great movie for the family. I loved it when I was a kid.
A movie that never justifies its existence.
I have a lot of respect for what John Favreau did with The Jungle Book.
He managed to do something that every remake should aim for, but usually fails to do: improve upon its original.
This, however, is the exact same movie.
There was zero effort put into improving things, or even do anything different, for that matter.
And to some degree, I get it: the original is almost sacred to some people, and they’ll act autistically if you change too much.
There’s also an upside to that, which some critics don’t pick up on: if a story works in 1994, it still works in 2019.
But you could at the very least try some different shot compositions, or different music cues, or anything to not make this movie completely creatively hollow.
Yes, it looks just like a Discovery documentary.
At the same time, the realism strips the expressiveness of the animals away, so those things cancel each other out.
There’s just no reason to watch this over the original.
5.5/10
Awkward fan service with no soul.
Yes, there's a little too much focus on the human drama and too little Godzilla. That being said, Gareth Edwards exercises a great amount of restraint in showing the titular creature fight and, well, be seen in general. This is both a complaint and a good thing, believe it or not. It builds anticipation over the two hour runtime. I do think we could've seen some more of Godzilla in the first half, though. Maybe cut back on the Ford stuff to make room for more monster. But beyond that, this nails what I was hoping it would be. The audio design here is amazing. The story is a little disjointed between what's happening with Godzilla and our protagonist Ford (a lot of the time it feels like Ford's story is written just so he'll end up where Godzilla is) but it isn't bad. I thoroughly enjoyed this one. 4/5
Enough proof that shows this docu is absolute BS!
I thought this was a great movie and just when it was coming to an end i was ready to see much more. I think the CGI here was done well here.
Halloween day continues with a re-watch for the 31 Days Of Horror! Love this one.
Night is Short, Walk on Girl is a town found at the wrong stop of a strange train, where nothing is familiar and your bearings are as lost as you are. A place where you wander aimlessly, happy to be adrift and praying you won't be home anytime soon.
Based on an illustrated Japanese novel, Night is Short... is a collection of tales revolving around a young girl on a road trip through a long night that's not long enough as she meets characters who are characters and has the kind of time you'll recognise as that one special night that came together in ways you never could have planned and still feeds you memories in nights cold enough to leave you alone.
I'm not an expert of Japanese animation (the artwork here is gorgeous) but I am a connaisseur of sincerity and this film has enough to fill the strongest of nights to the brim.
Amazing film :heart_eyes: The end was so intense:fire::fire:
I'm on Oh-ficial Clown business bitch, so watch this great movie!
We'll meet again
Don't know where
Don't know when
But I know we'll meet again
Some sunny day
This movie broke into my house, hit me with its mundanity, and then left with a piece of my soul. Will bolster my defences next time and pick a better movie.
this is a happy film
Well, I gave it a fair try. I didn't think I'd like this story/film and I didn't. A young sexually inexperienced boy and an older grad student. For me the inequalities of experience, maturity and attraction bordered on child abuse and, although the boy was the aggressor, the adult should have maintained boundaries and trust. It was too uncomfortable for me and was anything but a love story. I know I am expressing a minority opinion (it has been nominated for 4 Oscars including Best Picture and Best Adapted Screenplay) but I rate it a 3 (bad) out of 10. There was nothing commendable about this movie to me with the exception of the location, which was strikingly beautiful, and the soundtrack, which was perfectly matched to the internal thoughts of the characters. [Drama]
a lot of action, killing, blood, naked chicks, sex, good acting!
Just how i like my horror movies.
Better than all the Halloween movies combined.
It's a consistent film with a good script, good performances, good direction, and of course so much blood.
Since the plot is remarkably the same, I’m just going to copy-paste my original plot analysis from the original film:
“Halloween is about Michael Myers, a man that many years ago, murdered his own sister as a child. Locked away for years, he finally escapes and wreaks havoc on a random set of teenage friends, but not before stalking them first.” – Review of Halloween (1978)
Oh sorry, that’s not exactly accurate – this time, his victims aren’t as random as the original movie. This time, you more or less discover as the film moves along what you discover in the 1981 sequel – that (spoiler alert), Laurie is Michael’s younger sister. So his murderous rage is all about killing his family – that much you know about in the original series, but it’s more than that now, because you now understand on a deeper level how truly horrible his childhood was before he became the monster. In the original film, Loomis briefly explains how he intimately knows the extent of Michael’s evil ways – in this film, we see it. We see his abusive and repulsive family, his budding interest in death beginning with animals, his fascination with masks and self-loathing, and his untamable hatred towards the mental hospital but surprising respect towards Dr. Loomis. We see all of this because it takes its sweet time introducing us to his history that we needed the first time around!
More than that, it introduces us to more than just an idea that this man is evil, but also a physical representation of one heck of an intimidating beast of a man. Seriously, this guy is huge. He’s a hulk. The original film had a typical guy in a mask. Why was he wearing a mask? Because it’s Halloween, I guess…this movie explains everything. It took away all of my complaints about the first movie and then some. The best way I could describe this film is as if they took the script for the original movie, got a better director, got a better writer to rewrite certain scenes and introduce integral elements, got better actors, invested in better equipment and technology, and hired a different director of photography – because it actually shows us what we needed to see that the first film left out. In my honest opinion, this movie improved on just about every level.
However, where it didn’t improve – was partially in casting. I do believe this is the best guy to ever play Michael. It made the most sense, but the rest of the cast was either just fine, or a bad choice. Now, I like Malcom McDowell as much as the next guy, I think he’s a wonderful actor, but Dr. Loomis wasn’t the right choice for him. Loomis needs to be Michael’s opposite, someone caring and understanding but ultimately hurt when he can’t get through to Michael’s inner child. Donald Pleasence did a pretty good job in the first film, but McDowell looks and sounds too evil to play this type of role. It almost went to John Hurt, which would have been perfectly fine. I would have also accepted someone like Liam Neeson in that type of role. Not McDowell. The rest of the cast did a fine job at acting, but not so much at creating something memorable…and the original did when it came to Jamie Lee Curtis.
In my honest opinion Halloween was better than the original – but only on a technical level. It didn’t change anything about the series that was already good to begin with. It just improved on the parts that the original lacked. If you watched the rest of the classic series, you’ll notice that they’re always struggling to explain plot holes in order to make another movie – this movie mostly got that out of the way from the beginning as to not run around aimlessly trying to find direction. As far as horror goes, it’s a solid slasher film. The series has never really been a favorite of mine, but I definitely respect the film went with this remake. Check it out!
One of the worst films I ever seen.
I read the manga about 10 years ago and I admired the difficult decitions Alita made during her journeys. I avoided to read the comics again before watching the movie, I almost forgot the story and maybe this helped me appreciate even more the movie. It's a fast ride, maybe too fast sometimes, but I think the creators found a nice balance between presenting the wolrd of Alita, developing characters and progressing the story. I don't know if it's too much for someone that haven't read the comics, but I think it's a great start, hoping to see some sequels.
I hope to see an extended version in home video that helps the characters and the story breath a little more: I could give the movie a 10.
"Baggage", can be a GOOD thing when yours makes it on time across the pond with you on your flight from London, especially if it's first out of the chute and onto the pick up carousel. But, it's NOT such a good thing if one carries quantities of the negative kind into a new relationship, be it an IRL relationship, or, in THIS case, the relationship between a viewer and a filmmaker.
It was to be expected then, when, Anime fans and enthusiasts expressed trepidation after the trailer for "Alita: Battle Angel" dropped. They can all still recall the cringe-fest that was M. Night Shyamalan's, "The Last Airbender", which IMO was DOA from the moment it was cast, and, don't get them started on "Dragonball Z", lest you want a wall of text recounting it's cornucopia of cinema sins.
Now, I'm not here to go down the rabbit hole that is often expressed in the current virtue signaling trend of "whitewashing" outrage. We're not talking about the bad old days practice of Black or Yellow face, where obviously Caucasian actors were darkened or "Orientaled" up to play faux versions of the real deal, nor of instances where it is done for comedic irony, as in Robert Downey Jr's, "Tropic of Thunder' performance, nor, the Waynan's Brothers in "White Chicks". However I DO find it interesting that no one seems outraged in those two instances, or, that the same folks who express shock and dismay at ScarJo's casting as the titular "Ghost in the Shell", ALSO express outrage at those who expressed outrage, at the idea of casting Idris Elba as James Bond. Seems like there's no pleasing some folks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKvqhlhXq9s
But I digress....
My point is, that we, as consumers of visual media, often let ourselves be influenced by the BAGGAGE we carry with us, when watching a film or show. Our expectations, based on PRIOR experiences, can subtly, or even greatly influence our enjoyment of a given offering. I have to wonder how die hard Trekkies would react to STDISCO, if they had NEVER seen Star Trek ANYTHING before? I myself can recall dismissing Wild Wild West, the movie, as soon as I saw Will Smith was cast in the lead, because for me Robert Conrad would always be the personification of James West. Yet, I had the opposite reaction to seeing Denzel Washington cast in the lead of either the Equalizer, or The Magnificent Seven, perhaps because lack of familiarity had not left me ingrained as to who these characters were. (Both great movies IMO by the way) Or perhaps it is just the power of the Denzel. And, even with all the "outrage" over the casting of "Ghost in the Shell", I still enjoyed the movie overall, although it fell down in a few places. Again I was unfamiliar with the source material.
Unlike the disappointing experience with "The Last Airbender", which I went into being a FAN of the Nickelodeon series as well as "The Legend of Korra", I was completely without opinion concerning Alita: Battle Angel. What I DID know was, that it was produced by James Cameron, who doesn't put his name on stinkers, and was directed by Robert Rodriguez, whom I have liked since El Mariachi. BOTH know how to deliver epic, believable worlds and characters, so I put my faith in that, and went in unbiased, with no expectations either way.
And I am SO very GLAD I did!!!
I saw the movie in IMAX / 3D, and, while SOME movies / Directors throw obvious, rather lame 3D effects to boost a lame, insipid storyline, or, OVER use it to the point of distraction, here, they found the perfect balance, with the 3D adding an immersive depth to the already impressive "26% more IMAX picture". If you watch the trailers, you can pretty much figure out which scenes really WOW in this format.
To address the elephant in the room, yes, Alita's eyes DO remind one of a cross between a high tech sex doll (not that I would know) and Margaret Keane's "Big Eyes" waifs. (Cristoph Waltz was in that one too) Yet, here, you quickly become so immersed in the story that you no longer notice. The story begins with Waltz's Dr. Ido discovering Alita's discarded torso in a dump, while he is scavenging for parts to fix up the neighborhood cyborgs, which are plentiful, and not trying to assimilate anyone. Apparently in THIS world, if a body part breaks, gets diseased, or hijacked (yes I said hijacked) it can be replaced, much like a crumpled bumper in a fender bender. Dr. Ido just happens to have a teenager sized cyborg body handy which is explained later in the film, and, a little JB Weld here, and a couple of stitches there and Bobs your Uncle, .. instant Teenage Mutant Ninja Angel...., (sorry) Alita awakens, but has no memory, and, as many teenagers are, is all questions, curiosity, and hormones, all at once, especially when she meets the "polite, hard working", and, all around handy guy Hugo, who IS teenage, but NOT mutant.
A visit from Ido's Ex, Chiren, gives us some (slightly disturbing) back-story and we meet her boss, Vector, played by Mahershala Ali, once again being chauffeured around by Viggo Mortensen, (just kidding) but who IS apparently a big deal, with connections to the sky city of Zalem, which floats above them, and is "the place were the cool hang out, the SWASS like to play, and the rich flaunt clout!" This is where everyone wants to someday go, "by any means necessary", yet Dr. Ido and his ex were apparently exiled from there, no backstory given.
Thrown in are a nice mix of teenage discovery and bonding, combat sports, bounty hunters, robot dogs, robot bounty hunters, set piece fight scenes, featuring robot dogs and bounty hunters of the meat and robot varieties, vivisection, nanobots, betrayal, heartbreak, and general cinematographic carnage....., and just when it was getting REALLY good, the credits ran, and NO ONE MOVED, hoping for one more glimpse of this world, or a Marvel Comics style peek at what is to (hopefully) come.
When I got home, I immediately looked up Alita, both the Anime and the Manga, and found a 2 part 1990's era Anime, which the movie, with a few minor changes and liberties, seems to have followed almost shot for shot in places. So, Kudos for at least partially following the source material, even if changes were made to make a coherent, box office ready story.
Was it perfect for those with the baggage of their own expectations? That's up to them to decide. Did I find it to be an entertaining movie that allowed me to suspend disbelief and immerse myself in Alita's dystopian hive of scum and villainy, and root for her to be victorious in the end? Yes sir!! So, May we have another??? PLEEASE????
Immensely fun, would go see it again.
I've been a sonic fan since Sonic 1 and 2 on the Genesis, enjoying both the comics and some TV shows as well. This FELT like sonic to me. It captured his confident attitude and gave him a backstory that was really touching and a great character motivation. Fans of the Mobius universe will recognize more references to the franchise, but this film is great for casual fans or even newbies to the franchise too.
The most jarring element for me was Jim Carrey's Robotnik. He didn't feel like any iteration of Robotnik or Eggman that I know. He was a fun character all the same but aside from his final costume he felt maybe 5-15% Robotnik throughout the movie.
The jokes were well done and there were times the wpile theater was in stitches. Lots of dad jokes, but the kind that makes you actually laugh.
Over all this is definitely a 10 for me, one I want to buy when it comes out and I am sorely hoping we get a sequel.
I've had an amazing experience watching the movie premiere in Venice, I've been waiting for this movie for a long time and I was not disappointed in the slightest.
It's a gorgeous movie, it's disturbing but moving at the same time, violent at times, but also subtle. It's a different and fresh spin on the character and on the cinecomic genre as a whole and Phoenix delivers an amazing performance portraying a version of the Joker we've never seen before, he's not the villain of someone else's story, he is the hero and villain of HIS own story, and the audience can be orrified by him, but we can't help but feel for him at times.
Without giving anything away I would recommend to go and see the movie not expecting to go and see an action packed, but gritty cinecomic, I suggest going in and watch it pretending that it's not even about a famous comic villain, but simply a movie, I think that people will appreciate it more in that way, not comparing it to the cinecomics we've seen before, but thinking of it as a normal movie.
P.S.: People will of course compare Phoenix to Ledger, I don't think it's possible, they give a totally different percormance because they portray totally different versions of the character, and I think it's going to be hard to compare them, you either prefere Ledger's version or Phoenix's but only based on the character, the actor's performances cannot be judged by comparison, they're both great. Just enjoy the movie
Astonishing performance. It’s a really good movie and worth watching if you are both a fan and a movie lover.
What an experience! It was magnificent and really powerful. Brilliant lead actor.
Well, I'll never listen to That's Life by Frank Sinatra in the same way again, that's for sure.
Before I start, there are two groups of people who need to be addressed:
- Regarding the people who are saying that it's too violent, and a movie based on comics shouldn't be like that: please, go back to watching Dora: The Explorer.
- Regarding the people who are calling it a Taxi Driver or King of Comedy rip-off: Is Mr. Robot a Fight Club rip-off? You have to see the difference between ripping something off and taking inspiration + adding your own ideas to it. Also, Taxi Driver is a vigilante story, something which this isn't.
So, most of the praise you heard about this movie I can absolutely get behind. The cinematography and score are without a doubt Oscar worthy. Joaquin Phoenix is front and center, and he absolutely shines. It is a full on character study, and the movie shows everything from the Joker's point of view. It keeps the movie focussed, but it has to be said that there are no other interesting characters to get invested into, something that other character studies don't forget. The pacing is also very well done. It doesn't feel like a slow movie, and the final 20 minutes are something special. To me, however, the first 90 minutes are a lot more interesting. I love the fact that we get to see an in-depth exploration of the causes of social exclusion and what leads to Arthur's downward spiral. Phillips very wisely points to a variety of causes at very different levels of society (elites, government, punks), while not forgetting that some blame also falls into the hands of Arthur himself (e.g. his megalomania). This is a very strong and nuanced message.
And then there's the film's other message. When it comes to a film like this (a protagonist with a downwards spiral), the movie often starts with making you feel sympathetic towards the character. The Wolf of Wallstreet does that. Breaking Bad does that. And Joker also does that. But then there's a point where the character crosses the line, a moment which you can almost pinpoint in this movie, namely the scene where he kills his mom . From that point on, a movie should clearly condemn what he's doing in order to not give out an immoral or wrong message. In The Wolf of Wallstreet, Di Caprio starts to lose everything. In Breaking Bad, Walter White starts to lose everything. Phillips, however, goes out of his way of condemning what his character does. Instead, he plays swelling and upbeat music during the film's darkest moments. Moreover, Joker gets a happy ending , and no other characters have a sincere conversation about the atrocities of what he's doing. In other words, the movie gives off the impression of still being on his side, thereby presenting violence as the answer to this man's problems, and I can totally agree with some of the critics who have a moral problem with that. I understand that they wanted to stay with Arthur's perspective through the end, but this comes at the cost of one of the biggest mistakes a film like this can make. At the same time, one major flaw doesn't make a film bad. I mean, Gone With The Wind is immoral in the sense that it is racist, but is it a bad film? Absolutely not.
7.5/10
I don't think I have ever seen Gotham city this bad in any other movie or video game. They portrayed it like the shit hole it is. They did a really good job.
100% Will watch again
Damn. Wow. Just powerful. This movie nails it on so many levels..
Joaquin was so damn good. The underlying themes, the undertones.. The sounds, the visuals.. The score. The colours.
DC please continue to allow your characters to be used in this way.
Finally, DC movie creators have woken up: it's no longer about being fun (and campy) but about being REAL! This is the most realistic origin story you will ever see. It's like an eerie, sometimes off tune karaoke machine for the sign of the times today. His manifesto is his notebook and we get to discover his MO with him. It's a slow burn until the FIREWORKS make you want to look away. You will hate what is happening on screen but a deformed compassion will lock your stare.
DC and WB, you've just been given the greatest gift all tied up with a bow - if you can't figure out how to build on this, you shouldn't be in the film business.
Film nerd slang: Taxi Driver meets The King of Comedy.
Great movie, but shouldn't Joker and Bruce be the same age.
Note that this movie removes any history of Joker's exploits as Red Hood, so treat is as non-canon to the Batman series.
Very, very realistic. Heartbreaking, but incredible.
This movie is a masterpiece really gives an insight into the Jokers mind while remaining very emotional throughout this psychological thriller
Let’s just say Joaquin Phoenix has done a remarkable job as playing the Joker, where he really does make The Joker as disturbing as he is always meant to be. We first start off seeing Arthur Fleck (The Joker) working as a clown for this company that sends people dressed up as clowns to different places in the city to entertain customers. We learn from the start that Arthur has schizophrenia he was placed on a psychiatric mental hospital temporarily in the past, where now he is out trying to fit into society on seven different medications while seeing a councillor in the meantime to try and get better to feel something positive in his life. You feel sorry for his character through his descent into madness as you learn all the hardships that he has been through, like been beaten as a child to still being taken the mick out of and beaten while being disregarded as an adult, which makes me think he wants society, but society does not want him to exist with his horrible condition. You will find yourself on an emotional journey in this film really does bring The Joker into a humane light while also being Psychotic with the reasons behind that. He also reverts to like a mind palace when he is unsure or someone is being horrible to him, which it can be either thinking that he is somewhere or with a particular person when his not or his uncontrollable laughter that calms him down as it is kind on his go to defence mechanism with his schizophrenia to try to make himself feel calmer. When we see him dancing down the stairs it gives him a humane happy side showing that he is still a human not just a mad killing monster that we always have perceived him to be, therefore he really does need help when people just ignore him and cast him off as kind of a waste of space in society. Arthur does not know how to react to everyday situations is a struggle for him, so killing someone in defence to him if they have really wronged or mocked him is fair game, even though we feel anger inside in our everyday lives that can be relatable we know how to make sense of our feelings knowing right from wrong with certain levels, which Arthur with his condition he cannot really comprehend. Even though these rich guys are horrible people and are very mean to him, which we can see Arthur has a point to the fact that if someone like them been killed people would be out for blood, compared to if someone like him had been killed they would just be passed by and ignored like street rubbish, therefore something needs to be changed. Arthur as The Joker he is trying to invoke a movement against people who think less of him and are mean to him even though the way he is going about it is the completely wrong way to go about it. We see people are being killed on the streets as a result of his killings to force change, where a peaceful campaign could have been more a lot effective in the long run instead of just madness and chaos. Overall, I would give this film a ten out of ten I defiantly recommend you watching it really does play with your mind it is a psychological thriller that can be scary to have you on the edge of your seat, therefore well done to the phenomenal acting along with the cinematography that really sets the scene for the film. Just to bear in mind that this is a stand alone film based on DC Characters, so some of the plot of how it fits in does not make sense, however that is how it is meant to be portrayed to give the shocking reality that raises awareness about these issues as they are real life people with these mental problems that they should be helped not ignored by so many people.
