Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Terminator Genisys (2015)
I liked the movie. There were a lot of humorous moments. The movie was well paced. Everything flowed pretty well. The acting was pretty good. And it was really enjoyable to see Arnie play Terminator Pops to Sarah.
OK there was logical "inconsistancies" - which will really spoil the movie if you think too much about it. But it doesn't get in the way very much unless you focus on it like a Literature major.
One thing bothered me - I question the casting choice for Reese. The actor who plays him - also played Spartacus Roman gladiator friend. Don't get me wrong - he's a good actor - but not someone I imagined who Reese would be - more dynamic, more alpha. Pity the original starz spartacus star is dead - he would have been an excellent choice.
Overall it was pretty good - but it was like one of those forgettable B grade movies - the whole plot involves them blowing up Skynet. Wasn't that done before in t3 and it didn't work due to networking?
Plus Skynet was more advanced thanks to John Connor Mk2 going back in time to upgrade things.
Anyway - don't think too much about it - its not Shakespeare. Its good to see Arnie back as the friendly neighbourhood Terminator.
Dumb and dumber
I liked the first movie, despite the strange allusions to Willy Wonker, and the Sequel with its introduction to the world of Victors which actually seemed a bit more realistic.
But the 3rd movie seems to be a glory fest for the main character and her love - a bit like Twilight meets Jesus Christ Superstar all of a sudden. Everything else - even the war - the other characters - take a physical back step.
I found it ridiculous that in the midst of a genocidal war, a technological war even - the main character can go rambling around doing her own excursions in a battlefield area - at one stage even having a picnic out in the open in a warzone. The Capital didn't have drones? They didn't have snipers? The Capital didn't have the radar or even a nuke missile?
It seems more like a wet dream dreamed up for the Socialist International. Look I hate the excesses of the capitalist system as much as you do - but having unarmed people storm machine gun stormtrooper soldiers who are so technological advanced that they don't have barbed wire barricades and where everything is hinged on the whims of a teenage girl armed with a bow and arrow fighting in a super advanced war is about as believable as a porn plot but not half as amusing.
This is a ridiculous story - best to watch this if you're drunk.
Nymphomaniac: Vol. I (2013)
A Great film not for the prudish
I'm a bit surprised by the number of harsh reviews on the film. It seems all the prudes decided to get together and watch a film about a woman with a mental health problem and then gang-rape the film with their harsh Victorian purity reviews - "OMG it has too much sex!!"
Good grief - you're watching a film about a sex addict - what were you expecting??? Tea and scones with Mr Darcy?
I found the film incredibly revealing about the human condition. Here is a rare type of woman who desires and gets what she wants. So what? She has sex with strangers and enjoys doing it. What's the big deal about that?
Isn't it liberating that a woman takes charge of her own sexuality and does what she wants???
Anyway I also found it humorous - take the reverse parking incident - what a powerful feminist image that was - here was a woman who took control of the man's car and did something most men assume they can only do - reverse park.
The film is also layered with beautiful scenes and images like:
1. If you have wings why don't you fly?
2. The father and his daughter in the forest - feeling the wind blowing through the Ash Tree leaves.
3. The dialogue between Joe and Seligman - I found their accents and conversation beautiful and touching.
I was going to leave a 8/10 review... but seeing all the ghastly puritanical reviews that give it a 1 rating. I'm going to give it 10.
Two things I didn't like about the film was the heavy metal music used at the start. I thought it was inappropriate and set the wrong tone for the film. But that is a simple error easily rectified by replacing the soundtrack with a piano piece by Chopin - like "Raindrops" otherwise known as Preludes, Op 28, No. 15.
The choice of Joe's lover - the actor Shia LeBeouf. He just didn't seem to fit the bill for me. Someone like Jude Law (younger actor of course) would have been preferable.
La migliore offerta (2013)
Gary Oldman please
I loved the show. It had a great deal of drama, suspense, intrigue and a tantalizing whiff of the supernatural.
The decor, the presentation of "The Auctioneer" was just impressively spectacular.
But... and I do love Geoffrey Rush's acting ... I'm afraid he came across as a little too try hard - esp in the confrontation scenes. I didn't find it believable. He just seemed a little too fake.
I think Gary Oldman (Tinker, Tailor) would have done a better job at playing the role. He has a greater degree of finesse compared to Rush. Rush didn't play the role very convincingly.
Plot wise - I didn't like the presence of the real Clara.
Fawning view of Stalin????
Watching this now and I'm amazed that Stone is casting Stalin as a good guy without mentioning the fact that under his regime his govt was up to its eyeballs in atrocities.
Stone is trying to paint his series as a history that is complex and nuanced.
But without alluding to the distrust that the US, France, Britain and Poland had towards the Soviet Union which was committed to exporting bloody revolution to every nation - and the difficulties they had in forging an alliance with a communist dictatorship that had slaughtered 20 million of its own people - and embarked on a war against a smaller democracy, Finland, Stone is just giving us a 1950s Soviet propaganda view of history.
I loved this film. It was beautifully filmed - and the cinematography of the Mongolian grassland is breathtaking. And I found Urna's odyssey to repair her grandmother's Mongolian violin, destroyed by the Communists, to be very moving.
What I did find annoying is that there is the DVD release is only subtitled in German. The producers were too lazy or short-sighted to include subtitles for English or any other major language!!!! Unbelievable.
I've been waiting 4 years for the subtitled version to be released. But I fear it will be in utter vain.
Stupid plot so big a train could drive through it.
The thing that gets me about this film is that it is laughingly ludicrous.
Most of the plot is utterly implausible - the main characters do absolute stupid things - esp. in the climatic fight scene.
The villain has a bomb device which he detonates precisely at the moment when he is climbing up a ladder and Bond is directly beneath the train.
Bond places the head of the British Spy Intelligence in the middle of the Moor in his old home. There is no cover. And there is no way of the rest of M15 et al to come and help them if they are in trouble. He has no way how many mercenaries the villain will bring along. He doesn't even know whether the guy will bring along an attack helicopter or heavy weapons. He's just going to stay out there in the middle of nowhere armed with his dad's shotty, an old game keeper and his useless boss. Wow brilliant strategy there.
Its not as if they didn't have a choice. He specifically took the scenic route to get to where he is and even laid a bread trail for the bad dude to follow - the same bad dude that has been waiting 20 years and amassed a sizable fortune to get what he wants. He could have showed up with a freaking huge army - staked it out with snipers - killed 007 and just walked into to do a Ramsay Bolton Snow on M, not before pumping her for any intel on the UK spy network.
This is probably in keeping with the Bond franchise from the Roger Moore/Remington Steele days - but I thought that we had entered into a new era with an emphasis on realism?
I found the whole show laughable. Best watched after getting drunk.
I had to watch Tinker Tailor Spy 10 times to purge the memory of this shocking film out of my mind.
"Wallflower" was set in the 1980s. In many ways it reminded me of the old John Hughes' movies, "Somekind of Wonderful", Breakfast Club", "Pretty in Pink" etc. Its about a group of misfits in High School. Yup. The main character goes to a new school and makes new friends with cool people - ie. the class clown played by the charismatic Ezra Miller (who could have been played by Jon Cryer aka "Duckie" if he was 20 years younger) and of course the pretty Emma Watson.
For Wallflowers they all have "colorful" backgrounds which I felt was a lazy way by the writers' to spark interest in the story. Its as if I'm watching Marvel's New Mutants.
- spoiler alert - don't read any further.
I didn't feel the childhood abuse background story of Charlie really did justice to the story. First off - I felt that the suggestion that Charlie's childhood abuse problems makes him freak out (and someone who doesn't work out or do any form of martial arts and) can suddenly turn into the Incredible Hulk and beat up three school jocks in the cafeteria who were twice his size as too fantastical. OK, if he had swung a chair and cracked them on the head and run off maybe I'd buy it.
It got to a point when midway through the film I was seriously wondering whether Charlie wasn't stuck in a mental asylum dreaming the entire fantastic story all up. I mean he goes to school - finds a teacher who encourages him and tell him he's going to become a big time writer - he makes friends with the coolest kids in the school - and he eventually has hawt sex with the girl of his dreams. ... and he also gets to bash up the school bullies - Three of them in one go. I think it would have been funnier if they had camped it up a bit and got him to do a Bruce Lee stance.
The friendship between Charlie and Patrick (Nothing) was I felt one of the more interesting developments of the story - but the writers didn't seem to have the ability to expand it more than a WTF side-issue. Instead we have this childhood abuse trauma story being back scattered all the way through the film before it strikes the plot like the iceberg hitting the Titanic.
Was it a plot device that was suppose to help make the character more sympathetic or to explain his supernatural powers? Or are broken things more interesting? The story had a great question and answer - "Why do I and everyone I love pick people who treat us like we're nothing?" (answer) "We accept the love we think we deserve." They could have and should have run the theme of the story on just that eternal question, rather than branch off into Charlie's childhood trauma. I'm not belittling childhood victims but this sidestory didn't seem to help push the main story along.
I wanted to see more on Charlie's anguish and turmoil with Sam. That Sam's relationship with the University photographer ends just nicely for him to have a one-night stand with her came across as rather manufactured - almost fitting in with a school boy's fantasy.
So what's it all about? A Pleasant but muddled tale of clichéd characters. I liked the music though and the film had its moments. I liked the dance scene when Charlie meekly walked over to the dance floor to join and be accepted by Patrick and Sam. Come on Eileen - Lyrics by the Dexys Midnight Runners. Awesome song.
I liked the moment Charlie gazed in wonderment at Sam (Emma Watson). Haven't we all dreamed such dreams?
The Last of the Mohicans (1992)
I simply love this film! Based on a historical novel of the 18th century French and Indian Wars, Last of the Mohicans directed by Michael Mann gives a powerfully driven account of the lives of British settlers, soldiers and the Native American Indians fighting for survival.
Daniel Day-Lewis and all the other actors give an impressive and convincing performance.
The cinematography and the soundtrack were both epic.
If you want a good running music to listen to use this soundtrack. Each time I run, I can imagine myself running pass hordes of Huron braves - it definitely keeps me going!!!
Jude Law should have been Alexander
I'm not sure whether its too late- but when I watched the film I kept on thinking "Why didn't they choose Jude Law for the role (of Alexander the Great)?" With all due respect to Collin Feral he doesn't have the same charisma or onstage presence to pull this sort of role off.
You needed an actor who could help the audience see and feel how one man managed to convince an army to march half way around the world, and fight all his battles.
You needed an actor who had that aura, that beauty that Alexander the Great had. For a couple of centuries after his death, he was still worshiped as a god.
You also needed to have an actor who had that sense of arrogance, self-entitlement - not a bad boy - but someone who felt he had the right to own the world because he did.
And only Jude Law (circa 1999) could have pulled that feat off.