Absolutely the worst thing ever recorded. Literally nothing about this movie is tolerable, from the intense technical incompetence to the pathetic and self-absorbed persecution fetish. It's bad and dumb. Don't watch this unless you can pirate it. Also, Joshua Wesley groomed his much-younger wife and is a disgusting creep.
Humanity at it's worst. Oh look, new island let's blow it without knowing anything about it, oh look a big monkey let's blow it up too!!! The actors are great, the graphics amazing, the storyline? HORRIBLE
When thinking about who to partner a Neeson character up with, they come up with someone like "Gurty"? That is quite laughable.
What an awful, senseless movie. Acting, even for a Liam Neeson movie, is garbage.
Exposition is as little as possible and as much on the nose as possible.
Villains of this movie are cardboard characters, no depth, no charisma, no background.
They only exist to give this movie some suspense. But since they are depthless characters, you do not care at all.
Fishburne was in this for a quick paycheck, he gets killed off very early on.
Several scenes make no sense, like the end scene, or the scene after the bridge collapsed. You are pressed for time? Let's take a look at the collapsed bridge, because we need to kill one more character off that has no impact at all.
Fighting scenes are lame, Neeson's age is showing hard in this.
The cutting is all over the place. Directing? Doesn't seem to exist in this movie.
While other mediocre movies of Neeson are a nice time waster, this is just an entire waste of time.
This was just so pure genius entertainment, Jackie, Sammo and Yuen Biao are Action Comedy legends and prove that in this classic. I'll keep it short and just say SUBS OVER DUBS!!!!!
Transformers: The Return of Michael Bay is all action and no brains. Which can be said with all the sequels. The first is the best but all Bay has done is remake it with each sequel.
He takes something called Transformers too seriously and makes each film overdramatic and overstuffed. The movies are more loud than fun now.
This one isn’t as bad as critics said though. The 4th and 5th are worse.
Magic. There's no words to describe this movie. The cinematography, direction, music, acting, locations (was filmed in my home city too :P )... The day I leave this world I will be happy 'cause I was lucky enough to watch this masterpiece... and sad because some weren't that lucky. Just watch the movie ffs!
This is a crappy ripoff from MIB. Dont bother. Not funny, not original, not worth your time.
Some might view this as British humour but it most certainly is not. It's an American view (from an extreme distance) of what they perceive the English essence of wit might be. It warps whimsy, balls up bravado and not even Paul Bettany can push past it.
this is one of the most overrated movies I have ever seen. It's boring as h*ll. Even the sex is boring... tedious, too much talking about nothing (and the dialogues aren't all that super either), predictable, drugs and sex to be an end isntead of a means for the story to be told (and as I said, even the sex is boring). Even DiCaprio could not save this incredibly crap movie.
Dunkirk by Christopher Nolan was just a fabulous experience. I definitely enjoyed the movie quite a bit from start to finish, and usually war movies aren't really my cup of tea (at least not anymore). However, cinematically, the entire movie is just a masterpiece. As a big movie buff, I could appreciate how meticulously crafted the whole movie was. It's so hard to create a movie like this within this genre while trying to remain "minimal", but Christopher Nolan accomplishes it in every sense of the word.
He seamlessly interweaves 3-4 different plot narratives/timelines, while using minimal amounts of exposition. He gives the viewer such a sense of a looming and foreboding threat, while never even having a Nazi soldier on screen at any time. He tells us "so much with so little" and allows the viewer to take in the conflict of each situation (and there are a lot of them) rather than point it all out to us. In that sense, you really feel like you're getting into the mind of each one of the soldiers/main characters when they are contemplating some very crucial decisions that literally determine life and death, for not just them, but many other men as well.
Nolan gives us continued development, closure and solid endings in each one of the tiny subplots that he sets off from the beginning. It's definitely a joy seeing how all the different plotlines intermingle with each other at the end especially with the civilian aspect added in. And, most importantly, he accomplishes all this in less than 2 hours (and by a damn good margin as well).
If you appreciate amazing direction, cinematography, and vision within a movie, this will be an absolute joy. It could definitely get Christopher Nolan that elusive Best Director Oscar come Academy Award season. I watched Dunkirk in 70mm, but, honestly, I couldn't really tell the difference, especially without being able to do a side-by-side comparison to a regular version. Overall, it didn't seem too different from the usual XD or IMAX type presentation at my local big theater. Still, the movie is a visual treat lending heavily to more practical effects that gives a nice sense of realism to it all.
Anyways, this gets a solid 9/10 from me, coming from a war movie curmudgeon. Watch it, and you won't regret it.
As an outside observer with no previous connection to the series, I found it more than a little confusing to get started with Neon Genesis Evangelion. The original series ran for a single season in 95/96, then was condensed and re-worked into a feature film a year later, then circled around again to produce an alternate ending, and has now returned to the well once more for yet another revival of roughly the same material at a new animation house. There's also been sporadic talk of a live-action rendition, though that seems to have fallen by the wayside in recent years.
I figured I'd start with this, the newest model, and... well, to put it nicely, it feels like something that's been left in the oven for too long. If there's passion and energy and enthusiasm to any of the earlier iterations, they were lost somewhere between here and there. The whole production is empty and soulless, like a husk just going through the motions and winking desperately at the audience. Maybe that works for the die-hards, who've already memorized the crucial storytelling beats and can relish the new perspective, but it doesn't offer a lot of meat for the uninitiated. Everything is vague and understated, from the young protagonist (literally plucked from a street corner and deposited in a skyscraper-sized mech, sans-training, to save the city) to his peers and support staff (a group of hyper-stereotypical anime girls) to the monolithic hulks that use him as a punching bag (a trio of imaginative, but dull, forces of nature).
It's just so emotionally flat, so excruciatingly blasé about everything, that even the spectacular concept of a giant robot at war with a hovering, six-mile-wide jellyfish feels bland. That these big metal exoskeletons are almost singularly employed to shoot really big guns doesn't help the case. Those ridiculously large sniper rifles might as well be mounted to a rooftop turret or something. At least the animation looks nice, if perhaps a bit too reliant on abstract mechanics and twirling gears, and the character designs remain sharp and memorable. A lot of time and money went into this, not to mention the three ensuing sequels (as of this writing, one remains unreleased), and I can't honestly say that either investment was worthwhile.
This is one of my all time favorite movies and I recently watched it again.
While reading through some of the comments here and on IMDb I can only assume some people are on a personal vendetta or something. The negative comment I read most is: "This movie is scientifically inaccurate".
My answer to those: Go watch a documentary then!
This is clearly a Science-Fiction movie so I don't get why you even would concider comparing it to real science. No one did something like that with Star Wars. So why all this stupid nonsense criticism. If you don't like the movie - fine! You don't have to like it just because the majority does. But not likeing it because it's scientifically inacurate or a C. Nolan movie is just dumb. You are just robbing yourself of 3 hours of staggering CGI worlds, a good plot, one of the best OSTs there is and sublime acting.
This movie is just giving you the illusion that it wants to be accurate, obviously it isn't. That's the beauty of this art. Just take it for what it is!
This movie is OK at best. It's one of Nolan's better ones at least. But, it has some serious issues. See Krauss talk about it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pG89gREWyI&t=1m12s
It's too long - he's right. The oxygen blight is completely scientifically silly. The entire basis of the plot (that Earth will run out of oxygen in tens of years) is unbelievable. This put me off from the start. There's some "formula" that Michael Caine worked on and half-solved, but it took data from the event horizon of a black hole (which also makes no sense scientifically) to solve it. Sorry, if you approach a black hole, you don't end up behind a bookshelf in your old house in the past - I have no idea how they can claim this is a movie about science. It is FULL of religious symbolism, though, so if you're into that, you'll be right at home. Apparently humans evolve out of the 3rd dimension too ... sure. There's one thing that was definitely right - outer space is quiet - FINALLY.
The cinematography is pretty good, and I liked how the dude went crazy on the barren planet, but this film would have been a lot better without the sappy happy ending. I mean, really - transporting all the way back from inside a black hole? Armageddon had a much more realistic ending than that, and it was SO STUPID! It would be great if someone fan-edited this into something scientifically accurate (dub over the lines about what's wrong with Earth replacing it with a feasible problem, have him crushed to death in the black hole, show Brand on the planet at the end all alone, FIN). I don't know how people can give this a higher rating than a 7/10. I wouldn't consider it to be a classic at all. It's at best a see-once blockbuster, just like Armageddon was.
Everyone keeps suggesting there is a paradox concerning the 5D future humans and their ability to save humanity in the past. It's really not a paradox at all. Everyone assumes humanity survived to ascend to the 5th dimension but how could humanity exist in the future if not for the actions of Cooper.. who was guided by future humans (begin endless loop).
Did anyone ever consider the other important character in the movie? Amelia Brand carried on with the rest of her mission (thanks to Cooper). I postulate that Brand used the human seeds as intended and set up a colony. A colony that would thrive and eventually evolve beyond human. Thus Earth is of little importance, and may have indeed died. These colonists, and the generations that followed, would have been told the story of a great man (Cooper) who saved them from extinction. With the ability to manipulate space-time, they would pay homage to their hero "God" by helping him in the past so he may fulfill the mission most important to him, to once again see his daughter. Plan B worked beautifully. But the 5d humans, having the power to bend space-time, decided there's no reason why Plan A had to fail.
So, how is she supposed to charge herself outside? I haven't seen any Tesla accus inside her...
The friend zone has been taken to a whole new mechanical level.
Edge of Tomorrow surprisingly worked. The Tomorrow War unsurprisingly didn't.
The 1960's, a time when east and west didn't get on; not much different to now really! Loved the comedy in this, it makes the movie. When it ended, I was honestly surprised, I was waiting for the next scene... sequel please!
It's an entertaining watch anyway. In the end, Dalton walks but lets enough clues for Detective Frazier to frame Case.
What bothers me and what I don't understand is the films message: Stealing from rich people isn't a crime? Blackmailing people is necessary? To be a good Detective isn't enough, one has to blackmail the right people to get promoted? Or what???
Unexpectedly good. Both Tom Cruise and Jamie Foxx give some solid performances. The plot is simple but it's very well done and engaging. The subway train scene is my favorite, I loved every second of it.
An unexpected movie from Jackie Chan and Pierce Brosnan with a story playing out in a way that you really don't expect. The trailer gives you the premise but doesn't give anything away.
You see Jackie Chan in a different light, vulnerable and broken yet determined. The action was constant and the intensity kept building up with unexpected twists you couldn't help but enjoy.
Jackie Chan & Pierce Brosnan in their unique roles made this dramatic action thriller a hit.
Not your typical movie, go enjoy it!
When I saw the first teaser to this movie, I was like "What the hell is this? Something Peter Jackson created, that looks this fantastic? I need to watch this, even though the CGI did not look that good (yet?)". The first trailer wasn't that interesting anymore as it spoiled a lot. Still, Peter Jackson, Hugo Weaving, Stephen Lang... that could still be a good movie?
But first of all: The marketing - at least in Germany - was irritating. Peter Jackson wanted to do this movie, he held the rights to making this movie for over 8 years but couldn't get around and therefore decided to pass it on to one of his protegees: Christian Rivers, who has worked as storyboard artist and visual effects supervisor in 11 of Jackson's movies, has his directorial debut - Peter Jackson only contributed his first draft, and of course the rights and budget - which by the way is 150 million dollars - not bad for a debut. But does money equal quality?
Let's take a short look at the plot:
In a dystopian future the few survivors of a global catastrophe gathered together to form mobile predator cities and live in an world order called "Municipal Darwinism", i.e. in the great hunting ground larger cities hunt smaller cities for their resources, to enslave the people, etc. In this steampunk setting London is known as one of the most predatory cities - but the free young woman Hester Shaw wants to travel to exactly this city, because she is hoping to settle a score with one of the leaders of the city.
Peter Jackson has already proven that he has the ability to create new, unseen and absolutely fantastic worlds, and at first glance it seems like with Mortal Engines this applies as well, even though this is not really Peter Jackson. But: It's just the first glance. Yes, the world is cool, it has a lot of beautiful and interesting original ideas that we get to see. The CGI at first glance looks good - but unfortunately only at first glance. Different to Lord of the Rings, where you see a number of details, that are filmed in long slow moving camera to make sure the viewer has the ability to actually see, discover and experience all the details, in Mortal Engine you always have very fast tracking shots, so in the end, everything is blurry giving the movie makers the ability to mask the missing level of detail, as well as often also the physical plausibility of things. And that was something that really bothered me. How do the cities actually transform, or rake up to bigger cities? This happens so fast that you don't actually know - because there is no clever way they do fit together. And what are all the details in London? You don't get to see anything - there are 2-3 spots that are shown in detail - the rest is principally just a hill with a number of glowing spots, that blur due to the fast camera pace. Same with the wall. Why don't show how the people behind the wall actually live? They live a totally different life, why not celebrate it, like e.g. Lord of the Rings celebrated the introduction of Rohan? Because these details actually don't exist.
And at least to me, a movie of this caliber, with this budget and playing in such a world needs to be presented, needs to stun me. And we don't get anything.
But it's not only the graphics and setting - this is probably still the best part of the movie. Talking about the story, this movie is even worse. First, this movie is so packed, that you start to ask: Why did they not make a 2-part movie? Peter Jackson made 3 movies out of the hobbit which is a small to medium sized single children's book. But here, due to packing so much into one movie and not getting rid of certain aspects you feel like a lot of things are touched but not really explained. And this is really sad, as the story has a number of interesting parts. I would have loved to learn something about Anna Fang. Why is she hunted? What is her motivation as leader of an resistance movement? What is that resistance movements motivation? We get nothing - Anna is seen in the wanted poster in the beginning and all of a sudden she is there. The whole backstory with Shrike could have also been interesting, but is also just touched. Same with our antagonist. What is his motivation? No idea. Why does he - all of a sudden - decide to destroy something? No one will know. There are also hardly any quite moments to establish the characters, and this leads not only to the characters being really shallow, but also not rally having time to interact with each other and in the end there is absolutely no chemistry between the characters. All could die, and no one would care. And also the story telling is absolutely minimal. Most of the time is spend in an concatenation of action sequences: I feel that more than 80% was just action, and these action orgies where extremely CGI dominated, so they don't even get that exciting - and to me, after the first 2-3 action sequences I got fatigued.
In the end the actors are not challenged at all and fall far beyond what they are probably capable of, and there is not much else that the movie has to offer - I was bored after the first third of the movie, and it did not get any better till the end. A really great disappointment, I had high hopes :(
The Thirty Seconds to Mars recording at the end was of such bad quality it ruined the whole movie.
Interesting at the beginning. Dragged in the middle. Dumb at the end.
Well...
Instead of reading reviews, the best thing to do is just go and watch it
I didn't find it REALLY good, but I enjoyed it nonetheless !
the main problem (sorry) are the actors... especially Jennifer Lawrence ! Don't go watch it if you want a serious SF movie !
I didn't count the number of times there were "sexy" shots on her body, but at the end I was like "come on ! Not again !"
Also for physics friends, the director made quite a good job ! Of course, there are some flaws but there is a lot of actual physical content, so the ship, the technology and everything is not pure imagination (or wandering).
also I'm still wondering some things, like why is there only a single medical pod or bartender for 5200+ people ? Why there is still a need for propulsion when you keep at 50% of light speed ? What a glass preventing humans from being roasted by a fusion reactor is made of ? How strong Chris Pratt really is to make an amount of force equivalent to the force with which he got ejected by the energy of that reactor, simply by throwing a door ?
Finally, the music is fair and the design is good, the only big problem here is too much romance but hey, that's what people want now ¯_(ツ)_/¯
I can say that this is not the best Jackie Chan movies that I have seen but it's still good. I love Jackie Chan and I think he is a great actor. So it doesn't matter if the movie is good or not. I will still love it. And what's making this movie even better is Zhang Yixing (EXO's Lay). Zhang Yixing is one of my favorites in EXO and I love him so much. He's funny, very handsome and is a really really good dancer. I mean two funny actors in one movie. It can't be better than that. I have seen this movie three times now and I still think this movie is funny. It's worth watching!
I can see it over and over again! One of the best movies I ever seen.
