As of now the sequels are kind of dead. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10200581345270848&set=vb.152126584847695&type=2&theater;
A bit of a scattered storyline, more of a look on the story/hype of the flag rising and the homefront than the battle/war itself.
Don't forget to watch its (better) counterpart, the Japanese view: 'Letters From Iwo Jima'
Great work of sci-fi, lacks a bit of an original plottwist or story development. But maybe I am too harsh on it since it is already over 15 years old. It does show a very realistic image of a genetically enginered future, with discrimination in a new form. The hero needs to beat the odds.
I'm not a big fan of War movies, but this one was pretty interesting.
And don't forget to watch the other part, the American view: 'Flags of our Fathers'
I like movies that have deeper and more complicated storylines, but I just didn't get what was going on at some point. Need to give it a rewatch obviously, but somehow I don't feel like it anymore xD
And since I cannot rate something I do not understand, it is pending :P
More close to a parody than an homage to the original series.
Bad casting choices (the hair colour of Penny alone for example), 2 new irrelevant characters, Dr claw's face, no plot role for Brain (dog), no self-destructing message, Chief Quimby is arrogant in stead of angry and doesn't smoke a pipe, and even Dr claw's catchphrase is done wrong... I can understand why they wouldn't dress the dog up in a disguiss, but this is weak.
And so many non-subtle product placement it hurts.
Something positive? Yeah, it is mildly entertaining if you forget there ever was a Gadget show.
Ridiculous movie.
The first 2 were already questionable, but this one might be the worst adaptation of DC or Marvel up until now.
This low budget movie offers some lighthearted fun for gamers and fans of the 80s, although it might still be enjoyable for others too.
Expect poor acting and a ridiculous story in a reference rich environment. Fitting for the comedy of Kevin Smith and Wil Wheaton and (at least partially) funded by a kickstarter campaign. They clearly went rampant with this project, and the passion and fun everyone had while making this film jumps off the screen. So even if all else fails, at least it has that.
With a good cast and some good ideas it is disappointing this movie does not achieve more than the average cop crime thriller.
The ideas are there, and at several points the movie tips its toes into intriguing territories. However, it avoids to tackle the themes and questions it sets up, which results in frustrating moments and it lets the movie as a whole fall way below the potential it had. Even though it does not manage to outshine some of the other movies in its genre, it still is a decent movie to watch.
Enjoyable movie that does not overstays it's welcome.
I recognized the story while watching (maybe I saw the National Geographic episode that was dedicated to this, or through some YouTube channel) and I felt like it was done well without getting too unfaithful to the original story (I have not done my research on this though, so don't take me word on it.)
The aim was clearly to go for a more realistic experience, and try not to overly sensationalize the plot or visuals. And at times the movies leans more toward a (visually more darker) 'The Great Escape' rather than a 'Shawshank Redemption'. Although 'Escape From Pretoria' does not reach the heights of either of those aforementioned prison classics, the movie is worth the watch and can stand on it's own well enough.
PS. I had no issue with the 'Harry Potter effect' that is mentioned in some of the other comments. I think the reason for that might be that it has been a while since I saw any of the HP films, while at the same time I saw several other movies of Radcliffe. To the others I would recommend to try watch him in some of his totally different roles, like the absurd 'Swiss Army Man' and the more recent 'Guns Akimbo'. The humour might be a bit odd, so I can't give any guarantee you like it. Or you can try 'Imperium'. I did not see that one, but it had decent reviews and is a lot more serious.
Not a bad movie, but not very original either nor does it really challenge the viewer. Even though it has an original source material, you always have the feeling you've seen this one before. It doesn't help either it is so closely comparable to Intouchables (which is a way better film imho and not as predictable.)
Decent acting, decent script, decent camera work, decent story. Everything is just a little bit too run of the mill and average for it to really get to shine. But then again, it isn't a waste of time either.
With 2 strong leads and 2 good supporting characters this movie did not disappoint in the acting department. Dialogue was quite nice too. But the whole story (and especially the ending) left me unsatisfied.
From Tropic Thunder:
Kirk Lazarus: Everybody knows you never go full retard.
Tugg Speedman: What do you mean?
Kirk Lazarus: Check it out. Dustin Hoffman, 'Rain Man,' look retarded, act retarded, not retarded. Counted toothpicks, cheated cards. Autistic, sho'. Not retarded. You know Tom Hanks, 'Forrest Gump.' Slow, yes. Retarded, maybe. Braces on his legs. But he charmed the pants off Nixon and won a ping-pong competition. That ain't retarded. Peter Sellers, "Being There." Infantile, yes. Retarded, no. You went full retard, man. Never go full retard. You don't buy that? Ask Sean Penn, 2001, "I Am Sam." Remember? Went full retard, went home empty handed...
This is a great movie though.
A lot of the actors in this movie usually play depth-less side charachter or have main roles in B films, but somehow they managed to do better with this one. The plot has some interesting premises as well.
Unfortunately it still doesn't get that magic touch it needs to make it magnificent. This is probably because of the relatively short length compared to the amount of story they want to tell. It will leave you with a sense of surrealism because it is hard to identify yourself with the characters. My guess is this might be as a result of poor directing choices or a budget issue.
It will probably always be banned to a cult scene or late night tv.
The idea for this movie is pretty simple, and so is the storyline for the best part. But somehow I cannot think of a single movie that did the same.
The strength of this movie lays in a combination of settings that are very unique, and all have an influence on the movie. The movie combines emotions, dick jokes, soul searching, love and friendship in a very subtle way.
A simple but strong movie!
It wasn't horrible, but nothing special here.
I couldn't believe the low rating with all those great actors, but it's true.
This movie is as boring as they get.
The only amusement came from the stupid stories Javier Bardem told.
A tense thriller with some great acting, especially up until the final act. It has some interesting and unique scenes but is ultimately undermined by a script that is cutting corners just a bit too much. Still a decent watch.
Pretty straightforward and fun adventure movie, although does not come close to the greats in its genre. Overall it is pretty shallow and Mark and Tom's comedic talents are wasted on the poor jokes, but it still manages to be one of the best video game adaptations ever made. The bar for that is very low of course, but an achievement nonetheless.
They forgot to write characters.
I am more interested in what will happen after the ending than anything happening in the movie itself.
The 2nd 'Silenzio Bruno!' of 2021 out of a Disney studio. Someone high up at the Disney company must hate someone called Bruno a lot
:laughing:
But great animated film. Music is decent and fun (although nothing legendary because it feels a bit overproduced at times) and animation is fantastic. Original story, and interesting characters. It is a bit rushed over here and there but that's ok.
Total forgettable film.
Tonal issues and irregular pacing make this the least fun of the trilogy so far. It does not know weather to take itself serious or not, which results in extended boring parts interchanged with laughable scenes that break any suspension of disbelieve. They should have stopped after one movie.
I guess the best thing about this movie is that it gave me an excuse to watch the original trilogy again...
Weird series of movie shorts (NOT a feature film) with high amounts of 'just-out-of-filmschool' feels, mixed with attempts at being Terrence Malick. Not recommended for most.
Did this movie have any dialogue written before filming? Because it looks like it was all ad-libbed on the spot. I will give them some credit though, some lines were probably written in the break room on a dirty tissue a few minutes before the shoot.
Everything about this movie is bad, except for maybe the filming equipment. Probably in my top 10 worst movies I ever saw.
This movie is as if the 1980's and the 1880's were mashed together into one. A slow paced, incomplete and try-to-be creative, but not very convincing, story about the life of brilliant inventor Nicola Tesla who was ahead of his time.
Besides the acting power of Hawke, and some (questionable) creative choices, there is not much here.
With over 90 comments already existing, I will keep it short.
It looks like the two writers responsible for this movie bit off more than they can chew. Looking at their experience, they were involved in some rather questionable movies already, with the best ones being comedy. I think this is what resulted in (some of the) the poor character decisions, awkward tone shifts between sci-fi horror, thriller-action and even comedy, and some poor plot decisions.
This movie looks like it was made by someone still in film school, but on a bigger budget.
The movie is a collection of cliches and poor directing choices from beginning to end. Writing (character, dialogue and plot) is poor, music is off-putting, and does match the atmosphere or is too in your face. Visuals are okay, however questionable editing and directing choices undercut this. Acting is meh at best.
Better to skip this one if you have something else (better) to watch, you won't miss much.
Poor film with shallow scripting, mediocre action, and uncompelling story. The characters are rather one-dimensional and many plot lines don't go anywhere. Ending is also highly unsatisfying.
'The circle' aims high, manages to perform well until about halfway, then it crashes in a rather lackluster and unresolved ending.
I did not know much about this movie before going in, except for it having a stellar cast with Tom Hanks, Emma Watson, Karen Gillan (someone I always like seeing), Bill Paxton and Patton Oswalt. After watching the movie I was very surprised by discovering the utter trash reviews it got from both critics and fans. I can see its flaws, but I do not agree this amount of low-balling is something the movie deserves in my humble opinion.
Warning: Light spoilers ahead. (Heavy spoilers are hidden.)
Let's start at the beginning; Mae (played by Emma Watson) is a 20-something girl living somewhere in the near future in the San Fransisco area. She has a dead-end job at a customer service company, and she isn't happy. Her life goes nowhere, and she feels bad for not being able to help her dad, who suffers from MS. The story kick starts when her friend sets her up for an interview with a high-profile tech company. From this point onwards things start to snowball, and Mae gets pulled deeper and deeper into her work until she becomes like a social media, pop star-like, mascot for the company.
'The circle' follows a conventional third person storytelling with 3 tightly structured acts. It is based on the book with the same name written by Dave Eggers. The story revolves around a fictional company called 'The circle' which is an obvious possible future mirror of Apple, but can also represent Google, Facebook, Samsung, Amazon or other tech giants we know today. The main dilemma is about the discussion of privacy vs. transparency, a question notably relevant in today's world concerning tech companies and public surveillance. It also touches upon the value of friendship, family, self confidence and a late coming-of-age story of a 20-something year old.
The initial set up is done well, but nothing special. We get introduced to the main character her life; her family, most important friends, her first days at 'the circle' and its community. The first signs of trouble arrive when Mae is confronted by not having set up her social media profile at the company after a week of being there. After this the stakes slowly get higher and higher, something that is subtly (but a bit too obviously) paced. The most intriguing thing that the movie does is taking that initial dilemma, and move the line that needs to be crossed slightly further every time. It reminded me a bit of the 1981 film 'The Wave' which was based on a real life experiment by a teacher in Germany. A teacher showed the dangers of populism and fascism by slowly setting a more extreme boundary, so he avoided a 'shock effect' and the people (students) kept following him. The difference is that the jumps are sometimes a bit too big in 'The Circle'. It looks like the movie wants to make you think about the questions it asks its characters more than giving an in-world experience. My guess is that this is why the movie bombed with both critics and audience.
This also goes for the ending; when Mae turns the tables on the bosses of the company (played by Tom Hanks and Patton Oswalt) it is unclear if she wants to continue the direction the company is heading in and even widen it, or is actually out on stopping it but knows it is already too late and the end result will be inevitable at this point. Again I think the movie rather wants to hold up a mirror to our current society and not make a finished product with all the answers. Even though I sympathise with this, it is not executed well enough and the ending might be either too ambiguous or not ambiguous enough with Mae sitting in her kajak surrounded by drones. Could this be a result from her choice? Or was it an inevitable thing?
The actors portraying the main characters are performing ok overall. Nobody really gave a bad performance, but there were no little moments where they actually shine either. The chemistry between characters was lacking sometimes because of clunky dialogue, most notably the chemistry between Mae (Emma Watson) and Annie (Karen Gillan) was rather lacking, and it made the toilet scene rather dull. Also the public fight between Mae and Mercer (Ellar Coltrane) was a bit cringy and lacked common sense. The best scenes were in the beginning of the movie, with Mae seeing her dad (played by Bill Paxton) having problems and Mae being thankful for Annie helping her and her parents. The characters and performances shined best on itself, with Karen Gillan being the highlight in the non-verbal acting.
The movie has a comforting use of lightning, and there are some beautiful set pieces and location shots and/or photography. It sets a consistent colour palet and tone for its settings, which is usually agreeing with a positive Silicon valley kind of mentality. This contrasts the dark undertone the movie has, and to me that was something I really enjoyed. It mimics reality where the positivity of technology often outshines (or simply ignores) the risks. Also the implementation of the technology was rather seamless. It was obviously there, but it was never too surreal or too much. Music was rather minimalistic and fitting, but except for a handful of scenes never more than just some complimentary background music.
Even though this movie has many flaws, I enjoyed watching it thoroughly. It hinges between a documentary of social decay and a satire comedy drama. Even though it fails to be any of those perfectly, it does well as a society commentary and only drops the ball in being a bit too obvious and never delivering on it's hinted solution.
I was very intrigued by one of the comments Mae received, which stated "No one at the circle has kids." This insinuated that the circle has no future, and even though the questions this movie asks are relevant, I doubt this movie will stay relevant for very long considering its bad reception.
