Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
ListsAn error has ocurred. Please try again
Average, the movie has its moments, but the story is chiché and predictable.
I really liked to love Coco a little more, however it's pretty obvious that Pixar as a creative flair for histories that feed the imagination of adults and children seems like it's not the same anymore. Coco has the story as any animated film. Young has talent, but prevented by the family from pursuing such a dream, the story is chiche and can be perceived from miles away and anyone can guess the unfolding of the story throughout the film. Stories were Pixar's strengths, they were simple for kids to understand, but interesting for adults to watch and have fun. In other words, the stories could serve both age groups. Coco has such a chiché and predictable history that it hardly needs other visualizations. Well, just seeing the movie once is more than enough. Still, the characters are interestingly written, I particularly like Hector, and the interactions with Miguel are excellent, Ernesto de la Cruz is the typical usurper of the animated films that has existed for decades. But still Pixar was professional enough to maintain interest in this drama between Ernesto de la Cruz and Hector, despite the chiche story between these two, it was well held the relations between them during the scenes of the film.
It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World (1963)
A movie for those who want to waste time.
I saw this one 10 years ago, at the time I could not get past the first 30 minutes. Yesterday I managed to pass the longest version - 210 minutes. I felt that I stood for a month looking at a wall. This movie perfectly sums up everything that is wrong in Hollywood. Excess. Excess. Excess. Everything in this movie is in excess. And Who had the sad idea in putting in this film more than 3 decades of actors, by just putting them, and what is the meaning? Answer - only to increase the ego of the producers and studios, who managed to make a film with a big length. The story of this film could be told in 40 minutes. 210 minutes is an oversized exaggeration. Everything in this film is oversized, and the jokes are so unnecessary (most of the jokes in this movie are not even fun) that more than 85% of jokes and fun times are forgotten even before the start of the third act. And for what? Only for the writers to present at the end a moral lesson. Spare me. And the end, we saw the protagonists (who look more like monkeys) dancing on a ladder of a fire truck. Horrible.
Someone burns this movie, please.
Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)
I really like the second Mad Max movie, it's pretty interesting and the atmosphere is unique, I am a fan of that movie. Mad Max Road Fury, it's just Mad Max 2 on the highway chase scene, but augmented. If it were just this, Road Fury would just be a passable and forgettable action movie. But director George Miller had the sad idea of transforming a series of action films with male focus, in a propagandist feminist product. Not that I have anything against feminists, but it's wrong for you to turn something that your fans like and turn into something different.
Any defense that this movie may have, falls to the ground. The defenders of this film generally claim that the film no longer makes any political comment to the feminist side, and the film goes on to value that both sexes are equal at the beginning of the third act, since Mad and Furious (and the other women) work together to get saved from the pursuit of Immortan Joe. It would be true, but the way it is done, it's too simple and execution is not good enough (considering also the size of stupid things, which happens near the end of this movie, in which I'll speak closer to the end of the text). Miller just put it in the film, to save face, if Miller had the courage and the quality, he would have developed it from the beginning of the film itself, to culminate in a quality ending, but Miller had other interests, such interests to win awards and recognition , instead of doing something of quality. With this, Miller may have won some awards from the academy, after all when the car chase scenes begin and that awful song begins, you begin to visualize the wind heads in the academy awards jumping off the couch and starting dancing and jumping like crazy , and they begin to rave how the world is evil and the fault lies with men (the academy has ceased to be relevant since the late 1950s when it began to take political positions).
Stupid, I know. If you do not belong to the rebel age group (16 years-26 years old) and you're not delighted with bad and second- rate music, then Road Fury is just a mediocre action movie with 3 scenes of car chases. Passable and forgettable. Not to mention Miller had the sad idea of leaving the third act of the film, with the characters coming back the same way they did in the first and second acts. Amateur.
I do not forget the lousy acting of the film, with the exception of Charlize Theron, no one knows how to act. Especially the women of Immortan Joe who have most quickly stepped off the walkways of a Victoria's Secret event (e.g. Rosie Huntington-Whiteley) and from acting, these ladies do not know anything, for sure. Or the 60-70 (with a body with only 130lb) years-old ladies coming back with Max and Furious in the third act, who begin to beat men in their 30s and 40s with 310lb of muscle easily. Or jumping from truck to truck, or from vehicle to vehicle like rabbits, defying the laws of physics. Even as an action movie this movie is pathetic.
Stupid movie, no doubt.
North by Northwest (1959)
When he went to Hollywood, Alfred Hitchcock made the movie Rebecca, which cost just over $ 1 million, and had a good box office run. Alfred Hitchcock just wanted to sell a ticket for the people to enjoy a good movie in a good section. After Rebecca, Mr. & Mrs. Smith also had success with the public, however it was with Strangers on a Train, Dial M for Murder, The Man Who Knew Too Much, Vertigo and obviously Rear Window that Hitchcock had its biggest hits in his Hollywood career until the mid-50's.
With that Alfred Hitchcock gained a lot of strength within Hollywood, and he got a big budget for this movie, North by Northwest. North by Northwest was another commercial project that Alfred Hitchcock embraced in focus in the espionage. North by Northwest was successful at the box office, but it was not on the same wavelength as his previous projects, which I mentioned here, especially Rear Window, and the film did little more than double its own budget. So Alfred Hitchcock returned to Psycho on a more modest budget.
North by Northwest, it's a good movie. It has a good suspense, the direction is very good by Alfred Hitchcock, and the performances are solid, especially Eva Marie Saint, who is perfect here. The great sin of this movie, for me, are the characters of this movie. Considering the important ideas and techniques that Alfred Hitchcock developed that could fill some books. I always expected more from this project. The problem with this film is how some of these characters were written, in this department I particularly blame Ernest Lehman. Ernest Lehman, wrote the characters in an amateur way, in which these same characters do not look anything like humans when confronted with the same situations that appear in the film. Particularly the scene with the mother of the main character, when she confronts one of the "supposed" hijackers in an elevator. From this moment, I completely lost the notion of a film with a serious focus.
And to be honest, the characters surround the comedy tone many times and in many situations, particularly in some situations with the main character at a mid-train station. From that moment, I completely lost interest in this film, and I just went to look at the movie just to pass the time. And waiting for the movie to end. For a film that wanted to be serious, and this was its initial proposal with the public, the movie was loses much coherence as a film. It was a disappointment, for me.
Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
This movie failed in every possible level.
I'm not a hater of comic book-based movies, and it is difficult, considering 2/5 of the movies that appear in movie theaters are based on comic book, if you want to see a movie with action and effects, in the end you always end up with one or another of this type of movie. Blame Hollywood and the mentality of wanting to get the milk from the cow in greater quantity in the shortest possible time.
And this movie fails on almost every level, first, the movie begins with a set piece when Thor confronts a fire demon, before this, begins a monologue of this demon on Ragnarok. Honestly, who was the amateur puts such a big exposition before an action scene. And in the midst of these two things, Thor begins to make jokes about being attached to chains. Honestly the editing of this movie is horrible.
And that goes for the whole movie. Another example, Odin ends up dying at the end of the first act, and soon afterwards appears an action scene with Hela. The public still barely chewed Odin's death scene - scene loses all emotional impact - a set piece appears which should have an emotional impact - the destruction of Thor's hammer - turns out to have no impact at all. Worse, both scenes lost their impact and ended up canceling each other out.
The editing is so horrible, the pace is so fast that not only the emotional scenes lose their emotional focus, the action scenes are flawed and the suspense scenes do not work and the whole movie is gone down the drain, in which the movie can not be chewed and the movie looks like a Mcdonald's meal. Just a factory product. In addition, the film addresses the destruction of a civilization and a race - in this case Asgard - of such a simplistic manners, and in such a hurried way. This film needs (at least) 3 hours for development and make an satisfactory establish for the final battle (considering how many subplots this movie has), instead this is a 2 hours film of second-rate jokes.
A movie to fill your eyes, but nothing is left in the mind and because of this movie is easily forgotten after the credits pass. Even the special effects are horrendous. The Hulk continues to be a digital doll and being made by a computer - what's the point of putting the Hulk in the film, but as a way to call more fanboys and sell more tickets, if the Hulk were not in the movie, this movie would make a smaller box-office and less money would went into Disney's account. Not to mention the big wolf, like the hulk, is a computer-made digital doll. The effects that should have been the decoy of the film are amateurs and lousy. Everything in this film fails. In other words, this movie as blockbuster fails to show grandiose special effects and action scenes, the movie fails at all levels. Look, I hate Avatar, but James Cameron knows how to make a great visual spectacle with great action scenes, a beautiful but empty movie. Thor 3 is rubbish at all levels, especially in its proposal (special effects and action scenes). And this for me this is the biggest sin of this movie, because this movie failed in all its objectives.
Lacks something to be great.
The original Planet of the Apes was a great movie, with great acting, but it was its end that was in everyone's memory. It was something not expected by the audience that saw the movie for the first time.
War for the Planet of the Apes, is a well-produced film with good production values, which shows well where the budget went. The direction is good, but not spectacular. Cinematography is attractive and competent, but nothing too much. The acting is good, but like the other departments, it's no big deal. The ending is good, but nothing much to be remembered, unlike as it was in the original. This is the big problem with this movie. It is well executed, but it lacked a bit of daring, something out of the ordinary, something that stays in memory of the people who have just seen this movie. What is common in modern movies, the new films leaves no room for imagination, everything here is explained, as if it were an equation, sometimes movies directors need to go beyond that, to get better results and be reminded. War for the Planet of the Apes is a film to be seen from time to time, however the lack of something greater prevents him from being seen more often. It's the typical movie, when I've seen something better, but I want to see something just to pass the time without being offended by the movie. For this type of thinking, War for the Planet of the Apes is the ideal to be seen.
Ce n'est pas pour moi. Non merci.
Films reflect the society we live in. With Avatar, James Cameron had a plan. Create multi-sequels and he could profit inside, and outside the doors of the movie theaters. When IMDb still had the forum open, I had said that James Cameron had a lot of endless sequels to be able to release in the next few years.
Avatar fans called me, crazy and last August, Cameron announced 4 sequels to Avatar. Oh, Disney has plans to open parks with Avatar as its theme. I was right. With Avatar, Cameron wants to be the new Lucas. What does this have to do with Valerian? It's very simple, Valerian, you could call Valeria: The other Avatar, or how I'm Going to Try a New Franchise, with Endless sequels. The strategy is the same. With the end of the series Taken, EuropaCorp had as a new franchise to replace and create endless sequels, based on a French comic. The same strategy Cameron is doing with Avatar, different source material. Same limited thinking. Instead of creating one movie, thinking first about the quality of the scripts and the story, you want to tell, but no, the goal is to create sequels to appeal to the public as if people were addicted to drugs so that they do not stop giving them the money. Without stopping to think about the quality of the film. The result is a forgettable movie, which everyone forgets, because there is no quality, and the film is forgotten.
Here, it's the same story of fairy tales, with a handsome boy, a beautiful girl, who in the end get together. The guy, who wants to destroy a planet, race or universe, and the improvised hero has to stop the evil guy. Same holes in the script, forced situations, idiotic humor, forced romance. All this wrapped by a special effects gift wrap, which in a couple of years, get old.
That to begin with, the stories of these movies have never been adult-quality stories, just for kids or adults who refuse to grow up. But we have the good side, Valerian and the City of Thousand Planets was a flop at the box office. Let's hope the same goes for the Avatar sequels. And the movies directors begin to think of one film at a time, first in script and story and special effects as an aid to tell the story and not as the sole and most important focus of the film itself, just to feed the directors' ego.
Blade Runner (1982)
Firstly, and above all a visual experience
I saw it for the first time, it was in 1996. It was the version released in 1982, I think it was that year, so in this review, I'll talk about this version made that year, because it was the first version that I saw. So to write a review, I will report the first experience.
I saw it for the first time and I was amazed at the visual department of the movie. A harmonious blend, with an exemplary cinematography. Incidentally, I was not the only one, because Blade Runner influenced countless people. It's a unique case where a quality of the film stands out more, which marks the film forever and the general public gets this impression. Blade Runner, and above all, a visual experience with little or no element of drama. It's a visual experience, and if people want to take advantage, they should leave that aspect aside. This is the highest quality of the film, the ability to enter the audience in a cohesive way in that universe and live a visual experience. It's like most sci-fi movies of the 80's, a movie with strong male influences. That is, you will get here, scenes of violence and some nudity to the mix. But Ridley Scott, controlled himself and did not let the train out of the line. Yes, you also have here the evil corporation, but it was done in a more discreet way possible. no exaggeration, of course This is the big difference between a mediocre director and a good director, having a good self-control. Putting things in your movie at random is too banal and mediocre.
The characters were well written, though Scott could not take much advantage of the great actors he had. Ridley Scott always had the problem of not being able to take 100% of the juice of the actors and put human emotions in his works, even in dramas (e.g. G.I Jane). But in this film, Rutger Hauer managed to put a lot of juice himself, especially in the third act, in the confrontation with Rick Deckard, which left the scenes excellent and striking like a great character. In the end, the film does not need much drama element, because there is something bigger here. An exploration, a discovery, that goes beyond the dramatic element. I think Ridley Scott got this great virtue. You get to get interested in the movie, even though it has very little character depth. This is because Scott, is primarily a visual director. There was not in the early 80's, director with better imprint for the visual department. And this for me, is a mark of success. You have difficulty in a job, however find other ways to overcome this same job or task. It is a high quality and a proof of great capacity. As the great director that Scott is, he finds it difficult to achieve characters' depths and achieve human emotions. He was able to create an experience almost 100% depth only with a single department, in this case the visual experiment. But let's be realistic, cinema is primarily a visual art. And like a visual work, Blade Runner is perfect at what it set out to do.
In addition to the timeless visual aspect of the film, Scott was able to insert an exemplary sound aspect that further helps the viewers to be inserted into the film in an exemplary and cohesive way. The soundtrack is almost perfect for this kind of movie, strong and simple. But very well built. The dialogue is also well written in this film. In spite of many clichés and typical of the 80's, it ends up disturbing the experience a little, but it does not end with the experience of the film, but it hampers a bit in the final balance of the film. This is the proposal of this film, and if the film itself is consistent with its proposal, why not consider the film, a good movie. In the end, if you can overcome, the lack of dramatic element and depth of the characters, and the typical characteristics of the male productions. You will find here a great experience to live. Even for the present day, a unique experience in its own kind.
Blade Runner 2049 (2017)
Pathetic. Blade Runner for the new generation is as flawed as any other modern Hollywood movie.
The original Blade Runner was a film primarily about visuals, it was not surprising that in the early 1980s, Ridley Scott had no rival in the visual department. Blade Runner was mostly a visual movie, with little or no character development. It was a rich film about culture and visual aesthetics. The film was pioneer enough to influence several generations of filmmakers, but also about TV series, anime, among others about a futuristic look. In other words, the greatest strength of that film was to insert people in that visual. It is impressive, that Blade Runner influenced several generations, but Blade Runner 2049, does not influence anything. Nothing in the visual department captures the spectator's imagination. Denis Villeneuve fails roundly in this department, everything in 2049 is copied and recycled from other people's works. Here there is no imagination, but purely a copy. Blade Runner influenced, 2049 did not influence anything or anyone. I'll just say one example. The director of the film created a young Sean Young, using visual effects. Ironically, this has already happened in Terminator Salvation with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Another unnecessary sequel to a futuristic film with strong sci-fi elements made in the 80's.
That brings up the question, who had the sad idea of creating a sequel to Blade Runner if you can not create something visually interesting and if the movie itself was a box office flop in 1982. The answer is simple, it's about the money. Nowadays in Hollywood, the studios are desperate to create franchises, which can attract people as if they were drug addicts, to go to the movies regularly. Warner Bros. already tried in 2015 with Mad Max Road Fury, and now tries to do with Blade Runner in 2017. It's all about money. Instead of trying to create something new, Hollywood studios try to create franchises, based on pre-existing films, because it's so much faster, easier and there's no financial risk. This is because movie budgets are constantly growing. And of course Blade Runner in its releases for home entertainment, whether on VHS, DVD or Blu Ray, has always had solid sales. Blade Runner was a hit on TV as well. Like The Shawshank Redemption or Fight Club, films such as Blade Runner were a box office flops, but hits in other media. People kept talking about these movies, even after they were released in theaters. You can not catch a lightning bolt twice in a row. This is because 2049 brings nothing new for people to talk about. It's a passable, forgettable film just for making money.
This is why, Denis Villeneuve not only fails to create an interesting visual experience. As a film, Blade Runner 2049 crashes in all other departments. Not only that, but Blade Runner never needed a sequel. The story to tell was all told in the first film. Blade Runner never needed a sequel to expand the story, just as movies like Chinatown, L.A Confidential, or Casablanca don't need a sequel. In a sense, this film is almost a remake of the first, done in an amateur way in the sense of modern blockbusters. The film begins with an unnecessary setup between the characters Ryan Gosling and Dave Bautista. From that moment on, Denis Villeneuve began to put the typical gestures and mannerisms of modern movie scripts. I say of course, there has to be the unnecessary revolution/revolt against the system (the similarity that existed with The Matrix), but, unlike the original, everything here is in excess. That is one of the biggest mistakes in the script of this film, is to transform a male film with a strong focus on sci-fi (sci-fi is not a genre that the female audience is interested) with useless dramatic elements. You know the same mistake that Denis Villeneuve did last year with Arrival, he had the audacity to do with the sequel of Blade Runner. Let's be clear, if I want a strong dramatic film, I see Schindler's List. If I want to see a male sci- fi, I see Aliens, Terminator or Blade Runner. Do not try to mix the two things Denis Villeneuve. The movie loses its tone. Not to mention, the silly lines of dialogue (and what you expected from the guy - Michael Green - who wrote Green Lantern), stupid I know. Despite that, the original film leaves room for the imagination about that universe and its characters (e.g: Jared Leto's character killing a replicant, just to make a point, or whatever). Who was the villain at the end of the first film, Deckard for doing his job or Roy Batty who killed people, however he wanted to live. In Blade Runner 2049, there is nothing to think about, everything is black and white.
This new film leaves no room for imagination, everything here is explained, as if it were an equation - at the end of the second act a character reveals to the character "Joe/K" that he was not the chosen one (as in many other sci-fi films) and the end itself is only a generic twist and totally out of context (as in Arrival) with a character that appeared only one scene (but do not worry about, the obligatory third movie is already being planned) in the original Sean Young's character was quite a while before the end of the movie. In contrast the film has totally useless scenes that only serve to increase unnecessarily the extension of the film itself.
I'm not going to write anything else, about this useless movie, that comment on the final battle between the characters of Ryan Gosling and Sylvia Hoeks. She also knows Kung-fu and says stupid one- liners ("I am the best" among many, or whatever). Trash lines of dialogue, we have here. To talk about the character of Sylvia Hoeks that does not reach the feet of Roy Batty. While in the original, the scene of the rain had a sense, because the character of Rutger Hauer wanted to live, this is why the scene is soon iconic. In this new movie there is one fight scene, just to look "badass". Once again, Hollywood had feminized a great and good villain into a woman to appeal to the female audience (say hello to Ghostbusters 2016). Not only that, the film treats women as sexual objects (the stupid hologram of the woman with pink hair), prostitutes or with violence. A film without its own identity, the film is not meat or fish. Incidentally, not even filmmakers know what they want. Pathetic.
Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017)
Generic, Boring, Fake action spy movie.
What a bad movie, we have here.
Everything about this movie sounds false, the cinematography is completely saturated, which at the beginning of the film, all the action sequences look like false and consequently all the excitement and adrenaline goes down the drain.
I say sewers. Sorry. After all, the main character at the beginning of the movie will stop at the sewers to go to see his girlfriend. Yes, that's where this movie belongs.
In other words, an annoying and boring action movie, we have here. Because of that, the film changes from set piece to set piece, yet the scenes are poorly structured, the scenes are saturated, with the pace to be slow as a turtle, which makes the scenes that should be fun to see, in empty action scenes without any impact, example each punch that a character gives to another character does not have any impact, so does not have emotion or excitement.
Not only that, as the characters have such exaggerated action scenes, these action scenes make the action sequences of the superheroes films tiny in comparison. Remember, they are not beings with superpowers, but simple humans. The feeling of danger or death ends up completely disappearing. And in the end, we end up not caring about the fate of the characters which are in the movie itself. Or better, the characters who had nothing interesting to connect with the audience since the beginning of the film. The characters are generics and poorly executed and written.
If an action movie, can not produce good sequences of action, for what purpose this movie exists, anyway?
This movie also does not convince anyone as a spy movie because the film is not serious enough and as a comedy movie, the elements of comedy are too bad to laugh, that is, the film still fails because the movie itself has no definite tone, so, is this a action movie? a comedy or a traditional spy movie? Apparently nobody knows, not even the filmmakers themselves.
Not to mention, the acting sucks too. Halle berry, should have stopped acting since the last 10 years. Julianne Moore, why are you here? You also do not convince anyone in an action movie. Stay in your dramas. I do not remember, the acting of the other actors. This movie so passable and generic. A film to avoid totally, to speak the truth.
American Made (2017)
There are certain things that should stay in the 80's.
And Tom Cruise is one of them.
Let's be honest here. Tom Cruise has never been a good actor, he just got where he is now due to contacts, his agency and especially physical aspect, to attract women and girls. He is a real drip. Whose only good performances is the good-looking hero who said good one-liners (Mission Impossible - a franchise that Hollywood created on purpose only to increase his ego, in which he is the only relevant character there), or the patriarch service, scenes of Tropic Thunder, are the perfect example what he does well, a guy who likes to be the boss and abuse women and employees.
Now with this pathetic movie, someone wants to convince me that Cruise can play Barry Seal, a guy who gets out in front of the government, a Latino drug cartel, drug barons, CIA, FBI or more than a thousand and one things yet to be made or discovered by man. Hell no. If someone at Hollywood want to make a convincing Barry Seal, bring someone with the caliber of Josh Brolin. That would give this project even more credit. And who had the sad idea to make Cruise the narrator of this film. I hate this one-liner, I'm the only guy, who always delivers. I do not even remember half the movie. The way the film is so bad structurally.
But Tom Cruise is not the only flaw in this project (this project was born crooked at birth). The movie itself was never taken seriously. What do you expect from a movie coming out after the summer season? A serious film about a serious subject, with a good script and a good acting? No way.
The movie is full of useless sex jokes typical of larger-budget films from Hollywodd, the Tom Cruise scene having sex with his wife in the cockpit of the plane is ridiculous or Tom Cruise's character constantly showing the "butt"- It's deplorable, I know. Or male jokes like Tom Cruise facing 100 or more Hispanics with a baseball bat. Incompetent scene.
The direction of the film is flawed, the pace is horrendous, there are some scenes too long, or some too short. The acting is too fake, especially on the part of Jayma Mays (the most unbelievable justice solicitor, I have ever seen) and Sarah Wright (the windy head, annoying, generic woman of Barry Seal).
Holes in the script (no one has remembered the corpse of the useless brother of the wife of Barry Seal, the police in this film is really useless and unprepared, by the way).
Not to forget how this film treats the people of Latin America, whose only humans that appear in the film, are drug dealers, murderers or pornography lovers. Or the people of Mena, that this film represents as useless morons from the countryside.
What a useless and terrible movie we have here. Someone burns this movie as fast as possible. I would not recommend it to anyone.
Logan Lucky (2017)
A waste of good actors, it's a passable movie, but it could be much better.
I recently saw Logan Lucky in theaters, and to tell you the truth I was quite pleased to see this movie. It is a very colorful film, with a very good and nice cinematography and also a very direct film in what it is proposed. It is a heist movie, it does not try to invent the wheel, but It's a nice movie because of the experience of the director, in this genre. But at the end of the day it could have been so much better. Clearly a waste.
Much better, nowadays, compared to the extravaganza of Hollywood, where often the biggest and most exaggerated, it is never the best.
It's a lot of fun, to see a lot of actors doing a really good job, especially Daniel Craig, Channing Tatum and Adam Driver, they're all great. The actors Hilary Swank, Seth MacFarlane and Sebastian Stan were underutilized. I think it's the director's personal signature, having a great casting of famous actors in his movies. It's just annoying to see pretty good actors like Hilary Swank and Sebastian Stan reduced, little more than a simple cameo. And for what reason the character of Hilary Swank at the end of the film, has to be the romantic couple of Adam Driver's character at his bar when everyone is drinking a drink together.
Her character is doing an investigation into the robbery, and one of the suspects was the character of Adam Driver, and in the end of the movie she's going to have a drink with the suspect, what? Because everyone is drinking a drink in a romantic couple, and the Adam Driver's character also needed a woman to drink. What?
Some scenes are unnecessary written in the film, just to put the movie with 2 hours on the market.
In addition to the unnecessary characters and actors, this film still makes two beautiful sins. First, why the Logan brothers and Daniel Craig's character brothers start a fight when the robbery is ending and the security is investigating the suspected appearance of smoke in the area, are the writers and director only setting a conflict, just to come out into nothing in the next couple of scenes, just to put the movie with (or close to) the unnecessary 2 hours mark, which is the rule of the market, in the duration of films. When you do not have a story to tell, you do not try to create unnecessary scenes, characters or conflicts, just to create them for nothing. Do not waste time on unnecessary things. There are many great movies in the past with less than 2 hours, more time does not always mean more quality.
The second sin of this film is the jokes involving Wikipedia and Game of Thrones, yes, I know, the Game of Thrones show is quite a popular series, but the way these jokes are inserted in the film, I feel that these scenes are even out of context . Just one complaint from me.
Still with these these problems. I wish I had liked this movie better. There is clear good work done by the director in many areas of the film. Especially for cinematography, and for being a movie that goes right to the point. Impossible is to deny problems and some wrong decisions. But there is no denying, there is a great loss of good actors in this film and some stupid decisions in the movie script.
At the end of the day, it's a nice movie, but the poor execution by the director and the poor script just leaves the movie as a weekend fun, only to be seen once, and nothing more. Clearly a poor waste of film.
Lady Macbeth (2016)
Because the movie has good acting, that is not enough to make a good movie.
Good acting is just one of the things that makes a good movie (especially from the part of the actress Florence Pugh), but not enough to save it if the rest is trash. A good script is the most important, and being consistent with the movie proposal is also important.
When I went to see the film, I already knew that the film would address the theme of feminism. Feminism has many layers and variants, but feminism in the most basic way was to put women on an equal footing with men in rights.
But what kind of feminism does this film address? It's certainly not the right feminism. Let's face it.
Katherine Lester is kept at home, closed and prevented from leaving the house, by orders of her husband and his father. When both are no longer at home, Katherine Lester meets Sebastian (the latter was harassing Katherine Lester's maid along with other men). Therefore a man with tendencies to harass and rape.
Instead of expelling him from home and work, the writers of this film begin to be delirious, and Katherine begins to want to contact this man (very feminist woman here). Including asking the harassed maid, the man's name.
Sebastian (at night) enters Katherine's room and has sex (forced with her). Katherine never rejects Sebastian or anything. And she continues to have sex with him (again, very feminist woman here).
Later the father of the husband of Katherine Lester, discovers of the relation with the servant. Boris decides to arrest Sebastian in the stable after having the man beaten.
Katherine Lester wants to take revenge, decides to kill Boris with mushrooms of the forest. The writers go full retarded mode, and after these events. The film is just scenes of violence and sex, by the way, these scenes are not good either, since they were filmed in dead angles and are quite dark to see the details (when these scenes happened), which the viewers have no total notion of what happens in the scenes. At this point, the writers and director of this movie lack balls to even do what they set out to do. A movie about violence and sex scenes.
And that's only half of the movie in question. The ending is one of the stupid endings I've seen on film, no construction to the end, no paid-off or nothing
But the amount of crap in the story (which has nothing to do with feminism, but feminism in its most basic form) is such that I gave up to think or care about the story of the film or its characters, because this film does not have any story, this film is just another film to be an excuse to put more violence and sex in irrelevant and badly constructed scenes. Stupid movie. Do not waste your time or your money on this movie.
Annabelle: Creation (2017)
Just another generic, poorly executed and passable horror film
Where can I find 100 words to describe this movie? A horror film so generic, after seeing it in the movie theaters, I have already forgotten the most content of this supposed "good horror movie".
So selfish and so poorly executed (for a budget of 15 million, better Filming locations could be found).
We have a handful of generic characters written in the most generic way possible. The traditional sick character of the horror movies (Janice), the only friend (Linda) that is with her and the traditional characters that are basically irrelevant to history. Why this movie has so many characters, but only 2 characters are relevant to the story (the two girls - Janice and Linda), and for what, does the other four girls exist?
In that, the only thing that make this movie is to have a useless sub-plot and the remaining girls are to be scared by a useless scarecrow ,by the way, this demon has nothing to do with the one that control Janice. Unnecessary, I know.
That leads to the conclusion why this film have so many characters and the only way to insert them in the main plot of the film was to create this irrelevant sub-plot , that only serves to distract the public from the main story, even if from since the beginning there was never interest of the writer to develop and create a relationship with the public and for this to the public, if these characters die or live is so irrelevant as the film itself.
The reason why films like The Exorcist and Ringu proved and were a success, it was because the filmmakers are focused on a single central character and created the story around this same character. A large number of characters never meant quality. Having a lot of useless people to the story adds nothing to the quality of the movie. Not to mention the poor acting of the main casting (especially from Stephanie Sigman). Not to mention again (without success or quality) that the filmmakers tried to copy some shots from films like The Exorcist and Ringu (just look especially when the kids went to pay a visit to the water well). A horror movie that will only satisfy the genre's weekly fans, but for the rest of the public, just another generic, poorly executed and passable horror film, with nothing new to bring. To be avoided, no doubt.
Baby Driver (2017)
A mixture of a film that sometimes works and sometimes don't
I recently watched the new Edgar Wright movie - Baby Driver. And I can say Edgar Wright's great passion for cinema by placing so many references into this movie with "parts" of his favorite films. But when the references become the film itself, the film loses identity and becomes just a collage without personality, being thus a inferior movie to the films that inspired it. There are so many references to other movies that this ends up getting annoying to watch the movie itself. References to Heat, Goodfellas, Bonnie and Clyde, Ronin and many other movies. Stuck in your face almost all the time. A hassle.
Yet, there are good times here, especially stylized action. But the characters were written in a stupid and chiché way, who in the third act, apart from Baby and Debora, the audience loses interest in the characters (it is irrelevant if the characters die or live) .
Especially the character of Eiza González - Darling, who in one scene, throws herself forward into an entire police squadron just to get shot stupidly and just to give the script a reason for her boyfriend, Buddy to go after Baby and Debora and want revenge for the death of his stupid girlfriend. A cheap motive to start the third and final act of the film (which only has violence and zero intelligence in the script of the film). Yes the movie is loaded with stupid moments, like the personality change of Kevin Spacey's character. That character throughout the movie has a cold relationship with Baby and when the script needs him to help Baby escape from Buddy, magically he changes his personality and he decides to help Baby. Just for the plot convenience.
Yet the chemistry between Baby and Debora and the good acting of Jon Hamm, Ansel Elgort and Lily James helps to keep the interest in the film until the ending (and give me a reason not to only give 1 for this movie). Even counting the stupid moments of the characters, the exchanges of personalities of these same characters, the badly applied clichés, unnecessary violence and the excess of references to other films on the part of Edgar Wright. Interesting to see once, but I will hardly ever see this movie again for the film itself and not for the countless and unnecessary references.
Christopher Nolan created an impressive blockbuster on World War 2, with the focus on survival.
The most important lesson in the history of our humanity, surpassed in genre, religion among other moral aspects, is simply the survival of the species or a human being in question. Our most basic instinct is survival and when we unite, forgetting our differences (as a group of Individuals, not nations), for the sake of our survival and our well-being, the human race shines in the most intense sense possible. The cooperation between several elements, to come out alive from a complicated situation.
One scene, caught my attention when a group of Allied soldiers were surrounded in a ship and this same ship was being attacked on all sides by the German troops. One of the characters was being forced out of the ship to see if the tide sea was rising or not. Out of fear, this character did not want to leave the ship, it was when an English soldier replied: for the others to survive, one person has to die.
The theme of this film is survival, especially surviving in a difficult situation, is in itself a great victory
Nothing is better expressed in this film and executed in a way with as much talent as Nolan achieved in making with this film. Not only by itself, the message is passed to the audience in a clear and perfect way as is demonstrated in small scenes that help convey this message and build a fitting end to the film itself.
The film goes straight to the narrative and action of the movie without losing in passing with interesting monologues, unlike Inception, a film in which Nolan himself created a character with the sole purpose of explaining the rules of this universe for the audience, this is the apex of Nolan as a Film director and he performs his work in a simple and exemplary way. So Dunkirk is his smaller commercial movie, but with the bonus without unnecessary scenes that could crumble the experience of the film.
The performances are excellent and accompany the director's talents (the direction of the film itself) and the script in a cohesive, simple and direct way, highlighting Fionn Whitehead, Mark Rylance and of course the very competent Kenneth Branagh. These excellent actors help immerse the audience in the cinematographic aspect of the movie itself to make the experience as real and emotional as possible.
Again, congratulations to Nolan for choosing actors relatively unknown to the general public, but outstanding in their work of acting. Instead of trying to choose famous actors (whose private lives are always in the mouths of the people and the magazines), these people are celebrities and not actors. For this reason I never managed to pass the first act of Saving Private Ryan. Spielberg made a mistake filling his film with the most popular Hollywood All Star cast of famous actors at that time (their lives were so exposed that it was hard to see those people as soldiers or survivors of WWII). At this point, Nolan fared better than Spielberg.
By completing this great experience, special and sound effects are applied in an exemplary way and these same technologies make almost perfect use of the IMAX screen. The technical and aesthetic aspects are very good, as it comes this habit in this type of film with this type of budget (105 millions). The cinematography is very good (almost perfect, like in most of Nolan movies) and the camera movements are agile and very beautiful.
See the aerial combat of the characters of Tom Hardy (Farrier) and Jack Lowden (Collins) in aerial planes that looked with great and amazing beauty in fighting against the planes of the Germans. A technical amazing work of Nolan and his production team. Amazing, no doubt. Especially on the IMAX screen, where the film shows all its beauty, and if there is a movie that deserves to be seen in IMAX, it is one, this new work of Christopher Nolan, no doubt. The ambitious ideas of the filmmaker and the great sequences in parallel assembly that characterize his works. Making the storytelling move to viewers in three different locations (The Mole, The Sea and The Air). In a cohesive, precise and confusing way. This film shows a great talent of Nolan, and it reaches his talent to create sequences in parallel assembly the characters of the film in a brilliant way. The soundtrack composed by the veteran Hans Zimmer is amazing, Hans in turn creates a memorable theme for the theme of World War II. Fantastic and great.
The great and only problem I see that disturbs the experience of the film is limited by the PG-13 and thus limit the blood and violence, for God's sake, it is a film about a war blood and violence are common. At times it seemed like I was looking at some scenes and these same scenes seemed so artificial and displaced from the film itself, like the scene of the soldiers corpses coming to the beach, or the English troops being smashed by the sinking ship (two clear examples that PG-13 influenced negatively the movie).
One problem that some people go through seeing this movie is the lack of depth in some characters, however there are characters with depth, but not the kind of depth shown through dialogues or exposition. Nolan wanted to show something bigger. And I think Nolan did it. Nolan created in this movie to show the question of survival and its consequences in the lives of the people close to war and the soldiers who were fighting in that war. He wanted to show us how and survival define us, and I think he got the message very well across this movie. Even for this, he sacrificed some dramatic depth. Depth for certain characters, however Nolan passed a larger message, which surpasses any dramatically deep element. Nolan wanted to get something bigger. And in my opinion he did it.
Nothing more than a Alien Rip off, with an absurd ending
Last night I've seen 3 movies in theaters, Life (2017) was one of them. To my surprise, this film was made by Daniel Espinosa. And I was even more surprised that Mr. Espinosa did not try to make this movie a sci-fi drama as has been usual in Hollywood for the past few years.
So what to expect from this movie? Firstly, the technical and aesthetic aspects are very good, as it comes this habit in this type of film with this type of budget. The cinematography is very good and the camera movements are agile and very beautiful. Daniel Espinosa's direction is interesting (at least in most of the film).
In other words in the technical department the film is very good. You can have a beautiful movie visually, but a movie needs a good story and good characters if it want to be a good movie ten years (or more) from now. The problem is that the script is fragile (one example, the Earth sends a spacecraft to push the station into space fearing that the contamination hits the Earth if the station falls on the planet, after a few minutes after this scene, this information is completely forgettable by the script) and full of holes, the story is way too simple and some acting is very bad. To start with, I've never liked Ryan Reynolds, he's a bad actor and his character is annoying, I think the director got this idea and because of this, Ryan Reynolds's character is the first to die (thank God). What a annoying and uninteresting character we got here. To tell the truth the actress Olga Dihovichnaya could have done a better work with her character (Ekaterina Golovkina). Her acting was very bad. The other actors are fine, however they needed more time to work on their characters (most of the blame is because of the stupid script). Especially the character of Jake Gyllenhaal.
Some lines of dialogue said by the actors are also very stupid (example the character of Jake Gyllenhaal agrees to commit suicide to prevent "Calvin" of contaminating the planet, because according to him, it is not worth living with these 8 billion stupid humans and he wants to stay in space is better for his life - ridiculous, I know).
But the biggest problem of the film is that the film is just a poorly made copy of Alien (1979). Yes, Hollywood copies another classic movie, this time - the Ridley Scott classic sci-fi and horror movie. But the this film can not maintain the intensity, nor the pace nor the amazing construction until the very end that the film of Ridley Scott has. What's more, the movie is full of stupid moments. One of the most stupid moments was the camera moves to the first person (too see through the eyes of the creature) when "Calvin" flies inside the station. What is the purpose of this? The only thing that comes to my mind, is the director wants to do these scenes to appeal to video game fans who play Call of Duty and other FPS? Ridiculous. Yes this movie is the Alien for the new generation that likes games and consoles and the same generation that likes to see blood and violence gratuitously to satisfy the ego.
What a lousy movie we have here, the icing on the cake and the absurd and unnecessary ending. In Alien (1979), the ending was a perfect construction from start to finish of the movie, here the director Daniel Espinosa puts only this ridiculous ending to give the air of the film wants to be different from the other sci-fi movies that currently exist in the market. That is, a different ending just for the sake of being different and not according to the purpose or construction of the narrative. In other words, an absurd, unnecessary and irrelevant ending.
Do not waste your money and your time watching this absurd movie.
Kong: Skull Island (2017)
Sorry, there is no king here.
King Kong (1933) was a perfect movie in its proposal. A simple, direct and clear message. No remakes or sequels required. This is why all sequels and remakes are always inferior in impact to the original. Filmmakers always want to add anything new and unnecessary.
In this new film, Kong leaves the territory of quality and embarks on a trip to the territory of blockbusters, in other words, special effects and jokes (just watch the retarded and unnecessary joke scene about the Skullcrawlers name with Hiddleston, Larson and John C. Reilly) overlap the story, and so the film is passable and totally forgettable in a week.
Once again, Hollywood treats scientists as idiots when the character of Corey Hawkins can not even open a can of canned food and feels intimidated by a woman. Not to mention the macho colonel, who wants an unnecessary revenge with Kong, because Kong killed his men (in a casual meeting).
And not to mention the idiotic plans that Jordan Vogt-Roberts uses to focus the eyes of the Samuel L. Jackson character with the eyes of King Kong. It seems like the director Jordan Vogt-Roberts wants to make a kind of (unnecessary) fight in the old west style. Pure waste of time, as we know that the macho colonel, is no challenge for Kong, so why waste precious screen time with these situations? Because Kong's story can be told as in the original in just 90 or 100 minutes. And the filmmarkers have to put 2 hours of film and for this they have to put unnecessary situations and scenes.
As the disposable soldier of the colonel, who gets lost from the group, just to see Kong crush a giant squid (and then Kong eats it), then after some scenes, be killed by another giant monster. What could be an interesting conflict between the characters of Tom Hiddleston and Samuel L. Jackson, but that ends up in nothing. Because people are written from a stupid one-dimensional way (like the stupid macho colonel). That is, more movie time, for less story. This is because Kong never leaves the island in this movie, Kong will only leave the island in 2020 in the movie Godzilla vs. King Kong. Yes this movie aims to create another shared universe (MCU type of crap), and in the end this compromises the quality of this film. The filmmakers have their hands tied, because they can not put their best on this film, however they have to think how this movie will work with another movie from another guy, three long years into the future.
I went into the movie hoping to see a good and fun Kong movie, and I ended up seeing a crap and bad one, because of the ambition of the studio that compromised the quality of the movie, for the money. Not to mention, even as a fun movie, this movie fails so much.
You see, the scenes with special effects, you can see that the scenes were all filmed on a green screen. And the final fight between Kong and the giant lizard is even inferior to the T-rex fights in Peter Jackson's 2005 remake. Yes, the fights and clashes between Kong and the other giants monsters were better, bigger, more epic, more brutal and vicarious than in this pathetic 2017 movie. I'm not defending the Peter Jackson movie, that film obviously had its flaws, but in the department of special effects and action scenes (this department that does not save a movie, nonetheless) is vastly superior to this Jordan Vogt- Roberts movie. Even as an action movie and blockbuster, this movie fails in a big way.
But if you were disappointed, and if you were sad that you had lost money unfairly, you can wait until 2020 to see the rest of the film in Godzilla VS King Kong.
My God, that's why commercial filmmaking is in the mud. The commercial cinema has as main target children, teenagers and young people. And this is why the quality bar is so low.
Manchester by the Sea (2016)
Nothing new under the sun
This movie started like any other drama, the main character has a problem, where the story of the film has a beginning, the main character and history suffer a turn and in the end of the second act, and them is the end of the story (third act of the movie itself). In other words, like any other drama, this film follows the already very used old paradigm of Syd Field for scripts. A story told a thousand times before, the same way a thousand times, only the characters change and nothing else. The same situations, the same problems.
However I must say that the director of the movie at least had the idea of the main character does not learn anything (moral lesson) at the end of the third act. This earned points to the movie for me, at least.
The characters are interesting in most of the part of this film, but only three of them take advantage of the good actors that are in the movie , the characters of Casey Affleck, Lucas Hedges and Michelle Williams. The remaining characters are irrelevant in movie story and they basically do nothing interesting (basically they are filler for this movie).
Casey Affleck is good enough but only shows potential in only one scene with Michelle Williams. There are other scenes that his character underutilized, like the scene in the police, in which Lee tries to commit suicide, this scene fails, because the construction of the character itself until then, there was no indication that this character wanted to kill itself, there is not enough tension until that moment. Michelle Williams is also underutilized in most part of the film (she is annoying, to speak the truth, but she also appears little time on the screen), except that scene with the character of Casey Affleck (In the third act of the story, Randi appears with a baby of its new husband). In which both have a talk about their past and about their separation. In this scene there is a lot of tension, and the drama of the actors is well applied. It's an emotionally amazing and perfectly executed scene.
Lucas Hedges is good enough, not amazing, but good enough for me to sympathize with him, the freezer scene is pretty good, nonetheless. It's a perfectly executed scene to watch and be admired.
But this is the problem of the film for me, taking some scenes (pretty good by the way) where the actors can show their potential, the film is the same thing seen a thousand times before, with the same situations and problems. Nothing new under the sun. If you do not see this movie, you will not miss anything new that you have already seen. It is a good movie, but no classic or masterpiece level of quality.
Super Mario 64 (1996)
The most overrated game ever
This game came out in 1996, I went to school, at the time the game magazines did not talk about anything else, pointing out the amazing graphics and how revolutionary it was.
Gaming magazines and sites never knew what would be good for the market (the mass of the population), but they know what's good for hardcore gamers (gaming companies just need to put the entire budget for graphics in boring games). Or what it is fun for the mass market, but once again, magazines and gaming sites and geek (the minority) only care about themselves.
To please the hardcore gamers (a type of audience that frequents forums, blogs or youtube channels that speak in a professioanl way about games. Which are best sold games or which games are best evaluated by "specialized press", among other aspects), you just need to do something distinct to a franchise that already exists, as hardcore gamers play games with the mentality of a jobs instead of a hobby to have fun. Due possibly to the frustrated real lives they have (many of them have no father figure due to divorces). And they need to feel special about something.
They hardcore gamers need something different, they make them feel special (in the small heads of them, they think they can change the direction of the gaming market). But still, they are just a minority. A vocal minority (which makes a lot of noise), but still a minority, nonetheless.
This is a mass market, it's a business. This is not art. The creators at Nintendo are not artists, they are programmers. They work for what the market wants. This is a market of hundreds of millions/billions, and it needs hundreds of millions/billions to be profitable and stay active and well alive.
After all I was affixed in Super Mario World on Super Nintendo, I like everyone I expected a Super Mario 64 on 2d scroll platform. But with 3d technology for the scenarios themselves. Instead I received, a boring 3d game with high camera problems (Yes in this aspect Banjo Kazooie is superior game, however Banjo Kazooie is a game of exploration of gigantic scenarios). SM64 is a 3d exploration (collecting crap) broken game, and to collect coins (filler crap). SM64 should never be the sequel to the great Super Mario World.
In other words, there is nothing, in Super Mario 64 to be a sequel to Super Mario World, irrelevant if it belongs to the same franchise. It is not the label on the box of the game that matters, but the gameplay that comes within the game. And the gameplay of SM64 is nothing to do with SMW.
SMW was an adventure and non-stop action 2D game but it had reflexes to pass the challenges. In SM64 the character (In 3D) is floating on the scene, being impossible to pass the challenge (without mistake) due to camera problems, not because of the player, but because of the broken nature of the game.
Because the games are challenge in their essence, not art. Different than the hardcore gamers go around every place of the internet to preach that games are "art". The purpose of games is to amuse, not to make you think. The music, the art style of a game can be artistic, but not the game itself.
This game was a betrayal to all Super Mario World players, who expected one thing, and came out a completely different game. And so the market responded with SM64 having smaller sales than SMW.
Irrelevant what the creator of the game said. The gaming market is in charge, it's the market that pays Nintendo and it's the market that has the last word. This game represents the decline of the biggest franchise of video games, which would last until 2006 (launch of New Super Mario DS). This game represents all the arrogance of Nintendo (in wanting to control the market in its own will) and launch a completely different game that consumers and the market want.
And for this reason they lost market for the Playstation, and in all fairness.
Technically astonishing, yet passable and quickly forgotten
I like the beginning of this movie, the sequences editing, the camera plans are very good and the mix with the sound is great.
And the satellite orbiting around the earth, and that shows the localized society as if it was a mirror is very beautiful.
But this is the problem, for this film and other modern sci-fi. Underneath this amazing technical aspect, it is the same with the same plot and story seen so many times. Just to end up giving you a moral lesson and show great special effects.
In this case, the difference between rich and poor, poor live below, on the unclean planet, and rich in the upper world and full of opportunities. The world has become chaos because of overpopulation, and of course the corrupt and bad company is also here. That put the profit above the poor, for the rich to live well and with quality. Of course, these topics and themes already seen a million times don't help at all. Since the script is a mess. Who cares about creating a good story, if the filmmakers only want to create situations to show scenes that evolve the amazing special effects. Once again the special effects are in Film industry to help the storytelling, the special effects are not here to be the main attraction of the film or any film for that matter.
The main problem is not only the story be a huge chiché, but the execution is also done poorly with way too cold characters at the mix. Besides that, I think the biggest problem with this movie is the script that does not let the actors shine.
But to tell you the truth, the actors don't even try hard, it seems they are in the movie, only to receive the paid check and nothing else. Matt Damon as tormented person, and no one is convinced. Jodie Foster is on autopilot for the entire movie. And William Fichtner is an annoyance to see, playing the traditional jerk of any movie of the this movie. The action scenes are passable and quickly forgotten.
A waste, that served only to show great technical quality (special effects, sound, etc). But for this, We do not need talent, but a great budget. To create a good movie and a good story requires talent, dedication, and hard work. And this movie has none of it. A waste of time.
I Am Number Four (2011)
Dead after 10 minutes
There are films that are destroyed in the first 10 or 15 minutes of projection, this is one of these films. Only in the first few minutes could you see that this movie was going to be bad or garbage , but let's see:
1 - Dark and shady environments in a forest full of darkness. Necessary music, heavy and melancholic to create suspense. Music created for this movie, cheerful and to create rhythm.
2 - A guy with white skin and a menacing look chases a young man through the forest. He kills him with a knife. Filmmmakers do not have balls to show blood or blows. The body of the kid disappears in smoke (is this some joke?).
3 - Movie changes quickly for a group of kids playing at Beach and surfing.There are no developments, except that kids have muscles. Girls between the ages of 18 and 21 are half naked and come back to the party with the boys.
4 - A kid in the middle of a sexual act with a girl in the sea, is surprised by an entity or the same guy with white skin (chiché), the scene is accompanied with the sound of a joyful music, improper to create suspense or tension (do filmmakers really know what they're doing with this movie). I think the entity was communicating to the boy of his destiny as savior or saving messiah of that world.The entity leaves the kid with marks on the body. Again chiché.
5 - The kid has family problems, especially with his father. Again chiché and old. Development goes faster than a moon rocket. Without development, how I can understand these characters, or what they are, or what they think.
6 - This movie is dead after 10 minutes. Nothing on the content, emotional or technical level (special effects) will save this disaster. Waste of time, unless they want to see kids with pretty faces between 18 and 21 years old. This is typical, teenager movie, painted as if it was a serious movie.
Furious Seven (2015)
Movie for a select (but growing) group of people
I never understood why this franchise always made so much money and why so many people like it. Unless you like to see half naked women sponging on wet cars, cars with modified engines used in street races (and of course it's all done in a team of outlaw guys, the so-called "family", against other teams with people with similar desires) and to escape the police (police haters, they should inflate the scores here in IMDb), and to illicit traffic drugs and money, this type of film is not for you.
I have a theory of mine because this series remains strong in the box office and each film gets better box office than the previous film of this franchise. The secret lies in the breakdown of our society. When this franchise began in 2001, our society was morally not decadent as it is today, nor so violent. In the last 16 years our society has grown worse and the values of the old days began to disappear and our society and the moviegoers in general began to identify more and more ,each time, with the "characters" of this type of film. This is the only explanation, which I see, because every movie this franchise has billed every time the previous movie.
Not anything, in this movie at the level of content or structure that is worth as a film, whether purely as fun / entertaining or for possible logical/ make you think. Not a single quality exists in this film (or in this franchise, but actually beyond the seventh film, I only saw the second film in this series (which I consider absolute crap).
Anything. Plot is not interesting, shallow characters like a plate, unless you like what they do. Characters with generic lines and say cool one liner to impress the younger ones. Bureaucratic action scenes - two guys jump with a sport car at high speed between two skyscrapers. The damage is minimal, almost non-existent. Ridiculous ending. Chiché story and action scenes without suspense, tension or in a interesting way visually. At least.
A waste of time, at least for me.
Pacific Rim (2013)
What is the purpose of this film?
Oh my....I thought the destruction in Man of Steel was gratuitous, meaningless and excessive, wait until you see this movie. The meaningless destruction of this film, makes the destruction of Man of Steel, look like a child's play in a park.
Because taking away large-scale destruction and special effects (and I admit, the special effects in this movie are very good), this does not offer anything interesting, innovative, or at least something good and basic at least.
The story is cliché, generic and predictable -check
The actors do not know what they are doing (lost in the middle of the script), performances are forced and hollow-witches -check
More chiché elements and characters that an old clothes - check (The Asian girl, who lost her parents in a monster attack in the past, with the help of the white guy, finally gets her revenge, the white character has to show that he is capable of doing the job done, even if all things are against him (the teen spirit -never give Up, if you try hard, you can have it), The tough black guy, but with a good heart and a good sense of duty. The stupid Nerd character that has to explain everything, etc, etc...
Ron Perlman is here and he is annoying.
The plot is predictable, the action scenes are confusing, the story and characters are chiché, the music goes unnoticed, the only interesting thing is the special effects and the action scenes. Which for me are not worth much. Special effects are in Film industry to help the storytelling, the special effects are not here to be the main attraction of the film or any film for that matter. The movie serves as a showcase for showcasing good special effects. The action scenes are good, but confusing.
I do not recommend this movie, waste of time.
Being a different Super hero Movie does not mean it's good Movie overall
Where will I get a hundred words to describe this "movie"?
The story of this movie is basically a revenge story in a superhero movie, cliché. The reason for the success of this film is the type of character (which most Male audience in the age range between 16 and 25, will enjoy) coupled with spontaneous humor and the jokes with the fourth wall. Of course, the character may be a snort of fresh air for the sub genre super heroes (I do not know there was a sub-genre so-called Super hero/ comic movie genre), but for the movies in general, this here is nothing new to see.
Do fans of this kind of movies feel down, when we talk about superhero movies and why do they have to separate them from the "other" types of movies? Just because they do not to offend sensitivities? Or they do not want the audience to consider them a "inferior movie", so many questions, no answer.
Of course here we have all the ingredients that anyone in this range will like. Meaningless violence, even more so with super heroes. Seriously, how to create tension in a film of this type, where the main character has regeneration and if he is cut into pieces, it will regenerate. The action scenes (the most basic element of this type of film) completely lose their impact and tension. I like scenes of action and violence, but the filmmakers have to show the effects of violence on the bodies of characters and its consequences in characters' lives.. Creating violence just to show that it is "cool" only creates more violent people. Even focusing solely on this aspect of the film, the film is too stupid. With senseless action scenes. This film, even its most primary purpose, can not perform with quality.
In addition to the humorous, mindless action scenes, generic plot, the main character (fun but limited), what does this movie have to offer?
Scenes of nudity, spare me. Do not waste your time with this tripe.