Reviews written by registered user
|8 reviews in total|
The movie title says it all: version 2. It's supposed to be innovative
and shocking, unseen dark, criminal comedy on the next level. However,
in my opinion there are too many similarities, or just not enough new
elements in comparison to the original setup to really see this as
something new. Hence 'more of the same'.
If you liked Crimi Clowns before, you will probably like this one as well. The main cast hasn't changed which makes for the same fun and quality performance as before. My biggest disappointment was to see how small the part of Wesley Tersago was in this episode.
Black is a dark and fast paced movie about a black African girl and a Moroccan boy who fall in love. While Romeo and Juliet centered around the love between two people from feuding families, Black turns this lovestory into a very current and global racial issue. In addition, the romanticism of the story is completely overshadowed by the grim reality and violence that come with life in a gang. However, no matter how well executed the movie is, that's it as far as content goes: a love story and violence. The two main characters are the only one's that are slightly developed, the rest are mainly a means to an end story wise. I would definitely recommend this movie because it's a very well made contemporary movie, but if you're expecting elaborate story lines and many in-depth characters, you might not enjoy this one 100%.
I wasn't sure what to think about this movie when I went to the theater to see it. I really liked the 'old' movies and since this was supposed to be right up that ally, I was excited. Also a little worried though, because if the 'old' movies, especially the first one, were so good, would Jurassic World be able to live up to those standards? The answer is yes and no. The storyline is cliché, it doesn't have the same level as innovation as Jurassic Park, the cast (in my opinion) in the original trilogy were better than the cast for Jurassic World, ... But when I saw the movie it felt like a good old dinosaur movie with lots of spectacle and providing good entertainment. I would recommend this movie if you liked the original trilogy and would like to see some more, as long as you're not expecting the same kind of amazement as Jurassic Park was 22 years ago.
The Scorch Trials, as a movie, is not a bad movie. It's well made, the pace is good and it's entertaining. However if you look at it as part of the series, it's not that great. There's a big difference between the book's storyline and the movie adaptation and not in a good way. In the book, The Scorch Trials, actually is a trial. In the movie it's more of a renegade story. Because of that the movie doesn't make as much sense as The Maze Runner when it comes to storytelling. In The Maze Runner it all made sense because the whole setup was being explained to you as you were watching and the end was logical as the end of the movie coincided with the end of the first trial. In The Scorch Trials there is none of that. Because the storyline changed so much the logic is gone, they don't do a very good job explaining it and the end is vague at best.
After reading a lot of bad reviews I decided to watch this movie,
thinking it couldn't possibly be that bad. Not with Will Smith in the
cast and M. Night Shyamalan in the director seat.
I was wrong...
I'm not sure where Shyamalan was going with this, but as far as I'm concerned it didn't work out. You could argue that it wasn't bad directing and bad acting, that it was a choice and that it all had a purpose, but if that's the case, it didn't translate on the screen for me.
When this movie was announced, I thought it had all the ingredients to be awesome. All I can see tho, is a missed opportunity.
I've always been a fan of Martin Scorcese's work. He's had great
cooperations with Leonardo Dicaprio before, so for me, this was a must
see. However, I have some mixed feelings about the result.
On the upside I thought the level of acting was great. I have always been a fan of Leonardo Dicaprio's work, and, even though I didn't feel that much sympathy for his character, he portrayed Jordan Belfort beautifully. Jonah Hill did a solid job as well, and I liked the absolutely gorgeous Margot Robbie very much (and not just because she didn't leave much to the imagination). As you can expect from Martin Scorcese, the movie is very well made, the photography was great, and the music supported the scenes very well. As far as atmosphere goes, you could really feel the madness. And last but not least, I was happy there was room for some humor.
On the downside, I felt it was a very superficial portrait. I haven't read the book, so I don't know how close the storytelling of the movie is to the book, but at times the movie felt like a giant collection of moments out of Jordan Belfort's life, rather than the story of his life. Even though the movie lasts for three hours, there's little or no room for character development. The focus was also continuously on Jordan himself and his side of the story. For example the whole fraud aspect was shown as his big success. There was no room for his victims in the movie. The investigation by the FBI was also rather non existing, as is his relationship with Naomi. After he gets to know her and marries her, she almost completely disappears to the background.
In conclusion, it's a good movie, with a powerful portrayal of Jordan Belfort, for which I'm still giving an 8/10. However, the story could have been told better, making it more of a story, allowing characters to develop and showing more than just one side of it.
I thought The Desolation of Smaug was a very well made movie.
It wasn't a literal adaption of the book, which I think is only normal. After all you can't compare reading a book to watching a movie. Reading a book 'only' requires to let your imagination run free to create the story, the characters, the scenery, ... in your mind. If you missed something or didn't get something right away, ... you just read back. A movie has the challenge of showing you the story and doing so in a convincing way.
In my opinion The Desolation of Smaug is a rather intelligent retelling of the story, with amazing quality of visuals (nature, sets, ...).
Sure the pace of the movie isn't all that high, and it makes one wonder if it was really necessary to make three parts. However, allowing the time to get to know the (many many) characters (especially if you didn't read the book), to let the magnitude of the scenery sink in, and to properly tell the story, I thought the slow pace was a plus and reason enough to forgive the sometimes lengthy passages.
One of the things I liked the most about reading 'The Hunger Games' was
the intensity of how it was written. Feeling the story seemed maybe
even more important than reading it, so when I went to see the movie,
my expectations were very high.
On the upside: Great performance by the main characters, excellent visuals and well directed.
On the downside: The book gives a lot of context as to how the characters feel and how things have come to be the way they are. The movie changes a number of things to make it at all possible to show the story and for me the choices made took down the quality of the story a bit. To give at least some context, it took the movie a while to get really started and even despite that, some of the characters, again in my opinion, didn't really develop in depth the way they should.
Long story short, I liked the movie and thought it was a nice adaptation from the book, but it lacked a bit the intensity from the book.