The film, which won seven Academy Awards, was directed by Daniels. He co-directed only two films, Swiss Army Man and this one. Nevertheless, he beat Spielberg at the Oscars. The film was produced by A24, a company with tremendous momentum, which also produced The Whale and Aftersun in the same year. He released this film at a time when he had a lot of momentum, but it was not expected at first. Although Michelle Yeoh, Jamie Lee Curtis, and other somewhat familiar actors were in the film, supporting actor Kee Hui Quan had not had a prominent role since The Goonies, and the rest were new actors. However, the performances by the cast were excellent, and in total, the film received four Oscar nominations, three of which were won. At the beginning of the film, Michelle Yeoh runs a dry-cleaning business and is a realistic protagonist with a gay daughter, a difficult dry-cleaning business, a noisy father, and an unreliable husband. Later, her husband arrives from another world claiming a crisis in the multiverse, and she is quickly pulled away from reality, but in the end, she settles for a realistic ending. It is easy to explain why this film is so beloved. It offers unrealistic, exciting fun and settles on a simple theme of family love. The characters are all flawed but lovable, and after watching the film, you love the film itself. The film is also rated R, which means it is suitable for adults. It is a good opportunity for adults to rethink the idea of family love. There are glimpses of Daniels' humor in the film. He does ''funny things'' when he moves to another multiverse. Eating lip balm, saying I really love you... these are all apparently Daniels' ideas. It was a bizarre and funny film that was nominated for 11 Oscars and won 7, but I don't know if it was the right one. I don't know if I got it right, because my favorite film, The Fablemans, was nominated for 7 categories but didn't win any of them.
Lily Sobieski, Stellan Skarsgard, Diane Lane, and quite a few famous actors are in the film. I didn't find anything particularly bad about Stellan Skarsgard's performance, but the script makes it quite funny. The film is about a sister and brother who are taken in by a neighbor with whom they had a close relationship after the death of their parents. Well, it is the usual story of how the older sister gradually becomes suspicious of them. The screenplay is quite shaky. The first half of the film is like Clueless. When the main characters' parents die and the story begins to move, it seems mysterious at first glance, but in fact it only suggests that the story is about to begin to move, but it does not move. This state of affairs continues for a long time, and what could have been a story that conveys the relationship between the sister and brother becomes a dark story that is 500 times thinner than Pulp Fiction. The film does not give the audience time to think about the truth of the mystery and quickly spoils the story. The cause or truth of the mystery. Even though the film nitpicks a few mysteries early on, it doesn't stay on the mystery track until the end, letting Diane Lane get sentimental, and letting Lily Sobieski, who is supposed to be 16 years old, do tricks that only an adult with specialized knowledge could do, and act in a way that makes no sense. To be honest, I don't know what this film is trying to say, and it probably doesn't have much to say. This vague script makes me question the very raison d'etre of the film itself. Who in the world is this movie for? The core horror fans will probably see it as a comedy. The average moviegoer won't like it, and maybe it will stick with immature 13-year-olds. It's a movie for beginners like that. Some people may find the movie creepy, but at least it's not scary. And the title is "The Glass House." It's funny. The producers probably meant the house (Stellan Skarsgard and Diane Lane live in a house with a lot of glass) and the family relationship (meaning brittle glass). In reality, it's probably about the movie and the script. Sadly, the film is wrong in all the wrong places, but I don't think there is anything wrong with the acting, and with a few mistakes corrected it could have been a great thriller. Fixing one mistake first would have made the movie better. The film's less tense, action-like scenes, which set the Testarossa and Jaguar up for an accident, wrecked the film significantly. This is my guess, or maybe it is my imagination, but I guess they got into trouble and decided to do something about it by way of an accident. It's convenient. It gives a sense of urgency to the action without much thought (well, it didn't really give a sense of urgency, it was just a mess). The first mistake is this. If they had money to blow up Ferraris and Jaguars, they should have hired a better scriptwriter.
The film, which was said to be this year's Oscar contender, was an unquestionable success. The film is a semi-autobiographical work directed by Spielberg, who also directed and wrote the screenplay. The main character's name is not Steven Spielberg, but Sammy Fablemans. The role of Fablemans was played by Gabrielle LaBelle, who won an audition of 2,000 applicants. His acting is too good to be true. The movie also reflects Spielberg's actual experiences and so on (apparently). The Fablemans' parents, played by Paul Dano and Michelle Williams, are also modeled after Spielberg's actual parents (apparently). My interest in this film was nonstop when I saw it in the theater. From the beginning to the end of the film, the "Spielberg-ness" of the film was so evident that I was able to watch the film with my spine aching. There are several anecdotes about his awesomeness, but knowing that, I can't describe it in words (awesomeness!). . The characterization, the artistic expression, everything was outstanding. I love Spielberg's films. So it was nice to learn a little bit about his upbringing and the ending was perfect. I can't go into details, but the divorce, bullying, and other issues are cleared up and the film ends on a light note. This seemed to hint at the life that was to come for the protagonist. And I didn't miss the deliberate "something" in the middle. Fablemans, despite all the Oscar hopes, failed to bring home a single Oscar statue. The Best Director award is iffy because Daniels was so good, and the acting awards for Michelle Williams and Jad Hersh are also iffy because they were pushed out by very strong contenders, but at least I think they should have won Best Picture and Best Screenplay.
Dark (literally). I first saw the creepy, infuriating Others when I was still figuring out what made a good movie and what made a bad movie. Even then, when I thought New Year's Eve and even Catwoman were funny, it was obvious to me that the film was a waste of time, relying on acting ability. Some time later, I saw this movie on TV, and my opinion was not only unchanged, it was solidified by the "movie power" I had developed by watching many movies. The film is dark from beginning to end. I don't mean the style, but the brightness. The main character Grace's (Nicole Kidman) two children die when exposed to sunlight. Therefore, there is no electricity in the room, and it is boring from beginning to end. Honestly, why did they set it up this way? It's boring, boring, boring. Boring to death. You want to know when the real horror comes into the movie? It's about an hour into the movie. Until then, Nicole Kidman makes a scene and leaves a creepy remark about her kid seeing a kid named Victor. It's creepy, and yet nothing is going on. There is a heavy air that something is going to happen, and yet nothing happens for an hour after the movie starts. Those who like this movie will say that the great performances of the cast members are not to be missed. Well, sure. Great performances, especially from Nicole Kidman. She played the character of Grace, a frightened, yelling, and screaming woman, beautifully. However, that may have been rather counterproductive. This Grace character yelled at the children and seemed to me to be a character who constantly shifted blame. It is a mystery horror film, so it is predictable that something spiritual will come out. I am annoyed by the characters who self-centeredly deny it. You can tell it's counterproductive to the cast members who play these characters well. As you can see, there is not much to this film. It is not particularly scary, and even the acting is wasted. Well, I could forgive it if the ending was better, but it's a rip-off of The Sixth Sense, and that's all I can say. Was the entire script made for this ending? When I think so, hatred rises from the bottom of my heart.
I love Pixar movies. There was a time when I used to watch only Pixar movies. I especially liked this movie. I guess one of the reasons was that it was inspiring and adventurous. Watching it again now, I am surprised that I liked the movie so much because it dealt with subjects that are difficult for children. The movie is darker than other Pixar movies. For example, think of the villains in Pixar movies before this one. Sid in Toy Story is just a naughty kid who is rough with his toys. In the case of Wally's Auto, he was just following orders. Cars and Finding Nemo never had anyone who could be considered a villain in the first place. Bug's Life and Monsters, Inc. had villains, but they were characters set up for children's enjoyment, not reality. They are bugs and monsters, after all. On the other hand, Charles Muntz in this film is not a perfect villain, but he is a realistic villain. He does not antagonize Carl and his friends when they arrive, but instead smiles and invites them to join him in a friendly manner after saying the cliché. He is just a kindly old man until he changes. He has been obsessed with keeping the Paradise Falls monster alive, which has led him to hunt down Karl and his friends, but, improbably, would Muntz have gone that crazy if Karl and his friends had handed over the Paradise Falls monster (Kevin)? Another thing that can be called dark is the bonfire scene. I don't think the term "family situation" is applicable to a child of about six years old.
Overall, the film seemed dark and adult-oriented. Let me talk about the structure of Pixar films. Most of the films have an easy-to-understand explanation. But what about this film? There is almost no dialogue during the first five minutes of the film, and the message is conveyed through music, images, and the facial expressions of the characters, and yet the film moves you to tears. Everything is excellent throughout the film, and although it is very packed with content, it is well put together and yet not boring. This is an animated film that adults should definitely see. Especially the first five minutes, which is probably the best opening to a movie ever.
Unlike those critics, I love moving and sentimental films, and The Age of Adaline has been a nourishment that I could not have imagined when I was once dying from Blade II and The Jackal. The film tells the story of one woman. She is 29 years old when a car accident and a lightning strike leave her with a body that never ages. She was hunted by the FBI and lived regularly changing her name and where she lived. It is a pity that she is doomed to fall in love and not be able to grow old with the person she falls in love with. She has given up on the idea of falling in love, but it is predictable that her ideal partner will appear. Someone actually falls in love with her, but she is unable to step out on him who does not know her secret. Their relationship is both fun and sad. However, the film takes a nosedive when the viewer begins to get tired of the fact that the protagonist never ages. It almost descends into just another silly romantic comedy with no intellectuality, but fortunately it is surged back up by the actor who plays his father: Harrison Ford. His appearance was abrupt and contrived, but he was able to regain his intellectuality. I can say that I liked the film because of Harrison Ford. The astronomer brought back the intellectuality, sophistication, and mystery. I do buy the effort to push the story forward, although I am a little frustrated that he was the love interest of the past protagonist. The performances by Blake Lively (as the main character, Adaline) and Harrison Ford were excellent. They left a lasting impression that matched the theme and made the film memorable for me. The acting is better than most similar romance films. Some may find the story to be a bit clunky and shallow for the subject matter. While that is true, the ending is cohesive and poignant, if a bit contrived. That kind of sums up the film, and I can't say more to avoid spoilers, but I'm truly glad I saw it. Critics lost their feelings (Patch Adams, Click, etc. are rotten! is a good example). ), and I believe that they "mechanically" look at the details and give them short shrift. And I love this movie so much I'll probably watch it again someday.
This film was directed and written by Richard Curtis of Love Actually. It is a film about time travel, and if you watch it thinking it is just a romance movie, you will be confused by the complexity of the plot. In the protagonist's family, it seems that only men have the power to return to the past from generation to generation. It seems impossible, but the protagonist jokingly decides to give it a try. To his surprise, he is able to go back in time, avoid trouble at a New Year's Eve party, and kiss a woman! Despite the fact that it's about going back in time and starting things over, the film is very everyday. It is realistic and you can relate to all the characters. The only thing that is not real in this world is the power to go back in time. I thought I was in for an extraordinary experience before I saw it, but I was fascinated by this work that is fantasy but realistic. You could say that I was emotionally moved. About Time is not such a simple film. The movie talked about how wonderful life is. The main character's life is wonderful, and even this film is wonderfully and beautifully drawn and filmed. Everything in the film is. The performances (I especially like Bill's performance), the script, everything in the film. The film talks about a great way to spend your life and about true love. I really thought everything about this film was great, and I think it deserves more than it gets. The reason I didn't give it a full star after all this praise is that I grew tired of the novelty time-lapse theme and found it a bit boring before getting to the wonderful ending. I would have liked to see a few more twists and turns as well as a beautiful one, but anything extra risks ruining the beautiful style. I'm convinced it's perfect, but there are inevitably limits to its beauty.
Hacksaw Ridge was directed by Mel Gibson (Braveheart, The Passion of Christ) and received six Academy Award nominations and two Oscar statues. The film is relatively humorous and easy to watch among war movies. The film may be viewed with a certain degree of lightheartedness because the main character is a conscientious objector. Although there are many violent expressions in the film, the main characters do not die tragically, and it is not that scary. This film is not like Private Ryan, which created a great drama and rewrote it. The gunless protagonist is said to be stupid throughout the film, but his later exploits are predictable. This film may be as silly as people say, but at least I enjoyed it. I was able to see it as a drama and not as a war movie. Usually love scenes are a waste of time for a war movie, but in this film they are well put together. It may be silly, but the script is well structured and the main character is likable, a great film in my opinion.
The movie begins with the exploits of Jackie Moon, played by Will Ferrell, and his basketball team, the Flinttropics. Jackie was a one-hit wonder whose only hit was "Love Me Sexy," and while he had a basketball team, he had no money and a weak team. It is highly unlikely that they will be motivated from here. I guess so. Predictability is a pretty big drawback in movies. Stories and jokes are also mostly predictable. Maybe a loss won't break up the team. There's also a scene in which he plays with an unloaded gun, but it would probably explode anyway. I gave this movie three stars because I was unexpectedly enjoying it. Being predictable doesn't mean being boring. Because there are some funny moments and I don't hate these sports comedies. I have come to feel that this is a movie where even its flaws can be loved. The alley-oop in the movie seems to be a real skill. It saved me from criticizing it as impossible. The team is fictitious, but the ABA was real and the play seemed so real that, ironically, basketball alone seems to have realism even though the rest of it can't be done. That doesn't make it a classic, but it's fun. I don't care if this was Woody Harrelson's waste.
Not a few films depict romantic relationships and friendships between robots and humans, but this film is more deeply concerned with the emotions and lives of robots. This film is made on a 200-year scale of the mind, life, and struggles of a robot. But it's messy. Simply put, that's it. The setting is impossible and the development is a bit boring. It's not a good idea to try to create a moving story with this kind of situation. However, for some reason, it worked in this film. There are many bad points. The script is a bit immature, and there are scenes where the development is easy to understand. But the biggest and best theme of the film, "love," which underlies all these things, does not seem to be rotten. It's not that the other parts of the film are extremely bad. It is just a little immature. Just as I don't have high expectations for someone who doesn't show growth, I'm not impressed by a movie that I thought was bad. This movie will not motivate you to look at yourself now and live a brighter, more positive life in the future. But a similar experience can be had with Bicentennial Man. I found a deep-seated attraction in this film, and I found myself sympathizing, thinking, and more or less moved by the highly empathetic Andrew. Even with the messy storyline, I think the only part of the film that should be appreciated is its well thought out themes.
Director Luc Besson is known for Leon, but he wrote this script when he was 14 years old. There is an anecdote that before making Leon, he had intended to make this film, but due to its budget, the film he made to raise funds was that Leon. Despite the fact that the director made this film with such enthusiasm, it is a film that swung all the way to dumbness. The production is so crude that the creatures look like stuffed animals.
The costumes and sets are distinctive, and Gary Oldman's hair is at its worst.
The script, too, can be described as a mess. But you can feel the enthusiasm with which they really wanted to make this, and such a coarse script is not a bad thing. It's the kind of story a 14-year-old would adore, and if you look at it dispassionately, it's nothing but dumb. It's also interspersed with fun parodies of Leon and Die Hard. The producers seem to think it is serious science fiction with a dash of comedy, but the viewer is reminded of Battlefield Earth. The film also has excellent characters. I have to admit that I laughed when Chris Tucker came out. The character he plays is funny and noisy with a unique tone. Unlike most sci-fi films that have a difficult worldview, this film is humorous and fun.
Well, Bruce Willis has made many accomplishments in the film industry. In Die Hard, he established himself as an action actor, and in The Sixth Sense he proved that he can play even serious characters. He has had a wide range of activities, but his work in this film seems to be limited. It has a well-worn structure, a well-worn plot, and a well-worn action sequence. What is wrong with this film is mainly the script. It is boring, conventional, and uninteresting for more than two hours. It's just enemies trying to thwart each other's plans. It's a theme we've all grown tired of seeing, and while the FBI vs. gangsters is the name of the game, it's very easy to predict that it will be Richard Gere vs. Bruce Willis, a fight that will draw a certain number of people. Great is only on the up side, and the film is an empty, empty box. Throughout the film, Willis and Gere engage in some cool action and offensive fights, but that not only doesn't save the film, it makes it even more conventional. It is predictable that Richard Gere is treated as a hero by the end of the film, despite being a villain in his initial scenes. It is also predictable that he foils the perfect jackal's plan. The punchline, the fight, the theme itself, and even the film's few highlights all predate us. If we had to give it a title, it should be "The Jackal," not "Itchigoe. The film is so simple that it can be summed up in one word. Oh, it's a showstopper. The film is predictable and empty, the characters in the film are dull and the direction is childish. It's stuffy and inadequate.
Despite the action movie's royal, or worse, typical plot, the film is too embarrassing to be called an action movie royal.
Director Wes Anderson, known for his unique style, Rushmore and The Royal Tenembaums, has done it again. This story seems simple at first glance, but it is very complex. It is the story of a legendary hotelier who is accused of murder and struggles to bring honor to his hotel. The hotelier, Gustav, was played by Ralph Fiennes, who I have seen in The Avengers, Quiz Show, and others. Other films include The English Patient and Schindler. He has changed my impression of him since then. He got a bad rap in The Avengers, but after that awful performance, he has an indescribable charm about him in this film. The story is interesting, intelligent, and well crafted. I like the atmosphere the film creates. It has a unique and flamboyant look, a witty story, and intriguing performances. The director deserves credit for creating a unique and memorable story with especially funny gags. The film has an all-star cast. In addition to Ralph Fiennes, F. Murray Abraham, who won an Oscar for Amadeus, Adrien Brody, who won an Oscar for The Pianist (The Pianist of the Battlefield), Willem Defoe for Platoon, as well as Mathieu Amalric and Jeff Goldblum, Edward Norton, Jude Law, Harvey Keitel, Tom Wilkinson, Bill Murray, Owen Wilson, Saoirse Ronan, and Tony Revolori. It's just too gorgeous. Despite such a large cast, I was able to enjoy the performances of each of them without having their personalities destroyed. In terms of direction, the aspect changes depending on the time period, allowing the audience to become more involved in the work. The quirky sets, etc. are also excellent.
The film is a military masterpiece in terms of direction, and the intelligent story and the cast full of personalities make it an enjoyable film.
While not a film that will make you belly laugh, "Happy-Go-Lucky" teaches us that we can make the small things in our daily lives fun and that we can be optimistic about everything. We may not be perfect, but we can follow her example and be optimistic.
Blade (Wesley Snipes) showed off his cool action in the last film. Once again, the usual action and special effects abound. I am not saying there is anything wrong with that. But in my opinion, the most important part of the movie is the script. Not the special effects or the action. The story is appallingly poor. It is just not interesting. It's boring, disinteresting, and really uninteresting. There's not much to write about. It just ****.
Fun characters and movie, but... It was kind of off-putting. The film features Despicable Me's popular character, the Minions. The film is supposed to be a prequel, but it is mostly a British satire, and for a PG-rated comedy, there are a lot of black jokes. Some of the gags are funny, but many of them are juvenile. If you think the film is funny, you will be offended by such gags. The dancing of the guards is disgusting. The uncle's naked dancing is more offensive than funny. I was not satisfied with this kind of storyline to begin with. The story is too childish and sketchy about going to a bad guy party and serving the most powerful bad guy. Couldn't they have come up with a better theme or script? The characters are adorable. If parents and children saw this movie together, the children would be immediately attracted to the characters and would say it was interesting. But the parents don't take it very seriously. They are not interested in black jokes and a script that could be improved.
I was looking for cool Wesley Snipes and an interesting story for Blade. To say the least, it's a disappointment. The original story seems to be Marvel Comics. Of course, I have not read the original work. Without considering the original, Wesley Snipes is cool, but the movie is all action and not much else. To be honest, I thought the blood raining down from the ceiling in the first scene was amazing. However, the many interesting scenes at the beginning were also great, and I guess my expectations were raised. From the middle of the film, it became all Wesley Snipes action. The problem with all the action is that it's boring. As I said earlier, I had high expectations for the story from the beginning. However, the quality of the story gets worse and worse as time goes on, so it's no fun to watch and the only thing to see is the action. It's not just the action that I'm looking for in this movie. The flashy (and somewhat unreasonable) use of CGI does not cover up the problems with the story. Also, foreshadowing in a film should ideally be carefully collected, and there should be surprises and discoveries. In this film, the careful storyline in the first part of the film is disturbed by the messy action later in the film. The story is predictable and not that well thought out. No matter how cool the action is, the story leaves something to be desired. It was interesting until the middle of the film.
Mamma Mia! has some fun musical numbers and gags, and it's not painful for 108 minutes. It's just that compared to other great movies, the energetic musicals just go on and on and on and on and on, and it gets boring. The fun energy was overwhelming, but if you think about it, all the movie has is ABBA songs (fun musical numbers) and characters (sometimes gags) that get you going. Then I'll buy the **** ABBA. The original is a stage production, but it is rare that when I see a remake I also see the original version. I didn't go to see the stage version this time either.
Here are a few things that are often said about adaptations: 1) they are just plain stupid, 2) no matter how good they are, they can never surpass the original, 3) they are completely different from the original, etc. There are exceptions, but in general, they are all different from the original.
There are some exceptions, but most of them are true. That's what I mean. The main reason I found this movie uninteresting was that I was bored by all the singing. A good musical has a good story, but this film relies too much on singing. I did not find the film interesting.
The humorous acting is one of the highlights, but it is not enough to save the film. There were not many funny scenes because the songs were the main focus. Even the charming parts of the film are not great charms due to the film's biggest drawback: a thin and somewhat boring storyline. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the songs in this film are unappealing. It may not be an exaggeration to say that the songs contribute the most to the enjoyment of the film. I'm just saying that the reliance on the songs makes the film too thin. I don't go to the cinema to listen to ABBA songs, I go to the cinema to see an interesting movie. If you like this kind of movies, it may be a good movie, but if you don't, it will be hard to accept it, even with humorous performances and songs. However, there are some moments that make the film appealing. At first I thought the humorous performances and fun energy would make it a good movie. When I finished the movie, I was not impressed by that.
Movie sequels often fail, but every sequel Cameron has directed (Terminator 2, Aliens) has been highly praised. However, this film is not as good as those. I found the images fascinating. Beautiful and fascinating. I went to see this movie in the theater in 3D and it looks amazing. It looks like a real ocean. However, some people seem to think that these wonderful and moving images are the saving grace of the somber storyline, but clearly they are not. What's worse, there is a great sense of deja vu. The content is roughly the same, just in a different location. We unite to fight the skypeople who are repeatedly destroying the environment. That's it. It would have been nice if the sequel had added a surprise, like in the case of Terminator, but I'm getting tired of being shown images I've already seen. If the story is universal, it will never be as good as the original, no matter how good the visuals are. There is also a problem with the characterization. Jake, who fights bravely and whom I liked a lot in the previous film, is always angry at his son and is not as prominent as in the previous film, which makes him less sympathetic. There aren't many other characters that I really like (although I like Tulkun), and it's still difficult to make a sequel. Cameron must know how to make a good sequel. And it's never about relying on visuals and borrowing heavily from the previous film.Movie sequels often fail, but every sequel Cameron has directed (Terminator 2, Aliens) has been highly praised. However, this film is not as good as those.
It's dark, heavy, and not pleasant to watch, but don't let that stop you from hating this film. The acting is tremendous. Even the smallest details, such as Nicolas Cage's alcoholic hand trembling, looked so real. Elisabeth Shue also seemed to match surprisingly well, although I was surprised that she would play such a role since she was a purist. The story, however, is a list of the darkness of the rough underworld. Alcoholics, prostitutes... As the characters represent, everything in the film is in trouble. But I guess it is a kind of message that they intentionally portrayed Las Vegas in such a dark way. I can understand that. This film focuses on the relationship between Cage and Xu, but in the background is the darkness of the city of Las Vegas. So perhaps it makes sense to make a film about it in this way as well. However, the viewer is left with a dark and sad feeling. It would not be a good feeling, because it would be piled up in a number of ways.
I sometimes think that a little more joyful stories could have been added, but this story is not a wrong approach to convey a strong message, and the storytelling would come across with stronger feelings that way.
A wonderfully imaginative and moving film with a fascinating story and acting.
First of all, the acting. Johnny Depp has proven his acting chops in films such as Edward Scissorhands, and his delightful but sometimes serious character makes the film enjoyable but with more depth. Also, Freddie Highmore's performance is excellent. For such a young man, he plays the character with a great understanding of his character's feelings. An unstable child with a closed mind is a difficult role to play, but he made those of us watching him look amazing. Also, the story is very simple but profound. While there are dreams and joy in this fascinating story, it is also about death and loss, as is typical of director Mark Foster. Still, by using our imagination (such as believing in fairies), despair can turn into hope. It is a wonderful masterpiece of a film that delights in entertaining us.
At first I thought it might not be bad. But when the special effects and less-than-thrilling action began to appear and the immaturity of the script became apparent, I realized that my first thought was a mistake. Personally, I expected a gentlemanly and intelligent story from this film. Partly because it is based on a British work, but also because I was fed up with American films that were all showy special effects and not very interesting stories. However, I have never seen the original of this movie, but perhaps it was not as American as this movie. I thought it was an intelligent and great movie, but it was all special effects and action. As the movie progressed, the value of the movie gradually diminished. Another reason is that there was nothing intriguing about the story. None. Nothing. The foreshadowing that was scattered in the beginning of the film was collected without any interest. No matter how much action was developed, it just ended with "huh". It was half-hearted, boring, and not as enjoyable as I would have liked.
Sandler was popular on SNL. He went into the movie business, but was not well received. I like Sandler's movies. I think his characters are interesting and fun to watch. But Sandler in this movie is still young. Maybe he is immature. Instead of a fun performance, he is angry and fussy. This is not good. The script is also stupid. There are a number of things that shouldn't be in a movie. But we can see them not as flaws, but as good points. Sometimes stupidity is necessary. Who came up with the idea of Carl Weathers being injured by an alligator, or a person being injured by a falling air conditioner?
After all, we all like Sandler's comedy, no matter how stupid it is. I'm not so sure about Sandler's performance in this film, though.
It shouldn't be too bad, but something is missing." Something that would be a strength to reach "very interesting. One of the drawbacks would be that the characterization is too blatant: the three ghosts are depressing and Carrigan is a jerk. There are jerks in the school. The characters are depressingly obvious. Too much so. It's a good thing they didn't add any more nasty villains. These characters do some interesting things, but frankly, they are a pain in the ass. The one flaw I can say is the storyline as well. I thought it was a good theme, a good story, but it takes Casper's inspiring story in a different direction. Despite the great theme of friendship between Kat and Casper, the story is taken in a more sci-fi direction. It's for kids, so it's packed with a lot of elements to keep them interested. It's not bad, but it won't make the movie any more interesting.
In the end, the movie is enjoyable all the way through, but you can't shake the impression that there are a lot of unnecessary elements.
There are different tastes in this film. Those who like the film say it is still fun, while those who dislike it say it is exactly the same as the previous film. The story is blatant, but the blatant story is saved, in my opinion, by the action and the new elements.
As bad as 3 was, Macaulay Culkin will prove to be very important to Home Alone. His sly Kevin character is delightful and funny. He may be a little less funny in 2, but that is saved by the hilarious characterizations around him.
Also, while closer to comedy than action, the thief being taken advantage of by the kid is overtly funny, and while it's not fresh since we saw a smattering of it last time, I still felt the idea still somewhat worked. We think one factor is that, unlike last time, the majority of the film is not invaded by this comedy.
The new additions to the story are also pleasing to us. I will tell those who criticize us for repainting the previous film by increasing the scale of violence and location, but it is not only the violence that has increased. I don't know if this will satisfy you, but there is some humor in Kevin relaxing gracefully in the hotel. Also, the increased characterization makes it more interesting. (Last time it was just him, his family, and the thief; this time it's Mr. Duncan and the woman the pigeons flock to.)
Minor changes are made: more violence and characters, moving the location to New York City, and changing the taste of the story. And the key humor is recycled! - This is a clear attempt to deceive the audience. We know this. But we still like Home Alone, its characters, and its humor, so we are fooled even though we know it.
This may be the most difficult film to evaluate so far. I have only written four films, but I personally think so. Let me start by mentioning the great thing about this movie. That would be Jim Carrey's comical performance as the Grinch. He plays the sarcastic and eccentric Grinch in a funny way. The way he delivers his lines makes him perfect for the role. He has had a successful comedy career in such films as "Ace Ventura," "The Mask," and "Dumb and Dumber," but in recent years his more serious performances (as Truman Burbank and Andy Kaufman, for example) have been more prominent. However, while it is nice to see him in comedies, it may not be the case that this film will have an impact on his career.
Jim's performance is impressive, but the film is based on a Dr. Seuss picture book, and I don't think it would have done a good job of translating his worldview to film. Some may see the unique worldview of the picture book as hilarious when made into a film, but I personally found it somewhat ridiculous. More thought should have been given to adapting Seuss's work to film. In short, the film uses great technology, but the story and setting are inadequate and relies on Jim's performance. Not unenjoyable by any means, but off-putting at times.
This film is similar to Babe, but the brilliant adaptation of the original and the literary and intelligent story that even children will enjoy will make you less confident that Babe is clearly the better film. Eleven years before this there was a film about an Australian pig called Babe. This film is not as critically acclaimed as Babe, but it is a better story than Babe on some fronts, a beautifully crafted adaptation of E.B. White's children's book for children and adults alike, with some intelligent and sensitive remnants of children's literature in the film. Babe excels in many areas, but if you look at the story alone, perhaps this film is better. The animals are vividly portrayed, and the friendship between a pig and a spider is delicately and wonderfully portrayed. It is nothing short of wonderful.
Williams and Travolta are fine actors, but their careers have taken a turn for the worse in recent years. This comedy, starring the two of them together, is no exception. It's nice to see big-name actors being amusing. (It's probably the only place you'll ever see Travolta with a drawn face.) However, their hilarious energy doesn't play much of a role in this film. As is often the case in comedies with gorgeous actors (Meet the ****. I don't care about the rest.) the producers are so convinced that the movie will sell that they even adopt silly ideas without thinking too hard. Rita Wilson as a hand model who gets her hand caught in the trunk of a Volvo, two people getting bear **** on their faces, Seth Green getting hugged by a gorilla - did you like any of these gags? (They're all silly ideas. I do like Seth Green getting hugged by a gorilla, though.) The gorgeous actors are buried under these unimaginative laughs. The first part of the film may be fast developing and fun. But since the theme is children, the fast pace is lost and the focus is primarily on the child and their lives together. The child interferes with work, the child sends e-mails to clients without permission, the child switches places on medications that have strong side effects, the child, the child, the child ... the child ... the child ... the child ... the child ... the child. Kids don't do much interesting stuff. In this kind of movie, if the kid gets sick of it, it's no longer good enough. Williams and Travolta's hilarious energy and the other great actors are buried in the film's silly gag ideas. And the kids, who don't do much of anything funny, are too depressing.
