It's great to see a movie celebrating intelligence. It's as close as you can come to glamorising Computer Science.
Some of the other reviews, in my opinion, exaggerate how good this movie is. It's no classic. Just an intelligent, well directed, interesting movie about the cultural phenomenon that is Facebook. But American Beauty it ain't.
A smart movie for smart people. Recommended.
It's pretentious nonsense from start to finish. The characters are caricatures, the acting is formulaic, and the plot! Jeez. It starts badly and gets worse. By the end, even the director couldn't be bothered and lets it degenerate into a standard James Bond movie (complete with men in snow suits fighting on skis).
The age rating (12A in the UK) means the ideal demographic for this movie (8 year-old boys) can't see it. This film is so bad, it creeps into classic-bad-movie territory. Oh, by the way, I "get it". I just don't "like it". And the movie is not existentialist. It's pointless.
I like to say something positive about every movie I see but I am struggling with this one. Oh, I have something: it has a great ending - because it ends.
The movie is a romantic farce in parts (but not very romantic and not very farcical) and it has quite nice surreal moments (the sex book coming to life was particularly well done) but these good bits were not enough to save the movie.
I thought the acting was no more than functional and the storyline was weak and not engaging. But the big problem with this film was the humour -- or lack of it.
"Nice" maybe isn't the right word since it has a message about how to live your life - and reminds us how awful being fired really is. So it has a serious message -- and it's a pleasure to watch, thanks to excellent performances by all the lead characters. So what's not to like? Well, for one thing, the story is worthy and well-told but don't expect some great movie since the plot isn't up to those expectations. I preferred Michael Clayton, which was a much deeper movie than this one.
But you won't be disappointed with this film unless your expectations are too high to begin with. A worthy 7/10. Time and money well spent.
Its main weakness is the storyline. It's not awful, just pretty standard. There is no chance the screenplay is going to win any prizes. But it's no worse than 75% of movies and better than many, and there are one or two serious messages in the movie, such as the way Capitalism ruthlessly exploits natural resources.
If the storyline matched the imagery, this movie would the best film ever. The 3D effects and special effects and imagery in this film are truly amazing. Don't even consider the 2D version.
Apart from the plot, there are other weaknesses. The back story (why they chose the main character, who is a paraplegic) is ridiculous (in fact, the whole disabled marine storyline is unnecessary), some of the acting is wooden (Sigourney Weaver looks like she is going through the motions), and it's too long (2½ hours).
Apart from the visuals, there are other strengths. The sci-fi is sound (including the concept of an avatar), Pandora (the alien planet) is superbly rendered, some of the acting is good (Zoe Saldana), and the movie doesn't feel like it's 2½ hours long.
A milestone in movie history due to the visuals. In spite of this, I gave it 8/10 because of its routine storyline and ordinary acting. But not one to miss.
But good movies don't need good special effects. The trouble is this movie has other failings - such as any sort of pace. It plods along. The middle section, in particular, feels like Purgatory.
I wanted to give this movie 6½ out of 10 but gave it 7 because, at its heart, it is a serious science fiction film with something, maybe not very much, to say about humanity and consciousness. Several interesting themes run through it, but most are confusingly presented and none are very well developed.
I agree that it's a good first movie and Duncan Jones has potential. It's a pity they don't give you a discount on the price of a ticket because of this.
Having said that, it's no classic. I gave it 7/10 because it's... err... a 7/10 movie. Enjoyable, fun to watch, interesting, has something to say... but nothing new and the story line is amusing but not gripping.
At the time of writing this movie is #34 in to the top 250 movies on IMDb but don't let that fool you... it will slip down the chart as more people see it. Not because it's bad, because, at the end of the day, it's a slight movie with not a great deal to say that has not already been said.
But if you go the movies to be entertained, you will not be disappointed.
DiCaprio just can't carry off heavy roles - he looks like a wee boy in a grown-up's suit. The film is based on a Sixties' book and inherits some of the sexism from that era (but not intentionally or ironically). And, at the end of it, it doesn't say a great deal... except that marriage is not the idealised perfection that romantic novels lead you to believe.
But for the acting, interesting topic, cinematography, music and atmosphere, it's well worth catching and markedly better than most movies. Watching this movie is time and money well spent.
But, boy, the acting really is something. Daniel Day-Lewis is brilliant but so is the rest of the cast. DDL's performance is so good that it commands your attention and conceals the movie's great weakness. You're so mesmerised by him that it's easy to overlook the fact that the storyline is uninteresting. In fact, there isn't a storyline as such. It's just a chronological sequence of events showing how this "oil man" makes his fortune and uses people along the way. There's no depth (to the story), no great insights.
EDIT: Watched it on TV last night and liked it much more. This movie is maybe deeper than it first appears. I changed my vote to 9/10 from 7/10.
And it's a very old formula. Good-looking twenty-somethings run around a city being chased by something evil, make very bad decisions that imperil their safety, escape said peril through ludicrous good fortune... repeat for 60 minutes until end.
But the biggest disappointment is the complete lack of plot (beyond the trite: "I must save my girlfriend from this monster"). Seriously, there is no story here.
On the positive side, it is short. And I thought the monster was quite well done. And, I guess, 14 year-old boys will enjoy it.
Don't under-estimate the first advantage (the movie's brevity). You'll be very grateful. Believe me.
The movie has a number of themes including ageing, corruption, principles and truth. The movie's message is that there is more to life than making money.
The acting is uniformly good but Clooney is outstanding. His character is complex and he's pretty unhappy with what he has become. But it's all done very subtly. There are no obvious messages in this movie. As another reviewer wrote, you have to pay attention.
Don't read too much into my "slow moving/slow burner" descriptions. This movie is not boring. It just doesn't whiz along with one implausible twist after another. It's evenly paced with an almost complete lack of silly plot lines (there was no need for the lawyer in crisis to remove his clothes during a trial).
Everyone involved in this movie deserves praise for producing a challenging, grown-up, movie-with-a-message in the face of a torrent of mindless nonsense.
I was prepared to suspend my knowledge of science (most sci-fi films are pretty far-fetched - and this one is no exception) but it wasn't the science that let-down this film, it was the fiction (storyline). Because there wasn't any. None. Apart from the basic (and promising) premise of the film (earth cooling and the need to heat up the Sun by delivering a bomb) there was nothing else in this film. No character development. No plot beyond a couple of fatuous stories thrown-in to enliven the monotony of endless space shots.
The mediocre science and non-existent storyline weren't the only problems. The acting varied from competent to amateurish, the direction was lacklustre, the movie was frequently over-powered by huge sound effects, and the pace varied from slow to very slow. The allusions to other great sci-fi movies (2001, Contact, Dark Star) just reminded me how poor this film is in comparison.
It's not a terrible movie. Some of the cinematography was good. So if you really want to see it, watch it at the movies since on a small screen it really would have little to offer.
Some people have said that the gay aspect of this movie is incidental - that it a love story between two people. But this film would have sunk without trace had it been about a man and a woman.
The storyline is the problem. Great movies ("Shawshank Redemption", "American Beauty" and Ang Lee's own "The Ice Storm") have great stories to tell. This one doesn't. Unless the fact that there are gay cowboys comes as news to you.
But I don't want to be too critical of this movie. I enjoyed it. It's visually beautiful. The acting (especially by the two leads) is fantastic and the direction flawless. But if you put great ingredients into a pot and slow boil them for long enough then you'll end up with mush.
The movie starts well but the sex jokes go on - and on - and on - and eventually the film runs out of steam. But it's an OK movie - maybe 5 or 6 out of 10 - and definitely one of the funnier films of the last five years.
Just don't expect a side-splitting 90 minutes. The humour is very adult so avoid this movie if you are easily offended. But if you're broad-minded and don't expect too much, you will enjoy this short, funny and entertaining film.
The acting and character development are wonderful. Really wonderful. The two leads (Paul Giamatti and Thomas Haden Church) are fantastic. And all of the characters are complex which gives the movie a genuine depth. It's also one of those movies that you talk about when it's finished.
But the pace is s-l-o-w. And the comedy is subtle. Making for a gentle, entertaining, rather drawn-out (it's over two hours long) movie. The middle of the movie sags - which was when my wife fell asleep - which is a pity since the movie finishes strongly.
But don't let me put you off this film. If you're into complex, amusing, adult movies then you'll like this one. It's no "American Beauty" but it's a hell of a lot better than most movies.
My wife didn't like it as much as I did and I suspect that's because this is a dick-flick (a movie for men!). The movie is at its best when it describes the technical breakthroughs that Hughes pioneered. Even the numerous romances were handled in a fairly brisk. manly fashion.
This movie is not a Hughes biography. It covers a small part of his life (the flying bit) and, even then, only part of that (up until 1947). This gives the movie an incomplete feel and leaves you wondering what happened next.
But, all in all, it's a good film. Entertaining and well acted. Just don't expect to learn much about Mr Hughes.
This movie won't change your opinion if you're already anti-war or pro-war. And you won't learn anything new if you get your news off the Net rather than traditional media. But if you're unsure about the war and you use newspapers and TV for your news then this movie will blow you away. That's who Moore is trying to get at. And he will -- if they see this film.
This documentary is exceptionally well made. It's factual (if selective with its facts), fast paced, emotional, engaging and challenging - exactly what a documentary should be. The media's reaction to this movie and the exceptional number of very low ratings on IMDB (from people who - I presume - have not seen this film) sort of proves Moore's point about the one-sided, intolerant nature of modern America.
Memo to myself: always check IMDB before spending money on a movie and never, never trust newspaper reviews.
If you're in an long-term relationship thats had its ups-and-downs then go see this movie. It might remind you why you fell in love in the first place.
Very good. 8/10.
Make no mistake about Revolutions, it's a shameless exploitation of the original movie. Not one new idea or character has been introduced since the original film. The ideas in Revolutions (and Reloaded) are all plagiarised from The Matrix and the new characters are one dimensional and awful. There's no continuity in any of the films (characters and plot-lines come and go) and the interesting philosophical questions in the first film become ridiculous in the second and third movies.
The best I can say for Revolutions is that it's better than Reloaded. If I had never heard of The Matrix and wandered into the theatre off the street then there are bits in Revolutions that were entertaining (some of the action sequences).
But the fact is that Reloaded and Revolutions follow one of the greatest science fiction movies ever made. And both fail miserably to maintain that standard. Save your time and money and watch the original movie on DVD. Even the 100th viewing beats Revolutions.
The Wachowski brothers should be ashamed of themselves. Revolutions dishonours The Matrix.
"Hulk" is an odd mix of adult characterisation and childish action flick. I wish he had tried to produce a film for adults - and fully developed the "angry man" theme. But instead, he does a bit of characterisation, some action stuff and a little romance - which doesn't hit the spot on any count.
On the plus side, the comic-book effects are original and very effective. But this movie will be quickly forgotten.
A wasted opprtunity.