SchnitzelPoof

The turtles' story was already done better in past iterations. I understand that this is a product, not art, and that the target audience is adolescent boys with underdeveloped intellect. Still, is that an excuse to make a movie more boring and unengaging than chewing on a week-old slice of pizza?

It injects comedy into serious scenes, tries to mix grief with cheap laughs, horror with crude jokes, and fails to deliver all of them. When a scene seems to develop emotionally into something, it shoots itself in the foot. I understand that the movie is a comedy of sorts, but there's no respite from throwing jokes at the audience, which leaves little room to care about any of the characters or what's happening to them. The sets, the effects, and the action are lovely, but the latter is over the top and inconsistent, delaying on long combat with no sense of threat, just for the sake of more CGI effects. In short, I wasn't sure whether I was supposed to laugh or fall asleep.

A jumbled mess of ideas, whose weight was evidently too great for the writer-director's shoulders. A group of completely unlikable characters, involved in unconvincing, utterly infantile love stories. Not one of the actors could sell the roles given to them. A plot that takes too long to develop trivial parts, while under develop integral notions of the lofty concept. Thus, the supposed mystery and riddle of what is happening takes backstage to the bad romances and uninteresting lives, and when it's FINALLY time for it to be unraveled, I can imagine only the most zealous viewer would still bother concentrating. Two and a half hours is too short to develop so many ideas, while at the same time too long for a slow, dragging movie. Thus, the execution of each one remains lacking, or plain bad. If someone threw money at me to waste so much of the viewer's time, I wouldn't be able to live with myself.

This is a masterpiece, and the story behind the making of the film is also fascinating. Val Kilmer steals the show, and it's on purpose. Still, he put a lot of effort, and made Doc Holliday fascinating to watch. Highly recommended, even if you're not into westerns.

It's alright. It has a good cast of actors, lots of music, action, and even singing. An entertaining escapade filled with too much low-brow humor, but hey, that's what you get with McFarlane. Gets 2 extra points for everything Charlize Theron does in it. Blink twice if you're here against your will, darlin'.

I watched it in cinema when it came out, and was immensely disappointed. "Perhaps it wasn't so bad," I thought the other day, and gave it another shot. Oh, yes, it was. Yes it was. Despite the cast, and the budget, this film is a lesson in why not all good books should get a movie adaptation.

I came to this movie with somewhat low expectations. I watched the previous entry, and while entertaining, and clever, it didn't leave me with a lasting impression. I expected an average experience. However, Jumanji: The Next Level really took the ideas and characters of the previous film to the next level. Rather than taking the easy route, and introducing new characters, the four original protagonists return, and their relationships had evolved prior to the plot. This requires to both portray new complications, and new dynamics between them. Kudos to the writers for that. Danny DeVito and Danny Glover proved to be an excellent addition. The interactions they provide - both in real life, and in the world of Jumanji - are rich, and humorous. I liked the display of the generation gap, when it comes to video games, and how the two adapted to concepts that were previously very foreign to them. All the actors perform well in this film, and seem comfortable in their roles. Their fun translates to an overall fun experience for the viewer as well. For me, one scene stood out above the others. It includes a perilous situation involving rope bridges and numerous angry primates. It reminded me of a similar scene in The Hobbit, where the heroes were in no real risk, and the horde of enemies provided no actual threat; no decisions based on character personality were made, and the whole thing was reduced to a perfectly timed CGI dance. Jumanji chose to provide much more than eye candy that fits a video game cut-scene, and again kudos to the writers. This review turned out longer than I intended, so here's the short version: go watch it!

Had the first film not been good, this Chinese toy commercial might have been excused. It's so atrociously dumb, while trying to actually present us with "characters" to engage with, that I stopped watching pretty quickly. Not worth your time.

An excellent movie, and a cinematic delight. Interesting, endearing characters, and an interesting period of car history (that I knew nothing of.) The plot is well aided by superb acting, particularly from Christian Bale. It comes to tell the viewer a tale in a fascinating and fun manner. No politics or preaching. This movie is done to provide you, the movie-goer, with a good time. In 2019, that's not to be taken for granted. My minor complaints are that the rivalry with Ferarri could have been fleshed out a bit - his driver, in particular, is reduced to a mean expression; and that the ending, although taken from reality, leads to a sudden shift in the theme of the film, that in my opinion takes away from the impact of the main event. Still, one of the best movies of this year.

A pleasant surprise. This film is a love letter to giant monsters, and giant robots. It has cool characters and some drama between the main ones. The soundtrack is also pretty good. The plot completes itself, which is a rarity in the product-pushing focused film industry. An enjoyable watch.

It's a fun movie. I watched it as a child many times, and recently gave it another try, to see if it stands the test of time. I especially loved how the protagonist is full of bravado, but low on wit, and tends to get into trouble with his bullheaded approach. There's a joke there about action heroes, which works very well. The villain is sinister, his henchmen are both ridiculous and powerful, and the good guys do things in the name of love - either the love of a woman, or the love of one's truck. While ostensibly dealing in "dark" material like forced prostitution and gang violence, everything stays fun, and that's clearly the idea. For the 80s, the effects, all the Chinese lore, and cinematic martial arts fighting style were new. The movie deserves extra credit for that. My one issue with it is that the constant action can be tiring. We're talking almost 100 minutes rife with martial arts, gunfights, and lightning bolts.

Less than mediocre. Not for adults - perhaps teens, perhaps. No emotional weight of any kind. Main characters are irritating, if not unbearable. I can barely finish writing this review. Writing it reminds me of the film!

I found the movie pretty enjoyable, even though I watched it in 2D, so unfortunately I missed all the technical advancements. Will Smith's acting was good, there was plenty of tension, the fighting was quite intense, and the father-son relationship built between Henry Brogan and Junior was touching. If the movie had intentions to comment about how men feel like younger versions of themselves make them obsolete as they age... well done. Touching, sad. The bad guy's reasoning was more James Bond madness than an interesting philosophical idea, but it did serve as a motivation. The most nonsensical thing in the film was a 40 pound, stick figure **** beating up a man 3 times her size, but hey, Hollywood and its fantasies, what can you do? I enjoyed this movie more than expected. Worth a watch.

It's movie fun for movie lovers. The biggest downside would be its length. There is a lot of plot, and the story keeps going on and on. I think concentrating for so long can be tiring, since this isn't a mindless film you barely focus on. I guess for Tarantino lovers, the lack of gratuitous violence (in most of the film) might be a disappointment. I just enjoyed it for what it is, the clever writing, the clever dialog, the ever-so-human characters and their weaknesses (except for creepy 40 year old in an 8 year old body.) Perfect? Nope. Ground-breaking? Nope. Several hours of joy for movie lovers? Yes.

It was fun and entertaining from start to finish, including the post-credits scene. Tallahassee is my spirit animal: every moment he is on screen was pure joy. This film makes self referencing jokes, which work. It's just fun. The only con I can think of is that it's a bit short, and also Emma Stone would never go with whoever this kid is in the movie. Not even after a zombie apocalypse. Regardless, I had a great time, and would watch again.

The technical aspects of the movie are great. It is a spectacle for the eyes. I guess that's its main reason for existence - selling 3D movie tickets, and selling merchandise to children. I find it somewhat disappointing, because there was the potential for a good story here. If children were the main target audience, the story could've been simpler. Instead, I felt like I watched a mish-mash of different stories and characters, all somehow exploiting a Disney's established franchise. It's confused and confusing. So, we got Mad queen Cersei; a weak king; a weaker prince; a useless, weak princess (why?); General Black Man; Maleficent Targaryen; comedic relief Grima Wormtongue; Thor's Heimdall mixed with Gandhi; Bird man William Wallace; the Avatar creatures, but with less blue, and more wings; Sonic's useless hedgehog niece; and finally, perhaps the best character: Lesbian psychopath murderer. Why are they all in the same movie, and why is this a Lord of the Rings war meets Game of Thrones scheming meets Dances with Wolves? I don't know. I don't think the writers know. However, it's quite pleasing to look at, and Angelina Jolie portrays the part of Maleficent really well.

Bland and boring to the point I can barely describe it. It was fun to make fun of it in the first fifteen minutes, but even that became boring. It's all sorts of stories we've already encountered in the past, wrapped together under the guise of Hercules, despite having little-or-nothing to do with the actual Hercules myth. The main lead has the charisma of a refrigerator, and looks like a quarterback that was accidentally cast by a movie studio. His love interest must have had about two hours of acting lessons, and family in the industry. The effects made action scenes look like video game cut-scenes. Only watch if you're in prison and they offer to reduce your sentence in return.

It's a psychological drama that portrays the path of a single individual, an underdog struggling with a society that cares nothing for him. The whole Batman-Joker brand is not even necessary for the story, but adds a nice, familiar touch. Joker strikes a cord with a lot of disenfranchised people in the film, and I guess he managed to touch me as well. An interesting twist on the perspective we usually get from Batman, with a relevance to today's world.

A fun movie that really taps into the inner child of anyone who grew up wishing they were granted superpowers, and could rise above what cards life had given them. The humor is good, the journey is meaningful, with a strong emphasis on family, and the villain - although not phenomenal - is portrayed well enough on screen that I did not want him gone at the end. The strongest emphasis is on the comedy, though, and if you're interested in a hero's journey that's fun and wholesome, Shazam delivers.

This film wasn't a complete waste of time, because I managed to fall asleep at some point. Unfortunately, Nicolas Cage's yelling and screaming woke me up twice, which merits further point deduction.

Should've been treated with an ice axe to the head before production. Not funny. Not amusing. Not entertaining. A movie about a kid, who thinks he's the reincarnation of Hermann Goring, and then attempts to steal all the art in the US, to put in his wine basement, would be way, way better.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

It's a really fun film, that manages to both entertain and make you laugh. It also nailed the awe of flying a spaceship for the first time better than the serious shows ever did. As a side note, I never thought Sigourney Weaver was attractive, but in this movie... damn. In short, a pleasantly surprising film.

I am not sure what had transpired in Peter Jackson's head between making the excellent LOTR films, and the Hobbit trilogy, but with each new film, we're getting a bigger visual spectacle, which is more devoid of any real depth behind the flashy visuals. The last one, The Battle of the Five Armies, is about war. Now, I know a thing or two about war, and this was NOT war. It is perhaps what a 4 year old might think war looks like: devoid of all reasonable positioning, tactics, use of terrain, and even consistency in troop performance, but filled with "cool" moments. From Elves jumping over a phalanx of Dwarves straight into a charging enemy, ruining the whole point of the bracing formation AND making sure they will themselves be skewered on their allies spears; to a group of lightly armed peasants somehow holding a city against an army of heavily armored, battle hardened orcs; and finally heroes that slaughter hundreds of enemies with the same ease a grown man can crush ants with his boot - thus nullifying any sense of threat, or dread. More can be said about the fact that seeing someone dancing on screen with a couple of swords and perfect choreography is not a replacement for watching a protagonist overcome real adversity. In short, if you liked seeing Legolas and Gimli fighting in the first films, get ready to have then multiplied by 12 or something, and buffed by 100. What was the purpose of it all? It's the movie equivalent of blowing up a yearly city budget on a fireworks display. Was it all meant to be an empty, ludicrous spectacle? Was it meant to impress simpletons? Was it easier to pay the CGI department than hire a consultant who has actual knowledge in warfare, and a writer who knows storytelling? I am sorry that this is the state of the film. I am sorry that this was, for the most part, the state of the entire trilogy. I am sorry that it did not move, inspire, or captivate me - because we'll never get another Hobbit film. This is it.

The Equalizer 2 provides a solid experience. The directing was excellent - a certain scene later on displayed a mastery of camera angles, cuts, and intensity of action in a controlled manner, rather than the over-the-top, tiring trend of today. Some have already mentioned that the plot has issues - it is not focused enough, at least in the first half of the movie. Possibly too slow of a buildup towards the third act. However, I think that does not detract much from the experience. It does allow for character development, and gradual introduction of personalities, especially for viewers who did not watch the first film. Denzel Washington's acting easily carries the film. The villains were forgettable, unfortunately. I also found the scene with the "office rapists" that can be seen in the trailer terribly contrived and ill-convincing. Despite it all, if you want some solid, mature action, and a likable main character, this film is a worthy watch.

An intense film that really manages to confer the error that sudden brutality can bring to someone used to living in a civilized nation. The children, however, reacted with an entitled stubbornness that doesn't seem likely outside protected suburbia, especially when people are being chopped with machetes a couple of meters away. Pierce Brosnan got too little screen-time for my liking. I was hoping he'd play a bigger role, but that would reduce from the feeling of terrified suspense, which I guess is what the makers were aiming for. They also managed to shove in an anti-western, anti-corporate message that nobody asked for, possibly to please the same people that hated the movie anyway for its "xenophobia." In summary, an above average experience, but nothing Earth ****.

I have a strong feeling that someone in the production team wanted to make a completely different movie, and it shows. It has a very different atmosphere compared to the other two Ninja Turtles films, and resembles one of the (bad) episodes of the original animated series. While all the good-side characters were there, their performance was mediocre, and it all felt like a silly joke. None of the antagonists manage to portray a sense of threat like The Shredder did, and did we really need another Hollywood film that insists on using the British as the bad guys? There are so many silly jokes that some of them land, but in the end, I couldn't even bear to watch it to the end. The 2003 animated TV series is far superior to this entire sad production.

It's actually a pretty good film, which tries to portray the negatives of a militarized society in a deadly war, and manages to accomplish the opposite. There is political and social commentary here; there is a terrible "meat-grinder" war, in which poor strategy and planning are offset by the courage and sacrifice of the men (and women) on the front-lines. There is some anti-war message which is swallowed by the patriotic fervor that the brutality of the non-human insects inspire. There are also love triangles between virtually all the main characters, which serve to personalize the impersonal face of a war on such scale. I didn't care much for the love stories, but they do provide motivation for the characters, and generally work. While not truthful to the source material, this is a proper sci-fi film, that stands on its own right, and still has value even 21 years after its making.

An intense film, and Liam Neesen sells the character completely. He is a flawed man, who is not taken seriously by people who are used to total safety and security, but this time, his worst fears become a reality - only he's the right man for the job. I assume hearing your daughter being kidnapped in real time is one of the worst nightmares a father can have, and that every father would prefer to "possess a certain set of skills" that would allow him to rescue his daughter. The film did go overboard in one spot, but besides that Neesen's ruthless effectiveness was enjoyable to watch. Recommended, if you're not a professional movie critic.

Congratulations! You've made Lara Croft ugly. This is what passes for a feminine victory nowadays, and it's a hell of a lot easier than creating an interesting or entertaining film. Now, if the makers of this film can help society progress a little further by burning their next script, and throwing themselves down a deep pit, I'd consider giving this film a 3. Thank you. Update: love to see all the feminists getting triggered by this review. Keep reeeeeing - you're not going to change us, or what we like.

I came to this movie expecting some light jokes - nothing cerebral, but with lots of "fun in the sun." In that department - the only one where it should have delivered - it didn't. The humor was on par with American Pie, save for a few wisecracks about how the lifeguards in the original series went above and beyond their job description. I'm not sure who thought Baywatch needed a racist black cop. Is that a mandatory quota to fill in Hollywood comedies nowadays? Our good friend The Rock also made it quite clear that only the best of the best were eligible to join the Baywatch team - not even Olympic gold medal swimmers are good enough, unless they prove themselves. Which is why this elite team proceeded to hire more weak females, that could not pull a drowning pet turtle out of an aquarium, and an overweight guy, whose only talent was getting boners in front of crowds, because "he has heart." Now, I don't know about you, but I'd just love to drown knowing that the man who was in charge of helping me had so much heart, he died of a heart attack when attempting to reach the water. Personally, I'm not a Baywatch fan, but the entire premise of this film is so inconsistent with the source material, let alone its own claims, that I couldn't just sit back and enjoy it. In summary, utterly mediocre, and still somehow manages to insult the viewer at the same time.

I honestly can't understand who thought this film needed to be made. It doesn't say anything new, or important; it's not done particularly well - in fact, the effects are so terrible, I had to wonder if they spent all their budget on Nicolas Cage. Now, he does do a pretty good job, considering the general catastrophe that passes for a plot in this film, but it's just not enough to make for a passable experience. The worst is the film's utter disregard for basic details: the Knights Templar did NOT go to combat ON FOOT. They did not WALK all the way to the middle east, which does NOT all look like the Sahara desert. They also did not WALK all the way back to Europe. Was there no budget for a single bloody horse - real or digital - to appear on screen?! Did ANYONE in the production team hear of that mythological body of water called the Mediterranean, and the advent of ships? If the film makers wanted to insult Christianity, and/or the Crusades, and/or the Inquisition, well, take a number, stand in line, and you're about a century too late anyway. Instead, all you have insulted is the viewer's intelligence.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

An embarrassingly bad movie that rides on the names of two franchises. It has a couple of good scenes towards the end, which merit it some points, but do not justify suffering through the entire bloodbath. Do yourself a favor, and drink a pint of bleach instead.

A fun film, and very entertaining, despite what you might expect from a movie bearing the title "Ragnarok." It's almost like two separate films tacked together, and while one part - which focuses on Thor finding new partners - is really well done, the actual Ragnarok plotline isn't. In similar way, the movie is focused on the comedic side, so whenever there is a serious moment (and there are many in the film, that deserved to be serious,) it undercuts itself with a joke. It also builds towards a final confrontation, which I found disappointing and unfulfilling. So, to repeat, Thor:Ragnarok is a fun film, an entertaining film; but if you care anything at all for its mythology or story-line, you might be disappointed.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

If I could save one person the time and money, then I've done my part. If you like fun or entertainment in any form, don't waste your time on this film. If you like engaging, captivating storytelling - this movie is not for you. I can't even call it pretentious. It is a bad film because there's nothing appealing in it. Not bad in a good way, either, but simply boring, with unengaging characters, a foreign world that's never properly explained, and a tedious self-discovery journey, with some distant anti-human goals tacked in. The protagonist has zero charm, and the antagonist, or side characters, are about on the same level. The one minor character who had me curious is killed right in the opening scene - which happens to be the best in the film, by the way. Besides him, the only thing that merits some positive points is Harrison Ford's performance, which manages to bring in some levity, and a relatable character. However, he doesn't receive enough screen time to justify wasting 2.5 hours of your life watching a director experimenting with gloomy visual scenes, that have extremely dark lighting, and advance at an extremely slow pace, for no good reason. Rather than draw you in, they end up having zero emotional impact - just like the tiny, dead letters of the opening exposition.

In one line: well worth the time. In a few more: characters built to be awesome, gratuitous violence that manages to bring out a laugh, rather than shock pointlessly, and a high-paced plot that doesn't take itself too seriously, while still giving us, in the end, a better Bond film than anything starring Daniel Craig. Poking at the genocidal self-righteousness of billionaire environmentalists was just the cherry on top.

A thoroughly enjoyable mythological hero story, where the two main characters interact beautifully with one another. The songs are uplifting, and the visuals are breathtaking. Jemaine Clement as Tamatoa is a definite highlight, but all the voice actors are doing an excellent job. Having watched the movie twice - which I hardly ever too - I can't find a serious flaw with it, except the length, and the somewhat sudden ending. There are some pesky symbolism & social messages, if you're looking for them, but they're not forced upon the audience like in many other current films, so you can choose to simply enjoy an adventure in which everyone is great in their own way.

The movie ran for over two hours, but I barely felt the time pass. The combat scenes are intense and horrifying, while Chris Kyle's personal life is a touching representation of the difficult issues soldiers and veterans cope with. Knowing the movie is based on real events made it matter more to me, but I never expected to be so overtaken by it. American Sniper makes you understand Chris Kyle and how he saw the world. It speaks for him, perhaps better than the man spoke for himself. Whether you hate or love both the man and the film for that depends on your own moral character.

I didn't know what to expect when Gran Torino started, and it managed to surprise me several times throughout the film. The characters were interesting, likable, and show the writers know people quite well. Clint Eastwood's acting is superb, and manages to make you laugh even when the situation is very grim. I didn't care much for the ending, but it's understandable, considering where they were going with the story. Most importantly, though, it swims against the current, and manages to challenge some prevailing taboos of today's PC culture, showing that human relationships are more than skin deep.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

The first one was not just a story about inventions and food - it was also about people, and had characters with content, that developed throughout the plot. The humor evolved naturally from their personalities. The sequel has none of the above, replacing them with flashy animations, too much food puns, and a contrived plot that climaxes with yet another "Nature Vs. Industry" conflict that doesn't make sense - and not in a good way.

The action is extremely well done, and fortunately there are a couple of interesting characters on screen (Tony Stark [Ironman], Steve Rogers [Cpt. America]) to provide a bit more. Otherwise, we're talking about a completely cartoony plot, with one dimensional (at best) characters (how hard was it to make *Loki* interesting?!), and junior-high grade dialog.

I came with some very low expectations to this film, and was pleasantly surprised. The humor is witty, nerdy, and smart; the plot is a light parody of the genre, as well as current trends among youth; and there's even a surprise cameo by a big star that the ladies can't seem to get enough of. It was enjoyable all the way through.

This film is a fairy-tale ripe with witches, princes, magic, and romance, which manages to capture a sense of wonder that is missing in so many other fantasy movies. The characters, though not particularly deep, all possess consistent motives, which contribute naturally to the development of the intricate plot. The overall tone, despite plenty of violent and cruel events, is lighthearted, and entertaining throughout the film, mostly thanks to superb acting by veterans like Michelle Pfeiffer. Only the lead male character is lacking in presence, but that didn't detract much from my overall experience.

This movie is so exquisitely bad, it went all the way past the score meter into the negative dimension, came back from the other side, and settled on an almost absolute zero. The acting is horrible, the dialog is beyond childish, and the plot while still making some sense in the book is laughably ridiculous in the film adaptation. From start to finish, there is simply nothing to enjoy here.