This movie is a lot of fun and such an easy watch! The acting is brilliant and the humour is spot on. The negative reviews are pretty pedantic in my opinion.
I watched this movie with probably too much high expectations (John Landis as director, Pegg and Serkis and Curryas actors, cameos from Lee and Harryhausen) so at the end I've been a bit disappointed.
The movie is not bad, it has its own good moments and some good ideas but it seemed that Landis didn't want to go fully inside the Black Comedy. I'd have loved to see those two characters being much more "evil" and filth. It's at least enough enjoyable to use it to burn 1 hour and a half
i'm surprised there are any drivable police cars left at all by the end of the movie
"It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses."
It doesn't matter when I watch this, with whom or where, I will always smile the whole way through. The car chases, the amazing cameos, the dialogue, John Belushi and Dan Aykroyd's chemistry, the music, the different groups chasing the Blues Brothers, the humor, HUT HUT HUT, Carrie Fischer, the way the brothers dance, the final car chase especially all the way up to them delivering the money.
From start to finish I always enjoy every second of John Landis's Blues Brothers. It is by far my favorite film of all time. And everyone I've shown this one, there was nobody that didn't enjoy it. It is truly a classic.
Easily the greatest musical ever made, not that it has particularly stiff competition.
Downloading a power source...................... WTF
It may not be the most hilarious mind-blowing comedy that I have ever seen, but it kept me entertained and laughing every minute. Keeping in mind that it was directed and co-written by a Python, you couldn't expect anything else but absurd situations and brilliant colaborations. Simon Pegg awesome as usual.
A HUGE Lord of The Rings fan here! and I have mixed feelings about this movie just like the previous The Hobbit movie.
Let's start with the positive points:
The Acting, it's fantastic and Martin Freeman once again kills it as Bilbo and he is just so fun to watch on the screen and everyone else is great. Gandalf is a huge badass (no surprise there,, this is the same old guy that stood up to the Balrog and said You Shall Not Pass).
The Dragon is awesome and Benedict Cumberpatch is awesome, his voice is amazing and Benedict and Martin together in any scene will make me happy ! The dragon looks majestic and everything worked with that dragon.. honestly it made the movie 10x times better.
The music is great (it's Howard Shore). Some of the action sequences are amazing (the mirkwood spiders, the Barrel scene)
Also the subplot with Gandalf and the Necromancer is actually interesting.
(Lee Pace as Elvenking just decapitating that Orc was so beautiful I can't describe it!)
Then for the negatives:
it's too LONG! and this is not just me saying, anyone who saw this movie says this, it is very long and thus so many and I mean SO MANY useless fillers are thrown in there that just decreases the quality of the movie, they do so much harm!
That Romance is stupid and should NOT have been there, I would have liked it a bit if it was with Legolas and added a bit to his character but nope that Elf is just in love with that dwarf..
The Lake Town people and that useless hate for Bard is incredibely useless.
The dwarves trying to kill a FIRE BREATHING dragon by molten gold is stupid.
Too much CGI and Green screen, as I rewatched this movie I realized that the CGI in the Lord of The Rings was better than this and that was 13 years before this movie, I don't like CGI Azog or Bolg or just CGI orc in general.
Azog is still a subplot that I didn't like.
So these are just the Important stuff that I had to say!
(and Legolas seems to defy Physics.. doesn't matter he's cool LOL)
One of the best compliments you can give to a movie is that it takes you and wouldn't let you go before the end credits. That's what Max Mad did to me. The whole movie is so intense that my eyes were glued to the screen. The cinematography is gorgeous and make a world come to life. The main characters feel real and you can rely to them. I like it when a main characters isn't the 'invulnerable' hero, so you feel more tenses in the scenes because 'it could go wrong for him'. All this is directed in a perfect way. All of the action is filmed with a steady cam, thank god! No shaky cam but steady and wide shots which make the action scenes a real experience. I have no real faults with this film, I loved it from begin to the end. So I would recommend it for everyone who wants an awesome 2 hours.
His name was Robert Paulson
I remember watching this movie as a kid and got really excited. I wanted to watch it again, but I completely forgot the name and could therefore never find it. It just got recommended to me on Netflix and all I gotta say is I had dogshit taste as a kid.
[9.9/10] How do you go about capturing something as immense and horrifying as the Holocaust on film? It is an event that stretched across countries, with an unimaginable, unending array of horrors, that feels too big to be contained within the feeble confines of celluloid. But Steven Spielberg and his team somehow manage it, by going big and going small.
Spielberg gives us avatars for the different sides of this experience. He gives us Itzhak Stern, to channel the desperation, the resourcefulness, the unceasing fear of the Jews driven from their homes and then forced into camps. He gives us Amon Goeth, to symbolize the utter inhumanity, the callousness of the people who carried out such atrocities, who saw their captives and victims as less than human and acted accordingly. And he gives us Oskar Schindler, and with him, the arc of a man who goes from seeing the Jews as a means to an end, of profit and personal gain, to helping them a little when he can, to realizing that he’s sold his soul and trying to do everything he can to buy it back.
Through these central figures, Schindler in particular, the film brings grand, wide-ranging concepts down to earth: the dehumanization of the Jewish people, the different shades of wanton cruelty visited upon them, the gradual realization of their plight by the world, the good works that created light in the darkness, and the bureaucratic state that treated the harvesting and expungement of human lives like a series of numbers on a ledger.
But he also stretches beyond those avatars, to capture the horrors of one of humanity’s great shames as a series of chaotic, disquieting events that affected massive numbers of people. Spielberg’s camera does not shy away from panic, the tumult, the hiding, the casual deaths doled out in the streets in the “liquidation” of the Krakow ghetto. It doesn't flinch from the masses of people loaded into trains, stripped and prodded and treated like animals, and falling apart as families are split up, spouses are separated, and parents see their children blithely led to the slaughter. It holds the tension to the last when a group of Jewish women are disrobed, shaved, and sent into a shower, uncertain whether they are being disinfected, or sent to their deaths.
Through all of this, Schindler’s List provides a sea of familiar faces, individuals who are less fully-developed characters, but still given personalities, connections, quirks, and specific hopes and fears, that make them more than the indistinct mass of humanity their Nazi tormentors see them as. They are distinguished just enough to make them memorable, relatable, recognizable, but their concerns, their reactions and mere persistence or faltering within these stomach-churning events, are real and universal enough to make them stand-ins for the broader horrors faced by so many like them in the Holocaust. The film expertly balances their humanity and the way they represent the humanity of so many other, saved or caught or lost, in the Third Reich’s mortal machinery.
The film, in fact, treats it like machinery. That’s not to say there is pure dispassionate indifference here. One of Schindler’s List’s most intriguing choices is its treatment of Amon Goeth as someone profoundly real and expressive -- in his boorish laughter, his twisted affections for his conscripted maid, his brief and faltering attempts to own the power of mercy -- but also someone with no shred of empathy in him, for whom murder is either an idle sport or a mundane necessity of his job, until the very suffering or salvation of the people under his watch becomes one extneded joke.
But at the same time, the editing and framing choices emphasize the efficiency, the bureaucracy the meticulousness of the Nazis as they processed the Jews into fungible goods and slave labor and ash. Spielberg returns repeatedly to the images of the “listmakers”, the names being typed onto pages, the stamps that dictate life or death, the regimented memorialization of letters and numbers that either allow humble, blameless Polish Jews to hang onto their lives, or condemn them to an untimely death.
This is not the rush of the battlefield or the fog of war or the uncertainty of combat. It is the systematic extraction and extermination of a people at the hands of the state, done with governmental imprimatur. It is one of history’s greatest horrors regularly delivered with the desultory indifference of a civil servant.
At the same time, Spielberg and company take pains to show the contrast between the lives led by the German officers and private businessman who thrive on this murder and forced labor, and the beleaguered Jews struggling simply to survive. The film juxtaposes the lavish parties Schindler joins with the S.S. officers, and scenes of the squalor of the ghettos. He contrasts decadent pleasures of the flesh and of stunning artistic displays, with private beatings by officers who hate the cause of their own twisted feelings, and life events eked out by Jews in captivity. Without ever having a character speak out to condemn this disparity, he lets the disparity speak for itself in the distance between the casual horrors of mass enslavement and extermination, and the flush, spoils-of-war indulgences of those who profit from it.
That’s aided by the black and white aesthetic of the film. That choice certainly bolters moments like when a colorful flame juts back into the monochromatic world of the film, signifying the traditions carried despite the time they were almost snuffed out, or Schindler recognizes the red coat of a little girl that helps spur him to recognize the abominations of these acts and the humanity of the people who suffer under them. But it also allows Spielberg and director of photography Janusz Kaminski to make light the focus of their images.
The flash of gunfire illuminates and identifies the killings that take place in the Krakow Ghetto. The light that shines on Schindler’s face as he leans out of the shadows to comfort Helen Hirsch after she describes the terror-filled unpredictability of Goeth’s arbitrary murders cuts a contrast in the us vs. them divide. And it creates a stark beauty but also a grim frankness to swaths of liberated refugees walking down a hill, or clothless people forced to run in circles so they can be examined, or the bursts of smoke and ash that signal the ending crush of human suffering practically automated. It makes Schindler’s List feel older than it is, whilst channeling the dark realities the film unflinchingly confronts.
It confronts them with the crowds of Jews, the lists of names, thrown into the mortal whims of men who view them as subhuman, to be killed, abused, utilized, or saved. It confronts them with the story of a man who comes to see that invisible machine, the input and output of war, and laments his myopic part in it, and changes enough to save whom he can whilst decrying the more he might have saved. And it confronts us with the unimaginable scope and brutality and lost humanity, channeling the experience into a visceral three hours of trials and loss, of shameful joys and undeserved deaths, of regimented destruction and unsanctioned survival.
It is, in a word, a masterpiece. It is a hard watch, but also a film that accomplishes the impossible -- it captures the all-encompassing maw of the Holocaust, the acts that called into question our very souls as a species, the kindesses and losses that helped to affirm them, into a film so attuned to make us recoil, that also makes it impossible to look away, to cover our eyes, or do anything but reflect and remember what was done and what was lost.
Best trilogy ever made, return of the king best movie ever made!
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.
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!
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.
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.
So, how is she supposed to charge herself outside? I haven't seen any Tesla accus inside her...
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.
