deck

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

The film suffers from that typical, monotonous CGI look where the entire image is just one big muddy mess. And honestly, I’d had enough within the first five minutes. Two-plus hours of that unnatural imagery? No thanks! Washed-out colors on CGI trees, heavy noise across the entire frame, light blooming around light sources, artificial color artifacts throughout the image, and excessive soft-focusing on the computer-generated objects.

I must confess that I didn't finish watching the film; the story has simply been told too many times, in too many different variations. Moreover, what I *did* see gave me the impression that I wasn't watching a finished product. I really enjoy watching Denzel Washington, but in this instance, I got the feeling that he just wasn't into it. Perhaps that was down to the role itself, but I felt he lacked the coldness that defines the character—and the music scene in general. Everything felt so slick. Is that really how it is? At the same time, I believe there is still a wealth of potential there—if only the people involved and the producers had a little more courage. The stories are out there; you just have to pick them up, turn on the camera, and show things as they are—or as they were. No CGI. No millions.

If one were to answer "Yes" to the question that might arise at the end of the film, one would then have to ask oneself whether it was brilliant or simply abysmal. For me, it was abysmal. But that aside, objectively speaking, the viewer is the fool—the one who has just been subjected to an attempt at moral instruction, and in a manner that felt rather unpleasant as far back as 1992 with the film *Toys*. Unfunny. Uncreative. Clumsy. Unlike *Toys*, however, this film lacks a consistent surrealist thread. The hints appear only sporadically—here and there—before finally and unpleasantly erupting in a finale that drags on for far too long. And then, of course, there is the absence of that magnificent cast from *Toys*. And when Sam Rockwell first wanders onto the screen? That is your cue to hit the button. The off switch.

While fundamentally promising, the film fails to present its subject matter in a believable and dramatically compelling way. It consistently lacks a feel for visual composition and pacing. Furthermore, the film repeatedly overshadows the characters, leaving it unclear whose story is actually being told.

Unbelievable, boring, poorly acted, poorly written, insubstantial, and once again overlong. Ryland Grace wakes up in space and has nothing better to do than dress as coolly as possible. Why not, right? How did it come to this...? Then the flashback. Yawn, not even trying to be funny, just plain unfunny. The completely woke Ryland then makes a discovery in space, and it doesn't get any better. A buddy movie that not only borrows audiovisually from Interstellar but copies it outright. Worse. It's all been done before, everything is overdone, the film never finds the right tone. Ryan Gosling doesn't carry the film. Not in the slightest. Save yourself and your time.

The pinnacle of 90s action films. Cyberpunk meets kung fu, meets gunfights with groundbreaking special effects.Story-wise, probably one of the worst franchises Hollywood has ever produced, attempting to patch up its numerous plot holes with spin-offs and sequels.

The positives first: the film is well-produced and the first 20 minutes are fantastic. After that, it's all downhill. For over two hours (why?), the viewer is tortured with explanatory dialogue and subjected to a pointless and poorly acted plot by big names who clearly couldn't be bothered. With a story like that, who's surprised? A waste of time.

Unfortunately, this is one of Jason Statham's bad films and is not worth watching. The dialogue and action are sleep-inducing.

It might have been a nice idea for a plot. Unfortunately, that's all they made of it. Nothing works here. The jokes fall flat, the CGI looks like it's from 2000, the visuals are like any other studio film from the last 20 years, the characters and story are unbelievable, and of course, as expected, this utterly worthless film is distracted by pointless violence. This movie is a complete waste of time.

Almost nothing about this film works. Story, dialogue, costumes, CGI, music, and even the big names can't make it even remotely exciting or believable. This utter mess, where nothing fits together, is filled—as you might expect—with brutal scenes of violence, and they're not even particularly good. A complete waste of time.

A rather unexciting and boring plodding film. The dialogue and characters lack bite, edge, and depth. At times, it reminded me of Lorne Malvo from Fargo... but only half as good. You're not missing anything here.

It's a real shame, because it was absolutely fantastic until the very end, and then the author maybe ruins it with a ****. I just don't understand this need for explanation anymore. Two hours of perfect, mind-blowing fun, up until then 8/10, and then this completely pointless trend of producing overly long films. Stop it.

Like its predecessor, this film has absolutely nothing to do with "28," except that it's by the same author. The sheer embarrassment with which he parodies his own work is astonishing. Even the opening sequence, in which children slash each other with knives, is so incredibly gruesome and tasteless that it makes you want to vomit. Anyone who finances and produces something like this has completely lost all sense of what's acceptable. It's truly the worst kind of trash, and I hope it's the last film Nia and Alex ever make.

Dramatically, nothing here works. First dramatic, then erotic, then creepy, and then slapstick. The completely inappropriate slapstick, in particular, ruins the film entirely. And the man behind the mask fails miserably as an actor right from his first scene as Dracula—it's appalling. Not to mention the details that are an insult to the audience, with CGI on par with the 90s. But despite the criticism, you can watch the film for 50 minutes until they start dancing; at that point, you should turn it off and put on Nosferatu instead.

Technically, the film is okay. If you're into macabre thrillers with a gross-out factor, you'll find it entertaining. Suspenseful? Mostly.From a critical, personal perspective, the film is almost rubbish. You watch it once, maybe remember the good idea behind it, and then thankfully forget all the flaws. The biggest problem is that the film takes itself too seriously, and it's precisely this seriousness that makes it so hard to stomach. Enjoy watching and being disgusted.

Perhaps the good news first: as a thriller, three-quarters of the film really works well. Almost all the action sequences are very well done and high-quality (i.e., no cheap CGI). Tense gunfights are a rarity these days, but they're present here. For my taste, the ending was a bit too long, explained too much, and couldn't maintain the quality. So, in my opinion, it's worth a recommendation for action crime thrillers. Perhaps you'll watch it a second time. However, it doesn't quite reach the level of films like "Training Day" or even "Assault on Precinct 13."

I consistently appreciated the film's willingness to use less CGI. I generally liked the idea behind the plot, and I found it funny in places. However, it's too cautiously superficial for a comedy and too dramatically inconsistent for a film. Furthermore, the direction is often inconsistent with the story. It's clear that Ansari has a good feel for the subject matter, but lacks the craft, both as a writer and as a director.

It feels like ages since I last saw American actors in a real car and real landscapes. Unfortunately, a lot of things are wrong. The music, but also the dramaturgy, the dialogue, and the characters' behavior are irritating and hardly believable. Not recommended.

Engaging, relatively well-written entertainment. Watchable. Some weak cast members. Unfortunately, the ending becomes overly explanatory and drawn out, unnecessarily lengthening the film and adding no value. Unnecessary violent scenes that make absolutely no sense. Sadly, the CGIs significantly detracts the quality from the film.

It's a real shame, because about two-quarters of the film are really good. Technically brilliant. The acting is first-rate; I recommend watching it in the original language. Unfortunately, the dialogue becomes unnecessarily drawn out and cumbersome from the halfway point onward. The constant violence, both psychological and physical, is almost unbearable in my opinion, and I had hoped for some respite, which only came towards the end… completely out of place. The depiction of violence, which constantly escalates into more extreme forms without any discernible justification, is also the reason why I can't recommend the film. The artistry is completely lacking here

Light entertainment as an add-on to the previous films. Definitely not the reboot they're trying to sell here. The new characters simply don't work; they're handled rather carelessly. The suspense is equally weak; in the first film, it was somehow believable, somehow. And now? Well, it fits the stereotype **** that wants everything instantly... and so the new wizards are already the best... just like that. There's no drama, because the film is so incredibly embarrassing and bad. At least it spares the viewer two hours, but not the announcement of a sequel. Please, no. Please, no! For those who enjoy films with numerous plot holes.

The successful actor, mourning himself at the end of his career, breaks free from his everyday routine. That's the plot, and unfortunately, there's nothing more to it. Flashbacks are repeatedly too long and emotionally overwrought. The dialogue is hackneyed, overly detailed, meaningless, and the jokes fall flat. So much so that the viewer barely has time to breathe amidst all the self-pity in this far too long film. Unfortunately, from the second quarter onward, the direction blends modern and 60s/70s films. Ah, how melancholic the lives of aging Hollywood stars are; they have to make movies for streaming services. What about the viewer? Do they deserve some sympathy too?

Predator is the worst film of the year because it misunderstands the genre and thus permanently destroys a brand. Not even the Predator upgrade damaged the franchise as much as Prey and Badlands. Now, however, this series has also arrived in the Disney universe and is subjected to the sexualized, woke, infantile kitsch of Disney writers. The only question is, is Predator part of the Star Wars universe, or is it all part of Disney? A silly film with excessive violence for 14-year-olds. You're not missing anything.

It starts off quite well with interestingly written dialogue, but then quickly becomes pointless and boring because the "criminals" are anything but "criminals." And that's precisely where the whole film falls apart. The viewer can't bear to see these likeable criminals suffer their fate. Instead of telling a horror story with characters and dark humor, the film gets lost in brutal depictions of violence that contribute absolutely nothing to the film and leave the characters bland. For anyone who absolutely wants to see a bad version of "Ready or Not."

Weak actors, a bland story, hardly any suspense, bad CGI that makes the film even worse.

A thriller worth watching; it's worth sticking with it and not being put off. The story weakens a bit from the middle onwards. Overall, less CGI and more traditional effects would have benefited the film. But despite that, it's a thriller highlight of the year.

The beginning is slow and unconvincing, watchable in the middle, but too long at the end. The film has its less-than-brilliant moments and then ruins them with poorly staged action, rambling sequences that drag on far too long, and overly emotional music. Not really worth watching.

Zwei Stunden Werbefilm getarnt als Dokumentation. Interviews werden abgeschnitten und zusammengeschnitten, damit der Eindruck entsteht Haftbefehl sei der Größte, der Megastar, der schließlich fällt. Keine besondere Dramaturgie, keine Substanz, keine besonders interessante Story, kein gar nichts. Drogen, Alkohol, Kriminalität, angeblich schwere Kindheit und das typische Milieu, dass sich selbst einredet es stehe in Tradition mit der afroamerikanischen Musikszene, obwohl es die Musik eigentlich nur zum reinen Selbstzweck nutzt, um Geld für Konsum zu haben. Nicht mal "Zeiten ändern dich" war so schlecht wie dieser Zusammenschnitt von Kamerafahrten und melancholischer Musik, der den Zuschauer um Mitleid und Verzeihung anbettelt. Warum und wofür eigentlich?

I'm sorry, because technically the film was well-made. They could have just made a run-of-the-mill gambling movie, perhaps with some social commentary on gambling, a touch of crime, a hint of thriller, and a dash of psychosis. In Makau, there are a few interesting characters, a woman, and a happy ending. Instead, the viewer is subjected to a disjointed and incomprehensible script filled with themes of depression, loneliness, mysticism, magic, and illness. Despite the good actors, it's hard to watch due to its lack of depth.

I find it astonishing that this film has received such positive reviews and ratings. After all, the film is incredibly lacking in substance and boring. At best, it's suitable for playing in the background while you do other things. You won't miss a thing.

This is simply a cash-in on the predecessor by giving the viewer hope of seeing something of similar **** previous film shines with how Hugh becomes a hero (again).Hugh is a hero from the beginning, and now the viewer just follows him as a hero, fighting interchangeable villains.Interchangeable, boring, and a waste of time. It's a shame, there could have been m

One of the best films in the series because it limits itself to the stunt show, setting an almost legendary standard here. Apart from that, it maintains a similar level of tension to the film Speed. Although the film experience is repeatedly interrupted by exaggerated drama and schmaltziness, this hardly dampens the suspense. The way the plot threads come together and how everything works out, oh wonder, that's just film. Thankfully, the viewer is spared the James Bond rip-off of its predecessors, but instead the film skilfully focuses on the good things about the series, even though the spy thriller aspect was lacking in all but one film. Perhaps there will be another mission for Ethan Hunt that stylistically follows on from the first film? Perhaps a renegade Hunt?

After the first five minutes, it was pretty clear this wasn't a movie for me. Why do they portray Superman as someone who can't handle dogs, and where does this dog even come from? Then Superman ends up in a hall with his own robots? Why? How come? Was this satire or a denigration of a white person who was portrayed as a complete idiot without a heart? It's really sad what Gunn did here, my opinion, it's pretty pathetic.

This Jurassic Park/World film is perhaps more art than Hollywood spectacle, and not a mere repetition of hackneyed motifs. The numerous references to earlier films in the series are cleverly employed. A group of adventurers ventures to a dinosaur island to collect blood samples from three dinosaurs and thus become rich and famous. The plot is reminiscent of adventure films from the 1960s. Dinosaurs are credibly portrayed with their characteristics and serve not only as objects of horror, roaring and running after them. Overall, the film very well depicts the ruthless subjugation of humans to the prehistoric giants, in an adventure film that, while featuring some brutal scenes, is nevertheless less horror-laden than its predecessors. I consider it a typical Edwards film, initially underrated by critics, whose value is then increasingly recognized after a few years.

Unfortunately, it left me speechless. The predecessors seem almost intellectual in comparison. Has the world become so numb since then? An unbelievable world with unbelievable characters and, absurd as it may sound, unbelievable zombies. And the best part is, it's not even a complete film; they cut it halfway through to sell the other half as a second part. That's really bad.

I really enjoyed the film. A clever and exciting story, clever use of CGI, but perhaps a bit too short.

All the fans are probably voting this film up, even though it's mediocre at best. In my opinion, any B-movie from the '90s is preferable to this one. You're not getting anything else here, just a time-waster that completely fails and is insignificant, doesn't even come close to accurately portraying the '70s or offering any interesting characters.

After the dominance of superhero films, Hollywood no longer knows how to arrange films in a believable way. In addition there is the blue or gree screen. The actors are in a hall or box far removed from reality and therefore there is no authenticity here either. Should I pay for this in the cinema or streaming service? No, definitely only when films reach the quality they should have. 20 years ago, a lot of things were done well and financially, but messing up an interesting story like this should be appropriately appreciated.

It should have been obvious during editing that the first 10 minutes are simply not good because they are stylistically very confusing... And otherwise it is a student film that tries to be sophisticated but is actually the opposite.

Do you know those short AI films from Tiktok? That's what the film is like. Yes, the locations, the set design, etc. look **** the rest just doesn't fit at all and is basically really bad.

The next brand to fall victim to Walt Disney, which is already clearly noticeable in the cast. The actors could have starred in a Power Rangers film. But good. But at the latest in the depiction of the planet Jackson Star it becomes clear that it is Disney. This typical unimaginative CGI Disney look, it could also be a Star Wars film and no one would notice the difference. In addition to the weak cast and the weak performance, it's aliens again. It was not for nothing that the brand could hardly scare anyone anymore, because the classic aliens were no longer scary. That's why Scott took a new path with Prometheus, which I think many people didn't understand because it overwhelmed them intellectually. So Aliens Romolus actually delivers exactly the same thing as the previous films, only differently, not better, but worse, because it borrows from Aliens and Prometheus without actually delivering good horror. You know everything, nothing surprises you and nothing stays in your memory. What was particularly striking was the inconsequence of the dialogue and the story. I'm surprised that the film gets good reviews, because the mediocrity signals the end of the series

I haven't had this much fun in a long time. No woke nonsense, good CGI, good actors and funny dialogues. More of this please.

Unfortunately, it is not worth seeing the film in its cinema version (in the cinema or via streaming). With its two and a half hours, the film attempts to cover 25 years, which are divided into short episodes. Compared to the 2004 film Alexander, however, Napoleon lacks rigour. The film also lacks historical accuracy. It is better to wait for the long version. Edit Directors Cut: Well, there are fewer gaps in the directors cut, but it is obvious in the version where the problem lies. Vanessa Kirby and Joaquin Phoenix can't carry the film at all. Phoenix Napoleon's version is not believable. The script is not good, it lacks historical accuracy and the meta-level (domestic and foreign policy). The relationship between Napoleon and Jospehine is completely uninteresting and yet is given a lot of space. Unfortunately, the DC is hardly any better. Sometimes it's even worse to endure the spectacle. It's a great pity that so much potential was left untapped. A series would probably have been better.

Everyone who saw Mad Max in 2015 wanted a Mad Max sequel. Almost 10 years later, and in the spirit of the woke destruction industry, which turns any culture, history or supposedly male-dominant story into a slickly boring or perfidiously provocative soft show in which the man atrophies into an idiot, there is now a ****'s not just that nobody wanted this film. It's also bad. Go Woke go Broke. With this in mind, hopefully Hollywood will come round.

I still don't understand why Hollywood would sell off a brand like Ghostbuster like that.What was Ghostbusters? A comedy about four ghostbusters. No women, no family, no children. Just four grown-up nerds who save the city of New York from ghosts. Totally light and simple fare. Nothing to think about, just **** shouldn't that, repackaged, be enough to make old fans happy and win over new ones?No, it has to be so slick that it's as boring as a piece of dry bread in the desert. It must not provoke anyone, it must please everyone. We turn the only man into an unstable, ordinary pretty boy sidekick, who may be a teacher but is as intelligent as an ant. And we don't make it a joke, we make it serious.

This film is the most tasteless thing I've seen in the last 25 years. The film really does go all out. From fanaticism, racism and sexism to the glorification of violence. This is followed by such bad production design and acting that I wonder how such a film can get such good ratings.

Three hours of star cast with a completely confusing, boring plot. Somehow edited together with constant time jumps. Exciting background music constantly announces a finale that never comes. For me, this was one of the worst filmed biographies I have seen. After Dunkirk and Tenet, the next completely messed up Nolan film.

two hours of bad CGI, bad casting, bad acting **** show. Boring, boring, boring.

Glorification of vigilantism and crimes disguised as victims. Unreflective and staged like a third-rate war film, the film does not deal with social problems either emotionally or in terms of content. The film may be an outpouring for young petty criminals. everyone else shouldn't even tune in and waste their time with this nonsense.