My experience watching this.
Season 1: Amazing! This is a great series. They did most things right and the cast is amazing. Minnette is an amazing MC and his acting is more than good enough. Sometimes I feel him being a one man face similar to Kristen Steward, but sometimes you get some small surprises. The rest of the cast is also great. I cannot be impartial when rating Langford since I have a huge crush on her, I'm totally biased. Unfortunately, the cast also suffers from what I call the CW Curse; the "everyone is really good looking or at least nice looking" curse.
Season 2: Well, ok, that was... nice. Still entertaining but I'm starting to doubt the motivation of the characters.
Season 3: ................. WTF!?
Season 4: What kind of trashfire is this? Is this fanfiction? Am I watching Shonda Rhimes by accident? Who the hell keeps uping the stakes so stupdly besides Rhimes? Geezus fucking christ man! What is it with Clay obviously having a mental problem and not even the doctors seeing it? What stupid development. This was a mistake. SHUT IT DOWN, MAN! Shut it all down.
As a skeptical person, the preachy tone of the movie kind of annoys me, not enough to make me stop, but it does make me have a more biased opinion about such religious thriller/suspense. In one hand I found the scary scenes really boring and in no way scary, in the other hand, the point that if a person lives a life of mainly hedonistic pleasures won't find happiness is something I believe as well. While I'm not the norm, one doesn't need to be religious to avoid alcoholic beverages, the use of heavy drugs and other hedonistic pleasures.
That said, the part where one doesn't need the church to be religious was actually a nice message. One does not need an institutionalized religion/church to be religious and/or spiritual. Being an agnostic atheist doesn't make one already a hater of religion in itself (especially since I also take some of its teachings - and from other religions - to heart) but it does make me wary of such organized religious groups like the Catholic Church, or cults like the Church of Scientology.
Regardless of such ideological and moralistic debate, this movie didn't age well, especially if you identify yourself as an atheist, agnostic or whatever definition based on skepticism and rationality to heart. Hell, I don't think that even a religious person would like this movie that much, regardless of its position of organized religion.
I keep thinking what would even happen if the rest of the colony finds out the robot is evil, I mean, it's not like they can destroy it anyway.
I went in expecting nothing above good and wasnt disappointed. It isnt bad per se, but, of course, it isn`t to the same standards to the anime. It is sillier and focuses more on the comedy to deliver an excuse for a cliched drama, missing the point of the character development and the philosophical aspects of the original work. There is a feeling of wonder and reflection watching the anime, while here that feeling is lost. Small differences in the original characters come together to deliver a lesser story.
While the Spike from the anime was funny, he wasn`t exactly silly, at least not silly in such western-way. There was a certain serenity and a need to put himself into danger that made Spike stand a good-to-great MC. That scene at the beginning of the anime was THE PERFECT introduction of the character and they took that and shitted all over. Him playing the gunman trying to use the old lady as a hostage was to show that Spike plays with his cards but he cares at least more than this live-action version, well, at least based on what is shown comparing that first scene.
I was ready to give this a 7 and call it a good job. But then at the last minute they bring Ed and make her the worst character of the just even with just a sec left to end the last episode. One can say it is not enough to determine if the character is bad with just a first impression, well, it depends entirely, but in this case I think you can.
Now, what I liked about the live-action:
There is always room for a story based on history. Of course, this uses the real life history of Emiliano Zapata for the basis of the movie. One thing the movie doesn`t say is that the Zapatas (Zapata Family) was, during a time, supportive of the oppressive dictator Porfirio Diaz. Another lost oportunity was the event were one of the groups of the large states under Zapata control ended up burning a entire village trying to steal they lands by force, something Zapata had difficulty controlling. The end of the movie also ends up being misleading, only Genera Jésus Guajardo shot Zapata many types andn delivered his body for the reward on his head
While there is a interesting story to be told here, one has to ask a very important question: WTF is wrong with Brandons "mexican face"? I found that offensive and Im not Mexican. But if an american pretended to be Brazillian with a Soccer ball while drinking caipirinha with a stupid haircut, I`d be pissed. This is, so far, the worse acting done by Brandon comparing it with his other movies I recentyl watched (The Men & A Streetcar Named Desire) primarily, I think, of that terrible make up and weird mustache. Gezus.
One thing I really liked was the acting done by Jean Peters. Compared with the mentioned movies, hers was the very first woman that didnt act like she was in a 50s movie while being in a 50s movie. That overdramatic crap doesnt work today for a reason. Anthony Quinn really did shine here too, a actor that I didn`t know before watching this.
TL;DR - The movie is good to learn a little about mexican history, but there are some obstacles to enjoy the story. And one needs to be aware that the entire story is more interesting. Real life usually beats fiction.
I really can t get over the old overdramatic style of acting. It doesn t make me feel it, the weight of the scene, the burden of the emotions portraited on the screen. Comparing with something new, take Jordan Pelee`s Get Out! scene where the protagonist is in the chair being hypnotyzed by the mother of the family. I FELT THAT IN MY BONES!
That being said, some movies and actors stand out more than others and go over that obstacle that you end up finding to enjoy a movie. I didn t really feel anything over Brandon s Character crying. I felt something watching Vivien Leigh right at the end when things happen. But that accomplishment are given to the actress, Leigh, and what the plot is about. Brandon and his character are good-to-great at being the awful partner, Kim Hunter is good as the sister and the rest of the cast is meh-to-good (sometimes the worse was Karl Malden s Mitchell, but at the end he was upt to good). Leigh obviously was a way more experienced actress compared with Brandon at the time, so, only during the climax she outshone him, but for the rest of the movie, I really liked Brandon style, it was less overdramatic but real enough, but, of course, really far from being a sublime performance.
I prefer Brandon over The Men (1951) that got a lower score than this one and I don`t want to accept it. He, too, lacks the emotional convincing when he starts crying over The Men, but during the rest of the movie he really did stand out and was a great perfomance, while, of course, being far from sublime.
I went in completely blind and Im glad I did. The plot really to me off guard. Trying to be succinct: It isnt a perfect movie by far, but the good and great slightly outweighs the bad. Marlon Brandon, the real reason I wanted to watch this movie, also have great scenes and terrible scenes. It really amazes me at times and makes me break immersion at other times.
Even so, the movie is a great addition to Hollywood just for its subject. It really is rare to see a movie actually approach such subjects. It is of course, somewhat save, being made in 1950, but still an honest enough plot and story. Of course, if it does a good job at depicting what it is like to live without being able to walk, beats me, you ll have to ask another person, but so far I liked and I`d recommend it depending on the person.
Final Space suffers from The Walking Dead syndrome in some episodes, you get good moments only in the beginning or at the very end of the episode, the rest is useless things that have no involvement in the development of the characters or are just boring line moments with annoying characters being annoying. The show also has a pacing problem.
It has amazing awe dimension shattering events, though it gets constantly undercut for its annoying one lines and unfunny jokes. This is more in the lines with Regular Show + Adventure Time rather than Rick and Morty, but trying to have the cake and eat it too by trying to be serious while undercutting as stated. We have a key moment with nice pacing being halt because X character needs a funny line or needs to be insufferable. KNV is one of them, but Gary is the worse, while every character having they annoyance moment.
They should've balanced jokes vs seriousness better.
Think Kung Fury but blaxploitation and a little less "silly". That is what you get with Black Dynamite.
There is no "i" in "revolut- team."
This movie is in the same level of quality as the third and fourth installments of the Pirates of the Caribbean. Yeah, that bad, but still good enough to play it in the background while you do another thing or watching with your family and or your kids. I should`ve watched it while playing Terraria or Factorio.
It still made really well and you can see the level of technical quality of the work, but the plot feels really lackluster without adding anything new to the plot. Only watching you can understand how PoftC this movie feels. It also has the same "vibe" (to lack of a better word) to Wild Wild West (1999), but somehow worst because that one was at least somewhat original, similar to Scorpion King (2002), similar, too, but also, worse than The Mummy (1999) triology.
Give it a try if that type of adventure movie is for you. But if you didn`t like any of those mentioned, keep it away like a plague.
The movie starts with an horrible narration that sticks through the whole movie, and the problem is not the narration in it self, it is the voice. There are plenty of good narrations like God's voice in Good Omens, that is top notch. The voice of this narrator sounds like an annoying friend trying to tell you a story but he cannot keep you focused enough since he is, simultaneously, bad at telling stories and have a type of voice that urks you. To be fair, it is not the worse narration I've ever heard on a movie/series.
The acting is decent enough to be considered average. The most stiff one was Boneta, while the best one was Fimmel, followed by Daddario. Watching the beginning of the movie I was slightly at the side of the parents. Those that have a certain level of maturity can understand what is wrong about fighting people to get bashed and the danger of such acts, but you start to realize that both "kids"
(Ben and Mary) act out like that because of how their parents treat them.
The one with the least excuse is Ben whom I cannot understand his motivations, [spoiler/] his father is overbearing, but Marys parents were way worse. While Mary had her mon basically pushing a scrapbook of her past mistakes "to laugh" + her outright CRIMINAL and overbearing father, Bens father is way better in comparison and he still has his loving mother (an enabler of his father, but still loving - it wouldve been better for the plot if his father actually hit her mon. That way it would make sense for why he was acting like a b**ch "I want to be beat up to feel something." geez, that cringe af, you are not Wolverine from Logan). [/spoiler] Marys actions are understandable even if you denounce it as bad actions, while Ben sounds like a cringe kid that never grow up from fighting at school.
***** a small tangent ******
I keep imagining a satirical movie where the kids of two families keep acting horrible. They get into a relationship and still act like shit, and things starts to escalate. But the point is that they still have nice boring parents that cannot be the excuse for them being f*ck ups and blaming their upbringing or their parents for being horrible humans. And the point of the family`s opposition to their relationship is because they are toxic af to other and themselves while in the relationship. The end could be either them both dying or... idk, they both should still die because that would send a stronger message about being egotistical f*ck ups.
********* continuing *********
The rest of the movie was just mediocre and fine. The couple`s relationship with each other is fine, and I think Daddario and Boneta had good chemistry on the screen, at least good enough for this movie. I could nitpick their reasons for not being able of getting into contact with each other, but forget it, what is even the point (I mean, we have smartphones today, who the f* writes letters and calls on the home telephone? at the end of the day that was just an excuse, a terrible one, but still an excuse for the plot to happen).
The main villain is also forgettable. Not because a stalker cannot be a good villain, but because of how terrible it was written, and perhaps how it was play it out by Chatwin, however I don`t know Chatwin enough to judge his acting. His villain felt... pathetic, but not in a good way like in the show "You".
The music is forgettable.... really, I can`t remember the soundtrack. I guess that shows that it is good enough to tell the story, while not being terrible nor good to be noticeable.
The clothes are fine and nothing exceptional, make up too, though I don`t understand enough about both this fields.
Going back at the beginning, I really like the animation, but Im biased since I also like such things in movies and series. Though I didt like the rewind effect before the credits starts showing up at the start. It was pointless. Almost gave be whiplash from showing as it was going backwards in time to just showing Ben and Mukul giving the homeless the coats.
TL;DR - Another run of the mill "Romeo and Juliet" romance where the stories' two main characters cannot be together because of their families rivalry. Think modern Romeo and Juliet (but worse) with a dash of fights, guns and violence. Even if you like the genres, you could still have a bad time, even if the movie have its good moments.
Still better than the emoji movie.
Really good CGI and great action. If you are the type to have a good time with just that, join right in and watch the movie. The rest is pretty in the lower bar of film. There no character development and the plot is a little weak. This weakness becomes more obvious by how short the movie is, and because of how many characters they needed to create a cohesive story. They needed a team pro Godzilla and a team pro Kong for there to be any relatability towards both monsters. But of course, all humans feel just as uneeded and boring as it does in Transformers. The main message, if intended, was fine enough but there were no originality in it here and no depth too. Just another company's greed ruining something nice because of said greed.
Fine enough movie based on a book I haven't read. The concept is interesting and the plot moves well because of charismatic leads in Holland and Ridley. Mads Mikkelsen is always great, especially in villain roles. The noise effect was interesting and well-made as well as its representation into a visual format. The movie is great for those looking for something curious and well made. The small dirt is that the movie's message was, if that was intended, shallow but I lack interest and motivation to debate about it.
Is the Snyder's Cut better than the 2017 version? Definitely! Is it good? Yes, somewhat. Is a masterpiece? No, god no. Is it good as Marvel movies? Hell no!
The Snyder cut is definitely a huge improvement on the 2017. There is no question that is a good fair movie. The same way Transformers is a good fair movie. It is pure entertainment. But the main problems of the Snyder Saga is still here.
Some of the things I liked.
1. A good scene: Superman staring Flash down when he is in super speed is actually nice.
2. Made me appreciate the terrible but superior Watchmen movie.I prefer to sit through that slog compared with this a 1000x.
3. It made me want to pickup and read actual great Justice League stories or to re-watch the Animated Series/Unlimited.
SNYDER went through some horrible shit. But that doesn't make him a good director nor a good storyteller. 6/10, I`m out!
its about a police drama, but somewhat light compared with CSI, Law and Order etc, that shows the lives of police offices in Los Angeles. It isn't a pure comedy, there have heavy subjects approached in the show like the dangers of indeciveness when approaching certain situations, how much of police work is usually dangerous and really daming for the individual on a emotional and physical level etc etc.
Its MC is played by Nathan Fillion, but instead of a lovable comedian, it plays a little, just a little more serious compared with other character Fillion has played. It is a crime drama, but some moments are worth a shuckle or two.
Really good crime show. Funny and weird at times. The characters are lovely. It is the to-go show for those wanting something nice that isn't too serious. It feels like mixturing the lightness of friends with criminal shows like CSI, a pinch of lovable characters and Nathan Fillion as the cherry on top. Stana Katic is also amazing, Huertas and Dever's friendship shines as the show goes one. They aren't the perfect bromance like in scrubs, but it is still a nice bromance. Quinn's character is a little weird as she is so perfect that I haven't even met someone that perfect irl.
Overall, watch it if you want something light that you can keep it on while cleaning or even eating dinner-lunch.
Good TV show that doesn't shy from heavy subject even if some approaches are superficial at worse. All characters are flawed but likable. The series is not very light but also not very heavy. It has a certain balance between comedy vs seriousness.
Overall, people wanting to watch something interesting and slightly funny will have a good time. I can think of only two reasons of why someone would drop or not watch it: a) It has been cancelled and S01 ends in a cliffhanger b) It is based on a Comic Book, depending of how much of a fan the person is, and how it compares with the show, the person may not like it. (I haven't read the comic yet).
Smulders is great in here as she usually is. It usually doesn't feel like Robin from HIMYM, with some key moments I had flashbacks of Robin when she says "Awwww" or some other thing connecting to the older show. But I'm glad that for me, she didn't became typecast.
Jake Johnson was also a pleasant surprise here, since the last place I watched him was from New Girl. It is nice to see him working a "bad boy" type of character.
All the other characters are also likable as stated. Hoffman is a little stiff at first but gets more interesting the more the series goes. Ansel is a nice character that lightens the show quite a lot when he is in scene. Tookie is also great and funny, Cosgrove's actress pick is also good. And having a Indigenous Community in the show was interesting.
Oh, yeah, the soundtrack is also great. Made me sing along many of the songs. Kudos for specially playing a Tegan and Sara song.
Dan Harmon, you sunnofabitch, you did it again, Im in. Cool. Cool, cool, cool. Now lets make a pillow, no a blanket fort. Erase that, let`s have a 50.000 US$ dollars paintball match.
This show is for those that like flawed likable and developing characters with some surrealism thrown into the mixture. The comedy is similar to Rick and Morty, however, lighter. The episodes, at least in the first 3 seasons, are excellent.
This show, to me, is terrible. The characters are mostly extremely unlikable and in its third season, kills off its most likable one, which isn`t that much likable either. Of course, not all entertainment needs to have a likable character, but the unlikable character usually comes with a message, they are used to convey a message or they use that unlikability to further develop in latter seasons. But in HGAWM, if there is a message, in buried deep in its need to keep escalating the drama in mostly annoying ways.
Season 1 starts with a somewhat understandable drama. A girl is dead, she used to sleep with her college teacher, which coincidentally is the MC s husband, the big shot professor-lawyer that has her favorites based on the hand full of students that compete hard enough. The competitiveness is incredibly annoying to say the least, while It does show some characteristics of each character, it serves to send a message "Look, to be a big shot lawyer you need to be a backstabber" which is, as far as I know, far from the truth, at least in Brazil. Only in Murica, the idea of extreme competitiveness is that appealing, not to say it is just Murica.
Wes Gibbins, one of the MC s fave students start a "friendship" with his neighbor, a girl that was the dealer of the dead girl. She goes to the MC s home to accuse the MC s husband of murdering the dead girl because she was pregnant, he they starts to get hostile, Wes and the rest of the students get their and see him getting violent. What happens? Wes kills the MC s husband, she finds out and… covers for them because he was a cheating bastard. I mean, ok, but seriously, this is the plot here. The second and third season is awful too, they turn the drama way to the top, but what should I expect of Shonda Rhimes style of story telling if not one big pile of drama that keeps getting bigger and bigger. Not drama enough? How about a gunmen get into the hospital and shoot the MC s husband (Im talking about Greys Anatomy). Not drama enough? Let`s make a bunch of doctors crash in a helicopter and have some of them die or extremely hurt. But the difference here is: the characters of Grey's Anatomy are mostly all likable. I mean, George O'Malley, so likable, even the bully gets a redemption story, he starts studying to be a pediatrician, that is a nice twist to the cliched alpha child. But I can state without guilt that HGAWM accomplishes the opposite of Grey's Anatomy.
Moonrise Kingdom isn't per se just a movie, it is an aesthetic experience, artistic, beautifully shot, wonderfully directed and skillfully edited (as far as my limited knowledge go).
We can start exploring the visuals of the movie, Wes Anderson, as already stated by better reviewers (aka CineFix, and others) always shot his movies focusing on the center or splitting the scene in the two corners (right and left), and that characteristic of his directing makes for some wonderful visuals and scenes, as well as great shots, and we cannot forget in some surreal (breaking the four wall) transitional shots that are well edited if not one shooted. I don't understand enough about color theory and even if it is a fact, however, the colors of this movie give a sense of nature, they are upbeat but real. And if that isn't what constitutes a great movie, in the technical sense, I don't know what does.
The sound, while forgetful, is good, made me think of looking for it on Spotify.And we cannot forget about the wonderful cast that Wes Anderson always manages to gathers towards his films. Every single actor manages to express what their characters should express. The main characters (Sam and Suzy) express suffering in an anguishing way. And I have to say, it amazes me their scene in the beach, the moonrise kingdom, where they first kissed . I cannot help but think about how embarrassing they must have felt and they still did a good job. Let's not forget about they are two children trying to make a scene in front of adults and that the movie was in many theaters around the world. That in itself is already difficult for grow people, lets remember the fact that Henry Cavill got a boner in the set of The Tudors, and how most actors and actresses think is the most dreaded part of the job, imagine being a teen and going through that? It is amazing they managed to make it funny (at least to me) in a non-awkward way.
TL;DR: This is an amazing movie for Wes Anderson fans and alike, and also a good intro movie for those who never watched a Wes Movie. 10/10, would watch it again.
It s a good enough movie to waste time, entertaining enough to not be bored. But if you have something more important to do, go do it. It is a Rowan Atkinson movie too, those who like him will like the movie (like me, even if my score doesn t show it), those who don`t will do better to sit this one out if you are not curious or do mind wasting time on a okay movie.
Underrated movie is underrated. Comment must be 5 words.
Season 4 is the best so far, it is funnier and looser, it doesn't take itself that seriously and they did try some different types of jokes (with the usual bad ones here and there). But overall is a great season compared with the other four. The first season was pretty introductory and Reverse Flash was just annoying since we don't really know what truly motivates him so worse villain so far. The second season's villain was zoom, he was more interesting and better structured and developed. Savitar was also interesting. DeVos, however, manages to take the cake of best flash villain from this so-so TV series, I'm a sucker for plots "corruption of the good intended".
This is by far anything better than what we have from The CW DC series, not even Arrow Season 5 (which I admittedly found it pretty good with a villain that was in did stronger than the MC). I already know Thomas Wayne was Batman in the alternate timeline because of spoilers (this is an old movie) and wasn't that surprised by it. But the ending did surprise me quite a bit.
Funny how the best soccer movie of all time is Chinese, its genre is Comedy and there is plenty of "Kung Fu" or the funny equivalent of it. It is unique and quite different from most western comedy movies and that makes for a pretty funny and nonsensical movie, especially since it doesn't take itself seriously.
Arrow can be considered just another CW Series, and it really is, so if you want to watch it, keep in mind what you'll get. If you usually don't like CW type of series this show may not be the one for you.
Season 5, was so far, the best one, it still a CW series with plenty of cliches and still pretty cartoonish and sometimes pretty cringy with its puns worth of a Tim Burton's Batman movie. But at the same time, Stephen Amell's acting in some key moments was really great, character development was better, the moral ambiguity of the villain and the hero is a nice contrast, Adrian Chase lose only to Deathstroke as a villain (because Deathstroke is too iconic and overshadows Adrian Chase) and the change of cast was interesting.
There is one feeling after watching this movie and it sums up with the following statement: This would be my favorite hero movie of all times if they do not resurrect everyone. Saying this, it is expected of them to come up with a solution to do exactly that, unless they really surprise us in the second installment of Infinity War. Still, if one analysis Infinity War just in itself and do not connect to past movies or the ones that will follow, Infinity War would deserve to be in everybody's top 10 superhero movies of all time.
The best superhero stories don't necessarily need the villain to win, but it is "realistic" (aka better and it feels more satisfying) when the villain's strategy is better and/or they are stronger than the heroes and they get to win because of that. It is even more satisfying when the reasoning of the villain kind of makes sense while their logic is flawed somewhere (showing the weakness of the villain), especially if the superhero and the villain agree on something but their approach is quite different to solve the problem.
There is room to argue that Thanos is one of the great villains since he has a purpose beyond just being a villain for the sake of villainy.
Holy shit, Luke Cage went from so-so to a really great TV Series. The first season was nice, but it was kind of a mess. It still felt like a Netflix/Marvel TV Series but it lack more structure and a better pace. Season two didn't fix that too much, but it did make it up by developing some characters even more and presenting with a new villain with power. There much to say about season 2, but the main thing that really did like was how it depicted a real relationship (the closest I have seen from TV) how fights can happen, how can one see things differently from different points of view, and how one can lose their temper when your loved one can't understand your point of view (I'm with Clair on this one). Another thing that I loved was how it depicted Luke's fall from grace by trying to make him mad with power.
This show is a nice surprise, there is a nice "original" plot. The only criticism is the fact that the protagonist has a sudden "grow of balls" and starts acting more confident really suddenly, if you disregard it (and some other annoyances) this Series can be quite entertaining. The villain is quite interesting too, and makes you feel angry and hate him (it is not Jack The Handsome, but he is a "fueling rage" type of villain). The "victims" and their relations to each other and the villain make you tune too. There are some nice scenes in CGI (in the game). It is interesting and should make you less bored in an "I have nothing better to do" time.
