Reviews

This movie was as pretentious and empty as its titular menu.

I enjoy dark humor and satire, which it is supposed to be, but I found it neither funny nor clever.

At first, it was intriguing enough, but after a while I suspected that I wouldn't see anything more interesting than this surface intrigue. I was tempted to stop watching halfway through, but decided to wait and see if the movie had something more interesting to say in its second half. It didn't and it was a chore to watch it to the end.

I was simply bored, which is the worst feeling to have in front of a movie.

I would give it a lower score if it wasn't so beautifully filmed.

This movie takes us to witness the weird intricacies of royal marriages of old. This story (based on a book I haven't read) is a great idea and could make a great movie, but I was a bit disappointed by the result.

The movie lacks flair and I feel it might mostly be an editing and direction problem. Scenes just follow one another like it's an animated picture book. It's never really clear what the movie wants to say to us besides "look, this story happened". It is a good story, but not enough to make it a great movie.

The tone isn't very consistent. A lot of the movie plays as a comedy, as it shows the ridiculousness of the social rules of the time. At the beginning, I wasn't sure this comedic tone was intentional. Now, I do think it was, but, at the same time, the rest of the movie has a such a somber tone... instead of feeling like a dramedy, it rather looks like the director wasn't sure of what he wanted.

The actors are all great. I especially liked Igor van Dessel as Louis XV and Juliane Lepoureau as the Infanta. Thomas Mustin gloriously overacts as the Duke of Condé. I couldn't say I didn't like it, but it's a jarring contrast to the seriousness of all the other actors. Similarly, Anamaria Vartolomei plays Louise-Elizabeth as a very modern teenager, while everyone around her adopts more historical manners (that contrast may have been intentional, but I didn't like it). So, again, it looks like the director wasn't sure of what he wanted from his actors.

All in all, if you're interested in movies about the "Ancien Régime", like I am, you'll probably find a lot to enjoy in this movie. But you won't find a masterpiece. The costumes and the sets are beautiful and make for a good immersion into that time. I couldn't speak about the historical accuracy: I only noticed that they aged up the four children by a few years. It definitely looked historically accurate, but viewed through the lens of our modern age, where such marriage practices look at best absurd.

6.5/10.

I'm not against the use of a narrator in a movie by principle. Narration can be useful to set context, or, even better, have an interesting dialogue with the action. However, I struggle to understand what the writers of this movie were thinking when they decided that every beat of this story needed narration. I felt like I was reading a picture book. It really diminished my enjoyment of the movie. Too bad, because it's a good story, served by excellent actors (I particularly loved Salomé Dewaels) and beautiful costumes and sets. A lot of the narration could have been cut by being more creative with the script and telling us things in different ways, or by simply leaving a few things unsaid and trusting the audience to cope with some ambiguity.

I'm frankly baffled by the fact that it won the "best movie" and "best adapted scenario" César awards (admittedly, I haven't seen its competition).

Also, the little nods to our present time, mostly done by that same narration, were very unsubtle. In a better film, I might have funnier, but there they tended to annoy me.

Nightmare Alley follows Stan, a carnie with a troubled past, who realises he can get rich by tricking people into believing he can read their minds and communicate with the dead. He ignores all the warnings in order to satisfy his ambition and may end up biting more than he can chew.

The story is a gripping thriller, and the atmosphere will suck you right in. Bradley Cooper plays the anti-hero protagonist perfectly. I was never really sure if I was rooting for him or hoping for his fall.

Women play an important role in Stan's journey. However, I wish these characters had a little more substance, which is my main criticism of the movie. They all play their part in the story and then disappear from it, never to be heard of again. Rooney Mara's character, although important, is too underdeveloped, to the point where I wonder if part of her role was cut in post-production. I also expected more from Cate Blantchett's character. She plays a major role of which I can't say anything without spoilers, but her deep motivations remain unexplored. Maybe it was intentional, in order to keep her as a mysterious femme fatale, but if I was, then I don't really agree with the decision.

This movie is well worth seeing, even several times, but I don't think it will be remembered as a masterpiece.

Sports movies are about overcoming obstacles and finding strength in a team. This movie is no exception. The difference is that, this time, the team is going to the Gay Games, an international competition that celebrate LGBT people through sports. And they're being trained by an outsider : a swimmer who called a journalist a homophobic slur and has to make amends. Being an LGBT movie at the same time as a sports movie makes it possible to join two concepts from these two genres : the sports team, and the LGBT « found family ». The character of the trainer is then put as a contrast, as he becomes part of the team against his will, but does it for his own personal motives, not for the team members. Of course, he is a complex character who is also given the opportunity to evolve through the course of the movie. The obstacles that the team and its members have to face are varied, and all seen through a LGBT lens, although they avoid being reductible to « LGBT problems ». This allows the characters to be multi-dimensional : being gay (or trans in the case of one character) is a big part of their identity and of the movie (and of course they unfortunately have to deal with homophobia and transphobia), but it isn't their only defining characteristic, and they all live their gay-ness differently anyway. I don't want to say too much about the characters' issues because getting to know them is part of the journey. Some parts of the movie are a bit cliché, or, better said, predictable, but I doesn't take away the emotional core of the movie, which is, I think, above all about the ability of accepting yourself (even in the face of intolerance) and the importance of support among friends. I must say that, at the beginning of the movie, I was a bit disconcerted by some (not all) of the performances, which I found a little flat. However, this problem didn't last and I became entirely caught in the story. The last scene made me very emotional ; emotions which were only accentuated by the perfect music choice for the credits (Kid, by Eddy de Pretto, always makes me emotional). Even with the inherent sadness from a movie that deals with homophobia, illness and heartbreak, it still is a « feel-good » movie that makes you feel like you can be brave and live your dreams I very much recommend it.

I have never seen the original play or movie, so I'm not making a comparison. I think the main problem of this movie is that it lacks in rhythm. It felt too long despite being only an hour and a half. However, I still had a good time watching it. There are some true laugh-out-loud moments and everyone gives a good comedic performance. Also, the costumes and sets are gorgeous. Apparently, there have been a lot of changes from the original story, but I thought this story was good. My rhythm issue came more from some of the dialogue and the editing, I think. You won't be wasting your time watching it, but don't expect a masterpiece.

I know that a lot of fans of the comics were disappointed by this movie, because it didn't adapt the characters well. However, as someone who doesn't really know the source material, I found it very entertaining. I especially enjoyed the performances by all the actors, and especially the main ones Keanu Reeves and Rachel Weisz. The special effects were good and still held up 15 years later. The script was sometimes a bit exposition-heavy and sometimes a bit confusing, going from one thing to another, but globally it told an engaging story that wasn't filled with clichés and even had a satisfying ending. As entertainment (it's not supposed to be a movie that makes you think), it does a great job of bringing you into its world and forget about anything else for the duration of the story.

This movie is fantastic. I found it very scary and suspenseful, but most of the tension comes from the acting and the music. There isn't any blood, violence, jump scares, etc. It's just the story and the atmosphere that are very unnerving. I kept wondering how this was going to end (but I won't reveal it, of course). It looks like the budget was quite small, but the end result is gorgeous.

This movie is a new movie about Charles Manson, that adopts a novel perspective by focusing on three women of the "Family", who took part in horrific murders in 1969.

To show their story, the movie regularly alternates between two time periods or storylines.

The first storyline follows Karlene Faith, a feminist scholar who teaches in a women's prison and is sent to teach the three "Manson women" detained in an isolated wing. She feels empathy for these young women, despite their horrific crimes, and tries to give them back a sense of individuality. It is to note that the real Karlene Faith's book on this subject ("The Long Prison Journey of Leslie Van Houten") was one of the sources for the movie.

The second storyline takes us back to the ranch where the Family lived. It focuses mainly on Leslie (later re-baptized "Lulu" by Charles Manson), from her first arrival at the ranch and meeting of Manson, to her participation in the murders.

Where this movie succeeds particularly is in recreating a particular atmosphere. Every aspect contributes to that: the acting, the music, the filming. It almost has a documentary feel, in that it's very naturalistic and subdued. Nothing is over-the-top. No "crazy" acting, no over-dramatic music to tell us how to feel, no fancy camera tricks.

I have to make a particular mention of Matt Smith in Manson's role. Although Charles Manson isn't the main character here, he is the central pivot of the story, and Matt Smith plays him masterfully as a magnetic and dangerous man. It is not hard to believe that people would be attracted to his cult, although his moral ugliness isn't hidden.

The scenes at the ranch take us back to the late 60s, hippie era, as if we were living it with the characters. The scenes in the prison also have their own atmosphere, where it's almost palpable how much the women are still living in Manson's world despite being locked in grey prison cells.

My only criticism of this movie is that the ending felt a bit rushed, which left me a bit unsatisfied. However, I would not hesitate to recommend this movie to anyone who is interested in cults, or the 60s, or specifically Charles Manson. One little word of warning: the final part of the movie, as is to be expected, does portray some murders and, although it is done in a respectful way, these scenes are distressing.

As I am writing this review, Avengers: Endgame is breaking box-office records as the culmination of 11 years of the MCU. Marvel Studios has become a juggernaut that seemingly nothing can ever stop. When The Incredible Hulk came out in 2008, the second movie of the so-called « Phase 1 » after Iron Man, such a success was merely a hope, if it was envisaged at all.

However, this movie is an oddity in the MCU. It isn't considered an essential watch, a lot of people just forget about it, or simply have never seen it. And this isn't very suprising, as The Incredible Hulk has a completely different feel as any other MCU movie. There are no vibrant colors, jokes are few and far between, and, supreme heresy, it doesn't even feature the beloved Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner / the Hulk. Despite that, I think this movie should be more recognized by Marvel enthusiasts.

For one, I was surprised at the number of foreshadowing in it. Despite its reputation, it is very clear, watching now, that it was definitely intended as the beginning of a cinematic universe. There are references to Stark Industries, to super soldiers, to S.H.I.E.L.D., and the movie clearly lays the ground for a sequel (that never happened and probably never will).

The performances were strong, and I will single out Edward Norton, who left the Marvel boat after this, for reasons still a bit unclear. Watching this movie made me regret that he didn't stay in the role for more movies (no disrespect to Mr. Ruffalo whom I like a lot, as does everyone). I am a big fan of Edward Norton in general, from whom I have never seen an unenjoyable performance. That stays true for this movie. To me, his casting as Bruce Banner was an inspired one. He portrayed the tortured soul of the character exactly as I envision it, and with a lot of nuances.

The story itself isn't very remarkable. It's fairly conventional, although maybe not totally conventional for a superhero movie. I would say it's more of a thriller, about a man on the run from the military who are after his secrets and his life. We've seen this story before, but here the man also happens to turn into a big, green monster when his pulse gets too high. It isn't just a thriller, though, bu also very much a love story, which may be one of the reasons of its unpopularity (?). If that's the case, then it's a shame, because I found the love story actually well done. There was a real chemistry between Edward Norton and Liv Tyler, who portrayed a sweet, but capable Betty Ross, and there wasn't a moment where I didn't believe that these two characters were completely in love.

What this movie might be criticized for, is a lack of the titular Hulk. It's true that it's mainly Banner's story. However, the scenes in which the Hulk appears are very satisfying. I must say I was impressed by the CGI. It isn't as modern as what we're used to see nowadays, but still very good. In a movie with such a realistic feel, it's even more difficult to make a huge CGI monster look like it's really there in the scene, but I though that it worked perfectly.

This movie definitely is the odd one out in regards to the whole MCU, but I think it deserves not to be forgotten or dismissed. Not only is its quality on par with other, more popular Marvel movies, it is also our only Hulk solo movie, and it will stay so for the foreseeable future, due to the distribution deal between Marvel and Universal. So, if you're taking a nostalgia trip through the history of the MCU, or if you're only just now starting to delve into this cinematic universe, don't skip the Incredible Hulk.

I had heard so much about how brilliant this movie was. I finally watched it and I hated it.

I give it 4 stars and not 1 because I thought it was filmed beautifully and the three leads gave great performances.

But now here's what I didn't like.

My main criticism is that this movie does not make sense. The story is incoherent and incomprehensible. There are visuals that look like symbolism, but are not related to anything. It looks like a movie that was supposed to be twice as long and was heavily cut, losing its meaning in the process. Maybe that's what happened?

Another thing that annoyed me, especially in the first part of the movie, is the editing. Why so many dissolves? It was seriously making me dizzy. Also, the editing of all the dialogue scenes at the beginning, which are already very slow, got on my nerves. This unchanging alternance of reverse shots was making me crazy. In fact, I even wondered if all of this was a conscious choice to unsettle the viewer. But I was mainly annoyed.

Last, but not least, this movie isn't scary! Why did I wait all these years to watch it, for fear of being traumatized? Sure there were very good jump scares. But making me jump is not the same as scaring me. Some of the "scary" visuals, as I already complained earlier, were so unrelated to anything that they made me laugh rather than scaring me. And I didn't feel any tension because nothing in the story made sense to me. It was all disjointed and weird.

I had always avoided this movie because it is based on a French movie that I consider to be one of the funniest comedies of all time.

Now I've seen it, I think many reviews here are very unfair. I see a lot of 1/10, and many of these are from people who are saying that it isn't as good as the original.

Is it as good? No, I don't think so. But I it's still a good movie, and I think saying it has no merits whatsoever is a big exaggeration.

One important thing to know if you have seen the original "Le dîner de cons" is that this movie is not exactly a remake. The beginning credits say "inspired by", and it's very true. Sure, you will find some of the same elements, but the writers really made a new story out of the original ideas.

I did think this movie had flaws. For one, the beginning was really drawn out. We didn't need to see that much of the backstory before the real fun began. The beginning wasn't very funny and it made me wonder if I had made a mistake in playing this movie.

Fortunately, once the story really got started, I was was laughing through and through. The performances are golden, and I think they are what makes this movie, more than the script. I'd particularly single out the two leads, Steve Carrell and Paul Rudd, as well as Jemaine Clements.

But I'm not throwing the script under the bus. I loved that it had a lot of heart besides the jokes. They made Paul Rudd's character more sympathetic than in the French movie, and I was sceptical of that at first, but in the end I think it worked very well.

Then, unfortunately, the movie suffered again from an ending that was too long and a little too over-the-top. And even after that, we had an epilogue telling us what happened to every single character, and I though that was overkilling it.

If you're a fan of Veber's "Le dîner de cons", or if you're a fan of any of the actors that appear in this movie, I think you should really give it a chance. It has a good story, with a lot of jokes, and a surprising amount of emotion. But don't just take my word for it, watch it and, as I did today, make your own opinion about it.

I did not understand this movie. While it is celebrated by many as a masterpiece, all I felt throughout was boredom. At first, I was interested because the beginning made me wonder what was going to happen, where this slow introduction would lead us. Unfortunately, the answers were eventually nothing and nowhere. I understood that this movie wanted to tell me something, but I didn't think it was delivering its message in an effective manner. I didn't even find the cinematography to be particularly beautiful or inspired. I did like the music, and I wish there had been more of it (the silence only makes it seem even slower).

I didn't know much about Drive before I watched it, other than it had been acclaimed in Cannes and that it was one of the iconic roles played by Ryan Gosling, one that is very often mentioned when talking about this actor.

Now I've seen the movie, I've enjoyed it, but I don't think it's going to stay with me very long. There was nothing in it that would make it memorable to me.

I'm not going to deny Nicolas Winding Refn his Best Director Award. The direction is certainly exemplary. There isn't one shot of this movie that doesn't look good.

Drive is, in fact, a very "artistic" movie (as opposed to a "commercial" one, if these distinctions mean anything). It has a dreamy soundtrack, stylish and moody lighting, a slow beginning, long shots, few dialog. However, it also has a minimalist plot, a lack of psychological depth and moments of gruesome violence, which, at the end of the day, make it nothing more than a glossy B-Movie.

T2 is more a good sequel than it is a good movie. With that I mean that it doesn't stand on its own merits. I can't see anyone who hasn't seen Trainspotting enjoying it. It's not bad either, but it lacks everything that made the first movie so good, the energy, the edge, the tightness. I liked it because I like the first movie, I like these characters and here they are, all back for more antics.

Where this movie is clever, is that it actually is all about the characters coming to terms with their past. Nostalgia. Remorse. The impossibility of turning back the clock. Even the new character, Veronica, which, by the way, is very good and doesn't feel tacked on, is here to help the characters do this. The movie is also interspersed, not only with footage from the first one, but also with flashbacks from the characters' childhood.

I don't think I will re-watch T2, at least not in the near future, but I spent two enjoyable hours and didn't feel cheated, even it wasn't as unforgettable as the original Trainspotting.

Only a few days after I wrote my review of Star Trek (2009), I have finished watching the three "Kelvin timeline" movies.

I found Into Darkness to be a disappointment, so I was very happy to see that Beyond is a return to form for the franchise.

It's interesting to see the development of the characters. In 2009, we were watching young (as well as alternate) versions of the characters we knew. Now, a few years have passed, and the characterisation is closer to that of the original series, while still staying its own, in continuation of the two previous movies, and not just a copy-paste job. The acting was as strong as always, and everyone got a chance to shine, more so than in Into Darkness. And, as I wished, we got a new good female character to complement the presence of Uhura in an otherwise all-male main cast.

I enjoyed the fact that this movie was, for most of its runtime, a planetary adventure, since the two other movies were more space(ship)- based. This way, it avoided a feeling of repetition. It also reminded me of the original series, where most episodes were set on an alien planet. The Enterprise doesn't have to feature in every part of the story.

The general feel of the movie was better than both previous ones, but especially a big improvement from 2013's well-named Into Darkness. This one had colour and light (and not just blinding white light). Thankfully, black leather was almost nowhere to be seen. The only complaint I have is that the resolution was too rushed (and a bit ridiculous in parts, but that doesn't bother me too much). It's strange, because I generally complain that blockbuster movies' resolutions are too long.

Well, in short, this was good and modern Star Trek, even if it wasn't perfect in every point, and I hope the next one will follow its lead.

At this point, everything has probably already been said about this movie, but I'll add my two cents anyway.

I've recently become a fan of Star Trek (TOS) and I liked this modern take on the classic show a lot.

But let's just start with the annoying element. I was well aware of this movie's reputation regarding the overuse of lens flares and I must say that that this reputation is far from undeserved. I have sensitive eyes and some scenes really hurt the poor fellows.

Now this is said, let's move on to more interesting aspects.

I wasn't very interested in the action sequences (especially the big ones), but that's my personal tastes, not necessarily a flaw on the movie's part.

I was much more interested in the characters, and in that respect I wasn't disappointed. I thought that we could really believe that we were seeing younger versions of the characters from the original series. The blend of truthfulness to the originals and modern sensibility was very well done.

My favorite character in this movie was Chekov. It helps, of course, that Anton Yelchin has been a favorite of mine for a while (I still find it hard to believe that he's no longer with us). I don't have enough words to say how much I loved the scenes they've written for him and Yelchin's acting. But I had been, before watching the movie, the most anxious to see how the trio of Kirk, Spock and Bones would be portrayed and I was more than pleased with the result! Uhura was very good as well, even if her role was somewhat small, and I hope that in future films there are more (good) female characters, because in a modern movie it seems weird to have almost only men in the main cast.

Anyway, the distinct lack of bad actors in this movie is one big reason why I enjoyed it so much.

The tone felt a bit weird at times. There were goofy moments that reminded me more of Marvel movies than of the Star Trek I know (which is limited to the original series so far). But I am, after all, a fan of Marvel movies, and I'd rather not have a blockbuster that takes itself too seriously. It is entertainment, after all, and we still had good moments of emotion and tension.

I can't wait to see the sequels, now!

Oeuvre_Klika out.

I am very disappointed by this movie. I gave it 5 stars because of the performances and production values, which were both very good.

Tom Hiddleston, of which I am a fan, delivers a great performance, as he usually does, and it was a pleasure to hear him sing. He seems to have put a lot of effort to put himself into the character, and I salute that. Elisabeth Olsen, as Audrey Williams, is also excellent.

However, the movie itself is extremely bland. Even a film based on real life events needs to have a story arc in order to engage the viewers. There's factual, and then there's boring. There was no story in this movie, just (sometimes very) short sequences from Williams' life in chronological order. The first half of the movie was particularly jarring, as we moved from one event to another, without time to feel the impact of one scene before the next arrived. I'm not calling for melodrama, but this first half was as engaging as a Wikipedia page. It did get slightly better in the second half.

For a musical biopic, there was a surprising lack of focus on music. Sure, we were shown musical performances, but we weren't shown a lot of context around them, making them seem more decorative than part of the story told. Maybe the film was made only for aficionados who already know everything about the country & western music business from the 40's? I doubt it. My biggest disappointment is that, apart from making me listen to beautiful songs, this movie completely failed to show me how important Hank Williams is in the history of music. If I had never heard about him (and before this year, I had never heard about him), I would be baffled as to why they felt it was important to make a movie about him.

I could understand their choice to focus more on Williams' personal life, if they had made it interesting to me. But the movie is as unemotional as they could have made it. The direction is so detached that I sometimes felt like I was watching some sort of existential comedy, a la Coen brothers. Maybe I'm slightly exaggerating, but I did laugh at some scenes that I don't feel were supposed to be funny. I could not be invested emotionally at all, with the exception of a very few scenes. I really blame the direction here, because the actors did give emotional performances. It just seemed that the director didn't want us to feel any empathy for anyone.

I'll start this (soon very positive) review by saying that I was very disappointed by the beginning of this movie. I'd rather forget the first 15-20 minutes or so, because for me the real movie started after that, when the whole gang was working together. At the start, I thoroughly disliked the humour and the rhythm of the story. It's like that part never went further than the first draft.

But then it really starts, and what a good movie! The story is solid, with a clear plot (not always the case with big movies these days) and no time for boredom. Humour is well present throughout and feels natural. The cast is excellent.

Much has already been said about the all-women cast. Even if this wasn't the reason for which I went to see it, I really enjoyed watching a movie that had intelligent and brave women as its main characters, who didn't need help from men (without constantly proclaiming it), and never showed more flesh than was necessary, even wearing the completely unsexy Ghostbusters jumpsuits. All four stars were given the opportunity to shine and show their acting and comedy talents. I wasn't familiar with any of these four actresses before, and it was a more than nice discovery for me.

Other roles were also well cast, and I must mention the little gem that was comic-relief and eye-candy Chris Hemsworth as Kevin the receptionist. He was perfect in this, and I enjoyed the fact that his presence as the only male of the team was never overwhelming in regards to his female co-stars, but that he still had his place in the story.

If only I hadn't disliked the beginning so much, I would have given a 10/10.

I had doubts about this film adaptation of "Le domaine des dieux" because of the 3D animation. Watching it, I was impressed by how faithful to the original drawings the 3D graphics are. They did a really good job.

If you know Alexandre Astier, you'll notice his personal touch in the dialogues. But that never hurt anything, on the contrary! And he stayed faithful to the spirit of the original work. I've never read this particular album, but I'm very familiar with Asterix comics in general, having read them during all my childhood (and beyond). If Astier had betrayed Goscinny's work in this movie, I would have been very disappointed. I wasn't. At all. The scenario is very good, and the jokes never stop coming.

I hope that the foreign adaptation(s) do this movie justice, but it's visually good enough so that I don't really worry.

In conclusion, I recommend that you watch this movie even if you've never read an Asterix comic. Just go for the ride and you'll have a good time.

I hesitated between a score of 5/10 and 6/10 and eventually settled on 5.

The performances are good, and so is the direction. The real problem lies with the scenario.

The final act of the story asks a very interesting moral question. However, that question is badly asked: the story is so outrageous, nonsensical even, that it hinders the impact that it could have on the viewer. A more realistic script might have made it a really memorable movie, but it just felt like a very long TV episode from a standard crime drama.

Until that final act, the story was good enough. It's failing at the part that could have made it great that eventually makes it just average.

I can't say that I wouldn't recommend this movie, but don't expect a masterpiece.

What a peculiar story! It's almost a philosophical tale, and certainly not what I expected when I chose to watch this movie (I haven't read the original work).

The Caine/Connery duo works terrifically well and is in my opinion the main attraction to "The man who would be king". Although the story was thrilling enough for me never to be bored, I thought that the direction lacked rhythm, especially in the first two thirds of the movie. In fact, I thought that this movie suffered from the same problem as some other literary adaptations that give the impression that they rest too much on their source material and struggle to find their own unity.

I've always enjoyed "exotic" adventure stories, written at a time where a big part of the world could still be a mystery, even if it means putting up with the condescending attitude of the westerners of the time. Of course, today, the Victorian Englishmen are hardly less exotic to us than their oriental contemporaries. I don't know what the tone of Kipling's short story was, but the movie, at least, seemed to me to be watching the protagonists with a distance appropriate for our time, without, however, cutting us completely from any identification or empathy (it would have lost much of its impact otherwise).

In a few words, I had a lot of fun watching this movie, but I didn't find it memorable. The actors' performances, on the other hand, are (the actor playing Billy Fish was excellent, too!) and they're well worth the watch.

When I was a little girl, I often played at being a princess: I would be very beautiful, have lots of suitors and live in a gorgeous castle. I would also be very clever (I would often invent the elevator) and a good ruler for my subjects. I would then fall in love with a chivalrous young man who had faced a great danger for me, like dragons, evil sorcerers or highwaymen.

I am a grown woman now, but somewhere inside me this little girl is still there. And she loved "Jupiter Ascending".

This isn't a movie to watch for its philosophical message (even if there is one) or for its social commentary (even if you could find one). This is a movie to watch and be immersed in a whole new world, be amazed by its beautiful landscapes, architecture, costumes, and by its cool gadgets (seriously, who wouldn't want flying boots like Caine's?) and spaceships. This is a film to watch and indulge in your craziest childhood fantasies, like flying, going to another planet, being queen of the universe, you name it, and to be entertained.

If this world created by the Wachowskis is so immersive, it's not only because it's well thought and beautifully designed, but also thanks to the cast. In this review, I would like to single out two performances.

Mila Kunis plays the lead, Jupiter Jones, an underprivileged girl who dreams of a better life. Kunis, with her good looks, could have seemed fake in this role, but no, she is credible and very relatable (and this is important, since she also is the audience surrogate). One common criticism of the film is that she's too passive. It isn't completely fair. Jupiter isn't an action hero, but an everywoman catapulted in a foreign world, forced to play a game without knowing all the rules. But she learns quickly and grows as a woman throughout the movie.

The most unfairly criticized performance from this movie is Eddie Redmayne's, playing the villainous Balem Abrasax. It's true that his performance is over-the-top, but this is because he plays an over- the-top character. Balem is a thousands-years-old power-mad psychopath who combines an unhinged mind with a complete lack of morals, and Redmayne portrays him very well.

The rest of the cast is great, too. Every character seems real, even the ones we don't know much about.

"Jupiter Ascending" also has good moments of humor and knows when not to take itself too seriously. This is all "make-believe" after all.

The only regret I have towards this movie is that it's standalone. I would have loved to explore more of this universe and its characters in a sequel.