Reviews

587 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
10/10
Much Better Than Suicide Squad
22 March 2020
Make no mistake here - this movie is way too different from Suicide Squad - Birds Of Prey is funnier, wittier, more deeply sarcastic, faster in pace, grittier and much more entertaining. Hugely entertaining. With Margot as Harley Quinn constantly breaking the fourth wall and making the funny flick even funnier, it is one delight of a watch. Excellent casting (Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a huge plus), fast tempo, awesome soundtrack and great sense of humor build up an outstanding suspense and it all leads to a mighty final. A large improvement and a great hope that all possible sequels will be better after that
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Suicide Squad (2016)
1/10
AN AWFUL MESS
15 March 2020
My, what was that? I heard so many opinions and yes, they varied but I never thought my disappointment would be so big. 1. Actors. No, even Margot Robbie did not impress me, at all. She overdoes, overplays, over-everything every singly frame and shot. In fact, her vapid delivery leaves an empty bewildered stare - why. Will Smith? Nay, too formulaic and very badly predictable. Jai Courtney? Nay, too bland and very heavily on the surface. The rest is intermittently forgettable.Ah, yes, there was Cara DeLevigne, probably, the weakest and the worst choice here, as her delivery is painfully bland and pointless. 2. The Plot. Nothing new. You do this, if you don't - you Then we see lots of shootings, deaths and wild fights. Did we see it before> Yeah, lotsa times. 3. Video Effects. Not bad, Again, nothing new. 4. The Joker. That was the worst of the worst of the worst offenders of a hero of a choice of an actor. Shame, Shame,

Conclusion - awful mess, rat salad, barbaric stew,
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1917 (2019)
8/10
Very Good War Movie But Certainly Not The Oscar Movie Of The Year
15 February 2020
Sam Mendes took an enormous task to cover with this vast war epic - he decided to show just 24 hours of a war-torn day in 1917, April, through the means of a seemingly uninterrupted endless camera shot so that we could witness the whole event as if through the eyes of a main hero, Lance Corporal William "Will" Schofield, here depicted masterfully by George MacKay. Alongside him, there's a whole array of wonderful British actors appearing here and there, such as Mark Strong as Captain Smith or excellent Benedict Cumberbatch as Colonel Mackenzie, or equally superb Colin Firth as General Erinmore. This technique of a seamless single shot is nothing new, and here we see some obvious edits and cuts, which are not a tragic obstacle. Generally, the movie delivers the message extremely well, with a certain drawback being very obvious - the movie often drags and plods, thus losing much of its certain steam. Several blatant mistakes and goofs apart, 1917 managed to impress me, but on one thing I surely agree - this was not the Movie of the year.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1864 (2014)
6/10
Both Excellent And Faulty
26 January 2020
I have never watched any Danish serial before. Nor have I known much about their colorful history. By mere chance I have come across this 8-episode Danish series made in 2014 and dedicated to the events of Second Schleswig War between Denmark and very aggressive Prussia. The serial depicts several main characters staring from 1851 and coming to nowadays. We witness two brothers and their pals, loves and enemies in the turmoil of the war. Well, the premises were promising. But unfortunately, many things went wrong and therefore the film suffered major setbacks. Very weak ending spoils almost all of the asset the serial has built before. What is also bad in the serial - well, rather pale female characters, rather hasted finale, very on the surface depiction of some family matters - this all makes the anyway great serial pretty faulty. What was really good here - first, excellent depiction of all higher political echelons in both Denmark, Prussia and UK. The military routine is also shown perfectly well, almost up to the top notch. Military scenes are depicted so breathtakingly well that blood chills in the veins. All typical human vices are also a very truthful point here - we see drunken, stealing, lying cowards and also witness nationalists in their frenzied zeal. This all gives awesome promise, but weaker points bind the serial with heavy gyves and forces it to sink. My opinion - almost 50/50 - in good and bad. But since this is a really interesting piece of cinematography, so it must be seen at least once
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Tourist (I) (2010)
8/10
Don't Build High Expectations - And The Viewing Will Be Fun
8 January 2020
I will never fathom fierce critics who tore this light-weight and sweet thriller comedy apart. Depp and Jolie are very good here, their swift and obvious chemistry is excellent and a fun to watch. Bettamy, Berkhoff, Dulton all are great, as well. THis is a very simple and fast film with real guilty pleasure syndrome galore.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Clergy (2018)
10/10
Very Heavy, Extremely Serious And Deeply Tragic Movie
5 January 2020
Wojciech Smarzowski is a very brave and decent filmmaker - it was him who made a very tragic but hugely excellent war film Wolyn in 2016, and now, in 2018, he made another very bold move, and shot an epic movie called Kler (Polish for The Clergy), touching upon a very delicate, fragile and controversial topic as crimes in Catholic Church. This is a topic equal to those of Holocaust or Hitler's crimes in the USSR. This is a topic which not every filmmaker will ever think about. Wojciech Smarzowski took a very heavy toll and yet he managed to produce a huge, often overwhelming, very heavy, deeply tragic, extremely sad movie which displays a very bleak, dark and almost unbearable picture of modern-day situation with sex crimes in Church in Poland. Here we see three Polish Catholic priests - Jacek Braciak who plays Leszek Lisowski, Arkadiusz Jakubik who plays Andrzej Kukula and Robert Wieckiewicz who plays Tadeusz Trybus - we see them in various locations, different serious challenges and very dark moments of their lives. I am not to disclose details, this is a must-see movie, even though it is 2 hours long and is very unsettling at times, since the very topic is so unpleasant. I warn you, before watching - be prepared for a very tragic and oftentimes almost heartbreaking scenes, but the movie never lets you doubt that everything shown here is a sad truth.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Vice (I) (2018)
1/10
The Essentially Worst Movie I've Seen In Many Years
3 January 2020
I will not even spend much time trying to give this sheer garbage a decent review, since there is nothing. No thing, Nope Null. Void. Avoid this void by all means, I pray thee. To be in a more serious mode, I have to say this is very shallow, very weak, very lean, very thin plot, extremely biased and terribly predictable. The worst offence comes not even in leftist-Democratic propaganda side. Nope, even this can be seen as a laughable mock fest. No, the worst offence comes in here - this movie is a poor man's tepid and vapid rendition of Oliver Stone's Nixon. THat movie was a triumph of bold montage and decent drama, whilst here it is a clipped run via cringe-worthy sketches and awful dialog. Bale? Carrell? Rockwell& Forget it, their performance is lukewarm and lackluster. I'd cling to awesome Nixon.
2 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Don't Listen To Haters - This Episode Is Awesome
22 December 2019
I will never fathom choirs of angry critics and befuddled fans who are now vocal and loud in dismissing this newest Episode 9. We have watched this part yesterday in 3D and what I must say - this is awesome to the point of perfection. This impeccable part is a very fast, smooth, elegant and sharp marathon (almost 3 hours whistle by) through the familiar territory with all the fresh thrills and surprised galore. Everything is this Saga part shines - excellent cast, with great late lamented Carrie Fisher, splendid Mark Hammil, Daisy Ridley, Adam Driver, John Boyega, among others. I must also stress the point that Daisy is a Huge Star now, she is the very correct choice of the main hero, and she is apple of an eye with all due praise. The deep, humorous, often touching, often sad, often exciting part runs at full speed never giving one a moment to breathe. So full and so complete it is. Enjoy and get it, you'll not regret this marvelous episode. My rating is 10 out of 10
21 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Goldfinch (2019)
1/10
Hollow Lifeless Drag
30 November 2019
The novel by Donna Tartt was and is a masterpiece. The movie is not. I would not spare much of your time by wasting it on such hollow and bloodless mess as The Goldfinch is. The story - dragging slowly for 2 endless painful hours. The casting - Nicole, Sarah and Luke were okay, The rest is just a stale shade of the pale shadow. The music is similarly boring, and the long shots only add to sepia-tones misery of a film. My general impression was that of a yawning shock - wow, are you serious here, blokes. They are deadly serious by making this slimey slow sloth of a movie. One great asset - this movie muust be shown as a prime example of how to slay a great book. I was kust making myself watch this bloating bog, I almost feel aleep. Which happens very seldom. To cape it all - miserable flop. Scenes which are not held together and which are just strange snippets with no general thread sewn on them.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sherlock (2010– )
1/10
I Tried Very Hard But I Disliked It
5 November 2019
With American Elementary, with awesome old Soviet multi-series TV film, with countless movie adaptations, this British take may seem a curious curio (pun intended) but it veers so wantonly on the brink of low taste, weird plot, weak twists and mindless choices that it finally plops on miserably in the realm of utter failure. The biggest weakness is Martin Freeman as Jogn Watson.Notmore than a talking unit of moving furniture he seems to be, but this is who he actually is all through the serial. Benedict? Nay, pals, this is a barmy twicking weirdo with no deep substance behind and with no real liking induced towards him. The episodes drag mercilessly slow and weaker moments slay all the promising premises. The modern day ideas that appear in the series only add to the larger canvass of miserable boredom. Spare a moment to watch this serial and then you will ask yourself what you've just seen. I tried my best to like it, I failed.
3 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Devil (2010)
6/10
This Movie Begs For More
29 October 2019
This is not a bad movie, but still, M Night Shymalan could have made a better movie, for sure. The plot is good, and the whole elevator sequebce is thrilling. But... the movie begs for more, clearer dialog, deeper character development, nicer twists, quicker tempo and cleverer ending. The movie seems to be fast wound by the end, and thst is sad as much is lost this way and thus a great promose remains unfulfilled
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bring It On (2000)
2/10
2 Out Of 10 - And these 2 Are Only For Dushku And Soundtrack
22 September 2019
I remember liking this light comedy in 2000, but when I watched this flick again, I was taken aback by its sheer shallowness, simplicity, overcliched plot, silly twists, extremely weak acting, horrible weak dialog and very surface morals. Who can like it? Clearly - men who crave young girls in bikini, and here's what you see galore. Girls, who wanna be like main heroes. That's it. Kirsten Dunst? She is awfully weak here, too, plain and inconvincing at all. Gabrielle Union? Nay, too formulaic. So, 0 out of 10. No, wait - 1 for very beautiful Eliza Dushku, and 1 for music.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Dreadfully Boring Mess
8 September 2019
Hm, I have to be short and down to the point here - this movie is a total disaster. It is so bad and plin wrong at all aspects that it is just not possible to find any redeeming feature in it. Jim Jarmusch made an awful borefest, snoozefest of the worst kind. The movie is made so slow that it seems to be floating in some thivk, fat, slow treacle. Actors are sleepy, and it feels they are yawning in utter languidity. Not even great talents of Driver, Murray, Swinton or anybody else could help this mess to thrive. Is that a parody? Nope. Too slow and dull. Is it an art movie? Nope. Too shallow and slick. Is it a total disaster? Yes, sure it is
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Zamach stanu (1980)
10/10
Excellent Period Piece Drama
18 August 2019
I love Polish cinema of 50-80's - it was elegant, deep, decent, true to life, devoid of flashy effects and very much dwelling on realism. This epic movie tells us about May Coup of 1926 in Poland when Marshal Jozef Pilsudski seized the power from weak President and Prime Minister by the way of open aggression, fights in Warsa and slow steady progress in battles. The movie shows us a large gallery of politicians, military staff, bishops, civilians and soldiers caught in this bloody conflict. The battle itself is shown but as widely as the viewer may expect. No, the emphasis is made upon psychp;ogocal side, we see and feel the thoughts and fears of all those involved. The losing side is shown with great sympathy, especially common soldiers dying for some cause. Pilsudski is depicted as a cold, calculating officer with no hesitation and no remorse. Ryszard Filipski plays his part and does a great justice to a Polish hero. This is a very deep drama with much food for thought. Highly recommended
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tolkien (2019)
2/10
Rather Weak Attempt
16 August 2019
The third biopic in recent times, and again a very big disappointment. It would seem - well, this time everything should work out - the biography of the great writer John Ronald Roel Tolkien, so many details, so many things can be shown. And again, two hours of screen time, and the result is an incredibly slow, dreary and monotonous film, very casual and superficial, showing us either young John, his service in France in 1916, or courtship for Edith, his future wife. At times the film is well leveled, military scenes are shown very severely and accurately. The scenes in the theater, behind the scenes, or small (offensively short) fragments dedicated to the university period are also a succesl. And then - again, boring and very tepid pieces about four friends. Clearly, it's impossible to show everything. But how the creators of the film managed to ignore the figure of Clive Lewis in the script, is incomprehensible. The theme of Catholicism has been completely bypassed. There is not even a hint of the future ideas of the Lord of the Rings. The feeling of hurried and obviously crude script does not let go all the time By the way, the Tolkien family wholy refused to participate in the preparation of the script. What also speaks volumes against this work. My impression is that it is an unsuccessful attempt, but it will cure insomnia. Rating - 2 out of 10.
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Rocketman (I) (2019)
3/10
Rocketman as another failed biopic.
10 August 2019
Not so long ago, I wrote about the completely disastrous Bohemian Rhapsody, which showed us essentially a caricature of Freddie Mercury and the whole Queen group, and here on the screens is a new attempt to shoot a biography, this time - the story of the ups and downs of Sir Elton John. However, honestly speakings, I note that the filmmakers immediately warned everyone that "Rocketman" is not a biopic, but a musical fantasy based on the life of Reginald Dwight (after all, that's what Elton's name really is). What did we see as a result? Two hours (now people just forgot how to make short films) gallop on the biography of Elton from the time of his early childhood until 1983. What is most unpleasant, the mere musical came out, and I can't stand the musicals. And when all people around suddenly start to sing and dance - people in a cafe, a crowd on the street, visitors in a gay bar, it becomes very funny and even uncomfortable to sit through. But the filmmakers could not sustain all two hours in the musical format. The film either breaks down into surrealistic fantasies (a scene in the pool), then gallops through 15 years of Elton's career (a scene with a rotating piano), then sharply slows down and becomes almost dead in the languid dialogues of John and Bernie Taupin. Speaking of Bernie. He himself is shown very accurately, but the nature of his collaboration with Elton is completely distorted. And when actor Jamie Bell, playing Taupin, begins to sing, my ears start to bleed right away. But what about Taron Egerton, who plays Elton himself? Well, yes, he is very similar at times, especially in the scene with his mother in a restaurant, he sings ... well ... not bad, but he doesn't reach the level of John. And he overplays very much in drug scenes, in passion scenes with John Reid and in concert episodes. By the way, speaking of a gay topic - it is surprisingly minor in the film, there is, really not that much as one can expect. But the period of marriage to Renate Blauel is simply crumpled and slurred. Another big disappointment is the complete absence of the plotline of musicians in Elton's band.Very smart rockers played there, and their participation in the arrangements was crucial. And in the film they are just, as it were, some long-haired comrades in the dressing room , or standing on the stage with guitars and drums - and that's all. Then they simply evaporate and then again appear from nowhere. Well, the movie is not without actual errors, gentlemen. The presence of the guitarist at the early concerts was very funny (by then John had only himself, a drummer and a bass player in his band). It was very funny to hear the song of 1976 in 1970, and tunes of 1982 and 83 almost in 1969. And of course the most ridiculous thing was to think up that Reginald took his last name from John Lennon, and not from singer Long John Baldry. Well, yes, why go into the details of who this Baldry is, when the Beatles are here, and everyone knows them. Well, then why isn't there a concert sequebce featuring John Lennon? After all, he performed very cool there on the same stage with Elton. What we get at the end line is a very chaotic and slim fantasy on Elton's excesses, the entire plotline with studio work is almost completely removed, concerts are shown on the surface level, albums are mentioned very briefly, and as a result, young viewers will have a lot of mess in mtheir heads after watching this movie. My rating is 3 out of 10, only for the music and Egerton's efforts to sing. Well,a dn also for the classy depiction of the Bernie Tapin's part. Watch this movie once and forget.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Another Movie Which Failed The Test Of Time
24 July 2019
Johnny Depp is a great actor and man, could he possible fail. But herem bleak plot, along with vague twists and highly predictable turns made this old movie a very flawed effort, Another flop here is a very weak performancew of Lena Olin, as she does almost nothing here except for floating and smiling wryly. Other characters are not veru persuasive, too. Apart from very blatant goofs as for handling old books, and excessive smoking, the whole idea seems laughable and at times void. It also smacks of total boredom that Depp vivdly possesses while on the limelight. The story? Well, no spoilers here, sure, but it is so clear from minute 15 that the rest of this short (thanks God) film saves it from utter failure
0 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A Sorta Fairy Tale
27 April 2019
Seemed like a huge success - the Boxer Rebellion in China in 1900 could have been a vast promise for a film studio, considering also a star cast with likes of Ava Gardner and Charlton Heston. Large set-ups, virtually thousands of background actors, large money certainly being invested, and on top of that - an interesting plot. True? No, The very beginning makes the whole movie a miserable flop. Despite being about China and about Chinese, it shows us very few real Chinese people. Instead, we are fed with bunch of yellowfaces, very caucasian actors trying to look Oriental but just looking very grotesque and silly. As a whole, the movie smacks of being a very brightly colored fairy tale with predictable cliffhangers, bland dialog, laughable baddies and very heroic good guys. Ava? Gee, forget, she asa Russian Baroness, is the worst element here, being pretentious, fluffed-up, dour and simply weak. Heston? Nope. He is a typical, to the point of cringe, good cowboy laddie with heroic posture and stupid lines. The British Ambassador, played by David Niven, is a slightly better attampt, but all is ruined by saccharine maudlin family scenes and over-the-top emotions. Russians, Germans, Japanese, French - they all seem to be third-rate carucatures from an old magazine. Battle scenes are a little bit more captivating, only to be ruined by lousy editing. Generally speaking, a very weak and very unnatural take, with very little history and a hige chunk of goofs and details peppered everywhere.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Guardians (2017)
1/10
In A Word, Worst
9 March 2019
This is a very silly attempt of modern Russian cinema about superhoeroes. I wouldn't go long into deyals, just mention - this is a derivative, third-rate, worst sort of a terrible humorless pseudo-heroic scrap idiocy which will make you laugh your head off. We saw it all and why pay money on a flick with campy dialog, bad acting, repeated trite plot and hardly believable characters when we can see all the better in US versions. It's probably the nadir of all sorts and a shameful lambast of a lost slight potential.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Bombast Piece Of Sheer Junk
9 March 2019
Marc Bolan was a true glam star, a great singer, excellent guitarist an a very outstanding song writer. He created so many genre-defining albums that to see him n film and on stage wou;d've been a wild dream. Was it? Nope, sadly. Incredible fact is that no matter how cool Bolan was alive, on a silver screen he is plain boring whiff, his antics are laughable and his band is sturdy but nowhere beyond being jist plain. The worst aspect of this film is the non-concert parts with Bolan being jusr a buffoon. Ring Starr helps a bit as well as tremendous Elton John but they fail to save this movie from a more of mediocre haze
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Predator (2018)
8/10
Pretty Dynamic
4 February 2019
This is a very fine movie, add everything -er to any characteristics - this movie will be bigger, faster, gories, funnier, crazier, louder, and all. Yes, it is very fast and the plot unwinds very quickly in front of our very eyes. The movie runs very fast, and clever funny dialog is changed with very cruel fights. The predator is also bigger and much more fierce, and that makes it more engaging. The casting is also very well selected, and everybody works decently, so if you seek a fast paced enjoyment, go for it. Two warnings, though - 1. too many f-words, way too many. And 2. many plot twists are highly predictable. Anyway, wel done
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Nonsence
26 January 2019
The 91st annual Oscar ceremony will be held soon, in the list of the main contenders for a number of awardsthere is Brian Singer film Bohemian Rhapsody. I deliberately endured a pause, waited until the first waves of delight and anger subside, carefully watched the movie in the original, all of more than two hours and now I would like to express my opinion on this biopic. Remember the 1991 Oliver Stone film called Doors - there was still thin Val Kilmer playing Jim Morrison? After so many years, all the flaws of that picture become apparent. In the foreground, Jim himself, the other participants are registered superficially and as if passing by. Then, in 1991, Manzarek, Krieger and Densmore were somewhat offended by the fact that in the film about the group of the group itself there could have been more about themselves. And now the new biopic, now about the Queen group - one of my favorite and respected ones. I am 47 years old, and I found the period when the group still existed and released their later albums (1989 and 1991). Many of us watched the 1986 concert film Live in Budapest several times. We remember that real group, we saw Freddie on the screen and saw who he was. And those of us who started to study the team's biography thoughtfully understood that Queen is not only Freddie. This is Freddie, Brian, John and Roger. All four wrote songs and played on a variety of instruments. And when Mercury died, the group quickly turned into ... well, into a parody of itself. Arguably, one can argue, but all later releases with George Michael, Paul Rogers and now with Adam Lambert are, in essence, a quality hack. The Queen were from the same breed as the Beatles - remove at least one member, and everything will immediately collapse. Then Ione can argue, but what about the enthusiastic reaction of May and Taylor on the film with Ramey Malek? The answer is very simple - another chance to bask in the glow of past glory. Name at least one thing from the post-Mercury-post-Deacon Queen and so on the same scale as the records of 1973-1991. Do even try to recall. So. Singer film. What we got in the end? Enchanting nonsense for 120 minutes for the audience of the 21st century, having the most fragmented understanding of Freddie and the whole group. An objection can immediately be heard here - yes, but in 4 hours the whole history of the group cannot be shown. Well, and who prevented to focus on, say, two significant moments in the history of the group - the recording of the 1975 album A Night at the Opera and on the performance at the Live Aid concert in 1985? Instead, we saw a chaotic race through the long history of the team, with incredible jumps from 1973 to 75, from 1980 suddenly in 1977, and so on. I have not yet spoken about the grossly factual errors. Among the most egregious are, for example, John Deacon on bass as part of Smile, or selling a van to get money to record a debut disc, or a completely wild moment learning a We Will Rock You song in the year of 1980, although the thing itself was written and recorded in 1977 or John Deacon, suddenly singing in studio recordings. Well, okay, viewers in their mass don't give a damn about all these delights, probably. Well, maybe the actors were great then? Not so. Ramey Malek as Freddie is not even a joke, it is a pure farce brought to the point of absurdity. A slender young man with very noticeable artificial teeth mannerates and grimaces for two hours, trying to portray a singer who, even in the years of same-sex relationships, radiated masculinity and strength. Immediately, we see a certain vocalist, who had fallen into Smile from where (all Freddie's early musical projects were simply ignored) (and by the way, it was possible to spend more time on Tim Staffell,) just as quickly changing his relationship with a girl for romance with men, and then throwing up absurd parties ... and so on, swiftly and at the top, skipping important events and moments of biography. For some reason, it reminded me of the hackneyed cliché of a number of books and films about the path of a genius - lack of understanding of relatives, the way up, excesses, painful searches for themselves, psychological drama. And yes, all this is present in the "Rhapsody". Well, but what about the other members of the group? Actually, can they save the movie? No, they do not save. May is shown as such a good-natured brat with no special character traits, Taylor is d epicted as that kind of cutie, worn off with one of his songs and suddenly fiercely quarreling with Freddie, and Deacon just looks like occasionally talking furniture. Oh yeah, he's showing the song on the bass. Next thing on him - silence. The critics are absolutely right in one issue - Malek is trying very hard, but he overplays terribly, the beautiful picture does not carry any content with it. Instead of a truly interesting team history, we absorb a bright and mannered video clip with small pieces of facts. Clip feed for clip generation. And one more thing - Live Aid was undoubtedly important for the band in terms of reviving interest in their music. But in general, they could even asa solo event gather 130,000 spectators, as was the case in 1988 in Brazil, for example. What can be said in conclusion? Alas, the film was completely unsuccessful, in my opinion - a complete failure. I do not recommend watching at all, well, except for fun. My rating is 1 out of 10 (I give a point for the music of the group that sounds in the film).
17 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Quite Good But Not Perfect
20 January 2019
This movie is a far better attaempt at war darama than, say, Operation Finale of the same years. Here, we are treated to a pretty decent war spy drama about Mo Berg and his services to OSS during WWII. Paul Rudd did a good job, but sometimes he is a bit lame and thus does not convince wholly. Jeff Daniels is strong enough, but he also lacks his drama depth like one he showed in Gettysburg, Mark Strong may be the weakest link in this chain as he does not succeed to deliver a more persuasive character. Critics were quite right - this is a promising affairm but it fals short off its potential and seems more like parts of its sum than a cohesive fluent fluid movie.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
When A Promising Idea Just Doesn't Work
20 January 2019
It seemed a very noble and promising idea - to depict a valiant squad of Mossad agents kidnapping a Nazi criminal Adolf Eichmann. The cast also seemed to be awesomely strong, with great Ben KIngsley and Ocar Issacs playing two main opponents. The premise is good, the setting is buolic and perfect, with Argentinian landscape being shown so richly and vivdly. The idea is very serious and must have been executed pretty well. But then, sadly, many things went wrong. Painfully slow tempo, very heavy handed delivery, overimposure of weighty dialog, occacionally weaker twists and slighter depicted characters spoil the premise. Then, alas, then this awful last-moment-on-the-edge-of-your-seat trite cliche at the end spoils it even more. Steven Spielberg could have made this much better, but he has his Schindler's List, Roman Polanksi caould have been also a better job but he has his awesome Pianist... so here we witness a very messed up dubious affair of lesser level and worse merit. Pity, as the movie could have been a smash hit a huge triumph. Instead, what we get is a very flawed slowly plodding tractor
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One Of The Greatest Disaster Movies Ever Created
7 January 2019
Roland Emmerich is a very uneven film creator, he can make an outstanding movie with awesome plot and great characters, ansd then he can produce a flop. The Day After Tomorrow is an impeccable masterpiece where all the numerous elements have come perfectly well together. The cast, with Jake Gyllenhal and Dennis Quade at the lead, with also Emmy Rossum and Ian Holm at the helm, is very well selected. And each actor does a very decent job, with a whole array of deep and convincing characters to add to a bigger picture. What is great, we feel for them, sympathize, sufffer and rejoice with them all the time. Some critics bashed the scientific side of the plot, and I can say, this is not a scientific moviw, but the message is clear and vivid - albeit also livid - the climate changes very fast and Nature can pay very severely. The CGI are awesome and we nevr feel fooled or bought cheap, the immense sheer power of wild wanton nature in its fill menacing glory. The movie is long but bever slow or boring, it hilds you at the edge of your seat without getting too preachy or ploddy. Highly recommended
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed