Mazina

It is an amazing movie, I love it. You're not allowed to criticize it in any way.

It's been exactly 12 years since the Tôhoku earthquake and tsunami and I can hardly imagine how devastating a tragedy that has been. I can also only imagine how it would've been seeing this movie in a Japanese cinema all these years later, maybe even with ppl that were the age of Suzume when all this happened back then...

As someone not from Japan that was not involved in the catastrophe 12 years ago, this is a beautifully moving work that tries to express and process a national trauma in its own way and I think it succeeded at that. One of Shinkai's best work and very well worth a watch.

Beautiful scenography, great acting, and very deep script. Must watch.

The friend zone has been taken to a whole new mechanical level.

Inception can suck it

Possibly Shinkai's best work so far, and as a massive fan of both 5cm and Garden of Words I do not say that lightly. The animation is breathtaking as always but some scenes go beyond mere visual splendor and are just mesmerizing. The characters are so fun to be around and you'll find yourself rooting for them and hoping it all works out. I was slightly concerned when I saw the "boob fondling" scene in the trailer but even that becomes a genuinely charming gag throughout the movie, believe it or not!

As to be expected of Shinkai, the film also takes you on a roller coaster of emotional highs and lows and keeps you guessing how it will end until pretty much the last minute.

I cannot recommend this enough.

I do not usually comment, but is too great movie!, animation, story, feelings ...

Clearly destined to be an underrated, under appreciated masterpiece by Lisa Joy, who clearly understands film noir better than most directors working today.

This is how you do an action movie. Just the right amount of everything without being over the top. Spot on !

John Wick was so badass. It was directed by a choreographer and stunt double (for Keanu Reeves) for the Matrix trilogy and it really shows. A brief introduction to the titular character, as is typical of revenge thrillers, quickly gives way to the action and damn is it good. Fantastic and stylish action sequences make up 90% of the movie and when it looks this incredible, I'm definitely okay with that.

Well, Peacemaker’s time of holding the the title of best opening credits dance sequence of the year turns out to be short lived.
This is like a great Black Mirror episode (the philosophical kind, not the dystopian kind).
I’d also highly recommend it if you’re a fan of Alex Garland (the visuals in this reminded me a lot of Devs).
We’ve seen this concept of humans and AI living together done before (Westworld, Blade Runner), but this is more focussed on family relationships and drama, which makes it very fresh.
The cinematography is out of this world, acting is top notch across the board, good score, interesting storytelling that goes in directions you don’t expect, thematically rich, tight editing, it’s really great stuff.
Just know what you’re getting into: it’s reflective and meant to give you food for thought, it’s not a pulpy thriller about AI taking over the world.

8.5/10

Ouch.

The visuals are breathtaking, as already shown by the trailers.
ScarJo is trying, you can tell that she wants this to be her new franchise.
It's edited quite nicely, it's got a (simple) story, and it's coherent.

So where did it go wrong?
One of the problems is that it takes away all of the philosophical depth from the original.
Well, that means you can still enjoy it from a simple action flick perspective, right?
Good luck with that.
This film has such a ridiculous amount of exposition, that it badly hurts the enjoyment of the film.
Many sequences consist of characters just talking to each other, and explaining the plot.
Things are definitely shown, but then the filmmakers don't think we're able to put two and two together, and hence add another explanatory scene.
As a result of that, the film doesn't take its time to develop the characters, meaning you won't care about them.
Top it off with an awful performance from Juliette Binoche, and you have your modern style over substance film.

3.5/10

Possibly not quite on the level of SAC, but I'm still enjoying this version of GitS. The soundtrack by Cornelius is a massive plus too!

It’s often daunting to come to a classic film and try to explain why it works so well. Obvious elements spring to mind - the peerless design work, both of the central creature and the sets themselves; the beautifully haunting score; the creation of one of the greatest female action heroes; the perfect pace of the film (slightly spoilt by the Director’s Cut, but the original edit still shines); the “birth” of the creature that may have lost its ability to surprise over time, but still horrifies largely down to the performances that sell this moment so well; the masterful build-up of tension as each character confronts their fate. But, more importantly, this is simply a story that is well told and a reminder of how powerful an experience film can be when all the elements come together so perfectly. Is it any wonder that Alien has been oft-imitated, parodied and copied, but rarely bettered, if at all?

Let me start this off by saying that this sequel did not feel outside of what we remember.
Blade Runner 2049 maintains the mood and feel of its predecessor. The visuals, the sound... the dystopian future, it's all there.

| FIRST THOUGHT |

I love writing reviews, it comes somewhat naturally to me after watching something that I learn to feel passionate about.
This movie taught me to be passionate.

But... it's really hard for me to express judgment. And I'm going to explain why:

Actually, it's very simple. This was a 3 hours movie. Of these 3 hours, 2 were simply... air. Now, don't get me wrong, that isn't always negative, like in this case. It was refreshing air, but still... it doesn't (at first glance) hold anything on the plot.

Because of this, the viewer (me at least), is left with a lot of questions, the picture doesn't explain itself. Also; as a side note - you most definitely need to watch the first one. The great majority of the runtime is inexplicably useless.

The longer it goes, the longer it begins to add new stuff, and then some, then it seems somehow related to what's actually going on, but right after it deviates the actual story on an ideal from the characters involved, that at a certain point, evaporates. I'm really conflicted about this because it looks to me like the screenwriters and director wanted to leave all of this to theory and the fans.

Why is this confusing? Because it's a very strange mixture of linear narrative and non-linear narrative. One is focussed on one objective, the other starts a bunch of other objectives and then it simply dies. No explanation was given, no closure was given.

And this is aggravated by the fact that it's a 3 hours movie, of which 1 hour of the actual story is spread and mixed amongst 2 hours of absolutely nothing. VISUALLY IMPRESSIVE NOTHING. A VERY INTERESTING BUNCH OF LITERAL VOID.

This is actually the only thing I did not like about the movie. Which, again, if you are like me and enjoy movies that aren't patently explaining themselves, it's not a bad thing. I just feel like it could've been much more interesting if they explained somehow what happened to all the side characters, or just cut them out.

|STORY & ACTORS |

Aside from what I've mentioned before, the more "linear" part of the story is actually not that bad. It's nothing impressive. A part of what I said earlier connects to the fact that this movie constantly keeps juggling between what is real and what is not. Be it by robots, or actual reality that the characters are living. So it came out pretty obvious that the movie would have a twist at some point, somewhere. I will admit that I did not get it until the very end, so, don't be discouraged.

Ryan Gosling was great, also because he as an actor was perfect for his role. Being so that he has this way of being and looking conflicted, and so it portrayed really well on the protagonist.

Harrison Ford had less value to this movie than he did in the last Star Wars.

Jared Leto's character is a mystery to me, but he did a phenomenal job talking random shit.

All of the other actors, Jared Leto included, were there to push the story forward (or to add random bullshit) and that's it. They did a fantastic job, but unfortunately, as mentioned above, at first glance it looks like they don't mean shit.

| CINEMATOGRAPHY |

The movie is visually pleasing, it's bliss for people with OCD. It's perfectly round and at the same time perfectly square. It keeps smooth lines combining great color combinations in the palette, and utilizing great solid colors at the same time.

As I said before it holds perfectly a spot near its predecessor, the mood and feel are almost identical. (Having watched the first one only an hour before going to the theater to watch this one)

I have to say, this one looks A LOT, like A FUCKING GIGAZILLION LOT more gruesome and splatter than the first one. The fighting scenes are brutal, they do not go into dramatic effects, they just are what they should be. A punch in the face, exploding heads and blood.

There is no doubt that this movie looks fucking amazing.

It sounds amazing as well. It has a collection of deep, pure sounds. There is not a lot of music, but when there is it's powerful and present and it makes you wake up and amaze. Same goes for the special audio effects: I have watched it in ATMOS and I have to admit, they did not utilize it at all, except for one scene later in the movie, but the way it goes from absolute silence to seat trembling sensations it's really amazing. The sounds were so powerful I could literally see the movie screen shake and the subwoofer hit made the whole room shake.

I would also like to add that in the Italian version, you can clearly see that they used "incorrect" words grammatically, they used a lot of anglicisms, I guess they've done that to express how language is evolving? It's actually current of our generation, I see a lot of people adapting English words in Italian, so I was very impressed by that.

| FINAL THOUGHT |
I feel like everyone needs to understand, before watching this movie, that you need a time, a mood and a place perfectly fit to sit for a 3 hours movie that it's going to feel like a 6-hour long journey into colors, shapes, and absolute "living" silence.

This is NOT a Marvel movie, there is action, well-done action, but it's not about action. You need to sit, relax and don't think about time, because, trust me, it's going to fuck you.

Please like my comment if you enjoyed my review, it makes me really happy.

Note that all of this is driven by my personal opinion. If you think I wasn't objective in some of the parts of what I've written, you're welcome to make me notice where.

On Twitter, I review the entire world -> @WiseMMO

THE BETTER: ‘BLADE RUNNER’

WRITING: 90
ACTING: 100
LOOK: 100
SOUND: 100
FEEL: 90
NOVELTY: 100
ENJOYMENT: 95
RE-WATCHABILITY: 100
INTRIGUE: 85
EXPECTATIONS: 100

THE GOOD:

Vangelis is the perfect choice for composing music for a film such as Blade Runner. The unnerving, futuristic synth score is not only characteristically 80s, but also recognizably sci-fi.

I love the almost Burton’s Gotham-esque futuristic production design, a mix of the dark and gritty and the technologically advanced and flashy. Ridley Scott brings the rain, the smoke and the grime alive just as well, as he does in Alien and combines that with a sci-fi look quite unlike anything we’ve seen before or since.

A testament to just how much talent has been poured over the visual effects comes from the facts that they look amazing even today. The flying cars, the flashing lights, and the vast city landscape - they all look incredible.

What sets Blade Runner apart from most other great (and less great) science fiction film is the slow pace, the contemplative tone and the philosophical dialogue, that delves deep into questions of humanity, primal emotions and the value of memories and experiences. Friends of booming explosions and exhilarating action will be bored, but those craving for deeper layers of storytelling will find loads to love.

Rutger Hauer might very well be one of the best science fiction baddies of all time. In many ways, he is just a version of the very typical 80s film baddie (think Hans Gruber or the Terminator) but in other ways, he is a fascinating, compelling and haunting character who deserves to be credited for the chilling performance alone.

The tension in the plot is underlying and comes from the fact that we cannot know for sure who is a replicant and who is not, even though there is a test to find that out. However, what if the test isn’t completely reliable? What if the replicants are advanced enough to pass?

There are many similarities in direction and style between Blade Runner and Scott’s previous blockbuster Alien. He allows his vision to fully play out in both instances, even if the claustrophobic and actively tense from Alien has been switched out for the slower, flashier and more layered tone in Blade Runner.

Even the action scenes, which appear sparingly, have a strangely dreamy and philosophical quality to them, which goes together with the rest of the film neatly.

Isn’t it inherently creepy, how in certain situations, the replicants’ eyes glow ominously? They are the creepiest androids ever.

All performances are restricted, but surprisingly nuanced. There is a subtlety in Harrison Ford’s performance not usually seen from him, while Sean Young and Daryl Hannah bring sexual tension to the mix. This might very well be Ford’s all-time greatest performance, even if it’s not his most iconic one.

The climactic chase between Deckard might not be the most exciting chase sequence put to film, but it feels like a natural continuation to the long build-up that precedes it and it’s marvellously acted and directed. It’s one of these sequences that will remain legendary purely thanks to its different elements working so well in tandem. The last sequence is almost a horror show, which stands in stark contrast with the rest of the film while feeling like a natural part of it.

THE BAD:

There’s a long build-up that mostly seems to move the plot nowhere and barely adds to the wider backstory of the characters involved in the story. That makes the middle part of the film slightly less compelling as the opening and the third act.

I would have wished for more replicant-scenes, actually, and slightly swifter plot development. However, these are minor faults, mind you.

THE UGLY:

It would have been frustrating to work with such inefficient computers back in 2019 as this film suggests, don’t you think?

VERDICT:

Ridley Scott’s philosophical science fiction film is a refreshing piece of contemplative cinema that has stood the test of time better than most of its peers.

96% = = :white_check_mark::white_check_mark: = BETTER

Very mediocre. Felt disorganized and forced. Save this one for Netflix folks.

The movie that propably had the most impact on my life.
I was little over 10 at the time I saw it first. My dad brought it home on VHS. From the first second my eyes were glued to the screen. Immediately after it was over I rewound the tape and watched it again which up to today, close to 35 later, I haven´t done with any other movie. I recorded it on audio tape so I could listen to it, even wrote down the whole thing on paper (that was well before the internet, folks). We re-ennacted the scenes, I had memorized every line. I cannot recall how many times I`ve seen it since then.
I would give it 11 if possible.

Best of the New.

Solid film. Slightly outdone by Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, but still great. We get to explore the relationships between Spock and Kirk & McCoy, see some Vulcan culture, and watch Christopher Lloyd play a Klingon! (To be honest, I couldn't help but visualize Doc Brown from Back to the Future (1985) delivering his lines. Even though this film came first, it was inevitable—and amusing.)

With the gang assembled, Kirk sets off on a personal mission to find his old friend again—the title tells us as much—but he ends up getting a lot more to deal with than he expects. Typical Star Trek? Yes. What we as viewers wanted to see? Definitely. (I'm harping again on how Star Trek: The Motion Picture wasn't as much of a true Star Trek production as its immediate sequels were. I might keep that up all the way to Generations.) Scotty, Uhura, and Chekov pull some lovable tricks along the way, and it's just great.

There's much less reuse of footage from previous films here. The main musical theme is distinct, but still feels like Star Trek, thanks to the work of returning composer James Horner (who also composed for the previous film). Look for the occasional odd cut here or there—sometimes it appears characters are repeating motions they just made in the previous camera angle—but technically this production is very impressive, and feels like a real stepping stone on the way to the effects we get to enjoy in the later TV series.

As a Christian, I am of course biased towards the message of the film. Ultimately, it is one man's journey from sceptic to believer, when he discovers through evidence and testimony that God is real. Thankfully, the film is not as cheesy as other Christian movies. It paints a convincing picture of the testament of faith, with insight into real-world thought into why Christ isn't the dead guy others say He Is. Any sceptic watching the film may scoff - Lee Strobel did himself - but for any unbelievers considering the film, go in with an open heart.

It's not a perfect film, it is overlong, but it paints a convincing picture that may hopefully win over a few converts. I have met sceptics, I was one myself, but I know of the power that can change a person's mind and heart. May the same be true of your life.

It's nothing like the other movies in the series. Very mature, dark and brutal but also authentic in it's own way. The best movie in the X-men universe.