Mglovesfun

One of the most fun movies to watch I have ever seen. The fact that the cast seems to be having an incredibly good time making it massively adds to it. While not my favorite movie, it's not far off.

While not actually bad, it's so far behind the original and the Lego Batman Movie, it feels a lot weaker than it actually is. Would MUCH rather watch those two again than watch this.

I tried to watch this twice and failed both times. To get a zero from me, a movie has to be more than just boring, it has to be actively irritating. This was actively irritating. I got 90 minutes in the second time and then fast-forwarded the irritating bits, which was the last 60 minutes.

Perhaps the best Golden Age of Hollywood movie ever made. The musical numbers are great, the acting is spot on, Donald O'Connor steals the show (tough to do when Gene Kelly is in the picture). I love the humor and the loving satire of the early talking pictures 1927-28.

I had a ton of fun watching this. Is it original or thought-provoking? Absolutely not. But if you like some fun sci-fi that won't engage your brain too much, I'd recommend this.

Musically, it's a big miss (worse than My Fair Lady, which I don't particularly like). Plotwise, the same. I just got so bored, if there was anything good, I probably missed it. I knew what the end of the movie was just from watching the trailer. In fact, the trailer missells the movie somewhat, as the trailer's a lot more interesting than this.

So boring. Badly written characters. Impossible to care about either character, especially Sandra Bullock, who is the most incompetent astronaut of all-time. The 1 out of 10 is just for the visuals, which are impressive, but not enough to justify watching this snore-fest for 95 minutes.

Barely qualifies as a movie. Has no real ending. Story is incomplete/makes very little sense. Obviously aiming for sequels that might explain the plot of this movie, but it's a commercial failure so it won't get any. The 1/10 is purely for Natalie Dormer because she's gorgeous. The movie itself is thoroughly worthy of a zero.

It's absolutely brilliant and fairly fresh. I would say it bears definite similarities to 28 Days Later, so in a sense, it's not totally original. Also, the first 70 minutes (or so) is better than the last 45 minutes. Based purely on the first 70 minutes, this would've been a 9.

While generally well done and with some sincere emotion, there's not a hint of originality anywhere in this movie. It's a standard coming-of-age, teenage boy rebels against his strict father movie.

The practical effects and the sheep were definitely the highlights. The lowlights were mostly the actors and the dialogue. Had it been longer than 87 minutes I might not have bothered watching all the way to the end.

While not a complete disaster, it compares poorly to the original. Fans of the original will hate it. No idea what if anything a younger audience would like about it.

I generally enjoyed this and had fun watching it. It generally mixes two different clichés, the Groundhog Day and the alien invasion cliché. But a lot of fun.

I was pretty much thinking this would be either so-bad-it's-good or just plain bad, but no! I really enjoyed it. Don't get me wrong, it's not an Oscar-type epic, but it's a fun movie where you know exactly what you're gonna get. It avoids overdoing the bad-ass female lead cliché. I really enjoyed the music and the overall feel of it. Good, uncomplicated fun. Does what it sets out to do.

At least 30 minutes too long, which cost it a point from my point of view. It starts very slowly before building to a slow but intriguing pace. I didn't find myself caring about the fate of any of the characters, which ultimately left me feeling detached from what was going on. However, it was intriguing and I genuinely did want to know what happened in the end. I struggled a bit in the middle because it was so long. Ending did disappoint, however. It made little sense and lacked payoff.

Mostly a cliché action movie with a 'kick-ass' sexy heroine. While it's not good, it's not unwatchable, and I found the time passed pretty quickly while I watched it, which is pretty much the best compliment I could give this movie.

Completely unfunny and mostly unsexy as well, Burt Reynolds performance as the over-the-top corrupt, incompetent Congressman is the one real highlight. Everything else, just forget it.

This should technically go under 'unscored' or 'not a number', as I didn't consider this to be a movie. Since this is not a possible option, I've gone with zero.

I never believed Lizzie and Charlotte were attracted to each other, and I never found Anton menacing. This was just a miss for me. The friends I know who like this consider it a horror-comedy and a B-movie, which I think is actually an unintentional insult.

While not a complete failure, this movie has a lot of problems. It takes itself very seriously and the characters are unengaging. The biggest problem is, is it iself borderline racist, and sometimes crosses the line between depicting racist behavior and being racist. Generally not all that well-received by critics at the time, it was a surprise to say the least when it won the Oscar for Best Picture.

Almost incomprehensible. But... I kinda enjoyed it. Hot women in skimpy outfits in pretty much every scene.

Worthy of serious praise, and it makes a good, serious point. However, it's far too long. This movie is markedly better if you skip the first hour entirely.

This has absolutely loads of humor and a lot of real emotion. At no point are you ever in doubt over what's going to happen, but are no point do you care. Because you're enjoying it so much.

It's really tense, well acted, and overall well done. However, I have two main problems with it. It has absolutely no sense of fun, which I personally, love in a horror movie. Secondly, the ending is pretty questionable. Can the ghosts move everything in the house? Are they actually making food and eating it? Do they actually sleep? What?

I always find it hard to score a well-made movie that isn't meant to be entertaining. If you enjoyed this movie, sorry, you're not supposed to. 4's a little generous, perhaps, as I did quite like the ending which was positive compared to what came before it. Due credit to Brie Larson and, in particular, Jacob Tremblay, who was the stand-out performer despite Larson's Oscar win.

While I enjoyed this, it wasn't gripping. If anything, it made a pretty good background movie. I've seen this sort of rescue/hostage plot done better before.

While I mostly enjoyed this, I'd call it a movie with good moments rather than a good movie. I felt like this could've been an outstanding movie with lots of heart and lots of humor, but it just didn't quite make it.

Hard for me to score this, as, as a piece of entertainment I thought it was a zero, I was so bored. And it was 100% joyless. As a piece of art, definitely not a zero. More like a 5 or a 6. But I'll score it mostly as a piece of entertainment and give it two.

This is, you know, fine, but it's really nothing special. Certainly worth a watch, but more for historical value (both English history and Academy Awards history) but by no means an exceptional movie.

A little slow in places, otherwise, almost perfect. It's just so much fun. Outstanding comedic performance. Camp, drama. It's just great.

It's not my sort of movie and I have sympathy for anyone rating it 8 or above. I think Frances McDormand's performance is a little overrated. The character has a couple of traits which she sticks too throughout the movie, which is fine, but I really expected more than that for a best-actress-Oscar-winning performance.

I could certainly sympathize with anyone who gave this zero. Incomprehensible and bizarre, it's definitely an accidental stoner movie. Only real reason to watch is you literally won't believe how bad this is until you see it.

Peak 1980s action-comedy. Peak comedy Arnie. The plot's ludicrous but is also entirely irrelevant. I LOVED it.

Undoubtedly a bad movie. But pretty watchable. Arnie's charismatic if typical performance saves the movie from being an absolute snooze-fest.

While undoubtedly nonsense, it's kind of enjoyable in a 90s action movie sort of way. If you liked movies such as True Lies, you'll probably like this.

While there's no disputing the power of the movie, I find it questionable as a piece of entertainment. I watch movies to be entertained, and this really didn't do the job.

Could've been a 10 if I'd been reviewing in 1962. The acting gets a bit hammy, and the violence is unrealistic (people shot to death with no blood). However, it is a masterpiece and a watchable one at that. Genuine depth, genuine mystery, genuine plot.

This was far too full of clichés to be an enjoyable movie. Almost like a composite of all the stripper movies that came before it, but gender-swapped. However, I did like some of the routines and I did smile a lot in the middle of the movie.

This deserves some credit for not being a formulaic sequel designed just to make money. However, I found it a bit slow, and it would've been better without any musical numbers (didn't like any of them). But the depth for a Disney animation is something to be applauded.

It's a masterpiece and very well done. Would've been a worthy best picture winner, but the lineup for the 2018 awards was incredible (Shape of Water, 3 Billboards, Darkest Hour). Innovative with subtle darkness, but definitely pays homage to older horror movies.

While the movie makes a good point, it does continuously beat you over the head with it. So much so that it interferes with the same plot. Still, I have to give it credit for style and the performances of the lead actors. If you like plot-driven movies, this is really not for you.

While for the most part superior to the original, it's at least 30 minutes too long, and the ending is underwhelming.

A very good film for adults, featuring humor, nostalgic cultural references, a proper plot, and engaging characters. very, very good. Comparable to How to Train your Dragon, another supposedly kids' film that ends up being much better suited to adults than it ever intended to be.

Never from the first minute to the the last have I cared about a movie so little. Not funny, not clever. Johannson is unlikeable.

Beautifully directed. A triumph. I loved the fantasy elements worked into an otherwise non-fantasy movie. Could've easily gone 9/10.

Like a lot of films of the era, it's more or less entirely dialogue, and the dialogue is hammy and overacted. But, for reasons I can't quite explain, I did quite enjoy it. It's exactly the sort of film you could do the ironing to because it doesn't take much concentration to watch.

It's highly stylized, and the joy of the movie is really all in the little details. However, there's about 60 minutes worth of plot in a two-hour movie.

This has perhaps aged worse than any other Best Picture winner. It's basically Confessions of a Window Cleaner set in the 18th century, without any actual sex on camera. It is perhaps best compared with the 'Carry on' movies, for those who don't know the 'Confession of a' movies. I didn't laugh once, and for a bawdy comedy, some actual nudity would've probably improved it. It is therefore a bawdy comedy that fails in the departments of sex and comedy.

It's generally a good movie and pretty watchable, but in no way is it the greatest movie of all-time. In truth, probably not even in the top 1000.

I mostly have to give this 8/10 because I think The Godfather Part II is even better. It is a masterpiece; at times, a little slow, and perhaps a shorter run time would be justified (even two-and-a-half hours).