karankhosla

I came into Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu without having seen The Mandalorian TV show, so I was not watching this as a hardcore Star Wars fan. I knew the broad universe, but not the detailed lore. Officially, the film is a theatrical continuation of the Disney+ series and follows Din Djarin and Grogu on a new mission after the fall of the Empire.That lack of background did not ruin the movie, but it did make some parts feel thin. I cared about the Mandalorian and Grogu surprisingly quickly. Pedro Pascal is good, and Grogu obviously works as the emotional anchor. There is also a side character I liked quite fast. So the film does manage to build some connection, even for someone walking in **** problem is almost everything around **** action often feels like a kid’s movie. The bad guys cannot shoot. Not “they miss sometimes” bad. More like you begin to wonder if they have ever received shooting training. Everyone is useless except maybe one guy. The big deadly creatures are not much better either. They look dangerous, but they rarely feel genuinely threatening. There is lots of action, but most of it makes very little sense.That childish action style might be fine if children are the main target audience. If that is the goal, then fair enough. But if the film wants adults to take it seriously, it needs something stronger to compensate: a sharper plot, better villains, richer acting, or more emotional **** does not really have **** villains are weak. None of the bad guys are interesting, and that hurts the movie badly. A good hero needs a good villain. Sometimes the villain is even more important than the hero, because that is what gives the story pressure. Here, the enemies mostly feel like obstacles, not characters. They are there to shoot badly, lose fights, and move the plot **** plot is also very predictable. It felt like I was watching a story I had seen before, maybe almost identically. There were no real surprises, no strong climaxes, and very little that made me think the writing was clever. A lot of the story logic probably does not hold up if you think about it for more than five **** pacing is technically fine, but the film still feels too long. That is because the plot is not interesting enough to justify the runtime. By the end, I was looking at the time and feeling the length. That is never a good **** acting is average overall, except for the main characters, who work well. Pedro Pascal gives the Mandalorian enough presence and warmth, and Grogu is easy to care about even without knowing the show. But outside the central duo, the performances and characters are mostly forgettable.Where the film does succeed is presentation. The cinematography is strong, and the movie looks good. It was released as Star Wars’ return to cinemas after several years away from theaters. The soundtrack was also genuinely good. I noticed it several times, and it felt like one of the stronger parts of the movie. The music gives the film more scale and emotion than the writing **** overall, I was somewhat entertained, but not **** you love Star Wars, you may enjoy spending more time with these characters. If you have kids, this probably works well as a family cinema movie. But if you are not already invested in the universe, I do not see much reason to rush out for **** heroes are likable. The music is strong. The visuals are **** the action is dumb, the villains are boring, and the plot feels **** me, this is a streaming movie. Wait until it lands at home.

74/100 This is a difficult movie for me to rate, because concert films are their own thing. As far as I remember, this is the first proper concert movie I have seen, so I do not have a huge frame of reference. But I can say this: as a 3D cinema experience, it was impressive.What made me want to watch it was the combination of Billie Eilish and James Cameron. And technically, that combination delivers. The filming is exceptional. With that many cameras, angles, stage movements and crowd shots, it is impressive how polished and immersive the whole thing feels. I watched it in 3D, and honestly, I think that is the only way to watch this movie. I am not normally a 3D person, but this was probably the most impressed I have been by 3D since **** concert itself also gets stronger as it goes on. In the first part, I was interested, but not completely blown away. Around the halfway point and towards the ending, Billie really levels up. Her energy, the lighting, the choreography, the way she moves across the stage, and the way she carries the show almost entirely by herself are genuinely **** music obviously works if you like Billie Eilish. I am not a huge fan, but I like four or five of her biggest songs, and those were all included, so I enjoyed those moments. With the songs I did not know as well, I could appreciate her musicality and skill, but I was not always emotionally pulled **** cinema experience was also different from a normal movie. People were softly singing along, some were dancing at the sides, and there was more chatter than usual. Most of that was fine, because it fits the concert-film atmosphere. But people filming the screen was annoying. I get that etiquette may be looser for concert movies, but still: don’t film during a movie. It distracts everyone else.Where the film is weaker is depth. It shows the concert and some of what happens around it, but it never really takes you behind the songs. We do not get the meaning, the stories, the difficult moments or the personal background behind the music. That felt like a missed opportunity.I also missed stronger crowd control and more direct storytelling between songs. Maybe that is just not Billie’s style, or maybe it was not included in the movie. But compared to more old-school performers, it stood out. The best crowd control I have seen live was Robbie Williams. He can stop mid-song, joke with someone going to the bathroom, tell stories, explain the meaning behind songs, and make the crowd feel like they are part of one shared moment.Billie connects differently. She connects through intimacy, movement, mood and energy. That works, but for a concert movie, I think spoken interaction and storytelling would have made it richer. It also highlights a difference between some modern artists and older-school entertainers: modern performers can be brilliant musically and visually, but sometimes they do less to actively command and shape the room between **** fan material also felt a little narrow. The film focuses a lot on the most intense fans, especially people at the front or camping outside. That makes sense because those are the people the cameras find, but I would have liked to see more average fans too. Not everyone connects to music because of trauma, being ****, identity struggles or being rescued by an artist. Some people simply love the **** overall, I am happy I watched it. I would not put it on at home if I were not already a fan, but as a 3D cinema experience, it was worth it. The filming is excellent, Billie is clearly a powerful performer, and the final stretch of the concert is genuinely **** as a movie, it lacks emotional and narrative depth. It is technically brilliant, visually immersive and musically strong, but it does not fully bring you behind the artist or the **** fully my genre, but absolutely worth seeing in 3D.

36/100 Dead Man’s Wire has an interesting true story and strong 1970s atmosphere, but as a movie, it bored **** premise should be tense: a desperate man, a hostage, a shotgun rigged to the hostage’s body, police pressure, media attention and class anger. On paper, that sounds gripping. On screen, it **** pacing is the biggest problem. The middle feels slow, repetitive and strangely sleepy for a hostage thriller. The acting is fine, especially from Bill Skarsgård, but not layered enough to make the character truly compelling. The dialogue also lacks bite, which hurts a film built around tense **** one thing that really works is the look. The costumes, lighting, framing and gritty 1970s texture are convincing and atmospheric. It genuinely feels like a rough period **** good cinematography cannot save a boring **** is not trash. It is respectable, well-styled and based on a fascinating event. But it is too slow, too dull and too emotionally flat to recommend.

53/100The Devil Wears Prada 2 is not bad. That is almost the problem. It is not bad enough to be interesting, and not good enough to be memorable. It is glossy, nostalgic and mildly entertaining, but extremely **** returning cast is the main appeal, but also exposes how weak the film is. With Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway, Emily Blunt and Stanley Tucci, you expect sharper writing and stronger scenes. Instead, the dialogue is often mediocre, with nothing close to the bite or intelligence of the first film’s best **** plot is predictable, the pacing feels uneven, and the social critique is confused. It wants to say something about creativity, corporate efficiency, workplace culture and nostalgia, but never lands the point clearly.Visually, it works. The styling, sets and fashion-world atmosphere are polished and expensive-looking. But that is not **** is watchable, safe and forgettable. Not a disaster. Just a very average sequel.

61/100How to Make a Killing is an entertaining movie, but not a particularly special one.I enjoyed it. Let’s start there. I did not regret watching it, and for the right situation, I would actually recommend it. If you are at home, scrolling through options, wanting something easy where you can put your brain slightly on pause and just enjoy yourself, this is a perfectly decent **** that is also the ceiling of the **** is not deep. It is not especially clever. It is not emotionally memorable. It is not going to win awards. It is just a stylish, dark comedy thriller with a strong enough central performance and a plot that keeps moving enough to hold your attention most of the **** title is correct: How to Make a Killing. It is a 2026 black comedy thriller written and directed by John Patton Ford, starring Glen Powell as Becket Redfellow, a disowned man who tries to reclaim his place in a wealthy family by eliminating the relatives standing between him and the inheritance. The film also stars Margaret Qualley, Ed Harris, Jessica Henwick, Topher Grace and Zach **** plot is probably the strongest part of the movie. It has a fun setup, and there is something immediately watchable about the idea of a charming outsider trying to murder his way into obscene wealth. That is a good dark comedy premise. It gives the film energy, structure and a clear **** the movie never becomes as sharp as that premise suggests it could be.Dark comedies often work best when they feel like a critique of something: class, greed, family, power, status, morality, whatever. Here, I am not completely sure what the movie is really critiquing. Wealth? Inheritance? Entitlement? Maybe. But it does not feel especially original or biting in that regard. It has the shape of satire, but not enough teeth.There are a couple of dialogue moments that hit. A few lines have the right dark, cynical edge. But there are not enough of them. For a dark comedy, I did not find it particularly funny. It amused me more than it made me **** acting is very average overall. Not bad, just not memorable. Glen Powell carries the film, especially through the voice and charm of the main character. He gives the movie its rhythm and makes Becket watchable even when the story itself is thin. Without him, this film would probably struggle a lot **** none of the other characters are especially interesting. That is a problem. The main character has enough charm to keep things moving, but the supporting characters feel more like pieces on a board than people. There is no real character development, and no one besides Becket feels worth thinking about after the credits **** film also has very little realism. That is not always a problem. A movie like this does not need to be realistic in a strict sense. But it does need some internal sharpness. It needs the absurdity to feel controlled. Here, the lack of realism sometimes makes the story feel weightless. Things happen because the plot needs them to happen, not because the world feels alive or **** pacing is mostly fine, though there were moments where my mind started to wander. It is not boring exactly, but it is also not gripping. It has enough movement to keep you watching, but not enough tension to fully pull you in. That is the difference between a film that entertains you and a film that really grabs **** soundtrack did not stand out to me. The cinematography did not stand out either. Visually and musically, it is competent, but there is nothing there that made me think this needed to be seen in a cinema. It works much better as a home-watch film than as something worth buying a ticket for.Emotionally, it had no real impact on me. And honestly, I do not think it was trying to. This is not a film built around emotional depth. It is built around tone, premise and darkly comic momentum. That is fine, but then the comedy and satire need to be sharper than they **** overall, How to Make a Killing is enjoyable, but **** has a strong enough premise, a charming Glen Powell performance and a few good dark comedy moments. But the characters are thin, the acting is average, the satire lacks bite, and the film never becomes as clever or memorable as it probably thinks it is.I was entertained.I did not regret watching **** nothing about it felt special.

78/100I came into Mortal Kombat II completely cold. I had not watched the first film, and I have not really played the video games either. Some of the lore was therefore a bit mysterious to me, especially Raiden, his powers and his exact role. But honestly, that did not hurt the experience **** movie is very entertaining, and that matters. For me, entertainment value is one of the main things I judge a film on, and this one delivered. It is directed by Simon McQuoid, with Karl Urban joining as Johnny Cage alongside returning characters like Sonya Blade, Liu Kang, Jax and **** fight choreography is the biggest strength. There is fight after fight after fight, but not in a way where the pacing feels broken. The fights are clear, energetic and fun. I also liked that the characters are not absurdly overpowered. They have powers, yes, but most of them still feel like they are fighting on a somewhat comparable level. That gives the movie many enjoyable fights instead of just one gigantic god-tier **** humour also worked much better than I expected. I laughed a lot, and so did the people in the cinema. The jokes gave the film personality and kept it from becoming just violence and lore. Karl Urban’s Johnny Cage especially helps give the movie that comic **** acting is decent. Not Oscar-level, obviously, and pretending otherwise would be nonsense. But for this kind of movie, the actors do the job well. Each character has a clear function, and most of them play that function **** plot is the weak point. It is simple, linear and familiar. Bad guy, heroes, tournament, powers, danger, fights. I felt like I had seen versions of this story before. There are no major plot twists or moments where the writing makes you think, “wow, that was clever.” Emotionally, I also did not care that much about the characters. There is some character development, but not enough to really move me.Still, the film works because it knows what it is. The soundtrack was good, the special effects worked, and the fantasy world felt believable enough. Even with a lot of characters, the movie did a decent job of keeping everyone in play, even if I do not remember all their **** no, Mortal Kombat II is not deep cinema. It is not original, emotionally powerful or brilliantly **** it is violent, funny, fast-moving and genuinely entertaining.I walked in knowing almost nothing.I walked out **** Mortal Kombat, that is a clean victory.

A Flawed Biopic, but an Electric Cinema Experience. 86/100 I really liked Michael. Honestly, this is exactly the kind of film where the cinema experience matters. I saw it in IMAX, with loud speakers, a massive screen, and the perfect seat. That felt like the right way to watch it. Maybe even the only proper way. This is a movie built for scale, sound, performance and **** a film, it has flaws. As an experience, it absolutely **** reviews are not only about whether a film is deep, perfectly written or morally complete. They are also about whether it entertains me. On that level, Michael scores very highly. The runtime breezed by. I never felt bored. I was just entertained. That **** film is directed by Antoine Fuqua and stars Jaafar Jackson as Michael Jackson, with Juliano Krue Valdi playing young Michael. It covers Michael Jackson’s rise from the Jackson 5 era through the late 1980s, and it has already been discussed as a crowd-pleasing but controversial biopic because of how it handles — or avoids — the darker parts of Jackson’s **** yes, that criticism is fair.A biopic should usually show more than the glory. It should show the contradictions, weaknesses, uncomfortable parts and darker edges of a person. Michael is definitely cautious. It dodges some of the things people expect a Michael Jackson movie to address. It is not the most challenging version of this **** here is the thing: while I noticed that, I did not really care while watching it.I was not watching this film as a courtroom document or a full moral biography. I watched it as a cinematic music experience, and on that level, it delivered. The film pulled me in through performance, music, dancing, sound and atmosphere. It felt like watching a legend being **** acting deserves praise. Jaafar Jackson is very good as Michael, and the family connection adds an extra layer. But the one who really blew me away was Juliano Krue Valdi as young Michael. That performance was great. It is not easy to play someone that iconic, especially as a child, while having to sing, dance, perform and carry scenes with that much pressure. He was genuinely **** dancing and performance scenes must have been extremely difficult to pull off, and that is where the film earns respect. You can feel the work behind it. The precision, staging, movement, singing, and attempt to capture Michael’s presence — none of that is easy. The film may simplify parts of his life, but it does not feel lazy in its **** soundtrack is obviously full **** is Michael Jackson. The film has one of the easiest and hardest soundtrack jobs imaginable. Easy because the songs are legendary. Hard because bad use becomes cheap nostalgia. But the song choices worked really well. The music was powerful, the singing was strong, and in IMAX, the whole thing became genuinely exciting. This is where the film becomes less like a traditional drama and more like a concert-biopic **** final concert sequence was good, though not as strong as the Live Aid scene in Bohemian Rhapsody. That scene had a special cinematic electricity that is hard to match. Michael gets close in moments, but not quite to that same emotional high. Still, the concert scenes work. They are entertaining, impressive and worth seeing on the biggest screen possible.Where the film is weaker is in character depth.Michael’s father, Joe Jackson, felt too one-dimensional. Colman Domingo is a strong actor, but the writing could have given him more complexity. The film shows the harshness and pressure, but it could have made him feel more like a fully multidimensional person rather than mainly a force of control and **** film also did not have a huge emotional impact on me. I enjoyed it a lot, but I was not deeply moved by it. I understood Michael’s life better, especially the first part of it, and I felt the pressure, talent and machinery around him. But emotionally, the movie did not fully **** again: I was **** sometimes that is enough. Not every good film has to destroy you emotionally. Some films are great because they give you a spectacular, energetic, well-performed cinema experience. Michael did that for **** is not a perfect biopic. It avoids some of the hardest questions. It could have given certain characters more depth. It is probably more interested in celebrating Michael Jackson than interrogating him. That will bother some viewers, and I understand **** as a moviegoing experience, especially in IMAX, it was excellent.Michael is flawed, selective and maybe too protective of its subject — but it is also hugely entertaining, musically powerful and carried by impressive performances, especially from Juliano Krue Valdi and Jaafar Jackson. I had a great time watching it, and for this kind of film, that matters more than pretending the flaws are bigger than the experience.I walked in expecting a biopic.I got a **** it was a very good one.

A Hopeful Space Adventure That Wins You Over, Even When the Logic Doesn’t Fully Land Project Hail Mary was a pleasant surprise. 83/100 I went in expecting a fun space comedy with Ryan Gosling, and that is definitely part of what the movie is. But it was more emotional than I expected. Not in a forced or cheesy way, but in a way that slowly sneaks up on you. It has humour, warmth, tension, sci-fi mystery and a real sense of hope. By the time I left the theater, I was happy I had seen it.That matters. A lot of films try to be meaningful. This one actually made me feel **** humour worked really well for me. It could easily have become too silly or too Marvel-style quippy, but it did not. The jokes helped the movie breathe without undercutting the stakes. Ryan Gosling does a lot to make that balance work. His performance lifts the entire film. This is not some grand Oscar-winning dramatic performance, but it is exactly the kind of performance the movie needs: funny, vulnerable, intelligent, confused, emotional and human.Gosling makes the film easier to **** emotional moments also worked better than I expected. The relationship between Grace and Rocky is probably the heart of the film, and it genuinely moved me. Maybe not to tears, but definitely emotionally. There are moments of communication, trust and sacrifice that give the movie much more weight than I thought it would have. The scene involving “Sign o’ the Times” especially stood out to me. It gave the film a kind of emotional sincerity that felt earned rather than forced.That is where Project Hail Mary succeeds most: it is hopeful without becoming **** also reminded me a bit of The Martian. That same feeling of clever problem-solving, isolation, humour under pressure and science-fiction optimism is there. But Project Hail Mary has its own identity too, especially because of Rocky. Creating a memorable alien character is difficult, because sci-fi has already done so many versions of first contact and alien friendship. But Rocky works. He is strange, funny, touching and important to the emotional core of the **** movie is also beautiful to look at. The spaceships, the planets, the scale of space and the visual design all work extremely well. It is definitely one of the more visually impressive films I have seen in 2026. It feels cinematic in the proper sense. Not just “expensive,” but actually imaginative and visually **** soundtrack was also stronger than average. Usually, a score has to do something special for me to notice it, and I noticed this one. It is not necessarily one of those legendary scores you remember forever like The Lord of the Rings, but it gives the movie emotion, wonder and scale. It is definitely above the standard blockbuster soundtrack.That said, the film is not **** is long. Not disastrously long, but long enough that I noticed it. When I left the theater, I was happy — but I also looked at the time. That tells you something. A few sections could probably have been shorter without the film losing much. The pacing is good overall, but not exceptional. It keeps you entertained, but there are moments where it stretches itself a little more than necessary.There are also some logic issues that bothered me. The film asks you to accept a lot, and most of the time I was willing to go along with it. But there are still moments where the science-fiction logic feels too convenient. The speed of communication between Grace and Rocky is one of those things. The movie makes it work emotionally, but intellectually, I am not sure it completely adds up.There is also a late-story survival moment involving Rocky that annoyed me a bit. I will keep it spoiler-free, but I did not fully understand how the character survives what happens. Maybe there is an explanation, but the film did not make it clear enough for me. And in a story that otherwise wants you to care about science, problem-solving and consequences, that kind of thing matters.Still, these flaws did not ruin the movie. They just stop it from being truly great.Because emotionally, Project Hail Mary works. It is entertaining, funny, hopeful and surprisingly moving. It is the kind of sci-fi film you can watch with the whole family, without it becoming dumbed down or childish. It has enough emotion for adults, enough humour for casual viewers, and enough sci-fi imagination for people who like the **** is not a masterpiece. It is too long, a few plot points feel too convenient, and some of the logic floats away into **** honestly? I really enjoyed it.Project Hail Mary is a warm, hopeful and visually beautiful space adventure. It made me laugh, it moved me, and it left me in a good mood. That is not nothing. That is the whole mission accomplished.

Original Idea, Weak Movie The Drama is a very average movie.That is probably the simplest and most honest way to describe it. It is not terrible. It is not badly made. It is not painful to sit through. But it is also not especially memorable, not especially moving, and not really worth going to the cinema for.I came in with higher expectations, especially because the film has proper character actors in it. So the acting was a bit disappointing. Not bad — let’s be fair — but also nothing special. With actors like that, I expected more. I expected scenes with more bite, more tension, more emotional detail. Instead, the performances were mostly fine. Competent. Watchable. But not the kind of acting that stays with you **** strongest part of the film is definitely the **** idea itself is quite original, and that is where the movie earns some credit. It has a unique setup, a strange world, and a tone that gives it some personality. The world-building is also fine. Not amazing, but interesting enough to make the film feel like it is at least trying to do something different.That is important, because without the originality of the premise, there would honestly not be much **** film works best as a dark comedy. That is clearly where its strongest moments are. There are a few scenes where the dark humour lands well, and when it does, the movie briefly becomes the sharper, stranger, more memorable film it maybe should have been all along. But there were not enough of those moments for me. A dark comedy needs more sting. It needs more bite. It needs to make you laugh and feel slightly uncomfortable at the same **** Drama does that **** only **** soundtrack did not stand out to me at all. I barely noticed it, which usually means one of two things: either it was very subtle, or it simply did not add much. In this case, I lean toward the second. It was not bad, but it did not elevate the film either. No scene became more powerful because of the music. No moment stayed with me because of the **** cinematography was also nothing special. Again, not bad. Just standard. The film looks fine, but there is nothing visually striking enough to make it feel like a cinema experience. That is one of the main problems. When I pay to watch a movie in a theater, I want some reason why it needed to be seen there. With this one, I did not feel **** pacing and editing were fine. Normal. Nothing dragged too badly, but nothing had exceptional rhythm either. It moved along at an acceptable pace, but without much energy. The film never completely lost me, but it also never fully pulled me in.Emotionally, it did very little.I was not deeply affected by it. I did not leave the cinema thinking about the characters. I did not feel moved, shaken, excited or challenged. I mostly just felt like I had watched a decent idea turned into an okay movie. That is probably the most frustrating thing about it: there is a better film hiding somewhere inside this **** ending was strange. Not strange in a brilliant way, where you leave confused but fascinated. More strange in the sense that I was not entirely sure what the movie was really trying to say. Maybe I understood it, and maybe the point just was not that interesting. That sounds harsh, but that is the danger with films like this. If you build everything around an unusual concept, then the final meaning has to land. Here, it did not really land for **** overall, The Drama is fine.That is the **** has an original plot, a few good dark humour moments, and a premise that gives it some identity. But the acting is only okay, the cinematography is ordinary, the soundtrack is forgettable, and the film does not leave much of an emotional **** is not trash. But it is not something I would recommend spending cinema money on **** Drama is the kind of film that might work better at home, on a random evening, when expectations are lower and the cost of watching it is basically just your time. In the cinema, it felt too average. Too thin. Too “that was fine, I guess.”And “fine, I guess” is not exactly a strong reason to buy a ticket.

Drowning in Depth: Why Sentimental Value Impressed Me More Than It Moved Me I have very mixed feelings about Sentimental **** one hand, it is clearly a serious, ambitious and deeply artistic film. Joachim Trier is not trying to make something light or easily digestible here. The film deals with family, memory, art, performance, emotional inheritance and the strange way cinema can become a tool for processing pain. That is also why I am not surprised it has been so highly praised at festivals. It premiered at Cannes, won the Grand Prix, and has been widely celebrated for its performances and emotional **** that is also where my problem with the film begins.From the very start, Sentimental Value feels like it wants to be deep. And to be fair, it is deep. The issue is that it stays in that same heavy emotional register almost the entire time. A great film, like a great song, often knows how to take you in and out. It has highs and lows. It lets you breathe, then pulls you back under. This film throws you into the deep end immediately — and then somehow the pool becomes an ocean, and the ocean just keeps getting deeper.That can be powerful. But it can also become **** me, the film sometimes felt more like an artistic exercise than an emotionally natural experience. It is a meta-film — a film about making a film — and I understand why that kind of structure appeals to critics, film festivals and people who love cinema as an art form. But I am less convinced that it lands with the same force for an average viewer. Not because the average viewer is stupid — that would be a lazy argument — but because emotional depth alone is not enough. A film still has to carry **** strongest part of Sentimental Value is without question the acting. The performances are phenomenal. Renate Reinsve, Stellan Skarsgård and the rest of the cast deliver the kind of restrained, layered acting that can easily win major awards. The film is about theatre, cinema and performance, and there is something almost fitting about how much it relies on actors who can hold silence, discomfort and emotional tension without overplaying it. The acting skill on display is genuinely **** soundtrack also works well. It adds weight to the scenes and helps deepen the emotional atmosphere without feeling cheap or manipulative. The plot itself is strong too, especially in the way it uses foreshadowing and emotional clues. You can feel that the film is carefully constructed, and because it presents itself as an artistic journey from the beginning, you naturally become more alert to symbols, echoes and hidden **** the pacing is where the film loses **** beginning works. The ending works. But the middle — especially the second quarter — feels drawn out. At times I was confused about where the story was going, and not in an intriguing way. More in the sense that the film seemed to linger without giving enough movement back. Since much of the film takes place with the same characters, in the same emotional spaces, and often in similar locations, it starts to feel static.Honestly, I was bored for long stretches.That sounds brutal, but it is true. I could feel my eyes getting heavier as the film went on, and I was not the only one. In the cinema, I noticed people adjusting their reclining seats back up, almost as if they were trying not to fall asleep. That says something. A film can be artistic, intelligent and well-acted — and still be tiring to sit through.I also struggled with the scene transitions. They often felt abrupt, maybe deliberately so. Perhaps Trier wanted to create a dramatic, fragmented rhythm that mirrors the emotional fractures in the story. But for me, it hurt the natural flow of the film. Instead of pulling me deeper in, it sometimes pushed me **** my final feeling is conflicted.Sentimental Value is not a bad film. Calling it bad would be lazy and unfair. It is too well-acted, too carefully made and too thematically rich for that. But I also do not think greatness should be confused with heaviness. The film has depth, yes, but it sometimes lacks modulation. It is emotionally intelligent, but also emotionally exhausting. It is beautifully performed, but not always beautifully paced.I understand why critics love it. I understand why festivals reward it. I even understand why some people will find it **** for me, Sentimental Value was a film I respected more than I enjoyed. It is powerful in parts, impressive in craft, and carried by extraordinary performances — but it also left me feeling distant, tired and slightly outside the emotional experience it was trying so hard to create.

69 / 100Story & ScreenplayOriginal and consistently engaging, with a natural overall flow, but held back by confusion, uneven clarity, and a plot that sometimes feels too strange or unrealistic to fully land.Acting & CharactersBelievable and convincing performances across the board, with no weak links, but nothing that feels exceptional or awards-level. I cared about the characters, which helps.CinematographyCompetent and fitting, but visually not especially striking or inventive. It supports the film without elevating it.Editing & PacingOne of the stronger parts of the film. Scene rhythm, transitions, and pacing worked well, and the movie never felt too rushed or too slow.Sound & MusicStrong music choices and a good soundtrack design that adds emotional lift, especially at the beginning and end.Production Design & EffectsSolid and appropriate, but mostly functional. Sets, props, costumes, and world-building worked without standing out in any major way.Marty Supreme is a strange movie. It is definitely above average, but I am still not sure how good it actually is.What makes it difficult to rate is that a lot of it works, but not in a way that fully convinces me. The plot is original, and I have not really seen anything like it before. At the same time, it can be quite confusing, and the more wild and unrealistic it became, the more it threw me off. Part of that may be because I went in expecting something closer to a real story, since it is loosely inspired by one. If I had gone in thinking of it more as a fully fictional, strange, funny film, I might have been more open to some of its crazier choices. Framing matters, and I think that affected my experience.That said, I was never bored. The movie stayed engaging throughout, and I was always curious about what would happen next. Even if the story was at times hard to follow, it flowed naturally enough from scene to scene, and the pacing was good. It never felt too rushed or too slow. By the end, I also left the cinema with a certain emotional satisfaction, helped by the smart use of music at both the beginning and end of the **** acting is solid, but not extraordinary. There are strong actors here, and they do their job well. What they mostly succeed at is making you believe the characters. The performances feel convincing, even if none of them made me think “wow, that is an awards-level performance.” Kevin O’Leary was a pleasant surprise and did a good job in his role. Supporting performances were also decent, and overall I did care about the characters.Visually, the movie is fine, but nothing special. The cinematography, atmosphere, sets, props, and costumes all work, but they do not stand out much. The editing and scene transitions were handled well, though, and that helped keep the movie watchable and coherent even when the story became a bit **** soundtrack deserves more credit than I first gave it. I did not pay much attention to it during the movie, but after listening to it again and thinking back, I realized the music choices are actually pretty strong. It is not an iconic or groundbreaking score, but it is clearly above average and adds a lot to the film’s emotional tone.Overall, Marty Supreme is an engaging, original, and slightly odd film that I respected more than I admired. It is never boring, it has some real strengths, and it leaves you with enough to think about. At the same time, it is too strange and uneven for me to call it truly great.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Watch extended edition only. Two Towers is epic, muscular cinema—less intimate than Fellowship, but it hits harder with huge performances, mythic scale, and genre-defining battles. 92/100. Story & Screenplay: Mythic source material shaped into a strong, propulsive structure with memorable dialogue. It’s less emotionally intimate and “human-real” than Fellowship, and a few turns lean on epic convenience rather than grounded causality—but the story drive is relentless.Acting & Characters: A clear step up. Andy Serkis delivers one of the great performances in modern cinema—physicality, voice, micro-expression, and inner conflict executed at a level that still feels ahead of its time. Frodo and Sam are pushed into tougher dramatic territory (no spoilers), and it works. Théoden and Gríma are outstanding, and Merry/Pippin gain real weight. Ensemble chemistry is elite—just a fraction short of absolute peak.Cinematography: Visually breathtaking. Landscapes, atmosphere, camera movement, and battle staging are near-iconic. The film sacrifices a bit of Fellowship’s varied intimacy for scale, so it doesn’t hit full marks—but the big sequences are genre-defining.Editing & Pacing: Strong overall, with exceptional control during major battles. Early pacing is slightly choppier, and structural interruptions (including non-film factors like where breaks get placed in some screenings) can blunt momentum. Still, the climax is a masterclass in rhythm and escalation.Sound & Music: Canonical. Howard Shore’s score is legendary, but the real killer is the dynamic range: the use of silence, raw atmosphere, and precise sound design builds tension like reference-level cinema. One of the best soundscapes ever put on film.Production Design & Effects: Monumental world-building. Sets, costumes, creatures, languages, and VFX fuse into a living mythic world. The ambition is enormous—and the execution actually matches it.I watched the Extended Edition in the cinema to get the full experience, and it’s still an absurd flex of filmmaking. I genuinely hope studios start taking swings at epic, sincere, high-craft movies like this again.Ranking it is hard because you can’t avoid comparing it to Fellowship. As a kid, I remember this being my favorite—makes sense: the scale, the warfare, the mythic momentum. As I’ve gotten older, I value emotional purity and immersion more, and Fellowship hits me harder on that front. Ideally you’d treat them as one continuous story, but they aren’t, and this chapter is built to widen the **** honest critique: this film is unapologetically mythic. It’s inspirational, quasi-religious in tone, and willing to sidestep realism. If you’re wired like I am, you’ll sometimes notice plot choices that feel “right for legend” rather than “inevitable by human logic.” Compared to something like Game of Thrones (different medium, different goals), Two Towers occasionally prioritizes symbolic movement over realistic causality. That’s not a flaw in the genre—it’s a trade. But it’s why it doesn’t hit 100.There are also smaller “huh?” moments—choices, logistics, or conveniences that would collapse under realism-police scrutiny. I can live with most of them because this is a magic-soaked mythic universe and the film commits to that identity without **** still: the battles. The competence and menace of the enemy feels upgraded, the staging is clearer, the tension is better engineered, and the flagship siege is a permanent gold standard. The humor also helps the pacing—Gimli/Legolas chemistry is lethal, and I laughed out loud multiple times. Add the aerial landscapes with Shore’s music, and you get repeated “how is this even real?” cinema.Bottom line: less intimate than Fellowship, but more muscular, more performed, and more technically dominant.

75/100 – Strong, memorable, and better than expected, without crossing into greatness.28 Years Later: The Bone Temple is a rare franchise entry that meaningfully improves on its predecessor. It doesn’t reinvent cinema, but it does reinvigorate the zombie genre with strong performances, sustained tension, and flashes of genuine thematic ambition. This is a solid film—clearly better than 28 Years Later—and one that exceeded my expectations by a wide margin.Story & ScreenplayThe story is unusual and often tense, with more emotional depth than the genre typically delivers. It constantly keeps you on edge, and several sequences—most notably the “devil” scene involving Dr. Kelson—are genuinely excellent. That said, the internal logic of the infected remains shaky. If they are driven purely by rage, their ability to instantly identify other infected and refrain from attacking them raises questions. There also appears to be some form of social structure, including leadership and reproduction, yet the film offers little clarity. After four movies, the mythology still feels underexplored. The shift toward human antagonists works thematically, but they are written as broadly insane and cruel, bordering on cliché rather than complex or internally consistent.Structure, Pacing & DialogueThe structure is conventional and mostly effective. Pacing occasionally drags, but nothing collapses. Dialogue is serviceable, with a bit more humor than before, though only Dr. Kelson’s lines truly stand out. Emotional impact, however, is above average: characters you’re meant to hate inspire genuine disgust, and those you’re meant to care about largely succeed. It’s not genius-level writing, but it’s clearly above average for the genre and flows naturally.Acting & CharactersRalph Fiennes delivers the film’s standout performance—controlled, theatrical, and deeply convincing. Jack O’Connell is convincingly unsettling as Jimmy Crystal; you quickly grow to despise him, which is exactly the point. Alfie Williams does solid work for a child actor, and Chi Lewis-Parry handles a physically demanding role well, even if his presence is occasionally distracting. Supporting performances are competent and professional. Character chemistry is functional rather than special, but the performances are strong enough that you remain invested.CinematographyA clear improvement over the previous film. While visually restrained and rarely striking, several scenes are composed with real intent. The Bone Temple itself feels grounded and believable. The film isn’t epic in scale, but it looks consistently good.Editing & PacingTechnically sound but unremarkable. Some scenes linger too long, slightly dulling momentum. Nothing breaks, nothing dazzles.Sound & MusicMusic is used intelligently in key scenes, elevating tension and mood. The score isn’t iconic, but it’s effective and well integrated—especially in standout moments where the music choice lands perfectly.Production Design & EffectsAbove-average sets, costumes, and props. Visual effects are competent but not showy. World-building fits the tone, and character designs—particularly the Jimmys and Dr. Kelson across different stages—are handled well.OverallThis film is far better than expected and a meaningful step up from its predecessor, which relied mostly on acting. If I were to recommend a modern zombie movie, this would be it. Not great—but solid, confident, and surprisingly effective.

90 / 100Before Sunrise is one of the strongest examples of dialogue-driven cinema ever made. It’s intimate, intelligent, funny, and emotionally resonant, carried almost entirely by exceptional writing and extraordinary chemistry. Its slight unrealism and perspective limitations don’t break the experience; they’re simply the reason it stops short of perfection.Story & ScreenplayA simple premise executed with rare confidence. Two people meet, walk, talk — and that’s basically it. Pulling that off without plot mechanics or spectacle is hard, and this film nails it. The dialogue flows naturally, feels lived-in, and balances philosophy, humor, and vulnerability extremely well. There’s a small deduction for mild unrealism and a faint “male-written” perspective, but the writing is still outstanding.Acting & CharactersEthan Hawke and Julie Delpy feel spontaneous, human, and completely believable. Nothing feels performative or showy; it’s pure naturalism. This isn’t flashy, Oscar-bait acting, but it’s the kind that convinces you these people actually exist. Delpy is especially strong, and Hawke is excellent. The chemistry is elite-tier — some of the best I’ve seen — and just shy of all-time great performances.CinematographySubtle, restrained, and perfectly matched to the tone. Vienna is captured intimately rather than grandly, which is exactly what the film needs. Night streets, cafés, public transport — everything feels authentic and atmospheric. It’s not visually flashy, but I honestly don’t know what they could have improved here.Editing & PacingNear-perfect. The rhythm, transitions, and overall flow are flawless for this concept. It’s a relatively short film, yet by the end it genuinely feels like you’ve spent an entire night with these characters. Yes, they fall in love fast — but the pacing makes it feel earned.Sound & MusicHandled with restraint and intelligence. The use of diegetic sound and music enhances realism without intruding. Much of what you hear is simply the city, which fits perfectly. It’s not an iconic score, but it doesn’t need to be.Production Design & CostumesEverything fits the time and place. Nothing stands out as flashy, but nothing feels wrong either. It quietly supports immersion, which is exactly its ****, the flaws — because they ****’s be honest: the entire movie hinges on a random, instant, profound connection between two strangers. That works because this is a movie — and because one of them looks like Ethan Hawke. In real life, this exact behavior from a normal guy would likely come off as creepy. There are also small inconsistencies, like doing clearly expensive things despite the character explicitly stating he can’t afford a hotel room. It’s not disastrous, but it’s noticeable.I also watched this with a female friend, who immediately clocked that the script was written by a man. I agree to a large extent. That perspective leak does slightly weaken the film, though it doesn’t come close to sinking it.What truly elevates Before Sunrise is the dialogue. Conversations feel real — like ones you’ve already had, or could imagine having with someone you care about. They overlap, interrupt, and flow naturally instead of following that artificial “one person speaks, then the other” rhythm most films rely on. That realism is hard to pull off, and this movie makes it look **** emotional impact is quietly strong. It makes you reflect on love, time, work, parents, friendships, and the paths you didn’t take. It lingers long after it **** no — it’s not flawless. It could have been slightly more realistic, and I generally prefer realism in grounded films. But the honesty, charm, intelligence, and sheer entertainment value more than compensate.Overall, it’s a top-tier film. Deep, romantic, funny, thoughtful — and absolutely worth watching.

Watch the extended edition only.95 / 100This is one of the best movies of all time, from the best trilogy of all time. It is 2026, and I have just walked out of the cinema after watching The Fellowship of the Ring in its extended edition; therefore, this review is based entirely on that **** Fellowship of the Ring (Extended Edition) is as close to cinematic perfection as epic fantasy gets. It blends myth, emotion, spectacle, and philosophy into a cohesive whole that still holds up decades later. Its few flaws are structural or conceptual rather than executional.I watched the movie as a child, but I wanted the full cinematic experience, so when it returned to theaters, I went back. I am not disappointed.Although it is difficult to rank this film without immediately following it with Part 2 and Part 3, it still works remarkably well as a standalone experience. For me, this movie is near perfect. It is everything a movie should be. One word describes it best: EPIC. I had goosebumps in the cinema. The cinematography may be the best of all time, and the score is simply out of this world.Story & ScreenplayThe plot, based on Tolkien’s books, is monumental in scope and ambition. The world-building is unmatched: races, languages, cultures, and history all feel lived-in and authentic. What I love most is the ending. It is not a cheap cliffhanger. While it naturally makes you want to continue the journey, it still feels complete, which gives the film real emotional **** story feels both entirely original and strangely familiar, drawing on religion, mythology, and history without being **** main critique comes from realism within the fantasy. Orcs, once elves, are portrayed as largely incompetent fighters, often attacking one by one. At times it feels as if one human is worth thirty orcs. Stronger enemy competence would have elevated the tension. Likewise, the famous line “Fly, you fools” raises logical questions, especially given later scenes involving flight. I am sure there is lore behind it, but as a viewer it remains slightly confusing.Dialogue & ActingThe dialogue is exceptional—some of the best ever written for film. Many lines feel timeless and could easily function as powerful political or historical speeches. The performances elevate every word.This movie made me laugh, cry, and feel everything in between. While it may not devastate like Schindler’s List, its emotional impact is consistently high **** acting is excellent across the board. Sean Bean, Ian McKellen, Viggo Mortensen, Elijah Wood, Christopher Lee, and the actor playing Samwise all deliver iconic performances. There are no weak links. Gandalf, in particular, stands as one of cinema’s greatest characters. While these are not Oscar-bait performances in the traditional sense, they are exactly right for the world and tone.Chemistry & CharactersThe chemistry between characters is extraordinary, especially given the size of the ensemble. Few films manage this level of believable connection across so many roles. The hobbits feel genuinely bonded, and I cared deeply about every member of the **** only characters that underwhelmed me slightly were the Ringwraiths. Visually intimidating, yes—but in combat they felt oddly ineffective, particularly in the river sequence.Cinematography, Editing & SoundThe cinematography is breathtaking. The framing, lighting, color, and camera movement—achieved in 2001–2002—still surpass many modern films. Landscapes, chases, and mounted sequences are stunning.Editing and pacing are astonishing for a film exceeding three hours. The rhythm almost never falters. Scene transitions are smooth, and the story flows naturally.Howard Shore’s score is legendary, ranking alongside Gladiator, Star Wars, and Indiana Jones. Enya’s voice feels ethereal and perfectly suited to Middle-earth. The sound design enhances tension and atmosphere like an additional character.Production Design & EffectsMiddle-earth feels real. Sets, costumes, props, languages, and cultures form the gold standard of world-building. My only minor complaint is the wizard duel between Saruman and Gandalf, which felt less potent than expected.Final ThoughtsEveryone should watch this film. Beyond entertainment, it offers depth, moral clarity, and timeless lessons about temptation, humility, courage, and honor—especially through Boromir. This is cinema at its highest level.

63 / 100 Not smart, subtle, or believable—but funnier than expected. Knows its genre and entertains without regret. A beers-with-friends movie that earns a pass, not praise. Story & Screenplay. Original genre-mix (horror + comedy), surprisingly engaging for what it is. But weak structure, kiddish dialogue at times, low emotional depth, and shaky logic. Acting & Characters. Jack Black & Paul Rudd are fun and game, but performances lean into overacting. Supporting cast average. Low believability, no real character investment. Cameos help, but don’t save it. Cinematography. Visually appealing, good camera movement to sell the snake, decent atmosphere. Nothing ambitious, but clearly competent. Editing & Pacing. Rhythm mostly fine, but transitions are rough and the movie feels rushed in places. Sound & Music. Solid score and song choices. Sound design does its job and enhances tension when needed. Production Design & Effects. Sets, props, and effects fit the world. Logic is nonsense, but the world itself works for the genre.Again, a difficult one to review—mostly because the movie was better than I expected. You know going in that this movie is winning no prizes. It’s a brain-dead movie meant for when you just want to have a good laugh without thinking. However, in a weird way, the story works. There are lots of funny moments, and it was funnier than I **** won’t make any top lists of the funniest movies, and the moments where you’re really laughing out loud were too few and too far apart. The actors did well for this type of movie. Jack Black, Paul Rudd, and the supporting cast all performed solidly, but nothing showcased their acting range.I can recommend this movie within its genre. It was entertaining, and I don’t regret watching it. However, it can’t be rated very highly when compared to movies that actually deserve critical acclaim, so the rating should be viewed in the context of the **** plot was original, and it was genuinely interesting to see how they combined horror and comedy. The structure and pacing were not the best. The dialogue quality was average and at times felt like it was aimed at kids. The plot was surprisingly engaging and, for the genre, reasonably well written. It flowed okay **** lead performances were fine but often felt like overacting rather than how real adults would behave. The supporting roles were average, as was the chemistry between characters. Believability was low, and the performances were not very convincing. That said, the cameo appearances were great. I didn’t really care about any of the **** cinematography was good. It was a visually appealing movie with solid camera movement, which helped sell the presence of the anaconda. The atmosphere worked well, with good use of camera work, colors, and **** editing and pacing were mostly fine. Scene rhythm was okay, though scene transitions were a bit rough, and the overall flow felt rushed at **** sound and music were good. The score and song choices made sense and added to the movie. The sound design and effects were also solid—not on the level of major sci-fi, fantasy, or epic films, but perfectly adequate. The sound helped enhance mood and **** production design and effects were good, and the sets, costumes, and props worked well. The plot itself didn’t make much sense, but the world they built was coherent, and the visual elements fit that world nicely.

This is a “film-student darling”, not a crowd-pleaser. Smart Thematically sharp Performatively solid …but also: Emotionally distant Not very funny for a dark comedy More interesting to discuss than to experience 64 / 100Story & Screenplay. Original societal critique, strong central metaphor, coherent structure. But low emotional impact, absurdity limits engagement, and it’s more “analyzable” than compelling. Acting & Characters. Main performance is convincing and carries the film. Supporting cast is competent but unremarkable. Believability exists mainly through the protagonist’s descent. Cinematography. Functional and clean, but visually unambitious. Nothing distracts, nothing elevates. Editing & Pacing. Solid rhythm, good flow, nothing feels broken. Might as well watch at home than in a theater. Sound & Music. Score barely noticeable, soundtrack does not enhance mood. Sound design competent but minimal. Production Design & Effect. Adequate, invisible by design. World works conceptually, not visually memorable.This is going to be one of the most difficult movies for me to rate. I think this movie is one that some will praise highly as a societal critique and as a deep film, with small details that you could give to students to analyze—such as the metaphor of the toothache, and so **** the same way, you can have a song with beautiful vocals or beautiful lyrics that still isn’t very popular, while something more basic ends up being widely entertaining and added to everyone’s playlist. That’s how I feel about this movie.I’ve watched incredible movies such as Parasite, which has an amazing plot, great acting, is creative, truly deep, and very entertaining. No Other Choice, however, I did not find incredibly entertaining; at times I found it too quirky. It might be nominated for an Oscar, but it would not be my favorite to win.I thought the plot was original. I know it is based on a book, but the idea that—rather than being angry at companies—the main character directs his anger at other employees or competitors like himself is a unique take and central to the critique the movie is trying to **** structure and pacing were good. The dialogue I cannot assess properly, as it is in a foreign language. The emotional impact was low. I think the movie was well written and will probably be highly acclaimed, and it was above average in terms of engagement. It flowed naturally, though the plot itself is absurd—but that is also the **** acting was difficult for me to judge. Although all the actors did well, aside from the main character, no one stood out as particularly impressive. No one performed badly, but it felt like the level of acting you would expect from competent actors. The chemistry between the characters was very good. I didn’t find the film very believable, except for the descending madness of the main character. His performance was very convincing; the others less so.I don’t think the movie was especially strong in terms of cinematography. The visual composition, camera movement, atmosphere, colors, and lighting were all good, but nothing stood out to me. The editing and pacing were fine. Scene rhythm worked, transitions were effective, and the overall flow was mostly right.I would also add that, for a movie marketed as a dark comedy, I didn’t find many scenes genuinely funny.Regarding sound and music, I didn’t notice much of a background score, which I usually do. I also haven’t been able to find the soundtrack after watching the movie, so I can’t rate it highly. The sound design and effects were standard; it’s not a sound-heavy movie. The only thing I can say is that—having seen it in a cinema—the spatial use of sound seemed good. Still, the soundtrack and audio didn’t really add to the **** production design was fine. Sets, costumes, and props were okay, but not particularly noticeable, as the movie doesn’t take place in a visually distinctive setting. There were no special or visual effects.I think the world-building worked—the absurd world presented was easy to understand. Overall, this is a movie I would watch at home, but not one I would pay to see in a cinema.

75 / 100Strong historical framing, clear purpose, high emotional impact. Some relationship compression and mild simplification, but overall engaging and well-written. Russell Crowe excellent, Rami Malek solid but familiar, Leo Woodall surprisingly effective. Believable performances and good chemistry, though not awards-defining. Effective use of dark tones and archival-style footage. Visually appropriate rather than striking. Generally good rhythm, but a few scenes feel rushed, especially given historical scope. Competent and fitting, but mostly unnoticed — functional rather than elevating. Solid and credible production design; period-appropriate and convincing, even if not lavish.Overall, a dramatic movie that achieves what it set out to do. It left an impact on me, with one scene showing the **** atrocities being the most impactful and a reminder of the horror of the Holocaust. The acting was also good—especially Russell Crowe, who did a great job. Rami Malek also did a good job, but to some extent I kept feeling like Rami is playing a similar character in most of the movies he does, which made me think of his other movies while watching this one, and that’s not good. I also felt that, for an otherwise simple character, Leo Woodall did a good **** plot was good, and they chose a good way to explore history through the story presented. It’s always a bit tough in a movie with different moving parts, though, to believe how fast the relationships developed when, in real life, these things took many days. The structure and pacing were fine. The dialogue was good. The emotional impact was high. The plot was engaging and overall well-written. It flowed **** acting was good. Lead performances were good, although not Oscar level. Russell Crowe was one of the best. Rami Malek did well and is a good actor, but as mentioned before, he doesn’t differentiate himself much here. Supporting roles were decent. Chemistry was good between the characters. The performances were believable and convincing, but it’s not going to win an Oscar. I did care about the characters, though, so it was a good performance **** cinematography was good. Good visual composition with the dark colors for a dark setting, and when they used old-school film-like clips for parts of the courtroom scenes, it helped set the time and tone. Normal camera movement and creativity. The atmosphere was decent. It looked visually fine, and overall there was good use of everything.Editing and pacing were also acceptable. The rhythm of the scenes was nice, although some scenes did feel rushed. Scene transitions were natural. The flow was overall fine, but sometimes a bit rushed.I will say, though, that the timing of the movie’s release is amazing: in a time when international law is being challenged, this movie was a great and refreshing reminder of the first international tribunal ever, and how all must follow international law in a civilized **** soundtrack felt good, but I never noticed it too much, so an average soundtrack. Production design and effects felt good; I would say it lived up to an acceptable level, and I hope that all costume choices were accurate, but that is, of course, difficult for me to say given my knowledge.

77 / 100 → 7.7 / 10 starsSimple, effective, believable. Not very original, thin villain motivation, low thematic depth — but solid structure and natural flow. Convincing performances, strong CGI acting for Dek, good sibling chemistry. Villain underdeveloped keeps this from going higher. Visually strong, good action framing and camera movement. Not Avatar-level, but clearly above average. Excellent pacing, clean rhythm, action scenes well-edited, no drag. Very strong score and sound design. Not iconic, but clearly elevates the movie. High-quality alien design and believable worlds. Slightly held back by franchise context and limited scope. A pleasantly good surprise and a solid action-adventure sci-fi movie. This was my first Predator movie, so I really didn’t know what to expect. Firstly, I enjoyed the movie greatly. The acting was decent—not award-winning, but good enough to keep me captivated. Secondly, the story was very simple, but in a good way: it didn’t feel forced and still felt believable. There was a good mix of humor at times, good fighting scenes, character development, storyline, and feel-good moments. Visually, it was a very good movie, and the sound effects were amazing and really added to it. I just read that the soundtrack was by Sarah Schachner, whom I know from the Assassin’s Creed series, where she has done a good job, so I felt the soundtrack was really good. Maybe not Hans Zimmer level, but still very high quality. The ending was also good and makes me want to watch the sequel—one of the best things any movie can **** plot might not be super original; I did feel like I’ve heard this story before. But the planet and creatures were original. Maybe what could have made it better (saying this without seeing the previous movies) is understanding what the human corporation—the bad guy in the movie—was actually doing there. The structure and pacing were very good: a linear story was easy to understand, the runtime was good and not too long, and I was never bored. The dialogue quality was okay; it’s always hard in a movie with different languages—in this case, an alien language—but extra points for using an alien language instead of just English. The emotional impact wasn’t high, but there were moments—especially focused on siblings—that were **** plot was engaging and I would say well-written, but not so “wow” that you leave the cinema thinking about it for a long time. I think it flowed naturally. Acting is always difficult when a lot is CGI, but I think they pulled it off well, and I really liked the details on the face of Dek, the main character. Lead performances were good. Supporting roles were also good. I love a well-developed villain, but we didn’t really get that; that part was average. I think the chemistry between the characters worked well, especially given the runtime. It felt believable, and the performances were convincing for the **** cinematography was also good. Visual composition was nice—maybe not at the level of something like Avatar, but still very nice. Camera movement and creativity were good, especially in the action scenes. The atmosphere was nice, although it could have been even better on an alien planet. The visuals looked good. Decent use of camera work, color, and lighting. The editing and pacing were also good. The rhythm of scenes—especially fight scenes—was good, and nothing felt rushed or too slow. I didn’t really notice scene transitions much, so that’s a good sign. Things felt just right. The sound and music were very good—almost full **** production design and effects were very good, without knowing the budget. The aliens were very well made, and especially Dek was great to follow, and the worlds felt believable. It’s difficult when it’s a series because I can’t judge how much I should have known from the other movies, but I would say close to full points for production design and effects too.

A visually dazzling but emotionally hollow ride. Tron: Ares succeeds as an entertainment spectacle — stunning cinematography, electric soundtrack, and sleek design — but falls short on storytelling, character depth, and pacing. I didn't know what to expect going into this movie as I have not seen the previous movies. Overall I would say I thought it was an entertaining movie with good effects, but I am not impressed by the movie. The story plot was orginal. Sure some parts were guessable and cliche but overall it is a unique universe, and I think it works. The big problem for the movie is the pacing. First half of the movie is fine, but the second half feels rushed, especially the ending. There is very little room for character development in this movie. I think the dialogue was fine, neither good nor bad, very average. I think being in 2025 they could have made a story with a stronger emotional impact. We have seen AI become "human" in avengers ultron, which was much better. There were some emotions but not very many. I felt the plot was engaging in the sense that I was never bored and I was invested in the story from start to end. There are no major twists, just a very linear story, which also makes the movie feel like a movie for kids, which might have been the intention after all. But the story never made me excited and I was not thinking it was more well-written than average movies. To be honest, I am still confused about how the things work in the universe I just saw, but I try not to deduct too many points for it as it might be my own fault for not watching the first 2 movies. But it sort of bothered me that with such magical technologies at their possesion, why was the real world so backwards? How can you make such advanced AI, but there are no advancements to the cars, infrasturcutre, technology, buildings, clothing, or anything else in the real world? And all the light beams, lasers, weapons, etc. made very little sense to me. The acting was okay. Jared Leto is the main star. I wouldn't say he did bad acting but he is not getting nominated for any awards. Very average performance. He is supposed to be an AI robot character that gain sentience, but he just felt like a awkward human most of the time. Part of it is also the dialogues he had, they needed to give him better material so that he could act like an AI. There are so many chances at good humor, that were just missed. Creating an AI chracter that becomes human, I can just imagine the comedy scenes in my head. But honestly he felt more human than Sheldon from Big Bang Theory, an actual human. His progression was also too fast. The rest of the cast and characters was just average. Chemisry was average. Believability was average. I did not care about the characters except the two main characters. What pulls this movie up is the cinematography which was just beautiful. Good visual composition, amazing effects, good camera movement and creativity although maybe at times a bit too much was happening, the atmosphere, especially when in the Grid, was great. Visually stunning. The rythm of most scenes were fine as well as the scene transitions. The flow was not soo good, the ending felt rushed. Lastly the sound and music was amazing, I think it was Nine Nich Tails, it fit perfectly and added a lot to the scenes. It really brought the movie up and added so much to the mood. Maybe the only thing is in the start it might be a bit overused and deafnes the movie a bit but I would say close to full marks. The same goes for production design and effects, I think very good as well. good sets, costumes, props. Special effects were close to perfect, the only thing being that in 2025 I could maybe have hoped for a little bit more too. World-building works and costumes were great.

A thrilling and well-crafted sports drama — not groundbreaking, but full of energy, style, and emotion. Strong sound design and pacing elevate it above typical “underdog” clichés. Entertainment. That is how I would describe this movie. It is not going to win oscars most likely, but it it is a movie where I am not bored from start to finish. I think there is originality to the plot. There are some cliches here and there, and sure often you have a movie about how an underdog wins, but that is not what this movie here is really about. It was much more about the characters, so that felt refreshing. I was not even sure how it was going to end. There is one scene about halfway where something happens to the character JP, where I find what happens afterwards to be very unrealistic and how quickly the character recovers from it as it something major did not just happen. That killed it a bit for me as it felt wholly unrealistic and as if there was plot armor for the character that any other character would not survive well. For the structure and pacing of the movie that felt good. Never did I feel lost and never did I feel bored. The dialogue especially, can easily be cheesy or over the top in this kind of movie but I felt it was just right. I almost felt inspired by many parts. It did leave an emotional impact. Not the kind that the best of the best movies do where you feel changed or very sad or very happy but still I did feel like I am a little bit better after watching the movie. The plot is engaging and well-written. Not crazy with plot twists and turns and twists or amazingly beautiful, but for someone not interested in F1 I actually felt interested and that is a big credit to this movie. It flowed very naturally the movie. Acting wise most performances were decent or just above. No one is winning an oscar, probably not even nominated, for any of their performances, but Brad Pitt felt absolutely perfect for his role and he did an amazing job in it. Maybe it could be better, I don't know, I just know that I enjoyed it a lot. Supporting characters very also above average and I think overall all actors did well. The chemistry between the characters was very good. Only negative thing is one of the romantic relationships which happens in the movie felt very pushed, and a hollywood thing to have at least one romantic scene, which added nothing to the plot. That is a minus in my book. I believed that characters. The plot itself I am not sure could actually happen in real life, the whole strategy of the team felt weird but I am just pulling the card that I don't know enough about F1 to know if it is off or not. I think people who know F1 might find it annoying but then again from what I understood Lewis Hammilton was part of making the movie so I will trust it is in good hans. Performance were convincing and I did care about the lead performances but not about any supporting roles. Cinematography was good. It is hard making a movie where things movie so fast. I felt the cisual composition was good. Camera movement was excellent. Atomostphere was good. It visually looked good. It is not that I was blown away by the cinematography but I think they did an excellent job. The rhythm of the scenes were good, scene transition neat, the flow was good never too rushed or two slow. It overall felt just right. The sound and music was amazing! If it does get an oscar nomination it will be for the score and soundtrack, which was amazing and really added to the movie. I will check it out afterwards but it really made the movie much better so top marks for that. Lastly for production design and effects, I think it would be easier to say if I understood F1 better, but I have no complaints. Sets, costumes, and props all felt realistic, the effects were good, the world-building was belivable. Lastly there were just some writing moments which I felt were great. When a movie takes something that was said earlier in the movie and that some even might forget and brings it back, and one goes like "oh yeah that is a reference to this earlier in the movie" and when it is done not so much in your face, that is really satisfying.

Surprisingly gripping and thoughtful. A philosophical journey wrapped in endurance and despair — not perfect, but among the best adaptations of a “difficult” premise. This movie surprised me. For a movie where the characters are walking the entire time it was much more entertaining than I thought it would be. The plot is original and also based on a book which usually makes for better plots. I am not sure if it is realistic but I put this a bit in the fantasy category so I don't think it takes away too much. This movie did feel political. I am not 100% sure what the message was, but I think it was a criticism of capitalism or at least the part that focuses on GDP beyond anything else. Maybe it is a critic of war where you see your friends die for reasons that don't make sense. Maybe a dig at economists that only care about productivity. I didn't care much for tha analysis, but I think it is a movie which students of film would love to analyze. That pulls the movie up for me. I could also not have predicted the ending which I thought was very good. Overall the structure of the movie and the pacing is good. Close to perfect. The dialogue felt good. Perhaps at times a bit over the top, like it was trying ot be a bit too deep and not who most people actually talk, but for a deep movie I can accept it although it means it was not perfect. I think the movie does have an emotional impact. More so than other movies. You do leave the theater thinking about was you just witnessed. However I never felt wholly emotional like I sometimes do where you can cry from sadness or be overally happy from hapiness. The plot is very engaging and well written, credit also to Stephen King. Extra points for taking such a hard topic and making it interesting. Not a plot where I am amazed by twists and turns or where I think this is very beautiful, but a big impact for the the topic at hand. It flowed naturally. The acting was good. There were no bad performances. The movie has a lot of characters and almost all are memorable which is quite the feat. I was not blown away by any performances. David Jonsson was by far the best, and if there are any award nominations it will be for him. Others are just above average and some were average. I am more on the positive side, without going so far as calling the acting amazing. The whole movie built up about chemistry between characters and that was close to perfect in this movie. I believed the characters but it also requries some efforts, becuase the world is different than ours where some are really desperate and when they are on such a harsh feat you do crazy things, never once did I think this would never ever happen, so I beleived them. I also cared about almost all characters, be it rooting for them to win or die. But the movie almost from the start was quite clear who the main guys are. Had this been a TV show I think it would be different but as a movie I don't blame them for locking in but it makes it clear from the start more or less what is going to happen. But still kudos at the end to surpirse me a bit. Although parts of the ending I thought were weird. For the cinematography I think they did a good job. The visual composition was good and the world building great. CVamera movement were fine. I am not sure how to rate the atmostphere as sure it fit but it is not like I felt transported there, but it made since. I am overall happy how the movie looked visually and the use of camera and colors and lighting. The rhythm of the scenes was good, without me feeling bored. The scene transitions were fine too. It could have been interesting had they made this movie in like one long shot, or very few where it felt the camera was following the whole time, but maybe that is not possible because the movie happens over longer time than 2-3 hours. Maybe a show could make that happen better. I think overall it felt just right. I think the music and score was good. I think it added to the scene. But it is hard to say as I don't remember it very well except a few scenes. So I think an average score that I would have to listen to again to rate more accurately. In terms of production design and effects, it was also fine, good world-building with some good details and everything seemed to fit. Overall this is a movie I would recommend to watch but not one that if you missed that you missed too much out of. If nothing else, for a movie about walking this is probably the best one can do.

I was disappointed by this movie. Plot was original but felt quite weird and it took too long to understand what was going on. I felt that maybe this movie was a critic of ICE and modern day america but it was done strangely. Also not so original that it found something unique. Also the whole white supremacy part felt pushed and never did I feel like those characters actually were believable with real backstories. It felt very cliche. The pacing of the movie was good, not much to say about that. The structure was a bit hard to follow. I also felt like I was in a world I did not understand, e.g. the use of coronavirus like face masks but then in a time which felt much earlier than 2022. So I was confused about the timing. I also did not feel any strong emotional impact by the movie. The bad guys felt cliche bad guys, not like actual human beings. Also there were few parts that were funny but for a dark comedy not funny enough. Lenoardo is good actor as always. Sean Penn character I felt was badly written but I think he did good in the role. Supporting characters were overall fine. There were no bad performances. I don't think that Willa character was that well played though. Also I did not feel like I believed any of the characters. Visually the movie was good. I felt transported where the movie was taking place. Lots of movement in this movie but I felt imersed. I could feel the atmosphere. The scenes felt fien in rhythm, the scene transitions were too much in the start of the movie. Also many parts felt unbelievable or over the top. The first part of the movie was hard to follow. The second part was fine. Start too rushed. Honestly didn't pay attention to the score or soundtrack, but I think it was decent. Sound design and effects were fine, can't say anything bad about that. There were times were sound enhanced the scenes and there some good song choices. The production design and effects were good. Sets and costumes and props made sense, the movies was visually appealing, and the world didn't feel like our world, but if it was supposed to be an alternative world it felt fine. Overall the plot was not engaging and well-written, it did not flow naturally, the acting performances were fine but not super convincing, I didn't care at all about the characters except Sean Penns character Lockjaw, the movie looked visually good, good use of camera, colors and lighting, the movie felt too fast in the start and end, but middle was just right, soundtrack was okay, sets costumes effects fit in to the world.