The movie might be showing its age, or maybe I'm showing mine. The structure just felt off. The pacing was much too slow until the last quarter. There's something grating about Maverick's character—there's supposed to be, but I couldn't really find anything to like about him. And of course the romance is entirely unnecessary, but that's been a Hollywood problem since long before this movie (and still is).
No Quidditch for years, and suddenly we get tryouts and snippets of a match because it's plot-relevant again. I know there's only so much that can be packed into a movie series, even one with such long installments as this, but a little backstory on how Harry got to be team captain and what happened to Wood would have been nice.
Some good and some bad. The pacing issues are understandable, as the fourth book was the longest yet in the series and they still had to cram it into a 2.5-hour movie. A major continuity error (the awning ripped in half by Harry's dragon magically is repaired for a later wide shot) and incorrect application of the Expelliarmus spell (Krum is still holding his wand after landing on his back, unconscious) drag it down a bit, as do editing shortcuts that mangle character in a few spots.
Superb film, absolutely breathtaking. I couldn't find a single frame that didn't keep me enthralled.
Honestly, I don't feel like knocking off any points for the small flaws I did notice. Some of the accents might have been a bit thick, and maybe it did take me a moment to realize that the "new" boy was actually an older version of the same kid, but meh… Those are tiny details, and the script was otherwise quite tight.
If I sat and thought about it for long enough, I'm sure I could find a plot hole or two to bring down my score, but why bother? There's no reason to go out of my way to tear down such a masterfully executed film.
You should go see this. It's definitely worth the two hour investment.
THIS FILM WAS CUT ENTIRELY ON A COMPUTER
I guess that was a new thing back in 1999? Still an odd statement to put in the credits, but it is tonally appropriate.
Honestly, this movie's comedy is more like what I expected when starting The Office after seeing all those memes/GIFs. If the TV show was like Office Space, I might actually be motivated to finish it.
Captures the mood of the game very well. No doubt the game developer being on the writing team had something to do with it.
Beautiful story, let down a bit by production limitations (mostly music—synthesis in places where real instruments were called for). Worth a watch, though. It's Ghibli, so you really can't go wrong.
Saw most of the twist coming from 20-30 minutes in, but not the very last bit.
Spectacular effects with a weak grip on realism. What do you expect from a Michael Bay film?
"This is a true story", but no doubt the real details are less…Hollywood.
"So Guinan and Professor McGonagall walk into a casino…"
But man, I missed Max Grodénchik. Not used to looking for him without the big Ferengi lobes…
The first words I heard came out of John Billingsley's mouth, and I was disappointed to note that he only appeared in that first scene.
Nice goof when Javier asks Emily if she texted the number he gave her, considering that the fraudsters called him when Emily checked in at their dummy shopping gig to confirm she was a legit referral.
It's some kind of accomplishment that Fran Drescher and Bill Cosby's characters were more compelling than Robin Williams' title role. Remember, he's supposed to be the (shooting) star.
I wish Williams had been a believable 10-year-old, but neither his performance nor the way his character was written made it work. And truthfully, nobody got good writing in this film. The comic bits weren't funny, and the dramatic moments (especially with Jack's parents) were absolutely cringe-worthy.
Once again, here I am in the aftermath of choosing a movie based on knowing nothing about it other than who some of the lead actors are—and once again, I find myself disappointed.
Is this a fun movie? Yes.
Does the script make sense? Kind of… not really.
Do the visual effects hold up in 2021? Not even close.
But the premise is interesting enough that I can see how it became a television franchise. That'll be next on my watchlist.
It's a real trip seeing James Spader in this goofy role.
Note to self, and anyone who's interested: It looks like this is available on YouTube at time of writing.
The music is not really my cup of tea. There's a ton of repetition, too—where Disney films of old would have written a new song for each scene, Moana reuses the same three or four melodies (and not, IMO, in the good "this is a theme" way, like a good Broadway score). There's also just something about the way the vocals and the animation are put together that doesn't…quite…mesh. When the characters sing, it's like they're lip-syncing. Yes, I know it's animation, so technically they are lip-syncing all the time—but even other Disney films do it better.
Don't come in expecting to be surprised by any of the plot. This is a Disney film, you know how it's gonna go.
I should have guessed that the chicken was Alan Tudyk… Who else could do that?
I can see why this is a classic. It's not really a story line I care for, but to hell with that; I ain't marking the score down because I didn't like the plot. I'm rating the film based on production quality and so on. It's got quality in spades.
Infrequently, I have the desire to see a movie done as a stage play, because my background is in theatre and I can't help it. This story is perfect for the stage!
Lots of bad CGI and questionable writing. The ending screams, "Please give us a sequel!" but there almost certainly won't be one.
Way too many different tones/genres squeezed into the same movie. Was almost like half a dozen people each wrote part of a screenplay and pasted them together, with the caveat that none of them ever took creative writing. Character motivations and thought processes were…for lack of a better word, absent.
Beautifully shot, though.
Was getting more and more into it, until the helicopter pilot simply accepted Ava as his passenger instead of Caleb and flew her off into the wild blue yonder, no questions asked. The ending was thus highly unrealistic; Ava was much more likely to have had to walk Nathan's entire estate. Given that the helicopter pilot wasn't even allowed to fly within of the building, it's unbelievable that any pilot contracted or employed by Nathan would simply pick up a passenger other than the one he was ordered to. Overall it's a stunning film, but the plot has a hole or two.
As of this writing, not available on any "normal" streaming services, but is available from the PlayStation channel on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH5MgEbBOps
It's… fine? Kind of?
The moral's there, in all its glory, impossible to miss because the characters slap you in the face with it repeatedly. Tonally, the script's a bit one-note even as it happily flips between comedy and drama. Romantic subplots feel shoehorned in, another checkbox to appease the target demographic I suppose.
My main specific issue is how the dairy employees—adults—behave toward the two protagonists. Given that many of them are also parents to children of their own, the remarks hurled at Taylor and Courtney were flat-out appalling. They were intended as such, true, but poor Reed Callum if those are the people whose livelihoods he protects as if they're his own family. Some of them just don't deserve it.
I enjoyed the film well enough, but there were too many things that made me go "wait, what?" to call it good. Could have used more Jean Yoon (Umma from Kim's Convenience), and a rewrite to add some amount of intelligence to the dairy's office leadership. (Seriously, no one suggested checking with the bank to see if they could get more details about what happened to the company's funds instead of just assuming it was Reed's doing?)
Good adaptation of the book.
There are some head-scratching plot holes that the movie throws out to set the stage for its story, stuff that seems too convenient, and a few boring bits—but they're all there in the book, too. Not the movie's fault.
The big surprise was Willie Garson, closely followed by Chris Elliott. Seeing either of them in this movie's universe is a trip on its own, but both? :exploding_head:
I don't have faith in the ending, though. It's entirely too easy for Phil to win over Rita in one day, when up to this point he's been quite the self-centered jerk. "And he got the girl" is a pretty lazy conclusion, to say nothing of how obsessive (read: stalkerish) Phil's behavior actually seems.
Apparently this had already been on my watchlist for a while, but today something put it back on my radar and I decided to just watch the thing. It's only been about 12 hours since whatever it was, and yet I've already forgotten what brought it up again.
Since I'm a sucker for good stories with interesting characters, this didn't work. No one really has any personality (except Sayoko, inappropriate as she is around her kid cousin), and every single plot had me asking, "What point are you trying to make?"
Short stories never get a lot of time to develop their characters, though, and this was adapting selections from an omnibus manga published almost two decades ago. Maybe that's why the tone felt odd for a 2020 release?
Anyway, yeah. Big meh. My advice would be to watch the first "episode" and stop. That was the best part.
This movie isn't terrible, but it certainly could have made better use of its premise. The script is broadly written, and the characters never quite gelled for me. Even Max, our protagonist, is awfully flat—and I don't blame Francis Capra's performance for it.
No one should expect Shaq to be a great actor! That's one of the most frequent critiques I saw in looking at other reviews, and it's simply not fair. Criticize the production for casting him based on stature and name recognition, but don't rag the guy for his acting skills. :sweat_smile:
At time of writing, this is freely available from the Hagerty Drivers Foundation channel on YouTube: https://youtu.be/fgOb22gz_TY
Ambiguous endings… They're strange animals. One can come off as a stroke of genius; another, all but identical, can fall flat.
And then there's the surprise twist ending. Same deal—you love one, hate another just like it, for no apparent reason.
Ask Me Anything has an ambiguous surprise-twist ending. It didn't work for me.
I must have dropped this onto my watchlist after I watched the season of Under the Dome where they wrote Britt Robertson out of the cast, but it was a nice surprise to find Christian Slater and Martin Sheen here too. Unfortunately, the cast was what I liked most about this film. Actually, the writing and characterization was…fine…until the aforementioned ending.
Truly, I couldn't critique any of the actors' performances. All of their characters rang more or less true-to-life. But that ending felt like a genre bait-and-switch, and a pretty unforgivable one. Katie/Amy disappears and the audience is left with no reasonable clues why? Please.
If you don't take it too seriously, it's good. The story is clearly exaggerated; that's the point of this satire.
YouTube release from the production studio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh3Yz3PiXZw
It's… OK. For a shmup, at least. The "Will Smith vs. Will Smith" VFX are mostly good, at least.
Some egregiously bad CGI in this one, mostly in the form of unrealistic physics.
