Datasets:

getGO007

/

IMDbCollection

like 0

Somewhat bittersweet, but greatly executed. I didn't really care about the caracters so that took some of the magic way for me, but i can appreciate it nontheless. 7/10: ohki

This is a good movie. The characters are all believable and enjoyable. The acting is good, the music and atmosphere and cinematography are all great. It's impressive how complete of a story they were able to tell in only an hour and a half. This is a memorable film, and one of the best 90 minute movies I think I've ever seen.

I guess Americans are not really fans of ballet or they never saw real primas ballerinas, because Jennifer Lawrence is just too big ( too curvy) to be a leading ballerina. Especially in Bolshoy theatre. Just thought. Movie itself it's entertaining, but nothing special.

Naagraj Manjule sir's amezing movie ever....even it's world's best movie ever.... Bachchan sir and Naagraj Manjule sir great combination.... ZHUND movie is a 100cr club movie...hit hit hit movie... Awousome creativity ..... wonderful.

The avengers: End game movie is the worst out of all the marvel movies. With an horrible end and a bad plot. For a normal, sane person this is a too wacky movie with a lot of weird twists. The only really good thing in this movie is the avengers theme song that gives the movie a little spark in the total darkness that it is in. If you consider watching this movie DON'T.

Was so looking forward to the new season, first 2 were great. Great storyline, great way of filming, the music, the action. But now season 3 got out and altough there is the same stuff there, it is lacking something and I can't pinpoint what it is. I really had to push myself to finish it, which is not a good sign. Still love the characters, but the story line is so... vague, I can't even put words to describe season 3 cause I wouldn't know how. I don't know what to say, besides that I am disappointed because it was so such a good and unique show. I can understand the low rated reviews on this one.

"First" attempt to put the MCU heroes in the TV format. It's not too shabby but it way felt way more like a chopped film than a TV series, the 7-minute credits don't help with that. The interaction between Vision and Wanda is key here, that should've been the focal point here without all the necessary fluff that they did with adding the random villains (looking at you Hayward) and Pietro for some reason, I mean the only reason Pietro was there was to get Wanda to "expose" her secret for Agatha, too tacky imo. Agatha herself is a great concept but a whole season could've been devoted to her, she just comes in for no reason, and then goes out for no reason. It's the thing they are doing for the movies too but at this point break your formula, you don't need it for the TV shows (or the movies at this point but that's a different topic) Overall, if they work more on making these shows FEEL like a show rather than a movie by not following the movie formula they have, they could be on to something here.

Talking about subverted expectations. If you liked Loki in the movies and would like to see more of this character, my advise is: Don't. This show features all the usual ingredients known from the other post endgame series: a strong diverse cast, a main character that is constantly belittled and and a plot that capitalizes on making fun of the achievements of the movies. Apart from that, the setting is interesting, the visuals are not as great as the movies but generally good and Tom Hiddelston just IS Loki. I would have liked to see more of the Loki from the movies and honestly wish I had not watched this.

Knives Out was no great. I found it to be dull and just a bad mystery. The mystery gets lost right at the beginning until the very end. Plus the person who did it is so predictable it's just sad. When I saw Murder on the Orient Express I was always excited every second. It was fun to see the detective find clues to who did what. And the ending was even more exciting. This was just dry and had no clues. With a cast this amazing I was hopeful but everyone was pretty bad except Ana de Armas. I wouldn't recommend. Watch Murder on the Orient Express instead.

This movie is best watched with a blindfold and earplugs! Bath soaps leave better films!

Netflix is the worst production company in terms of big screen, but unfortunately they have the best Marketing team in the world. The production of the movie is good compared to the previous Netflix films, and of course there is a huge team of important (paid) names that saved the work, from actors, actresses, producers and director known in romance films Susanne Bier, this is the first (Horror and thriller movie) she did. well, directing wasn't that bad but it contains everything except horror i couldn't find a single horror scene in the whole movie. Acting performance is wonderful, by star Sandra Bullock, although I don't like her and I hate when she's on camera, but I admit that she's a heavy-duty actress. certainly, we must remember the first acting experience of MGK, after his career as Rapper was tragically ended by Eminem, so he had to find another field. As a cinematic analysis, I find that the idea is incomplete and contains an ambiguity that has never been revealed after all this suspense. The film didn't contain solution for the case that they created, i think it's the first film in the world that had no ending. As a philosophical analysis, I personally see the idea is even worse than the film, even if it was intended for how much I understood it. How much we noticed that looking was dangerous and it is the main cause of danger. I discuss the general idea and the abstract meanings. It's an incitement to indifference and to not dive into seeing reality and its complexities, and living without knowledge is how to achieves safety and stability, This explains their refuge to the school of the blinds and live there safely, regardless of the danger that has not been explained. The film ended and nothing remained in the outside world except for the insane and mentally ill. As for the wise ones, are the believers who remained in the school of the blind !! One of the worst and most dangerous ideas that can be proposed, (just look at what is beautiful and that guarantees you happiness, and leave reality as it is) If the idea is that bad, so the film has achieved its goal and actually ended, But in all cases a very bad movie in my opinion. Mark.

Big KG fan so I wanted to like this, but the whole movie just kinda felt like an anxiety attack. It was stressful the whole way through and that was about the only emotion I felt. Not funny, sad, whatever, just uncomfortable.

Just took my heart. And must say life is ludo and ludo is lifeee!!!!!

Maybe there was something artistic or deep in this movie, but I couldn't see it. It didn't feel original neither, just boring and too long.

There's an excitement I get going in a Spielberg movie that I just don't get with other directors. I can't quite put my finger on the specific reason, other than that he captures the magic of cinema in a way that nobody else can replicate. The Fabelmans is no exception. This film just feels special. It recreates the formative years of Spielberg himself through the fictional Fabelman family. Young Sammy Fabelman (a version of Spielberg played brilliantly by Gabriel LaBelle) develops a love of film and tries to pursue his passion whilst in the midst of family drama, the usual headaches that accompany teen life, as well as more insidious anti-semitic behaviour. Broadly it is a coming of age story, but it is also a love letter to the art of cinema and a reflection on family. It is packed full of story. Packed full of character. Packed full of feeling and love and care. I don't think it is technically or narratively Spielberg's best, but it is his most personal film and you can feel this in every frame. You can tell his soul was poured into it and it is all the better for it. As mentioned the performance from LaBelle as Sammy (Spielberg) is top notch. Such a daunting role that he handles with ease. Michelle Williams steals the show as Sammy's troubled mother, and Paul Dano once again proves that he is one of the best working today. I must admit Seth Rogen felt a little out of place in the film but this wasn't too distracting. The themes of the film are all explored perfectly, with a spot on balance of humour, charm, impact and emotion. The direction is fantastic. The score beautiful. What more is there to say? If you are a fan of Spielberg, a fan of cinema, a fan of great performances, a fan of technical finesse, then The Fabelmans will satiate you and more. A marvellous film.

Almost an entirely different story, from the one told in the book.

I had great expectations for the Barbie movie, mainly because of the writers (Greta Gerwig and Noah Baumbach) and the stellar cast with Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling leading the way. Unfortunately I found myself disappointed, bored and shocked by some messages the movie tries to convey. Starting with what I liked, the performances were great and in particular Ryan Gosling was spectacular with a wide range of emotions and a lot of humor displayed. Also the design of the sets was inspired with a lot of references to the Barbie world and the style was unique and recognisable. Finally some jokes landed pretty well and the movie (in the first half) is pretty funny. And the positives end here. Unfortunately the negatives are much more important. Sorted in a order of increasing gravity: * some plot lines are bad and are closed so quickly that it would have been better not to include them in the first place. In particular I am referring to the mother/daughter one and the one about Mattel. Furthermore, the Mattel one is also a bit strange since it is useful to criticise however uses feminism to make money, while being a movie that does exactly that. * the film becomes boring in the second half. This is due to a systematic shift in tone and style since if in the first part the satire is sharp and elegant and leads to numerous bittersweet laughs, in the second half instead the movie becomes full of exposition. There are a lot of scenes where things are directly explained to the viewer (clearly considered a bit stupid) and there are some too long monologues that are both cringe and painfully written. This is a pity because some ideas explored in the second half are interesting, but due to this shift "Barbie" becomes so boring to enjoy them. * the messages: I found some messages the movie is trying to convey pretty baffling. First of all the film is not about parity, but rather about gender fight and I don't think this is the correct idea to give to younger viewers. I want that children/young adults get that as a society we want equal rights and opportunities, not to fight to be the dominant genere. This is also true because of the fact that there's no a single positive male figure throughout the movie because they are all treated like enemies or like total idiots. On the other side the Barbies are perfect entities. In a certain way it seemed "Birds of Prey" where the situation was exactly the same but in that case there weren't two of the biggest writer in Hollywood behind. Not to mention the totally worst thing that is how the Barbie solve the main conflict: instead of using intelligence they use seduction. This is so wrong because in a movie that wants to be empowering, women are depicted as better suited in seducing instead of thinking. All of these ruin other good ideas like for instance the inversion of the point of view that is useful to explain to men what women in our society has to live every day. That was pretty interesting but it gets lost between what mentioned before. In conclusion, I was very disappointed by the "Barbie" movie because I actually had high hopes knowing that it could have been a fun movie with positive messages, but it was the total opposite. I've seen it with both females and males and the reactions were generally mixed and no gender pattern was evidenced in terms of appreciating it or not. However the great merit that I have to give credit to the movie is that it triggers a discussion capable of actually enrich people through sharing of experiences. And so, even if I didn't like it I'd suggest you to watch "Barbie" and discuss of it with your families and friends!

This movie is a mess. Story line is horrific ,and the writing is horrendous.it feels like somone put the script in a mixer grinder and made a shake out of it. Im still confused as to what the movie actually wants to potray.theres not a clear intended audience for this . It references so many old movies which makes it way too boring. Even the dialogues are boring . There is not a clear line in the story line. Way too much plugging of outfits.the producer actually spent more time on marketing than they on getting a good storyline.tmost of the jokes were annoying and cheesy.overall the movie is wierd and bogus.

After watching the first Captain American I thought that it wasn't as good as the likes of Iron Man and other Avengers films, but after watching this in 3D I can honestly say I change my mind. Chris Evans' performance was great, taking into consideration that he's only a moderately known actor. The film is a direct sequel to the first and after The Avengers continuing from where the first left off - in the 21st century - but being that it's set in the 21st century, Marvel seems to have took advantage of that by adding a range of bad ass equipment to it. The winter soldier is completely a bad ass leaving you in shock once you find out who it is. The film continues mixing faster pace scene with slow pace scenes to balance it out, but the fight scenes are fantastic! There are some familiar faces and amazing twists, all formed together nicely with an undercurrent of comedy. Definitely worth a watch. 9/10

This is without a doubt the Coen Bros' best film. Splendid cinematography, a chilling score, clever script, and brilliant performances make this quirky dark comedy a modern classic. Frances McDormand and William H. Macy are especially memorable. BTW to those who say the scene in the bar with Marge and her high-school chum Mikey was unnecessary, this is not so. Mikey tells Marge how he has married and had children, and that her wife had recently passed away. Marge believes her good friend. But several scenes later she finds out that everything he told her was a lie. This makes Marge question the sincerity of Jerry Lundengard when she first interviewed him, because if a sweet good-natured guy like Mikey can concoct such a lie then so could Lundengard. She finds out Mikey lied to her, the VERY NEXT SCENE she returns to the car dealership to re-interview Lundengard who realizes she may have put the pieces together, so he flees the scene. If Marge never met up with Mikey, she wouldn't have exposed Lundengard as a conspirator. This is the reason that amusing scene is so important. Got it? Good. Have a nice day.

There are tons of reviews out there. All saying the same thing depending on your point of view: Epic (good) or Long (bad) Visionary (good) or Nonsensical (bad) Kubrick-like (good) or Kubrick-LITE (bad) etc, etc, etc. So instead of a review, here's what I wrote my ex: "Have you watched Interstallar? If you haven't, DON'T! 3 hours of some of the most tedious and dreadful bore. Put it this way... I was doing taxes at the same time, and a) felt no need to pause the movie at any point, and b) taxes were legitimately more interesting. "It has an amazing IMDb score, but clearly people just want to feel smart with themselves. If you read the 1* reviews, those are the ones that cut thru the nonsense and just say how it is. Avoid at all costs." So there's my review...

An amazing movie with a very good twist in both the starting and the climax part. All actors have performed well and the movie is worth watching. The amazing weekend blockbuster starring Akshay Kumar, Kajal Aggarwal and supporting actors Manoj Bajpay, Anupam Kher and Jimmy Shergill. This movie marks the comeback of the greatest action star Akshay Kumar in his amazing comic role + serious role. This movie depicts four characters who looted the money of rich people like ministers and jewelery shop owners who were corrupt by claiming themselves to be CBI and in other case as Income Tax Dept. This issue is shown in the movie which refers to actual occurrence of such robberies in the 1980's in India.

Greetings again from the darkness. Many were unimpressed with the first Captain America movie, though I have always had a soft spot for the most heroic and genuinely pure of the superheroes. This sequel opens with Steve Rogers trying to acclimate after a 70 year sleep ... he thinks the internet is pretty cool. It is a bit surprising that the Russo brothers (Anthony and Joe, known for You, Me and Dupree) are the ones who load up on plot lines within a Marvel movie. Starting off with big time action sequences, the movie then morphs into a geopolitical weave of intrigue between SHIELD and HYDRA. New to this maze of distrust is Robert Redford ... proving once again that Hollywood doesn't trust guys wearing suits in fancy offices. In a twist, Captain America (Chris Evans) and Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) find themselves the target of a manhunt by those they work for. Then they drag The Falcon (Anthony Mackie) into this ... his flight suit is a nice effect. All of this happens after an unexpected action-packed sequence featuring Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson). The multiple plot lines and emphasis on trust issues all correlate pretty well to some of the things going on in the world today. That adds an enjoyable element that really brings relevance to the Captain America character. Because of this the repartee between Cap and Natasha is limited ... we get some, but much less than what we have come to expect from other Avengers-related films. And it's probably a good idea to go a different direction with the Avenger who really is different from the others. Don't miss the extra scene in the closing credits ... it's the lead in to The Avengers movie coming in 2015.

Great actors, great cinematography and most importantly well intertwined plot. Remind of Pulp Fiction. It is up to you to detrmine whether the actors are good or bad, victims or perpetrators.

This was really bad and boring. Very pandering and toxic feminine and it should have been about equality. Barbie is just not what I expected it to be. I would like if it was better and that people would save their money. Not worth it trust me, I cannot recommend. While the sets were decent, I was hoping it would end and be over soon and then I looked at my watch there was still an entire hour left. I thought about leaving and sneaking into Oppenheimer instead but alas I was with my family and they would have noticed. Just absolutely boring for both kids and adults, it should have been more about the fun Barbie Land and not so dramatic. Overall, cringe as hell and just boring while missing the mark. Men and women are equal and that is that. Good night.

It really did feel like a draft . Conversations were extremely unbelievable and tbh kinda cringe at points addition to that were the confusing mid talk frame cuts from place to place without a glance what is happening at the moment . The pace was really off too , very flat even in the "intense" moments. The story was inconclusive and the plot incontinence. Maybe the only good thing was the glamorous cast of proven and to be proven actors , even they felt a little off . The conclusion is that the movie was really bad , personality i never have so big of an urge to leave the cinema before the movie end , however i stayed the whole time almost bored to death .

Great concept, excellent atmosphere. The first 5 episodes promised a great show. Then it went downhill from the episode 6. The finale was just disappointing. And the show completely failed to build a believable science back story. First it was manivese then simulation. It felt like "we don't know what we are talking about and we can't get a science advisor to help us".

I am a Sherlock Holmes fan. Always have been. So when I read that a new Sherlock Holmes related film (albeit about his less known and much younger sister Enola) was being released, I got excited. Big mistake. Now, my problem isn't with the female character driven plot (I'm a huge fan of the Underworld or Hunger Games franchises, to name but two). Not even with the fact that Sherlock Holmes has very little screen time - I knew that from the start. No, my problem is with the fact that this film has no story - only a series of excuses to show women kicking men's asses. That's it, that's the whole film. My problem is with the fact that this film treats the audience like idiots, as if anyone in their right mind and a minimum knowledge of History would believe that the things they show in this sad excuse of a film were actually possible in the England of the late 1800's. Now, I'm all for the advancement of women's place in society and History, I'm all for it - but this is the wrong way to do it. Making films where all the men are either idiots or evil and only the women are capable and good is the wrong way to do it, not only because it's unrealistic but because it doesn't make for a good story. There were - and are - real female heroes who, throughout History and today, fought and fight bravely for women's rights without throwing a single punch or making enemies out of men; Hollywood should tell their stories instead of making drivel like this or the more recent version of Charlie's Angels. It's a pity, really. With a decent story line and character development, it could have been a decent addition to the Holmes canon. My advice to all who haven't seen it is: avoid it like the plague. Watch the Granada series from the 1980's with Jeremy Brett as the best Holmes ever instead. Or the more recent Sherlock or Elementary. Hell, even the two RDJ Sherlock Holmes films are preferable to this. You're very welcome.

Move over Jackie Chan, Stephen Chow is in town. Yes, he is good and way more humorous than Jackie "I wish I was funny" Chan. The truth is that Jackie Chan tries to look too adorable in his action flicks. He never suffers the way the hero in KUNG FU SHUFFLE did. Yes, this movie delivered ALL the good on all cylinders. I liked that mean dude who turned into a bull frog a lot. That was intense. And when he punched the dude in the face super hard and made his face go into the ground? That was just plain SICK! Also, that lady with the hair curlers was awesome. At first she seemed mean, but then we learn different. How did she become so powerful?

Sorry folks, but for me, a musical absolutely requires professional level singing and dancing. And although Gosling and Stone are great actors and do an excellent job with a fun script, neither one either dances or sings like a professional. Not even close. The result comes across like one of those rather embarrassing and painful high-school musicals that you sit through because your child is in it. The costumes and set design were great, and I really liked the music. I think the movie would have been much better if they had just done voice-overs for the songs. Then we would only have needed to overlook the amateur dancing. The plot is a modified RomCom plot, but since this isn't a spoiler review, you will have to see it to find out how it deviates from the standard line. I saw this movie with my daughter who is an aficionado of movie musicals. She was annoyed at the rampant borrowing from classics such as "The Umbrellas of Cherbourg", "An American in Paris", and "Singing in the Rain". Although this point is worth mentioning, I think many if not most viewers will not notice. We just watched "Singing in the Rain" last night, in honor of Debbie Reynolds. If you want to see what a great musical actually looks and sounds like, you can rent it from Amazon. Then make your own comparison.

Not sure about all those over the top reviews, but couldn't find anything extraordinary about the movie. Making fun of cows,Hindu idols, Hindu Temple, jokes about Arnab's show and voice for narration is a gift,its not for everyone. The way the stories are connected is quite impressive and individual performances from Pankaj Tripathi and Rajkumar Rao are amazing, rest others also did justice to their characters. Watch it with low expectations on Sunday afternoon. Cheers

This movie is awful. The first one is awful and this one even more awful. Went to see this movie because apparently it's a technical achievement that has never been done before... well I've seen marvel movies that have done the same sort of stuff but even better. The visuals were cool sure but the movie was so boring it's insane. It was a rinse and repeat type of movie for 3 hours. One character does something stupid and gets in trouble and another character saves them and then they get yelled at and say they would never do it again and then they do it again... At least I know that there are 17 more of these coming out and they can't be as bad as this one... can they?

The show is amazing, refreshing, cool, inspiring and all the other synonym of the above mentioned words. Thus TVFPitchers is a must watch show for every youngsters as it rightly sets a proper ambiance of the new generation trying to make difference and how by working hard and focus one can surpasses all the underlying hurdles and tussles of life. How in a simple way the show teaches us so many things is really Awesome. We need more shows like this to entertain as well as inspire us all at the same time. Tvf is the change we truly deserve in Indian television also AIB :) Way to guys. Keep Rocking #sabBeerHain! The show is amazing, refreshing, cool, inspiring and all the other synonym of the above mentioned words. Thus TVFPitchers is a must watch show for every youngsters as it rightly sets a proper ambiance of the new generation trying to make difference and how by working hard and focus one can surpasses all the underlying hurdles and tussles of life. How in a simple way the show teaches us so many things is really Awesome. We need more shows like this to entertain as well as inspire us all at the same time. Tvf is the change we truly deserve in Indian television also AIB :) Way to guys. Keep Rocking #sabBeerHain!

If you have never read the book, this is a decent movie. It's well done and entertaining. However, if you like the book, this movie is a travesty. Even though the author Ernest Cline co-wrote the screenplay, it has only superficial resemblance to the book. I won't be specific because I don't want to spoil anything but absolutely NOTHING from the challenges in the book appear in the movie. It's as if they picked a few lines from the book, used the basic premise, and wrote an entirely different story. If you really like the book, stay away from this disaster.

To put it bluntly, this is some of the best action from any movie in recent memory. There's a ten minute-plus seemingly one-shot action sequence that is absolutely outstanding. The fights are so brutal and each more creative than the last. John Wick showed that having stunt coordinators direct action movies could be a winning formula. Extraction is another example of this as the Russo Brothers hired their Avengers stunt coordinator for this project. It's lacking the sleekness of John Wick, but goes in a different direction with a raw, gritty approach to action and a real Call of Duty vibe. Chris Hemsworth is great and this is easily one of his best performances outside of Thor. The story is pretty by-the-numbers, but Extraction's incredible action makes this a worthwhile watch.

What I saw was unimaginative writing, mostly same old, same old. But typical Hollywood thinking, we'll just put some nudity and sex in and call it ground breaking. My eyes are rolling. Been here, done that.

The first season is good but the second and the third are really bad

How has no one commented on how bad Michael B. Jordan was in this movie? His character was terrible and he acting was even worse. I've always thought he was a very over hyped actor though. The movie would've been better with a different person as the "bad guy" in my opinion.

Not one likable character. Couldn't care less about any of the characters. Daniel Craig's southern accent was unintelligible. A dialogue coach was desperately needed, so one could understand what the hell he was talking about. Convoluted plot line. Hard to follow any of the stories the smarty pants writers sat around in the writers room laughing at how clever they are, and patting themselves on the back. Direction was awful. Lots of good actors that just ran in circles. Turned it off after 30 minutes. 100% different than Knives Out, and not in a good way. Sorry not sorry. It was completely crap.

I didn't think it was possible for the show to be more boring than the games, they proved me wrong. They chose all the wrong actors.

Watched this yesterday and I find myself confused at the end, the story is about some people fighting to save the virtual world, but the message of the story is about how the virtual world makes you miss the real world. I find it hard to agree to the whole storyline, such a made up situation, not really invested with the backstory of oasis at all and yet we were force to follow along. The guy situation with his aunt and boyfriend is weird, no resolution from there too. It's a bad movie to watch because you don't find the story match the message it tried to leave behind.

Extremely boring & slow movie I've just wasted my time

I have never watched a more annoying movie in my life. Bad Marvel humor turned up to 11. Unlikeable characters. Forced references: like, ya we get it that's a line from the older movie, no reason to say that line other than force feeding it to being from the original trilogy. They couldn't even get the cameos right. Plus the horrible plot with the most selfish spiderman ever written. Garbage movie. Villains were fun.

With all the hype,plus the main topic being bets,and Kevin Garnett in it,I expected a very entertaining movie to watch. But what I felt I watched was a well made film,with so many histrionic characters that they got me out of the story many times. I understand what the pretension was by trying to cause stress on the viewer. But to my taste,it was not the best way to do it since,as I said,there was so much continous human yelling,shouting,talking at the same time,etc,that I almost opted to not finish the movie. I would not watch it a second time,which is what I do if I love a movie. Not this one.

I enjoy the series, but is getting very long with the same main villain and is getting very annoying, the first season is great and the 2 is not that great but it is interesting but the 3 one very necessary, I understand that is very entertaining I get that but they are using a lot the same main point of every season, so watch it and enjoy but don't get surprised if you think that they need to change the pro lam of each season.

Worst movie ever, waste 1 hour and 57 mins of my life !Worst movie ever, waste 1 hour and 57 mins of my life !Worst movie ever, waste 1 hour and 57 mins of my life !Worst movie ever, waste 1 hour and 57 mins of my life !Worst movie ever, waste 1 hour and 57 mins of my life !Worst movie ever, waste 1 hour and 57 mins of my life !Worst movie ever, waste 1 hour and 57 mins of my life !Worst movie ever, waste 1 hour and 57 mins of my life !Worst movie ever, waste 1 hour and 57 mins of my life !Worst movie ever, waste 1 hour and 57 mins of my life !Worst movie ever, waste 1 hour and 57 mins of my life !Worst movie ever, waste 1 hour and 57 mins of my life !Worst movie ever, waste 1 hour and 57 mins of my life !Worst movie ever, waste 1 hour and 57 mins of my life !Worst movie ever, waste 1 hour and 57 mins of my life !Worst movie ever, waste 1 hour and 57 mins of my life !Worst movie ever, waste 1 hour and 57 mins of my life !Worst movie ever, waste 1 hour and 57 mins of my life !Worst movie ever, waste 1 hour and 57 mins of my life !Worst movie ever, waste 1 hour and 57 mins of my life !Worst movie ever, waste 1 hour and 57 mins of my life !Worst movie ever, waste 1 hour and 57 mins of my life !Worst movie ever, waste 1 hour and 57 mins of my life !Worst movie ever, waste 1 hour and 57 mins of my life !Worst movie ever, waste 1 hour and 57 mins of my life !Worst movie ever, waste 1 hour and 57 mins of my life !Worst movie ever, waste 1 hour and 57 mins of my life !Worst movie ever, waste 1 hour and 57 mins of my life !Worst movie ever, waste 1 hour and 57 mins of my life !Worst movie ever, waste 1 hour and 57 mins of my life !Worst movie ever, waste 1 hour and 57 mins of my life !Worst movie ever, waste 1 hour and 57 mins of my life !Worst movie ever, waste 1 hour and 57 mins of my life !Worst movie ever, waste 1 hour and 57 mins of my life !Worst movie ever, waste 1 hour and 57 mins of my life !

We don't understand Ciri's character at all in season 1 & in season 2 she seemingly holds this destructible power and becomes the center of attention. Ciri & the Witcher's inseparable bond becomes the most annoying part of season 2. I am so sick of how many times he says he wants to protect Ciri. Also, I was hoping to see the Witcher take Yennefer in open arms but he was too consumed with Ciri!

It seems that the people giving it bad reviews either didn't watch past the 1st episode, or lack the intelligence to understand the time lines. The acting is a bit rigid in places but over all a great series and I can't wait for the next one.

This is what is called entertainment...!!!!. The movie moves with a touch of comedy. The story belongs to a typical English movie which has the beginning repeated in last part of it regaining all of its connections to set it right and provides the understandability to its viewers. But the negative part of it is that Mr.Director could have utilized the excellent work of eminent actors like John Travolta and Samuel Jackson to convey some true message which the society is in need of.Unlike any other movies like Shaw shank Redemption or Black Swan, people who expects something strong message, will surely be disappointed. But Of course a set of viewers who shall expect only comedy shall get their target set reached.

It's not a smart, complex mystery like many reviews are alluding to. Just a fun? Whodunnit with some questionable acting throughout, aside from Daniel Craig. It's really a shame because I thought the first movie was actually quite good. The fact that this movie currently has a 93% on rotten tomatoes is laughable, though. I don't know who played Andi/Helen but her acting here does not make me wish to seek out other projects she's been involved in, but I can't imagine they're worse than this. This is NOT a movie I would recommend you sit down and devote an evening to, it would be wasteful. Instead maybe save it to watch on a plane flight so if you land early you won't care to find out how it ends.

The previews for this movie do not do it any justice. Before I went to see the film I thought it looked funny and it had the same crew from other hilarious movies like Knocked Up and Superbad, but I wasn't sure what to expect. The end result is that Jason Segel in his first main role picture played the character amazingly. This movie is not a romantic comedy, although there is some level of romance, on the whole it is filled with hilarious antics and crude humour, two ingredients found in most top movies. I love 'How I met your mother', and am a fan of Jason Segel in the show but personally I believe he has stepped it up at least 10 notches in this film, I look forward to the next film by these guys and will recommend this film to all.

Director Guillermo Del Toro's skills and excellent filming techniques have been frequently questioned by many after releasing his two last films: Pacific Rim and Crimson Peak. Del Toro has always been a quite controversial director due to his unique style, however, it is agreed that his best film was The Pan's Labyrinth which caught attention and has an impact on some other directors. The question is whether he is able to make such masterpieces like Pan's Labyrinth or whether he is just an average director who had one spectacularly great film. His new film, The Shape of Water has definitely answered the question although this opinion probably won't be popular or widely held. The Shape of Water was released in 2017 and got four Oscars including the Best motion picture of the year and the best achievement in directing. These awards may suggest that Del Toro's new film is spotless, in fact, the Academy Awards has lately become rather a show which tries to be as politically correct as possible than awarding actually great and splendid works such as mother!, Phantom Thread or Dunkirk. The film takes place in the early 50's, 60's in the USA during the Cold War era. Sally Hawkins (Elisa Esposito) is a deaf and shy woman who works at a research facility as a janitor when a strange sea creature is captured and is held as a prisoner in this facility. Sally falls in love with this creature because they are both suffering from discrimination and she decides to rescue him. Del Toro's most powerful tool in order to make his films astonishing is the colorful and unique world he creates. The costumes and the scenery are prominently beautiful and thus the whole atmosphere is just amazing and is on point. Visually and cinematographically The Shape of Water is immaculate and the music score and the soundtracks are also mentionable elements. On the other hand the film has some terrible mistakes and aspects that made me become disenchanted with the directing of Del Toro since I had high expectations due to the eleven Oscar nominations and my admiration towards the director. The film is full of poor dialogues and inappropriate scenes especially the ones that try to make the film more naturalistic and sincere but only making it unnecessary and unpleasant. I've lost count the number of times how many clichés were in the film moreover the whole point of the film is just a boring and frequently discussed cliché: only inner beauty can generate true love. The problem is not with the message itself but the way the film tries to depict it. It is clear that Del Toro wanted to make sure everybody understands and embraces the essence of his film for the very meaning of The Shape of Water was said by Sally in the film world by world. Del Toro doesn't even want to make people think he wants to make sure everybody can understand this simple piece of wisdom. There is no need for interpretations or deeper thoughts the goal was unambiguously to win the desired Oscar award by being politically correct and to express an extremely simple message. This is the mockery of the art of motion picture. One of the characters is depicted as homosexual although it isn't dramaturgically reasonable since there is nothing to do with his sexuality. Almost every single male character is either a bad person or a weak one. These are the most important elements that show the impact of feminism and ultra liberalism on the film industry. Politics should not affect art or sports and that is the reason why I completely dislike Del Toro's film. In light of the above, the answer to the question is that Guillermo Del Toro may have some nice ideas and has a great fantasy; however, he is not an incredibly memorable or fantastic director after all. The Shape of Water is not worth watching although visually it is pretty well-done.

Overly long and over-rated. I watched this when it was released and did not agree with the hyped up accolades; and I just rewatched years later - still have the same assessment. Christian Bale's mouth alone annoyed me to no end. Why cast someone with a lisp or lazy tongue or crooked teeth to play the title character whose mask draws all focus to the mouth area? Plus there are far more charismatic actors, who enunciate better. The story was too drawn out, the dialog reminded me of the old Batman TV series (which may have been deliberate), and the plot was so twisted yet predictable. Heath Ledger's Joker performance alone could not raise this above a mid level rating for me - plus I enjoyed Jack Nicholson's much more.

Did I miss something? I don't get the 10/10 reviews for a movie that was nothing more than fight scene after fight scene. Zero plot, although the dogs were cute. Jason Stratham movies have more depth than this piece of work. Just. Wow. Such a nose dive compared to JW 1 & 2.

Dear Mr. Raimi, You may not remember this, but a few years back I wrote you another open letter here, FURIOUS at the terrible piece of filmmaking, of writing, of sheer BEING that was the original "Spider-Man." It relied too heavily on CGI, it insulted my intelligence, it had gaping holes in its own logic... and then there was that Macy Gray cameo. Yech. Mr. Raimi, props to you sir, PROPS. I didn't think you even read that thing. But you listened, and you responded. You jettisoned screenwriter David Koepp, whose screenplays were always sensational, but typically dumb as rocks. You hired Oscar-winner Alvin Sargent to write your screenplay, and hired your old cinematographer Tim Pope, from your Army of Darkness days, to shoot your movie. The special effects were subtle and you focussed on the story. Character took precedence over choking your audience on CGI. The story had five recognizable acts, and each character was given their chance to shine. Yes, you brought everyone back, and found something for them to do. Timid Tobey Maguire, Emotionally Conflicted Kirsten Dunst... you even had the courage to bring back James Franco, even though it's now apparent his career is going nowhere. A bold step, but you make it work for you. I'm talking about the ending. You know what I mean. You could've gone with a big star for Doc Ock, but instead you picked a great ACTOR, one who was right for the part-- the superb Alfred Molina. And then you let him ACT, rather than hiding him with effects the entire movie-- much like Willem Dafoe in the first film. I had low expectations for this film, but you blew me through the back wall of the theater. You CAN direct a summer blockbuster, you CAN strike an excellent balance between action and drama. You know when to restrain yourself (excellent use of silence), and you know when to just let it fly (the scene on the train almost made me cry). This is what happens when a director and writer are MORE talented than their actors. It doesn't happen a lot, but this film made me proud to be your fan. Even the opening credits were supremely clever, showing us the highlights of the first film so we didn't have to sit through that garbage ever again. Topping yourself for a "Spider-Man 3" is not going to be easy. Some filmmakers might even be tempted to take a step backward. Some might say it's never even been pulled off, ever-- witness Superman III, Batman Returns, Alien3 or The Godfather Pt. III. All were sad disappointments compared to what came before... but after seeing "Spider-Man 2," I believe. I believe, Mr. Raimi, and I know you can follow your own creative talents and create an even better, more impressive third film, given the time and people with whom to collaborate. Just don't write it. Know where your talent lies... and where people like Alvin Sargent and Bill Pope (and Michael Chabon) can help make you the best filmmaker you can possibly be. Warmest Personal Regards, 10/10

Oke, so yesterday I finally got to see The Dark Knight and I had my oppion all fully figured out before I saw this "flick". But as days passed I just wanted to see this film more and more, not to bash it but because I was generally amused by the trailers and the story, but when the time finally came it turned out to be even less than what I expected to be. You could say I was afraid that TDK turned out to be actually good, since I despise anything that gets thrown in front of the flesh hunger mob that are the Main Stream viewers that slurp up anything they read of a Poster on the back of a bus stop. but I was glad, the dark knight was average, the best "summer Flick" you could have, but average. The joker seemed cool, but was nothing out of the ordinary, banging his head randomly at times and making flirtatious remarks with his Tongue does not make it superb acting Also his random shoutouts about his dad or his scars, they cramped those comments in as much as possible at random places as if he wants someone to share his feelings with. Lets not forget the random small plot twists that drive the story back instead of forward ( expect for that one part, which I'm not going to spoil but it actually had me entertained if not grabbed into the story). TDK is not actionpacked enough to be hardcore action, It tries to hard to be deep and its somewhere stuck between Actionville and GoodDeepSmartandEdgy-ville. It tumbles Further downhill than the last half hour of Batman Begins and ignoring the stop signs on the way, I like my comics on paper, if not, animated, if not animated than in the form of a generic actionfilm in tight pants which I will never watch unless giving me the choice to blow my own brains out or watch it. Don't be scared by my rated, I am a simple guy who gives only one movie a 10score instead of every movie I watched. A 6 means its above average, and it is, enough to keep me awake unlike my mate who had the choice to see a "great movie" or sleep in sweet ass comfi Chairs. hes a smart guy though.

Remember Hrishida's movies? We laughed with it, loved it, because he created the characters who we could relate. You look around, these characters are in one of your friends. Imtiaz Ali is in the same league. The characters, the shots, the sets, the train, the bus - we have been there! We have lived them. And he creates a gem incorporating these elements. It is humour in pure form! It will brighten you up, no matter how grumpy you may be feeling! I think this is one of the loveliest movie of the year. Pure, unadulterated fun! The strength of the movie is in its script, and in its characters, esp that of Kreena Kpoor (try saying that, you know what I mean) - yeah - Ms Kapoor is in her elements. She plays the role of sikhni convincingly! The lingo, the body language, the attitude, she is 100%! Kareena Kapoor 2.0 (that's what I call post Chameli) rocks! Every movie, she surprises with histrionics, that is very few in current Bollywood can match! And what a transformation from Omkara's Dolly? That's real actress right there! Shahid Kapoor... mmmm, could improve in the acting dept. If I were to choose, I would choose someone like Shreyas Talpade for this role. Shahid has definitely matured as an actor from his chocolate-boy image, but still leaves something to be desired. In my opinion, the comedy is one of the most difficult of the genres. To execute it well without sounding cheap, or going overboard, or cheesy, is not really easy. Imtiaz Ali, in this case does justice to two most important depts, Writing & Direction! A word about music: Pritam brings a fresh set of music, some of it grows on you after listening few times. Definitely I am not talking of the radio-friendly Mauja Hi Mauja, which is tailor-made for music video channels. Songs like Aao Milo Chalo, Tum Se Hi are real nice pop or soft-rockish tunes. Sandesh Shandilya shares the burden on Aaoge Jab Tum, and Rashid Khan does a fine job on the vocals. On Tum Se Hi, watch out for Ustad Sultan Khan's ever soulful crooning. I still give it a 8/10 because Shahid Kapoor's acting has rooms for improvement, the second half has rooms for editing and making it more compact. But the movie is worth watching just for Kareena Kapoor's acting! Way to go Imtiaz Ali!

It is sad that the tv show is cancelled by Netflix due to license politcs, this Daredevil people don't deserve, this show gave so many things that made this show great, the one takes or continuous shots of actions scenes, the character buildings, the dialogues, the pain and joy you go through with each episodes is never been with a superhero based tv shows we have, this show gave The R rated Punisher we always wanted, it pulled out a great antagonist from Bullseye! BULLSEYE!! I never thought bullseye can be a good antagonist but they made him a competitive opponent with amazing story and choreography, I will miss this franchise and cast, this tv show will age very well even after 10 years, Charlie Cox will be the only Daredevil in my heart forever.

Amazing choreography, fight scenes, chase scenes, and great stunt work.

I honestly didn't get it. It felt like an Asian acid trip. I had trouble following the plot and found most of the skits not adult funny, so I gave up halfway through the film. I did feel bad for the actor that played an IRS security agent that got beaten up by a girl swinging two giant anatomically correct white dildos. His off-set friends at his local pub are not going to let him live that scene down. You got beaten down to the floor with what?

I see this show and i think it was year 1980 and funny and enterteining i give it 6 out of ten.

I'm a big fan of comic book/superhero movies, so this was a must-see. It really felt long. There are plenty of ways the time could've been trimmed without destroying the plot. I don't want to give away any spoiler details of the movie, but the story was lame. I couldn't tell if they were going for young audience, adult, comedy, or action. It never really pulled any of those things off. It seems disconnected from the other dc stuff lately. It would maybe fit with the older batman movies, but the current stuff is darker and more adult. I'm no professional, just know what I like and don't like. This was just ok. I'll never see it again, though.

The Godfather Part II is a classic film that follows the story of the Corleone crime family and their rise to power in the world of organized crime. The film, a sequel to the original The Godfather, is a masterpiece of storytelling and acting, and it remains one of the most highly regarded films of all time. The Godfather Part II picks up where the first film left off, with the character of Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) now fully entrenched as the head of the family. The film follows two parallel storylines: one set in the present, where Michael is dealing with the challenges of running a criminal empire, and another set in the past, where we see the early years of Michael's father, Vito Corleone (Robert De Niro), as he builds his own criminal empire. One of the things that makes The Godfather Part II so special is the performances of the cast. Pacino and De Niro give career-defining performances as Michael and Vito, respectively, and their chemistry on screen is electric. The rest of the cast is also excellent, with standout performances from Diane Keaton, Robert Duvall, and Lee Strasberg. The film is directed by Francis Ford Coppola, who also directed the first Godfather film. Coppola's direction is impeccable, and he perfectly captures the mood and atmosphere of the film. The cinematography is also top-notch, with beautiful shots of New York City and Havana adding to the overall visual appeal of the film. Overall, The Godfather Part II is a must-see film for any fan of the crime genre. Its compelling story, top-notch acting, and beautiful visuals make it a true masterpiece of cinema. It's a film that has stood the test of time and remains just as powerful and relevant today as it was when it was first released.

Batman Begins begins with what is nearly the worst sound mix ever. It is alright that the music track is loud and it is OK that the characters whisper – but not at the same time. This movie justifies everything Norma Desmond ever thought about sound. Then we have the close-camera fight scenes. What's with that? Everything is a meaningless blur. This cinematography is actually worse than the Bourne Identity sequel. If the idea is to make us feel we are in the fight rather than watching the fight, it is clear the cinematographer has never actually been in a fight. It is sad that a lot of great effects and stunt work were reduced to smeary blurs. What a waste of footage and of the viewers' time. If the audience could watch the action and could understand the actors' dialog, this might be a cool flick – except for the inane car chase which requires cops who can read minds. As if. With prescient police Gotham wouldn't need a righteous rodent.

"Zodiac" starts out with the potential to be an exciting movie. After the first 15 minutes, you are left with nothing but the minutia of a curious newspaper cartoonist with the hobby of figuring out who may be the serial killer. Unfortunately, the film WALLLOWS in this minutia because it drags on for another 2 1/2 hours after anything that resembles excitement/suspense happens. Mark Ruffalo and Jake Gyllenhaal are respectable in their extremely tedious and boring roles but Robert Downey Jr. makes both of them seem amateurish by comparison. If the film were edited down by an hour and a half, it would be worth renting. Otherwise, it seems like a dull "America's Most Wanted" re-enactment.

Such a children like fairy tale without clever script and this antichrist child and his friends remind me of stranger thing serial which i hate it too....so , not worth it

Probably different from anything you've seen before and it definitely takes a couple of episodes before you're really 'into' this one. After that however, sit back an enjoy this totally weird series consisting of 20 minute episodes, that will keep you hooked if you're into small weird and at times dark conversations, totally of the rails personalities, simple but very effective and alienating cinematography and absurdity. The story is very simple in it's nature and pretty straightforward. Nothing complicated and very well told in real English English, totally suited to the overall atmosphere and characters. The f***ing end is, well, as far as I'm concerned a nice round up of the story, even when some may be disappointed as it's a fairytale's.

Do you really need to introduce these 7 wild turkeys one by one to extend the no-screenplay scenario? Wasting 150m$ and came up with this brainless mess? Think about it: 150m$ could do so many more meaningful, more humanitarian works, even help building part of the border wall and shake the hand of the lunatic. But Netflix never did things like this, they just hired a guy to direct a motion picture with so many superhero-like cartoon characters and more money in special effect, gunpowder and explosive, cars, and compensations caused by making this pathetic mess. Do we really need Ryan Reynolds to play this billionaire role? Any actor with better voice quality would be and could be a better choice. Jesus, his voice still sounded like a under-developed teenager, so thin and so....like your grasp a guy's throat, the voice coming out of that strained throat would just like the voice coming out of Ryan Reynolds' throat. I can't believe a guy at 43 years old, his voice never changed a bit, just like what we heard in his "Van Wilder: Party Liaison (2002)", still sounded like a Spring Chicken. I heard this actor has become a second copy of Edward Norton, so obnoxiously arrogant that the director of the "Deadpool" 2 or 3, just quit due to this actor's bad attitude. But what I've seen about this guy is a under-developed 2 dimensional B-level 2nd tier actor, his acting in many movies were almost the same, superfluous and shallow, just skin-deep and never showed us some in-depth performances. He's always like the typical branded Ryan Reynolds in almost every movie he signed up. He got a costume and mask in Deadpool to cover up his whole being, but the voice is still as thin as a teenager. Leonardo DiCaprio used to have the same light-wt. thin voice, but I did find his voice finally well-developed to match his age, but RR guy seems to have his voice frozen in time, such a weird voice out of the mouth of 6'2" 43 years old guy is just weird. No matter what role he played, his voice simply made the character he played unrealistic with a comic effect. What a weird hot commodity from Canada. Paul Wernick, Rhett Reese, the two writers who scripted this messy movie, actually wrote a script? It seems that there's no screenplay at all, every scene was developed under one scene finished and made up right away afterwards. A new kind verbal script without any word on paper? Michael Bay, I strongly suggest you better change your present "Director" title and start your video game company or hook up with Disney for some new genre violent cartoons, you might find the new career is what you are really born-to-be. Just give up this "Director" job, will you? Because you're killing it.

The production of this show is expectional. Great clothes and scenery. However, unlike the first series in the story, which had mulitple plots going on at the same time, this series seems locked into just one --court intrigue. That makes it drag a bit and border on boring at times. It also is a familiar tale of what does happen at a royal court, so the events to come are foretold; you can see them coming. I never knew what would happen on. Game of Thrones; where we would travel throughout the kindgom and into other storylines. Still, I enjoy the possibilities of this series, despite the blloody river running throughout the intro, seeming to go nowhere other than more blood. Perhaps that is its single plot, killings and more killings. I hope not.

While this is an Aamir Khan movie, it is not as good as his hits such as 3 idiots and Tare jamin par. As with Aamir's other movies, this movie also has a social message. However, the plot is too predictable and unnecessarily long. Everyone's acting is okay, but nothing particularly good comes to mind. None of the songs are memorable. There is no scene in the movie that will stay with you for long.

Bollywood masala movie but, filled with the super performances of renowned actors. After watching Abhishek's acting, I realized how other directors misused/couldn't discover his talent. After watching a movie, one should feel like the time/money well spent and I did feel so.

Had a lot going on. Expected a lot more emotions to be evoked. Left me asking for more in a negative way. Moved too fast. Other than the fight scene, which envoked the feel cause of its grandeur, nothing actually makes a lasting impact on you

Like TDK, this was not just a superhero movie. That movie was a crime drama,and this movie was a conspiracy thriller. It reminded me of classic espionage films like 3 days of the Condor. The Russo brothers made one of the best action movies in the recent memory. They also made changes to Cap while keeping his roots intact, thus making him morally upright but infinitely cooler. 5 out of 5 stars for me.

Tarantino is a great film maker but in this movie he forgot to tell an amazing story and otherwise he focus on the film production, but the problem is that a good filming is nothing without a good plot so thats why I think this movie wasnt good.

Overall it was well done, kept me entertained. However, Daniel Craig's voice was annoying. A thick southern accent that sounded like he had copied Kevin Spacey in "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil."

This series is wonderful. The story, production and cast is spectacular.

Better or Worse, that is up to you, I have watch both series back in the 60s and now I think Dr Smith is a better character to dislike in this new remake of the show, cant wait when she gets her just deserts, they had to make the robot different with it's own back story to throw another dimension to the mix. Each of. characters have to show thier own strength and weakness, yes, you can use the old show series as a comparison, but is that really fair in comparison? You be the judge.

This movie leads nation towards hate speech and fake incidents which never happened. Only people with mind of war and violations will love it .

First, let me say I love Tarantino movies, but this one just fell flat. Except for the last 20 minutes this movie drags on and on without much to keep your attention. There's lots of star power in the cast, but the story just seems to drag on without really going anywhere. Maybe to people in the movie industry this is more entertaining but to the normal person on the street there isn't much here. Really a disappointment!

"If I destroy you, you all fall", said ultron. And it explains the power of dr.strange.. I don't know how powerful is stone?? In comics stone did many amazing things.. And I think dr.stone is the best character in this show what if..? Overall show is descent not too great.. It's animation style is really impressive but it didn't hold long lasting impact to us_ This show had 9 different stories out of this i love t'challa star lord story cause of it's surprise element.. Dr. Strange story cause of affection and 'Moral of Bhagavadgita'.. And the last one_i think every story hold loopholes some hold too many also.. End is not that type of satisfactory.. Also no emotional attachment held with any character except t'challa voice.. We all know and dr. Character arc_ Otherwise this show not hold attraction like other shows in MCU.. And not for those who didn't follow MCU cause they understand show but not catch the eastereggs.. Story arcs and relatability! I hope this show connect MCU somehow.. I feel in Dr. Strange in multiverse of madness.

I'm starting to question whether having David Yates direct these movies is really worth it. The man clearly has a vision for the wizarding universe, but it's not really a vision I agree with. Plus the man has a serious tendency to make these movies more and more grim as they approach the end. Case in point, the second Fantastic Beasts film. The first film was okay. I was not instantly in love with it like I was with the early Harry Potter films, but it was an interesting breath of fresh air and a good way to take a step back from Mr. Potter and his friends, and examine the wider universe only hinted at in Rowling's books. It had interesting creatures, good humour, relatable characters and it felt magical. Sure, the wizards still looked more like British government bureaucrats (despite being American) than wizards, most of the magic on display instantly created like a million plot holes and the whole idea of American wizarding society being even more uptight than the British one was a bit hard to swallow. But, a breath of fresh air, even still. And then there's the second part. Where there are very few fantastic beasts. Where old characters are railroaded back into the plot because they proved to be fan favourites, despite it making no sense whatsoever. Where everything is rainy, and wet, and grim, and dark. Where bad things happen to good people. And good people turn to bad people with no warning, rhyme or reason. Where J. K. Rowling, the screenwriter incidentally, once again reveals (cough: re-writes) something new and baffling about an old character from the Potter books. Yeah, this film unfortunately repeats all the flaws in the last few Potter books and movies. With very few of the upsides. That being said, it still is an interesting world. And I really like it. Even when it is given to me in less than ideal form. Plus, Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) is still very sympathetic and likable. The few beasts we see are cool and interesting. The chemistry between Newt and Tina (Katherine Waterston) still works. It is a shame that all the good things this film has it inherited from the original, but such is life. Well, okay, Jude Law as young Albus Dumbledore was all kinds of fascinating. There just wasn't all that much of him.

I loved the first one but this was bad. The dark and gray film matched the story.

Russell Crowe (aka Fathead) stars as a mathematician suffering from paranoid schizophrenia; As this is very loosely based on a real person, we follow the character through school, into the world of teaching and government cryptography, marriage, sinking into madness and then slowly climbing out. It is primarily set in the Cold War era. I have never been a Russell Crowe fan, so you should read elsewhere for impressions of his performance. Personally, I quickly tired of his mumbling. Also, I am not fond of very long movies, and this is a very long movie. Director Howard has a few surprises in store that will engage the minds of 12 year old viewers everywhere. Jen Connelley is the nutty professor's wife, and Ed Harris plays a shadowy government figure.

The movie as a whole is good. Executing the plot was well done in bits and pieces. But, for a movie of this kind, all it needs a tight screenplay. There are a bunch of unwanted scenes which can be trimmed away. Should the movie be made in 1.5 hrs, it would get a lot more accolade than it is getting right now.

I have lost interest in the rest of this movie after the scenes where I saw a farmer carrying equipment to hack drones, NASA putting a guy on duty who got issues with his family and crying like a drama queen while driving to work, and an astronaut explaining worm-hole-time-travel to another astronaut using a pen and paper while on the mission. The bad acting of the leading actor trying to sound 'cool' in every dialog was very annoying. This movie is way too dumb for a standard 'sci-fi'. The production is great though, but not enough to cover the overall dumbness.

Thank goodness I used movie pass. Not a movie that would have wanted to pay full price. So long and constant unbelievable scenes. It's the same as the all the others. Very predictable. The star of the show was the locations.

Whether its sex, violence, or some other over-the-top scenario, most series have their first episode geared towards grabbing the viewer's attention and not letting go. This one was written like the producers were half way through the second season and undecided whether or not to continue on for season three. It was boring and I struggled to stay interested. Just like GOT, the dragons only have brief cameos and serve more as background dressing.

An excellent follow up to the Knives Out, Glass Onion is an entertaining watch. I loved the mystery, including the structure and order of storytelling. Rian Johnson delivers solid work, producing a perfect match to Knives Out. Setting up a compelling arc to support expanded interest with Benoit Blanc The selection of exotic location rings a chord with the Agatha Christie stories. Sets the table using an opening sequence that prominently features an improbably complex puzzle box: o Reveals relevant aspects of each character and their relationships o Contrasts attempts to solve it that range from collaborative to pragmatic. O This introduced the primary characters and draws the audience in. While the story leverages a few tropes (spoilers omitted), the set up and delivery is more than effective. The study reveals all the characters are flawed and opportunistic, each compromising core principles and those aspects that uniquely define them. Some may insinuate Ed Norton playing a rich billionaire is a dig at Elon Musk, but appropriate viewing will provide this is FAR from accurate. The performances are extremely entertaining, especially Daniel Craig's return as Benoit Blanc. This role confirms Craig's ability to anchor another popular franchise. The chemistry between the actors is clearly visible. Somehow this production escaped the COVID fog.

Only got through a third of this pre-adolescent wreck. Writing is in unclever, unfunny and unbearable. Characters strain to look and sound cool, but only come across as developmentally delayed and superficial to the max. A waste of Ryan Reynolds. He probably got a big paycheck, but this is not something you want on your resume.

when watching this i found it to be closest to the book than any other film. there was only 1 or 2 moments where i thought, that didn't happen in the book, where as in the others, i constantly was disappointed by the huge changes made. the acting was best out of all harry potter films. i think after all these years, Daniel Radcliffe has started improving on his acting. the chemistry between Ron nd Hermione was as usual, very well done. i thought the direction was very good too. although my personal favourite film was prisoner of azkabam, because of the great directing and style, this was done well too. build up and action scenes where done exactly how i pictured them in the book. now the bad side, which is how i feel in all harry potter films, and i feel most people would disagree. the costumes worn by the main characters were poor. this is set in the present, yet harry and Ron walk around wearing the most ridiculous clothing. obviously I'm not expecting Fred perry tops and Adidas joggers, but come on. i saw weird purple vests from Ron, over sized jackets, green waistcoats from harry. not good. as always, they've made harry look too geeky, silly haircut. i know thats how it is in the book, but they could have done it better like in prisoner of azkabam. special effects were much improved from previous ones, and all acting from Beatrix, voldermort, etc was brilliant. overall, i thought this was the best adaptation from the book, and was very intense and done very well.

An original idea, a good cast but honestly, nothing special. The story develops very slowly, but then jumps quickly from one situation to the next. Let's hope it gets better in the next episodes.

This isn't the worst movie I've ever seen but it is pretty bad. I was really surprised with all the big name stars in the credits.I expected a lot more. Didn't start out too bad. The first 15 minutes or so looked promising. Then there's the rest of it. Cheesy, badly written, bad acting, lousy special effects, ridiculous plot twists. So screwed up that Morgan Freeman has to "explain" this mess at the end. Really. Yuck. I mean, I really felt like I was watching a "Saved by The Bell" 2 hour TV special. So juvenile. I was only trying to kill a couple of hours on a Sunday morning and still feel ripped off. Stay away. Trust me.

I went into this series with grounded expectations, having not familiarised myself with the character of Moon Knight before. The stand-out to me was Oscar Isaac and his phenomenal range. Never have I seen an actor have such chemistry with themselves, and the character of Steven Grant was extremely endearing and well done. You can imagine my surprise, then, when I ended up loving Marc Spector, through watching the beautifully handled exploration of his trauma (and thus trauma in general), in the 5th episode. This show was sensitively crafted, engaging and unpredictable. Overall a solid addition to the MCU.

Nathan Hunt/Tom Cruise: "I'm sorry." Julia Meade: "There's no reason to be sorry." Nathan Hunt/Tom Cruise : "I know, but I'm sorry for everything." I really hope he's sorry for this awful film since he was also one of the producers. But, since it made lots of cash and his Scientologist friends will profit from it, I doubt he is sorry in any way shape or form. I wanted to walk out after the first 15 minutes (I was generous), but I thought maybe there would be a twist. I waited it out until the bitter end and what a waste of my time it was. The script was a zero on a one to ten scale. I couldn't believe the stupidity of the IMF in the first 15 minutes of the film. (Damn, it's the IMF! "Stupid" is not their middle name in any other film of the franchise.) Okay, maybe Nathan Hunt has become a victim of PSTD and is generally dysfunctional after the events of the previous and better films. But I waited for that excuse and it never came. I thought at first it was a big IMF scam a tradition dictates. It wasn't. They really lost the ball in the first reel and it was their very stupid fault (not to mention that they never really got it back)! The IMF doesn't DO that in such a simple situation! I kept waiting for Nathan to wake up from ANOTHER nightmare for the rest of the film. He and his team were incompetent and insensitive (since the bad guys were obvious), but even though I thought they knew that and were playing the great, traditional IMF long game, I was wrong! They were dumb. There were only mediocre chase scenes with completely disoriented paths through Paris (I know Paris and those scenes could not geographically been sequential... excuse me... let me translate for the American millennials : That route would make no sense for an intelligent, so-called "international agent", let alone an intelligent IMF agent) and would have taken over 1 hour and a half even at those speeds. It went in circles and covered over 20 miles, i.e.,nowhere fast, but illogically and very badly. Yes, there were some interesting action scenes like crashes and such (thanks to the second team director). But there have been 10 times better action scenes in films that don't have a "canon" to follow. The first "Taken", for example, or the first "Transporter". There were also a few (very few) respectable performances despite the crap script. I suspect the actors were pressed into following the script word for word by the loser of a director (and the loser of a producer, Cruise). I liked the rest of the MI franchise, but this film made me hope it was the last. The approval of this film is just another example of how so very many critical standards in the US have degenerated.

So patetic 3th season. Why politics in childrend fantasy series?? Why??? Russians feedin monsters with humans? Pity the fool

It's not a bad movie, it's a good perspective on society and what money creates. But I couldn't agree less with Oscar for best motion picture, come on, so good movies in 2019! WTF Hollywood?

Well, we know why. MONEY. Other than that, this was a waste of resources. The hand-drawn version was vastly superior, it had more soul. This version plods along and is poorly paced. The dialogue is sub-standard. The script is simple and slowly delivered. This is strictly a young-child's fare. A lot of people praised the original music score. I was NOT one of them, Elton (sorry, SIR Elton) hasn't done anything of merit since Rock of the Westies. Famous names don't impress me, great scores do, and the underscore sounds phoned in. The lead vocals in the circle of life are horrendous. I didn't hear much sound design or foley, they just used the VI East Meets West Hollywood Choir and Strings libraries to cover things up. Does it look good? Of course its does. It's Disney after all, and Favreau is in full stride theses days. The CGI and art direction are immaculate, top notch. I know the story, but 10 minutes-in, I was bored.

A decent sequel and it was a good second chapter in the saga of Iron Man. However, there were a lot of characters involved in this Marvel entry and I don't know if they got a lot of screen time. The action sequences were good and I got to see Black Widow in action. I'd heard about her from a Marvel sourcebook but never got to see her in action. But this was nice. She makes a nice Russian agent turned super-athlete for the angels. Apart from all this, it's not as good as the original Iron Man, though the villain was really good and one of the more serious ones. Whiplash really gets whipping, no pun intended.

Searching is a DAMN good crime/mystery thriller! It does start off a tad corny and tame, but progressively as the film builds, the story gets more and more enticing. All the twists and turns presented throughout the runtime are not only prolific, but also, authentic. John Cho is profoundly convincing in this movie (by far the best performance I've seen from him) and so is a handful of the cast-but mainly just John Cho. Also the gimmick of the film (the found-footage aesthetic) doesn't take away from the quality, in fact, it adds to it; it resonates well with our current technology-based society. The finale's big "reveal" is absolutely ingenius; it truly echos with the film's ongoing theme. Minor nitpicks would include some pacing issues and the score is kind of crappy, but overall, Searching is a hell of a ride and I highly recommend everybody (especially families) to seek this one out. (Verdict: B+)

It had everything lined up to be a great film but it is so flat all the way through. All the performances seemed so just "mehh" like nothing was put behind their wants or drive. If anything Kate held it together from start to finish as best as she could with her performances. Some of the characters weren't even necessary, like Whiskey ans Kates assistant. You wonder why they even needed to be there, and you don't even notice when they're gone. They each have like a handful of lines. Super disappointed in Rians attempt at this film. The cinematography is well done at least. But everything falls so flat and stale.