Sadly, as a sequel, it is held to a similar bar as the first movie. This time around the music was forgettable and the plot was messy. The visuals were still great, but the characters in the movie lacked depth and dimension. Elphaba was well played, but the good witch lost all of her charm and humor and was more of a love lorn fanatic than anything. I saw the play many years ago, and I think they had trouble translating it to big screen. There was no immersive element to Oz, all of the scenes felt like “sets”, establishing shots followed my close ups and very little else. All in all, none of the girls in my party could really describe the two hour plot at the end, but all of them liked it. For me, i did not mind sitting there with my nachos, but Wicked For Good just was not engaging or entertaining.
Any Statham movie where he seeks a resolution through violence is a 5/10 at baseline. It’s practically a genre. If the story makes sense or there is any cleverness, directorial creativity or originality, that bumps it up to a 6 or 7. This one is a fresh story that develops at a good pace with great acting and casting. Engaging, satisfying, new. 9/10
A lighthearted, predictable Summer movie. Not an homage to racing, but instead uses the sport haphazardly as a vessel for a shallow underdog story with a couple complications and romance. It was entertaining throughout, despite its length, and that is attributed to charismatic actors and stylistic cinematography. This movie is a good time, no alcohol required.
As a Statham fan this is one of the most non-sensical movies of his. I watched the whole thing, mind you, but the dialogue, the plot, the characters were all shallow ane illogical.
I am a **** for a Noir film. I cannot help it. This is predictable and sometimes cliche, but I love it. It is well acted and has heart. I would say its average at best for people who do not love noir detective films like I do. But I will accept some plotholes in favor of enjoying this movie.
Just a bad effort all around. Five minutes in the comedy got real tired and desperate and I was thinking, "this is it?" Most films both establish the characters and develop the comedy in the beginning, but that lasted maybe 5 minutes and what followed was some nonsensical plot that was annoying to watch more than anything. I fell asleep at some point and, when I woke up, had no interest in the story, characters or uninspired attempts at comedy. Really disappointed considering Ryan Reynolds is usually a winner. This will go down with Joe Somebody as the only films I have ever walked out on.
Damn near the entire theater left during this movie. I stuck around waiting for it to make sense. This is a poor man's attempt at Ex Machina. Characters were introduced and plot points happened with astounding redundancy and zero additional context given. This movie made no sense. I looked at my date afterwards, and she said this movie ****. The soundtrack was okay, though.
It is good but I wouldn't be one to suggest seeing it a second time. I liked the style of the film and the chemistry of Will and Martin. Everything else was pretty average... which by definition is not bad. It's worth a view if you just want to see a movie and aren't too excited about anything that's out.
I really enjoyed the special effects. This film clearly had a high production budget and reminded me of Inception. Still, while the actors did a fine job, I became a little disappointed with the clunky character development of the protagonist and shallow reasoning of the characters. I feel like I could have taken 10 restroom breaks and come back without having missed anything of substance.
The title is Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party, though the bulk of it focuses on the Democrats and not on Hillary, which is disappointing. You could make a 90 minute movie of just reading the various scandals she is involved with. Though I give this movie a 7 because it isn't as good as say, "Clinton Cash" or its Obama-centric counterpart, but it does somehow get liberal Hollywould critics to dislike a movie about slavery and those **** whites.
This movie is a peculiar mess. The characters are very shallow and the story seems cluttered. The style of it is its strong suit, along the lines of The Great Gatsby and Ex Machina, yet less polished. This gets a 4/10 for interesting visuals, decent acting and a serviceable script, but it felt incoherent at times. I probably wouldn't recommend it to friends, but I also wouldn't be against it if someone wanted to see it. In not so many words, this film is "stylish but soulless"(from Christy Lemire).
This film is engaging and fun. It definitely hand noir elements to it and seemed comparable to LA Confidential. The script had a tendency to fall flat, but also had a hilarity throughout. I give this a 5/10 because it is entertaining, but not quite a classic or worthy of too fervent of a recommendation
It was thrilling to watch until the ending provides so little payoff you look for a deeper meaning, but, in the end, no matter how hard you think, nothing will make sense of this film. It is a 4/10 for being well-acted and captivating, but ultimately fails to reward the viewer with any discernible coherency after force feeding the audience a metaphor of a conclusion.
I give this a 5/10 to put it in the good-but-not-great category. The plot is original and engaging, though sometimes predictable. The script at times can be distracting in its unconventionality, but adds to the fingerprint of the film. The acting on the part of the antagonists was cheesy, but in every other circumstance was spot on. The climax was a bit uninspiring, as was the conclusion, but I found myself rooting along with the characters. I enjoyed this movie, but would not write home about it.
Color me unimpressed. The production value behind this film was its strong suit, with some beautiful cinematics, lighting, and a very apt soundtrack. That said, I frequently wondered how individual scenes, and subsequently the film as a whole, would have benefitted from a different director. The acting between the leads, particularly DiCaprio, was distractingly bad at points, bordering on comical, and the plot was poorly executed.
I enjoyed this film thoroughly. The characters and aspects which were re-introduced from past films did so in a tasteful and relevant way. I felt that the story was well written and told, with the exception of Carrie Fishers' scenes. They just fell flat and that is the one real critique I buy from all these harsh reviews. The story probably had some "holes" in it as well, but nothing too critical that would distract from the characters or general plot. All-in-all this is a solid film all the way through, that is easy to follow, and will make you refuse to go to the bathroom out of fear from missing something. A well-deserved 8/10.
This film is a bit more story-driven than your typical Statham flick, which is a roulette game of its own. Story-driven Statham films have a tendency to flop, but not this one, given that it is a nearly word-for-word remake of Heat with Burt Reynolds. You still get some great, well-choreographed fight scenes, and with a coherent storyline, I say this is a winner. Statham movies are a category of their own, a category I enjoy immensely. I would recommend this movie to any Statham fan.
It is tough to get a handle on this one. The reviews indicate that the main problems were the varied acting and poor CG. I felt like the CG, while not great, is passable and not distracting, but the acting at times does tend to pull you out of the scene. Sometimes you are frustrated or relieved, sometimes you're disconnected from the intended reaction. All-in-all I would say this is a good movie if you're looking for a fish tank to watch, but I wouldn't expect to be **** into the drama or horror.
This is just a solid action movie. The acting is there. The production is there. The story is passable, and really, this movie has opened me up to the whole Jack Ryan series. There are a couple blemishes, but it is your typical action movie, you will be entertained.
This is just a terribly made movie. All-involved, with the exception of Will Arnett, should attend rehab immediately or be checked for extra chromosomes. The script and story made no sense, Megan Fox couldn't out-act a fence post, Shredder is a Transformer, and there is no development or motive given for any of the characters... Your expectations cannot be low enough to enjoy this movie.
Ron Howard mentioned during a Reddit AMA Tom Hardy's award-worthy performance in Locke. Before viewing, I perused the reviews where it seemed the main concern was that it was boring. In the same scope as Buried, I optimistically expected to make it halfway through the movie. At no point was I bored, rather enthralled. Hardy's acting is perfection, creating a tangible character aided by the voice of an excellent Adam Scott. The story won't change your life, but it was an entertaining movie to watch, done well given the style, and though the ending was somewhat obscure, you don't leave disappointed. The character, at times, seemed frustratingly cavalier, but perhaps differentiating from the audience expectation is part of what made Ivan Locke appear more real, making the story more intriguing to follow.
