Sydmwswy

Obviously, it is not as polished as the movie "Fortress 2021" and it does not have the softness of that movie, but this Bressack movie is a compressed and logical version of the series that seeks to add some apparent depth to the core of its superficial **** the same time a Little or no effort has been made to sub-category characters. And we also needed more clues. Why doesn't the hero's wife show his message to the agent in the first encounter? If it seems very natural. And honestly I haven't seen such a performance from Mr Gibson in a long time.talking about perison was thinkable.. There are moments in the film that you want continue . Contrary To some other parts. Not bad at all.4/5/5

As an episode of a very successful comedy series, this is perfect: anyway this is perfect. If we have seen three billboards, maybe we can consider cutting off a finger as a cliché, in any case, it was done correctly. Colin Ferrell gives his role 100% development through acting technique, otherwise his chemistry is not compatible with the role. (We see in this film how the technique covers the fit of an actor with the role, which only works in some cases) and one point that we must add that the film intentionally or unintentionally does not take into account: Person A: I don't care what you say Person B: I don't care what you are Person A: Then why are you talking to me? Person B: Because my heart is burning to you Because I pity you, it is not taken into account or its role is diminished. In any case, because it is performed correctly, I consider it a perfect movie. And one of the most interesting things about this film is that an Irish filmmaker with typical democratic ideas in his film (perhaps more than usual) about how a few people are fighting each other and does it in a way that For example and for example, if I, who live in a communist society, see it, I can look at it as an outcome current.(and in an indirect way, the second best film against music).5/5

As great as a western, as brilliance as a horror movie, if it could be Only those who are very naturalistic in their childhood, very inquisitive and interactive in their adolescent, and very adventurous and interactive in their youth and in middle-aged people who think more will connect to this movie 100%. And the interesting thing was that I get hungry with the slightest mention of food in movies, but I didn't get hungry in this movie! The chemistry between Nicholas Hoult and De Armas was good, but Hoult is one of those actors who can play two leading characters. In terms of the way of paying for structure of the film and some other main elements, the film is reminiscent of almost forgotten films like Cabin in the woods 2012..... with the difference that the way the structure is paid here is both more cinematic and more developed. And in the end, the film takes form with difficulty and with the technical knowledge. The actor playing the role of the chef is one of the most suitable actors that I have seen in the last few years that matches his role.... (I think he is more suitable for roles where an ordinary person , almost without feelings is trying to become a leader and in the end it doesn't success... which of course was not the case here!). The seriousness in the performance is sprinkled throughout the film. We can recognize the perfection of the script in the first thirty minutes of the movie. We know how the director has complete control over things from the sense and power that there's in the back of the performances. The only thing that needs to be added is when the head chef says to one of his subordinates: "Are you hurting your mind, your body, to keep satisfied people you never see?" The purpose of this sentence is sympathy and its meaning at the same time and after that is conveyed indirectly and correctly, but it would have been better if it was conveyed directly in the sentence. And if it was like that, it would be more to my liking. The connection between the three issues of the script, the choice of actors and the way to use the dialogue was not in line with my taste, but because it was executed correctly, I consider it a perfect movie.5/5

The film starts with a medium long shot. After that, we have some energetic sequences. In this film, Spielberg tells the story in such a way that we really and truly feel that we are dealing with a romantic biography with a lot of concentration, and when we realize that its concentration is not that high, it bursts our bubble. When Mitzi leaves the first house with the baby, why should we have a medium long shot? We have such a sequence in Serious Man 2009, where the director takes a long shot correctly and it is a successful sequence. In all the sequences related to the piano, we still have this ridiculous medium long shot. Maybe Spielberg wanted to show off the objective side of things with these mediums,(even more) , or maybe wanted to stay in a special **** they only cause inconsistency. We have these mediums for all the scenes related to playing the piano and even the second school filming project. Overall, the movie needed more softness. Of course, Sam's love affair is properly executed. Why is Sam's father willing to help him to such an extent when he knows that his job is entertainment? This movie needed a stronger emotional soul (at least for a few seconds) or maybe more darkness, not in the conclusion, but in the praise of the emotions. But again, it works very well as a tough romantic drama in the face of crossing over the defined realities as much as possible (not in all cases) and while it may not be possible to live it, there are always people who know that perfect.4/75/5

Live characters are the most important and main feature of this movie. And after that, the film has the power to transform the environment into a character. The only thing that does not fully become a character in the film is absurdity. Absurdity in relation to the First World War and history in general should relate to survival, not condemn it. History is not just the past. History is the moment when an event happened and all the factors that happened through it are connected to create a very thought-provoking image. In my opinion, this can be a very correct definition of history. (Of course, an epic definition) if absurdity condems the survival, it can act as a trigger for war and add value to it. Absurdity must be related to survival. Of course, this issue is less visible in the final parts of the film, but also in the beginning of the film. However, the very correct atmosphere of the film, without wanting to be captured by the music, not only covers this issue, but also becomes one of the most remarkable features of the work. Also, the film is successful in conveying human emotions in a direct way, but it does not do this entirely in a cinematic way. A powerful thriller.4/5/5 Of course I wanted to write this comment few days ago..

In the first days of the release of this movie, I praised and praised it on many critic and and analysis sites. I wrote that this movie is a giant masterpiece in the new millennium. I wrote that this film is like the paintings of Edvard Munch and "Nicolas Poussin ", which have been made into the movie. And I said that mankind has not been able to create such a thing for centuries. And I also praised the perfect script. But after seeing a lot of negative comments, I became doubtful and some questions arose in my mind. Maybe I thought about the vagueness of Tan's story and changed my mind. When the movie won seven Oscars. I watched it for third time and asked myself, what is the definition of a smart story? If we want to logically create and define an intelligent story (I emphasize, logically), what should we do? And can social effects affect my poor understanding of modern art? In both cases, the answer was **** must be done in this way. We have to adapt to life, boys. The last night Oscar action is not only very bravely but is so differentt action. and is a very game changer act for the continues.....

Unfortunately or fortunately, the best film adapted from Robinson Crusoe. ( A complete film) Unfortunately, because this happens in a movie that, in addition to focusing more on the drama parts, lacks the soul and sense of storytelling. (or is afraid of doing it) but fills this problem with appropriate and calculated humor. Fortunately, because the director has a good understanding of the characters, the chemistry of the stars (especially Tracy Woody Harrelson) and also the society he wants to portray, and achieves a gentle reality . and works better than than the big budget adventure films. I think that this movie is the best and most cinematic work that is very similar to Daniel Defoe's Robinson Coruso. This Ruben Östlund's film which is made with a relatively small budget, is also the meeting point of a "familiar and slightly soiled kind of realism" with " almost perfect exciting adaptations "which their biggest flaw is the lack of that realism. But it still lacks the soul and sense of storytelling found in few successful blockbusters. And one of its interesting features is the ability to remove many of its parts.5/5

When I think of Jurassic Park film , I remember the cinematography masterpiece of the first part that starts especially in the middle of the movie. which was the accepted effect of a movie in the 2 previous years . (though not the impression that remains in imitation). In the Jurassic Park 1993, none of the dinosaurs change into form, but the behavior that the characters emit in front of it creates an image of them in the mind. Maybe that's why we hardly feel such a void. . The most powerful sequence of jurassic world 2022 is when one of the dinosaurs looks at the surface of the water,like the most powerful sequence of jurassic park 1993 when looks at the car. Here too, none of the dinosaurs transform into a **** brilliance of Spielberg to definition of the narrative covers the Plot's flaws in Jurassic park. Of course, I think that after some time, Spielberg himself came to the conclusion to use the sense of humor, but this sense of humor or caricature or darkness or the softness aspect should be done in the form of dinosaurs. Not to make dinosaurs that look too natural and serious while deflecting the sense of humor in a different angle. The action senses related to the Clare are perfect ; the rest are istereotype. 3/75/5

After Aliens 1986 and terminator 1984 , this is the greatest and hardest of Mr Cameron Pandora is created for the first time in this movie. While before this, it was just a beautiful visual idea. Pandora is created for the first time in this film, not because of Cameron's rough filmmaking style. Rather, it is the emotion that create it. Yes, it is the emotion that make Pandora. After Aliens 1986 and Terminator 1984, this movie is Cameron's hardest and toughest movie. This movie is a great work that a rough filmmaker makes up with emotions. The world of Avatar is readable, not too complicated. But it takes form. Avatar 2's special effects are not just an invention. Rather, it serves the story.. it serves the characters.. it serves the mise en scene. .... Jake sully and his wife are paid again and aren't the just big stars of a simple romantic standard level of payment. It seems that here the filmmaker should not refer his story to a film of the first part, but James Cameron explains everything with the focus he has in filmmaking during short impressions. This movie is much better than the first part because here we are not going to go through a very long and boring introduction about a multi-line story. This movie starts from the first moments. The dialogues are not on air. In this film, the director has become an expert in the world of his film and remarkably innovatively creates a very good interaction between action and adventure. It can be very difficult to formalize the plot of a traditional story better than this. I have a nostalgia with the special effects of the first part of this movie (only with its special effects), but that doesn't make me want to prefer the first part. The difficulty of this movie is like aliens. And I have never seen its softness in Cameron's films.

Full Metal Jacket is definitely a film that is very far from Kubrick's filmmaking method. And definitely, if it was a successful movie, it would be the best war movie in the history of cinema. But the film does not match the logic of Kubrick's filmmaking and the director's subconscious. The logic of Kubrick's filmmaking is not that, for example, The camera is in favor of the soldier at the beginning of the film, or that it condemns such militarism. This type of narration is definitely simplistic. Maybe my idea also agrees with the director's point of view, but because it is not completely realistic in the movie , The movie is unsuccessful. However, it is a great movie, but it is not the greatest war movie in the history of cinema like "paths of Glory".

The best performance of Matt Damon and Ban Affleck is definitely performed in this movie. The film does exactly what a historical novel and drama does without giving ransom to the literature.. making in parts is really necessary and should to be. But Scott can't show violence in the true way yet.

The camera movement is clumsy, but there are many very good things in the film, such as the flow of life and the characters who are like the style. The script is good and the movie imitates the great western movies correctly. The mezzanines are also correct. And the suspense of the film is unique

movie that looks like its own poster 29 June 2022 - 2 out of 4 users found this review helpful. This is good thriller this is a real feminist. There seems to be everything good in the Resident Evil and Cube series and movies like that in this movie. The actions are all right. Story have some lacks but generally good.

Only someone who knows nature and cinema by nature can make such a film. We can feel the reality of the desert in this movie. And suspension... A typical American movie.

Mise-en-scene, mise-en-scene is what family movies need, proper camera movement. Being honest with iteself was the best point of this movie, the definition it gives of family, but everything is in its most ideal **** I don't car fake comments

Toxic movies that I hate forever I really believe that films like this harm not only the cinema but also our world. The opening of the movie is very ridiculous. It is one of the few times that I see the Academy giving the best actor award to the worst actor. The lunatic asylum nurse is stupidly naughty . The secondary characters of the movie are very, very bad. The ending of the movie is more ridiculous than the opening, but the worst part of the movie is when a friend (Of course, it hardly even reaches the style of friend) kills him at the request of another friend. The stage design is awful. Neither realistic, nor surreal, nor minimal, nor anything, and intentionally made into a ridiculous form. None of the people in the asylum even come close to the style. There is nothing in this movie. Even relationships are artificial.

Artificial Toxic movies that I hate forever I really believe that films like this harm not only the cinema but also our world After watching this movie, I had nausea with the noble knowledge of mathematics. Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connelly were the worst choices for these roles. This movie can't even make proper use of its very flawed script. A child's game in the world of politics and scientists. Everything in it seems too artificial. There is no positive point in this picture except an incomplete explain of a messy story. The ending of the film is awful and tries to deceive the audience. As the opening of the film is more awful and we don't know what kind of person we are facing. In my opinion, if Russell Crowe did not act in the movie and only read the dialogues, the result would be much, much better. At least we saw a human mathematician. I have seen his American Gangster Phil. It was very good there. Nothing is received from him here. A biographical documentary is even more beautiful.

Not Just artificial but only full of boring tallks from batman the killing joke Toxic movies that I hate forever I really believe that films like this harm not only the cinema but also our world First of all, it was the only DC movie I've seen that tried its best for the weaving philosophy. I'm sure many people know that this movie is an exaggerated movie, but what's worth noting is that not only the hero of the film does not understand classic comedy movie but chooses a bad movie to get emotional. Because that movie has nothing to do with his world. No matter how hard the movie tries, it can't get anything out of itself, especially by taking the acting from the lead role. A film in which there is no violence, but it tries to use it with fear. A film that is not only artificial but also does not any style...acting??!! And only talks boringly. Apparently, after years of increasing Joker appeal, the no-Batman-no-joke-and-no-even-hope-of--killing-joke pattern has become the norm.

Toxic movies that I hate forever I really believe that films like this harm not only the cinema but also our world. The script is zero. The mise-en-scènes are the level of a beginner director. The camera movement is similar to the movement of the camera in many promotional teasers (especially the chariot part). Filming fights is no different from the films that are taken from wrestling, boxing and karate competitions, maybe they are even better. The opening of the movie is inefficient. Ridley Scott tries to combine music with cinematography, but fails. There is nothing good in this movie, everything is made up of ordinary and incomplete sub-narratives that are achieved with a lot of funny trickery. The ups and downs of, for example, the hero of the film have an uncertainty or even false excitement .The family has no definition in the film and is captured by the director's absurd slogans. Of course, I like Ridley Scott's movies. Although I know who made this movie so enlargement here.

Very artificial and not even close to acceptable Toxic movies that I hate forever I really believe that films like this harm not only the cinema but also our world. The worst Gary Oldman in the history of cinema is in this movie. The young actor of the film will never become a character. The hero of the film does not even become a style. The film does not have a script. But there is nothing else to fill the empty space of the movie. Watching this movie is like sitting down and staring at a spot after getting a massage and enjoying a vulgar trance. And then let's go drink our coffee. There is nothing in the movie, even the movies Leon sees in the cinema are not good.

Very artificial and full of enlargement Toxic movies that I hate forever I really believe that films like this harm not only the cinema but also our world The only strong point that seems to be in this movie is the few silences that Jonathan Demme has managed to capture, but it took too long and it didn't turn out well. Everything in the movie is based on a funny but very serious **** film does not have script .And it is the only film for which the Academy has become emotional for specific reasons. The set design in the movie is awful. There is neither simplicity nor complexity in it. The story of the movie is full of bugs. The knots of the story are neither real nor fantasy, neither believable nor surreal. A film that is basically a deception. In my opinion, it could have been a more successful movie by switching the roles of Hopkins and Jodie Foster. The pleasure that the story of the movie wants to convey is very confusing and deceptive. Everything suffers from an artificial nostalgia. In the end, it seems that it was one of the few works that I have seen that tries its best to turn a cinematic work into an inhuman tool. Not only is it unsuccessful and it never deceives the professional cinema audience, but it is so ridiculous and funny that it is unbelievable at a certain time. A movie that not only the character but also the style is not seen in **** tasteless and for example tasty inserts don't do anything and the film remains on its basic interesting idea.

This movie definitely have almost all the features of a Hitchcock film. Except the music . In addition , it uses technology properly. Beautiful cuts , professional camera movement.

This movie is the rebirth of cinema. Because it is not only a revival of the genre, but also a new kind of filmmaking based on its classic components.Basically, I think the big problem for great filmmakers is that they don't watch movies correctly!!!!!, before they can start making their own propagandas, before they can make an alien, they can make a Terminator, they can make an avatar, or they can make a Lord of the Rings. Watch the movie like this, Sit Bored 625 times (calculated number according to the main time of this movie). Yeah ,See this masterpiece 625 times and do not be proud. Next, if you go to build a terminator and do not have a billion-dollar audience. ......It is not possible at all. This film should be seen 625 times by any filmmaker, anyone interested in cinema in this **** my opinion, watching this film 625 times is obligatory for any filmmaker and filmwatcher in this genre (or a film of this power).

With this film, my interest in cinema increased. This picture is really like Van Gogh's works....

This is one of Kubrick's best films too : and indeed one of the best films to follow the example of Dr. Caligari. Kubrick removes the abnormal parts of the shining, smoothes the rhythm, which is successful, but a lot of chickens in the film gives the same shining result that Kubrick could certainly have left it behind in his next film.

One of Kubrick's best films.I just think the bathroom sequence should have been taken out of editing. It is insulting.... In this film, I learn that grotesque characters are one of the best ways to summarize an adaptation of a long story. That Kubrick has done well.

Movie starts with true relationships and continues ...to design a good and artistic picture .... This is a film not Inception that is artificial... Of Course I am fan of Nolan.

Not bad.this is a neat ,full of exciting movie with true characters , the camera cine have plot , strong ,..but for the babys ....

Unforgiven is one of my best four films in the history of **** beacause I was thinking Mr Eastwood is not double communist and anti old woman like us (from **** was **** today I've got the **** is.