This is a very nostalgic movie from the 80s i remember it very fondly. Light, fun, heart-warm and very sweet. Do your self a favor and watch it on every christmas
Hogwarts. A boarding school where children...:
– Are placed in four different houses and pitted against each other.
– Learn how to fly in a broom, without any safety measures and supervised only by an incompetent professor.
– Are rewarded every time they break any rule.
– Are allowed to play a brutal sport in which serious injuries are quite frequent.
– Are punished by being sent to an "strictly off-limits" forest at midnight. (I wonder what would be the punishment for wandering in the Dark Forest without permission...).
– Are scored through all the year, earning or losing points for their houses... only to have the least scoring house win at the last minute, because of 4 people.
Seriously. What's with the House Cup? How many students are there in Hogwarts? 200, 400? The whole Gryffindor scored something like 360 points in the whole year. But since our trio decided to go on a (completely forbidden and extremely dangerous) adventure, they are rewarded with an extra 170 points and win. From 4th to 1st. If I were any of the other students, I'd feel betrayed, to say the least.
What's worse, there wasn't any need for the adventure. The stone was actually well protected, Quirrell couldn't get it from the mirror. So... well done, guys.
:zany_face:
Since I was comlpletely out of the loop regarding HP and had no nostalgic feelings it was a bit hard for me to relate to the characters. I somehow wish I could have watched the movies when I was Harry's age, like so many of my friends did. For me it's an okayish movie. I'm not exaclty in love with it but I'm looking forward to watching the other parts of the series.
It’s astounding really that the Potter franchise managed to grow beyond this entry. Regardless of the dated effects work which stand out even more, it’s the terrible pacing and some rather clunky performances from the child actors that drag this film down. It doesn’t help that the script is really poor and treats its audience like idiots, feeling the need to spell out every single plot point. Looking back at the series as a whole, there is so much material here that could have been cut that would have helped the film immeasurably, not least by balancing the desire to develop the world with the narrative demands of the actual plot. Harry Potter at times feels like Oliver Twist in that the central hero of the film is the least interesting character and it doesn’t help that Radcliffe spends most of the film gawping and reacting to events. It isn’t a total loss - the casting is pretty much spot on with the more experienced adult actors helping to sell the script and carry the performances of the children around them. Emma Watson and Rupert Grint seem more comfortable in their roles than others and Radcliffe does have some moments that suggest he will grow into the role. It doesn’t hurt that the film also has John Williams on top form - his musical themes bringing a magical quality to the film even in moments where the rest of the elements fail to shine.
Didn't really think about it until this re-watch... Dumbledore pretty much set Malfoy up to be Potter's enemy at the end by yanking the house cup away from Slytherin, no?
"Slytherin is in first place by a whole bunch, but here, let me give Gryffindor exactly enough points to bring them from last to first."
Bit of a dick move.
Nearly 40 minutes into this sequel before elements of the main plot kick in, it’s apparent that little has been learned from the previous entry. The central trio of actors all seem to be much more comfortable in their roles, especially Radcliffe, and Kenneth Branagh is entertaining in the additional adult role. But yet again it is way too long, and so much of the material this time feels repetitive as well as inconsequential to the story the film is trying to tell. The filmmakers constantly feel the need to both show and explain every plot detail, not trusting in the audience, and it all become quite dull at times. That said, the central protagonists are much more proactive here and the film does touch on some interesting themes regarding identity and discrimination thst are left open for further exploration.
Harry and friends return for a second term, where they're quickly caught up in a long-standing plot to rid the school of so-called "impure" students. Between the celebrated, absurdly deep cast, the charming, nuanced world at large and the constant manipulations of a shadow-clad foil, this picture had an awful lot going for it right out of the gates... so why does it feel like we're just treading water? A large swath of The Chamber of Secrets seems inessential and redundant, which isn't to say it's without merit, just that it could be using this time to fry much larger fish. Did we need to reinforce the idea that Harry's adoptive parents are cruel people? Didn't our hero avoid an attempt on his life on the Quidditch pitch last time around? For that matter, wasn't the entire endgame eerily similar in the preceding installment? Too much time smelling the roses when there's a fire down the block.
Of course, it's not all bad news. The CGI, though still not without the occasional hiccup, has vastly improved since the last picture. That doesn't excuse the force-fed inclusion of an all-digital supporting character, but at least these appearances are kept mercifully short and to-the-point. Although it's the longest installment in the Harry Potter franchise, this chapter skims along at a strict pace and feels much shorter than it actually is. Though seemingly inconsequential as a whole, the plot does drop frequent hints at a darker side of the Hogwarts mythos before, ultimately, allowing such things to continue lurking in obscurity. It shows promise in spades, and will certainly capture the hearts and minds of the younger audiences it's primarily there for, but more demanding viewers will likely find it too thin and sugary for serious digestion.
Some good and some bad. The pacing issues are understandable, as the fourth book was the longest yet in the series and they still had to cram it into a 2.5-hour movie. A major continuity error (the awning ripped in half by Harry's dragon magically is repaired for a later wide shot) and incorrect application of the Expelliarmus spell (Krum is still holding his wand after landing on his back, unconscious) drag it down a bit, as do editing shortcuts that mangle character in a few spots.
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
This is by all means a lame movie.
When a movie is named after its protagonist, you'd expect the character to be well formed. Jack Reacher wasn't. As an ex-army-cop anti-hero that doesn't play by the rules, Tom Cruise's character was a tame sheep who exerted his dominance using his mouth more than his fists. "You don't want to mess with me" was his catchphrase, but in a post-1980's-world, he certainly did not look more threatening than a teenager with mood problems. Cruise's performance did the character no service either, demonstrating a single stern line of emotion that felt copy and pasted for the film's duration.
The plot ran through tropes and was predictable in its twists (i.e. if you manage to stay one step ahead of the game, you'll be predicting the whole story dead-on). The camera emphasis on prop guns (and its PG-13 rating) suggests that this movie was geared towards a certain prepubescent demographic, and the complexity of the dialogue reflected such. Dollhouses have more personality than the cast and opting to have no soundtrack made the film dryer than a bad turkey sandwich.
While there's no serious complaint about the quality (yeah, it could've been worse), but there's really no positives that can be seen. 5.0/10
So, spoilers ahead. I don't want to be the guy who ruins the film for you, so please, unless you've seen the film, do not read on, fair warning given.
There were two key paths I feel weren't explored far enough, despite the film being pretty lengthy (without a dull moment, may I add).
Point 1) Sort of two parts, but still one point. I don't think they pursued the thought-provoking aspect of the victims lives as much as they could've done. That scene with Pike in the house of the father of one of the victims was so very touching and emotional - yet that was the last we saw of the aspect. The character of Reacher demanded that if he was to view Barr objectively, she, as Barr's defence, should get to know the lives of the victims. Which brings me onto the second part of this point - the victim on the bench and the victim with the watch, purportedly having an affair. Was this just a way into the characters thinking the victims weren't random and thus reaching the realization of Oline's position? I know the affair was irrelevant, but we have a glimpse into their lives, a glimpse into the nanny's life,... for what, the emotional path that wasn't gone down? I don't think that aspect was developed enough.
Point number 2) Much briefer this one, but what was the motive of the Detective Emerson character to be under the control of The Zec? It seemed that he was working for him because he hadn't got a choice - what was The Zec holding over him, controlling him with?? Did they avoid that expansion so that we wouldn't feel sorry for Emerson when Reacher shoots him? If so, why present us with the limp plot point of Emerson being forced to obey as his reason for betraying the badge? Yes, give us a motive so it's believable, but to actually try to develop it.
Anyway, just my thoughts.
There was a time—let's call it "The 80s"—when action movies didn't need CGI cheats, shaky-cam and ADD-editing to entertain us. They also didn't have to destroy ten city blocks, have a "clever" hook or feel the need to tack on a social message to justify their carnage. No, all they needed was a reason for some good old steak and potatoes action and a star to anchor it all. 2012's Jack Reacher has these qualities in spades.
Maybe this won't appeal to the younger generation who need to have their senses constantly bombarded, but for the rest of us, Jack Reacher is a solid bit of retro-refreshment.
Just as last time, I feel Jack Reacher falls a bit short when compared to the books. I have realized that comparing movies and TV to books is kind of hopeless in most cases, so I tried to keep an open mind.
It kinda worked. Tom Cruise is still very far from how I envision Jack Reacher, but since the story capture some of what Jack Reacher is all about, he gets a pass. So does the rest of the cast for that matter.
So...I have come to the conclusion that Jack Reacher is an ok way to waste a couple of hours.
Jack Reacher...yeah...well...Is Tom Cruise really tall enough to play a character that is described as 6 feet 5 inches tall in the book? Well...It worked...to a degree.
I'm a huge fan of Lee Childs Jack Reacher series of books. They are quite fun and it was with great fear I watched this for the first time right after it got out. I had a certain picture of what Jack Reacher looked like and how he behaved. Tom Cruise was so far from this image that I thought this would probably be total shit. To my total surprise...it wasn't all that bad.
The movie, as a whole, was a bit slow, the pacing was off, and a few things were left unexplained. And here comes the point...How can a movie that feels slow and sluggish manage to leave so many plotholes?
Anyway...Tom Cruise wasn't bad, the rest of the cast wasn't bad, and there were both excitement and laughs. If I hadn't read, and liked, the books I think I would have felt this one was a bit better.
The reason my better half and I rewatched this was to prepare for a viewing of the sequel. I'm not sure I would have done that otherwise.
If you haven't seen it, it's worth a look...especially if you haven't read the books.
Haha.
Tom Cruise finally has a ugly shirt-less body.
Entertaining but ultimately fairly generic detective thriller. After a fairly intense and intriguing opening to the film, there is very little that this film offers that is in any way original or refreshing but it is well made and another vehicle for Cruise to dominate. Here the main draw is the character of Jack Reacher, and Cruise is always watchable in roles like this, but on the evidence of this film, Reacher is essentially a cross between Dirty Harry and Martin Riggs and a more intriguing backstory is only hinted. Perhaps a sequel will have a stronger focus on the title character, but when the film itself is named after the main character, it is only fair to expect a stronger focus on the character himself.
"Jack Reacher" is an enjoyable suspense/thriller starring Tom Cruise. The film is based on a book which I have not read but has been praised by many to be an awesome book. The story revolves around mystery and investigation as Tom Cruise tries to reveal the real bad guys behind a tragic event. Tom Cruise does a great job as Reacher, making the character look badass and smart without making it look over the top. Overall the film is very enjoyable from start to finish and I definitely recommend it to whoever likes action/suspense-thrillers.
Neeson gives a commanding performance, and the background behind this film is certainly compelling. However, i feel the film is only partially successful in bringing the story to the screen. There seemed to be narrative plot holes that left me a little confused at times, and while my own research can fill in the blanks, I wish there was more clarity in the film. Still, it's a timely story, considering the Presidential Fart currently sitting in the White House. Perhaps we need another Deep Throat to uncover what is going on behind the closed doors of the Oval Office.
A true cult classic.
This movie is over the top from start to finish, and it knows it. A lot of movies that try to do this, the level to which they are over the top ebbs and flows. It jumps all over the place. This movie keeps it persistent, consistent, and that's what really keeps it flowing and makes me love it so much. Just the right amount and not too much.
The right amount of comedy to take what really is a pretty crap story, and just make it truly enjoyable to watch. They went above and beyond making all the scenes as artistic as they could. The cinematography really draws you in and can be enjoyed even if the movie isn't for you. I can watch this time and time again, and not grow bored.
Talk about love at first sight.
This is one of those movies where if you were lucky enough to see it first-run, you did not really appreciate it at the time.
It holds up very well. And gets better with subsequent viewings (As does MS. Jovovich who went on to do a string of very memorable sci fi flicks, and one drama where, believe it or not, she played an aspiring wedding singer) Massive (truly massive) talent in front of and behind the camera. Luc Besson in front (crazy as a loon but boy can he write scripts) and Willis/Oldman in front.
For the day, the special effects were top notch.
There a joyful innocence about the film which was rare at the time, and even rarer today.
See it once. See it often. It'll make you smile.
Bruce Willis was never able to shake his square-peg-square-slot role as a cynical, anti-authoritarian action hero, despite getting cast outside the type in movies such as The Sixth Sense and, to a lesser extent, 12 Monkeys.. But perhaps that wasn't such a bad thing, as in two particular movies his basic, archetypal example of such an action hero contributed to one of the most complete action films of all time: One of those films was Die Hard, the oft-besequeled cop film which watched like a slasher with villain and hero reversed. The other was the sprawling, operatic The Fifth Element, where he mimics the effortless coolness of the Captain Kirk archetype and crosses through a gorgeous, often hilarious version of a sci-fi future.
Notably, the fact that Zorg represents Gary Oldman's second-most iconic villain role must be a testament to his ability with such characters.
I hope the future is like this some day, just looks so much more interesting
A very fun and entertaining movie with an amazing James Stewart. Something you can enjoy with the whole family - and probably spot some things that might be familiar.
Not quite as good as the first. Speedmans character still is the weakest one, there is no developement. But good entertainment and a complement to the whole story.
One of the greatest disaster films ever made, The Poseidon Adventure is an intense thriller that never lets up. In the middle of its transatlantic voyage the S.S. Poseidon capsizes on New Year's, leaving a small group of passengers to struggle for survival by climb through the bowels of the ship in an attempt to reach rescue. The all-star cast includes Gene Hackman, Ernest Borgnine, Red Buttons, Roddy McDowall, Shelley Winters, and Pamela Sue Martin. The set designs are amazing, and really give the sense of being in an upside-down ship. The special effects are also especially well done; enhancing the film by adding suspense and a sense of danger. The Poseidon Adventure is a compelling and ground-breaking film that set a new standard for the disaster genre.
life after death?
Excellent movie.....I laughed and cried. It was not exactly what I expected... a journey into a supernatural realm. The special effects were simply awesome! Robin Williams will never cease to amaze me. He gave a wonderful performance, as did Annabella Sciora, and Cuba Gooding, Jr. True love, the kind that puts your partner before yourself, is clearly shown in this film. The film also makes you what to call everyone you haven't talked to for a while and let them know how you feel about them. It gives the viewer lots to discuss.
"Dreams are what we live for they make us alive, and that we are a part of a human race- " Robin William's (RIP)
Based on a story by Richard Matheson, What Dreams May Come is a surrealist tale of the afterlife. When Dr. Chris Nielsen dies in a car crash an old friend comes to guide him through the afterlife, but when Chris learns that his wife has committed suicide and is in Hell, he risks everything to find her. Featuring Robin Williams, Annabella Sciorra, Cuba Gooding Jr., and Max von Sydow, the casting is quite good. Additionally, the visual style is extraordinary, and looks like Renaissance paintings come to life. However, the storytelling is weak, and lacks subtlety and character development. Still, even with its flaws What Dreams May Come is an incredibly creative film that presents a fascinating vision of the spirit world.
Excellent documentary charting their background, their early/mid career and touches on their later career - but the strong tinges of sadness that permeate the documentary come to the fore at the end.
It's a quite sobering and sad tale despite the musical highs these quite astonishing brothers managed to scale.
Say what you want about their music - and then accept that they're quite simply fantastic songwriters.
I'd have liked a little more representation of their years as elder statesmen of music but with all the illnesses, deaths, etc I can understand that the meat of the story is the earlier years. I'd also have liked more music being given the spotlight - Barry' s demo of his Streisand songs for instance merely plays in the background for 10 seconds.
Overall, a highly pleasing but ultimately sombre watch.
7.5/10
A documentary that remains halfway through the Bee Gees' career. There is a lot of music and good pace, but it turns out to be a mediocre approach, which only sparsely addresses the problems of alcoholism, drugs and personal disputes. The virtue is to publicize the previous music of the Bee Gees, before disco music; the fault is to offer an incomplete, kind view that avoids talking about the negative aspects of fame.
Everyone keeps suggesting there is a paradox concerning the 5D future humans and their ability to save humanity in the past. It's really not a paradox at all. Everyone assumes humanity survived to ascend to the 5th dimension but how could humanity exist in the future if not for the actions of Cooper.. who was guided by future humans (begin endless loop).
Did anyone ever consider the other important character in the movie? Amelia Brand carried on with the rest of her mission (thanks to Cooper). I postulate that Brand used the human seeds as intended and set up a colony. A colony that would thrive and eventually evolve beyond human. Thus Earth is of little importance, and may have indeed died. These colonists, and the generations that followed, would have been told the story of a great man (Cooper) who saved them from extinction. With the ability to manipulate space-time, they would pay homage to their hero "God" by helping him in the past so he may fulfill the mission most important to him, to once again see his daughter. Plan B worked beautifully. But the 5d humans, having the power to bend space-time, decided there's no reason why Plan A had to fail.
I finally got around to watching Interstellar after all this time last night and boy... I thought that the movie was just fantastic. I'm kind of baffled at why there is so much hate for the movie. There are maybe a couple of plot holes and inconsistencies here and there while some things go beyond the scope of "believable science" but damn if it isn't one hell of an enjoyable movie.
It's definitely on the long side but I was so engrossed throughout the entire movie that I just didn't care. Great performances by the McCounaghey and Anne Hathaway in this one along with a fantastic soundtrack. Don't listen to all the hate and watch it if you're up for one hell of an adventure (albeit a long one).
