Mobham

Why, after watching a 127-minute film, was I still unable to truly get to know the story's protagonist? Why name the movie "Michael" when, after watching it, I possess no more information than I did before?This is not a genuine biographical film about a music legend; it is merely a pretext to create a crowd-pleasing movie and cash in on the name of a true **** this film, Michael Jackson is portrayed—quite literally—as a **** entire movie is dedicated to canonizing this man, and that is all there is to **** extremely superficial treatment of his life's struggles and his relationships with others makes these elements feel forced and shoehorned into the narrative.What exactly are Michael's brothers? Are they even human? If so, why are they treated like mere puppets?And what is the deal with that CGI monkey? Don't you think it looks absolutely disastrous and ridiculous?But in all fairness, Jaafar Jackson's performance is truly good. That is pretty much the film's only positive aspect; his performance carries the movie and makes it somewhat bearable.

What does the filmmaker do to replicate the success of the previous two installments? More action and bigger stars. This implies that the filmmaker has failed to grasp the reasons behind the success of the first two films and simply wants to capitalize on the "Ip Man" brand. The action is more plentiful and prolonged, yet hollow and devoid of emotional resonance. What substance lies beneath these action sequences? Here, Ip Man engages in combat with over a hundred opponents—but couldn't these scenes simply have been cut? What is Mike Tyson doing in the film? Oh, right—exactly. Because everyone wants to see a showdown between him and Ip Man. Did such events actually occur in Ip Man's life? Did he really protect a school—stepping in where the police failed—and fight off more than a hundred people? I Don't think so. Wouldn't it have been better for the filmmaker to focus more on the relationship between Ip Man and his wife—and show the impact of her illness on his character—instead of doing all that? That said, in all fairness, the final duel was superbly executed.

My question for the audience and critics who champion this film is: if you strip away the symbolism from Aronofsky’s movie, does it actually have anything to say? That is the entirety of the film—this symbolizes that, and that symbolizes this. None of the characters develop into fully realized individuals; the filmmaker has relied solely on symbolism. Consider the film’s violent, sordid take on the story of Adam and Eve and the eventual outcome—that is all the filmmaker has banked on. Symbolism and a shock ending—that’s it. Is this cinema?

It is a massive insult to the series' fans and to those who had been waiting nearly four years for this film. Ridiculous and meaningless deaths, bizarre characterization—the film fails to evoke the "Peaky Blinders" vibe for even a single moment. Why? I believe the answer lies in the film's closing credits: "This film is dedicated to the 52 workers killed at the Small Heath factory during the German bombing." You see? It seems *Peaky Blinders* was merely a pretext. The creators' real goal was to rehash their usual, tiresome themes: "Remember how much we suffered in the war? The Germans are evil, and we are so good." The filmmaker had no plan for a character who had won a place in people's hearts since 2013, nor did they seem to care. It is truly lamentable.

I think "It's a Wonderful Life" is a summary of Capra's entire career with all its human elements. It is a film in praise of love, family, friends and life. A delightful and dreamy experience that Capra gives us in the form of a 130-minute film that is never boring for a moment. A film that seems to have both the love and comedy of "It Happened One Night" and the sense of justice of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". The amazing acting, the rhythmic and lively script and that unique ending that will forever be engraved in our minds and will remain in our memories, all these are the features that make "It's a Wonderful Life" a truly wonderful film.

“Ip Man 4” is more than a film about Ip Man, it’s a ridiculous and repetitive slogan of the Chinese: we Chinese are an oppressed people and the Americans are always bothering us. The film is not anti-racism. It’s a film against racism, against the Chinese. A film that (like the previous part) has to introduce a Hollywood action star as a villain to attract the audience, but even he can’t save him. The fight scenes in the film are not particularly creative compared to the previous parts and are even much smaller and more compressed this time. Instead of focusing on the relationship between Ip Man and his son in a way that makes us feel his death and the son’s pain more, the film focuses on ridiculous themes of support for the Chinese and repetitive fight scenes. What happens if we remove the ridiculous Bruce Lee scenes from the movie? Nothing. The most pointless moments in the movie are the moments when Bruce Lee fights. Completely decorative and ridiculous. Why doesn't the movie use these moments to deepen the Ip Man character in the final episode of the series? Because the movie's purpose is something else. Film uses Scott Adkins and a fake Bruce Lee to attract the audience and has nothing of its own. An extremely predictable, clichéd, and repetitive film that makes no difference whether you watch it or not.

I think *Dunkirk* is a film where Nolan's ambitions finally work against him. Nolan wants to break stereotypes and do something new - which is great. But unfortunately, he didn't ask himself beforehand: doesn't this subversion of stereotypes violate the basic laws of cinema and storytelling? Or rather: is this cinema at all? The lack of characterization in the film is clearly a deliberate choice on Nolan's part. But can cinema really exist without characterization? In this film, Nolan is essentially saying: "I don't want to create a hero; I want to make a hero out of an entire army. I don't want to create individual characters; I want to make a single, unified character out of the entire army." This is precisely Nolan's biggest mistake. In cinema, we go from the "individual to the collective", not the other way around. That is, if the "individual" is not created first, the "collective" will not be created. This is exactly what Nolan does not understand. Breaking this rule is not breaking a stereotype, it is breaking a vital rule in cinematic storytelling. The result of this lack of characterization is a film in which we see action, we see exciting events, but because we do not know any of the people in the film and none of them have become characters, we do not give them any importance. And it turns this film into a 106-minute torture. Now, let's hope that Nolan, with all this confusion, narrates the film non-linearly!! The result is a crowded, baseless and boring film that will leave nothing in your mind when it ends. When the characters shout victory and rejoice at the end of the film, but their joy seems ridiculous and ridiculous to us, it means that the film has not achieved its goal of "turning a defeat into a victory."

The latest attempt by the creators to revive the popular and best-selling "Transformers" franchise has again met with a film similar to the previous failures, with a few key differences. There is no mention of those Epic Michael Bay's Action (Which is very superficial, but at least epic in appearance) or large robots with strange faces and shapes. Here we are faced with a film that seems to have done nothing more than add animal-like robots whose charm disappears after 10-15 minutes of being present. The film (as we expect) does not create characters, does not have a new story, and does not have new action. It is simply a repetition of the same old, which has become terribly boring this time.

Action, action, action. That's all our director has been counting on. Long action sequences that get boring and tedious from one point to the next. It's so strange to make a movie where the number of characters you're dealing with in the movie isn't supposed to be that many, but even the two main characters in your movie don't have chemistry with each other!! It's really funny. What exactly is Superman in the movie? The Messiah? The savior of humanity? A superhero who has no weaknesses as shown in the movie? So why does our hero end up killing the villain of the movie? Killing? The hero? I think Snyder didn't know exactly what he was making. Why doesn't Superman, who you maneuver so much into the movie, become a character by the end? Isn't that what the movie is about? Does that mean our filmmaker can't even shape the main character of his film for us in 143 minutes? Aside from having the grandeur and charm of Superman, what is Cavill doing to help us better understand the character's psyche? Nothing. I think it's pretty clear what the film is about and what the filmmaker is trying to do with it. When more than a third of your film is action and it still can't entertain and create enough emotion, that means the film is in serious trouble.

The Movie is really strange. A film that is supposed to be set in the Ice Age and we see the survival of humans of that era in nature. What we don't see in the film is nature. We only see a bunch of extremely poor quality special effects that can't create the world. A clichéd story, extremely clichéd characterizations. None of the people in the film become characters and remain the same until the end. I also believe that the film doesn't show the relationship between humans and dogs well at all, we don't see anything special or new about this relationship at all. A good example of this relationship can be seen in the film "Togo" starring Willem Dafoe. This film has no special purpose to present and is extremely boring and superficial.

We watch the film without high expectations and the film falls even below the lowest expectations. A predictable cliché story with a terrible performance in dialogue and good in action scenes from Statham, and a disastrous performance at all times from the main female character of the film. A completely illogical and at times offensive film that deals with everything so superficially that it is more of a comedy than a **** is clear that the main goal of the film is simply entertainment and a little action, which unfortunately fails to achieve even this simple task.