ahmedaiman9999

I can't believe how many times I snapped my opinion! That's for the most part because the movie refused to take sides, but in a very remarkable way. Simply, the movie seems as if it had shied away from interfering with the Kramers' divorce subject, and therefore let its characters to compete with each other on making viewer biased towards him/her. And that's exactly what made the main characters flesh out, of course besides the fact that they are played by Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. Both Dustin Hoffman (one of my favorite actors of all-time), and Meryl Streep (one of, if not the best actress of all-time) gave unbelievably authentic performances that could be the best performances of their respected careers. They definitely deserved their Oscars! The only issue I have with Robert Benton's masterpiece that I could have easily ignored is that I found the interrogation part of the courtroom scene was a bit tad monotonous only because I became totally torn between both Ted and Joanna because the baffling honesty of their justifications. I know that sounds more like a good thing, but I got tired at the end of the sequence of the constant rejections of the defense lawyers. So maybe the sequence could have been a bit shorter as we became aware how it would end. Kramer vs. Kramer is easily the most sensitive, absorbing, and heartbreaking movie I've seen of its kind. In part because the exceptional cast, but largely because Robert Benton's significant adapted screenplay that is as simple as it's profound, and indisputably because of his tangible and nuanced direction. (9.5/10)

Disturbingly fast-paced, and as heart-warming as it is hilarious. Telling us a happily-ever-after story but with dysfunctional protagonists, David O. Russell gave us a completely refreshing addition to the Rom-com genre. With an intelligent that walks a very risky thematic line, and terrific performances and spellbinding chemistry between the two leads, Silver Linings Playbook is one of the most entertaining movies I've seen in a while. Every once in a while the movie seriously suffers while juggling disparate tones, but that what was expected anyway. Also, David O. Russell did his best keeping the balance. (8.5/10)

I can't believe how such a hilarious and crazy movie also happens to be one of the angriest, most furious and provocative political satire movies I've ever seen! (7/10)

Thank god I postponed watching this movie until I am in the right..... mood! I always wandered how a WKW film would be, if it was less focused on atmosphere, and more concerned about its narrative. And In the Mood for Love is definitely this movie. The plot of this movie is more cohesive than of the other Wong Kar-wai films. The rest of his films don't have a conventional plot, but rather disjointed beautiful and hypnotic sequences that allow emotions to flow through them. This is not the case here. In the Mood for Love still doesn't have a linear narrative in the traditional way, I mean it's still a WKW film, but the movie has a more contained narrative to say the least. Unfortunately, the movie didn't hit me emotionally as much as it should. Don't get me wrong, I was moved by the movie even more than every WKW I've watched so far, with the exception of Chungking Express. The issues I had with Days of Being Wild and Fallen Angels are what kept me from being fully emotionally engaged, but as for In the Mood for Love, it's the over-control upon the movie's story that deprived me from being entirely connected emotionally. It may sounds strange, but that's what I felt, and in all probability that's what many people also feel if they have been already familiar with Wong Kar-wai style. I don't want to seem as if I'm just creating problems, or make some flaws up out of no where, but I felt that some emotions and feelings passed quickly without hitting me hard. On the other hand, having control on the narrative aspect of the movie, Wong Kar-wai's poetic visual style became more mature. You can easily identify his trademarks, which the movie is full of them; playing with the time, using elliptical editing, and repeating songs, but they are utilized in a more beneficial and purposeful way, hence more delicate and exquisite way. Even the beauty of the cinematography is different from those of Wong Kar-wai's other works. Here the beauty comes from the sumptuous colour palette more than anything else. In the Mood for Love is unquestionably one of the best movies in cinematic history in terms of using colours. The colours here set the mood, and keep enriching it throughout the film's fleeting runtime. However, the characters of this movie along with the performances are the real pleasure I got from. All the subtlety of the characters are brought out by a magnificent cast. Tony Leung Chiu-Wai is quite possibly one of the most talented actors ever. His performance is simply ingenious. Maggie Cheung is equally terrific, if equally, perhaps marginally inferior in comparison Leung, but it's her character that astonished me. Unlike Days of Being Wild's Su Li-Zhen, this character her is jaw-droppingly multi-layered. And the way the brilliant script delves into her is just mind-blowing. Every time Leung's character, Chow, shares the screen with her unravels a new layer in her character, while showcases the talents of the two lead, especially Leung's unique gift. The masterful combination of the ingenious symbolism of Wong Kar-wai, and the movie's sprawling and elaborate narrative is what makes In the Mood for Love stands out, either from Wong Kar-wai's oeuvre, or from the Romance genre. In the Mood for Love is undoubtedly worthy of being hailed as Wong Kar-wai's masterpiece, but Chungking Express is still my favorite among WKW's cinematic gems. (8.5/10)

My second Leone film, and I expected to see another Western masterpiece, with a gorgeous Morricone score, stunning cinematography, and incredible stand off's, stares & shooting scenes, but that is more serious, and not as cool as, than The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, and that's almost what I got. But what I didn't expect to see is one of the best, and most profound, contemplative movies ever made! Signifying the end of the Old West, Sergio Leone loaded his near-three-hour sprawling epic with symbols. The symbolism is seen in almost every aspect of the movie; the setting, the costumes, the music, and most importantly, the characters. In fact, each character stand for an iconographic Western role. But Leone did humanize them through his melodrama, and the result is that all the characters became some of the most interesting and compelling characters ever! What amazed me is how rich the plot seems despite its simplicity. And as convoluted as the narrative sounds, the movie never lost me. That's simply because the story is actually pretty simple, but the sophisticated themes and symbolic characters gave it mythic feeling. Aside from its remarkable opening scene, which became one of my all-time favorites, I found the first hour of unbearably tedious! I usually don't mind watching movies with a deliberate pace, but almost the entire first hour gave us nothing but glances of each of the interesting characters that I totally invested in afterwards. The extremely strong, compelling, sympathetic, interesting and memorable characters portrayed by a spectacular charismatic cast definitely made me forget how bored I was during the first act, but also definitely didn't make me forget that I was about to fall asleep a couple of times! (8.5/10)

Lock your doors. Bolt your windows. There's something in THE FOG; there's an atmosphere full of dread and eeriness that I haven't seen it created like this before! As he did in Halloween, Carpenter did an equally fascinating job in building up The Fog's idiosyncratic atmosphere from the get-go until the very end; the rich-colored shadow-drenched cinematography by Dean Cundey, the spine-chilling score that also has an ancient tale vibe into it to suit the story perfectly, the campfire intro scene, and almost every subtle nuance of the movie's style made The Fog one of the most atmospheric horror films ever. Unfortunately, The Fog is also Carpenter's most poorly-written movie I've seen so far. The storytelling is all over the place, the characters are neither interesting, nor well-established (the performances, however, are all great, especially from Jamie Lee Curtis, Janet Leigh, and Adrienne Barbeau.), and the plot is far from being cohesive; tons of plot-holes aside, the movie even feels if it forgot what it has established from its beginning, and only returned to it at the third act. I wasn't prepared to see these glaring storytelling inadequacies in a Carpenter film, but what disappointed me even more is The Fog's lack of flexible and effective camera work that is necessary for a horror movie. When it comes to building up to Jumpscare scenes, John Carpenter is a real master, and there is no better example than Halloween. But here all the jump scares fall entirely flat, and felt so cheap and poorly-executed. Not to mention that the assault and attack scenes are completely ruined by too many cuts. It's so weird that Halloween, which came out two years before The Fog, seems to be way more fresh and modern than this movie. Honestly, I became more interested in the characters and the story from the middle of the second act. The third act is very good, and full of intense moments, but it's a bit rushed, especially near the very end. (6.5/10)

From his movies I've watched so far, I can say that Carpenter's movies share a cool style of direction, cool ideas, and cool characters. But They Live has something more.... a cool way of unraveling and unfolding the plot! Carpenter here unfurls his movie's story as if he says to his audience: "I don't care whether you're enjoying the movie or not. You came here for the movie's bizarre and outlandish concept, and here it is!". Not too much dialogue; the thing that may make the viewer feel a bit bored, especially before the action rises. But so what as long as this brilliantly reflects the movie's themes of working-class subjection and media control! A very slow way of resolving the conflict of the plot; the thing that may infuriate the viewer, and make him worried lest the denouement would be so rushed. But so what as long as the results, as the movie proceeds and the end result, are more than fulfilling and rewarding! In all honesty, Carpenter went a bit too far to say the least. As the transitions between an act to another are quite abrupt and scrappy that can make you feel as if something is missing; something that is necessary to make you more convinced. The transition between the first and the second act can redeemed; because there is an information that is represented later at the second act in a most subtle way. But this is not the case about the transition between the second and the third act. As there are some things that should have been quite difficult to work out, but they ended up being solved pretty quick by some coincidences and plot holes. Let alone the major plot hole concerns the whole story that you may realize at the end, if not while watching the movie. It goes without saying that in They Live, Carpenter offers a timeless biting and daring political satire neatly encapsulated in a loony thought-provoking sci-fi flick while maintaining, at its core, its B-movie quality the genius director famous for. (8/10)

Halloween is a remarkable horror film but this in largely down to Carpenter's wonderful ability in building up and creating suspense. Using the POV approach, and a chill-inducing score whenever Michael Myers appears, Carpenter certainly does an effective job of immediately drawing the viewer into the proceedings. But it's the unconventional way of anticipation is the most terrifying thing about the movie. I loved how Carpenter keeps us hooked for most of the movie (the first hour) just by making us waiting for Myers to strike, and yet nothing happens till the third act. That really made the movie an unsettling and unnerving experience, but also so captivating; my eyes was glued to the screen, TOTALLY! Leaving us hanging for nearly an hour before Myers begins killing was a difficult challenge, and Carpenter just knocked it out of the park in terms of keeping me enthralled and riveted. That said, the slow-burning narrative and sinister atmosphere weren't enough to make this movie scary for me. Usually, I don't blame the movie for not scaring me when I find there are many things that the movie got right, such as the use of jump scares, simply because I don't get scared from horror movies at all! But I get nervous quite a lot when I watch decent horror flicks, and that didn't happen to me until the last, say, 15-20 minutes of the movie. Another issue I have with this movie is everything about Donald Pleasance's character. Besides Pleasance's stilted performance, his character's presence along with the Sheriff don't seem to be necessary, and I felt that there would have been no much difference if both Sheriff and Doctor were cut from the film. I found Loomis is just an expository tool that also hasn't been utilized well. The characters, in general, aren't smarter than those in other slasher horror movies. Case in point, Thomas Doyle who I would only believe his actions if he was 3 or 4 years old! Not to mention, Brian Andrews's performance that was really bad. The character and the performance are the exact opposite of Danny in Kubrick's The Shining! Needless to say, Jamie Lee Curtis's performance as Laurie is simply stellar. The same goes for the rest of the cast regardless of those who I've mentioned above. I also didn't like that Myers was depicted as superhuman. I don't know whether the sequels justified that or not, but this definitely didn't work for me. However, I liked so much how Myers looks, and how we didn't see his face as much as we hear him breathing under his mask from a first person POV. For all its flaws, Halloween will remain a landmark of slasher horror cinema, simply because it has set the standards for horror films in general. Standards that slasher movies have never surpassed to date. (7/10)

As much as it also has a twisty, and hazy plot as the other Wong Kar-wai's movies that I've seen so far, Days of Being Wild's narrative feels more controlled. Even the seemingly unfocused nature of its storyline can be justified this time, as its despicable protagonist, Yuddy, is a nihilistic character. The same goes with the tech aspect. The expressive beauty of this movie doesn't often stem from the hypnotic colors, and numbing lights like Chungking Express, or Fallen Angels, instead it comes from the demonstrative use of tight framing that also provided us with some astonishingly good-looking shots. Yuddy is an extremely obnoxious character that you can't emphasize with. That said, I didn't hate him, simply because I found the fact the woman who raised him refuses to reveal his real mother's name so agonizing. To top it all, Rebecca Pan, who played his adoptive mother, gave such a provocative performance that I couldn't help hate her character so much that I kinda rooted for Yuddy. The realistic method most scenes are shot with made me connect with every character on the screen, even if their actions may sometimes feel implausible. Unfortunately, this wasn't enough to make me convinced one hundred percent. I found two central characters' feelings and doings far from being reasonable. As these two characters are seen very much from the outside, and lacking real depth, at least to justify their actions. The editing is pretty exquisite, and also indicative. However, it was quite messy and distracting near the end. It deprived me from being fully satisfied. Some scenes could have been so heartbreaking, but they ended up being jumbled and muddled up. On the other hand, the ending itself is quite devastating, and has all the movie's emotional impact. I think this movie features the best use of music among the other two Wong Kar-wai's movies that I've watched. Besides that it's so moving, it expresses Yuddy's emotions and feelings, nay his psyche. (8/10)

At first glance, Election may appear to be just another high school flick, but it's actually far from being so. Alexander Payne's superb screenplay asks a plethora of surprisingly difficult moral questions. It also features some very very compelling and sophisticated characters played by equally brilliant actors who delivered remarkable performances, especially Matthew Broderick's. You won't appreciate the incredibly nuanced characters until you think about them, and their actions more than once after finishing the movie. Add to that the fact that Payne's intelligent script never tried to rely on tired exposition techniques to flesh out his characters, but instead he used a lot of subtle references and nuances to make us identify with these characters even without the slightest reliance on sentimentality. That said, I think Tracy Flick, played by Reese Witherspoon, should have been way more sympathetic, because I felt almost zero pity for her! The dark humor enriches the satirical aspect of the movie, but halfway through the movie the tone changed a great deal and became so dark. The thing that made the tone inconsistent with the first and the third act. Payne heavy usage of V.O.s and freeze frames gave the movie its own style, and also made it feel more lighthearted. I loved how the movie made all its characters flawed, but in a way that really adds more depth to these characters, and made them fully-developed and lifelike. Whether it is a main, or side character, each one of them will resonate with the viewer in many different ways. The movie, however, delves into some characters more than needed. As I think there are a couple of characters' sub-plots that could have been completely cut from the script without affecting anything essential to the main plot. The denouement was very rushed and unfocused that made me think that the movie actually run out of steam. Fortunately, the ending was quite good, if not as clever as the rest of the movie. (7.5/10)

I can see why Fallen Angels is considered to be a follow-up to Chungking Express. In fact, it's kinda set in the same universe; as there are many references, and too many things the two movies share. But Fallen Angels expanded on its predecessor's trippy atmosphere and visual style. The result is an extremely entertaining hypnotic experience that you can't help keeping your eyes glued to the screen throughout its 95-minute run time. From the technical standpoint, Fallen Angels isn't just as flawless, or just as phenomenal, as Chungking Express, but it's actually stand s out from the latter's for being more practical. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that Chungking Express is overly stylized as some people, but in Fallen Angels; the songs, the music, the colors, the use of black and white, and almost everything we see or hear adds to the story, and if not to the story, then to the experience itself. Because Kar-Wai Wong knows how to convey emotions and feelings, maybe more than any other filmmaker! Alas, Chungking Express is far more superior to Fallen Angels from the narrative standpoint. I don't mean that Fallen Angels's script lacks cohesion (I shouldn't ask for that anyway), or smart dialogue (Actually this movie has many great and quite subtle lines), but it, undoubtedly, lacks interesting characters. Honestly, I was quite engaged with the killer's story and his partner, but the mute's storyline and the crazy girl who is getting over her breakup completely annoyed me. At the beginning of He's story, I was actually somewhat entertained. There were some hilarious moments that really made me laugh out loud. But soon I felt that this storyline overstayed its welcome, and I found the whole thing very annoying, and extremely tedious. It's baffling because I think the storyline is well-structured, and everything should have worked very well, but I really don't know why the characters turned out to be unbearable, at least for me. That said, the mutes story has some of the most memorable moments in the movie, besides the above-mentioned funny scenes. Also,Takeshi Kaneshiro, who played He, the mute character, is a remarkable actor, an there is no better proof than the way he changed his reactions and facial expressions by the end of his character's arc. I wasn't surprised that I didn't get moved by the end of the mute's character's arc, but what surprised me is that I felt very little, if any, emotions towards the killer by the end of his storyline. While I found myself engrossed in the killer's story, almost instantly, once the movie returned to it, I think the mute's story detached me emotionally from the killer's. At the end of the movie I was almost entirely emotionally disconnected from all the characters, and the movie left me a bit cold. (7.5/10)

I never thought that a movie that explores loneliness would end up being one of the most charming feel-good movies I've ever seen! I mean... I was smiling and laughing spontaneously, and that didn't happen to me since I watched Amélie! (9/10)

In regards of every single aspect, The Terminator is the textbook example of just how much can be done with as little money. With a simple, yet innovative use of camera movements, and different camera angles, James Cameron shot some of the most impressive action sequences and car chases. The use of zooming technique, in particular, in chases scenes also created a great deal of tension. Simply put, The Terminator is one of the best paced action movies ever. It's not fast as most of the cheesy action flicks of the eighties, nor slow-burning like Blade Runner's that definitely wouldn't suit the movie's tone. It's just perfect! Some may say the special effects are dated and don't hold up very well, but I don't mind them at all. In fact, I liked so much the visual effects, and I found them pretty convincing. The makeup is also remarkable for its time. What dazzles me aren't the effect, though, but the not-a-word-wasted dialogue. There is no line of dialogue that has been wasted. Every line or even gesture is as short as it's powerful as you can ever imagine. The movie isn't without its flaws, though. I found the way we got to know for the first time about the background story pretty lazy. Also, the whole situation was unsuitable for giving us information, but, nonetheless, the time was perfectly enough for us to know the most important things. There were also a couple of times later when the luck played a vital role in saving the protagonist's life. Besides, there is a glaring plot hole at the end of the movie that really drove me crazy till the credits roll. The movie features Arnold Schwarzenegger in his career-defining role, and I can easily see why. Casting him was a perfect choice to portray a relentless, rigid, indestructible cyborg. From seeing her vulnerable to accepting her fate, and trying to convince herself of it, Linda Hamilton is absolutely terrific as Sarah Connor. Michael Biehn is fantastic as well. Kyle Reese is my favorite character from the movie. A great score that just hits the right note by walking a fine line between the bleakness of the post-apocalyptic world and the cheesiness that distinguishes the movie's nature. Unpretentious filmmaking at its finest! (8.5/10)

This is the first Fellini film I watch, and also it's the first time I found myself riveted and bored at the same time while watching a movie! This is definitely one of the most eccentric and whimsical movies I've ever watched. Maybe it's too whimsical for its own good! The movie as a whole didn't work for me, and I'm not really sure that I liked it. It feels like an overlong self-indulgent journey of surrealism. Undeniably, the movie could have been shorter, because it doesn't have too much to say. There is a lack of narrative cohesion, vision and creativity. That made the movie doesn't seem to focus on its main themes, but instead it uses a lot of unnecessary repetitive sub-plots that don't add so much to the main plot.There are a lot of things to admire about it, though. Juliet of the Spirits is Fellini's first work in color, and it's one of the most beautiful and colorful movies I've seen in my life! It's nothing short of eye-catching. The movie also has a harmonious music that set the tone and created a unique atmosphere from the beginning. I also liked how the hallucination scenes were directed. Some of them were very disturbing, and not easy to watch. Also, the symbolism that has been used to depict the psyche of Giulietta Boldrini is awe-inspiring! From the technical standpoint this movie is almost perfect, except for the editing; it was really awful! Giulietta Masina delivered a very expressive and emotional performance. I also appreciated the themes of the story. I actually was somewhat invested, once the movie focus on its main story. The only time the movie did so was in the last 20 minutes. I think the ending deserves 5 stars! (6.5/10)

It's truly infuriating to see a movie with a well-constructed, self-contained story that has a completely nonsensical underpinnings. By that I mean the principles and theories of the Quantum realm. Honestly, I couldn't understand how some things are related to the others, and how some actions can affect specific matters. Everything seemed messy and preposterous to me. The problem is neither about how scientifically wrong the bases of this world are, I mean it's a Sci-Fi movie, and there must be non realistic representations to a lot of things, nor it's because the explanations we got aren't convincing. But the problem is that there are almost no explanations, nor what happen make any sense. As a Science Fiction movie, Ant-Man and the Wasp is a total misfire. But what about it as a comedy? The original play it safe, but managed to earn big laughs thanks to the exquisite visual humor, and smart jokes. This one really misses Edgar Wright's touch in the comedic aspect. There are some funny visual gags that landed very well, but they are way less inventive, and less smart than those of the first movie. Unfortunately, these silly jokes are neither hilarious to make me laugh out loud, nor they are plenty to make me forget about the other 70% of the humor that vary between cringe-inducing jokes and failed attempts to recycle some of the best jokes of the first Ant-Man movie, to other jokes that completely missed the mark because of the terrible comedic timing. The story itself is small-scale, and the plot is very cohesive. That made the drama work pretty well, besides that the entire cast was amazing. Both Paul Rudd and Evangeline Lilly gave a wonderful charismatic performances, and they have an incredible chemistry between each other. This time we blissed to see glimpses of Michael Douglas's great acting abilities; he really shines in this sequel. Michael Peña is good, but his character, Luis, isn't funny at all this time unlike in the first movie. I also likes the character of Jimmy Woo, played by Randall Park, although the humor we got from him was hit-or-miss for me. The father/daughter relationship between Scott and Cassie is so warm and sweet. It's even better this time, and Abby Ryder Fortson is fantastic! The action set-pieces aren't extraordinary, but they are truly fine, especially when it comes to the use of visual effects, which were spectacular, by the way. The final action sequence is the only one that is really impressive, which explains why it was used in fifty percent of every trailer for the movie. Unlike the poor illustration of the Quantum realm from the narrative standpoint, it was visually splendid in every sense of the word. From the creative depiction to the consistent use of colors, I was simply in awe of its look. I don't want to mention anything about the villain, because I don't consider an evil character who do nothing but explains her motives and abilities through some flashbacks in one single monologue as a real villain! I didn't like Hannah John-Kamen's character as the beta villain in Ready Player One, and I hated her in this movie as Ghost I guess, or whatever. I don't put the blame on the actress, though. Surprisingly, I found that all the main characters are three-dimensional and well-grounded. Their characteristics we knew from the original back in 2015 are established in this sequel, and therefore the characters became more developed. Overall, I think Ant-Man and the Wasp is a step back from its predecessor, and one of the most disappointing movies for me this year. But most importantly, it's one of the weaker MCU efforts in the last few years, and this is not a good sign at all. Nevertheless, this sequel is by no mean a bad movie, and definitely a fun to watch popcorn flick as all other MCU entries. (7/10)

From its soulful score by James Horner, brilliant editing in the battle sequences, brisk pacing, and dazzling cinematography by John Toll, Braveheart is an epic in every sense of the word. The acting, the surprisingly brutal battle scenes, the speeches and monologues, etc, feels fresh and new to the genre even if they actually aren't. That's in large part due to Mel Gibson's remarkable and risk-taking direction, and the masterful editing. Long shots, wide camera angles, and quick cuts in the dialogue scenes as well as the battle sequences gave this movie a lively atmosphere, and therefore made it a unique experience that helped it to stand out from the other historical epic movies. That being said, I found the tonal shifts completely outputting. The movie kept moving from a somber to a lighter tone throughout its runtime to match the current situations and events. That made some important moments have less impact on me, such as; some dramatic moments didn't work as mush as it should, the climax of the plot felt sudden and not well prepared for it, etc. While it didn't take me a long time to adapt to the new tone, the episodic nature of the movie is quite annoying and distracting. The romantic relationship between Wallace and his wife was pretty fine and acceptable at first, but then it overstayed its welcome a little bit. Whilst the reason for that is quite understandable, I couldn't help but cringe for a while. The villain is very menacing and almost everything about him is great, except that he provided us with an exposition of his plans many times. But, fortunately, likewise some cheesy lines, these scenes were justified by Gibson's excellent direction that gave them an epic sense, and therefore made them more passable. Randall Wallace's screenplay is more than enough to make the movie match its ambition. From the way we witness our protagonist from his childhood to become the hero he is, to the miraculous narrative control on the abundance of side characters and their sub-plots. All that made Braveheart a larger-than-life historical tale, and I don't care about how historically accurate it is because it's a great movie! (8/10)

Putting aside the unrealistically perfect character of Kayla's father (Josh Hamilton is fantastic, though) and some stereotypes that surround it, and a poorly-written subplot, Eighth Grade is an agonizingly accurate and authentic look at life’s the most universally awkward phase thanks to first-time director, Bo Burnham's painstaking attention to detail, astonishing use of music that captures the spirit of the titular time period, and Elsie Fisher's breakthrough performance who played her role achingly well. (8.5/10)

So, Richard Linklater aimed to capture the high-school life spirit of the 70s in a mere 103 minutes-long movie devoid of a real plot that represents a single day to introduce us to many characters, and gradually developing them via consequences and repercussions they have with other characters while making us invested in all these characters, and care about some particular characters, especially one character which is the protagonist. Did he succeed? Hell yeah! But he also excelled at every single unpredictable level. And the fact that this movie is one of the most quotable movies of all time is more than a enough to prove that. For If this means anything, it would be that Richard Linklater perfected the balance of making a lifelike film that has plenty of lines that are far from being real-life, yet don't feel but so. Alas, the movie may be overstayed its welcome before twenty minutes from its end. Also, the denouement suffers from a couple of coming-of-age movies clichés. That being said, these flaws don't lower even a little bit from the magical experience I had watching this unexampled cinematic gem that had my eyes glued to the screen from start to finish. And how can I forget the impeccable soundtrack that's, without any exaggeration, one of the best soundtracks ever put on film. Dazed and Confused is the definition of a slice-of-life film! (8.5/10)

-"Ol' Jack Always Says... What The Hell?" Filled with cheesy one-liners, next-level campy spirit, bizarre and silly fighting sequences, oddball humor, and zany special effects. All these things made Big Trouble in Little China nothing but a funny guilty-pleasure, but I don't totally agree with that opinion. Actually, I think this movie is a strong proof that John Carpenter was one of the best, and most versatile filmmakers who worked in the eighties. With all the mentioned-above delightful ingredients, Carpenter didn't neglect making a good movie in the first place. It's really impressive to see Carpenter among all this sheer fun utilizing many cinema tropes, such as; Chekhov's Gun, and MacGuffin. Or to see him really care about the main character improvement. Just try to remember how Jack Burton became totally different at the end from what he was when we introduced to him for the first time. Needless to say, that Kurt Russell gave an incredibly charismatic performance. The movie is not without its flaws nonetheless, for there are some issues I couldn't help but notice. First and foremost, the first act represented a lot of characters, and potential sub-plots that didn't pay off neither as the story progresses, nor at the end of the movie. Secondly, I think Margo, a journalist played by Kate Burton, was completely useless, and seemed to exist only to fill up some places. Finally, there was a lot of exposition that we didn't even need. I mean what's the benefit of telling us the same information two or three times. If some characters don't know some information that doesn't mean that we need to witness all the main characters, one by one, get the same information over and over again! I found the romantic relationship between Jack Burton and Gracie Law a bit cringe-worthy at first, but then it turned out that this was intentional, and this very relationship even became very satisfying for me by the end of the movie. This is the movie that invented the expression "A blast from start to finish." (7.5/10)

-"Everything's different now." -"We can still think our own thoughts." The first movie that came to my mind after watching the opening scene from this movie is Captain Fantastic. While both movies share similar themes as they can be classified under the Survival Movies sub-genre, Leave No Trace is a completely different film. What makes this movie different and special is what it implies not what it shows at all. Like Rebel Without a Cause, this movie demands from the viewers to put themselves in the main characters' shoes. Without doing so, you'll not be able to relate or feel anything, and the movie would feel very bland and cold for you. Because this movie in particular stands out from the other movies of its kind due to its non-dramatized approach to its subject matter. It feels so authentic and realistic, and that's exactly what some people find somewhat off-putting. But that wasn't, by any means, the case for me. I found this movie so moving, and I related to the characters so much. Without Debra Granik's nuanced and delicate direction this movie could have been stiff and boring. But Debra Granik added some small, yet very effective, touches to emphasize on some sweet memories, and therefore make them stuck in our heads, and, before everything, in our hearts to evoke a catharsis in the audience by the end of the movie. Both Ben Foster and Thomasin McKenzie delivered brilliant performances that feel as authentic as Debra Granik's serene direction. The result is a movie that massively succeeded to be heart-breaking without the slightest reliance on dramatic clichés such as the highs and lows we often see in this kind of movies. All that being said, halfway through the movie, there was a slight tendency to continue the story in a formulaic way. Fortunately, that didn't happen. But that doesn't mean that I found the first, and especially the first, and the third act more cohesive, and more original as well. With more deviling into Ben Foster's character, Will, the second act could have been not only less flawed, but also potentially the strongest among the other two acts. With these problems, I found that I understood Will state of mind more than I felt it. That said, as the movie progresses I became more and more invested in his character, hence more emotionally connected to it. What really impressed me is Thomasin McKenzie's performance. Her character, Tom, is incredibly compelling and complex, and the way we get to know her characteristics from is absolutely genius! Just from the dialogue and the naturalistic way Thomasin McKenzie responds in every single situation we know that Tom is grateful, caring, honest and very frank, and afraid of change like her father, but also has an entirely different reason for being so. Leave No Trace is, first and foremost, a deeply moving humanistic tale thanks to its unconventional and unpredictable approach to its subject matter, and the honest and authentic performances from the underrated Ben Foster, and especially from the massively talented young actress Thomasin Harcourt McKenzie. (8/10)

By far, this movie has the most gripping and riveting story among all political thrillers I've seen so far. I can't believe that I was so invested watching a movie from one of my least favorite genres. That's largely due to Boal and Bigelow's intelligent script that offers a knotted, nuanced, realistic, and somewhat honest look into a real story about war on terror. Each small detail that leads to another is more convincing than the last. And however the plot is very intricate, I never felt that it was so convoluted that can be difficult to follow. Of course, we get a one-sided look into the real events, but the movie didn't try to be patriotic at all. There are quite a lot of torture scenes at the beginning that are really intense and brutal. The use of hand-held camera Kathryn Bigelow famous for did more harm than good in Zero Dark Thirty. Aside from that I often find the documentary style so distracting and also so obtrusive, Bigelow's reliance on this style deprived Zero Dark Thirty from being one of the best-looking movies of the decade. For Greig Fraser, the director of photography, did an amazing job capturing some of the most stunning images I've seen recently. That being said, this very documentary style gave the movie a somewhat realistic look that only paid off in two situations; the interrogation and torture scenes, and a couple of surprising sequences that are truly heart-pounding. The thing that reminded me a little bit of Villeneuve's Sicario. Speaking of Sicario, this movie suffers from the same issue I had with Sicario. Which is giving so much attention, nay , priority to the moral aspect of the protagonist. But the major issue is that, Maya, our main character, is an entirely flawed and poorly-written character. Without delving into details, there are central changes happened to the character that are as clichéd as they are contradictory, and very very hard to swallow. Putting the blame on Chastain is a crime I won't commit. As she gave one of her best performances in her career. An Oscar-nominated performance that could have been Oscar-worthy unless it was dedicated to an otherwise terribly-written role that made Chastain herself confused as much as I was. The editing in general is pretty elegant and masterful. But the sound editing is what stand out for me. This movie has one of the best uses of the J-cut ever! Nail-biting, nuanced, and thoroughly captivating, Zero Dark Thirty sees Kathryn Bigelow delivering one of the most interesting based-on-true-story movies that is, sadly, lacks a well-wrought, and relatable protagonist. (7.5/10)

Fast-paced jokes, interruptive comic scenes, slapstick humor, brightly colored animation, and the distinctive direction style that feels that it fits 2D animation more than 3D animation. They are all here to make HT 3 the most "Genndy Tartakovsky" movie of all the three Hotel Transylvania movies. Sadly, most of the gags fall flat. Simply, because almost all of them are recycled jokes from the first and the second movie, which also borrowed the original's jokes, and therefore the jokes were less effective, hence the movie was less funnier. Let alone borrowing the same old jokes once more time! But there are also a lot of repetitive jokes from this very movie. I mean how many times should we laugh about Frank's body-part liberation?! And are failed assassination attempts are that funny ?! Seriously, I thought I was watching an unfunny version of Ton & Jerry! Also, there are tons of adult jokes that are just lame! What disappointed me the most is that it's the first time that I found the interjected humorous scenes that distinguish this franchise very annoying, and completely useless. They are also used so much and became so boring. This time they really feel like string of gags that has nothing to do with the story. Dennis elevated the humor a little in the first sequel. This time it was Dennis' cute monster-sized puppy, Tinkles, or should I say Bob, that did this job, kinda! At least it had the only repetitive joke that actually worked very well. Also, some of the visual gags worked for me. Speaking of visuals, this second sequel is just visually dazzling! While the lack of improvement in terms of the animation quality was one of the issues I had with the second installment, this movie suffers from anything but. As I mentioned above, Genndy Tartakovsky is in top form this time. He brought all his unique trademarks which some of them are familiar to the series fans. But he also garnished this threequel with some of his most idiosyncratic visual techniques that fans of his other works like Samurai Jack or Dexter Laboratory will definitely relate to. The quality of the animation itself also improved a great deal. The result is a 3D animated movie that is nothing short of a feast for the eyes! The movie, nevertheless, doesn't look good just for the sake of it. But the visuals are full of imagination and inventiveness. From the look of the setting to the new characters', everything looks fresh. Just not necessarily funny. There is some depth that was given to the characters of Dracula and Mavis, and their father-daughter relationship that also served the plot. There is also a smart improvement in the movie's vampire world that was crucial to the main plot. In fact, there are some subtle nuances here and there that could be enough to make the fans of the franchise eager to see another sequel. Johnny was unbearably stupid for the most part, except for one scene which I consider one of the funniest scenes in the movie. The thing that made this scene, besides some other scenes most of them at the final act, so special is the mix between music and action. I haven't seen anything like these scenes before except in Samurai Jack. They are long scenes that look as epic as silly! The story is so familiar, and the plot itself is so generic. Also, we have seen billions of animated films that deliver the same message. But the creative slick visuals were more than enough to made up for that. Besides, the message, despite being pretty much on the nose, is utilized cleverly by mixing it with the villain's motives. It is a very easy way to construct the villain, but it is also a very smart one that saved some time, and made a run-of-the-mill, yet somewhat convincing villain. While the movie's generic plot wasn't a big problem, the movie spent most of its first two acts offering tired jokes till it really kicked up at its final act. Almost the entire first and second acts are consist of a sketch comedy after another. I don't have much to say about the vocal performances. All the cast reprised their roles as our beloved characters, and they were amazing as always. Colorfully vivid, and madly fast-paced, Summer Vacation is the most visually pleasing and creative installment in the franchise. It's also way less funny than its two predecessors which, for me, means the weakest one. (6.5/10)

Speechless! I'm not kidding. I may not review this masterpiece because I really don't have anything to say about this flawless piece of art! But I'll see later, anyway. God! That's why I hate perfect films. (10/10)

Villeneuve's Sicario - half of its intensity - half of its tension - half of its emotional intelligence - half of its beautiful atmospheric cinematography - its skillful editing - its masterful buildup, hence almost all of its surprise factor - Emily Blunt + terrific performances from the entire cast + an even better performance from Josh Brolin + a quite interesting subplot + keeping its moral within its story, and therefore avoiding preaching = Sicario: Day of the Soldado! Which means it's an OK movie! Because........... It still well-paced, has a solid and tight narrative structure, cool camera movements, exquisite use of light, and some truly powerful moments. Unfortunately, it is for sure disappointing compared to the original. But what disappointed me the most is that we didn't get the action dose the final trailer promised us, which could have elevated the movie a little and made it more gripping and less boring as the story itself is somewhat familiar, way less captivating, and, definitely doesn't feel original. Plus, there are some very silly and dumb moments. Also, the dialogue is uneven; there are some really smart and clever lines, but also there are some very clichéd ones that sometimes don't even fit with the situations they are said in. I mentioned the great performances from the entire cast as a plus because in this movie the actors who play less-important roles are exceptionally good! Maybe because the side characters they play are well-utilized and well-balanced with the main plot. But by saying all the secondary actors are great, I mean every single actor who appeared in two, or even one single scene! By the way, both Elijah Rodriguez and Isabela Moner are very talented young actors. + Benicio Del Toro's creepy gaze! - A Koi fish is not a Piranha to eat human flesh! (6/10)

Mostly remembered for its distinctive use of slo-mo style and physics-defying action, but what makes The Matrix really stand out, at least for me, is its extremely innovative exploration of some philosophical questions and ideas. These themes are discussed through the movie's layered story premise, but they are explored by The Wachowskis' directorial vision. There are many great Sci-Fi/Action movies that earned their place among the best of their kind because how profound the thoughts and how interesting theories they are explore, but this is not the case here. The Matrix is one of the best thought-provoking Sci-fi movies simply because of the direction. There is no doubt that the fact we get information bit by bit made the movie so intriguing, but the main reason this movie is so exciting is because how little it offers by showing us, not by telling us. And here is the best thing about The Wachowskis' direction, that it created a world that, for the lack of a better word, broke the limits and pushed the boundaries for its story. The result is what seems to be implausible and nonsensical, made all the sense in the world. Unfortunately, I hoped the movie relies on its creative visuals even more to explain its ideas. Because the rest explanations are displayed in a very unsubtle and direct way. For example, some of the intellectual concepts Morpheus attempts to explain to Neo often feel like they have been lifted from a philosophy essay or something like this. So there are a lot of exposition that could have been easily ignored, and replaced by some visual explanations, the very thing that happened a couple of times in the movie. In Addition, sometimes I felt that the philosophical themes are a bit repetitive, and they didn't have any right to be so. In my opinion, this happened because the direction, for all its advantages, is occasionally ostentatious. I've also the same issue with Marvel's Dr. Strange. It goes without saying that The Matrix has some of the most dazzling and imaginative action set-pieces ever put to film. Although, it's not the most thing I was impressed by, and therefore not what made me love this movie, I have to admit that the groundbreaking action in The Matrix is what made the movie timeless. As it's as creative as it's unprecedented. That's also due to the unlimited world that has been created by The Wachowskis' revolutionary vision. What we got is some of the most memorable scenes in cinema history that deserve every bit of the expression "often imitated, never duplicated". Surprisingly, the movie's wonderfulness doesn't stop at its philosophy or the exploration of it, neither stop at its breathtaking action. The movie also reutilized some of the clichés and tropes that are often found in action movies, and sometimes also in classic fantasy movies! And I can't describe how exceptionally clever they are utilized in the movie, particularly in the astonishing final act. There is no need to talk about the acting. For all the cast gave great hammy, yet charismatic performances that perfectly matches the movie's distinguish tone. Keanu Reeves played Neo, the role that was the turning point in his career. Both Laurence Fishburne and Carrie-Anne Moss have some of the most intense and emotional moments in the movie that showed some of their terrific acting abilities. Hugo Weaving portrayed one of the most popular villains in cinema, Agent Smith. The rest of the cast who played less important roles are very good, especially Marcus Chong as Tank. I loved his acting so much, and he made me somehow feel I was watching an Alien movie. I don't know why, but that's what I felt! Another great thing about The Matrix, and one of the factors that made it stands the test of time, is the ageless special effects. The visual effects are utterly stunning. In large part because of how intelligent they are used not just because how stellar they look. The sound effects are equally brilliant and game-changing. More intelligent and creative than the vast majority of modern big-budget science fiction films, and more impressive and enjoyable than the vast majority of modern big-budget action films. The Matrix is an outstanding achievement in almost every aspect. And an immortal classic that deserves every bit of recognition it got. (8/10)

Superb editing, and Fernando Meirelles splashy direction made this movie visually stunning, and this was necessary. Because without being so, City of God wouldn't have been the easiest hard-to-watch movie to be watched! I know that sounds weird, but I'm not kidding this movie is so disturbing and shocking, but its vibrant visual style made it impossible to look away from. Like the visuals and colors, the soundtrack is so vivid and dynamic to mirror the vicious cycle of violence in the eponymous city, and the slums of Rio de Janiero. That being said, City of God's exhilarating visuals and soundtrack aren't the only, nor even the main two reasons that made it unbelievably engrossing. As what really dazzled me the most this masterpiece is its narrative control. Considering the fact that this movie has this abundance of characters, which all of them are almost equally important, and a non-linear storytelling, it's beyond belief that I haven't felt lost even for a moment. Instead, I found myself caring for each of the main characters for equal measure. Every time our protagonist, Rocket mentions one of the new important characters while narrating the story, I start getting worried a bit because I think this would harm the narrative thread of the story, and make it lose its balance a bit. But every time I ended up being totally wrong till I eventually said to myself: "More characters, please!" By the way, the use of voice-over narration in this movie is exceptional! Every single character is as grounded as its compelling and throughly interesting. And they are brought to life by some of the most authentic, honest, and uncompromising performances I've ever seen in film. All the non-pros actors delivered downright terrific performances that I really can't single hand one of them. The only issue I've with City of God is its first fast-paced 20 minutes. Putting aside the magnificent opening scene, everything in the rest of the first fifty to twenty minutes happens very quickly that kept me from being engaged from the start. Powerful, visceral, uncompromising, yet honest, Cidade de Deus is a Latin masterpiece, and easily one of the this century's best movies, so far. I really regret not seeing it till recently, it's a MUST-SEE! (9/10)

The fatal flaw this movie suffers from is that it gave priority to introducing the characters over introducing its main plot and setting-up its story and the world it take place in. This resulted in making me interested in almost each character, but this absolutely wasn't enough to make me care for them when they are in danger as much as I should. Case in point, the first battle in which I didn't feel the least threat to the characters. But the biggest problem here is that I was nearly lost in the story. I was having fun seeing the characters react and talk, especially because they all have great chemistry with each other, but that definitely isn't what a movie need to be good. Fortunately, the things got progressively better after the first act till this flaw completely diminished and then entirely disappeared. With that in mind, I became totally invested in the story as much as I was, and was still, invested in the characters. The battle scenes, and the action set-pieces don't seem fresh or new, and that's exactly what made them so much fun to watch. Ron Howard shot the action sequences in a very classical way, and that's made me feel as I was watching one of the original trilogy's movies. That was very nostalgic! Almost every scene that takes place inside the Millennium Falcon is staggering! Notably, the long battle scene that appeared in the movie's trailer. This scene is my favorite scene in the entire movie; it is a very intense scene that put me on the edge of my seat, add to that it showcases how terrific the chemistry between our main characters is. Ron Howard's vision of the Millennium Falcon is really looks fresh. The action isn't the only thing in Solo that feels old-fashioned, but that applies to almost every aspect in this movie, most notably the denouement of the plot. The plot has classic plan that has plenty of back-to-back twists and turns near the end of the movie. Most of them worked pretty well, and I really was fooled many times, except the last one that was downright dull and stupid. Alden Ehrenreich did a great job as the titular character. It's not like he was the only choice to play Han Solo, but he did his best embodying the character, and walked the fine line between coolness and imprudence that I couldn't help but imagine Harrison Ford's face watching him In action. In addition, Han's scenes with Chewbacca are magical as always. I was worried about Emilia Clarke playing a Star Wars character, simply because I'm not a big fan of her, but she really proved that I was wrong just at the first scene she was in, and I found myself related to her character very fast. Woody Harrelson is fantastic as always, and had a great chemistry with every actor he appeared with. Also, I loved his character. I think it has some depth, and that's the case with all the main characters. Donald Glover just nailed it as Lando! He has an unparalleled charisma that really suits his character pretty well that I can't imagine any actor except him playing this role. But there is one particular character, and one particular performance that really got my attention, and standed out for me. The performance is Thandie Newton's as Val. Her character has a very small role in the movie, but Thandie Newton took this character to another level, and made it one of the most interesting side characters in the movie. As for the side character that I loved so much, it's the stubborn droid, L3-37. She was a scene-stealer with her funny lines and jokes that are rarely miss, and Phoebe Waller-Bridge's vocal performance was impeccable! Speaking of the humor, unlike The Last Jedi, this movie didn't try too hard to make its jokes funny. The purpose of the humor here is to keep the movie light-hearted, instead of making us laughing. That being said, most of the jokes worked well for me, especially those which cane from the comic relief character,L3-37 as I mentioned above. To be honest, there are a couple of jokes that fall flat for me, not necessarily because they aren't funny, but because the timing of these jokes was very imprecise, and they didn't match the tone in some particular times. The visual and sound effects are top-notch as any recent Star Wars film. So I hope the movie gets an Oscar nod in at least one of these categories like every Star Wars movie so far. Overall, I enjoyed Solo: A Star Wars Story so much, and I wasn't expecting that at all. It's a fun old-fashioned fast-paced action flick that can satisfy any one who wants to watch an entertaining movie while having some popcorn. This movie by no means deserves the hate it got. (7/10)

With its muddled narration, disorganized storytelling, choppy editing, distracting fast pace, and tons of ineffective cheap jump scares, I found the first act so messy and scrubby that I was about to stop watching the rest of the movie. Fortunately, almost everything got better after this unbearable 30 minutes, especially the editing which became one of the movie's merits notably when the movie shifts consistently between the past and the present. What didn't get better is the use of jump scares. Literally, there's no single jump scare that worked for me. That being said, Oculus is a quite scary movie due to its creepy atmosphere, brilliant visual structure, and seemingly nonsensical rules that would turn out to be very cogent. By that I mean due to Mike Flanagan's creative vision who directed and co-wrote the movie's screenplay. All the performance are fine, particularly the kids, but Annalise Basso's performance as Young Kaylie is what stands out for me. She is such a talented young actress. The characters of Kaylie and Tim have some reasonable depth, and the developments of the relationship between the two siblings raised a surprisingly interesting dilemma. The sound mixing and editing are top-notch, the thing that made some scary scenes so effective. Honestly, the ending isn't quite satisfying, and it made a sequel required, which we plainly won't get, but at least it didn't ruin the movie. (6.5/10)

I was literally on the edge of my seat throughout the entire movie; every single scene I found very riveting, every single character I was very interested in, and every joke, and one-liner hits the mark. But I kept wondering all the way through the movie if I really understand what's going on, and that's exactly the single issue I've with Snatch. It has an unbelievably convoluted plot, and redundant characters. There are a lot of characters, which I really cared about each one of them, and every character, or rather every bunch of characters has their own sub-plot that's, for better or worse, miraculously intertwined with the very main plot. It's quite puzzling that what I consider as a flaw is somehow resulted in, or caused by, a merit that was a main reason for keeping me captivated, hence a main reason for making me extremely love this movie. And the result is while it's impossible for me to ignore how confusing, and perplexing I found this movie, there are plenty of things that more than enough to make up for that. First things first, this movie is immensely enjoyable! there is no scene or moment that I felt the movie dragged even a little bit, and that's due Ritchie's brilliant direction, and twisting script. The very British humor here is at its finest. It's all thanks to the perfect comic timing that is at its very best, the quick-cut and comedic editing, and the genius use of the already killer soundtrack. You also can see very obviously how Edgar Wright took, and developed this style, and made it his own. The characters, aside from portrayed by a stellar cast, especially Brad Pitt who stole the show as the Gypsy, Mickey O'Neil who you can barely understand a single word he says, they play a major part of the humor. Guy Ritchie found a fine line for his characters between being sympathetic and blameworthy. Once you will find yourself root for a character, and at another time you will wish this character gets harm very badly for the sake of some laughs, because Ritchie made you know very well that when things go wrong for the characters it's never so serious, and you would get some laughs from what you would never expect. The brisk dialogue serves the humor as well, but it also flesh out the characters. Many people think Guy Ritchie tried so hard to be like Tarantino, but I totally disagree with that opinion. Yes he used the dialogue that seems to add nothing to the story, and the non-linear storytelling, but he used them in his own way, and with his very exceptional style. The non-linear storytelling felt unnecessary, though. The last reason why I can partially forgive the excessive number of characters and sub-plots is that when I reached the very end of the movie, I found that I was actually got the story easily, and understood almost everything. That being said, this, in itself, emphasizes that this movie is a bit hollow, and it displays many details that don't necessarily add to the main plot. Which I found crazy, just like the movie itself! (8/10)

Paying Homages, romanticizing cinema, getting into characters, glorifying violence, setting scenes with a captivating dialogue, and displaying delicious food; all the trademarks Tarantino usually boasts are here twice as much as in all his other movies. Considering it's not a Western, or a mere Action film, Inglourious Basterds is quite possibly the most entertaining movie Tarantino has ever made so far, and that's due to many reasons. Besides that it has all common tropes and hallmarks you’ll find, and throughly enjoy, in his movies, Inglourious Basterds is a very unique entry in the extraordinary director's career. The visual style has never become so remarkably striking in any of other Tarantino's movies. From the opening moments, this movie proves that Tarantino is not just a master of dialogue, but also a master of suspense, but in his very own manner. Of course, the dialogue is the most powerful aspect in this scene, and in another suspenseful scene halfway through, but what Tarantino displays doubles down on the impact of suspense in a way you've never seen before; In the most Tarantino way he never showed before that his fans, like me, know very well! The idiosyncratic visual style didn't stop dazzling me with its contribution in suspense, because it simply served at every level. It has a sense of pulp fantasy, and slapstick humor that, oddly, fits with the prevailing tone, maybe because this movie doesn't seem to have a specific tone. And what's more weirder is that the movie never feels inconsistent. The performances here are plainly phenomenal. Thanks to the stellar cast that includes, Christoph Waltz whose Oscar-wining performance made Hans Landa one of the best movie villains of this century so far, Brad Pitt who is the only reason I had some hope of victory against Landa's cunning, and Mélanie Laurent who played Shosanna, one of the most interesting characters I've seen in any film in a while. There are many questions left unanswered about her character, and that's exactly what makes her character so compelling. Michael Fassbender also delivered a brilliant performance as always, most notably in the famous " German accent" scene that was the only great thing in a boring, monotonous Chapter Four that made me feel, for the first time in a Tarantino movie, that the dialogue scenes overstayed their welcome. Speaking of dialogue scenes, this movie has some of the most iconic lines in amazing dialogue scenes thanks, in large part, to Christoph Waltz scene-stealer appearance. That being said, if there is only one of Tarantino's trademarks that I felt was missing while watching this movie, it would be the riveting, seemingly empty talk in a long scene Tarantino is famous for. Don't get me wrong, I said more than once that this movie has some of the most iconic lines, and some of the most clever dialogues ever put to film, but, as a Tarantino fan, I felt that something is missing in these dialogue scenes, and I found that it's the long talk that explores the character, and delve deeper in his personality and psyche. Another issue, and this time I mean a real issue, I've with this movie is its ending, its very ending. While it couldn't be more satisfying to watch, I found defeating Hans Landa by fooling him in such easy way is completely absurd, and totally contradicts with all the antagonist's wits and slyness. For me, that was very hard to swallow. Inglourious Basterds looks pretty good. As a matter of fact, I think it has the best cinematography among all the other Tarantino films. Mostly because of the nifty classic use of shadows and lights that matches perfectly the setting of the movie. Adding to that, Inglourious Basterds also has a killer soundtrack. Inglourious Basterds is a maniac, thrill ride that has one of the best cast ensemble ever put to film. It's a rare case when a director's self-indulgence causes more good than harm. It's a classic Tarantino! (8.5/10)

It's undoubtedly bigger and better than the original; it has a more cohesive, and convincing plot, more compelling story, and more doses of thrills. This sequel also expands this ravishing universe of criminals and assassins to another level with more rules, bigger scope and reach. It also emphasizes on the titular character's charm as well as Keanu Reeves's charm. But it's also undoubtedly less entertaining than the original; it has "more of the same" choreographed action set-pieces, which , of course, don't feel as fresh as they were in its predecessor. But it still nothing short of pure fun. Another issue I've with this movie is that the denouement is a bit messy, and longer than it should be. All in all, John Wick: Chapter 2 is one hell of a ride that with its exceptional pulp flick make almost every other pulp action flick seems nothing more than a cash grab! (8.5/10)

Aside from the committed, and decent performances from the entire cast, most notably from Evan Peters who proves that he's one of the most talented young actors around, it's the movie's third act that made me barely like American Animals. The last act has some of the best hold-your-breath scenes I've seen this year. Case in point, the entire robbery sequence that really got on my nerves. Due to the impeccable editing, especially the sound editing in the mentioned scene, the movie left me mostly satisfied despite all its flaws, or maybe it's only one grave flaw that causes the others. Fine acting, superb editing, perfect use of the soundtrack, and good cinematography. That's all the good this movie has throughout its entire runtime. So let's talk about the issues I've with American Animals. For starters, using the documentary style, and showing different opinions is a risky decision that if it was used wrong would be nothing but a cheap gimmick to get the attention. I, Tonya used a similar technique last year and it was good for the most part, I actually thought it would have been better if it made much use of it, but here it wasn't just useless, and didn't add to the characters, or serve the plot, but it also was very distracting and off-putting. The second issue is that the movie never settles on one way to tell its story. It starts using this documentary style, which I thought it was interesting and promising at first, then the movie almost neglected this style or rather the most interesting part of it which is the different point of views, and what we got were some interrupting scenes of the real four young men explaining and justifying what they were feeling at these particular moments, and why they were doing so. I mean really! Is that how to tell a story, and develop the characters?! The planning for the heist, and collecting the gang were kinda interesting. But after that, the movie chose a formulaic way to keep going; such as, the let-downs, and the regrets. And while these phase showed glimpses of adding real depth to the characters, a thing that was almost made me ignore the clichés, almost every dramatic moments felt forced, and the movie just didn't give enough time or prepared for these potentially affective scenes. Let alone the interrupting documentary that did nothing but preventing me from being invested even for a moment. Comparing what I've praised to what I've criticized, I usually would a movie like this 3 stars, 6 to 6.5 out of 10, but this above-mentioned robbery scene blew me away. It has Fincher's rebelliousness, and Aronofsky's uneasiness mixed together but without being offensive. With that said, I can't give American Animals less than.... (7/10)

Amélie's quirkiness, Tarantino's violence and gore, interesting characters, intriguing plot, profound philosophical questions, and insanely cool action sequences made this gut-wrenching revenge tale the most gripping, entertaining, and enthralling movie of its kind, except it's actually one of a kind! Amid the gruesome scenes, and the brutal fight sequences, Oldboy has a very emotionally devastating story. Chan-wook Park could have easily leaned on nothing but the action and the gore to grab the viewers' attention from the beginning. Instead, he knew that if there is anything that can attract the attention of the audience, and make them invested in the protagonist as fast as possible, it would be a thoughtful moral philosophy mingled with a sentimental story. That's how Chan-wook Park captivated the viewers from the opening scene until he evoked a catharsis in the audience at the traumatic third act. Flawless is a very weak, and unsatisfying word to describe the third act. It's simply look like nothing you've seen before, or even you'll see. With its twist reveal, to the outrageous and shocking visceral images, the third act is provocative, distressful, and utterly maddening. But nothing would have worked in it, and in the entire movie as a whole without Min-sik Choi's kinetic multi-layered performance. The fact that this movie didn't get a single Oscar nod, at least for Min-sik Choi's incredible performance, is as infuriating as the movie itself. For me, Min-sik Choi delivered one of the best performances in the past decade. Yes, I would easily put his performance alongside Adrien Brody's in The Pianist, Leonardo DiCaprio in The Aviator, Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood, and Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight. But all that thanks to Chan-wook Park who allowed Min-sik Choi to show all his talent challenging him, and his pathetic, Dae-su Oh. What is truly impressive is how Chan-wook Park put us in Dae-su Oh's shoes by changing the tone, so gracefully, to resemble how the protagonist feels. The movie starts off with flashes of dark humor matching how mazed and lost the character feels. Then, when things become more clearer and clearer the tone becomes darker and darker till the climax when the movie became acutely distressing and dreary. Nevertheless, these tonal changes didn't work very well at the second act. Not because the tonal shift wasn't smooth, nor it came abruptly, but because that was the time when our protagonist, as well as us, discovering clues, and collecting pieces to get the whole picture. The whole act was very convoluted, for better or worse, but the thing is that the pacing was madly rushed resembling Dae-su Oh's confusion and ignorance. Not to mention, there were some sequences where we get to know about some very important characters, and some specifics related to them. Adding insult to injury, some of these details could be passed up, because they are simply not that important. The result is that the movie almost lost me a couple of times. I mean that I really lose track of some small details. Oldeuboi is a very powerful, thought-provoking, and visceral film, and that's because what it implies more than what it depicts. I think it's the first Korean film I watch, and it definitely won't be the last. Just help me with some recommendations, if you wouldn't mind! :) (8.5/10)

“Ridiculous! All this over a can of tuna!” This movie is HILARIOUS! I haven't laughed this hard in a while. In the surface, My Cousin Vinny seems to be a small easy-going comedy movie with a fish-out-of-water/mistaken identity story, and that's exactly how should you see it to enjoy it, but that doesn't mean it's just that kind of a movie. This movie doesn't just have some smart jokes, and funny characters, but it's a clever, and kinda profound movie at its core. The way the sub-plots are connected to the character arc of Vinny, and how they reflect his development, and express his feelings, reminded me of the Coen Bros. quite a bit, but, of course, in a much lighter way. The funny misfortunes of Vinny are purely Coen-esque! And of course that means that the movie has a moral, and it's really an impressive, and sorta useful, one. It's a message about changing for better; a message about the indifference and how it's unprofitable, and even harmful. As I mentioned that it's better to watch the movie as a comedy and nothing else, I did that and I think My Cousin Vinny almost excels on so many levels as a comedy. From the clever jokes, to the comical slap-stick direction style, to the both oddball and reasonable characters, I found myself enjoying every moment in the movie, and laugh constantly throughout its runtime. Joe Pesci and Marisa Tomei's chemistry is just unparalleled! Needless to say that they delivered some of their best performances in their rich career bringing their already well-composed and well-designed characters to life. Especially Mona Lisa Vito, played by Marisa Tomei that I found she really has some depth that can rarely be found in comedy movies. She's a round character; stubborn, kinda sassy, yet smart and sensitive... and she's cute, too! Mitchell Whitfield and Ralph Macchio, who played the two young New Yorkers, are also very good; they have a good chemistry as well, and their reactions to the misunderstanding at the beginning are hysterically funny. The third act that take place in the courtroom is more serious, but that definitely doesn't mean it doesn't contain jokes or lack of humor. In addition to that, it has prepared for it very well. What surprised me is that I found the third act could be the most intriguing part of the movie. Due to the smartness of the script, the dialogue is pretty sharp, the denouement is surprisingly convincing, and the jokes this time is more clever because they rely on the writing and the acting, not the direction. I mean in a large part, obviously. The dramatic moments at the let-downs, however, seem very forced, and didn't work for me at all. They really could have been balanced with the comical tone of the movie way better than that. The plot could seem a bit familiar, but the content, and many details feel so fresh you almost can't notice this familiarity except when the credits roll. I want to praise Jonathan Lynn's classic visual style of comedy, but it's better to be seen to be appreciated. Please do yourself a favor, and watch this hidden, underappreciated gem. (9/10)

American History X has one of the most compelling stories I've seen in movies in a while. It's a gut-wrenching, and heartbreaking story. But Tony Kaye's powerful and challenging direction is what made the movie so provocative. The movie also proves that Edward Norton has a huge talent that, unfortunately, has been wasted. Norton delivered the performance of his career in this movie. A performance that elevated the entire movie. While Derek Vinyard, Norton's character, has the most powerful lines in the movie, they wouldn't have been as powerful as they are without Edward Norton's staggering delivering. Also, Edward Norton's performance may be the only thing that remained sharp and solid throughout the whole movie. Because aside from Norton's riveting and smart monologues, the dialogue in this movie, especially at the first two acts, is so weak and often cheesy! The things got better at the last act but at that time I was wondering why the dialogue wasn't that good most of the movie. It's really baffling because the movie needed badly to have a decent and strong dialogue from its beginning, considering its subject matter. The dialogue often was too on the nose and preachy while it should have served its already gripping story. That also made some scenes in the movie feel so awkward and heavy-handed. The dialogue isn't the only, or the biggest issue I've with American History X. As I think that everything related to the Neo **** gang is completely underdeveloped. All the characters of the members of this gang are one-dimensional characters. They are totally undeveloped and bland, and almost have no depth. Which is a shame because they play a pivotal part in the story. They are part of the main plot, so to speak. Besides that balancing between two contradictory aspects of the story, Tony Kaye with his mixture of black & white history contrasting with colorful reality is magic to absorb and shows this film up to be what it is. Smoothly moving camera in the scenes in Black and White that are set in the past to convey an unsettling feeling, and bleak and restrained colored scenes to match the dystopian-like present. American History X also has one of the most shocking endings ever. But its ambiguity is what makes it more dreadful. It's an ending that can make you question the protagonist's fate, and that's more than horrifying! (8/10)

How on earth there is a space for sympathetic characters, terrific performances, coherent drama, comedy, miraculously connected storylines, logical sense in such a bizarre lengthy mess of a movie? Wait a second! .... am I not describing humans and their lives? Blending realism with surrealism, Magnolia is one of Paul Thomas Anderson's works and ,definitely, his most ambitious one. Every story is as rich and intriguing as their characters. Stories that are harmoniously told, and embellished with Aimee Mann's heavenly soundtrack. The result is a three-hour epic mosaic devoid of any moment of boredom. I think Donnie Smith's story, William H. Macy's character, is the most profound and the richest one. Nevertheless, it's also the most poorly told one, comparing it to the others. It could have been explored more. I wish I was as invested in it as I respected it after it ended. Also, the movie could have been less on exposition in terms of characters a little bit more. Because I think what I've seen from the fantastic acting and the masterful use of symbolism are more than enough to make everything clear. That being said, these issues are almost indiscernible, and it was difficult for me to notice them. Magnolia is not my favorite PTA film, but hands down it's the most entertaining one despite its long runtime. (9/10)

Just from the opening sequence, and Philip Seymour Hoffman's fantastic villain I knew that this one is gonna erase John Woo's dull sequel from my memory. MI III is incredibly fast-paced that there is almost no downtime. However, that didn't stop the emotional stakes from working. It also has breathtaking action set-pieces, cool stunts, dazzling special effects, twisty-turny plot that kept me thinking throughout its entire runtime. Its plot is twisted and convoluted yet, unlike the first installment, never confusing. Instead it's actually so clever and thought-provoking. Everything kept turning upside down, and I enjoyed that! Also this movie has an awesome cast. Besides Tom cruise who did his best as always, the cast includes Philip Seymour Hoffman who made a fantastic villain that, in my opinion, we didn't need any more depth to his character as long as what we have more than enough to serve the plot. Michelle Monaghan is great as Julia. Ving Rhames is badass as usual. Also I think Laurence Fishburne was a pleasant addition to the franchise. Simon Pegg didn't have much screen time, but the couple scenes he was in are pure GOLD! Loved how the score fits the action scenes perfectly, and the cinematography also is very good, although I had some difficulties while watching with the excessive use of close-ups. The wrap-up could have been a little bit more convincing, but it's fine nonetheless. Overall, I can say that J.J. Abrams saved the franchise after the clumsy second installment that was trying to make a James Bond out of Ethan Hunt. I also think Mission: Impossible III is one of the most entertaining and ,sadly, underrated action movies ever made. (9/10)

An old-school kinda goofy gangster flick is never what you think it would be when there is a remarkable filmmaker like Brian De Palma behind the camera. Alongside with Spielberg's Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Untouchables proves that old-style action movies is far from being dated. In fact, they are nothing but timeless. The Untouchables is a deeply entertaining cop/mob movie. But what made it stand the test of time, besides its A-List cast, is its unique, and exceptional direction by none other than Brian De Palma. There is no shortage of De Palma's trademarks and his own visual style, nor his way of creating the tension that shouldn't be considered far behind Hitchcock's. But I don't think I've been shocked so many times in a movie before like here. The Untouchables's zany humor and wackiness can't make you think for a moment that it can be so brutal like that. It's like you know you're watching a PG-13 movie then all of a sudden comes a ruthless scene filled with gore and blood. But what impressed me the most in this movie is how Brian De Palma simply could made us think "The Untouchables" are very touchable, and their mission is impossible to be done just by showing us a scene featuring the pure evil, Al Capone. De Niro's lunatic over-the-top performance was more than enough to make the viewers feel worry as much as the titular team. The issues I've with this movie are with the silly and ridiculous nature of this movie. Yes, this very thing that I've praised above. Because halfway through the movie I think De Palma went too far making the movie's tone so absurd and ludicrous that you have to turn my brain off, while the movie didn't ask me to do so. Especially when the movie contains some very serious and emotional moments that worked so well on their own. So I felt there is a lot of inconsistency, and the tone could have been balanced way better. That being said, I enjoyed the entire movie even its brainless moments. It would be unnecessary to mention that all the performances are superb. But Kevin Costner's performance helped flesh out his character, Eliot Ness. Speaking of which, all the characters are well-established, and have enough depth to serve the plot and to make you care about them. The end is a little bit rushed, and could seem implausible for some. But I think it makes all the sense looking back on all what have been established throughout the movie. The Untouchables is not Scarface, but it offers a genuine entertainment that can't be resist. Can't wait to see more of De Palma's work, let alone Domino that will be released later this year. (8.5/10)

-"She's only four. how could she understand that?" -"I'm older than time, and I still don't understand" Warm, delightful, and so sweet. Maybe even be so sweet for its own good at the beginning. But no one can resist this movie's charm. Its cheerful and light-hearted tone may make you think you're watching Paddington! The Guernsey Literary & Potato Peel Pie Society is also a well-made film. It has a great performances, specially from Penelope Wilton as Amelia who has some of the movie's most powerful lines. Yes, this movie is also has some very strong lines that could stick in your head. But they are even more powerful when you're invested in the characters. Mike Newell used only the flashback technique to unravel the story of the titular society, and there's no doubt he could have taken a riskier and more challenging way to do so. But the result is nothing short of impressive. I always wanted to know more and more about the members and their story, and I loved how I was getting minor details piece by piece like I was collecting a jigsaw puzzle. I cared about all the side characters. Thanks to the solid script, each one of these characters was so intriguing to know about. But I would that Juliet Ashton, our protagonist, is well-wrought character as much as the minor characters. Don't get me wrong, I cared about the character so much, and her romantic sub-plot and relationships in the story, but it's her background that I found unfulfilling and half-baked. We didn't get to know anything about her past, except from a very very short, and poorly-shot flashback at the beginning. But it's not just because the fact I felt it's unsatisfying that the main character lacks a well-established background, it's also because I did need that at some point in the movie. That being said, Lily James delivered a nice performance, and she was as charming as always. There are also some things that I think are a bit hard to swallow. Things like "I don't know exactly how he, or she knew about that but let's go on anyway." The movie looks gorgeous in general. It has a beautiful cinematography, a decent production design, and top-notch costume design that fits perfectly the movie's setting. Also, I loved the music, and it's also as traditional as the movie itself. (7.5/10)

The Intouchables' story could be familiar to anybody, even to those who haven't seen a lot of movies. Almost every phase, and every point in this movie is so conventional and unoriginal. However, this movie is very remarkable! That's because it surpasses all the feel-good movies of its kind. Needless to mention the high-class direction from Olivier Nakache and Eric Toledano that made this movie exceptional. Thanks to this superb direction, The Intouchables delivers broad laughs and tugs at the heartstrings without delving too deep, or present anything new. Sometimes the movie becomes so hilarious, and other times you couldn't help shedding some tears, often, of joy! The best thing about this movie that it kept its lighter tone throughout its runtime. The tonal shift when the movie moves from its second to its third act wasn't smooth, though. That being said, you will never find any movie of this kind that has half its magical moments. The friendship between Philippe and Driss is simply unparalleled. That's, of course, due to the insanely magnetic chemistry between Omar Sy and François Cluzet. I bet you can find such chemistry in any other movie of the same kind. The soundtrack is perfectly utilized to match the movie's bright tone. And the cinematography is beautiful, but what I think made the movie looks spectacular is its fancy production design. The third act is definitely a bit rushed but I feel like the ending more than makes up for it. This ending could be the sweetest and most charming ending ever. You couldn't decide if you should cry or laugh, but don't worry because you would do both. (8/10)

There is a lot to like about The Rider; The cinematography is gorgeous, with a lot of shots showing the treeless meadows that reflect the protagonist's feeling of loss and emptiness. Brady Jandreau's acting is so genuine and honest. There are some truly great moments that will make you instantly engaged with every character in them. I don't even want to say anything about these scenes, I don't even want to mention the characters they include, because they are unbelievably effective and very poignant. The movie's message of perseverance and determination also should be considered and appreciated. The grave issue I have with this movie is its tone. I love character-driven stories, because they make me close to the main character. In other words, they put me in the protagonist's shoes, or even make me inside his mind. But The Rider's tone is so lifeless, and the story is almost uneventful. Of course, the movie should reflect the gloominess and bleakness of its subject matter, but the tone doesn't pick up even when the story do. Add to that, the movie lacks in dramatic intensity. Aside from some very touching scenes that can break your heart even if you haven't seen the entire film, the movie is so boring and phlegmatic. Honestly, I was bored most of the time while watching it. The dialogue also could have been better. it's so weak and clichéd. All the performances are good, especially Brady Jandreau as Brady Blackburn, except for the actor who played his dad. His acting is very weak as his bland and flat character. I had mixed feelings about The Rider. I found it monotonous, and I was bored to death. Nevertheless, I cared about the main character and almost every character around it, I appreciated its message, I was fascinated by its stunning cinematography, and I adored its tear-jerking ending. (7/10)

I'm not a fan of Baseball. Actually, I don't even know anything about this game. I'm also not a big fan of Sports movies in general. Also, this movie has a generic story that could have easily made Moneyball already dated. That's why I putted this movie off for a very long time, and I really regret doing that. Director Bennett Miller, along with screenwriters, Steven Zaillian, and Aaron Sorkin took a story that sounds uninteresting and turned it into an enjoyable movie that is funny, intense, and very touching in equal measure. I didn't know that Aaron Sorkin co-wrote the script but I felt his touches while watching the movie till I became completely sure that he co-wrote its script even before I check that out. The dialogue is so smart and sharp, and Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill were both great, especially Brad Pitt, and they had an incredible chemistry that made the dialogue even more captivating. Let's face it, no director-screenwriter collaboration can beat Fincher-Sorkin's one. But that , by no means, means that Bennett Miller didn't do a great job directing this movie. Besides the fact that he made a very good-looking movie, he captured some truly magical cinematic moments that can stick in my head for a very long time. A very long sequence near the end, in particular, that is about ten minutes is easily one of the most riveting and gripping sequences I've ever watched. I was literally on the edge of my seat sweating, and putting my hands on head. It was really stressful and exhausting to watch. Also, the moments Billy Beane, Pitt's character, has with his daughter are just delightful to watch. Nevertheless, Moneyball's problem, IMO, is that it's a bit boring! Its runtime is 133 min, and the movie definitely could have been way shorter. The problem is that there is too much talk that I really wasn't interested in, and most importantly, didn't need to. The movie lost me sometimes at the middle and the very end. Billy Beane is a well-written and grounded character that brought to life by Brad Pitt's Oscar-nominated performance. It had a lot of development, and it was a very interesting character. That being said, I felt that his backstory isn't complete. I think it was interesting at the beginning, but then the movie just ignored his past. As a result, I felt like there was something is missing in this character. The movie actually did keep advancing his backstory forward in a way that connect very well with the ongoing events of the movie, but that, unfortunately, didn't happen after the first act anymore. Overall, I loved Moneyball so much, and enjoyed watching it quiet a bit, and I didn't even think that I was going to like it. (8/10)

Well, I'm so glad I sold my Budgies and **** before I watch this movie. Because this was pretty darn disturbing! The Birds finds Hitchcock at his very best building up the tension and creating suspense. The way the minor details are revealed in this movie is enough to make you glued to the screen throughout the whole movie, but I already know that Hitchcock is the best in doing this. What I didn't know before watching this movie is that The Master of Suspense is also a Master of Symbolism! Many people consider The Birds as one of Hitchcock most modest films, even some of his fans. I can see why, and it's simply because the movie seems that it left a lot of very important questions unanswered. I said it seems because it really did answer these questions symbolically. I won't spoil anything for those who haven't seen this gem yet, but I'll just point that the key to all these questions is a very important character and everything related to it. Just try to think which character the movie gave it a lot of exposition, and you'll easily understand the whole movie. And there is where I've an issue with The Birds. I think it gives a lot of explanations to this character that we don't necessarily need to because the movie expose some details what have already been revealed before. That being said, all characters are well-grounded, compelling, interesting, and necessary to the plot. All the performances were excellent, specially from Tippi Hedren who played the movie's protagonist. She is a wonderful actress, and her performance in this movie is nothing short of endearing. She is as charming as Audrey Hepburn! Some few decisions the characters made, may be one or two, are not so subtle, but the execution of the results to these decisions is what annoyed me a little bit. The characters seemed forced to fall into the trap. Although there is some blood and gore in this movie, Alfred Hitchcock proves again that what the scenes imply can be way more brutal than what they show. The scenes when the titular creatures attack are very painful to watch. Adding insult to injury, the birds acquire a metaphorical complexity that is as distressing as their beaks! Overall, The Birds is a very underrated Hitchcock film that doesn't lack any of Hitchcock's unparalleled brilliance. Also it would make a great companion to Hitchcock's most famous work, Psycho! (9/10)

DP2 goes bigger than the first in every sense, but also somewhat better. The plot is more convoluted yet way more convincing and focused. The story itself is more thrilling. The pacing is impeccable. The script also gave all the characters a fair share of screen time and importance that will make you thoroughly invested in them, specially the old characters. In contrast to the original, the villains are very compelling and potent; because their motives are way more plausible, but most importantly more clear. Deadpool 2 is also more heavier in meta jokes, and that's where "bigger" doesn't necessarily mean "better". Honestly, this movie has more creative and funnier jokes that you'd never believe they could exist, but the element of shock and awe can’t be put back into its bottle. The result is a smarter, and quite funny, jokes that don't work as well as the original's. The action is very good, and that's very frustrating! David Leitch is one of the best action film directors who work today, because he make design action sequences and stunt work that can't be forgotten; some of John Wick and Atomic Blonde's action sequences still stick in my mind. However in this film, Leitch made enjoyable action sequences, but totally forgettable. What surprised me in this movie is that it has a strong emotional impact that is rare to be in a superhero movie. Some scenes are really touching and emotionally devastating. All in all, I think Deadpool 2 is a slight improvement upon its predecessor, but it proves again that Ryan Reynolds as Wade WIlson/Deadpool is one of the best superhero casting choices ever along with Hugh Jackman as Logan/Wolverine, and Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man. Also, this mid-credits scene is simply the best and coolest mid-credits scene ever put to film! (8.5/10)

Wasting this review in praising the magnetic performances from the leads, James Dean, Natalie Wood, and Sal Mineo, or the exceptional chemistry between them, would be an insult to this brilliant piece of work. All I can say about what Nicholas Ray achieved in this film that he created a dystopian parallel world where all teenagers are completely devastated because of their dysfunctional families. But you can almost completely relate to all the characters, and that's because Ray used the stereotypical forms to make how his teenager characters look on the surface. For instance, you can see how they bully each other in the most typical way, and that's why when you will reach the end of the first act, you might think that some things and some small details haven't aged well in this movie, while it's not exactly the case. In fact, when you finish watching this movie you may think that it's actually ahead of its time! The major three characters have motivations that were, and still, unprecedented. Above that, they are three-dimensional characters, and fully fleshed-out that can be studied. Of course, Stewart Stern's screenplay is one of the main reasons for bringing these characters to life. He gave them some incredible lines that should be described as jaw-dropping, to say the least! Because my jaw literally dropped every time Jim Stark try to interact with his father, not to mention a couple other times. have kept repeating: THIS IS GENIUS! The adult characters are intentionally dull to serve the movie's plot, but that doesn't mean that the actors who portray them should give a dull performances. I really found almost every actor/actress' acting who play the dad or mom is very poor and monotonous, despite how great their characters are written. Also, the editing in this movie could be the worst editing I've ever seen in film. The jump-cuts between one scene to another are unbelievably terrible. You have to see it to believe how bad is it! Rebel Without a Cause will never age because it doesn't present the '50s juvenile attitude per se, but instead it shows us how the juvenile would behave if their parents' issues have a great, and more dangerous effect on them. Still don't know how on earth James Dean didn't get an Oscar nod for this role, though! (8.5/10)

IT'S THE FUNNY, SATIRICAL, WHIMSICAL, QUIRKY YET SO WARM AND TOUCHING. A COMBINATION THAT INSPIRED SOME OF THE GREATEST FILMMAKERS SUCH AS WOODY ALLEN AND WES ANDERSON, AND ABOVE ALL THAT IT'S A HUMAN STUDY THAT WILL NEVER AGE. (8.5/10) NOW, IT'S ONE OF MY ALL-TIME FAVORITE FILMS

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Her. Both of these movies have style, themes, or ideas which are similar to that Lost in Translation has. Therefore, either of them would make perfect bittersweet double feature with Lost in Translation. And I loved these two movies so much; however, I have some issues with each one of them. Don't get me wrong; Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind's script is more genuine and creative, but the main issue I have with it is that it lost its balance between humor and subtle pathos at some point. Lost in Translation, by contrast, doesn't have this problem. In fact, the perfect balance between humor and melancholy. The movie deals with heavy themes such as loneliness, insomnia, emptiness, existential crisis, and more hefty themes, but nonetheless the movie never feels gloomy or bleak. Actually there are some funny moments due to the movie's smart dialogue that made me laugh many times. As for Her, I think it is a very unique, and has an idiosyncratic style and screenplay, except for its third act. It chose a familiar and conventional way to end its one-of-a-kind story. That didn't just disappointed me, but that also made the movie feels inconsistent near the end. For a moment, I felt that Sofia Coppola would make the same mistake in Lost in Translation. That's because at some point at the third there was a scene that feels if it sets a subplot that would end the movie in a stereotypical way. And I think this was an unnecessary and manipulative. Also, this is the only main issue I have with Lost in Translation. This movie is bittersweet, but its ending is Just Like Honey! Both Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson at the top of their games. They may gave their best performances in their respective career. Scarlett Johansson did a great job in playing the Philosophy graduate Charlotte who is twenty-something. I felt she's really at this age. As for Bill Murray, his role is far more complicated, and he just killed it! I've never seen him giving such a powerful serious performance. His character suffers from something like a midlife crisis, and there are many great actors played characters like this before. But Murray's terrific comedic abilities adds to this character, and made it more complex, yet more amiable. Aside from the fact that this movie looks gorgeous, it's exquisitely directed by the talented director, Sofia Coppola. Just try to notice the visual tools, how they work, and utilized, and what they imply. You will find out that Lost in Translation is a well-directed as it's a well-written film, maybe the direction is what deserves the highest praise. Also, the movie is consistent in tone. As I mentioned, the balance between between humor and sadness, and while the smart screenplay has a major in that, the meticulous direction has a role that isn't, by any means, less important. The soundtrack is sweetly hypnotic! This is now one of my favorite soundtracks put in film. The words of every song match the current state in every different phase in the movie. I loved Lost in Translation so much! I can't praise it highly enough, or maybe I can, it's Manhattan of the 21st century! (9/10)

The movie has a familiar story and simple dialogue, and this is not a problem by any means, yet it's technically impressive. Sweet Country is a visually stunning film. The cinematography in this movie is similar to Mudbound's, but it's even more beautiful! Actually, it has the best cinematography of the year, so far! And while the movie looks poetic, the same goes for the storytelling. It reminded me of Days of Heaven. As a matter of fact, you may feel if you're watching a Terrence Malick film, except it's more fast-paced. The similarity between Sweet Country and Malick's movies don't stop there. As Warwick Thornton used symbolism in Sweet Country in a way that resembles Malick's use of symbolism. By that I mean the use of allegories and symbols in a beautiful way that feels literary or poetic. Unfortunately, the use of symbols in Sweet Country often feels superfluous, and completely unnecessary. Sweet Country is masterly edited, and I think that what makes it very watchable, and often enjoyable despite its poetic style that may indispose some people. Thornton used intercut flash-forwards and flashbacks heavily. And while sometimes they help us understanding some events that happened, or will happen, therefore build tension, they often seem like nothing but artistic frippery, specially when they are used to make the movie seem if it has a non-linear storytelling. Sweet Country also should be praised for its non-sentimental approach to its message. Unlike other movies that tackle the same subject matter, Sweet Country doesn't dramatize any aspect of its story. The movie even doesn't have a soundtrack, and that makes it feel more realistic. The movie relies on its bleak and dreary atmosphere to imply its subject matter and moral instead of presenting them in the usual manner. All the performances are good. Hamilton Morris' performance is impressive because it feels genuine. Sam Neill is also very good even if his character, Fred Smith, is underdeveloped. Fred Smith is a very important character and should have been more developed, but unfortunately, it's a very flat character. In general, the movie has some issues in terms of its characters. The movie has too many characters for its own good. And the movie tries to give almost every character its fair share of importance. In the end, Sweet Country a movie of visuals first and foremost, it could hardly be more visually impressive. But, to be honest, it's a very pretentious work. (7/10)

I finally got to watch this movie. It really was on my radar for a very very long time. The movie's story is not unconventional by any means, but thanks to Levinson's smart direction, Ronald Bass' powerful script that adds a lot of fresh details, and the terrific performances from the leads, Rain Man feels very original. In fact, I can even see how the ending would be from the beginning, but that didn't make the slightest issue for me. Barry Levinson presented the movie in a way that manages to generate emotion in their audience without ever feeling melodramatic. That's because Levinson avoided many clichés, the most important one of them is the typical way of storytelling. Instead of making a movie that relies on drama, he made road-trip movie that produces a catharsis of emotions more than you would ever imagine. As a matter of fact, the movie feels as if it has a character-driven story, except it's actually not. And the result is a movie that has a very restricted and bound plot, but it never feels that way. While watching the movie, I felt that I can't expect anything. I felt as if I was watching a movie with a picaresque tale, but it's actually far from being that. Unlike Wag the Dog, Rain Man has a lot of memorable moments that will stay with you forever. In other words, Barry Levinson made Rain Man feels more cinematic than Wag the Dog. But I'll say it again, the movie never feels overly sentimental. Dustin Hoffman gave one of the Best Performances in his career, but I really can't say if he had deserved the Oscar more than Tom Hanks in Big or not. Tom Cruise's performance is really what stands out in my opinion. I think he gave one of, if not his best performance ever. I don't want to spoil anything for who haven't watched this wonderful film yet, but there are a lot of scenes that show Cruise's acting abilities, and prove that he is underappreciated as an actor who really can deliver some exceptional dramatic performances, not just doing incredible stunts and running. I think he deserved to be nominated for an Oscar at the least. That being said, I have some issues with Rain Man. The first one is that the beginning was a bit rushed and very fast-paced for its own good. Specially because the drama kicks off very early, and the movie should have taken its time to represent it. The entire message of the movie has been literally revealed near the end by Tom Cruise, so that's an obvious, and a bit annoying problem. Also, the ending could have been a little bit shorter. However, the last 15-20 minutes has some of the smartest, and most powerful dialogue ever written. And it also has the most intense and moving moments in the movie. The moments that show Raymond math prowess were very hilarious and funny at the beginning, then they became kinda overused, but after that they were taken advantage of very cleverly. Overall, I loved Rain Man so much, and I really don't know why there are many people who think it didn't deserve the Oscar for Best Picture. It's meticulously written, impressively directed, beautifully shot, superbly acted, engaging, moving, touching, and above all that, it's very enjoyable. Also, Zimmer's score is electrifying! (8.5/10)

With a heavy-handed dialogue that includes a lot of repeated lines, excessive use of slow motion technique, awkward romantic scenes, cringe-worthy melodramatic moments, tons of clichés, sequences that exist for nothing but manipulating, familiar plot, clumsy resolution, and nonsensical decisions. John Woo's MI II is more like a cheesy 007 movie that hasn't aged well. Even the "impossible mission" here lacks the tension the original has. Adding insult to injury, it is followed by a long boring scene that I almost fell asleep during it. On the bright side, the last 20 minutes of the movie feature some of the best over-the-top action sequences I've seen in the this century. I'm not kidding, the action set pieces are staggering that I was about to forget how silly this movie is! Also, the opening scenes that came before opening titles were kinda promising, and showed some cool technological equipments and devices. It goes without saying that Tom Cruise is charming as ever specially with this Magnolia long hair. (5/10)