For an action/adventure/sci-fi flick, this was great. For a comic book adaptation? Decent. For a chapter in the MCU that, like the other projects, is supposed to connect everything? Average at best, if I'm both critical and 100% truthful. Whedon's culture erasure of the Maximoffs aside—and let's also push aside the in-your-face, out-of-the-blue Bruce and Natasha angle for the sake of a less nitpicky review—Age of Ultron was an... enjoyable film.
The action sequences and CGI were, as to be expected, Marvel-ous. Pun absolutely intended. (What I appreciated most of all about them was the emphasis on saving the civilians.) The banter was fun, despite the film's attempt at comedy feeling a bit stale and forced at times. The overall plot and tone of the movie were not as stellar as I had originally hoped, but they were still decent. Don't let my picking apart of the movie fool you, though; I DID like it. For the most part.
I think my only real problem with the movie is that the experience of watching it can only be described as seeing a canon divergence fanfic come to life on the big screen. I love fanfiction. I do. Just as much, I love the canon divergence spectrum of alternate universes in the world of fanfiction. I just think it doesn't belong on the big screen. Whedon isn't a big fan of Bucky, I'm aware of that much, but it doesn't excuse ignoring a large chunk of what happened in The Winter Soldier.
Oh well, right? Not much to be done about it. And it does pave the way for Civil War, so I suppose that IS a plus, all things considered.
In short: A isn't just for Avengers, it's for average.
The 3h sit was a long one. Even though it wasn't the movie I was expecting it did not feel like a waste of time at all.
Even with a 3h film, there are still questions left to be answered. The movies maintains a slow pace overall, but fast forwards a few times to not make the movie too boring. This results in some characters getting rushed out of the story, and some not having much impact. The ending is implied as well, but I am very happy with it and wouldn't suggest changing it. It is most of all a coming of age story with some slice-of-life elements, and it is way too easy to fall for the clichés hiding in those genres. And they hardly did.
They could've sacrificed some unnecessary (long) scenes, but I doubt it would be the same film without them. It gives the movie a unique pace in which you don't really want them to hury up with the story, and just 'live in the now' with Adele (not particularly refering to the sex scenes.)
Besides the long and graphic sex scenes, which this movie will probably and sadly be most rememberd for, there are a multitude of shots and transitions that really hit me. The acting is of a very high quality too. They even threw in a lot of philosophy but were smart to make the main character not care for it (or understand it.) This prevents a pretentiousness without losing such material.
After all a very intriguing movie.
A complete waste of time.
If you are a comics fan, and for some reason you still haven't seen this one, save a few hours of your life and pick another movie.
In the other hand if you are not a comic fan, but still want to see a nice superhero movie, check out the ones made by Christopher Reeve almost 40 years ago, you wont be disappointed with those.
This movie has an impressive cast, that's the only reason why I seen it completely, I think for respect of them, but i was so close to stop watching it, and be the first one in my life i did not finish, that's how bad it is.
The options were endless for a superman movie, and even more considering this is supposed to be a dark superman, for me he is more like a reckless one, but they decided to put a ton of super mega FX, which are not convincing at all, and have two semi-gods destroying JUST one city while battling with their superpowers and dont have an scratch in their faces or they immaculate customs.
Lois Lane appears in every single moment with the correct answer or with a brilliant idea of how to stop the bad guys or to be requested in the presence of the powerful entities that came to conquer the world and exterminate the human race to create a new Kripton, but yeah, she needs to be there.
I cannot continue the critiques because I would need to start spoiling the movie and that's something I dont like to do, but i did advice it on the beginning of my review, if you still decide to see this awful movie is on your own mental health risk.
I really hope that Superman vs Batman: Dawn of Justice is not as bad as this one is.
One of the earlier film that started cyberpunk genre in Hollywood cinemas. Considering the time it is made, the panorama of cyberpunk L.A. is impressive - it doesn't look old/fake, and you can see the way it influences the depiction of "high tech, low life" setting in later years, with tall and dark skyscrapers looming over the meagers' life of its citizens, police almost omnipresence appearing instantly as if they had eyes everywhere in the city. In the same time it is also indeed a film of its age: with ceiling fans, analogue devices, and low-res screens contrasting with its futuristic setting. Still, it is understandable how the atmosphere alone can leave a remarkable footprint on modern cinema.
However, the movie suffers from a terrible pacing. It is inconsistently slow, with ups and downs in a very sharp turns. There are moments you wished the movie can explore more, especially on exploring the fantastic atmosphere and the existential crisis of the Replicants. Meanwhile, there are other moments that you wished could've been cut short. For being a neo-noir thriller the movie hits the spot in maintaining its dark, mysterious atmosphere, but misses a lot in keeping the thrill high.
The final confrontation especially leaves a lot to be desired - as Deckard (the main character) just ran mindlessly, or, borrowing Roy's (the antagonist) line, just "being irrational", until the climax of the film. Which, again, leaves a gaping hole. The movie presents us the existential problem, the supposedly main theme of the movie, right there at Roy's dialogue. But minutes later after the monumental speech, the credits already rolled.
It's still a cult classic though. The setting was great. Worthy to be watched at least once.
I came to watch this movie with high expectations - hearing about all its nominations and seeing all the positive feedback. It disappointed me. Very big time.
Most of the scenes and dialogues in the first hour didn't make any sense. The two guys developed feelings from nothing, they barely even encountered or hung out with each other - let alone did something memorable that would lead to catching feelings for one another.
Like how other people commented here, the supporting characters had absolutely no role in the storyline, hell, maybe even the parents had unnecessary roles. But the most disappointing fact is that even the two main characters had no depth, no logical thoughts and actions. I get that Elio is supposed to be a 17-year-old, but even a teenager hasn't got that much random stuff going on in their head and in their actions as he does.
The sad thing is that the actors had a great chemistry but this storyline and these dialogues just stomped all that built-up passion into the ground. Like WTF was that scene with penetrating that poor peach?! Or that one where the movie got its title from? Why would you ask your loved (in this case, "loved") one to call you by their own name instead of yours? That's just f*cked up...
There were only 3 things I liked about this movie: the BGMs, the scenery and the penultimate scene when the father gives all that smart advice to Elio. This story had so much potential, but I guess people who read the book were right - this movie totally ruined it. I should've just read the book.
A bad attempt on what could have been an unforgettable summer love story. "Call Me by Your Name" fails in every aspect of It. It's dull, empty and forced.
From beginning to end there's no exploration of any kind. The characters don't have the depth they should have which makes the love story lacking dynamism and vivacity.
The first part of the movie is tedious and uninteresting. An hour of unnecessary scenes, that could easily be cut out, with brief dialogs of direct questions/answers, without emotions or sensibility from any character. A missed opportunity to invest in the character denseness and build their relationship. The movie doesn't give enough space for the sensations and attraction between them to evolve and, with that, we end up not caring, at all, with their bonding. All we see is a shallow relationship based, purely, in sexual encounters.
Less is more so it would have been great to see that. Less scenes, less scenarios and less dull actions and conversations. It's a movie that should concentrate merely in the connection between them and not on how beautiful the background is or how kind and aware Elio's parents are. The minor characters are completely pointless and don't bring absolutely nothing to the film.
The only positive aspect is Timothée Chalamat, In the second part of the film. He really pushes Elio's character and ends up with a very solid and strong performance. The ending shot was absolutely breathtaking. Apart from Timothée's acting, Sufjan Stevens enhanced this scene with "Mistery of Love", making one of the best ending scenes of the year. Undeniably, he deserves to win Best Original Song at the 90th Academy Awards.
This is the cinematic quintessence of the most literal interpretation of the word "Spectacular". If you have the capacity to follow subtle "show, don't tell" narrative beats and character motivations, and appreciate precisely timed plot developments and environmental storytelling organically affecting the progression of the plot, then you will appreciate a perfectly laid out narrative, with uncannily perfect balance of dramatic tone and thrilling presentation. It's simultaneously uncanny and bizzare, while also being groundedly human.
Everything gets filled in exactly as you need it to understand the narrative and writing developments. And god damn are the action scenes exquisitely designed and performed, and the sound design explosive and punctuated. It's musical—sometimes literally—but it all works flawlessly.
This is one of cinema's greats.
Notes: I actually never watched any of the previous films in their entirety. Also, I watched it in a kind of bastardized "bootleg Black and Chrome", since I could only get the full chroma version in 4K, full quality, and resorted to turning my saturation to zero. I know it's not the way it was intended, but I was sold on the monochrome from short clips, and it really does focus the presentation even more, and I understand why Miller considers it the definitive way to see it.
Pretty disappointing and crappy movie.
I suspected a casual and fun movie with this one, maybe with some puzzles and an interesting premise. However the movie disappointed from the start.
For a adaptation from a book I sure hope this was a bad one. You get thrown into the middle of a stoy where suddenly all kinds of stuff happens. I hope this wasn't the case in the original work, because it is one of the major flaws of this movie, and could be explained as the cause of many of its other faults.
The acting was luckily pretty ok, but many of the characters don't add to the story at all and are just filling up empty screen. The sound was to cry off as well. Soundtrack was ok, but many scenes had no music and felt like a soap because of it.
I am all for being creative with sound, but this was just done badly.
Since I won't bore you with pages of irrelevant texts, like the movie does, i will just make a list of the cons and pros.
Cons:
- Paced way too fast
- No build up for a climax (the film was more of a constant climax actually)
- Not getting time to get acquainted with the characters, therefore not caring about there faith.
- Very little character development, except maybe for Gally (Will Poulter)
- Stating many things as impossible without many explanation
- Revealing the endgame in the first act of the movie with a flashback/memory which makes the whole movie unnecessary,
- Also making the whole story as predictable as a Japanese train schedule.
- Inappropriate absent of sound
- Too much unimportant characters
- Did we really need another Hunger Games movie?
- etc.
Pros:
- Nice environment
- Funny but cool looking cyborg creatures
- Doesn't need many attention to follow, so you can check your twitter or facebook feed in the meantime.
Before I started watching this movie, I had high expectations. Reviews and friends told me to expect a real science fiction movie. I've been longing for a real sci-fi flick since "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", "Contact" and "Sunshine". I know people nowadays are calling fiction and fantasy movies sci-fi, but I rather tend to draw a dinstinctive line and emphasize on the word "science".
That being said, the plot is simple, but at the same time realistic. The movie tells the story of humans trying to survive in an utterly inhabitable place - space. It's a movie that will remind kids (and adults alike), spoiled by the strange education they receive through contemporary media, that not everything can be achieved by wishful thinking. Humans are not made for living in space. Every step off earth is a step defying nature. Is that bad or good? That's a decision everyone has to make for himself.
The visuals are stunning. I watched it in 2D and I plan on watching it again in 3D. The spectator has the feeling to actually be there.
At least as important though is the sound. Many filmmakers make the mistake of having sound in space. Of course that's totally ridiculous. The only sound there is, is the sound that's created inside of your space-suit or space-station by the shockwaves that hit it. Throughout the movie I had the feeling they got it right. And actually it didn't make the movie "empty", but quite the opposite, more tense. It intensified the feeling of "this is not a place where I belong".
There was one scene though, I thought wasn't right. When Bullock holds on to Clooney, Clooney should already have the same trajectory as Bullock or the station or he should bounce back. I just don't get what's still pulling him. I think it is a mistake in the movie and a serious one at that.
Anyway, I can overlook that, since the rest of the movie is very good. On IMDB it has a rating of 8.2 right now. I'd give it more like a 7.8. Maybe even less. I guess the rating is a bit high, because for young viewers it is a new experience to see something realistic on the screen.
Should you watch it? Yes, definitely. Should you rewatch it? Maybe, for the CGI and if you haven't seen it in 3D. Certainly not for the story.
9.5/10. There are times when I feel jaded as a viewer. When it seems like despite the breadth of films out there, that I know most of the tricks, to where while I can appreciate a film's achievements in sort of a detached way, when I can even be engaged and invested in something, it doesn't necessarily reach me in the way that movies did when I first started watching them. The scope of appreciation has widened, but the emotional resonance feels muted, because I can't help but see the strings.
And then a film like Room comes along.
And Jack sees the expanse of sky for the first time. And Joy hugs her parents after not seeing them for seven years. And Robert can't even look at his grandson. And Nancy tells her daughter that she's not the only one whose life was destroyed. And Joy tells her mother that if she hadn't been taught to be nice, she might never have gone with Nick. And there's a supreme, heartbreaking look of guilt on her face when a reporter asks if she should have given her son up while in captivity. And Jack walks in on his mother's suicide attempt. And Nancy hears her grandson say "I love you." And Jack sees a real live dog, and makes a real live friend, and cuts his hair to give his mother his strength.
And I wince and I laugh and I cry and I gasp at this beautiful, devastating, intimate, life-affirming film. This is why we make movies. I love popcorn films, with the fights and flashes and epic feel, and I love the big dramas, with their scope and their sense of grandness and the talent on display, and I love those classic film comedies that mix the absurd and the irreverent and the memorable into a single hilarious package. But the films like Room simultaneously so small and so personal, yet so powerful and affecting, have a special place. These are, as Robert Ebert once put it, the empathy machine that is film working at peak efficiency, taking us into the lives of people who have suffered and been unfathomably wronged, and carries us with them as they carve out a way forward.
I didn't know I wanted a film that feels like a cross between Oldboy, Life Is Beautiful, and Boyhood, and yet the elements Room shares with each--the sense of isolation, the loving way in which a parent tries to distract their child from a continuing tragedy, the slice-of-life, impressionistic depiction of a young boy's innocence--come together to form something absolutely tremendous.
That last facet of the film, the fact that it filters the entire experience through young Jack's eyes, is a stroke of brilliance. There's a matter of factness, a certain directness or even blitheness to the way children experience the world. Using Jack as the lens through which Room tells its story renders those events not only realer, but plainer, imbuing them with the unvarnished perception of childhood. The way the film is able to get into Jack's head, to allow the audience to view these horrors and steps to recovery through his eyes, is its greatest strength and most impressive achievement.
By the same token, Brie Larson as Joy deserves all the accolades she's received for her performance here. While still a prisoner, she carries herself with such an air of both utter resignation and quiet resolve, someone who's been beaten into submission but carries on with whatever she has left. And once she returns home, the guilt that consumes her, the anger that she has for the world that kept turning without her, are palpable in every moment without fading into overwroughtness.
The film can essentially be divided into those two halves. The first is the story of Jack and Joy in Room, of the way that Joy makes unbearable circumstances livable for her son, the way that she copes and shields Jack from the horror around him, and how Jack strains and struggles to understand the idea of the world beyond those four walls, to where he can, eventually, help the two of them escape. The second half is far less intense, but still endlessly intriguing and affecting. It's a quiet domestic story about how people recover from that sort of trauma, both Joy who feels the opposite of survivor's guilt and second guesses herself, and Jack who is exposed to a big scary world, the depth and breadth of which is entirely alien to him.
But throughout both halves, there is such a pure emotional truth in each moment, from the simple joys that Jack enjoys within the home he doesn't realize is a prison, to his anger and resistance at having that fantasy shattered, to Joy's dispirited but resolute attempts to keep him happy and healthy, to the realistic, painful difficulties parents and children face when rebuilding a family seven years after a tragedy, to the wonder and fear a small boy has for what lies beyond the garden gate, and the unmitigated joy at every step taken toward some cobbled-together normalcy. Room is a beautiful, heart-wrenching, intensely personal film, that takes an unflinching yet uplifting look at how people cope and come back from the worst that our world has to offer.
