Joshua

For some reason this is one my all time favorite movies. I'm usually a sci-fi, action or fantasy movie fanatic. However, this movie just does just gets me every time, and I watch it whenever it come on TV.

The Good:

• The Lion King 2 keeps many of the things that made the original film so good: the central characters, the flow of the story, the best songs.
• Feels familiar enough to feel like a natural continuation of the story, while also adding enough new elements to become a new story altogether.
• Bigger and bolder action sequences are the biggest stand-outs of the sequel.

The Bad:

• The animation is noticeably lower in quality compared to the original. The colours aren't quite as bright, the movements of the character's aren't quite as vivid. It's a shame really, because the animation in the first one still holds up today while the sequel is very dated.
• The story features much of the same elements as the original, making it quite boring to follow. The story makes little to no attempts at actually developing the characters from the first film further.
• The musical numbers aren't all that interesting or memorable. Most of the songs have just been rehashed from the first movie.
• The villain and her motives are, if possible, even more clichéd than Scar was in the original. She also isn't nearly as charismatic as Scar is.
• They changes some of the original voice actors, so it doesn't feel like a true sequel.

Verdict:

The sequel to Disney's animated classic is a tired attempt at trying to replicate the success, mostly falling flat due to a lack of any real investment into the project.

Comedy? You mean there's supposed to be humour in this? ... Uh. Okay then. Can't tell where, but whatever.
The acting is solid, although I'm not sure it's enough to carry the movie as a whole on its back. In trying to offer criticism, I think it ends up being just like the thing it criticises: cold, obsessive, and indeed in Margot's very own words: "fancy, deconstructed avant-bullshit". After which we are left hungry, too, because despite all the display, there isn't much substance to it at all.

The movie just made me want a cheeseburger.

Absolutely fantastic. A well-executed original idea, packed with brilliant performances, impactful suspense, and many absurd laugh-out-loud moments.

Solid movie. A perfect balance of levity and psych thriller. I didn’t come away feeling 100% satisfied, but it was very enjoyable nonetheless.

This is the weirdest burger commercial ever.

Director:
Tom Ford: other well known movies include "A Single Man"

• A movie with one of the strangest and most bizarre openings but yet carries a powerful message once understood
• Superb performances from all the cast with a couple of unforgettable thrilling scenes
• Beautiful Cinematography and music
• Contains a sequence that's one of the most discomfortingly suspenseful in quite sometime
• A movie that will stick with you and will let you dig further into the symbolisms

Articles to read after watching:
http://www.thisisbarry.com/single-post/2017/03/29/Nocturnal-Animals-2016-Movie-Plot-Ending-Explained

Plot Complexity:
Medium to Hard

Best Movie Quote:
When you love someone you have to be careful with it, you might never get it again.

It's the morning after and I still don't know what to feel about this film. It was much heavier than I was expecting, that's for sure!
The theme is dark and powerful and the parallels drawn are interesting.
Was the book and the journey it took Susan on some kind of belated 'punishment' for aborting his child all those years ago? Was it just art to share with her to show her that he could do it? Standing her up at the end implies the former but who can really say. It's always nice to watch a film outside the hollywood template but did this one try too hard?

Like the art in Susan's gallery it's all subjective. All I know is it took me on a journey and drew me in successfully. The tension in that first section of the book was overwhelming. Incredible acting as always from Amy; Gyllenhaal, Shannon and Taylor-Johnson were stand out too though. I loved the way the director frequently framed Amy with a solid black background or with the red of her office. Some really striking visuals for her scenes.

The film wins the award for "weirdest opening to a film". Ever.

This film fucked me the whole way up. Shook. Shooken to the core.

Worth to see. A movie about ordinary life which is trying to be lived by not ordinary people.

Mary Adler: He's a good person. He wanted me before I was smart.

Despite being traditional in execution and not really anything groundbreaking, Gifted succeeds on an emotional level and really seems a return to his comfort zone for director Marc Webb.

Chris Evans is perfectly serviceable in one of the few non-Marvel movies we've seen him in in the last couple of years, but the real revelation is young McKenna Grace, that strikes a rare equilibrium between cute and, well, gifted.

Beautiful, adorable, smart-ass, awesome kid.
A sweet movie and a hot uncle.

For a movie running 127 min there wasn't much going on. And althought I swear I don't know the book or the old movie I knew the whole scheme from the moment she was killed. I can't say if that's a flaw of the movie how the plot is presented, but it was fairly obvious.

It looks good in general with a couple of flaws regarding the CGI. 90m $ doesn't seem to be enough nowadays althought I have seen better for less.

Acting was OK, I don't think anyone stood really out. And the accents were at times a little thick.

It was beautiful to watch, but i would have liked a little more cast. I know that agendas don't usually match, but it was kinda weird that Rowling itself was some footage from 3 years ago. Or that many central characters (like Molly, Remus, Tonks, Dumbledore) didn't participate in this. Even that, it was awesome to see them all, together once again

74 | The first thirty minutes were pretty bad. The goblin had no reason to betray him because as we know he was a Voldemort's prisoner. The bank was already in Voldermort's hand and it was just dumb. But after that, this film quality went skyrocketed. It all began when Harry went to Hogwarts. At first, it sound like a pretty dumb idea but because we know Harry's character and how reckless he was, it was understandable. We called it a desperate move.

Professor McGonagall had her sweet moment when she protected Hogwarts, her home for a very long time. It also made us wonder where are all of these security systems in the previous films when a lot of dangerous people and things came to Hogwarts. It is weird to say this but Hogwarts's school system seems better in the hand of Severus Snape as headmaster. Because we all know how dangerous magic could be and his authoritarian way to teach students until they became mature enough to use their magic power could be a better way.

There were so many moments that made us emotional. It was not had the same level as The Dark Knight but some moments in this film had a similar vibe to The Dark Knight. The similarity is people were fighting to protect the place they love from evil being. In this case, students and teachers from Hogwart fought the Death Eaters. But where were their parents anyways? It seems only Weasley cared about their children.

The main focus of this film was Harry Potter and they did a good job, even though some details made this film seem to have a weak script. Films that contain war as a plot tend to give plot armor to their characters and unfortunately this film did the same. It is Harry Potter's last film they could be all-out killing characters but might be they tried to keep it as a family-friendly film.

The ending did not conclude the whole franchise well enough. The time jump is just an unnecessary thing to do. They could end it with the funeral of Severus Snape and all of the people who die fighting Death Eaters. And it could be combined with the faith of the elder wand. It would be a better thing to do because people who watched this franchise from the start have great memories with Hogwarts and the people in it than with random new family members. To sum it all up, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2 deserved its spot at least in the top 3 of Harry Potter films.

My Instagram: @moviemanner

•••••••••••••••••••••••

Rating: 73.08

Plot

P1: 0.5
P2: 2.0
P3: 2.0
P4: 0.5

Director: David Yates

Favorite Characters

1.8: Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter
1.6: Maggie Smith as Professor Minerva McGonagall
1.5: Alan Rickman as Professor Severus Snape
1.4: Ralph Fiennes as Lord Voldemort
1.3: Matthew Lewis as Neville Longbottom
1.2: Emma Watson as Hermione Granger

Terrible : 0
Bad : 0.6 - 0.5 - 0.4 - 0.2 - 0.1 - 0
Average : 1.3 - 1.2 - 1.1 - 0.9 - 0.8 - 0.7
Good : 1.4 - 1.5 - 1.6 - 1.8 - 1.9 - 2
Great : 2

Such an epic finale! I could have done without the time jump forward though. I really wanted Hermione with Harry. But they had to throw Ron a bone, Harry couldn't get everything haha. I'm an adult now and I still enjoy these movies. Such a great series and great world they created from the book

A good movie realy enjoyed it. But dam the 3D was bad! Skip the 3D if your gonna watch the movie.

"After all this time?"
"Always."
This movie always gets me.
Also, Neville Longbottom, YOU MVP! <3

at some point i thought Severus was Harry's father.but it's not

What a brilliant way to edit a movie and make us feel like we have short term memory loss. This holds up incredibly well and is even better with more rewatches.

A masterpiece, watched it recently and still holds up, not only cerebral in its clever structure but also profound in its portrayal of unresolving grief and denial as a coping mechanism.

HERE IS NO SPOILER, JUST THE MOVIESTRUCTURE.

It's a difficult movie. Nolan (director) has cut the movie into two pieces. Part A and Part B:
These two pieces are again cut into several minor pieces. And these pieces are presented backwards. So that you see the Beginning of the story at the end of the movie.
So the Moviestrcture is like this:
A9 B1 A8 B2 A7 B3 A6 B4 A5 B5 A4 B7 A3 B8 A2 B9 A1

The obvious Question is: Is it not boring, to watch the End first ? NO ! Because the story is so good written, that the tension gets higher when you come to the beginning of the story.

I know, it sounds weird, but works perfect. And it rewards you with the best ending of a movie.

10/10

Terrible, which is very disappointing given how impressive the original is.

Michael J. Fox's departure as Milo immediately lowers the expectancy of the film, as does the instant sign of the animation being inferior. The plot starts off mildly interesting, even if it does feel like a 'What's New, Scooby-Doo?' story, but quickly loses it with two poor plots.

It is one rounded off premise, though it's practically still that annoying multiple stories rolled into one thing that Disney so often do for sequels. The film takes place, almost entirely, away from Atlantis which is utterly pointless. I had expected we'd see more of the world we left in the 2001 production, sadly they immediately revert back to the 'real world' which is massively less intriguing.

None of the voice cast or the characters themselves are memorable, they force a new one called Obby, a lavadog, into the mix which doesn't work whatsoever; he is just used to advance the plot at one particular point.

As you can tell, I didn't like 'Atlantis: Milo’s Return' at all. Everything from the animation to the pacing is just so bad, in my opinion of course.

Yep, this is terrible. Agreed.

Unlike most, I can say I enjoyed 1999's 'Inspector Gadget'. I didn't like this though. I wasn't necessarily expecting it to be better per se, but I did hear that it's supposedly more faithful to the original television show so I thought there was a possibility it would be, at least, just as good - it isn't.

Everything about 'Inspector Gadget 2' is severely inferior. The cast aren't as noteworthy, there aren't any - even mildly - amusing scenes and the whole vibe of the film is cheap. It even runs for longer, mostly due to it forcing through a hearty narrative with the characters - wholesomeness simply doesn't fit in a production that needs to be 100% silly.

None of the original cast return, with the exception of D. L. Hughley (Gadgetmobile) - though he is barely in this sequel. Elaine Hendrix ('The Parent Trap') is a decent name/face, her character G2 is possibly the most interesting thing onscreen.

1.5 average rating on Letterboxd, entirely deserved - unlike it's predecessor's score.

Since this movie is non-stop random sound effects, I've got one that sums up the whole movie:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ6SM1MY3mM

Amazzzziinnnggg animated/real movie! I love the fact that Disney & Warner Bros animators teamed up and did an outstanding job!

¡¡Me encanta!! es tan bonita. Como las historias clasicas de Disney. Ademas es sencilla sin artificios, sin efectos especiales ni chorradas. Y se dice tanto sin palabras.

So Paperman won an Oscar for best animated short film and it totally deserved it.

The story is about a young man attempts to get the attention of a young woman by throwing paper airplanes by her window.

Paperman is only 6 minutes long and it was the most beautiful, the most adorable, and just spot on perfection, and that's only 6 minutes of film showed. It's amazing how short animated films can tell a better love story than real life.