I also liked the general air of the 30s, and the music - the credits song is currently stuck in my head. I'll quote a fellow reviewer here, who said something i fully agree with: ''A fine movie, but dry and difficult to relate to. I can't imagine many people calling this a favorite. I have a great deal of respect for its craftsmanship, above all, most notably because the filming is beyond gorgeous. '' Overall, while definitely a 9.5/10 for cinematography, The Conformist suffers from the need of a better and more coherent script. Which makes the movie sometimes very boring, confusing and frustrating. Maybe on a second viewing it might be better.
''The Revenant'' is everything i love about great cinema. Most definitely the best movie of the year. Great photography, visceral grittyness, superb acting, and interesting writing. This movie drags you through the mud along with Glass, it is such a visceral and real experience, an experience i havent had since watching Saving Private Ryan. The beauty of the movie is the silence, the quite, the alone, that gets to you after 2h30m It's more of an experience than an ''entertaining film'', it takes you in, and drags you along, very few movies can do that effectively, that you forget about everything except about the movie. (whilst watching)? My biggest compliments to Alejandro and Lubezki for pulling off this incredibly difficult to shoot film.
According to IMDb The Dark Knight is literally a better movie than every movie ever made, except The Godfather Part I & II, and The Shawshank Redemption.... WHAT?! Better than: Citizen Kane, Gone with the Wind, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Apocalypse Now, The Wizard of Oz, Seven Samurai, Cinema Paradiso, M, etc, etc. According to IMDb it is the FOURTH greatest film of all time. I think anyone with any understanding of film can see this is completely crazy. I don't hate this movie, i quite enjoy it a fair amount, but it is very far from being any kind of ''masterpiece'' - It isn't even Nolan's best movie... When destructing this movie i like to use David Fincher terminology: Fincher theory is that there are films, and there are movies. A film is using cinema as art and not as JUST entertainment, such as: 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Godfather, Citizen Kane, Rashomon, and modern movies like There Will be Blood, The Fall and Hero. (just to name a few) Then there are movies like: The Raid, Speed, The Game, and The Dark Knight, which are solely 'entertaining' films and nothing really more. Nothing to get inspired about, nothing to make you think, or ponder what has just happened. Nothing, which is fine, you wouldn't want movies like that constantly, but a movie that is solely entertainment can not be classed as one of the best movies of all time, let alone the FOURTH best. So, why then is The Dark Knight so ridiculously popular? Nolan separates his movies from the average blockbuster by giving them a sense of realism and reliability. The most obvious example of this is his very slim use of CGI and the use of practical effects. At a time when CGI is common use, in most blockbusters, as it's much cheaper and easier, this is obviously appreciated by audiences. You can see how audiences can be awed by this. Probably the thing that most separates this movie is how he chooses to make the viewer feel empowered. Where most Batman and other superhero villains have been cliche, cheesy or unrealistic, The Dark Knight (and the other Nolan Batman movies) have had villains that feel a lot more like modern day terrorist than the average comic book villain, which is usually just ridiculous if you think about it. Post 9/11 you can imagine the impact this can have on people and the realism it gives. Though in Nolan's determination to make the viewer feel empowered he sacrifices making The Dark Knight anything more than a movie, he makes everything extremely obvious and doesnt leave anything for the viewer to work out for themselves. At times it can even be patronizing. During the part of the movie where people are being killed until batman takes off his mask, he is constantly being by everyone even one of the officers does so. I think this is a testament to how much Nolan trusts is audience and how painstakingly obvious he thinks he has to make everything to get his point across. Even within expectations of it being a Nolan superhero film, The Dark Knight still has quite alot of faults. The main one being how anticlimactic the ending of the movie was, I was hoping/expecting some kind of big send off for the Joker but instead his send off was very brief and unsatisfying. There's also the many plot holes but i dont have anything new to say on that. A movie to be called ''One of the greatest film of all time'' it needs to excell in every aspect of filmmaking. The Dark Knight only excells at one, the performances, Heath Ledger's The Joker is excellent, he is truly phenomenal. But other than that, the direction is OK, the writing is very weak, and the movie is tedious, and overlong. The Dark Knight is good but grotesquely overrated In short, Nolan offers a somewhat charming comic movie, that has all his usual traits: good and bad, but despite its charm, at its core is a rather one dimensional hollywood blockbuster with the popcorn audience as its target demographic. It may be the ''greatest superhero movie of all time'' but that doesnt mean a lot, does it?
Waterworld is a decent futuristic action picture with some great sets, some intriguing ideas, and a few images that will stay with me. The script doesn't do a great job with either the spiritual or the physical trek, but the spectacular action sequences occur with enough regularity that strong writing isn't necessary to keep Waterworld afloat. Waterworld really doesnt deserve all the hate it's getting, it's by no means a great movie because of the over exposition script, some ridiculous scenes, and illogical things happening, but aside from that it is very entertaining with some intriguing ideas, awesome set (pieces), and a ver solid post-apocalyptic movie. The movie cost a whopping 200 million, which is a massive amount by today's standard and let alone 1995''s standards. 200 million went down the drain, but not completely, as this film isn't a total disaster. However, it sure doesn't satisfy like 200 million dollar entertainment. Production design is top notch, and combined with some good special FX and sets, the money is definetaly on the screen. However, the story's off, and that's probably why the film didn't gross. After a promising battle in the beginning, albeit a little silly, once they're adrift on the mariner's ship, the film drags. The characters don't have any depth, they just do what they do. The smokers, you don't even know why they do what they do. Outside of finding dryland, there's little focus in the plot, and ultimately the parts don't quite add up to something a 200 million dollar budget should deliver. The only real problem this movie suffers from is that it lacks balance. It tries to be a serious movie about the hardships of life on this aquatic world only to shift gears and become a childish action flick when the bad guys get their screen time. But, there's so much to like here. The movie looks and sounds great with good attention to details and the sets, especially the atoll, are stunning. The story is interesting enough and at times the movie is emotional and funny, so it engages the viewer. I have watched the film a couple of times and I was never bored. Give Waterworld a second chance people, it really isnt that bad... EDIT: Waterworld also spawned probably the coolest live show in the world, at Universal Studio's in L.A, the Waterworld show is incredible!
Why cant proper critics, be proper critics anymore?. I mean, every hate review is basically a "i'm-not-getting-what-i-want-from-this-movie" rant, failing to say what's actually wrong with the film itself. If you need narrative, read a novel or a chronicle. Film is primarily a visual medium. There are many examples of (seemingly) plotless films that are considered masterpieces like 2001, 8 1/2, La Dolce Vita, Last Yeat at Marienbad, and a bunch more. Personally, I'm glad that films like Knight of Cups are being produced, after all, narrative films are being produced in the hundreds a year and most of the them are dull as hell. The film is about an existential crisis, about everything that surrounds the character, and it's repetitive because LIFE is repetitive, it's shallow because the way of life of the character (and most people) is shallow. Ever felt that there's always something missing in your life? Well, this film is about that and more. Everybody will have this sort of existential crisis weather it is when your facing death or when you're 30 or 50, so in that aspect this film is universal and important IMO. Oh, last but not least, this film is definitely not as intellectual as it seems to be. Viewers just need an open mind to feel it and understand it.? This is simply Malick being Malick, what do you expect- you're either on his wavelength or you're not. Love it or hate it
Terry Gilliam's Brazil is a highly engaging black comedy that uses a dystopian society as its backdrop, and puts a unique twist on the genre, and through Gilliam's camera lens, it's a truly bizarre and memorable vision. The dystopian genre is very interesting, and it's one that is always exciting to see what they'll come up with it. With Brazil you have something totally different, you have hints of humor thrown into the film's storyline, and it adds something to the enjoyment of the film. Dystopian society films are often dark, nightmarish portraits of a society, but with this film we get something very different. The formula here has been reworked to give the storyline a bit more range than your standard dystopian film, and in turn it makes for a truly engaging experience. In the hands of Terry Gilliam, you have a well crafted picture with some truly stellar performances from its cast, especially from lead actor Jonathan Pryce who lights up every scene that he's in. Brazil is a great film, one that succeeds at delivering a different take on your standard dystopian society film, and in the hands of Terry Gilliam, he crafts a standout picture that is sure to please genre fans looking for something a bit different. Brazil is eccentric in the way that it's told, and it makes for a truly entertaining two and a half hours. If you enjoy Gilliam's work, you're sure to enjoy this. What makes Brazil great is the fact that it has your standard dark, atmospheric elements than are synonymous with the genre, but there are also lighter touches comic relief to really make it stand out among other films. Brazil is great filmmaking and one of the finest dystopian society films I've seen. With a great mix of comedy and serious content, Brazil is a standout genre film that elevates the bar and makes for a truly worthwhile viewing experience. I have thought of my own reason why this movie is called Brazil/ the ending, reason 1, obviously is that the song 'Brazil' is played numerous times throughout the film. Reason 2: So, I've never been to Brazil and when I look up Google images and I see these beautiful pictures of Rio de Janeiro etc. and the amazing weather, it just looks like the dream place to live, a **** apparently it's a pretty dangerous place to live, with the slums it has a pretty high death rate, you have to be smart and know what streets are safe to walk down ect. It's safe to pressume Brazil is a False paradise. Just like the end of the film is a false paradise for Sam. He's living the perfect life in his mind with his dream girl away from all the faulty machinery that's been ruining his whole **** in reality, he's not in paradise, he's strapped in a chair without a state of mind. And to top things off he hums the song Brazil before the credits role indicating that he's in a false paradise.?
Okay, i totally understand why people would dislike this film, it is long, it has a lot of CGI, good and bad, the acting may be campy, but for people who truly treasure the original 1933 film, this movie was a dream come true. At least for me it was. I'm a massive lover of the original stop-motion, brilliantly crafted 1933 King Kong, i think it's an absolute masterpiece, and too see Peter Jackson, clearly a fan too, recreate that film, with state of the art special effect to reinvigorate this story, was heartwarming for me. The movie is longer, bigger, even more interesting, and i just love everything about it, because i love the original soo much. The movie gives you more information on each character, and their backstories, as expected for a movie almost double the length of the original, which was great for a fan like me to get to know more about the characters i've grown to love. King Kong was a total blast for me, and a heartwarming experience, seeing the awesome original stop-motion clay puppet fight between the T-Rex and King Kong, realised and beautified with pitch-perfect CGI was just one of many things i loved about King Kong. (The CGI of King Kong was absolutely astounding, obviously my compliments to Andy Serkis who pulls off yet another fantastic CG character performance, as he also did with The Lord of the Rings, the CGI of King Kong itself was beautiful, the rest of the movie's CGI was severely worse, especially a dinosaur stampede as the film crew has to flee out of a canyon, in that scene in particular the CGI was pretty bad.) Of course this movie lacks the beautiful simplicity and artistery the original film had, but the way PJ has done it, was truly incredible in my honest opinion I'm sorry King Kong haters, i'm completely on the other side of the spectrum on this one.
The way it is presented is the main flaw with this film. Everywhere you look this movie is labeled as a ''comedy'' which is awfully misconceiving. Sure ''About Schmidt'' as funny moments and is sometimes full of light hearted fun, but that isnt the main theme of the movie, it really isnt. Because of how this movie is labeled people expected a comedy, starring old man Jack Nicholson, who wouldn't want to see that, i sure would, but instead they got an incredibly powerful, emotional character study on a broken man's life. It's an incredible movie, i will say that, but because it's billed as a comedy, audiences probably left the theatre upset and disappointed, hence the ''low'' score on each movie site i looked at, which is a shame, because "About Schmidt'' is truly an incredible film. Jack Nicholson proves us yet again that he truly is one of the best actors to have ever lived, even as an old man he still shines with this brilliantly nuanced and subtle performance. The story is touching, the detail is impeccable, the score is truly affecting, and the cinematography is seamless. There really isnt alot to complain about it, except the marketing flaws and maybe the slow pace this movie has, which bothered a lot of people, but not me, i thought it was perfect for a movie about an old man, just like i think the slow-pace in a movie like ''The Straight Story'' where the pace of the movie is truly as fast as Mr. Straight's lawn mower. Which was perfect. All in all ''About Schmidt'' is a beautiful character study with yet another great performance by late and great Jack Nicholson
There is only ONE thing stopping this film from being no.1 on all the "best of all time" lists. The people that love this film worship it (including me) & the people that hate it only hate it because they are naive & impatient. If everyone had patience in this world & people ACTUALLY paid attention to the whole film without falling asleep? It would be EVERYONES Greatest film ever made. The true monilith of cinema. No words can describe how masterful this film is. It's more than just a film, it's somthing else entirely. To me, the TRUE meaning of the words "masterpiece" & "experience" is - "2001: A Space Odyssey". There's more deep meaning and hidden messages in this film than all of Chris Nolan's films combined. To explain to the Naive and impatient folk. there IS a reason for the 5 minite scenes of (so-called) "nothing". We spend 10 minutes looking at apes in plain desert, showing us how we developed human behavour for the first time. **** of a sudden, we're seeing a spaceship & spacestation. Without the 5 minute scenes, The film wouldn't be able to make us appreciate the technology we've managed to create since the "dawn of man". Think of those scenes as a 'celebration' of tenchnology & space travel. All those 5 minute scenes of "nothing" are one of the most important aspects of the film. There is even a reason as to why the film plays 5 minutes of music before the film starts. The song 'requiem' plays whenever a monolith appears on-screen. Stanley uses 'Requiem' to not only create a chilling mood but also give the monolith a voice. 'Requiem' is the monolith's voice speaking to whoever it is facing. By having the music play over the black screen at the beginning of the film Kubrick is actually showing us the first monolith. Doesn't the black screen go on for a little too long? That was done intentionally by Kubrick. This is the monolith speaking to the audience themselves which suggest that we're about to witness a film so grand and so magnificent that it will open up our eyes to things we've never even thought possible.? This is a movie that needs thinking, repeated viewings, and more thinking, it's ambiguous and multilayered. It's a philosophical journey that makes you wonder about life. A masterpiece still fresh to this day, it looks like it hasn't dated a single year, it has phenomenal special effects, a brilliant screenplay and story, astoundingly perfect acting with one of the greatest villains of all time, along side the best use of music in a motion picture to this day. This movie is among a special catagory in science-fiction movies, 2001 is not concerned with thrilling us, but with inspiring our awe. Watching this film demands two qualities that are sadly lacking in all but the most mature and sophisticated audiences: patience and a willingness to ponder the meaning of what's transpiring on screen. 2001 is awe inspiring, but it is most definitely not a "thrill ride." It is art, it is a statement, and it is indisputably a cinematic classic. Kubrick's best work, and in my eyes, the greatest motion picture ever created and i doubt it will ever be triumphed. 2001: A Space Odyssey is a must-see for every cinephile!
This movie may have a conventional plot, and it offers barely anything new to the table, but what makes Midnight Run such a great and entertaining film, is the incredible chemistry Robert De Niro and Charles Grodin have on screen together, and the trials and tribulations they go through. Midnight Run has a handful of fun and energetic characters, which makes this film such a blast to look at, like of course Jack Walsh and Jonathan Mardukas, brilliantly portrayed by De Niro and Grobin, but also fellow bounty hunter called Marvin Dorfler which causes for some hilarious meetings between competing bounty hunters Walsh and Dorfler, but also the bounty hunter's employee beautifully portrayed by Joe Pantoliano, the guys from the mafia also always ensure laughs and thrills on screen, but also the stubborn FBI agent who follows the duo around too is a blast too look at. On top of that Midnight Run is supported by one of Danny Elfman's (Spider-Man) very best scores, compiled using funky blues rhythms, jazzy tunes, which over all results into an incredibly energetic and lively score to make the movie even more immersive and fun. The movie uses it's locations perfectly utilising the surroundings, inhabitants of those surroundings and everything there is available to them perfectly, and because it's essentially a road-trip film, it has a lot of different, vibrant locations which makes the movie a beauty to look at. The plot of the movie is something that could've come straight out of The Coen Brother handbook on how to write interesting and quirky screenplays, whilst watching it reminded me a lot of Coen brother films i've seen in combination with The Blues Brothers. The quirkiness, the fun characters, the trial and tribulations, the great acting, something the Coens do best. But it isnt directed by the Coen's to my surprise, it's directed by Martin Brest, he also directed Scent of a Women, one of my all time favorite films. All in all, there is little to complain here, Midnight Run guarantees you to have a great time watching, you wont be bored. It's energetic, fun, thrilling and lively from start to finish.
Okay, Terms of Endearment won all of the noticeable Oscars for 1983, and since most people will be checking this movie out/ criticising it based on the amount of oscars it won, so will I. Best Picture - I personally dont think this movie deserved to win Best Picture of the year, i dont know what other notable works has been nominated in 1983, but i did not think Terms of Endearment is at all a cinematic achievement, like most Best Picture winners tend to be. Terms of Endearment is entertaining but that's all it is, it isn't bravura filmmaking, it isnt showing us things we haven't ever seen before, it's basically a formula chick flick, only better than the usual garbage that is being produced these last couple of years. Best Screenplay - Here is where the movie's main faults come in, the Screenplay is very bland and uninvolved, the screenplay is neither funny nor emotionally evocative, the characters arent interesting, nor do you feel compassion for them. Except Jack Nicholson's character, who is a clear stand out with a good performance playing a delightful character, the rest of the characters are all pretty much uninteresting, and you dont feel anything for them. The reason for that is the constant jumping forward in time, something like that could make simple story (which Terms for Endearment is) more captivating and interesting to watch, but how it is done here results in the audience being unable to fully connect with the characters, and it skips forward just when it gets interesting and when you want to see more. (Especially in the beginning of the film) Also, the ending was very predictable, the screenwriter wanted to make this film an emotional adventure so he chose the easy way out to just have a main character die in the end, which i was expecting since the story wasn't going anywhere half where through. and there is another problem, a movie like this (a movie that doesnt really have a story/ a structured beginning and end) must be really captivating to work. (structureless/episodic films) Movies like this are difficult to make and succeed at, but it is possible, take La Dolce Vita for instance, that movie doesnt really have a firm story, it doesnt have a perfect beginning, middle and end, but it works because the rest is soo perfect. Unlike La Dolce Vita, Terms of Endearment has no solid clue what it's about, it's just a section of the lives of some people... Best Director - Best Picture and Best Director usually go hand-in-hand for me, i personally thought legend filmmaker Ingmar Bergman should've won Best Director for Fanny Och Alexander. Best Actress, Shirley MacLaine - The character she plays is one-note, she doesnt have a character arc, she doesnt change behavior (at least not that much) which makes her an interesting character to look at. The way she's played by MacLaine really isnt all that great either, in emotional parts she seems vastly mediocre, in more eccentric parts of the film she gives a hammy performance, that comes close to overacting. She was fine, but not all that great, she should've won for The Apartment, where she was much more delightful. Best Actor, Jack Nicholson - Not his best performance but certainly something different, he plays a normal guy, but still shows what Nicholson does best, being sarcastic and funny. His character certainly is a secondary character, he doesnt have much screen time, MacLaine, Daniels and Winger certainly have the most screen time, but whenever Jack is on screen he is, as always, a delight to look at. My favorite scenes from this film are all with Jack on screen. All in all, Terms of Endearment is certainly an above-average chick flick, and a good/entertaining watch for family/ loved ones, but the amount of Oscars it undeservedly won is ridiculous.
2003's classic remake ''The Italian Job'' is mediocrity at its best. It's neither great, original, surprising or anything of such sorts, nor is it bad in any way, shape or form. It's an entertaining film, it certainly is, but that's really al it is. The script is predictable and filled with plot-holes as you expect with films like this, the acting isnt good, nor is it bad, no one in particular stands out, Edward Norton maybe, he plays a cool villain, but in the opening scene of the film (and knowing the general synopsis of the film beforehand) you instantly know he was going to be the one to betray them, with his scary face and the moustache. The film has cool ideas, despite having seen them all done before a hundred times, it has impressive set pieces, car/boat chases, good locations and a stellar cast. The way it was executed reminded me in a good way of Fast Five/Furious Six/ and Furious Seven. The same style of a rag-tag team planning a big heist, with car chases, lots of money, and just a great time watching All in all ''The Italian Job'' is certainly an entertaining flick, but extremely conventional, predictable, same with the characters.
David Lynch's most deviating film of his regular type of movie making is called ''The Straight Story'' and wow what a moving, gorgeous, extraordinary, emotional, American odyssey this one is. Because the film was directed by David Lynch, who usually deals in the bizarre, we keep waiting for the other shoe to drop--for Alvin's odyssey to intersect with the Twilight Zone. But it never does. ''The Straight Story'' is astonishing in how simplistic, yet deep it is. Everything about Farnsworth's performance is brilliantly simple, just an old american trying to visit his brother before it's too late, and because he's not allowed to drive, he decides to drive cross country on a lawn-mower with a max speed of 5 miles an hour. This seems like a melodramatic plot to a cheesy movie, but keep in mind, this is based on a true story, and it handles the material perfectly. Following that notion is how simple but incredibly heartfelt the screenplay is, with simple characters saying things like: ''What is the number for 9-1-1?!'' or ''What do you need that grabber for Alvie?, Alvie answers: Grabbing'. '' but this screenplay also includes some philosophical, deep and meaningful dialogue like when Alvie tells a story to another war veteran about the war, or a little game he used to play with his children (i dont want to spoil anything, but you'll know what i mean when you'll watch it) and there are many more scenes like that. ''The Straight Story'' is a straight-forward movie that's simple and easy to follow, unlike previous Lynch movies, but Lynch does make this story his own by using imagery and metaphors while shooting this movie. For example the people Alvin talks to, the first he talks to is a young runaway and he tells a story about how many kids he's had and how many grandkids, then he talks to a bunch of adolescents, then to an old war veteran in a bar, then to a pastor in a cemetery, all before his journey ends and visits his brother Lyle. Also the landscapes he drives through start of by being green, full of life, and sunny. But slowly digress into darker imagery, a girl hitting a deer before his eyes, him almost crashing down a hill because of the weakness of his lawnmower, and talking to a pastor on a cemetery. (You see/get the idea right) But the plot is so simple, yet so brilliant and dualistic, the clues in this **** to why Alvin Straight is REALLY going to see on his brother on his tractor, are delivered with a degree of subtle high-art that even most reviewers of this film missed, but to give a hint... Runaway Girl (aka Dorothy from Oz invoking "no place like home" to start the journey) = Human Birth Deer-strike Lady = Human Ambition (with the leering deer symbolizing that which is lost in its wake) Tractor Brakes/House On Fire= Lynch's explanation of what REALLY **** VERY close attention to that scene. The Handymen Dialogue= Human Honesty (as a result of the above) Bartender Scene= Human Accomplishment Graveyard Scene= Impending Mortality Dead Engine Short Of Destination= Deserved Punishment (notice how Alvin accepts this knowing he has earned this fate) and finally, I feel the greatest moment in the Lynch film... Old Man On Tractor= God Camera Pans Away= Dignity Of Private Confession Immaculate Repair= Sins Forgiven The Straight Story is a G-Rated masterpiece. (Tip: before viewing, bring a box of tissues because, man, this film will tear you up. Multiple times. e.g The ending with his brother... yes... the bar scene with the two aged characters talking about the war... yes... Rosie's story of losing her kids... yes... Really, anytime Straight talked about his life or extended his thanks for someone's courtesy... yes, it had me crying) All in all ''The Straight Story'' is an absolutely beautiful film, and a hidden gem in Lynch's filmography overshadowed by his magnum opus'. ''The Straight Story'' is anoverlooked and forgotten masterpiece.
1938's ''The Adventures of Robin Hood'' is after almost 80 years of possible improvement, still the very best Robin Hood film, in fact it is one of the greatest films of all time. Is the acting campy? Yes, most certainly but so is the acting in King Kong (1933) and The Wizard of Oz (1939) and those 2 are also considered some of the greatest movies of all time. The campy acting is in my eyes certainly not a flaw, i think the campy acting we had in old movies is only a good thing, it reminds us of how innocent and unexperienced Hollywood was back in the day, and i think that's a beautiful thing that should be treasured. Aside from the hammy acting, i personally think it's a flawless film, the script is perfect, simple, exciting and emotional, the art direction is top notch, so are the costumes, and music is supportive and beautiful, the stunts and choreography is spot on, the set pieces are enthralling, so are the fun characters, and the pacing is fast to keep the movie going. (especially for a movie that's almost 80 years old, this is one of the most modern, old movies i've ever seen) The innocence of The Adventures of Robin Hood is delightful, this really is a timeless movie for all ages, kids of today could easily enjoy a movie like this too, and not fall asleep. The Adventures of Robin Hood is such a fresh, fast-paced exciting film, it really is something special. Say what you want about The Adventures of Robin Hood and how campy it may be. In my eyes it's one of the best movies of all time.
Boyhood is one of those ''love-it'' or ''hate-it'' kind of movies, the critics all adore this film, and the average audience member hates it. Which is understandable, Boyhood is by no means a flawless films (as a LOT of critics claim it to be) but it doesnt deserve all of the immense hate people are giving it either. I'm neither a ''love-it'' or ''hate-it'' kind of guy, i thought it was a good movie that certainly has its moments but i also thought it was a movie that had so much potential and missed a lot of it. Let's start with the cons of this movie, Boyhood is empty because it lacks content and form. It celebrates the ordinary and mediocrity instead of aiming at something extraordinary. Boyhood is not an entertaining film and the almost 3 hour runtime is probably to blame for it, it certainly has it's moment of wit and compassion but overall i would not call Boyhood an entertaining film, on top of that there isnt really a story, it's more like just the life of someone where things happen, and that's it. It doesnt have a solid premise either. Next problem, there isnt a single character to whom you feel compassionate to, (except maybe Ethan Hawke's character, he is the stand out) and the film focuses on the life of Mason, a character that has absolutely no interesting characteristics whatsoever. Mason walks through this film as if he was in a coma or half asleep; he has no ambitions. At some point he gets his first kiss, gets interested in photography (the ultimate art form for unimaginative lazy people) during high school, goes to college at which point the film ends. Before going in i knew this was going to be a movie about ordinary people, in ordinary situations in an ordinary life, which might turn people away from a movie like this very quickly, but not me since i'm a MASSIVE fan of Linklater's other work: The Before Trilogy, a trilogy where nothing happens and where the audience follows ordinary people living their ordinary lives. Sounds boring right? But it certainly isnt, the Before trilogy are all 3 such meticulous, astoundingly acted, brilliantly written pieces of cinema where Linklater celebrates the normality of people's lives instead of going for the flashy razzle dazzle. It sounds boring but it is so incredibly captivating, beautiful and brilliant. and since Boyhood was also about ordinary people i was expecting the same kind of brilliance Linklater had shown the world with the Before trilogy. Linklater is a master at making very uneventful but thought provoking movies, except this one isnt thought provoking. Now we have the cons out of the way, what are the pros about this 3 hour movie. The performances are good, with Ethan Hawke as the standout, there are quite some exceptional moments in this movie, but that's all they are, moments, which is a shame, too little to fill the 3 hours. Boyhood captures the normality of life perfectly, something Linklater is exceptional at, only he didn't make it interesting, which he so perfectly did in the Before Trilogy. The fact that it's shot over 12 years shows how ambitious Linklater is, and the fact that he made 8 movies in between those 12 years is quite an achievement too. For a movie like this to work perfectly it would need to have emotional depth throughout the film, Boyhood has that in certain moments, but definitely not throughout the film. All in all, Boyhood is by no means a masterpiece or a flawless films, which is something critics claim, but it also isnt as terrible as lots of people make it out to be. Boyhood is a stellar cinematic achievement with certainly a lot of great moments, but in the end falls short of greatness by being just a little too structureless and empty.
Sherlock Holmes is quite an entertaining movie but by no means a good one. The obvious fault is the script, it's all over the place, same thing with the cheesy villain, the movie is over long and many scenes could have easily been scrapped to resolve the pacing issues Sherlock Holmes has. As for Mr Holmes, Robert Downey Jr. portrays him beautifully however the character is ridiculous, how he is put in this film makes him look like an action hero, he fights, shoots, kicks runs, and everything an action hero would do. Sherlock Holmes is more of an action movie than a witty, mysterious, compelling thriller, what a Sherlock Holmes should be! Just look at the show Sherlock, they hit everything right on the head with how to portray a diverse character like Holmes perfectly. Aside from Holmes being an action hero, there is also a very Holmes-like trait missing in this flick. He is not funny, neither sarcastic nor cynical throughout the entire film! That's something what makes the show Sherlock so immaculate. It's bloody hilarious! Sherlock Holmes may get you to chuckle softly a couple of times but by no means is this movie hilarious (in a dark way) as it should be. Sherlock Holmes is just the next thing that is being thrown into the SFX reboot machine called Hollywood, and instead of making a compelling film that is genuinely good, they take the easy way out to make a complex character simple and throw him into an action movie to please average audiences and cash in on a massive box-office. I gave it a 7/10 because Sherlock Holmes is still somewhat entertaining, despite being too long and uninteresting at times. If you have nothing better to do and want to watch something decent. Sherlock Holmes isnt a terrible way to spend the evening.
Sheer entertainment, energetic action sequences, an awesome villain, great voice acting, cool storyline, creativity and lavish animation is what makes Kung Fu Panda 2 a very good successor to the also great Kung Fu Panda. However Kung Fu Panda 2 is not as good as Kung Fu Panda, it lacked the mysterious/magical feel the original had, and i remember the first one being much more hilarious. That doesnt mean Kung Fu Panda 2 doesnt have its funny moments. Also the ending is quite bad, just like in Kung Fu Panda 3 Kung Fu Panda 2 is the least good movie out of the trilogy, but nonetheless pretty entertaining
Sheer entertainment, energetic action sequences, training montages, an awesome villain, great voice acting, cool storyline, fun new ideas, creativity and lavish animation is what makes Kung Fu Panda 3 a good successor to the mediocre Kung Fu Panda 2 Kung Fu Panda 2's villain is fantastic, Po's father gives the story a new fun element and so do all of the cute mini panda's However the ending has a massive Deus Ex **** moment, which kind of kills the pay-off. But nonetheless a fun movie going experience :)
Super 8 is directed by J.J Abrams and produced by Spielberg, and that is highly noticable. Super 8 is filled with lense-flair's, and ideas all from previous Spielberg movies (he either directed, produced, or exec-produced) like: Some kids find a map (Goonies) - including a fat kid who likes to eat (Goonies) - and they come up against the military which is trying to track down an alien on the loose (E.T.). The creature has created issues for the townsfolk who express concern at a meeting with the sheriff (Jaws) and they eventually have to evacuate because of a made-up disaster (Close Encounters). The alien, who is a really a spider (Arachnaphobia) that has been collecting items so that he can get home (E.T.), has the ability to make a psychic connection with humans (Close Encounters). One of the kids has a seemingly useless obsession that winds up helping to save the day in a climactic sequence (fireworks here and inventions in the Goonies) however the creature is much too smart to fall for such a trick (Jaws - "he's either very smart or very stupid"). An old guy, who is an expert on this creature (Jaws) winds up dying while the army shoots through the town and tanks roll (War of the Worlds). Then the characters put the story together in one long expositional scene and we are not really sure how they figured it all out (Minority Report). It seems the monster is really a misunderstood good guy (Goonies) who makes a connection with our hero (ET, Close Encounters) and then flies home (E.T), but not before a lot of missing people are returned (Close Encounters) and lots of appliances fly around (Poltergeist). However, i didnt mind this but it does make the movie highly conventional. The kid actors were surprisingly good, the pacing is excellent, and the writing, despite unoriginal was quite good. The thing that bugged me the most though is how ridiculous, random, and **** the ending is, i wont go into details, but up untill the point where havoc is about the break lose, the movie is pretty good, but the last 20 minutes or so completely **** it up.
David Cronenberg's ''A History of Violence'' starts off slowly, then changes into a brilliant sprinting marathon, but tumbles before the finish line. That's the best i could describe this film. The beginning is slow, the middle is truly incredible, but the third act (after a certain turning point, i wont say which, but anyone who's seen the film knows what i'm talking about) falls falt on it's ass, and it loses all of its momentum which is such a disappointment, if the ending kept the same momentum as the first and second act, it would've totally been a 5/5 star movie. As for the writing. I feel like it's a script written by the Coen brothers, but they had to hand it over to a serious director who doesnt like comedy so he deleted all of the light moments from the script to make a serious thriller. That's basically what it is, and it's remarkable. Also for a movie directed by David Cronenberg, this movie is surprisingly easy to watch without crazy disgusting imagery or practical effects, it's a pretty straight forward film which was interesting to see. The movie does have lots of explicit violence and 2 sex scenes, but you need to see something of Cronenberg's style in this film. Except for the disappointing third act, David Cronenberg's ''A History of Violence'' truly is a remarkable thriller. (The slow build up is dismissive)
The incredible thing about this movie is that the premise seems so incredibly boring, and it could have been so incredibly boring, but it isnt! The Breakfast Club is a warm, insightful and hilarious movie about a group of seemingly polar opposites of each other. This is a character driven performance piece, despite only starring young actors and a always hilarious **** teacher and a delightfully innocent janitor who sometimes walks into scene. But what mostly keeps this movie together is not the fantastic script, but the engaging, interesting, hilarious **** of a character, beautifully portrayed by Judd Nelson called ''John Bender'', every scene he is in (quite alot), he steals the show. He is just so engaging, your eyes are glued to him whenever he says or does something, it is Judd Nelson who is unforgettable as Bender that acts as the catalyst of everyone's emotions. On top of that the last half hour of The Breakfast Club, is truly incredible, emotional and heartbreaking. Every actor in this film shows their true potential there, and oh boy do they all shine. With ''The Breakfast Club'', John Hughes shows us once again why he is the king of 80's comedies.
John Frankenheimer's ''Ronin'' is too serious to be a fun popcorn movie and simply too bad, to be a good serious action/thriller. Overall it's a disappointing film. It has some good action sequences and good performances from De Niro and Reno (as you would expect) to save this movie. The the plot seems inevitably simple but turns out to be confusing at the beginning and barely gets clear along the way. Also, the whole plot is just a massive McGuffin that goes nowhere, as always with McGuffin plots.
