Juan García

A potentially great film being held hostage by its PG-13 rating and its messy, all over the places screenwriting.

By PG-13 I don't simply mean its visuals/goriness, but most importantly its dialogues, themes, and storytelling it tries to raise. Let me explain.

First, the dialogues.

The film opens with murder and Batman narrating the city's anxious mood. We get a glimpse of noir in this scene, but it soon falls flat due to a very uninteresting, plain, forgettable choice of words Batman used in his narration. Mind you, this is not a jab at Pattinson - Pattinson delivered it nicely. But there is no emotion in his line of words - there is no adjectives, there is no strong feelings about how he regards the city full of its criminals.

Here's a line from the opening scene. "Two years of night has turned me to a nocturnal animal. I must choose my targets carefully. It's a big city. I can't be everywhere. But they don't know where I am. When that light hits the sky, it's not just a call. It's a warning to them. Fear... is a tool. They think I am hiding in the shadows. Watching. Waiting to strike. I am the shadows." Okay? Cool. But sounds like something from a cartoon. What does that tell us about you, Batman?

Compare this to a similar scene uttered by Rorschach in Watchmen. "The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood. And when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. All those liberals and intellectuals, smooth talkers... Beneath me, this awful city, it screams like an abattoir full of retarded children, and the night reeks of fornication and bad consciences." You can say that Rorschach is extremely edgy (he is), but from that line alone we can tell his hatred towards the city, and even more so: his perspective, his philosophy that guides him to conduct his life and do what he does.

Rorschach's choice of words is sometimes verbose, but he is always expletive and at times graphic, making it clear to the audience what kind of person he is. Batman in this film does not. His words are always very safe, very carefully chosen, which strikes as an odd contrast to Pattinson's tortured portrayal of Batman as someone with a seemingly pent up anger. His choice of words is very PG-13 so that the kids can understand what Batman is trying to convey.

And this is not only in the opening scene. Throughout the film, the dialogues are written very plainly forgettable. It almost feels like the characters are having those conversations just to move the plot forward. Like that one encounter between Batman and Catwoman/Selina when she broke into the house to steal the passport or when Selina asked to finish off the "rat". They flow very oddly unnatural, as if those conversations are written to make them "trailer-able" (and the scenes indeed do appear on the trailer).

Almost in all crucial plot points the writers feel the need to have the characters to describe what has happened, or to explictly say what they are feeling - like almost every Gordon's scene in crime scene, or Selina's scene when she's speaking to Batman. It feels like the writers feel that the actors' expression just can't cut it and the audience has to be spoonfed with dialogues; almost like they're writing for kids.

Second, the storytelling.

Despite being a film about vengeance-fueled Batman (I actually like that cool "I'm vengeance" line) we don't get to see him actually being in full "vengeance" mode. Still in the opening we see Batman punching some thugs around. That looks a little bit painful but then the thugs seem to be fit enough to run away and Batman let them be. Then in the middle of the film we see Batman does something similar to mafias. Same, he just knocked them down but there's nothing really overboard with that. Then eventually in the car chase scene with the Penguin, Batman seem to be on "full rage mode", but over... what? He was just talking to Penguin a moment ago. The car chase scene itself is a bit pointless if not only to show off the Batmobile. And Batman did nothing to the Penguin after, just a normal questioning, not even harsher than Bale's Batman did to Heath's Joker in The Dark Knight - not in "'batshit insane' cop" mode as Penguin put it.

Batman's actions look very much apprehensive and controlled. Nothing too outrageous. Again, at odds with Pattinson's portrayal that seem to be full of anger; he's supposed to be really angry but somehow he still does not let his anger take the best of him. The only one time he went a bit overboard that shocked other characters is when he kept punching a villain near the end of the film. But even then it's not because his anger; it's because he injected some kind of drug (I guess some adrenaline shot). A very safe way to drop a parent-friendly message that "drug is bad, it can change you" in a PG-13 film.

And all that supposed anger... we don't get to see why he is angry and where his anger is directed at. Compare this to Arthur Fleck in Joker where it is clear as sky why Arthur would behave the way the does in the film. I mean we know his parents' death troubled him, but it's barely even discussed, not even in brief moments with Alfred (except in one that supposedly "shocking" moment). So... where's your vengeance, Mr. Vengeance? And what the hell are you vengeancing on?

Speaking of "shocking" moment... this is about the supposed Wayne family's involvement in the city's criminal affairs that has been teased early in the film. Its revelation was very anticlimactic: the supposed motive and the way it ended up the way it is, all very childish. If the film wanted the Wayne to be a "bad person", there's a lot of bads that a billionaire can do: tax evasion, blood diamond, funding illegal arms trade, fending off unions, hell, they can even do it the way the Waynes in Joker did it: hints of sexual abuses. But no, it has to be some bloody murder again, and all for a very trivial reason of "publicity". As if the film has to make it clear to the kids: "hey this guy's bad because he killed someone!" Which COULD work if the film puts makes taking someone's life has a very serious consequence. But it just pales to the serial killing The Riddler has done.

Even more anticlimactic considering how Bruce Wayne attempted to find a resolve in this matter only takes less than a 5 minute scene! It all involves only a bit of dialogues which boils down to how Thomas Wayne has a good reason to do so. Bruce somehow is convinced with that and has a change of heart instantly, making him looks very gullible.

And of course the ending is very weak and disappointing. First, Riddler's final show directly contradicts his initial goal to expose and destroy the corrupt elites. What he did instead is making the lives of the poor more difficult, very oxymoron for someone supposed to be as smart as him.

Second, the way Batman just ended up being "vengeance brings nothing and I should save people more than hurting people" does not get enough development to have him to say that in the end. Again - where's your vengeance? And how did you come to such character development if nothing is being developed on? And let's not get to how it's a very safe take against crime and corruption that closely resembles Disney's moralistic pandering in Marvel Cinematic Universe film.

Last, the visuals.

I'm not strictly speaking about gore, though that also factors in the discussion. The film sets this up as a film about hunting down a serial killer. But the film barely shows how cruel The Riddler can be to his victims. Again, back to the opening scene: we get it, Riddler killed the guy, but it does not look painful at all as it looks Riddler just knocked him twice. The sound design is very lacking that it does not seem what The Riddler done was conducted very painfully. Riddler then threw away his murder weapon, but we barely see blood. Yet when Gordon arrived to the crime scene, he described the victim as being struck multiple times with blood all over. What?

Similarly, when Riddler forced another victim to wear a bomb in his neck. The situation got pretty tense, but when the bomb eventually blow off, we just got some very small explosion like a small barrel just exploded, not a human being! I mean I'm not saying we need a gory explosion with head chopped off like in The Boys, but it does not look like what would happen if someone's head got blown off. Similarly when another character got almost blown off by a bomb - there's no burnt scar at all.

Why the hell are they setting up those possibly gory deaths and scars if they're not going to show how severe and painful these are? At least not the result - we don't need to see blood splattered everywhere - just how painful the process is. Sound design and acting of the actors (incl. twitching, for example) would've helped a lot even we don't see the gore, like what James Franco did in The 127 Hours or Hugh Jackman in Logan. In this film there's almost no tense at all resulting from those.

I'm not saying this film is terrible.

The acting, given the limited script they had, is excellent. Pattinson did his best, so did Paul Dano (always likes him as a villain), Zoe Kravitz, and the rest. Cinematography is fantastic; the lighting, angle, everything here is very great that makes a couple of very good trailers - perhaps one could even say that the whole film trades off coherency for making the scenes "trailer-able". The music is iconic, although with an almost decent music directing. And I guess this detective Batman is a fresh breath of air.

But all that does not make the movie good as in the end it's still all over the places and very PG-13.

Especially not with the 3 hours runtime where many scenes feel like a The Walking Dead filler episode.

If you're expecting a Batman film with similar gritty, tone to The Dark Knight trilogy or Joker, this film is not for you. But if you only want a live-action cartoon like pre-Nolan Batmans or The Long Halloween detective-style film, well, I guess you can be satisfied with this one.

If you ever needed a lesson in not listening to reviewers and making your own mind up about a movie, this is it. The Suicide Squad is brought to life by David Ayer in this summer blockbuster. It is 2+ hours of hard hitting FUN, with incredible portrayals of comic book favourites. Will Smith IS Deadshot, Margot Robbie IS Harley Quinn, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje IS Killer Croc, Jai Courtney IS Captain Boomerang... and The Joker??? I WANTED MORE!!! Well the biggest compliment I can pay to Jared Leto is that I didn't think about Heath Ledger once, it was a completely different yet interesting portrayal.

In this fun action flick, the bad guys are sent to take down a greater evil. Critics of the big bad in this movie seem to have completely missed the point. The big bad in this movie is merely a plot device, to help us get to see our protagonists form as a team. If anything the real villain of the piece is the one who forms this team of misfits. Amanda Waller is portrayed DIABOLICALLY by the incredible Viola Davis and the part where she turns on and guns down her own employees is SHOCKING . Complaining about the villain in a movie where the protagonists are bad guys is akin to complaining about the villain in Deadpool... THAT'S NOT THE POINT OF THE MOVIE!

This movie leaves you with a thirst for more of these characters, and some shots such as when Will Smith is stood on top of a car and gunning down henchman after henchman after henchman look like they have just been ripped out of a comic book and put on screen by the wonderfully talented David Ayer.

If you are a comic book fan, or a DC movies fan, heck even if you are just an average movie watcher... watch this movie! It is SO MUCH FUN!!!

UPDATE: Just seen the Extended Edition and I really enjoyed the new scenes. This extended version doesn't change the nature of the movie in the way the Ultimate Cut did for BvS but I found it let's the movie breathe a little and solves some of the editing problems people complained about. I still love the theatrical release but my recommendation is to watch the extended version of this movie!

What is a woman? You are either Male, Female or Hermaphrodite the rest is made up. You either have a penis or a vagina... If you cut of your penis and take hormones you are still a male with a cut off penis that's taking female hormones. Two of the chromosomes (the X and the Y chromosome) determine your sex as male or female when you are born. They are called sex chromosomes: Females have 2 X chromosomes. Males have 1 X and 1 Y chromosome. If there are extra chromosomes its very rare and a defect. What is this clown world? You can't argue with facts...

I have nothing against transgenders but let's keep it real! It's the same when I would identify myself as a male cat while you clearly see a human female. And I can't expect anyone to change reality and enter my imaginary delusional bubble and call me a male cat. Just because you feel like something doesn't make it reality. Just like Martina Big isn't a black woman, Dennis Avner isn't a tiger and Rodrigo Alves isn't a Ken Doll. But again if you are a male and you really want to live your life as a female go do what makes you happy! Live your life as a transgender! But don't claim to be something you are not just because you feel like it.

I really wanted to quote this:

Matt: "I want to understand reality and get to the truth."
Professor Dr. Patrick Grzanka: Yea, I'm really uncomfortable with that language "getting to the truth" because that sounds deeply transphobic to me and if you keep going we are going to stop the interview. The word truth is condescending and rude"

Dunkirk by Christopher Nolan was just a fabulous experience. I definitely enjoyed the movie quite a bit from start to finish, and usually war movies aren't really my cup of tea (at least not anymore). However, cinematically, the entire movie is just a masterpiece. As a big movie buff, I could appreciate how meticulously crafted the whole movie was. It's so hard to create a movie like this within this genre while trying to remain "minimal", but Christopher Nolan accomplishes it in every sense of the word.

He seamlessly interweaves 3-4 different plot narratives/timelines, while using minimal amounts of exposition. He gives the viewer such a sense of a looming and foreboding threat, while never even having a Nazi soldier on screen at any time. He tells us "so much with so little" and allows the viewer to take in the conflict of each situation (and there are a lot of them) rather than point it all out to us. In that sense, you really feel like you're getting into the mind of each one of the soldiers/main characters when they are contemplating some very crucial decisions that literally determine life and death, for not just them, but many other men as well.

Nolan gives us continued development, closure and solid endings in each one of the tiny subplots that he sets off from the beginning. It's definitely a joy seeing how all the different plotlines intermingle with each other at the end especially with the civilian aspect added in. And, most importantly, he accomplishes all this in less than 2 hours (and by a damn good margin as well).

If you appreciate amazing direction, cinematography, and vision within a movie, this will be an absolute joy. It could definitely get Christopher Nolan that elusive Best Director Oscar come Academy Award season. I watched Dunkirk in 70mm, but, honestly, I couldn't really tell the difference, especially without being able to do a side-by-side comparison to a regular version. Overall, it didn't seem too different from the usual XD or IMAX type presentation at my local big theater. Still, the movie is a visual treat lending heavily to more practical effects that gives a nice sense of realism to it all.

Anyways, this gets a solid 9/10 from me, coming from a war movie curmudgeon. Watch it, and you won't regret it.

Ever since the mid 90s, Roland Emmerich has attempted time and time again to repackage and recapture the ideas from Independence Day. After many failed attempts, I wonder why there’s still a theatrical market for films like this. Or rather, it’s odd that Hollywood thinks there’s still a market for it, given that all of Emmerich’s films since 2012 have flopped at the box office. And, he’s about to add another one to his resume. This should’ve gotten a streaming release at best, as it belongs in the same category as a film like The Tomorrow War. It’s background noise you throw on while you’re doing the dishes or folding the laundry. It's too disposable, phony, poorly acted and boring to pay any serious attention to, let alone pay money for. There's a sense of authenticity and fun to dumb action movies like Independence Day that you're never going to capture with the way these kind of films are made now. You have to applaud Emmerich for making a big, original studio film, but it’s still generic schlock that doesn’t have a single ounce of personality. Fuck whoever financed this.

Edit: after a little bit of digging I found out that the primary investor of this thing is a Chinese company called Tencent Pictures. They’re also responsible for financing other great films such as Terminator: Dark Fate, Warcraft, Kong: Skull Island, Men in Black: International, Monster Hunter and the 2 Venom movies. To put it mildly, it appears that it’s this company’s sole purpose to flood the market with trash, and not exactly the fun kind. Now I know what you’re thinking: maybe their involvement helps with receiving a Chinese release from the CCP? But here’s the problem: Venom 2 was banned in China. So, they’re clearly just a bunch of incompetent investors, given that all of their films (the Venom films excluded) have been massive financial and critical flops. The takeaway for Hollywood should be pretty simple: if Tencent wants to invest in your production, cancel all plans before you have another Moonfall on your hands.

2.5/10

Watch it if you’re a fan of Toto, or genuinly laugh at any point during the first scene.

Definitely a big departure from the books. Not horrible for it though; it's been an enjoyable watch, for the most part. It falls off a bit the last few episodes. I think people who haven't read the books will have an easier time enjoying it maybe than people who have and can't get over the fact that adaptations are a thing and changes are made. Doesn't make them bad, necessarily. Also, how about of all those beautiful, naked, rehydrated Trisolarians (or San Tinos, I guess?) in episode 2. Didn't get that image from the novel, I'll tell you what :tongue: As for any comparisons with the Chinese series, it was definitely truer to the source material and I'm usually the guy saying, "They should have made a limited series out of (insert novel here), this movie didn't do it justice at all." But damn, the Chinese series was so unnecessarily long and drawn out. It really could have used some trimming in the adaptation and editing phases; pacing was dreadful. This series may be a big departure from the novels, but it was done with the author's blessing as he understood the need to make it appeal to a wider, international audience and more accessible than the source material may have been for some people.

By no means the terrible film that many critics suggest, this is a rather generic action film, that was unfortunately hugely spoiled by the marketing, but is still a lot of fun. The plot as a standalone film makes little sense and ties itself into knots trying to explain a timeline that was already confused enough. Perhaps future films may explain some of the key questions raised, but ultimately the story shown here should work on its own, especially given the nature of the central villain and his importance to the overall story arc of all the Terminator films. Indeed, there is an interesting core concept created here in the identify of the central villain of the film, but the potential is largely wasted after the reveal in favour of a slight variation of the T-1000. That said, there is certainly a lot of fun in seeing elements of the timeline only hinted at in previous films as well as the recreation of various scenarios from the original film. The action sequences are all largely well done, apart from a terrible helicopter chase near the end of the film. Surprisingly, given his 12 year absence, the best part of the film is seeing Schwarzenegger in his signature role and it his relationship with Clarke's Connor that form the strongest character moments, despite treading similar ground covered in Terminator 2. Whilst Emilia Clarke does pretty well as Sarah Connor, Jai Courtney unfortunately is no Michael Biehn and his rather bland take on Kyle Reese makes it difficult to care about such a key character. Whether there will be any future films to take this story forward is uncertain - the biggest failing of all the Terminator sequels after Cameron's films is their efforts to continue a storyline that was essentially completed at the end of Terminator 2. But this film is a step up from the previous two sequels and there are hints that future films may explore other elements that don't simply rely on the Terminator as protector/killer.

"In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him."

Ender's Game is a movie with many flaws, but many qualities as well. Keep in mind that it is hard to just categorize it as a good or bad movie because of that.

No real spoilers ahead.

Story:
Like someone pointed out here before me, the reason why kids are necessary and why that's humanities only hope is left completely unexplained. The lack of other commanders, besides the one in training school, is pretty odd to say the least as well. In 50 years not 1 trainee from the academy passed the test. So what happened to all those failed kids? Especially the ones that did get to the final test. They know a secret that cannot be known to society (about the hero commander.)
There was no real character development in this movie at all except for the main character, and his development was very thin. The 2 friends he made do not have much in common with him, nor do they have any reason to like him. Especially the girl, since she is in a winning team for a while. After Ender's 'problem' with the Salamander leader, he feels bad about it. But as soon this part is over he never seems to look back at it or takes any lesson from it.
On the brightside, the massive plottwist in the end was surprising. After watching a movie with a rather unsurprising (but not boring) story development, I did not expect that. They could've singled out the emotional/psychological aspect after this part a bit more to make up for some lacking character development earlier.

Visuals:
Special Effects were lovely. A real sci-fi feel with great spacey environments that didn't feel unrealistic or cheap. The funniest thing was how they could've had computer games with about the same graphics we have now :P
I really loved how they did the battle scenes between plains and fighters, both in air as in space. You really got sucked into the battle field, and lost the feeling you were watching at a screen like happens so often with big battle scenes with lots of SFX.

Music:
This has to be adressed. I think this was probably the best part about this movie. Steve Jablonksy was the one who composed it. He also composed the music for the game Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars, where he surprisingly managed to not dissapoint after stopping Frank Klepacki's monopoly for the franchise. And that's while Klepacki set the stakes very high for him. And in mainstream modern movies he is probably best known for doing some music for the Transformer movies, too bad those movies suck too much.
He did an amazing job on the score for Ender's Game. Bombastic, classical and majestic music that made every scene way bigger and impressive. Something you could easily listen to and enjoy without looking to the film, but just play really loud on your speakers.

Acting:
This is always something that falls a bit short when kids are the main characters in a movie. Remember the golden rule: Never work with children or pets when you are making a movie.
Not that it was bad, I was actually positively surprised with the acting job most of the younger characters delivered. The worst acting came from the adults xD But even so, the acting was not something award-worthy. Just don't expect big personal acting extravaganzas and you will be just fine.

Enjoyment/Overall:
I really had a lot of fun watching this movie, therefore the end(er) ordeal from me falls into the category good movie. It has enough speed, nice visuals, great music and it is just fun to watch.

[8.6/10] I tend to think of the highest and best form of reviewing films as doing some kind of analysis, not just simply letting the reader know whether it’s good or bad. I still think it’s worthwhile to give a rating, and to talk about what worked and what didn’t in a particular movie, but I think the better side of reviewing is talking about what a film means, how its various elements combine to create theme and meaning and emotional investment. I’d rather engage with the ideas, merits, and flaws of a given film on their own terms than just classify each constituent part of it as positive or negative.

But there is one undeniably useful aspect of the “consumer reports” side of movie reviewing, and that is to warn you -- Hereditary will disturb you. Yes, there are scares, but few more frightening than any other top tier horror film. It’s not so much that the film is scary; more that it is gutting, It fits in the category of films like Requiem For A Dream, where you will walk away from the movie suitably impressed by what you’ve just witnessed, but also feel thoroughly awful about it.

That’s my only caution and hesitation in recommending it. Hereditary features two key performances that are out of this world and eminently award-worthy. It marries text and theme, a supernatural horror story and a harrowing family story, with complete virtuosity. And though it starts a bit slow, once the film kicks into gear, it grabs a hold of you and doesn't let go until the credits roll, if then. But therein lies the problem, because the film doesn't shy away from the abject horror of both the black magic that threatens to doom and damn the family at its center or the all-too-real, omni-destructive impact of mental illness that underpins the metaphor, and it is utterly devastating to watch.

The movie works in both modes. If you want to take it literally, the film expertly slow burns its supernatural horror. It parcels out apparitions in the distance, little bits of unease. It graduates to full on otherworldly happenings that unnerve but seem tame enough, with just enough wrong to be disconcerting. And by the end of the film, the revelation of satanic cults and possession and unexplainable happenings builds to a terrible crescendo, where you’re frightened for the characters, freaked out by the creatures lurking at the edge of the frame, and have a pit in your stomach from the havoc wreaked on this family by the dead hand of plots and schemes from long in the past.

But that’s also what makes Hereditary so harrowing, when you read it, either purely as metaphor or just with a baked in theme, of the struggle to deal with mental illness, passed down from generation to generation, causing, reinforced, and activated by trauma in a dispiriting vicious cycle. As much as the film soars with its black magic elements and voodoo tricks, the most disturbing parts of the movie stem from its center of a family in crisis, over a woman losing her mother and her daughter in quick succession, over a son who fears his mother wants to kill him, over sicknesses of the mind that manifest in brutal and horrifying ways.

The impact of those events is driven home by the incredible performances at the heart of the film. Toni Collette gives the performance of a lifetime, communicating Annie’s unfathomable grief, her sheer desperation, and her trauma-fueled discombobulation that leaves her raw, rambling and dangerous. Collette knows when to go big, huge even, but also when to reduce those emotions to the cauldron rumbling beneath, to the not-quite-right moments that can either play as the tentacles of a devil-worshipping cult wrapping around her through or as the throws of schizophrenia rolling in.

And Alex Wolff matches her note for note. While Peter, Annie’s son, doesn't undergo the exact same devolution his mother does, Hereditary is a movie that finds its strength in reactions. No character delivers more of those reactions, from dead-eyed guilt and shock at his sister’s accidental death, to bare, unmooring pain at his mother’s confessions and recriminations, to his own, separate unraveling transformation under the weight of those original lingering traumas and the new ones unwittingly inflicted anew by his mother in her own state of distress, than Peter does.

The results are utterly disquieting. As much as the supernatural is always lurking at the edges of the frame in Hereditary, for much of its runtime it’s a fairly straight, if artsy, kitchen sink drama. The twin spectres of loss and schizophrenia loom large in a family that clearly feels alienated from one another. Even before the film pulls the trigger on the straight up mystical happenings that may or may not be taking place, the scenes of Annie grieving her daughter, of Peter and his mother confronting one another over the dinner table, of imagined sleep-walked confessions, are hard to watch in their rawness entirely independently of any ghouls or goblins.

That’s heightened by the cinematography of the film, which both adds to the eerie atmosphere it maintains throughout, and highlights the incredible acting taking place. Hereditary is superb at keeping certain images at a distance from the viewer, small or blurry in the frame, as though you’re trying to make out some small detail in one of Annie’s diorama. It not only works in terms of horror, evoking the sense of some ghostly presence just beyond reach, but it dovetails with the movie’s mental illness metaphor, creating a visual representation of mental pathology peeking in before it takes over.

At the same time, director of photography Pawel Pogorzelski isn’t shy about emphasizing the intimacy of certain moments. There are numerous close-ups of Annie and Peter’s faces, letting the performers subtle reactions and changes in affect communicate the emotional and physical transitions taking place within them.

Those transitions are just too much to bear at times. Hereditary is a truly haunting film, one whose paranormal and painfully real horrors will stick with you long after the final frame. That is a blessing and a curse -- a testament to the tragic, unrelenting power of the film, but also a heavy weight to saddle the audience with as it leaves the theater. The movie is well-worth your time and attention, but may be more than you can handle in the moment, or shake after it’s finished.

The main problem I have with this movie is not that it's a bad movie - although it is certainly not good. No, the huge problem I have is that it was a stupid movie to make. Nobody asked for this. Nobody ever said, you know what I wish they'd remake Ghostbusters but with women. Now I know sometimes you don't know what kind of movies you want or don't want until you see them, but in this case people KNEW right away. You do not remake movies with a cult following like Ghostbusters, Goonies, ET or Jaws. You just don't. You are setting up yourself for failure, wasting people's time and money. It's a free country and people can watch the movies they wanna watch, but this should not have been made. It's an abomination and a slap in the face for every self respecting fan of movies. It deserves every bit of ridicule and shaming it got. They were warned that this would happen when they announced it and it happened. I hope this will be a warning to Hollywood execs who think they can just hijack an idea and make some money out of past success without coming up with anything new. There are too many remakes and sequels being made, but usually they stay away from classics. Not this time and it blew up in their faces. LEAVE THE CLASSICS ALONE!

While some will undoubtedly criticize the perhaps overly meta set-up that accounts for the first 30 minutes of this film, relative to the rest of the movie, that portion was actually my favorite part and I can't help but wish they had just gone all in on the idea. The story of a game designer who is losing his grip on reality felt fresh and unique. The rest of the movie... not so much. At the conclusion of the original trilogy, the Matrix lore was already an incomprehensible mess, but skipping ahead 60 years and dropping a whole new collection of buzzwords and exposition dumps only made things worse. All the more reason to cut ties with all of that baggage and tell some new story in which the Matrix is simply a series of videos games created by a troubled mind. Alas, that's not the movie we got, and after those first 30 minutes the film turns into an unsuccessful rehash of various elements of previous Matrix films. To make matters worse, the action is also not up to par. Even just finishing the movie minutes ago, I'm having a hard time thinking back to any memorable set pieces or sequences.

Luckily, things aren't all bad. The cast are pretty much universally solid, including both new and returning characters/actors. Jonathan Groff leans into his role as the new Agent Smith, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II sells his version of Morpheus, and Neil Patrick Harris delivers some fun monologues as the Analyst. Unfortunately, great acting can only take you so far, enough to sell hammy dialogue or even save individual scenes, but not enough to save the overall plot.

This film is more than just a horror, if it doesn't scare you that doesn't make it a bad film. Insidious is just as much about the story as it is the scares. It does a fantastic job of setting up a solid atmosphere, trying out new scare techniques while still dabbling in the tried-and-true methods of your typical jump scare.

This "sequel" is more of a natural continuation of the story. It picks up right where the first film left off and does the story real justice. It expands the mythology behind "The Further" while dealing with Josh's new-found possession. If you don't feel you can watch it for the scares then watch it for the story because it's a bloody good one.

One of my favourite things about this film is it's not only a sequel but also works it's way as a prequel too. It takes us right back to when Josh was a kid and how he first came into contact with the woman in black. Not only that but this film does a beautiful job of linking back to the unexplained scenes in the first film which, when experiencing that for the first time, is an absolute treat.

Don't listen to reviews saying it wasn't scary enough or it was worse than the first film. This is just the second chapter of the same story. It doesn't care for rehashing the first film but instead does something different. You don't discriminate between chapters of a book complaining one wasn't as scary as the other, one wasn't as good as the other. They're all chapters of the same story and work together to create this fantastic, whole story.

Insidious is just that. With the 3rd film confirmed it's clear that Insidious is one big story not just about the scares, not just about the Lambert family but instead the bigger picture is about "The Further" and the story behind it. The entities involved, whether they're parasites or demons.

If you liked the first film you'll love the second. It's still got the familiar atmosphere, the comic relief from Specs and Tucker, and even features a music score that takes inspiration from the first film's soundtrack while offering something to keep things feeling fresh.

I'm a sucker for a well-written story and the Insidious franchise is no exception. Leigh Whannell (who funnily enough, also plays the character Specs) does a great job in penning the screenplays. The story is fresh, exciting an after Insidious: Chapter 2 I feel fully confident in the Insidious series/franchise and am very much looking forward to full trilogy.

Whether this film scares you, makes you laugh or doesn't let you sleep.. you can't deny it's a solid, original story. Forget the labels and just enjoy the film for what it is. Really. Fucking. Good.

Mega City One; an unbroken concrete landscape. Population 800,000,000

“Twelve serious crimes reported every minute. Seventeen thousand per day. We can respond to around six percent."

Dredd (Karl Urban) is a Judge, a law enforcement officer with the Hall of Justice; each highly trained, physically, tactically and morally. Judge, jury, and when dictated, executioner. They are the law.

Dredd is asked evaluate Anderson (Olivia Thirlby), a subpar graduate with a gift, as to her potential as a Judge. Told 1 in 5 don’t survive the first day, Dredd gives Anderson the choice of which call they respond to. The call takes them to Peach Trees, a 200 storey mega block with 75,000 residents, and on to Ma-Ma’s (Lena Headey) turf.

Ma-Ma, a psychotic prostitute turned drug lord, is producing a new and highly addictive drug which she sees as her ticket to expansion throughout Mega City One. The arrival of the Judges causes far reaching problems and she orders the hallways cleared and for them to be hunted down and executed.

In late 2010 Pete Travis was announced as the director on Dredd and my heart sank; his 2008 film Vantage Point is a disjointed and tedious mess. Thankfully Travis really has a grip on the tight script penned by Alex Garland (28 Days Later, Sunshine) and delivers a solid film filled with explosive action and over the top ultra-violence. Garland's script deftly handles the material, grounding it and never gets bogged down in exposition.

Karl Urban, channeling a young Clint Eastwood, delivers an unwavering performance as Dredd; stoic and relentless. Judge Anderson is idealistic and determined and Olivia Thirlby brings a strength to the role that would have been diminished without it.

As the villain Ma-Ma, Lena Headey is patchy at times. A disappointing weak delivery of an order to "Fire!" spoilt the beginning of one of the most exciting firefights of recent memory. A minor performance from Domhnall Gleeson as Ma-Ma's pasty tech guy is noteworthy.

Oscar winning cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle (127 Hours, Slumdog Millionaire, Antichrist) brings the gritty reality of Peach Trees to the screen with a deep focus that accentuate the long corridors and the height of 200 storeys. Grain persists throughout the hallway scenes adding to the grit and grime. Shot natively in 3D, it is among the best of late; corridors feel long, rooms confined and the slow motion effects of being under the influence of the drug looks gorgeous with its vibrant palette.

Dredd is a visually arresting thrill with solid performances and a level of violence that almost borders comical.

Highly recommended.

Whilst not having read the source novels, Divergent desire to be the next "Hunger Games" style franchise is evident in its dystopian setting, purportedly strong intelligent female characters ( they're not ! ) and sequel baiting in its resolution. What is disappointing is the lack of any originality to distinguish itself from other similar ideas - it's faction based society heavily influenced by films like Gattaca and others of that ilk. The film also spends an inordinate amount of time with one faction, and probably the least interesting one at that, devoting the bulk of its plot to the heroine being trained, and of course, falling for one of her trainers. You would think that the focus would be on the so-called Divergent group, given the title and the vague ominous warnings from several characters about their threat. Perhaps the sequels will develop this better, but here it is simply a plot device to touch base with typical themes of individuality, free will and teen angst over being pigeonholed, as well as provide a motivation for the villain's plot. That it rarely explores these within any great depth is the film's main problem, preferring to focus on the developing romance between the two leads. There are no surprises in the story, but the central leads do their best with the thin material and it is watchable enough.

The satire is hit and miss, and the hits are not really saying anything profound. Who knew social media is trash? Thanks. The first half was adequate in some ways but also unfunny. In fact I didn't didn't laugh once at the whole movie.

Second half looked better until the political commentary. It was very obvious who the bad guys would be. Yes it's the gun and money loving deniers who wear hats. Enter Perlman's character who's ''out of touch'' and says bad things. That's the level of comedy in this. Add Jonah doing his usual pathetic character and Lawrence with a snarky edgy woman. The good? Dicaprio. And considering the different elements of the movie (disaster and comedy) the tone worked.

It wasn't reasoned at all. Near the end of the movie why don't certain characters spend their time elsewhere instead of having dinner with non family? Do they have nobody else? Is Peter Isherwell's character based on Jordan Peterson? Where were the UN (isn't this a global crisis?) The days of USA saving the world in movies needs to end...

The irony is that it attacks sheep yet is for another set of sheep. It also adds to the modern era of useless social media political fighting, as people take sides. I'd like a satire to rise above this.

it definitely needs a second rewatch is what i strongly think and need to say;

since the first second this movie started, the sound design was out of this world, and its one of the main things i loved about this movie

i felt like i couldn't clearly understand half the stuff Robert Downey Jr's character kept saying, and i feel like i missed out on a big part of the movie because of it, that's why i strongly feel like i need a second rewatch of the movie, then i'll truly know if i ended up loving, or Loving loving my first ever Christopher Nolan movie on the big screen;

when that explosion finally went off, it literally gave me a scare, they did an incredible job with the movie's sound design

it had some g o r g e o u s shots as well, especially the last one, where it slowly zooms on Oppenheimer's face;

the anticipation & suspense as they're slowly completing the Project, (with the subtle nuclei reactions SFX that is happening in the background) showing it getting assembled piece by piece.. having the countdown... then it finally going off... it truly immerses you into the experience, and leaves you speechless afterwards, and that, that is only the beginning of it all, because the aftermath, and what follows, is the true horrifying stuff, as Oppenheimer slowly realizes what these events and discoveries are truly leading to;
& the way Nolan depicts Oppenheimer's regret, and all the other emotions he's going through, visually and through sound design, was perfect

Initial Reaction

Go in blind, I don't recommend the trailer either.

I want to say, this movie isn't a traditional horror that everyone will enjoy. Like all horror, it's subjective, and this film will suffer for you if you don't enjoy the phycology and actual character drama over jumpscares. Not that there is anything wrong with that, this just isn't the movie for you.

The Good
• The acting is actual gold. Every single cast member in here, pulls off a fantastic role. Everyone seems to think all the credit should go to Toni Collette, as she does deserve all the praise for her performance here. But for me, the real star was Alex Wolff. He was phenomenal, I wouldn't believe the corny kid from 'Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle', would be able to pull off such an emotional portrayal of dread and sadness. Some of the best acting I've seen in a film.
• The tension is so powerfully gut wrenching. It makes you feel involved with these family members. I don't want to say much more at all about this, it's better to just see it for yourself.
• Cinematography is unbelievably gorgeous. The shots are framed with such genius and boldness, that you get jarred by the cuts, yet hardly notice them when they needn't be. The long shots between rooms, are something that fuels the feel of this film, and goddamn does it work so well.
•The scares. Now, this is probably where it gets iffy for some. But for myself, I was so freaking scared with the amount of build and suspense they put you through. I loved every minute, and when I managed to get a second to breathe. I took long deep breathes.

The Bad
• Unintentional funny moments. Yes, this film also suffers from this typical horror fault. But, as I said before. It's completely subjective. If you get in the mood because you were able to get drawn in by the tension, this won't bother you. However, several people laughed at some things that I could see funny as well. But maybe it's just our basic human reaction to release ourselves from the pain this film shows, it's relentless. Maybe that's it's purpose.

Spoiler Things
• I'm not going to say much, but the scene that made everyone gasp and freeze. Was so wonderful, I see people talking about it for years. As a great showcase of how a movie can be paced differently from the normal formula.

Conclusion
This movie got to me. Much like 'It Follows', it will stick with you for the same reasons of it being like a spooky childhood fear we all had. I understand why people will find this a bore, or just not scary. I get that and see where they are coming from. But for me, I can say with confidence, this is one of my most favourite horror films of all time. It's a masterwork, I enjoyed and hated my time with this movie. It ruined my afternoon, and I have to give credit to a film that does with such skill. I highly recommend if you're a fan of thrillers or just strong phycological dramas.

As a huge fan of the source material, I have watched the entire season and formed an opinion on the series. Compared to other video game adaptations, the TV show is well-made. However, personally, I was a little disappointed. I had high expectations for the writing, given that Mazin and Druckmann were the showrunners. While the writing is to some extent comparable to the game, I find the videogame version to be miles better. This is mainly because it had the perfect balance of every storytelling element.

The pacing is the most unusual aspect of the show for me. One would expect that with Mazin, known for Chernobyl, and Druckmann himself, pacing would be a strength. However, the TV show has a significant pacing issue. In some instances, it spends too much time on side stories that are irrelevant to the main plot, such as the episode featuring Bill and Frank. Additionally, it focuses on the wrong parts of the game's adapted story, like the story of Henri and Sam, where the show prioritizes Kathleen and her group over the meaningful story of the people living in the underground tunnels in the game. The main plot points also feel rushed, diminishing the emotional impact of these same scenes that were so memorable in the game.

My second problem is the lack of violence. The game version was significantly more brutal, and it was necessary for world-building and character development. It was a chaotic, violent, and dark world where only the strongest and cruelest people could survive. However, the TV show felt much softer. It didn't have enough encounters with infected, raiders, or other people, making Joel and Ellie's journey feel less challenging than in the game. In the game, you could feel Joel's exact feelings in the last hour of the game because, like Joel, you fought through hell to get there. It was a long and difficult journey, and you too were questioning whether a cure was needed. However, in the show, this high difficulty of the journey isn't justified.

Furthermore, Joel isn't as dark a character as in the videogame, at least until the events of the last episode. In the game, he is a violent person with no sympathy for others and shows no emotion. Ellie changes that, but Joel is stubborn, and up until very late in the game, he shows no signs of change. In the show, however, he's tough, but it feels like he can be a nice person if you try hard enough. Because the storytelling is rushed, and there is very little violence up until the end, the audience can't see the changes in the character that he has gone through.

Lastly, although I liked Pedro Pascal and Bella Ramsey, some of the scenes didn't feel as genuine as in the game version. Some scenes in the game had a significantly higher emotional level and felt more heartfelt, but that may be a matter of taste, and Troy Baker and Ashley Johnson did a phenomenal job.

Overall, the show is excellent for people who haven't played the game, and it can give them an idea of what videogames have become in terms of storytelling. However, the videogame version is a much better version of the story. Anyone who hasn't played the game and liked the show should definitely experience the game too.

Astonishing how positive most of these comments here are while the overall rating is only at 68% at the time of writing these lines (not that bad, but not that good either). I see some obviously blind praise without any arguments backing it up.
It didn't have that much misandry, or I expected just too much from comments I read/heard, mentioning and discussing the "best" issues already. Although, I tend to not analyze every little sideblow and let some inappropriate jokes slide. But objectively spoken it wasn't a good movie if you see past the issues the trailer and cast raised months ago. Intentional provocation for better marketing and media coverage (and it sadly worked). It still had certain misandry aspects and scenes that are problematic. But that's how it goes these days.

Let's condemn sexism towards women for decades, fight for equality until the majority is on the same page, then the toxic new generation of feminists arise, burn all previous work down to the ground and simply reverse the sexism what is supposed to be totally okay. Just as it is totally okay to classify each and every criticism as "it's not about you[men] anymore", implying everyone criticising the movie is male to begin with, or implying there aren't strong female characters here and there already, doing it much, much better than this Ghostbusters. While the counter "arguments" are like "man up", "you're sexist if you don't like it", "you are just a hater anyway" and similar. All while women are pressured to like this movie because, well, it's an all female cast, you have to like and support it! No matter what. The irony in this is hilarious and really sad at the same time. Cinemassacre's greeting and while I'm at it: Comic Book Girl 19 and Alachia Queen on Youtube raise interesting points and I feel inclined to stress that they are females. So their opinion might be - for some - more valid than mine, because sadly I've got a penis. (*gasp!*)

But I digress, the movie itself is terrible, it's highly unfunny, sexist towards women and men, mildly racist and most of all incredibly boring throughout with a recurring Bill Murray, while he isn't really recurring. But the latter was known, the movie was said to ignore the previous movies, so Murray is playing another rather unimportant character and is only a notch to fans of the previous movies, nothing more. Very disappointing.
The CGI effects aren't the worst (overall) but for 2016 mediocre at best. Dialogues are dragging for way too long at times, when the Ghostbusters were called in to talk to "the man" for example, the movie lost my attention for several minutes. Something that rarely happens. Mostly the dialogues are simply stupid to avoid silence/only exist to create noise. It feels like there's no real plot, nothing seems relevant with what happens in this movie and I don't "feel" the sense of it, there's no point in it.
The character Holtzmann was tedious and annoying to watch. Some could also say McCarthy is playing the same character in all movies she's appearing in and they might be right, there's no great difference as I can see it, but I like her in most movies (Spy was very entertaining). I have no particular issue with her character here but I wouldn't say she was any good either.
Still, most of the issues this movie has have only indirectly to do with the female cast and come mainly from the terrible, terrible script.

The plot thing, dialogues and Holtzmann are probably my biggest gripes with this movie and Hemsworth as the embodiment of misandry this movie has to offer (+the villain, but that one possesses his body for some time, soo...). An all female cast is just as interesting as an all male cast: not really, it's boring writing (exceptions apply).
While I dislike a forced diverse group to not attract any kind of "haters" just as much as an all-x-gender-cast, I'd preferred it if there would have been more variety in characters and a somewhat greater care and respect for all the characters that were actually there. Variety gives a writer more possibilities to write a good story but no one had this in mind for this movie, apparently. Perhaps because the involved decisionmakers knew this movie is bad?

The only entertaining thing this movie has/had to offer is what happened around it. What was shamelessly done to boost media coverage and how it on one hand wastes an opportunity and on the other exploits so-called "equality" on the backs of everyone who wants equality ("gender war" as Comic Book Girl says it). Generally, this movie isn't really worth all the controversy, because the movie itself has no relevance and will either be forgotten quickly or be another example for terrible reboots that get ruined because of money and money only.

I prefer my media to be without prejudice against a specific gender to push an agenda, be it money or superiority over the other gender. Good shows/movies that do something for equality treat every character no matter their gender, sex, religious beliefes, etc. with respect. Ghostbusters (2016) does not.
If you want realistically strong female leads, "empowering" women, while no one is insulted for their gender, watch and support shows like iZombie, or The 100. Not this money agenda driven movie that wants us to insult each other over the wrong issues to create buzz.

Comic Book Girl 19
Alachia Queen

Worst Zombie Apocalypse show ever. And That's saying a lot.

It seems that the Zombie virus in this world also infected the survivors so that their IQ drops 10 points each day. The characters in this show are completely stupid. There is nothing worse for ruining the sense of immersion in a story than when the characters consistently determined to take the most stupid action possible. It completely ruins the experience when the viewer can see 10 different better options to get out of a situation and the characters just go 'There's no other way!" as they run to the dumbest possible option.

Also, they try to create dramatic tension and a 'dog eat dog' world where humans are hostile to each other in times of disaster. It's a very good idea because it really does happen. But in this show, it happens for absolutely no reason. Characters are hostile to each other even if it goes against their own interests.

This show can be a drinking game. Each scene, pause the show and think about the worst and dumbest course of action the characters can take. Unpause the show. If the characters behave dumber than you anticipated, drink.

You'll be drunk out of your mind by the end of the first episode.

This is quite the strange ending to my Kubrick watch through. A lot of people really forget about this one, or hate it. I have to say, it is a good movie but not even close to Kubrick's previous 11 films. I really wish he had started on A.I. before this one, and ended on that kind of note instead.

The first 45 or so minutes I really like. We open with seeing their marriage status, and how it can be influenced easily by their actions. I think this is the main goal of the film; to show us the complexity of marriage. What will they do to please each other? Anger each other? We find out, but certainly in a crazier way than you'd anticipate.

The story is not the problem. The main problem is pacing. After that first act, the film slows down tremendously. Not just in plot movement, but in dialogue. The people I watched with and I started making the joke early about how people always repeat each other in this film. "I think they talk too slow." "You think they talk too slow?" "I think they do." Oh, but I didn't put enough spacing between those quotes to really get you to understand the time.

This is all summed up strongly in climax scene. The dialogue is sooo slow with major spaces of silence. The actions of the characters is sooo boring and repetitive. People move just to move. It feels like a high school play. It makes no sense to me that this was shot by Kubrick. Most of the film feels like him, but this one scene really bothers me.

Hell, maybe I'm supposed to feel what Tom Cruise is feeling. I mean, I do feel like joining Scientology now.

A true science fiction story or film is about ideas, not spaceship battles, futuristic gadgets, or weird creatures. "Blade Runner" fully qualifies as this in its examination of the impact of technology on human society, existence, and the very nature of humanity itself. These themes are set in a fairly basic detective story that moves slowly but gradually builds power as the viewer is immersed in a dystopian futuristic Los Angeles.

Harrison Ford fans accustomed to the normally dynamic roles that he plays may be dissatisfied with the seemingly lifeless lead character that he portrays here as the replicant-hunting detective known as a "blade runner". They should be, for this dissatisfaction is part of the film experience, part of the dehumanized existence in the story's setting. However, as the story unfolds, we see Ford's character, Rick Deckard, slowly come alive again and recover some humanity while pursing four escaped replicants.

The replicants, genetically-engineered human cyborgs, that Deckard must hunt down and kill are in many ways more alive than Deckard himself initially. Their escape from an off-world colony has an explicit self-directed purpose, whereas Deckard's life appears to have none other than his job, one that he has tried to give up. By some standards, Deckard and the replicants have thin character development. However, this is a deeply thematic and philosophical film, and as such the characters are the tools of the story's themes. Each character reflects some aspect of humanity or human existence, but they lack others, for each is broken in ways that reflect the broken society in which they live and were conceived/created.

There are several dramatic moments involving life-and-death struggles, but most of these are more subdued than in a normal detective story plot. The film's power is chiefly derived through its stunning visual imagery of a dark futuristic cityscape and its philosophical themes.

Among the themes explored are the following: - The dehumanization of people through a society shaped by technological and capitalistic excess. - The roles of creator and creation, their mutual enslavement, and their role reversal, i.e., the creation's triumph over its creator. - The nature of humanity itself: emotions, memory, purpose, desire, cruelty, technological mastery of environment and universe, mortality, death, and more. - Personal identity and self-awareness. - The meaning of existence.

Easy recommendation for zombie-survival fans or fans of the original comic books.

This film gave me somewhat of an existential crisis afterwards. It's very hard to explain a film that hit you hard on a personal level. But what I will say is that the film scared me just to think about the world that we live in today. The movie takes you through so much content throughout the 3 hour runtime and is able to cram it all in without feeling like too much information is being shoved down your throat. The third act was my personal favorite because of the intense scenes and the sudden change of the film. The soundtrack is obviously top notch and the cinematography is absolutely outstanding. The performances by Cillian Murphy and Robert Downey Jr felt very emotional. By far Robert Downey Jr's best performance. All of the other performances were great as well and it was cool to see actors that you don't normally see in films anymore (Devon Bostick, Matthew Modine, Josh Peck, etc.). I had a great time with this one but one complain I do have is about the amount of nude scenes, which often felt like they didn't need to be there. Overall, it was a joy to see on the big screen.

So, I just saw Birdman, and it was pretty fucking fantastic. Now, I've been excited to see this movie for a while because it's from one of my favourite directors, Alejandro González Iñárritu. I've seen every single one of his feature-length films and I don't think there's a single one that wouldn't make it on my best of the year list. He's a master at what he does, and in this movie he's really outdone himself. Despite being excited for this movie for a while, there was one detail I didn't know until about a week ago - and that's that almost the entire movie is cheated to look like one continuous shot. And it's pulled off amazingly well. If you understand film-making and editing then there will be some moments where you can tell that would probably be the point where it would make the most sense to make a cut. But that's about as close as it gets, and it's cheated so well that you can never actually see any cuts being made. There was so much careful planning and coordination that went into this movie, and it really shows in the final product. If you've seen the trailer then you should expect that parts of it are a little surrealist, to say the least. This is very true, and those scenes play a prominent role in the film, so although this is a movie I think that most everyone will enjoy, don't be thinking that it's a real superhero movie. This is a movie about a washed up actor that used to play a superhero trying to revive his career in broadway. It's interesting that the lead is being played by Michael Keaton, who used to play Batman. Not only that, but Edward Norton, who used to play The Incredible Hulk, and Emma Stone, who was in the last two Spider-Man movies, are also in the film, and they both do a great job. There was not a single weak performance in this film and everything felt incredibly natural. There was also so much purpose towards every single decision that was made. Like, the fact that the movie's about a theatrical production goes really well with it being all in one shot. If you think about it, that's kind of how theater works. Many of the theatrical techniques to change scenes, like actors changing costumes, were likely used in this film as well. And remember, I say "likely", because I'm not a hundred per cent sure where the cuts actually are. The story was absolutely fantastic, and it's shocking to see a screenplay with four collaborative writers working together that flows so well; they challenged each other creatively and were able to get the very best ideas out of it. The way that this movie is written is kind of like one giant statement on the entertainment industry. And it criticizes a lot......including snobby critics. It also heavily criticizes the superhero genre. But it does it right. And what better movie to criticize a lack of art in mainstream cinema than one that's as masterful as this. Because the way that this was shot was absolutely mind-blowing, and this is probably the best directing I've seen all year. If you couldn't tell from the trailer, this movie mostly functions as a comedy,but as expected from this director it was much more than that. Watching our characters perform their lines in a theatrical play wasn't just time spent not learning anything: we got to see our characters' relationships develop each time they were performed, and the selective lines that we were shown for this play really bring us into the mind of the main character and why he chose to tackle this particular play. Before watching this film, I was a little skeptical knowing that Alejandro's main-man composer Gustavo "Santao-la-la-la-lalla" wouldn't be working on it. But even without him the score was pretty great. But what was greater than the score was the way that it was used: I don't want to be too specific about it and spoil a particular moment, but let's just say that it adds loads of personality to the film.This has all the markings of an amazing film - the decisions that were made were intelligent and had purpose; the film-making went above and beyond impressive. I was absolutely transfixed into this movie.

This movie was a huge disappointment! The only positive thing I can say about it is that the special effects where not half bad. The movie itself was childish, unfunny, unintelligent and generally really bad.

Some reviews giving this movie 9 or 10 stars (which is just ludicrous) are saying that people cannot handle the feminism in the movie. What feminism? Replacing the original actors with women is not feminism as far as I am concerned and anyway, if you care about such things should it not have been two women and two men to be politically correct? Also, the supposedly intelligent women in this movie behave in a typical old-fashioned Hollywood stereotype of women way. They are mostly downright silly. If I were a feminist I would actually have been insulted by this movie.

Then we have the male clerk that is dummer than a piece of rock. If someone had stacked four supposedly intelligent men and a single blond bimbo that is totally devoid of any trace of intelligence together in a movie the social justice warriors would have cried foul so loud that you could hear it across the planet. But since it is four women and a stupid male it is okay (not really). It is even feminism according to some people. What a load of bollocks.

There is actually a story in the movie although it is well hidden under the silly jokes and silly behavior. It is paper thin and rather silly in itself but it could have worked if the rest of the movie was up to snuff but sadly it is not.

As I wrote above the only good thing about this movie is the special effects. The few scenes that I actually enjoyed was during the big shoot out at the end which had some cool moments. I especially liked when Jillian pulls a pair of pistols out of her Ghostbuster suit and goes on a ghost killing spray.

Apart from that this movie is best forgotten

Once you embrace the cynicism and ignore your neverending anger about Hollywood's zombie-like state, which is dead, but not quite, which nowadays cannot produce anything but unworthy remakes of classic films, the film is quite enjoyable. If you're a fan of the series of course.

But, I don't understand what did the commentators expect; not a single sequel of 70s/80s/90s classic is comparable to an original, they as a standalone pieces can't be even considered good, that's why you have to evaluate things in context, and the context is that this film, and many others like it, were not made for art's sake, for glory of the creation, were not made out of ingeniousness of an author, out of a unique idea - they were made rutinely, industrially, on a Ford's assembly line, without a pretence of anything else but for (more or less mindless) entertainment that makes your minutes and hours go by, and most importantly, because big heads concluded this model of filmmaking is the most profitable.
You know it, filmmakers know it.

Still, I feel that there's enough good philosophical and social ideas displayed, (some obvious, but some hidden, like the dialectics, evolution of Smith and Morpheus, evolved and more complex class struggle when it comes to humans and robots, capitalist incorporation of its critique, like the reality becoming just another simulation, and most importantly, true belief in positive social change), and that Lana Wachowski has more, but is restrained by powers that be for exactly described reasons.

Visually I wasn't impressed, also I was expecting a bit more from the "sci" part of sci-fi, first part of the film is too slow, and the second part is too fast, but it's hardly embarrassing like some make it

Face it people, Hollywood is finito. Nowadays, there is hardly a new film truly worth watching that isn't an art film. Your self-righteous wrath won't get you anywhere, you should've learned this by now (I did with the X-Files remake), and it certainly won't make you a better person if you bitch about it more than the next guy. If you look for deeper meanings of this world, then leave entertainment media, and go read some books (preferably not belletristica or poetry, those are for suckers).

The world forever changes.

Cinematography wise, Amazing. So immersive. Nolan knocked it out of the park as usual. So story wise, there were some moments where my heart thumping, smart dialogue etc.

But it felt more like a documentary than a biopic. I would've love to know more about Oppenheimer as a person rather than seeing a sequence of events that unfolded. He's such a complex character put into a unique situation, I really wish Nolan dived more into that part. Also, there's always so much happening, you can't miss a single dialogue or you'll be like: 'wait wth is happening who's that guy again now". You will know when you see it.

What truly sets Oppenheimer apart is its exploration of profound moral questions. The film delves into the ethics of scientific discovery, the consequences of playing with unimaginable power, and the weight of decisions that can shape the course of history. It leaves the audience pondering the moral ambiguities surrounding Oppenheimer's work and its lasting impact on humanity.

In conclusion, Oppenheimer is a tour de force in film-making. It combines exceptional storytelling, outstanding performances, and thought-provoking themes that resonate long after the credits roll. If you're a fan of historical dramas or simply appreciate outstanding cinema, this movie is an absolute must-see. It deserves every accolade and stands as one of the finest films of our time.

Definitely worth a watch, but make sure you brush up on your WW2 history knowledge or else you might not get the full context.

While watching "Oppenheimer," I wondered several times whether the entire subject may not be better suited for an HBO prestige miniseries. With a three-hour runtime, the film is definitely too long for my taste, and especially in the first two hours, some scenes certainly could have been cut. However, some strong visual moments and an incredibly compelling final act made the movie-going experience an exciting one for me in the end.

There is little to criticize besides the somewhat bloated plot. For example, the female roles are written far too thinly, as is typical for director and screenwriter Christopher Nolan, and they are hardly existent at all. Just take a look at the Wiki entry for the film; there are currently 50 actors listed, with only five of them being female. In my view, the fact that it is historical material can only partially account for this. And if you have only a few actresses, then at least the characters of Florence Pugh and Emily Blunt should get something more to do.

The performances themselves, however, are almost all very strong. Cillian Murphy is, unsurprisingly, a convincing leading man. Matt Damon and Robert Downey Jr. also put in strong performances. Only in one scene with President Harry S. Truman, who is played by a notable actor I won't spoil, did I have massive problems acting-wise. Looking at the script, meanwhile, I would say that Nolan doesn't exactly get too deep. You shouldn't expect an analytical character study of Robert Oppenheimer. Furthermore, it is rather obvious who Nolan believes to be "the good guys" and "the bad guys." But I don't want to criticize that too much, as it makes the movie more accessible to a larger audience.

Ultimately, I can't give this movie anything other than a strong recommendation, if only because of the thrilling last hour. Those who have no problems with Nolan's style will certainly enjoy "Oppenheimer". However, I would also very much like to see a miniseries about the "father of the atomic bomb".

8.2/10. Almost every story about robots ends up being about humanity and personhood. The most unadventurous among them only confront the luddite question of whether an android could ever be sentient, could ever be a person, even though they’re made from circuits and gears rather than flesh and blood. (It’s a question that many great works, most notably Star Trek: The Next Generation have convincingly answered in the affirmative.)

But the best works don’t just interrogate the question of whether a robot can be a human, but rather use the idea of the mechanical man to try to answer the question of what makes us human. Films like A.I.--and make no mistake, it’s a quality film—ask deeper questions about what defines humanity, what qualities, practices, traits do we possess as a species that makes us unique, and uses an outsider and imitator to do so, in the same way that learning a foreign language can help us to better understand our native tongue.

Thus A.I. tells us the story of a young “mecha” child who wants to be a real boy. The film wears its Pinocchio influences on its sleeve, and to that end, offers an updated, sci-fi-infused version of that story. In it, David, an android child, wonders what it takes for him to become real, for him to become human.

The answer offered is an intriguing one – love. What distinguishes David from his mecha counterparts is the fact that he can “imprint” on his mother, that he can have an innate attachment to her beyond his own control. But it’s not the trite Hallmark Holiday version of love. The film presents something far more melancholy, far more heartrending, in its conception of “love” as an essential ingredient in humanity.

In essence, the film posits that what makes us human, our distinguishing feature, is our ability to love something so much that we yearn for the unobtainable, that we reach for simulacra and last gasps of things we can no longer have. The kind of love that makes us human is the one that makes our attachments run so deep that they survive the people we were attached to, that they drive us to try to recapture things we know are lost and can never be recovered.

That is the crux of this film. It repeatedly shows us individuals who reveal their humanity through attempts to revive their loved ones, to find something to fill the holes in their hearts left when they lost those closest to them. Monica, David’s would-be mother, accepted David as a fill-in for her own son who is in suspended animation after some disease or accident that ripped him from her. She is reluctant at first, but soon finds that David is a means to ease her pain, to make this inevitably misguided attempt to bring her child back in a fashion.

That motif is repeated when David finally makes it to his creator’s workshop, and discovers that he himself was made in the likeness of Professor Hobby’s dead son. He too is living monument to the attempt to hold onto something lost, because the love imbued in that person is too much for to allow his maker to let go.

Of course, A.I. is also interested in the morality of creating something that can love, that must love, and which we may not love back. The film’s opening act--which centers on the process of the Swinton family learning to love David, having their flesh and blood son come back to life, and then slowly but surely coming to the decision that David, for manipulated but understandable reasons of safety, no longer has a place in their family—is the tightest of the film. It tells a heartbreaking story of a young man becoming a fixture, becoming a part of a home of love, and then being put out when he no longer makes sense there. In particular, the scene where Monica abandons him in the woods, and he offers impassioned pleas and promises that he’ll be better, than he’ll be realer, to no avail, is utterly devastating.

But it incites the middle act of David’s Pinocchio-like adventures, which prove to be the weakest part of the film. There’s thematic meat in the “Flesh Fare” portions of the film, which communicate the fears of a human population concerned that they’re being replaced by technology in a way that feels terribly prescient now. It also explores the way in which children are uniquely situated to earn our sympathies, that they speak to an innate sense of protection and preservation that manage to cut through even the chauvinistic prejudices of a bloodthirsty crowd desperate for mecha torture.

For the most part, however, these scenes feel like simple ways to fill in struggles between David being kicked out of his home, and him becoming a real boy. His adventures with Gigolo Joe and Teddy (who work as his companions in the vein of Jiminy Cricket) make gestures toward the larger themes of the film, and offer some red meat to science fiction fans both in terms of world building and gorgeous, otherworldly set pieces and sequences that still look superb despite being a decade and a half old, but mostly feel like less compelling detours to the larger story being told. Flesh Fare, Rouge City, and the sunken bones of Old New York are entertaining enough as standalone pieces, but don’t have the thematic coherence of the rest of the film.

That coherence comes in the film’s much maligned end game. While a 2,000 year wait and the presence of aliens may have been off-putting at first, they work as the true equivalents to the blue fairy that David is so desperate to find – the effectively supernatural force that can intervene and grant David’s wish.

And they do. What David wishes for more than anything in the world is to return to his mother, so the aliens revive her for one more day. It is in that final montage, where David gets to celebrate his birthday, to tell his mother his life’s story, to share in the joys and the pains of love and loss, that he truly becomes a real boy. What makes him so is the way that he shares in the efforts of Monica Swinton, and of Professor Hobby – his desire to recapture something lost, because he loves someone, and he can’t turn that off just because they’re gone.

His revival of Monica, his desperation to enjoy one last day with her, one last simulacra of where his love led him, shows that David has a soul, however you’d like to define that term. As the similarly precocious Lisa Simpsons once put it (via writer Greg Daniels) some philosophers believe that a soul is not something we are born with, but rather something we earn, through suffering, struggle, and acts that reveal our humanity. David has done all that and more, coming close to death, traveling great distances, showing his devotion and futile hope for millennia, in the hopes of being able to return to his mother.

So when he does, when he gets to spend that one last glorious day with her, it’s not just the culmination of the story, it’s his reward for his steadfastness, and the confirmation that he is a human being, in every meaningful sense of the term. It is moving when he hears the words he so desperately wanted to hear ‘lo those many years – that his mother loves him, that she’s always loved him. It is then that he not only becomes “real” but becomes whole, the gaping hole inside of him is filled. In the end, David wants without reason, he wants beyond reason, and like the little wooden boy who inspires him and those telling his story, eventually, his wish is granted, and he knows the profound pain and immense joy that comes with being a human being. The boy who was treated as much like a child as a person, turns out to be the last bastion of humanity, the legacy of our sins and our aspirations, at the end of the world.