Reviews

You can hate all you want about the plot or characters not being good enough, it is a must-watch in 3D in a cinema, it's a great experience and the "bad" about it doesn't drag it down to it not being worthy to watch that way. You could argue if the movie would still be that good without 3D, but neither is that the recommendation I am giving nor was it an experience that I had. The production is on a very high level, if not the highest we have at the moment. Action scenes were visually stunning and not repetitive. I don't think any character was cringe, they all played well. Towards the half of the movie it felt a little bit dragging, but it got better. Maybe if you are jaded with 3D movies you could give it a bad rating, but all I can say is that I had a great time and it is awesome to see what is possible with the technology we have nowadays.

While the connection between Bumblebee and Charlie (Hailee Steinfeld) offered some wholesome and funny moments, the movie else didn't bring anything new of value to the franchise.

It even messed with the previously established timeline where we see Bumblebee in WW II. Or what about the history we learned in "The Last Knight" with Stonehenge or Merlin in contact with a Transformer and here Optimus Prime is like without any further explanation "So, I found this planet".

It's an alright movie, but it doesn't guide the franchise into a new direction. For me personally, "The Last Knight" was the best one, even if it got really bad critique.

Honestly I have never been the biggest fan of the Tom Holland Spider-Man, it's not that he is a bad actor or doing a bad job, but the character sometimes feels so forgettable and unnatural to me.

The plot in this part is a good way to stick close to the comic Issues with little modifications as far as I know.

What can I say, it was somewhat entertaining, a dessert to all other prior MCU movies.

The humor was not as excessive and obscene as in "Deadpool", but just as light-hearted at times. Other times the movie lost a little bit of momentum. I liked the villain. Altogether charming comic adaptation, which makes me curious for sequels, even though I am not familiar with the comics, so I don't know which kind of super powers we can expect and I have a feeling that they won't be that imposing, but I might be wrong!

At first, I felt positively surprised, followed by a lot of ups and, alas, some downs. Overall it is on a similar level like "Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets", a watchable and impressive movie with some deficits.

I am an adherer of the character Alita and the visuals, but not 100% of the rest.

Even though some things about this movie, like the plot, some dialogues or Riz Ahmed in this role, feel a little lackluster, I still had a good time watching, mostly thanks to Tom Hardy and his ruffian symbiote who always had a quality line in stock.

Honestly, I have no problem with the ratings being low, because this makes you not go with too high expectations into this and that is the correct approach to take.

A feast for the human eye and mind, everyone working on this project can be proud of the result.

Every thought of criticism I have in mind, I can't utter, because the positive sides outweigh them so much.

Also, to my surprise, I got emotional during the end of the movie, because I could empathize with the message of it and this feeling combined with the great visuals really got to me.

'1917' is visually complex, filmed in one-cut technique, providing the impression of a one-take filming process, while we follow Blake (D.-C. Chapman) and Schofield (G. MacKay) through ruins, mud, corpses and other traces of war.

The two main protagonists somewhat remind me of Frodo and Sam since they all are young, anxious, unfledged and on a journey full of uncertainty.

Do not expect the movie to show a lot of actual war scenes, as it revolves around the runner quest of two young soldiers.

What a performance by Joaquin Phoenix.. What a well made movie.. It gets very psychological, violent, disturbing, atmospheric. At times the movie felt slow and I caught myself thinking "Yea, I get it, The Joker is a mental mess", but the movie picked me up again e v e r y t i m e.

You could argue that this version of The Joker is too different to the one of Heath Ledger, but I love that they took this approach. Also, we see the early stages of The Joker here, so a change of character is still possible and everytime a different actor plays him, of course the character will be somewhat different. They didn't try to copy, but give it their own mark. This version is vastly approachable to the viewer, they give an authentic psychological profile and I don't think it's ever been like that.

I haven't seen many Horror movies, but in terms of scaryness 'Halloween' from 1978 was scarier and 'Poltergeist' was maybe closer to 'It' from 1990 (not to compare these movies, but just that you get an idea). 'Poltergeist' is more of a fun spooky movie with 80's vibe, even though there were 2 scenes that startled me. Special effects were pretty decent, the acting as well. Before watching, I expected something scarier, I am a little bit disappointed in that matter, but it was still a nostalgic time travel to what movies used to be like back then.

There has to be a reason why the awaited Hollywood remake and HBO series take so long to be released. One might be because there are a lot of events in the plot which are questionable. It is a good movie to watch twice and to think about, has good production and actors. But if you'd argue with someone about the credibility, probably the guy against it would win. Would be a really good movie though with some fine tuning.

I often give solid movies a 7/10 when they are worth seeing and 'Donnie Darko' is a tad better than that, because it gets somewhat profound to the human mind. For me personally the whole topic wasn't new and I rarely felt surprised since there's more media about it which I already know; also I paused a lot during it since I didn't expect to get surprised. Still it's a relatable movie with good acting performances. I'm neither a 10/10 guy defending the movie to death nor a 1/10 guy saying 'Oh it's all so stupid and overrated', I'm just saying it's pretty good and probably better than the usual 7/10 watchable movie.

This movie is very easy to dismantle in categories such as logic and dialogue writing, yet it still has a lot of devotees. The reasoning might be because it is an easy watch action movie. Even though I found a lot of inconsistencies, it is still a somewhat fun experience.

I did not know about this sad and traumatizing part of history and therefore I am glad I watched 'Colonia'. I like when a movie broadens my horizon. The movie is not perfect and certainly no blockbuster, but it's still captivating enough to keep watching.

It's a b/w classic, the first of the series and it does look goofy at times, while still a part of the scenes look well made for 1954. The plot around it offers a nice drama, even if flawed and without giving anything away, I did like the ending. The music and Godzilla's roar stand out. Imagining movie history without Godzilla/Gojira is not possible, it turned into cult.

Actors were well chosen, e.g. Takashi Shimura ('Seven Samurai' (1954)), one of the renowned japanese actors of this time.

I don't know if it's the actors, the screenplay or the fact that it's Bollywood, but something feels off for it to be the perfect movie. But it does stand out and is worth seeing. Good idea for a movie.

I wasn't blown away by 'Layer Cake'. The twists this movie offered sometimes were too hard to understand or too insignificant. I rarely felt shocked. Also some scenes weren't quite believable.

There's a lot of characters and different motivations to think of, after finishing the movie I'd have to write down a character constellation to see if I actually got everything correct and I don't think that's what a movie is supposed to be like even if it has a lot of standpoints to consider.

Maybe it's better than I think it is or maybe it is worse, I'd have to put in more effort into a deep analysis for that.

Based on a true story, some things have been changed obviously. Main actors were born for these roles. Setting and plot feels very believable. Years ago I played the game 'Mafia' (1, not 2 or 3) and the plot actually has a lot of similarities. A must-see if you're interested in Mafia things.

12 jury members have been assigned to a case. Interesting and well thought through series of events come to light during the argument for 'guilty' or 'not guilty'. All actors have been chosen well and portrait distinguishable characters which are a joy to watch interacting.

A major point I dislike is that we rely on jury members bringing up new points about the case, since we did not hear the trial at all.

Still a classic and entertaining b/w movie which calls for paying attention to detail and having a precise look on the human mind.

There's a few points which had me thinking that either they were trying too hard, didn't make it fully believable, it was too random or it was not executed in the best way. Also some things were predictable.

Nonetheless the movie does keep you guessing and thinking. It is a twisted story with mostly convincing actors for the main roles. 'Lucky Number Slevin' is in the top quarter of movies out of this genre.

The movie does bring attention to the US medical and insurance system. Director and writer aren't playing in the big league and it shows. "John Q." feels like a standard TV movie with some good moments. I feel bad for some good actors in this, could've been a great movie, like this it's just okay.

I just saw 'King Kong' from 1933 for the first time after watching the remake from 2005. I enjoyed that it wasn't as elongated and also the acting performances were a positive surprise. When Kong appeared I had to laugh a lot but for it's time I guess it was good. Also the stop-motion technique they used for all the creatures was pioneering for it's time. It is an all-time monster movies classic and it's still watchable.

I heard of 'King Kong' but never watched any movie until this one and immediately afterwards watched the original one from 1933. The old movie really is like a blueprint except they improved a lot of things in the 2005 version and unfortunately also made some things worse.

Improvements would be the emotional part between Kong and Ann, obviously the added CGI, especially in the important scenes with Kong. And the production overall.

What was made worse is the length, 3 hours+ is too long for this one or the love story between Jack and Ann which overshadowed the connection between Ann and Kong.

Also I didn't enjoy the first half of the movie as much as I did the second one. There were a lot of things going on which either weren't believable or elongated. Some characters didn't have the right personality or maybe it's just that I would've enjoyed other actors for some roles more. Daniel Day-Lewis as Carl Denham for example. Paul Dano as Preston or Jimmy. I could put up a whole list now but I guess it would contain too many stars in one movie which also would be unrealistic.

It's a decent remake, has it's good moments, but it's not perfect either.

What's wrong about Aviator? It's elongated, Cate Blanchett is over-acting, the CGI is not perfect, everything's a little bit too Hollywood.

What's right about Aviator? Impressive performance by DiCaprio. Interesting character development. Good movie to immerse into a story.

Somewhere between 8-9 out of 10.

Takes a while to get going, but develops into a different kind of touching romantic story. Stands out in this genre. If you don't feel the connection, this movie will be pointless to you, but I think you'll feel it.