GREEK-GOD

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Ex Machina is one of the best movie about robot I've seen ever seen. There are so many great things about it, and the one false note I find is in the first act. Many dialogue can be done much better, and "history of God" scene does not work. However, as the movie goes on, the script becomes better and dialogue feels much more genuine. Almost all sci-fi films have a problem with exposition: since the story happens in the future, the audience would not know about it. Ex Machina handles the exposition very well. In the helicopter scene at the beginning, we did not know the boss is rich because someone tells us so, but because the helicopter has been flying on its territory for years. This is a very nice approach to tell the audience an important information. But the greatest thing about the film is its theme. Never have I ever seen a movie so thoroughly and beautifully explored the identity of an A.I.. Ava has been perfectly portrayed as an attractive, creepy, also terrifying character. Overall, the movie is really really good. The music is also suitable for the sci-fi filmmakers out there. A lot of the theories and Ava's characters in the film are worth learning about. If the script for the first act can be done just a little bit better, I would just have no problem with it.

The "interconnected stories" trick worked well for director and screenwriter Paul Haggis when he won two Oscars for Crash (2004). I'm in the minority who enjoyed that film, and Haggis tried to do something similar in Third Person, but this time, I found the movie boring and pretentious, despite the solid performances. Third Person is told with a frustrating slowness, gradually losing the energy of the three stories. Nevertheless, as I previously said, I liked the performances. Liam Neeson brings a credible and detailed work, while Olivia Wilde equally displays talent and beauty, solidly transmitting her character's extreme changes of attitude. Mila Kunis also left me a very good impression, and James Franco managed to bring a good performance, despite having the worst written character of the film. And Moran Atias left me pleasantly surprised with her performance. The only film I had seen her in had been La Terza Madre (that piece of junk directed by the once great Dario Argento), in which I had found her performance horrible; however, her work in Third Person is very good, displaying a much better histrionic shape. Going back to the negative elements from Third Person, despite the three stories being quite tragic and dramatic, they feel curiously cold and impersonal. They never inspire enough passion in order for us to get interested in them. I think the main reason Third Person failed is due to the "Director/Screenwriter/Producer" syndrome, aggravated by a case of "And I Have Won Two Oscars, So Nobody Tells Me What to Do", something which tends to cloud the vision from many filmmakers, making them blind to their own vision (Irony!). Despite the good performances, the excessive self-indulgence, confusion of topics and boring rhythm from Third Person avoided me from enjoying it, and I can't recommend it.

I read a lot about this film before i watched it, but i figured, some people don't know anything about art in cinema, so i decided to watch it myself and to prove them wrong. I expected too much. this film is shot beautifully, but that doesn't change the fact that it's just sex scenes and live music. seriously: if a person wants sex and music, they rent porn and a live DVD of some band. I really, really don't mind a lot of sex in a movie, as long as it deepens the knowledge about the relationship between the characters. but we don't know these two people, so we can't relate to them. and the film doesn't really make us want to know more about them, either. All in all, the film is like a nice flower: beautiful to look at for maybe one or two minutes at best, but not for sixty-seven. it doesn't leave you with any kind of feeling, you know? most films leave a question, or make you go "awwww" or leave you either satisfied or unsatisfied, but this one just makes you go "okay, i just watched a lot of sex, some music, and saw a few shots of Antarctica." and that's all it is.

This is definitely one of my favorite movies. It has everything-- a strong and dangerous villain, songs, romance, spirit, humor.... Not all of the songs are that memorable, but there's a duet called, "I See the Light," and it is beautiful. A song the villain, called Mother Gothel, sings gives me goosebumps. The woman who voiced her, Donna Murphy, has an incredible strong, powerful, and beautiful voice. Specifically the reprise of "Mother Knows Best," it is one of the best villain songs of all time. There is a load of humor, but some jokes, as another reviewer has said, only adults will get. This was targeted toward kids, but not as much as Frozen or Moana. Tangled isn't dark itself, but it is dark compared to other Disney movies. There are two side villains, the risk of hanging, stabbing, blood, **** if you're tired of watching Frozen with your kids or need a bit more excitement, then watch this. One thing I love so much about this is that it is one of Disney's few exhibits of true love. (SPOILER AHEAD) In detail, Rapunzel's love, Eugene, is stabbed, and she can heal him with her magical hair. She sacrifices her freedom for him, saying she will do what the villain wants if the villain will let her heal Eugene. Instead of letting her heal him, though, Eugene cuts her hair, making it die and turn brown, unable to heal him. He seriously sacrificed his life for her! The characters are excellent and well-built. There wasn't a very good backstory for the bandit Flynn Rider (who's real name is Eugene Fitzherbert--that makes me laugh each time) and no explanations for why Mother Gothel wants to stay young, but they all have strong personalities. Out of the the five three-dimensional Disney Princesses we have so far (Merida, Rapunzel, Anna, Elsa, Moana), I'd say Rapunzel is the best, and it's not because she comes from my favorite Disney movie. She is a go-getter and has hobbies. She is determined and isn't real rude to her "mom" throughout the movie like Merida was, but actually shows a spark of an attitude at one point. Her singing is good, and her face isn't perfectly angular like Aurora's, but a bit round, which is surprising. She is brilliant and realizes something rather important near the climax, using logic. When she finds out Mother Gothel is the villain, she is brave and bold to her. Rapunzel has a fierceness and strength in her, and it's not attitude like Merida had, nor the kind Elsa has. She is a great character and role model for girls. I prefer this over Frozen. Not that I don't like Frozen. It is one of my top ten favorite movies. I just prefer Tangled more. It's the sort of movie I watch one day and want to watch the next. It has me shivering, my eyes watering, and I'm wrapped up in it, not thinking about the fact I'm watching a movie or wondering who voiced that character. It's a great, memorable movie for people of all ages. Even a 13-year-old boy and 50-year-old woman were laughing and grinning. Make sure to watch it with your family and as often as you want. It's one of Disney's most creative movies (the only similarities to the original are bad woman, long hair, tower, and tear). It's one of my favorite movies, and I can see it will be that way for many, many more years.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Four young divers come across a legendary shipwreck that is rumored to contain millions in gold, but nearby to their lucky find is another more sinister mystery. As rival treasure hunters begin to suspect their discovery, their friendships and loyalties are tested; and they must make haste before they become the hunted along with the treasure. The story is solid enough, and in truth it was well above my expectations, captivating my interest very early on and remaining suspenseful and intriguing enough throughout the picture. The cast are all good enough, although they were probably chosen as much for their looks as their acting abilities, but who can deny that Jessica Alba and Ashley Scott did add a sexy feel for the male audience, and i guess Paul Walker and Scott Caan did the same for the ladies. What really made the film for me was the truly fantastic scenery and the underwater camera work; it was flawless and stunningly beautiful in a way that is rarely captured on film, three cheers for the direction and the film crew for that.

This is a movie with a simple and straightforward plot which contains layers and layers of intelligent writing, metaphors and message. To speak further about the script will end up in spoilers and that would be pointless since my very purpose writing this review is to encourage people to see it. This is no small feat, interpreting fantasy as something of a product of a real world, cross-referencing how the child acts to her real surroundings and the "other world", metaphors that describe the accelerated state of growing up some of us are put through... Incredible. Simple, straightforward yet there is so much to be appreciated. Those who are saying how it's predictable and thus not enjoyable, I ask of you, which movie nowadays aren't predictable? Hell, even 21 grams was predictable but so damned good. It's not about how it ends, you can always predict how a movie would end if you've ever taken a half-decent script writing class or have some common sense. It's always about how well you tell a story. I'm grateful there are still directors who aren't tied down to this new epidemic of including a plot twist simply because they need a plot twist. Pan's Labyrinth features some of the best storytelling and attention to detail without being affected by the now ever-popular opinion of cameras having to be put through several technical difficulties to make the shots eligible to be called a brilliant shot. I am also grateful for them not dubbing it. Watching it in its' original language is much, much more rewarding even if I had to rely on the subtitles for most of the time. This is a brilliant movie. Watch it.

Wow, just finished this, totally blown away. This is a shining example of European film. You just do not get movies like this from Hollywood. It must easily be one of the best films I have ever seen. (and I have seen a lot!) This is a deeply sad movie which you could actually compare to the Elephant Man, albeit for beauty, not ugliness, I won't say any more about the story than that. The direction, cinematography and the score here are all flawless but the most amazing thing about this film was Monica Belluci, her subtle performance is beautiful and I could not imagine another actress in the role.. The thing that is so poignant about the performance she gave is that she has very little dialogue at all, but the deep sorrow you could see on her face and in her eyes was astonishing. Overall: You'd be hard pressed to find a better film today so watch this one. It's an unforgettable masterpiece and I'm speechless.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

First of all, the protagonist is no spider-man. He is spider boy at best. But he is not event that, he is just a dumb teen with a suit. Michael Keaton is given very less screen time. We would have liked to see his reasons for being bad guy other than just money. I felt like this was a wasted opportunity. In other spiderman movies villains always had a good story and reasons for being villainous. Look at green goblin from first movie or sandman from spiderman 3. It was frustrating to see spidey failing so hard at everything. Spoilers ahead. Iron man comes to save his ass 2-3 times in the movie. He has no capability to use his spider senses. He gets hit by everything coming his way. All in all what I am trying to say is this version of spiderman doesn't feel like a superhero or even a guy who is on a journey to become one. Spoilers ahead. He is only able to capture vulture because of vulture's own flaws. He shows little remorse for his friend Liz because she lost her father. The movie seems to be made half-heartedly. I really wanted this movie to be good but I was disappointed. Watching this movie just made me realise how good those early movies by Sam Raimi and Tobey Mcguire were. Homecoming is at least better than amazing spiderman though. That was one piece of holy crap.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Guillermo Del Toro's newest film "The Shape of Water" took my breath away. Easily this is Del Toro's finest film since "Pan's Labyrinth" and may even be his best in general. This is a film where Del Toro weaves magic throughout with a story he created which is simple, yet layered with such interesting facets embedded in each character, set, and prop as he allows the audience to discover this intimate and fascinating world of "broken" people searching for a moment of meaning. Captivating from its opening scenes with haunting visual imagery, and a lyrical score by Alexandre Desplat, one is immediately enthralled by this fairy tale that is not your usual saccharine variety that Disney cranks out. Del Toro knows how to tell a story with wit, style and heart. Assembling a cast headed by the incandescent Sally Hawkins in the role of Eliza who is mute throughout the film, but exudes such humanity and strength along with the villainous Michael Shannon who provides a great balance. Every single actor sparkles because every character has been developed with great care. Richard Jenkins and Octavia Spencer shine in their roles bringing a touch of quirkiness and humor to this sometimes dark story. The film is achingly nostalgic with glorious production design by Paul D. Austerberry evoking the Baltimore of 1962 full of fascinating textures of faded glory, especially in the magnificent design of Eliza's apartment and hallways. Exquisite camera work by Dan Laustsen and beautifully designed costumes by Luis Sequiera contribute greatly to complete Guillermo Del Toro's vision. This film is really the ultimate version of "Beauty and The Beast" with a touch of "ET", capped off with a very emotional investment, that pays off for the audience in its poetic and lyrical final scene. Certainly one of the finest films of 2017.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

No, it is not a smart movie, or a well written one, but this movie certainly has it's goods, and one can hardly deny it is fairly entertaining. The goods were pretty obvious. Stunning visuals, brilliant editing, mind-blowing set pieces, say about mister Bay what you will, he has always had an eye for the visual. And this is an absolute plus to all his work, basically. But we can also state that Bay's previous work, with a few exception, was nonetheless fairly disappointing. Transformers went further than just the visual shebang. The movie had a good sense of humor too. It was clear that everyone knew that one can hardly take a few car robots seriously, and so no one didn't. Which is a good thing. It made the movie one hell of a lot funnier. The actor's were cool too. Shia LaBouf is a great lead role, John Turturro, John Voight, Anthony Anders and others had really cool side roles, and they made the movie worthwhile. The only downs were the ridiculousness that often crawled onto the screen, of course fault to the slightly preposterous script. Usually I cringe with issues like these, but aforementioned points somehow made the movie awfully amusing. A great watch, especially in the cinemas, but maybe somewhat less entertaining to watch on a TV. be warned

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Serving up an abundance of blood and guts with B-grade performances, My Bloody Valentine successfully recalls the gory glories of 1980s slasher classics with more than enough inventive kills, old-school fashioning and eye-popping 3D special effects to entertain hardcore genre enthusiasts.

"Wonder Woman" is certainly one of the best (if not THE BEST) superhero adventure recently released by the cinema industry. The film is a comic book on the big screen, with a very well written screenplay and a very attractive and full of action story. The cast is fantastic and Gal Gadot and Chris Pine show a wonderful chemistry with their never boring romance. The beauty of the charming Gal Gadot is exotic and sexy she really "steals the show" with her perfect performance. The top-notch special effects is state-of-art and impressive. The direction of Patty Jenkins surprises since this is her first blockbuster work.

The film's plot, script, and acting are only average, but the film is buoyed by some sizzling chemistry between Jolie and Banderas. Their sex scenes are extremely memorable, so make sure you get an un-edited version (unrated). Banderas plays a wealthy Cuban coffee farmer whose dedication to his trade has thus-far distracted him from the important business of finding a good wife. Using a matchmaker, he agrees to marry a woman from Connecticuit. He has been dishonest, however, in describing himself as a man of only average means. Banderas admits his dishonesty to his new wife (Jolie). However, it soon becomes clear that there is more to her than meets the eye, as well. Soon Banderas becomes so obsessed with Jolie that her lies destroy his entire life. He is well aware of what is happening every step of the way, but he doesn't care. So, this is an interesting movie for a few reasons. As stated above, the sex scenes are among the best ever filmed. It is also novel to see a film about a man who is actually obsessed about his own wife. I personally could identify with Banderas in his willingness to give up everything for woman he knows he cannot trust. Heck, it happens to the best of us.

This movie failed to answer so many questions... It did not live up to the hype, and all it did was leave the fans disappointed.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]