diogomendes

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

A return to form for Marvel after disappointing movies like Age of Ultron and Ant-Man. Pros: - Loved the themes about patriotism and liberalism, they really were thought-provoking to the point you question which side is the most righteous. For one, Tony Stark defends heroes should be controlled/monitored by the government, and that's fine but it prevents these "vigilantes" from having the rights to choose, and that could be deadly if they don't have much space to stop "the bad guys". On the other hand, Steve thinks they have the right to choose what they do. The conversations we have about these two themes never get repetitive and it builds up the conflict between Stark and Rogers just fine. Those two were never best buddies, despite Stark's "So was I [your friend]" assertion. They were also measuring **** back in 2012's The Avengers. - Once again, the Russos Brothers nailed the action and visual panache that made "Winter Soldier" so robust. The best action in the film includes a 15-min battle in an airport, when heroes go toe-to-toe. - Crammed the characters excellently. The movie never felt, for a minute, overloaded or messy. The conflict was streamlined enough to make the movie more focused than "Age of Ultron" ever did. Additions like Black Panther were a nice touch, and allowed for some nerdgasm moments. - Spidey!! Despite only a half hour of screentime, his presence was the thing I was most excited about this movie. And it surely paid off. Tom Holland so far nails the character, and Marisa Toomey as Aunt May is good too, even if the actress is a little bit young for the role. And just seeing Spider-Man fight Bucky, Falcon, Ant-Man and Cap himself was a joy I never thought I would experience in a live-action movie. For those who haven't seen this movie yet, be sure to stick around after the credits (not mid-scene, AFTER) to see a special tidbit that happens to Peter. CONS: - Weak villain. His plan is ultimately disappointing, and the backstory as to why he becomes so dangerously mad is half-baked. - Third act. Very disappointing. Overall, the third Captain America adventure fulfills its promise and delivers blend of drama, comedy and action. It features old and new characters, and most important, it is not overstuffed and is surely an exciting, well-directed and acted piece of gem worth watching. Score: 8.5/10

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

As expected, this movie was inferior to its predecessors, making it a very mediocre output in DreamWork's track record. Maybe entertaining for the little kids, but not so much for the more matured. I didn't laugh more than five times during my viewing of this film, and yep, that is a pretty bad signal. Having in consideration that Kung Fu Panda 3 was relying on slapstick and cheap humor every minute and then - even with the non-Po related scenes - it's really sad to see this kind of work being this dull, especially when Jack Black is voicing a dork, big panda and J.K. Simmons the bad guy. If something, that allowed for some great casting choice. Some of the actors meant to portray the rest of the Furious Five were underused, per usual, leaving the fantastic Bryan Cranston as Po's biological father to do the heavy lifting. His performance wasn't stellar, but he did good given the material involved. The plot is thinner and a stupid excuse to show off more bright animation, but even the latter didn't stand out quite as much as it did in previous installments. The fight scenes looked more like concept arts than real animation, which I deeply loathed. Logically, this movie is necessary, but if the plot is something like: "Bad guy wants to destroy character X because he adores power", then you know what you're getting into. It sounded really vague and not in the least interesting. The comedy is repetitive, the plot is half-baked, and really there isn't anything worth mentioning besides the cast and animation. There few laughs in the theater I was in, and some moments of dullness. It's rare but I almost fell asleep during it. Almost. Watching a panda cracking jokes and going from one place to another is not my idea for entertainment. But then again, who cares? It is a movie made for children. Final Score: 5/10

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

It's a pretty good conclusion to the classic trilogy, "Return of the Jedi" is overall a bit too long, but thankfully it entertains, thanks to its improved action beats and decent performances. Admittedly, the dialogue is repetitive. I can agree with that. How many times did the Emperor kept saying "Now you will die" or "This is the end of the rebellion"? Nevertheless, I liked the atmosphere, the settings and the special effects were usually good. So friggin' excited for Force Awakens. Friday seems like a light year away. Final Score: 8/10

While I don't think it's a masterpiece -- I'm holding that thought for Force Awakens when it comes out -- it's still pretty excellent. This movie allowed for some sheer entertainment. Lots of classic, great characters like Yoda, Han Solo, Darth Vader make their appearances, with the former having his debut on the original trilogy. Good action, although I still prefer the lightsaber duels to the prequels. Great comedy, and great drama all-around. The "I am your father" scene is another classic. Final Score: 9/10

Where the legend started... "A New Hope" is overall a great movie, although I thought the action was relatively weak on this one. But the characters were great, the special effects back at that time... outstanding, and there's some classic quotes to be had such as "I find your lack of faith disturbing" or "May the Force be with you". Score: 8/10

If there's anything good about this movie is Jennifer Lawrence. And she portrays Katniss very well. Everdeen (still a dumb name) is pretty much weighed down by the 3-movie war, and her facial expression is more than an indication of that. So while the movie worked on that aspect, it ultimately dragged too long. I like using the word "drag" because intensifies that notion of something being slowly, really slowly drawn out, which happens here to my annoyance. Another thing, splitting the franchise's major conclusion is beyond irritating. It's tiresome, makes no sense, and affects the two-part films in predictable outcomes. If you want to make a movie about Snow's conflict with Katniss and build the world around them, that's fine by me, but for that, you have a long runtime, and editors. Yes, that's what editors are for. I hate when movies like these start off where the predecessor concluded. It just feels like I'm watching an extended episode of a TV Show and I pause at the very middle, one year later I continue the episode. This year's Maze Runner did it the same thing, though that movie was more of a crapfest. Visually, it's sound -- no question about it. The CGI is passable, and the cinematography is amazing. The camerawork is fine when the action isn't taking place in the cliché-ridden sewers scene. That scene with the zombies was more clichéd than anyone could fathom. The writers must have found their ways into copycatting similar jump scares, cheap jump scares. There's that scene where a character stares at the bottom of the sewer, and the last second is riddled with zombies coming out of nowhere. Yeah, 3 seconds ago everything was so quiet, I'm not buying that. It's just one of those few familiar YA tropes that really isn't effective. Do I recommend this movie? Only if you're a fan of the genre or even of Lawrence. I liked the action, the effects, I even liked the theme of the film, but this thing is getting so tiring. It's like eating stale bread from a stale store... oh well. Final Score: 6.5/10

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

As for movies, Pixar has been most of the time a mixed bag -- sometimes producing excellent animation movies like Up and Toy Story, others like Cars 2 (a not so good movie) and just solid movies (Brave). Though you have to give it credit for creating films like Wall-E, Ratatouille, The Incredibles, Finding Nemo, all of which were successful, some more than others. Now, about this genre animation thing, I've been pretty bored. Yeah, I have grown up since I watched animated movies, but that doesn't mean these pictures can become stale, boring and flat-out unoriginal. "Up" is pretty stupid if you look at it, however it's one of my favorite Pixar's output to this date, and I can't fathom how anyone could dislike it. I knew someone on the Internet who deeply despised it, and called the film "sentimental, manipulative and nonsensical". Jesus Christ, it's just a kid's movie, of course it's going to be silly and stuff, because it's for family entertainment. No one needs to be this harsh on a movie made only to appease children. But getting back to the original debate, I thought Pixar's old formula was getting too humdrum for my taste. Yesterday "Inside Out" proved to be a delightful trip for start to finish, and that is all thanks to its creativity. Corny little creatures inside of one's mind, with lots of scenarios like subconscious, islands of memories, dream production, among others is something that no one has ever seen. Along with some genuinely hilarious lines, the premise proved itself worthy, and the distinction the writers made with the characters was spot-on: Joy, Sadness, Anger, Disgust and Fear. It has got all the emotional mechanisms to drive Riley's growing personality forward. In this movie, everything is messed up. Riley goes to another city and is forced to say goodbye to her friends and home, which she loved. With her first day in school, Riley is put in the edge of breaking, and meanwhile Joy and Sadness get stuck in her long-term memory section. It's up to Joy to get back to headquarters and help Riley be happy again. Now, you can extract from that brief synopsis some familiar tropes, previously and repetitively established in other Pixar's films: the focus on a child, necessity of teamwork, bla bla bla. What is surprising is that Pixar picks those monotonous rehashes and puts them in a cleverly written script (courtesy of Peter Docter). The jokes hit more than they miss, especially when you have such originality surrounding the film. The scenes in Riley's parents head were hilarious, with the father thinking about the ballgame and the mother having her mind focused on handsome playboys. In other words, it's packed with emotional and comedic stuff, and I appreciate it. I just wished they could have spent more time on Riley's parents mind. Excellent, and only further enhances Pixar's already successful track record. This is a movie for all ages. Final Score: 9/10

"Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones" is a slight improvement over Phantom Menace, although not sure about the other people, but I thought the plot was all over the place, and when I say "over the place", I mean there was too much of it in this movie. Too much stuff going on and little to no character development. The goofy characters returned, but the humor this time around was a little more successful, unlike the previous film, which sometimes felt too corny to generate laughs. In spite of overabundance of plotting, I was actually invested in what was going on, especially when action and special effects came into play. Obviously the Star Wars franchise always had a knack on this department, and clearly shows it here. Maybe I'm nitpicking here, but I found myself bummed how the scene transition never changed. Too often this movie switched from one subplot to the other subplot, with the same transition, and sometimes those scenes were so short you could blink and miss them. Perhaps not a problem factor for some, but for me it was just irritating. The force is with this movie, and while not in its fullest, Episode II delivered the thrills 5 times better than the predecessor did. Final Score: 6.5/10

Serviceable at best. Really disappointing considering the standards that its latest predecessor, "Skyfall", set. I know a lot of people are complaining about critics comparing those two movies, but honestly, the difference is quite notable. "Spectre" lacked the emotional resonance and substance that made far better Bond movies a success. I'm not saying it isn't good, it's just that the action in this one didn't fare as I wanted. Even knowing it's a 007 film, it's really hard to give a pass to the preposterous set-pieces. Like that helicopter that was spinning around and never crashed, near the beginning of the movie. Or that plane that James Bond was driving, how the f*ck was the airplane still moving after losing its two wings and the tail? And how about hitting the car where the henchman (played by Dave Batista) was driving as well? I know the guy has lot of muscles, but c'mon, let's be realistic here. Though the cinematography was fine, especially in Austria. Every frame well put together. All that snow was so pretty to look at. On the other hand, I pretty much enjoyed Daniel Craig's typically smooth and charismatic performance. As usual, he brings a sense of energy to its character that is not possible to resist. The Bond female was also a plus. As for the villain, well, he was, disappointing. Being the biggest nightmare Bond has ever had, this film doesn't truly accomplish in illustrating that. You don't feel like he's the most evil thing that has ever happened to James. More like another bad guy who just got in the main character's way. That scene where he reveals himself was spectacular though. If the rumors are to be true, and this installment is the last one we will ever see from Sam Mendes and Daniel Craig, then I guess it's a decent send-off for the franchise. While ultimately lacking unforgettable action and a worthy foe, "Spectre" has still its thrills, and I would recommend it if you're a Bond fan. As for the others, you might just go with your friends for merely popcorn entertainment, or you can just wait for the DVD. Final Score: 6.5/10

As I looked in the Bluray cover my friend borrowed me, I already knew what I was going for in this film: A brutally violent, yet overly serious and too choppy motion picture to be entertaining. That is the case with this movie, but what's worst is the addition of paper-thin characters, half-baked plotting, and poorly directed, edited gory scenes, with zero knowledge of what is going on in the particular scenes. There was no sense of fun in those sequences. Sure, there were ninjas with knives, swords, bladed chains, but does that really equal to good action? Absolutely no. The way director James McTeigue structured the action beats was beyond rushed and horrendous, with quick cuts, unnecessary close-ups and unrealistic jumps, along with awful editing, which is in display just by looking at the obviously shoddy CGI blood effect. Of course this guy learned nothing about "Matrix". The first half of the movie really focus too much on flashbacks, rather on the main storyline. Not that the latter was less than bland, but there you have it. Too often I forgot I was watching "Ninja Assassin" with too many flashes to Raizo's past. Those scenes didn't do anything but to flesh out the character a little bit, and to offer more incomprehensible fights. The bad guy truly stood out as one of the most clichéd antagonists. Apart from the obvious perspective that he's a bad guy, there was no backstory nor humanity for this character to feel sympathetic. As for the other characters, what can I say about them, honestly? They got the simple plot moving, although I did like some performances. SOME. While the goons who were killed in the beginning of the movie were too over-the-top, star Rain portrayed his character finely, showing his emotions both as a ruthless killer and as good person underneath consistently. Naomie Harris portrayed her character just fine, but unfortunately she wasn't given much material to work with, being more kind of a love interest for our "hero". The movie didn't really need that romantic tension, but given how empty the script was, it probably was for the better. If you are looking for a smartly plotted film, you won't find one in this mess. The narrative shows Raizo being trained by a highly secret society known as "Ozunu Clan", transforming himself into a cold-blooded warrior. His association with the group ends as they kill his best friend, escaping and hiding from them. He allies with agent Mika and Maslow (honestly I had to search this name because the guy was so forgettable) to stop this organization and kill his master. There's no emotional hook or depth whatsoever. It's just merely a preposterous, spaghetti-like clusterf*ck of a story that wants to generate action scenes, but not even that they can get it right. They don't even explain what's the purpose of having a ninja society that kills people who betray them. This movie fails to live up to its title? Maybe to what's supposed to be (a great action flick), but this film assassinates too many elements that could have worked in favor for it. The only thing I recommend you is that if your favorite TV channel decides to air this movie one evening, or if someone brings the cover of this film, you be as fast as a ninja to avoid it. Final Score: 3/10

I had a great time with this movie, although it wasn't without some issues. I thought it dragged a little bit too long. "Gravity" didn't have that problem, and to be honest, I found the latter to be more entertaining. I know some people say it's vastly overrated, but I frankly don't think that way. The visuals in that movie were a little better than this one, but "The Martian" is still pretty to look at. Matt Damon is amazing and shows a tremendous devotion to his character. What I like about the character is how he used humor to get him out of a sticky situation. It doesn't feel forced or anything. I wish I could say the same thing to the other characters though. Sometimes the movie would fall into movie conversations that last longer than they should have, and that attempt to make you invested. Science fiction is clearly not my cup of tea, but I can appreciate it when the film deserves it. Other nitpicking element I'd like to bring up is the "not so subtle foreshadowing". There was this scene where the NASA president says Damon's character has chances of survival... this of course if something doesn't go horribly wrong, and in the very next scene, what happens? Surprise, surprise, the airlock decompresses and Mark gets himself blown up! Nevertheless, it was a good movie and one of the better Ridley Scott's offers to date. It may be a little plodding when it comes to pacing, but the rest elements of this picture is sure to thrill. Final Score: 8/10

"Collateral" is pretty much a strong movie, and that's all thanks to the likes of Tom Cruise and Jamie Foxx. Some characters were killed off unnecessarily and I think some of those should have been more fleshed out, but this was an all-around entertaining movie with tension and smooth direction. Pacing is another thing that is solid, and the well-handed camerawork gives L.A. a stunning look. Definitely going to be in my top of All-Time Favorite Movies. Final Score: 8/10

Funniest movie I've seen in a while. Thought it isn't exactly awe-inspiring (some jokes don't hit the ground), it's still well-acted and enjoyable for the most part. Gotta love Jason Statham and Rosa Byrne's characters respectively. Final Score: 7.5/10

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Angelina Jolie at its finest in this absurdly over-the-top action flick, loved how badass her character was, but I have to admit the ridiculous plot and preposterous, if entertaining action moments do vex me, to the point I lower my score. The characters aren't also all that interesting, but the slick direction and Jolie's performance is already enough to compensate, in my opinion. Final Score: 6/10

Few films make me smile. "Nanny McPhee" did it the right way, providing gleefully entertaining characters with an enjoyably silly story. Still haven't seen the sequel -- don't know why they made it one -- but this picture will remain as one of my all-time favorite movies, thanks to Emma Thompson's likable performance and joyful character moments. Final Score: 8/10.

Longest movie I have seen from this year so far. "Everest" is the kind of films that makes you more stunned for its sheer of spectacle but less with substance, which is lacking in plotting in this movie's case. Loved the group's dynamic, though the dialogue was really clichéd at points, particularly when Rob was talking with his wife Jan over the phone. The whole "I love you, I miss you so much" bit is a factor that has been driving me insane in almost every movie about survival. It doesn't help much the fact that these characters aren't developed enough, despite the film having enough runtime to do that, but instead, it ultimately focus on its undoubtedly impressive setting and the tension setup. Another thing that bogged the movie itself a little was the lack of narrative heft. Sure, the performances are great (kudos to Josh Brolin, Jason Clake and Jake Gyllenhaal who did an amazing job in this picture), however, as whole, there was not enough narrative terrain to make "Everest" reach the landmark of better movies, such as "Saving Private Ryan" or "Life of Pi". I'm gonna give, though, a fairly reasonable score due to the solid direction, exuberant cinematography and pretty visuals, but it's not a movie I would recommend, unless you're planning on see it in 3D. Final Score: 6/10

Far better than the 2014's remake, and while I did watch that one first, I can say this one had something the reboot lacked -- wit, violence and consistency. Very over-the-top as well, with surreal gory scenes, some that are really disturbing at times. Not for the faint of heart. Solid performances, surprising dramatic heft, though I wished the writers could have digged into the family relationship with the main character more. The hero's partner should have also been more of a focus, in my opinion. The villain's plans were simple, yet their attitude and personality were enjoyable and reasonable. The score is great and memorable, also. All in all, it's not a masterpiece by any means, but it's still a pretty good movie with some terrific, gory action and sharp narrative. Final Score: 7.5/10

Probably one of the most entertaining Michael Bay movies, but it's still a lackluster effort, with dumb dialogue, convoluted plotting and bland characters. A lot of things are dumb in this movie, like the whole concept of stranding people on a large facility and killing them for... what again? Surreal chase scenes overshadow fine performances from Scarlett Johansson and Ewan McGregor, and bloated cinematography make it another bombastic, derivative sci-fiction thriller, that's not short of mediocre. Final Score: 4.5/10

Classic picture about a tragedy that occurred a century ago, this James Cameron-directed drama is a well put together piece of work that boasts one of the finest Leonardo DiCaprio's performances to this date, and blends a script that is true to its based-in-real-life facts with breathtaking visuals and a romance subplot so deeply heartfelt it almost makes viewers cry. Really fantastic 3-hours film that's well paced and directed. Final Score: 9/10 In memory of all the people that went to a more peaceful place. Rest in peace.

Awesome thriller, thanks to the stunning performances of Keanu Reeves, Sandra Bullock and Dennis Hopper, energetic direction from Jan de Bont, and a script original enough to carry the movie. Final Score: 8/10

There are enough gleeful characters and diverting plot elements to pass as a friendly animated movie for the kids, but not enough substance or style to entertain the more demanding viewers. Final Score: 5/10

Fun classic super-hero movie, with some touching character moments and visually stunning action sequences. Seeing it now feels a little bit dated, but that's nothing that overshadows my entertainment from it. Final Score: 7/10

Liked this film a lot -- although it didn't meet my high expectations -- but there's no denying this was a very good film with some consistently funny gags, entertaining slapstick and amazing shots. Seriously, the movie as whole is excellently shot and brilliantly animated. It's smart with its jokes, it's inventive and above all, fun, especially for the target audience. Final Score: 8/10

Warm, and very friendly, and although it doesn't reach the heights of many kiddie movies, "Stuart Little 2" is an enjoyably goofy picture with enough likable characters and narrative heft to succeed.

Bummed to see that Whiplash didn't get the Oscar. Thought it was slightly superior to "Birdman", not that that movie wasn't great -- it was really good -- but I found this one to be more inspiring and ambitious, with Miles Teller and J.K. Simmons providing all-star performances, an intense script filled with quotable dialogue, and relentlessly smooth pacing. Excellent film, that avoids musical clichés and has a nice sound of drum added to it. Final Score: 9/10

Good movie with great acting and excellent cinematography, and its themes are compelling. Could've been better, for sure, but this an otherwise emotionally resonant and an entertaining film that will appease fans of the novel source, as well as those who are unfamiliar with it. Final Score: 7.5/10

Honestly? It's better than its predecessor, "Divergent". The cast is great, especially Miles Teller who gives a pretty likable performance, even if its character is totally underutilized and uninteresting. In fact, all the characters are mediocre and the screenplay tries hard to make the viewers care about what they're seeing, but it just fails badly. The movie, however, unlike the first one, is much better paced and ends much more quickly. But ultimately, a terrific cast can't save an already weak franchise from the muddled history that plagues it. Final Score: 5/10.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Quentin Tarantino, an excellent director, has delivered one of his finest works with "Django Unchained", a bloody and very exciting picture. Really love this movie. It's funny and full of stylish performances. If you haven't seen it, go see it. It's one of the best 2012 movies. Final Score: 9/10

Ugh -- what is this? A godawful sequel, that's what that is. I don't know why Sony would do something as cancerous as producing an unnecessary sequel to an unnecessary movie. Perhaps it's because they desperately need money. They think they could make a good movie again but after Pixels and Aloha got panned, I'm not sure. But there's no good movie to be found here. No level in this cinematic abomination is redeemable in the least. The script is awful, the jokes come across as forced and random, the characters are something I couldn't care less about, the villain, particularly, is bland and not amusing, the direction is awful, the pacing is awful. Everything is awful in this movie, and I don't think any movie will top this as the worst movie of 2015. Stay away from this, and I mean it. Final Score: A generous 0/10.

Disappointing film, to be honest. The special effects are spectacular as ever and the performances from the main cast remain stable, but the lack of new ideas and a much interesting plot make it more so-so than satisfying. Final Score: 5/10

Unfortunately, "Matrix Reloaded" doesn't live up to the original's high standards, with monotonously overlong fight scenes and a disappointing ending (if you can call that an ending). Though the conversations are entertaining and the performances are fine, there's not much this sequel offers that excites us for future installments. Final Score: 5.5/10

Very suspenseful movie, and by far the best one I've seen from this year (yes, slightly better than "Ex Machina"). This movie had something that was lacking in horror films: originality. Not only that, but the performances were pretty solid and the musical score was fittingly phenomenal. Not a masterpiece, but an impressive movie nonetheless. I just love how genius is the premise. It's simply original. Final Score: 8.5/10.

An average Liam Neeson movie with some solid action sequences, but a plot so uninvolving and convoluted that leaves the audience more disappointed than satisfied. I think Neeson is looking too old for this kind of movies. He's still good, but unfortunately his performance is weighed down by poor characterization and writing. Final Score: 4/10.

Good follow-up to the awful Mission: Impossible sequel, this movie managed to make the action and cinematography look better than the previous one, and Tom Cruise continues to shine. The soundtrack is terrific, and the pacing is really solid. By far, I'd say this one had the best villain in the whole franchise. Overall, pretty decent movie with some twists and cool action. Score: 6.5/10.

Great movie, but I don't think it's as "groundbreaking" as many people are making it out to be. Sure, the action is breathlessly rousing and the imagery is quite beautiful, and there's a lot of narrative thrills to be had, but I think they should have fleshed out some characters further. Characters like Furiosa. Her past is questionably underdeveloped and that bugged me a little bit. Not the best movie of 2015, but surely a great one. I'm not a fan of the "Mad Max" franchise (the first movie didn't do much for me to elevate my excitement), but this was a nice film with some fun action and nice performances. Final Score: 8/10.

"Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation" might be the best one out of this classic franchise, and it's definitely my 2nd favorite movie of the year so far. Needless to say, it was a fantastic experience. The action is the highlight of the movie, but the performances come close to that bar. At this point, there's no denying that Tom Cruise is one of my favorite action stars in Hollywood. He makes Ethan Hunt not only look like a total badass, but also a vulnerable man, and that's what I really like about him. The action, as I said, it's phenomenal and the set-pieces are visually striking, with the "underwater" scene being the most impressive element in the film. There was also a few character drama and comedy, but not with a confusing, clichéd romance. Some stuff about the female character just seemed off when it came to what side she was on. That's further answered in the second half of the movie, but I still feel they could have fleshed the character more. You can bring up that they didn't want to reveal the girl's true motivations because they wanted the viewers to keep guessing, but that literally has been done before in previous installments, so yeah, in my opinion, it's kind of clichéd. There are also some moments that are very dumb and not credible at all. Seriously, in the beginning, Ethan enters in the plane and the wind just throws him to the wall with impact and somehow he survives? And during that chase scene in Morocco, the car does a few flips and they survive? Hmm. Nonetheless, "Rogue Nation" surprised in how much spectacle the movie could have. The action is awesome, the acting is great, the direction is slick, the movie is so well-paced and the cinematography is dazzling, not to mention, that the script is smart. Honestly, I really liked this movie and even if it has some tiny flaws, it all gets weighed down by all those fronts. Final Score: 8/10

My 200th Movie Review! I really liked this film. A lot of the actors give their performances as grounded as you could get in a movie experience. David Fincher's direction is spectacular and the script is clever, and adds some delightfully dark comedy. This one of the strangest movies I've ever seen, and I say this in the best way possible. Yeah, some moments were a little over-the-top but that didn't ruin the movie. Overall, pretty good movie with good acting performances and a darkly comic story. 7.5/10.

Entertaining throughout but the overall premise was badly executed and the payoff was lacking in narrative terms. I would recommend it merely for some good performances, but there's nothing new for the thriller genre that this movie has to offer. 5/10.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Tom Cruise has never been in a movie so lackluster as this, so of course I'm kind of surprised that he made into this one alive. This awful movie has got the action dazzling very well, but the plot is idiotically thin, the tone is underwhelming (as the soundtrack) and I couldn't care less about the romance going on in this film. F*ck this. 3/10.

Pretty great restart to one of the most iconic characters, "Casino Royale" ranks among one of the strongest James Bond's outings, mostly because of entertaining action and talented performances.