If I'm brutally honest this first Bond movie is really nothing to write home about. Aside the fact it's the first one and establishes some rules and groundwork moving forward.
The story is actually rather dull, the movie takes ages to get to the point. There's no thrill or exitement. Dr. No is a bland character who only gets a miniscule backstory. The production is underwhelming even though the build some great sets. The plot holes I can see past as that never was a strong suite of any Bond movie.
On the pro side there is a certain level of realism attached to this as Bond doesn't have a lot of gadgets and the chracater feels more believeable in how he works.
I'm sorry - I like the Bond Franchise as a whole but if this wasn't a Bond movie I think people wouldn't be too kind with this. For me a Bond movie has to be entertaining first and foremost and this one isn't much.
"No, he's not immortal. He just refuses to die"
The scenery is amazing, the cinematography is superb. The movie uses dialogue only when absolutely necessary and speaks otherwise through it's pictures.
It's dark, it's gritty, it's brutal - a mix of John Wick and John Rambo in a Tarantino style. Sure, it's unrealistic but that's beside the point. If you have issues with that, or with plot holes or look for a deep story you'd better stay away from this one.
What a bleeping hell of a ride. Thank god nothing happened to the dog.
This is the kind of story only life itself writes. One where you are hard pressed to believe when you see it in a movie it really happened exactly like that.
When they said in this documentary that destiny wanted Didier to have the same accident as Gilles you feel the room grow cold. From that moment on, it felt Didier lived on burrowed time. Because destiny wasn't satisfied.
I think this was a very honest docu that let's everyone involved have his say without taking sides one way or the other. There really isn't anyone to blame. Would Gilles had his deadly accident without the events at Imola ? Who can really say. It was a tragic sequence of events.
Animation isn't bad. But it's yet another interpretation and the horror element with all those monsters doesn't work for me.
This is what passed as an epic in 1981. It is also a movie not suited for everyone.
I haven't seen this for probably twenty years but it has aged well and still holds up. It's like watching a theatre play made into a movie. And even at 140 minutes it feels too short. There is an abundance of actors you will recognize who have become stars later on.
Like I said, not for everyone but a piece of movie history.
I mean, sure, this isn't award winning material. But 58 % on average? That seems rather low. It's a decent cat and mouse game with a plot that is not rocket science but still has enough tension to be interesting. I'm more suprised that this movie was made in 2007 as it seems much more along the line of 80s/90s cinema. Which may be intentional. I liked it.Watch the alternate ending if you can, makes the movie slighty better I think.
Of course there is nothing new in terms of story. But I can never get enough of watching this old stuff and listening to the stories told by those who have been there. Even if I heard them a dozen times before.
First time I saw it I watched the long version. Didn't particulary like it. This time I watched the shorter theatrical release and I liked it much more. Probably didn't like the pacing of the long cut. This moves faster. I didn't need the extra scenes to understand their relationship.
You won't find many action movies today that have such a great story. But the most impressive part for me is: you've got Jean Reno and Gary Oldman, and a little girl named Natalie steals the show.
I just comment on the movie and not how it compares to the book.
I have seen it twice now and I must say both times I didn't think I wasted my time. Yes, the story jumps a bit and maybe half an hour more to get seeper into things might have helped. Still, I had no problem following. The references are pretty easy to understand I'd say. And the world design is great. The CGI look adequate for the time.
Their is a plethora of big names in this movie,some just giving their voices. But the focus clearly lies on the little girl. Since this was her first big production I'd say she did pretty good. I would've liked to see the rest of the movies but since this was a financial bust they were axed.
Another case of a movie not living up to its source material. But which movie really does ?
So, the animation was great. That was to be expected. I can live with Chris Evans as Buzz. He was OK but not outstanding just like everyone else.
But I doubt that was the movie Andy saw in 1995. They should've really not put that in at the beginning. It puts too much pressure on the movie to live up to that sentence. And it doesn't. It was OK, I really can't find anything better to say about it. But while I watched the Toy Story movies multiple times and really like them even being well in my 50s, this one just breezed by. And, yes, Sox was the best.
I hope they stay away from a sequel like it's hinted after the end credits.
I'm a car enthusiast. Making a movie about Ferruccio Lamborghini, one of the great individuals of automotive history, and then only giving it ninety minutes of running time is a tough ask.
And that's where my main problem with the movie lies - it's too short. I think there is enough story for another half hour or even a mini series. Everything happens so fast and you never really feel the excitement and passion that should be associated with the name Lamborghini. It just highlights three or four elements from Feruccio's life in a short fassion almost like the wikipedia entry was the basis for the script.
The movie looks convincing and I even had some good laughs ("If your grades don't get better I buy you a Ferrari"). Frank Grillo is good as Lamborghini but I don't see Enzo when I look at Gabriel Byrne.
It's not alltogether awful but even as an enthusiast I don't think you really need to see this.
Despite being a huge Cate Blanchett fan this isn't the first movie of hers I didn't finish (Malick's "Knight of Cups being the other).
Having to sit through minutes of credits before the movie even starts, followed by a fifteen minute interview with the main character doesn't help to take me into the movie. So does not knowing all the musical terms they are using here. You hear the words but can't make sense of it (ultimately it might not even be important to understand it but you feel you should). Shortly thereafter another long scene at a restaurant were I again can't make heads or tails what they are talking about. I feel like I am already watching for an hour but it's just barely half of that and I'm looking for reasons to watch this for two more. After another fifteen minutes went by I give up. Why do I want to know more about this person, why should I care ? I don't know.
At the two hour mark, the movie just breezing by me, I decide it's not worth it for me. In the past I wrote somewhere, that I would watch Cate sitting on a chair for two hours. And I'd rather would've done that.
See, I can't even tell you anything about the content of the movie. I just described how I experienced it.
Not for me.
Do the people rate the actual "Making off..." or the movie they were making ?
Because for a "Making off..." this is as good as it gets. I can not get enough of this stuff. I'm always blown away by what it takes to make a movie today. How much the people involved put their hearts and effort into every single detail you never even think about when you watch the movie. And sometimes I feel a little bit sorry when I actually didn't like a movie that much.
I don't know if i'd call this a reboot, remake or a sequel. It's a bit of everything yet nothing entirely. It's still a good movie that is underrated at 61 %.
I really appreciate all the little details and easter eggs that pay hommage to the original Superman movie. You can see that Singer is really a fan. Heck, they even made some of the flying scenes look a little bit dated althought I'm sure with the tech in 2006 they could have been much better. Story is OK for the genre but ultimately doesn't deliver anything really new or grand. Which is one reason I did not rate it higher. The other being, I was never a fan of the Superman / Lois romance. And, no matter what version, I never liked Lois Lane. And that, for me, takes up too much time in the movie. Trim that down, or leave it out, cuts probably twenty minutes of the running time. I might have even rated it higher. I know they needed something for the impact of him having a son. But I didn't like it, so ...
All in all still worth watching and ultimately massively better then the latest Superhero movies being put out.
Even my BluRay player refused to play this movie as if he'd remember something I didn't.
To quote Christopher Reeve: "Superman IV was a catastrophe from start to finish. That failure was a huge blow to my career."
And the sad part in retrospect, he never got the chance to make another one. But I don't blame him for the failure despite co-writing the story. I think he wanted to make a story about the threat of nuclear destruction out of sincere worry. But the studio wanted crash, boom and bang and the usual silly comedy parts. Both of them mix very, very badly. Due to the lack of budget (it was cut in half shortly before production began) the SFX looks at times rediculous almost like those cheap scifi rip-offs that were made around that time. And pardon me for saying that, but Marc Pillow is one of the worst actors I've ever seen in a movie. His performance is a prime example of over-acting. Even Hackman's return as Lex Luthor can't save this movie from being a catastrophe. And pulling out the kiss and forget act on Lois again ? Really ?! They clearly had no ideas left.
In hindsight it's amazing to see how over the span of ten years they ran the Superman movies into the ground.
When the Making off is actually better then the finished movie.
There is astonishingly little Superman in a movie called "Superman".
I remember when there was talk that Eddie Murphy wanted to be in Star Trek IV and the producers decided aginst it because it would distract from the movie. This movie proofs it was the right thing to do. I have nothing against Richard Pryor, I have seen many of his movies and liked them all. But he is out of place here. The whole movie is comedic just for the sake of having comedy. It serves no purpose. See, there is funny and than there is silly. And this is not funny.
Webster is no Luthor and althought Vaughn is more than a capable actor he can't save this mess of a script with this poorly written character.
There are two things in this movie I liked. First, the part of evil Superman. That was an angle worth exploring and Reeve was phanstastic. And second, Lana Lang, who's instanly more likeable than Lois Lane (what's with all the "L" anyway?).
But it's too little to save an otherwise pretty mediocre to bad movie.
Isn't it amazing how much they actually had to build to make a movie like this. Amazing craftsmanship.
Still good but not as good as part one. In general too comedic and even stupid at times. And I noticed the dialogue was sometimes weird. Someone said something and then camera switches to another character and there's a slight pause beofore the reply. As if the editing was off.
The whole thing with Lois finding out Clark is Superman was weak. It was supposed to make him understand his purpose I guess. And then a full one-eighty by having her memory wiped with a kiss ? How does this work?
And another huge whole: if he steps into the chamber it can't be reversed. And then he finds the green crystal and everthing's just fine. And the control panels where still burned down so he didn't re-create the Fortress. Since he gets his power from the yellow sun anyway it's all very sketchy. At least a little explanation would be nice.
I found Zod a bit overdone. Only thing missing was him twirling his mustache. And I always had problems when someone talks about himself in the 3rd person. I understand the purpose of making him look overconfident or even mentally unstable. But on the other hand he looks like a caricature not to be taken serious.
Well, probably too much analyzing on my side and it's still fun to watch overall.
There's no denying that this movie is a product of its time in terms of story, presentation and effects. But that's not to be meant as a negative, it's just a fact.
But this movie also has something that all modern superhero movies are dearly missing: heart & soul.
I was a bit surprised about the low rating because I remembered this as a good movie. However, while I certainly think that the events on which this movie is based are tragic, the movie itself is a cliche put onto film. And that's probably the books fault on which this is based on.
The way the story unfolds is cliched. I'm sure there is a lot of creative freedom involved here. I doubt even half of it is true.
The characters are cliched in their depiction. They just don't feel real. Which lessens the impact of their deaths.
The dialogue is cheesy to the point of being cringy. Some of it could have come out of some telenovela.
The 20 year old SFX didn't bother me, though. But with all the rest I can't go higher then "6". And that's more of a high "5" if I'm honest.
The original Jurassic Park was a great movie that played around with an interesting idea. This has become nothing more then paint by numbers Hollywood action cinema that just happens to have dinosaurs in it.
The war to end all wars. Unfortunately we all know how that went. The German capitulation lead to the rise of Nationalism and The Second World war with even more deaths.
After that came wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, the Gulf Wars, Yugoslavia to name but a few. And now Ukraine.
We are to stupid to learn.
The heart and passion in this movie is intoxicating. Which is why it gets away with a lot. Because although it has some amazing laughs it also was a bit over the top at times. Which, for an animation movie, says a lot.
But the story has gone full circle and it is the conclusion of what has been a really great trillogy.
Not quite as good as the first. It has basically the typical sequel issue - more of the same without adding much. That doesn't mean it's bad, though. Still very funny. The penguins in King Julien still get more laughs then the others.
I think it's one of the best animated movies they did. They voice acting is great, I like the simple style animation. A movie like this shouldn't look realistic anyway. And althought they are not the main act the penguins and the Lemurs are the real stars of this movie.
So, I found this in my collection and thought I watch it again. I remember I went to the cinema back then.
It's definitely from a different time. There are early stages of CGI but almost everything you see is real. Which works in favor of the movie. The sets are great and almost give this a theatre feeling. And the costumes are great, too. Acting shows highs and lows but Dustin Hoffman is stealing this movie. Well, he's the title character, isn't he ? Williams is OK, I felt he's holding back. Julia Roberts I think was weak.
The story idea is actually pretty interesting and I have to admit I shed a tear or two towards the end. I still can't go above a "7" rating as I think it's way to modern at times. Skateboarding kids and spiked, colored hair just isn't Peter Pan. Plus there is the issue that this is supposed to be a family or kids movie (or not?). Yet, people are getting shot (which is presented as being funny) and killed.
Most of it are pretty much the same issues I remember having back in 1991. It's an OK movie with highs and lows that goes through some length. Definitely worth watching but probably not repeatingly.
Not much off a "Making off..." but more of a "Behind-the-scenes" look. Problem is, you don't get that much insight into how this, or any movie, is made. It's people milling around and some sound bites. The fact that it's all filmed with a handheld and low quality might be a nice and different take on what you usually find on bonus disks. But it's also distracting at times.
To summarize: for fans of the movie and/or QT and RR.
The movie takes a weird, and quite frankly, unexpected turn at the biker bar. I like both parts individually for what they are. But they don't work together very well. It feels like two different movies.
This is neither good or bad - it's just boring. I don't even know how to rate it. It may be interesting if you've seen the movie, which finally got made in 2018. Otherwise you can skip this.
