FilmLove

Contrived beyond measure, with coincidences for plot progression that seem to have been written by a student filmmaker. Amidst all the stylish flair, some great scenes and dialogue, it's hard to believe how silly the crime aspect is mixed into the plot with characters that suddenly switch from nice guys to criminals, just because they were too lazy to write it in a more believable manner. Such lazy writing that ruined the potentially great original story.

With all its flaws in jumping into an unimaginable sequence of decisions with not enough build up to support the absurdity, No Other Choice is simply a masterclass in filmmaking. Another gem from Korea, combining humor and horror in a way few other contemporaries can accomplish.

I'm a huge Tony Scott fan, but a weak script that takes an hour to get into gear combined with overdone stylistic film burn/overlay flickers really take away form an otherwise good film. Denzel and Fanning are both excellent, and Scott really knows how to take elevate the action. But the build up of the character link takes much too long, creating and overlong run time that is just filled with empty spaces of repeated motifs. How many bottle filling scenes do we need to understand Denzel's a drunk? And zero insight into the mans wounds really doesn't help when the story takes so long to get into gear. Ultimately, a trimmed version of this could have been an excellent revenge flick.

Contrived and overlong knockoff of Heat, without any of the razzle dazzle or style from Mann's masterpiece. It could've easily been trimmed down to around 90 minutes. The cast does what they can with the material, but it just doesn't feel believable at any point.

Interesting premise that leans on the overused multiverse idea but does nothing meaningful with it. The biggest issue is the “machine,” a gimmick that makes no sense and feels thrown in with zero explanation, just lazy, contrived writing to dress up a basic revenge story.Stories like Dark Matter and Everything Everywhere All at Once handle this far better. Here, it all feels hollow. The script is undercooked, the supporting cast weak (yes, Mia), and no amount of “cinematic” music can hide how amateurish it feels. Michaela McManus is the only standout, but she cannot carry it alone.

Self indulgent amateur filmmaking at its pretentious worst. It's one thing to make an unlikable hero, but it's another thing to make a hero who is just plain annoying. She's clearly a bad mother, a terrible therapist and a selfish individual. How do you expect an audience to sit through and empathize with her plight? It's another A24 dud that only got made through the push of Byrne to get herself a well deserved Oscar. I just wish it was for a better film rather than this hollow excuse for cinema.

I generally love Linklaters works, but this Oscar bait plays like a stage production that accidentally wandered onto a movie set. The actors do their best, and they are the main reason to keep watching. Beyond that, the story just sits there, stubbornly uneventful. If you want proof that one location can still crackle with tension, 12 Angry Men already solved that problem decades ago.

A beautifully shot exercise in style over substance. Terrible script that meanders and alienates the audience with nonsense after nonsense. Giving no reason to care at any point just creates an exercise in futility that the great Berger and Farrel have no chance in overcoming.

Unlike father's masterful gorefests that still have substance and heart, this one seems to be a hollow exercise in meaningless violence and pornography, with little else to show for it. The message is lost with it's empty vagueness and pretentious attempts at profundity. Nepotism at its worst. Maybe in time he'll bloom into the Cronenberg legacy, but from the looks of it, it's not very promising.

A masterful work from Gilliam. A beautiful, heartfelt dramedy that delicately balances the powerful allegorical story about selflessness, true empathy, and humility. Many reviewers (audiences and critics alike) seem to have been distracted by some of the shortcomings of the dialogue. I can understand this sentiment, but wholeheartedly disagree since the lines are fitting for the story as a whole. You have to let the story take you on the fantastical journey in the way only Gilliam films can. Every aspect of the film is wonderful and the film is a deservedly revered classic.

The movie has its strengths—especially in its gorgeous cinematography and the standout work from Jordan and the rest of the ensemble, not to mention a spot-on score and music—but it drags in places with its slow burn approach. Excess scenes derail the momentum as the focus jumps erratically between characters, and the vampires’ shifting personalities—from deranged murderers to remorseful souls—feel contrived, serving only to push the story forward, culminating in a deflating final act. Still, despite these missteps, it’s refreshing to see an original, studio-backed feature that mostly delivers.

Some of the cheesiest and most poorly written lines of dialogue ever committed to a serious film. The characters are caricature. And the over the top performance from Annette Benning doesn't help. Cusack was also miscast. Hard to believe Frears directed and Scorsese was even involved. This film is just a poorly done attempt at neo noir that never feels genuine or even remotely intriguing. The critics truly missed the mark on this one.

This is one of those rare films that feels like a surreal fever dream. Contrivances aside (and there are quite a few, I'm looking at you "24 hour gym with a helicopter pilot" scene), the film works on many levels both as a time capsule of the periods atomic fears, as well as a quirky 80s romantic love story. It builds up to a troubling climax, but it's hard to look away. You may leave the experience a bit shaken, but it's definitely a special film that any film buff should see.

I'm a huge Edgar Wright fan, but this one is just a fun but hollow exercise in style. The characters are cutouts, like discount versions from Tarantino's world. Suspension of disbelief can only take you so far before you start to realize there's a lot of frosting but no cake. But it's hard not to enjoy a majority of it if you allow yourself to view it as an expansive sequence of impressive music videos.

Disturbing? Yes. But it is a meandering tale **** stuck somewhere that is just unpleasant to watch with no payoff in the end. It just feels like a cheap trick is the discomfort of being stuck somewhere you don't want to be. Donald Pleasance is incredible though, as usual.

The stylistic choices will understandably divide viewers. But this is one of those rare slice of life odyssey's that really hit the mark for me. It's one of those rare combinations where style and substance are balanced beautifully to tell this poetic humansitic tragedy. Easily one of the best films of the year.

The film has some great moments, but just feels like a poor man's "There Will Be Blood." It just feels rough around the edges by being over consumed by moments of pretentious oversight in the last quarter of the film where the characters contrived actions lead to the tragic elements. It just feels incomplete in its development while focusing on the technically achievements to compensate for its lack.

A special kind of fever dream only Scorsese could properly deliver on. It's got it all, from start to finish, delivering intrigue, heart, and hilarity.

Disturbing and aesthetically excellent film with great performances and a dreadfully disturbing atmosphere. The darkness seems to be all consuming make it an unpleasant experience to sit through. And some of the dialogue seems undercooked. But the technical achievements of the film are undeniable.

A solid entry from Eastwood with great performances all around. Borrows quite a bit from "12 Angry Men" except adds a more personal touch to the deflector character. A bit on the contrived side as far as the story premise, but overall a good film.

Well directed with amazing performances from the entire cast, with Hoult being a standout in his ability to portray a quiet evil lurking beneath a peaceful loving facade. Doesn't offer up much of anything new in the genre, but it is a good solid film.

The film does a solid job building tension, albeit slowly and a bit too grade one theology driven. Grant is incredible. But the story does veer off the rails in making any sense in the last 15 minutes. Still a solid thriller.

A modern day classic. One of the best anti-war films ever made. Berger is a modern day master.

As far as director Berger, the cinematography, and the performances from the cast, the film is incredible. It takes a potentially dull story to new heights as a taut thriller. However, the twist at the end that simply feels forced and throws off a lot of what came before it. But you must blame the source material for that flaw.

A modern classic that is both gripping and perfectly executed from start to finish. Cuaron worked wonders with the material.

An epic tragedy that balances De Palma's incredible stylistic flair with a well told anti-hero who learns too late the price of greed. A darker grittier Citizen Kane for the underworld.

It starts off very slow with an extended first act, similar to many of the absurdist dark comedies coming from A24. It follows the A24 formula as well, with an overall interesting approach towards the material with the oft-times forced feeling Lanthimos zooms. Stan and Pearson give great performances. But a lot of the scenes with Reinsve feel forced with awkward dialogue. Still a worth a view as an indie with more on its mind than grotesque emptiness like "The Substance" this year.

The film does an incredible job building the atmosphere of the era and the emotions of the characters. And great performances to boot. But it often goes into overindulgence, wasting powerful moments with poor choices that distract from the main narrative. It could have been great and just feels like it was squandered away by too many distractions from an otherwise talented filmmaker.

Take Cronenberg and remove all character depth, realism, character motivation, and the ability to direct actors, and you get this heap of garbage. Starts off with great promise and gets sillier and sillier to the point of nonsense. Keep in mind, I have no issue with the gore or nastiness. The issue is that this film is all style, zero substance, and just very poorly written. Not a single thing the main character does makes any sense... the whole concept collapses because the filmmakers wanted to only shock rather than tell an actual story that makes sense. You have to wonder the state of cinema when poorly made and written garbage like this gets celebrated.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Dull and pretentious attempt at art house thriller. Zero reason to care from start to finish, wondering what the protagonist is even doing or what the point of the journey is. It is ironic when another character asks her this exact question. Obtuse for the sake of it. Another example of the high brow critics finding value in a hollow heap of nothing.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

A very pleasant and unique approach regarding the idea of dreaming big and working around the shortcomings when you miss the mark. If you go into this thinking it's a zombie film, it might disappoint. This is no horror-comedy like "Shaun of the Dead," but rather a pleasant look at doing your best with what you have. It was funny, with great performances, and a heart felt story.

Imagine a student film with long takes, placed out of order a la Tarantino, except with a script written by an AI app with the prompt "subvert some genre conventions to get the moronic critics giddy." And doing reverse tracking shots with ominous music does not make a good film. Kyle Gallner is the only good thing about this absurdly overrated self-indulgent poor excuse of a film. Are there good parts? Sure. About 2 minutes worth.

A bit too focused on the sentimental elements, slowing down the plot in an otherwise decent entry to the series. Lupita is great, as usual, along with the rest of the cast. But the attempts at emotionality does somewhat hinder the story itself, making the stakes slump, which dulls the suspense.

Taut, tense, and excellently executed single location thriller. Wasn't a fan of Saulnier's debut, but he really picked things up afterwards and is an incredible filmmaker.

Overrated and underwhelming snooze fest. Has not dated well at all. It may have been eerie at the time of release, but it simply doesn't work with the cheap constant intercut sequences and slow moving plot. Save yourself the wasted time and watch Rosemary's Baby instead.

Everything about the film is incredible except for the camera it was shot on... terrible dated "DV Cam" footage does nothing but distract from the otherwise incredible experience.

Very disturbing film. And effective and still relevant. It is the textbook body horror film, some would argue the template. Definitely worth a view, establishing Cronenberg as the visionary he is.

Fincher at his finest. Thrilling, beautifully shot, well-executed, incredible performances, and twists and turns that keep you guessing. Done in a classic film style, where Fincher shined in his early days, it is truly an underrated gem.

Think of the film as "The Sandlot" for grown ups. Incredible performances from the entire cast, great script and directing by Nichols, and just an overall great feel to the feel. Just don't go in expecting "The Goodfellas" on motorcycles, and you'll walk away with a great cinematic experience.

Truly an excellent film, well-directed and written, with amazing performances all around, with a star-making lead performance from Pierre and Robb. Even Don Johnson was incredible. And I fall in the camp of those who found Saulnier's "Blue Ruin" extremely overrated but promising. He strikes gold with this one, perfectly blending the slow-burn thriller and action elements with genre subversion, creating a wonderful film that really hits all the marks. Even though the final action sequence is absolutely incredible, I do hope people don't go in expecting Rambo. This is a much smarter and more thoughtful film. Highly recommended.

Cage does his Cagiest role. If you're on board with that, it's the only good thing about this film along with Blaire Underwood. Everything else about this amateur knockoff of much better films is just poorly executed. All the characters are cardboard cutouts. Meandering through lifeless scene after lifeless scene. If you want to watch Cage in his element doing what he does best, it's worth a view. Just forward to his parts and you'll thank yourself later.

A sometimes contrived but heartfelt and entertaining film dealing with love, loss, and the afterlife. Yes, there are cheesy elements sprinkled here and there. But as a whole, it's a wonderful film. There are wonderful performances from the whole cast, even though Whoopi Goldberg absolutely steals the show in every frame she's in. Definitely worth a view.

Truly an original noir that builds a sinister world with tragic characters and the consequences of being victims of circumstance. The film has some of the most unique direction from the era, with some amazing sequences that seem as fresh today as they did back when this was released.

A bittersweet Nicholas Ray noir that really stands on its own in the genre. Definitely worth a viewing for the incredible performances from both leads. The story itself starts grim and transforms into a unique love story that really makes it a worthy entry as a classic noir.

A tightly paced neo-noir that really strikes gold in almost every department. It is one of those forgotten gems that just tells a simple story of things taking a bad turn in the underbelly of society, while maintaining a sense of realism (outside of a few questionable plot points), in an entertaining manner. Well worth a view.

While it is slow-moving (hence many of the complaints), it is an excellent film with incredible technical sequences (moon pirates), great performances (one of Pitt's best), and incredible world-building. On the other hand, the film has a slightly sluggish plot that at times weighs down the story with overarching philosophical elements that don't quite land. It is not as deep as it intends to be, but where it succeeds, it is brilliant.

Truly a gem of a film. A beautiful, bizarre, dreamlike work of surrealist cinema. Gilliam combines absurd dark humor with a thought-provoking bureaucratic dystopian retro future unlike any one else. At times, it is hard to follow (hence the negative reviews, which I empathize with). But it is all done to convey the importance of "dreaming," making a case for existence of art (especially cinema) in a world that is often lost in rigid rules, unsympathetic regulations, and "what you see is what you get" coldness. It's a film that gives a feast for the eyes while you sometimes scratch your head wondering what its all about. Once you contextualize it within this thematic framework (the magic of cinema at its core - a visual fantasy/dream), the film leaves a hauntingly beautiful impact. Gilliam simply does it in a way most "artsy for the sake of art" filmmakers simply can't, by making it actually worth the effort to think a bit longer after the final frame. Of course, as with all Gilliam efforts, the world-building and mise-en-scene are second to none. And the performances are incredible from everyone in the cast, top to bottom. If you are a cinephile, this should be at the top of your "must-watch" list.

They could have easily condensed the first hour into 25 minutes, and it could have been a modern classic. The initial pacing is the major flaw of the film, along with some cheesy dialogue, dated nonsensical tech (generating an image from "unseen pixels"), some awkward scenes (the infamous "limo" scene), and minor plot holes. The bad aside, it is a classic whydunit thriller that amps up and becomes the stuff of classics right after the one hour mark. The tense, claustrophobic direction and cinematography make it stand the test of time. And Hackman is wonderful, as usual. All flaws aside, it's well worth a watch, even by modern standards.