Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Sorry MGM. This is 2012.
Let's start with this. I'm a huge fan of both "Casino Royale" and Daniel Craig. In contrast with everyone before, he gave a personal touch in the James Bond series, being the first one to play the role on his own and not trying to mime Sean Connery. Good or bad touch, it's anybody's decision, but surely a new one.
Being very disappointed in Quantum of Solace, which was right after the incredible, and genius, Casino Royale, I was expecting that in the year 2012 Skyfall would turn the things around. It's 2012 after all, and James Bond has to keep up with it's time. It has to be worthy of it's age.
Unfortunately, Skyfall hardly met that expectations. There are many good moments in the movie. But there are also big plot holes and some (covered, OK) clichés.
First of all: How on earth did Bond survive that fall in the beginning. A fall like that one would have killed anyone. Especially someone who already had been shot twice. Furthermore, scenario is, from a point on, unreasonably weak. The movie introduces us an amazing bad guy, Havier Bardem, who expresses sensible arguments, displays great confidence, seems extremely intelligent and capable of bringing the whole world on it's knees. And what is this guy's big plan? To kill "M"? Sorry gentlemen, but this is 2012. This whole revenge thing, is very 90's. It fits to bad guys with machine guns and no mind at all, who get killed at the end of the movie by the good guy-after they give us a last, long fight together. It is unacceptable for a villain like Skyfall's Havier Bardem to have a plan like that. Just to kill M for revenge. I mean, come on guys. You can do better than this.
Moreover, Bond takes M to his old home and they wait there all alone for an army to come. And they make no attempt at all to bring any help at any point. This has no reason at all. It's 2012. You must have a way to call the cavalry.
Not to mention that all this talk about Bond's incapability and getting old thing was absolutely pointless and meaningless.
In my opinion this movie get's a 7.5/10. Not bad, but it should have been a lot better. For a movie worth 150 million, having a Daniel Craig at his best (actually, he was in all three movies at his best-only the scenario was differed), an amazing Havier Bardem, an addition of Ralph Fieness, and a great Judi Bench, should have a done a lot better. Sorry MGM. This is 2012.
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
Could be the best of all time (even though it wasn't)
Having watched the previous two movies directed by Nolan, and looking forward to the so called "epic conclusion" you can't help it: you will have very high demands from this one. This piece had a very heavy heritage to warrant. And, clearly, achieved this goal. You can hardly find a person that will tell you that this movie went off the scene created from the previous two. It just did meet the expectations.
The film starts in an outstanding way, and continues in the same tempo: personally, until the first half, I was left speechless. It just was the best thing I had ever seen in my life. I mean, overall, the best movie ever. Far more ambitious than "Batman Begins" and (even) "The Dark Knight", this thing was just gorgeous.
However, in the second half of the movie, perhaps because the script had to deal with a huge variety of situations, even Christopher Nolan could not achieve to cover all the plot wholes-and I believe that were some. Because of these plot wholes,this movie was not a perfect 10/10. And because, on the other hand, had some outstanding, breathtaking moments, was not just (a nice try but) 8/10 movie.
For example: Since this whole scene takes place it the USA, and the government was aware of what was happening, there was no way they would had sent for help just three guys from the Special Forces. I know that Batman has to save Gotham and not the Marines, but that's what I'm talking about-too huge script to deal with.
In addition, Bane finds Batman's arsenal, but he doesn't find Batman's suit or "the Bat". Why-because they were inside some walls, below the ground or somewhere else. Not quite a very sensible explanation. Bruce Wayne is taken to a prison by Bane, where in the beginning, Bruce asks from the guys that took care oh him to let him die-kill him, and they tell him that they are told to keep him alive- in a way that indicated that they were not on his side. But afterwards, suddenly they help him, they watch him working out, they give him a piece of advice. Not to mention that the 5-month gap is not enough for Batman to recover from a serious injury, get in exceptional physical condition (better than before, actually, when he was beat up by Bane), and come back to Gotham.
I will not continue stating negatives, cause this was a brilliant movie and cant help but thinking about it again and again. Tom Hardy was very good as Bane, Christian Bale has given a personal touch, after all, to both Batman and Bruce Wayne characters, Anne Hathaway was the best cat-woman on screen: modern, sexy, dangerous. Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman and Michael Kayne, nicely played their parts. Same goes to the other rising star from Inception, alongside Tom Hardy, Joseph Gordon Levitt.
I cannot imagine who will even attempt to make the next Batman movie-no matter if it's coming in 2014,2016 or 2030. Christopher Nolan has set the bar to high for anyone with this trilogy.
No Strings Attached (2011)
Awful. Just awful.
If you can't make an individual movie, if you have no new ideas, if you are going to totally set bases on previous love-comedies and make a very bad, very improvised film, then just don't try it at the first place: "No strings attached" is the case for all things mentioned above. Very predictable plot, total absence of humor, bad dialogues. This is a very, very handy movie.
You may want to see this film because it's new, and the female face of the year -Natalie Portman- is the star alongside Ashton Kutcher (who, incidentally, probably was the only decent thing around). But it is guaranteed that you will just throw away about two hours of yours. I strongly advise you not to do it. This is a bad movie, hoping to gain profit from the star names and the copy-paste of the script from previous films, almost copy-paste of the previous lines. Vwry predictable film, painly not funny, a waste of time. Awful.
P.S.You just need to see two scenes to realise how terrible this movie is, and how lucks any sense of humor: the scene where Natalie Portman wears the 3-D glasses on, and the other where one of her colleagues shouts "we are sluts, Emma! We are sluts!". Are you serious people? Things like these may would have been funny if they were not that ground-breaking (if someone watches this, surely they'll understand what I mean by saying that)! Nevertheless, it was much more than clear that the film authors just wanted to introduce some things like these, no matter if they fit or what. What the hell? Some people will find it amusing anyway, it's sure. But whether people generally like it or not, many of them surely will pay the price for the ticket, by the time they see the names of the cast. I repeat, this movie is terrible.
Superman Returns (2006)
Almost a masterpiece
Well, it's a big disappointment to watch a movie, really like it and see after wards that many people don't share the same opinion to yours. I haven't been in this position many times in the past, but this time I really am. And I don't say that "I enjoyed" this movie, but that this movie is just amazing. It is (almost) a masterpiece.
To make it clear, I have not watched the previous Superman movies in a serious way-I was too young to do so.I've watched them on TV in parts, and not knowing much about films at that time. So, I did watch this one as an individual movie-and I was amazed.
I'm sick and tired reading reviews about the serious try Routh made to be like Reeve, about his poor acting, about the non-sexual connection with Lois Lane, etc etc etc. Like all the big mouths start talking together.
In my opinion, Routh acts very very well.So does "Lois Lane" Kate Bosworth, and, of course, "Lex Luthor" (Kevin Spacey) is (just) amazing. It has to be noted, since so many things were told about the previous Superman movies, that in these movies, Lex Luthor was nothing but a buffoon fooling around. In this movie, Lex Luthor is a real threat for superman.Very real. The scenario is gorgeous (well done by the writers), a lot of work has been done in imagination to fix a script without gaps. Gaps that are crystal clear in many many movies considered superior to this one, and are much bigger than "Routh and Bosworth were too young to have so much past", "Rooth is very much like Reeve" and the story goes on.
I understand that having seriously watched the previous movies of such a theme is vital to make reliable comments. However:1)Ι can't imagine that there is even one person on the earth that would need the previous 4 Rockys to realize that the fifth one was a really bad movie, or that someone would have a hard time to realize that the "Godfather part III" was a mediocre movie,even without having watched the first two masterpieces by Francis Ford Coppola. 2)I never read anything about Christian Bale's performance for "the Dark Knight", his age, his connection to Maggie Gyllenhaal and all these crap I heard about "Superman returns". Why? Because the movie was so amazing that there was nothing to be told-it was much better than any batman movie was ever released. There really was no need for comments.
I'm not saying "Superman returns" is that good as "Dark Knight" or even "Batman begins". I'm just saying that this is a GREAT movie, definitely worth-seeing, and surely well worked. It easily gets a 8/10 from me.
P.S: Really really nice visual effects. Νothing extravagant, everything was in the right dosage, delivering an incredible result.
Two for the Money (2005)
There are two types of very good movies: The masterpieces, the ones that going to claim for the academy awards, and the others, that do not deserve major honors, but they are extremely entertaining. This film, belongs to the second category.
First of all, Al Pacino gives a commanding performance. Some people say that he "saves the lot" for this movie, and although I don't agree with them cause i really enjoyed the film, one way or another, Pacino's acting is spectacular. McConaughey, on the other hand, follοws up closely being, to me, better than ever in this movie. He really fits in the role, is very confident and shows excellent chemistry with Pacino, who is his on-screen mentor. The dialogues between them are entertaining as hell, they share the same passion, the same winning spirit. Furthermore, Rene Russo does not go off the scene, having a soundless but very important backstage-role, influencing a lot Walther (Pacino) in his decisions, and being the only person who tries to keep up with the normal reality.
The script is good and inspired in part by a true story, the directing also did not have serious matters. Definitely there are some questionable parts in the movie, such as the meaningless ending and the non-sense concluding conversation between Rene Russo and Al Pacino, but in the end of the day, you will not regret watching this movie.In my opinion 7,5 out of 10 would be the case for this one.
Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (2009)
Fair enough movie, annoying for some people (why?)
Everybody would agree-this movie surely is not a masterpiece. However you never expect from a romantic comedy to be a movie worthing Oscar, you just watch such films to have a a pleasant time. "Ghosts of girlfriend's past" is not an exception concerning that. In fact, it is a little boring and annoying in the beginning, and things about McConaughey make it seem this way (see below), but this changes after a while and the film becomes more interesting. The plot is nice (although it's usual and having no chance to be featured as extraordinary, the end is quite good also, the directing has no clear mistakes. Now, about the rest: Jennifer Gurner and McConaughey really have good chemistry in this movie. They mix up well together and it's clear they have a past. Nevertheless, McConaughey, in my opinion, was not the right guy for this role. I mean, he performed quite well, but his complete out-movie image is not of the guy who spends every night with a different girl and doesn't care for any consequences, showing no respect for women. In fact, McConaughey having his hair so short and pretending to be "Connor" was more like Julian McMahon in "Nip Tuck". And apart from that, when is this guy going to participate in a REAL movie? I like him a lot, but he does not seem to be concerned if he end up having won nothing worthless in his career.