kinda boring to be honest.
loading replies
@jordanvic ... I'm agree with you... i did a lot forwarding by remote control
Far from a perfect film but it is incredibly charming.
A very likeable romantic movie that has good performances all round. And in these days of Dancing With The Stars or Strictly Come Dancing, it makes sense that it captivates.
It is flawed. J Lo is perhaps a little too buttoned up in her character. The wife character is too uneven and her behaviour near the end is disruptive to a logical storyline.
But we're here for a little escapism and it does give that in spades.
7.5/10
loading replies
@porteruk ... nevertheless a nice classic movie, i laughed sometimes :-) brilliant performance of Susan Sarandon and Richard Gere ... i like both much, one of the best past actors... TOP 7/10
I just love Noomi Rapace
loading replies
@frontallcrm ... YES !!! i learned to love her as an amazing versatile actress - she has never disappointed me... TOP
Stupid movie...give it 3 stars for the entertainment for about 15 minutes...Beyond that it's a waste of 120 mins of you life you will never get back. A lot of people writing a thesis as a review on here about this & that but let me tell you it's a crap movie. Sure you will enjoy bits of it, which will amount to about 15 mins of total entertainment. Beyond that you're better off watching paint dry for 120 minutes.
loading replies
@whos_ur_buddha ... :smile:worthy answer Dude! #thumbsup
Ok, nothing to do with fast & furious that is just a fact. More like Terminator and Transformers, Especially transformers, the bike made the exact same sound. Anyway, complete nonsense ridiculous plot, bad dialogue good humor and nothing more out of a probably 12 year old building the script.
loading replies
@great_vc ... omg! stupid comment, absolutely senseless, better write nothing... Honk #thumbsdown
The movie was BORING. The whole time I was wondering wtf I am watching it and why I am watching it. There was 0 FF vibe, the music was awful, the acting was forced, the story line was poor... When it was over I was so damn happy and left the cinema regretting for spending money on that.
loading replies
@rallyk ... omg! stupid comment, absolutely senseless, better write nothing... Honk #thumbsdown
This is not a Fast&Furious. F&F is a car racing film and not like a Mision Impossible with too much guns and explosions. Is funny, but, I can't call this F&F.
loading replies
@krystian97 ... omg! stupid comment, absolutely senseless, better write nothing... Honk #thumbsdown
The production behind this movie thinks the audience that will go see this movie are all stupid.
loading replies
@deuts ... omg! stupid comment, absolutely senseless, better write nothing... Honk #thumbsdown
SHIT story some good action, turn the volume down and watch SOME of the action...doubt it will sink the spinoff franchise though. england is no doubt gathering australian gold for the next editions
loading replies
@traktofmytears ... omg! stupid comment, absolutely senseless, better write nothing... Honk #thumbsdown
So, a chopper pulling away + the weight of 4 cars pulling the front truck of the cliff is not enough for 2 rubber tyres on gravel to lose its grip? Damn thats some quality tyres right there. Now serious, this movie it so stupid. Definitely not a F&F movie, just the title to sell tickets. **and they hacked the super advanced corporation on a win95 pc in a shed? And they disabled a knife! 3/10
loading replies
@operator ... omg! stupid comment, absolutely senseless, better write nothing... Honk #thumbsdown
We used to watch F&F as a racing movie. What was that? Terminator? Black panther? Star Trek?
loading replies
@mahyurr ... omg! stupid comment, absolutely senseless, better write nothing... Honk #thumbsdown
Saw it last night......this movie was ridiculous, didn't need to be made I wish it never existed.
Did enjoy the cameos from well, you know who.
I cant even remember what the heck it was about and why was it so long the last 25-30 yawn.
Still it'll make money as the two leads are bankable right now.
My Opinion....FORGETTABLEloading replies
@jarvis-4854484 ... omg! stupid comment, absolutely senseless, better write nothing... Honk #thumbsdown
'Hobbs & Shaw' is literally 2 hours of people dissing each other and it isn't just from Dwayne and Statham.
It's a dumb movie, but at this point we should just expect that with these movies. Judging it on a entertainment standpoint, it succeeds on that. I was never bored watching it, which is the best compliment I can give.
Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham both have such great chemistry and comedic timing, the movie wouldn't stand without them, of course.
I liked Idris Elba as the main baddie who has a past vendetta to crack. While not one of his best performance, yet still manages to bring a physical presence to the screen. Vanessa Kirby was a standout as she's fully aware how ridiculous it all is, but plays along anyway.
There's a few surprises along the way that actually caught me off guard.
However, judging this as a movie - there's less positives to say. The dialogue is awful, action scenes happen for the shake of it, and the movie is a little too long. And since everybody in this universe is immortal despite the fights, free falls and explosions - Dwayne and Statham are unhurt, which deflates any sense of danger. Also the trash talking between the two gets stale really quick.
Overall rating: See it if you know what you are getting into.
loading replies
@bradym03 ... oh Jesus please delete any Honks with massive Attention Deficit Disorder away from this dashboard! :pray_tone1:
why they can't simply note "bad movie for me" or better nothing!!! every time so much unnecessary bla-bla blup! ^_^ #thumbsdown
Stupid movie...give it 3 stars for the entertainment for about 15 minutes...Beyond that it's a waste of 120 mins of you life you will never get back. A lot of people writing a thesis as a review on here about this & that but let me tell you it's a crap movie. Sure you will enjoy bits of it, which will amount to about 15 mins of total entertainment. Beyond that you're better off watching paint dry for 120 minutes.
loading replies
@whos_ur_buddha ... omg! stupid comment, absolutely senseless, better write nothing... Honk #thumbsdown
Fast and Furious presents :
HOrrible and SHit story.No story, no script, no plot. Hey guys, Dwayne and Jason can do a lot better. White page and write us a good story.
We're waiting.loading replies
@lavomatic-awae ... omg! stupid comment, absolutely senseless, better write nothing... Honk #thumbsdown
An intense crime thriller, Dark Places is full of intrigue and suspense. The sole survivor of her family’s massacre, Libby Day is ask to look at the case one last time in order to exonerate her brother (who was convicted of the crime); but the deeper she looks the more she starts to suspect that her brother is hiding something. Starring Charlize Theron, Nicholas Hoult, Chloe Grace Moretz, and Christina Hendricks, the film has quite the impressive cast. And, the script does a good job at developing the mystery; telling the present day story in parallel with flashbacks to the events that led up to the murders. Still, the pacing can be rather slow at times, and the plot’s a bit complicated. Yet despite its weaknesses, Dark Places is a compelling film.
loading replies
@jarvis-8243417 ... please use the "spoiler-tag" to hidden some phrases, because too much open details ^_^ thx
I mean the concept was pretty nice, in a way. The scene where she ate the first fish was a really cool wtf moment.
Besides that it was a generic teeny coming-of-age drama with not many interesting things. Very slow, lots of strange scenes that should've really been cut.
Body horror was okay though, only thing that made the movie a bit bearable.loading replies
@wolfsblvt ... Wiskey Tango Foxtrot :-D ... i'm agree with you that the story-line is too slow... a bit a pity not to filled-up the wasted time with better content... yes but all in all pleasant to look - fairy tale of the youth :-) trotzdem fair 6/10
Shout by Caesar
Good coming of age movie with body horror element. I love mythical creatures. It's just too slow for my taste but worth checking out.
loading replies
@csrz ... i'm agree with you that the story-line is too slow... a bit a pity not to filled-up the wasted time with better content... yes but all in all pleasant to look - fairy tale of the youth :-) fair 7/10
Shout by Atlantis14
I just re-watched this for the second time. I can't describe how much I enjoyed it the second time, even more so than the first time.
Amazing score by Max Richter. Love the track "The Shores Of Scotland"
I watched it back to back part of
The Other Boleyn Girl (2008)
Elizabeth (1998)
Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007)
Mary Queen of Scots (2018)I was kind of worried to see this again. It shows Queen Elizabeth like a mustache twirling villain and I didn't want to erase Cate Blanchett's performance watching these back to back. But as I said I really enjoyed it despite Margot Robbie's performance. I just consider it like a separate entity and you will enjoy Mary Stuart's story. I'm not even worried if they are historically accurate, I just enjoy them as stories exploring the human condition. (I was actually surprised how close this was to reality, I thought it was mostly fiction at first)
I will never forget the ending, Saoirse Ronan's composure and the music.
loading replies
@atlantis14 ... yes yes yes... your "Monarche-Movie-List" is absolute great - i love it all #thumpsup
Shout by FinFan
Not quite sure where to put this. If you span a period of 25 years in a two hour movie there are supposed to be gaps in the story. But it is tough to put events into a timeframe if you don't know much about the history.
I like period dramas and I am a huge fan of Saoirse who played well. As did Margot. They both carry the movie a lot. The oscar nominations are also well earned. But that's just it. It looks pretty but it's lacking in storytelling. The material would have been better for a mini series. I am not dissapointed nor do I regret watching this. I think a "7" is an honest rating. It takes into consideration the effort made to produce this movie.loading replies
@finfan ... yes i'm agree with you that this is the right stuff for a Mini-Serie, but still all in all the movie was fair and good 7/10
Review by Nancy L Draper
VIP8An emotional portrayal rather than an historically faithful account of Mary's relationship with Elizabeth of England. Although claiming that this film was based on John Guy's book MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS: THE TRUE LIFE OF MARY STUART (a remarkable, groundbreaking historical work, which, driven by curiosity by the movie, I've just finished reading) there is very little evidence the screenwriter finished reading it. Both the book and film present Mary as the beautiful, courtly, intellectual and political equal of Elizabeth I, but, that must have been when the screenwriter stopped reading the book for he departs from the historical record and lapses into a fantasy, portraying Elizabeth as weak and distant from her own political processes, gives us with no credible explanation for why Elizabeth made the decisions she did, which begs the question no historian would pose, "If Mary was a true and worthy queen whereas Elizabeth was weak and an emotional mess, how did Mary end up on the executioner's block and Elizabeth manage to successfully hold her throne for 44 years?" The screenwriter muddles up any political, religious or ideological (or even personal) logic for the climate of the day which inevitably set the course for Mary's life path. There is no clarity given as to whether one was either Protestant or Roman would be such an insurmountable issue, partly because John Knox was so poorly written (despite having hidden the very talented and capable David Tennant behind all the hair). Disappointing story telling. Saoirse Ronan and Margot Robbie give emotionally deep performances, as expected. This was a waste of good actors. I rate this film a 4 (poor) out of 10. I know I may be expressing a minority opinion, because, by and large, the people I spoke to as we exited the theatre, seemed to have liked the movie, but more troubling, they accepted this as an historically accurate portrayal while confessing to each other that they never knew of Mary, Queen of Scotts. [Historical? BioPic]. By the way, a seminole point of John Guy's book is that Mary and Elizabeth NEVER MET!
loading replies
@nancy-l-draper ... Hello, I agree with you in some statements, because even the 18(!) years of captivity were worked-off from one scene to the next. Point :( very goofy, but in all that time she had tried several times to escape from captivity or to be freed. That would have been more interesting than dragging out other situations.
According to a history block, it was said that Mary Stuart gave birth to twins during her captivity after her marriage to James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell, but they did not survive the birth.
Furthermore, the personal meeting with "Cousin" Elizabeth I. astonished me, because in this history block the following sentence could be read:
"... An invitation to Edinburgh in Scotland Elisabeth I. refused and also a meeting in England did not come off. Elizabeth I. and Mary Stuart were never to meet! ..." °!° what is true now??
Question: Was there this meeting between the monarchs as seen in the movie or never?
--> still all in all the movie was fair and good 7/10
I am disappointed with this movie. I had such high expectations. There were many gaps in portraying the story. I am very familiar with the British history so I was able to fill in the gaps. But I was with my teenage daughter and she got lost in the story. First of all, there was no explanation as to why the religion mattered. Second, many stories were rushed, no detail provided while some other stories/parts dragged. And as I watched the scene when Elizabeth and Mary met for the first time I realized that this whole movie is about women empowerment. The way the story was told, the focus was on the strength and power of the women (mostly Mary). I don't like how Elizabeth was portrayed as a weak and insecure woman. Actually, the truth was quite the opposite - she was strong and smart woman. She knew what she wanted. She never married because she knew that she would lose power the moment she tied the knot. This is what ultimately brought Mary's demise.
If the focus of the movie was telling the story rather than making a point, the result would have been much better movie. Right now the movie lacks a seamless story telling. What a waste of good actors. And btw, I think they overdid it with Elizabeth's make up.
loading replies
@sisi2 ... Hello, I agree with you in some statements, because even the 18(!) years of captivity were worked-off from one scene to the next. Point :( very goofy, but in all that time she had tried several times to escape from captivity or to be freed. That would have been more interesting than dragging out other situations.
According to a history block, it was said that Mary Stuart gave birth to twins during her captivity after her marriage to James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell, but they did not survive the birth.
Furthermore, the personal meeting with "Cousin" Elizabeth I. astonished me, because in this history block the following sentence could be read:
"... An invitation to Edinburgh in Scotland Elisabeth I. refused and also a meeting in England did not come off. Elizabeth I. and Mary Stuart were never to meet! ..." °!° what is true now??
Question: Was there this meeting between the monarchs as seen in the movie or never?
yes and btw ... in the movie Elisabeth I. looked at times like "Joker", the clown ^_^
--> still all in all the movie was fair and good 7/10
Anna is one of the worst films I’ve ever seen. Far too much of the film is made up of explaining incredibly obvious “twists” through flashbacks. Moreover, Anna’s character development is too jumpy and clunky. Even Helen Mirren’s contributions are underwhelming.
More generally, one has to wonder how long it will be until we get a throughly enjoyable cinematic female led soviet oriented spy thriller. Between Anna, Red Sparrow and Atomic Blonde there have been too many failures. A return to Le Carrian style thrillers might be warranted, with the Little Drummer Girl offering a good example from the land of TV.
loading replies
@bondless ... and the biggest failure at all is your comment, Dude! simply goofy! ^_^
Of course there is an ignorant child that ruins everything.
loading replies
@ockaie ... simple boring for long distance ^_^ i forward by remote control only a few action, nice scenes of crashed sky towers... max. 5/10
@kubricksmuse ... Maisie did an amazing job really for me enigma how to work with little children and big feelings
Review by xelra
I got to see this movie, because it was recommended to me when I put on the sciene fiction filter and it also had a good rating.
Oh boy, was I disappointed. This movie isn't science fiction at all. Fiction at best, maybe. It has absolutely nothing, and I repeat nothing, to do with SCIENCE fiction. It is a fiction movie, a romance and if there was a main category to put it in, that would be esoteric.Half way through the movie I realized that this film wasn't what I thought it was and tried to enjoy it nonetheless. Unfortunately, even as a romance this film didn't deliver. It absolutely doesn't deserve its rating, neither as a romance nor as an esoteric thriller. If you compare it romance-whise to City of Angels, which has a relatively similar setting, you'd immediately see the shortcomings of this film and that it cannot compare. 7.0 is too much, I'd give it a close to 6 rating. In words: "Slightly above average", and that is only because of the acting.
Also I want to say that it's just sad to see a movie like Gattaca compared to this. Really, really sad. It almost makes me cry. ;(
loading replies
@xelra ... oh Jesus please delete any Honks with massive Attention Deficit Disorder away from this dashboard :pray_tone1: why they can't simply note "bad movie for me" or better nothing!!! every time so much unnecessary bla-bla blup! more harmful than COVID ^_^
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
loading replies
@anisound ... what a stupid unnecessary comment!!! it's a pity that such Honks simply leave nothing there instead of attention deficit disorder ^_^ 0/100 please delete!!
It raises interesting ideas but skips the continuity in the script completely.
loading replies
@condesoto ... sorry seemly important bla-bla only! better write nothing... Tip: don't do your housekeeping during watching movies! :-D
