Pucifer

Apparently a lot of metacritic users think SKYFALL is a terrible movie, but I found it to be a lot better than any of Daniel Craig's previous outings as Agent 007. The direction is above-average and the cinematography is utterly fantastic for a Bond film. Also of note is the interesting casting esp. Javier Bardem as the bisexual villain. That said, I am still not completely sold on this current oh so serious incarnation, which strives to be oh so dark and murky and au courant, unlike the Bonds of yesteryear, which were a lot more cheeky and comical and fun. Sure, the Cold War was a serious thing, but it didn't hurt to laugh at it, did it?

More like the "The Amazing Computer-Generated Imagery Man!" This is a none-too-original origins story trite teenage romance hybrid in which dumb coincidences abound and the level of ridiculousness (e.g., a secret laboratory in the city sewers) grows increasingly tiresome. I won't say it's spectacular, but it is a spectacle of sorts all right, and I'd say skip it if only to dissuade them from making any more sequels.

I saw this film several weeks ago but looking back I find it quite possibly the best new film I saw all year (so far). Of course, presumably there are a number of great foreign-language films from 2013 yet to be released in the USA, as well as any number of your usual end-of-year Oscar bait releases on the way. But rarely have I seen a film as deeply engaging and enjoyable as GRAVITY. My only quibble was that Sandra Bullock's performance sometimes reminded me too much of her character in SPEED. All in all, though, GRAVITY is a truly extraordinary and quite possibly classic achievement in cinematic art.

Two words: lens flare. But because that will not fulfill metacritic's 150 character minimum, let me add that as a fan of the original series, I am offended by this rebooting, which cheapens the original series concept by re-imagining it as a big-budget rock 'em sock 'em blockbuster for teenage boys. Seriously, how many fist fights are we expected to endure? Even stoic, logical Mr Spock gets into the act. Not to mention the lens flare. Please, next time, spare us another unimaginative, mediocre, Earth-bound spectacle without a trace of grandeur.

Compelling crime and redemption tale about a lawyer who invents a new life for himself by assuming the identity of another man, but not without complications. Romain Duris gives a strong, fascinating performance that succeeds in creating sympathy for what in other hands might well have been an unlikeable, unredeemable character. Recommended for fans of Patricia Highsmith's "Tom Ripley" novels as well as fans of Romain Duris.

A brilliant and electrifying sci-fi thriller set in the dystopian 22nd century becomes the vehicle for a scathing satire and powerful indictment of the politics of oppression circa 2013 A great and worthy follow-up to Blomkamp's "District 9."

There is exactly one witty line in the entire movie, when a stock trader tells Bane, "This is a stock exchange! There's no money you can steal!" and Bane replies, "Really? Then why are you people here?" Otherwise, this is a dreary, grim, and humorless two-and-a-half-hour slog through cartoonish mayhem and maudlin cliches. With plot holes so big, they literally and ironically can drive tanks through them. After a while, the dumb violence just gets more and more numbing and meaningless, and the film's political themes, if you can call them that, get more and more unfocused. All in all, I think this film detracts from the Batman canon, and I see no reason for Warner Bros. to continue with any of these story lines.

No, it's not half as good as John Carpenter's 1982 version, nor of Ridley Scott's 1979 masterpiece, "Alien," another film that obviously influenced this film's production. Still, I give them props for stealing, er, "paying homage" to the best...

A violent, vicious, and prescient satire of urban decay, privatization, idiotic consumer culture, and corporate greed, RoboCop delivers a visceral kick to the gut and a jolt of rude awakening to the oblivious.

A visual and audio experience you will never forget, and a wordless meditation on life on earth in all its beauty, grandeur, and horror. Here, the images do all the talking. And if they make the Wall Street Journal uncomfortable, all the better.

I think the film is best appreciated if you watch it like you were watching an opera. Of course, there are no "closeups" in opera, but the nonstop singing, the oversized emotions, the multiple deaths for hopeless and lost causes--these are truly the building blocks of grand opera. And from time to time Les Miserables really does earn the right to be compared to grand opera.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

The only halfway decent movie in this franchise was the first one; RE:R sinks to a new low with lazy video game plotting, wretched acting, shameless product placement/advertising, and Michelle Rodriguez (need we say more?). Of course, director Paul W.S. Anderson continues to show a flair for striking compositions, but let's face it--he's coasting with this one, probably the worst in the series, although it's hard to tell. But the joke is on me--I won't miss a single entry. Go figure.

A great movie that makes American history come alive, with wit, humor, and pathos. Excellent acting overall and especially from Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, and Tommy Lee Jones. I am usually not a big fan of John Williams but his music here was superb. I also admired the art and production design and especially the cinematography by Janusz Kaminski, who is an artist. I've read other reviews that complain about the movie's pacing etc. but I think the editing and Spielberg's direction are perfect I was enthralled from beginning to end. My only quibble with the film is that it depicts Connecticut congressmen voting against the 13th Amendment, which is simply not true. But in today's dysfunctional, even pathological political climate, this movie brings to life the most troubled period in U.S. history and manages to miraculously restore our faith in the U.S. political process.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

In a year when two of the most critically acclaimed films were revisionist propaganda (lies) produced by the CIA, it is reassuring that at least some filmmakers are still dedicated to telling the truth. There isn't a false note in "Amour." It's not an easy film to watch, but at least it is an honest one.

The film's special effects are effective, even thrilling, but after a while you start to ask yourself why, with all the debris flying through the air, does hardly anybody even get a scratch? And it does seem a rather cynical movie ploy to posit a series of increasingly violent tornadoes as backdrop to a rather perfunctory marriage reconciliation. Executive produced by Steven Spielberg, and it shows it. But it is a welcome change to build a movie around "scientists" as heroes, and even throw in a rival scientific group (the corporate sell-outs) as the bad guys.

I finally saw this film but only after watching Almodovar's more recent "The Skin I Live In," which for me was a far superior movie--one of the best of 2011. However, even second-tier Almodovar is a heightened and idiosyncratic pleasure and is far better than most films made today. And "Bad Education"--with its signature blend of sex, camp, melodrama, and noir--is most definitely and unmistakably Almodovar. This film also features superb music by Alberto Iglesias (who deserves to win an Oscar someday) and impressive acting--the actors incl. Gael Garcia Bernal really throw themselves into their roles.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

For the most part, a wonderfully funny, musical delight. I thought the direction was excellent except in a few brief scenes where Ms Streisand runs amok. However, Ms. Streisand's singing is brilliant and extraordinary, which more than makes up for those few minor lapses. I also thought the cinematography is spectacular, as is the art direction and production design. The costumes (including those in the musical stage numbers) are beautiful, but from a modern humane perspective, there is way too much use of fur and feathers--they must have skinned a whole generation of minks, and wiped out several species of exotic birds. I suppose that might be a historically accurate or glamorized detail, but in my view it detracts from an otherwise superior entertainment, so I deducted one point and give this film a "9" instead of a "10" which it would otherwise deserve. I agree with others who say the film's second half bogs down in melodrama a tad too much, however, that sets up nicely for the stunning musical climax.

We have already seen 'Anna Karenina' done straight at least a dozen times, so why not take a different approach? In this case, the filmmakers impose Brechtian distancing devices (e.g., the theatrical settings) to challenge the audience's expectations. Apparently, lots of people don't want to be challenged. Also, I think Joe Wright is an underrated director whose work always surprises and astonishes me. This film, which is often breathtakingly, deliriously beautiful, is no exception. (Watch for the stunning, horrifying horse race scene.) Of special note are the film's exquisite costumes, music, art and production design, and cinematography. And superb acting; Keira Knightley makes a worthy and memorable Anna.

I loved every second of it, except for a few shamelessly obvious (i.e., lacking in subtlety) bits. Like Jackson's LOTR trilogy, The Hobbit's CGI is superb (unlike 99% of films that rely on CGI) and its hair/makeup, production design, and visual effects would have been worthy Oscar winners. I also appreciate the film's thematic reverence for nature, which ironically and unfortunately is at odds with the production's real-life abysmal treatment of some of its animal **** well, nature lovers should definitely see it anyway, but let's hope the production team learned its lesson this time. Highly recommended, and looking forward to the next two installments.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]