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.
Feels flawed, but it'll hold your attention even if you're thinking "That's not right!"
Almost worth watching just for Sean Connery's off-and-on Scottish accent. The effects are a bit dated, but it is almost 13 years old… and I've seen worse in blockbuster films from last year.
Pretty much everything I want to say has already been laid out quite eloquently by Abstractals (spoiler tagged): https://trakt.tv/comments/80896
But in summary: There is a lot of technically impressive work in this film, especially the long takes with tons of extras and action in the background. But dramatically, I don't think this film is there. The aspect ratio and narrow depth of field feel like gimmicks, like the screenplay was written entirely to enable their use, rather than making those choices based on a fleshed-out story. I was entirely done with Saul's head being constantly in frame within five minutes, only to be stuck with it for most of the rest of the film. Everything we see (with exceptions covered in Abstractals' review) is either around Saul or through his eyes, and that forced perspective dramatically limits the story. The blurred backgrounds detach the action, making it seem less real. I still have no idea what Saul's motive was. I'm not even sure I care, sadly.
Maybe showing the viewer a Holocaust story that they can't connect with emotionally was the whole point. But if it was, I would have been happy to pass on this.
Florida to Texas by bus? That's a 12-hour car trip, and at least a full day by Greyhound. Houston to "Pittsfield, New York" (not a real place)? It's a 21.5-hour drive from Houston to the New York state line, and presumably a few hours more to wherever Pittsfield is allegedly located. There's some serious time compression in this movie!
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.
I think the actors did their level best to put believable characters on screen after being given very little to work with by a mediocre script. There's a lot of focus on the robot battles, but the characters seem underdeveloped.
The visual effects could be called impressive given the small budget this film had to work with, but visual effects are kind of the easy part of filmmaking these days—the software has already been written, you just have to use it.
Scriptwriting is the hard part, and this story could have said so much more. It started to develop characters in the first act, but once the action started all character work basically fell by the wayside. It's too bad, really—there's a kernel of good world-building in here that was never really utilized.
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.
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.
Feel-good, it is, but it's hard to overlook the slow pacing and predictability.
Lots of bad CGI and questionable writing. The ending screams, "Please give us a sequel!" but there almost certainly won't be one.
45 minutes in, I still have almost no idea what's happening. But I've had my fill of bad foley, bad editing, obvious splices where part of a shot was replaced with a different take, poor dialogue sync, a scene where half the French dialogue wasn't even subtitled, poor dialogue replacement (including some places where characters continued talking even though their lips weren't moving)… This film might be brilliant, but I just see a lump of coal. The technical flaws could be excused if it had been made a few decades earlier, at least. But unless something drastically changes in the next 58 minutes I won't have anything to say but: "Don't bother."
Edit: It did not get better, except for about ten minutes just after the halfway mark. Oh well.
Love the cinematography, but that's about it. Plot gets a 3/10 from me, for triteness and for being obvious an hour before the climax. Some good performances, yes, but also some flat ones.
I seem to be finding a lot of critically acclaimed media "meh" lately.
Edited down copy of the TV series, and it shows. There are a lot of details missing that make a lot of the scenes kind of nonsensical at times. What's there is beautiful, but what isn't there really detracts from the experience, even if you've seen the show.
Are these characters humans or robots? The only acting worth watching came from Reg E. Cathey and maybe Michael B. Jordan.
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.
I said in my review of The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (2015) that I'd have to watch and compare this with that and Spectre… Well, here we are.
The 2015 Mission: Impossible installment roundly beats out The Man from U.N.C.L.E. in writing, production, and on-screen chemistry. Rebecca Ferguson is no Alicia Vikander (LOVED her in Ex Machina), but the interactions between both leading men worked much, MUCH better in this film. It helps that Christopher McQuarrie let this film have a much calmer editing style—it's a hell of a lot easier to follow than Guy Ritchie's chaotic simul-action sequences with 2-5 camera views on screen at once.
I'm still undecided whether I like Spectre or M:I better for my top 2015 spy film, but I'm officially knocking U.N.C.L.E. out of the running. MI-6 and the IMF can duke it out.
(It's entirely possible that I'm being easier on this film because I lack a solid background with the franchise; I've seen very little M:I compared to U.N.C.L.E. But I don't think that's why I like this one so MUCH more.)
As others (notably Simon Massey [1]) pointed out, the chemistry wasn't there. The two lead actors didn't click.
I'd go as far as to say that I didn't like Guy Ritchie's style. The chaotic sequences where 3, 4, or more camera views went sliding and gyrating all over the place to show simultaneous action were really hard to follow. Some of the edits were questionable, and a couple shots held for FAR too long (did we really need 20 seconds of slow zoom-out on Gaby sitting on her hotel bed?) dragged down the pace.
Yeah, something seemed off. I love watching the original TV series, and still want to finish it—but as for 2015 spy movies, between this and Spectre: I'll take Spectre, hands down. (Now I have to watch Mission Impossible and compare…)
Lost me as soon as it turned into a don't-call-it-a-zombie movie.
Touches all the important Peanuts mythology. Mildly amusing. Needed a few more frames of animation in parts, especially when characters handle props (apparently this was a creative choice—ill advised, IMO). Soundtrack is jarringly un-Peanuts in multiple scenes, and at the end.
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.
Crap writing, crap editing. Nearly every line of dialogue is repeated 2, 3, 4+ times. Several places feature reused footage. The same reused footage. 3+ times. This story could have been told in well under an hour. Hearing Ellie Goulding's "Lights" play over the end credits was the absolute last straw—good song, tacked onto a terrible film. That licensing deal should be retroactively canceled.
