99 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Posoki (2017)
Thought provoking
21 January 2018
A mixture of sad and funny thrown into the (very) bleak reality of Bulgarian life in Sofia. We see the life in the city through the eyes of the taxi drivers and the Passengers where each character brings something different to the mix. The range of people varies so we get to see this reality from different angles.

The direction and the actors are good and desptie the different, seemingly unconnected stories, there is a general feel of closure.

Not all the stories are even in their quality and the ballance of optimism and pessimism leans clearly towards the latter making it a harder watch. I also didn't agree with some of the points made by the director where singular occurrences of unjustice were the exclusive reason for a tragic effect. People have heart attack as a consequence of a stressfull office work. Should we blame the (horrible) boss or the person himself that gave too much for the work? However, this doesn't make the boss any better and in Directions these are sleazy, worst kind of people, that the director has shown well.

To sum it up, Directions is a good movie that show the hard life of ordinary people.
17 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Hodejegerne (2011)
Genuinely didn't expect this.
7 January 2018
For a long time this was one of the movies on my 'to watch' list. After hearing lots of praise, seeing the high rating and reading a few of the reviews, here on IMDB, I thought this might be a solid thriller. Additionally, the expected credit for 'Headhunters' was form the fact that this is not a Hollywood movie.

A huge surprise (and a let down) waited for me and my wife as we were watching the movie. It turned out to be anything but a solid thriller. More like stupid or idiotic.

It actually started very promising. An art thief living an extravagant lifestyle, who also works as a recruiter and is able to take the advantage of it. So for the first 20-30 minutes we were hooked. Then things took a turn in a different direction and had the Cohen - Lynch type of absurdity, being extremely dumb. Some of them were so dumb type of funny, but mostly just dumb. Needless to say that the interesting ideas presented in the beginning were lost or forgotten.

The mentioned comparison to Cohen brothers or Lynch is purely in the absurd way the film progresses but in no way I would compare it to their work. I find the material of the former (at least the early one like Miller's Crossing) to be smart while the latter is weird, creepy but nonetheless very beautiful. I have never seen any of them going so low on the 'jokes' as it was done in 'Headhunters'.

To sum it up, I was extremely disappointed with the movie. While I can't blame the director (or anything else in the production for that matter) for stupidity since this was intentional, I definitely wouldn't have watched the movie had I the slightest idea of what's to come. This isn't the smart, tension driven thriller I hoped it could be.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Baby Driver (2017)
Minority review
15 July 2017
'Baby Driver' is one of the most praised movies on IMDb that I have ever seen, and after comparing different feature films that are currently screened the choice was quite clear. While overall I did like 'Baby Driver', I definitely do not share the enthusiasm of the vast majority of the reviewers here. I'll briefly go over my point of view on the movie and then share my likes and dislikes.

'Baby Driver' is a heist movie; however, the accent here is on the getaway. The plannings and the robberies are in the background. Besides that there are the usual themes: the last job, misfits who find each other and psycho robbers/killers who pull off the heist.

For me, the best parts of the movie were the car chases. Not perfect, but still great and quite original. They felt quite authentic as well. Reminiscent of the chases in the Bourne series but slightly better.

The other things I liked were: the acting and the camera work. I think that every actors did well, but I'd mention Jamie Foxx as being the most convincing in his role.

For the faults (from my perspective) I would pick the third heist as the major one. It is where all started to disintegrate and became quite stupid. It's first evident in the choice of the crew members, the relationship between Baby and Doc, The chain of events and the overlong, quite boring standoff between the main protagonist and the main antagonist.

I'll sum it up by saying that It just didn't meet my expectation. Yes, after reading the description and reviews I thought that perhaps it would be something like 'The Town' or even 'Heat' with those ratings. However, unlike the noted movies, this one was full of idiots as robbers and stupidity ruled. The latter is probably on purpose but it didn't make my experience any better since I didn't find it funny either.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Logan (2017)
10 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Without referencing the previous installments I think that the general plot line is good. So does the acting. All the other is quite mediocre. So while I don't think it's the worse x-men movie, I was disappointed. So what went wrong?

Firstly, is the action. It just wasn't fun enough to watch. And apart of one car chase, it was very dull. There was nothing interesting or new. Brutality replaced choreography.

Another issue is sloppiness. This relates to the useless army involved and jeopardizing the innocent. Another related question is how did they escape from the Hotel unnoticed?

Finally, Logan was depressed all the way through the movie, without any recovery (or trying to recover) and being constantly on low energy. For me it was depressive (as much as for Logan himself).
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Passengers (I) (2016)
Afraid to be simple
12 March 2017
I didn't see the trailer of the movie up until writing this review. So I decided to look the movie based on reading the story line. So I didn't know it will turn into a semi-disaster movie.

The premise is very good. It's quite original and sets a stage for inquiries into ethics, relations, meaning of life, happiness and loneliness. Enveloped in science fiction combines good special effects and some really cool ideas (like the pool with a view to the stars).

I liked the choice of the leads. Especially the female lead, since she had to be sexy. Generally, a very good job of portraying the emotions.

Unfortunately, things started to take the wrong turn with the appearance of Laurence Fishburne's character. When philosophical questions were replaced by technical malfunctions that made little sense and that I just didn't care about. And questions of ethics and the perception of happiness were substituted by the usual hero type of actions that introduce stupidity and deteriorate the whole experience.

Eventually 'Passengers' stayed very shallow on its initial premise and didn't explore any of the vast number of interesting possibilities it could have been. Seems to be the usual case of Hollywood compromising good story for special effects to draw the audience. Considering the lead actors involved, its' quite a shame they needed that. When it comes to numbers, the studios may be right. But I fail to see it wins lots of hearts.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Julieta (2016)
24 September 2016
I found Julieta to be interesting at the very least. The story has a smooth flow and My whole attention was within the movie. I was trying to grasp everything the characters said while enjoying the visuals and the score.

Technically, this is probably Almadovar's best work. The scenery and camera work is beautiful. The colors please the eye. The score in the background is always in the right tone. Aiding to the smooth transitions within the movie. The cast is excellent. I understood clearly who each character is.

The main theme of Julieta is the relationship between a mother and her child. And that some things we understand as we grow older, with our life experience. This is a recurring theme in Almadovar's movies ('High Heels', 'Volver') but it is set upon a different set of characters with different virtues and faults. And of course a different story.

The plot is imperfect but it is very interesting nonetheless. I didn't fall in love with the characters of Julieta like it was in 'All about my mother' - and this is the main reason I didn't rate it higher - but I still felt their human side. And on the upside, there were no annoying or boring characters either.

People write about a new Almadovar. Well, for me it was a bit of misleading. I saw the director's signature elements through the whole movie. I'm talking about the camera shots, the low amount of people on set, the gradual revelation of events so when the credits roll the viewer knows all that happened explaining all the references made. It is less extravagant then some of his other work, but it is definitely not his first in being such.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
From a non player perspective
19 September 2016
I wanted to see Final Fantasy XV solely because of the graphics, without any prior knowledge of the game, the plot or its characters. I love 3D graphic animation, and I found the previous FF movies to be the best examples of it. The closest to reality. So seeing this installment was a must.

Graphics has certainly evolved since Advent Children. Kingsglaive is much more colorful and there is much more going on at the same time. The resolution of shading is better and it is seen on the faces of the characters. On the down side of it, it is still not as lively as I would have wanted it to be. It's as if the game graphic engine was used to generate the animation using complex algorithms. It is seen in the movement of the body parts, which are still a bit robotic and less human.

The plot is convoluted, but it is something I had expected, seeing the previous Final Fantasy movies. But the ending is quite blurred, and a big 'What's now?' question hangs in the air.

The action is all over. The battle at the beginning is amazing. It's ingenious, tense and full of occurrences. The battle at the end, on the other hand, is overlong and more superficial. Moreover, I didn't always understood what's going on.
16 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
24 August 2016
I think it was a nice addition to the Bourne film series. Redundant? Maybe. Bad and unworthy of the previous installments? No way. Overall, i had a good time watching the movie so I'll start with what I think was bad and then proceed with the good in order to finish with a positive impression.

The script in the first half of the movie is the weakest link. The decisions of the heads of the operations were very questionable and I had lots of whys and hows running in my head. Is all this massacre was necessary? How did Aaron find the Dr and at such perfect timing? The factor of chance was too apparent here. It's slightly surprising given the fact that the director wrote the script for all the movies in the series

Eric Byer's character could be better written. I don't think that Norton is the best choice for the role, but it's beyond that. His dialogues were quite clichéd. Again this is more noticeable in the first part of the move.

The Good: pretty much everything else. The action is well choreographed, not too exaggerated and exactly in the right amount. Just like all the previous installments had. The leads, and most of the support actors were great. Aaron Cross is not a copycat of Jason Bourne but a different agent, and Renner does a very good role at doing this. The script turned out for the better in the second half, and the actions from the operations headquarters seemed much more logical.

To sum it up, I found Bourne Legacy less coherent than the previous movies in the franchise. However; with a very good action, acting and pace it was a very entertaining movie.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Malèna (2000)
A good movie.
31 July 2016
This is a good movie, although an idealistic one. The cinematography and acting are top notch. The character of Renato Amoroso is interesting, very likable and played well. His father's character is also a good one. Not too caring one, but he does understand his son's needs and more than holding his word, ultimately leaving a positive impression. Monica Bellucci as Malena is just perfect.

Malena is a woman whose beauty is her sin. Women are jealous of her, and try to throw dirt at her. Men try to use her. She's the target of constant gossip, but she tries to hold herself graciously. Who other than Monicca Bellucci can play it so well?

The drawback, In my opinion, is that the movie tries to be too idealistic in its nature. It seems that apart of the main character and his family (whose members have nothing to do with Malena), all characters are nasty people, trying to take advantage of Malena. I find this exaggerated and mostly untrue. There are always good people, that will make a good deed without expecting something in return. Especially, when those deeds are not of sacrificing nature.

I find some resemblance of Malena's story to Izmeralda's from The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Both portray a woman (although Malena is slightly more mature) whose beauty is a subject of jealousy. However, in the case of Victor Hugo's novel, the characters involved are from a broader spectrum of good and bad, making them closer to the people I know.

To sum it up. Malena is a good movie. It's a tale of right and wrong. I think it will be more interesting to people in their teens or twenties, believing in ideals and a clear separation of good versus bad. And it would appeal less to those who see the world as a mix of everything.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Marauders (2016)
Half Decent
14 July 2016
The Bad Half:

Unnecessarily over convoluted plot. And although at the end I understood who did what and why, there were still too many questions left. Too many loose ends. The last 10 minutes felt weird, as if the production was running out of money, so they tried to close all knots in a hurry.

Confined spaces, and generally low number of people on set, resulting in a more low-budget, B-grade feel.

Bruce Willis. His character lacks authenticity and feels artificial in any scene he's in. It seems like Bruce Willis didn't care too much for the role.

The Good Half:

Christopher Meloni, Adrian Grenier and Johnathon Schaech. Their character felt very real, and I could rely to any of them. Their character development was very good, so I clearly understood who each person is. Moreover, it seems that their script was well- written since what their said was mostly in-place (at least as the plot went on and not looking back in retrospective).

There are also several good camera movements which made nice additions.

The action was far from exceptional but in most cases it had a tight grip. One of the action scenes was actually very tense, with a good score.

I don't know whether to recommend this movie to anyone or not, but I certainly didn't feel it was a total waste of time.
35 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Bad, and not in a relative way.
8 March 2016
So far, most of the negative reviews compared Terminator: Genisys with the two first movies in the franchise. So I thought "OK got it, it's not as good as the first two, but still might be entertaining.". Well, no. It wasn't.

The plot is bad. I had never expected it to be smart or engaging, but definitely not that stupid. From the moment that John Connor reappears and starts to explain the situation, the movie becomes unbearable. Even sci-fi movies should have their own laws and limitations.

Action is OK at times, but it doesn't have any special touch, as if nobody really cared about it. Best scenes involve T-1000, but they're too few and they were done before (although there is an improvement in special effect for the last 20 years).

Acting is the worst. Arnold is what you expect him to be, but the others are miscast. Emilia Clarke looks very sweet and I think that explains it all. But Jai Courtney is the worst. It's not that he does not fit to play the role, he doesn't fit any major role in any movie. He's just a bad actor. Maybe he can play a third grade terminator. This way he won't need to put lousy expressions.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Light and Likable but slightly disappointing.
28 September 2015
I have seen 'Tie me up, Tie me down' yesterday night with my wife. We both came up with a feeling that it was quite average, and we both were quite disappointed relatively to the good rating it has, and the majority of positive reviews. In fact when I lay in bed, yesterday night, I was thinking of why didn't I enjoy more? Great cast, fantastic camera work, interesting moments and on occasion it contains hilarious jokes. Yet the movie seemed to drag and bore instead of entertain or touch feelings. This morning I think I have the answer.

I didn't really buy what the director tried to sell. Marina didn't look like a heroin junkie or a porn actress. Her place was quite neat and she didn't have any sign of addiction or weakness towards drugs. She didn't look like the one who needed to be saved from herself. So I was told one thing but saw another and subconsciously it didn't fit. All the story was a bit silly and childish. Also, because it felt a bit childish and silly the explicit nudity and sex scenes seemed unnecessary.

To sum it up, 'Tie me up, tie me down' is light, has funny moments and without perversions prevailing in Almadovar's films on one hand. But on the other hand, it doesn't involve any strong feelings and it's not funny enough to hold for the whole movie and to be considered a good comedy.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Very Decent
20 September 2015
I think that 'Less Is More' perfectly fits "Street Fighter: Assassin's Fist". It didn't try to be all in one. The plot is confined to tell the story of four 'Street Fighter' characters: Goken, Akuma, Ken and Ryu. The acting is flawed, but it's good enough for this type of movie. The special and visual effects are made decently. The score is great and adds a lot. Finally, fight choreography is very good and very pleasant for the eye so the overall impression of "Street Fighter: Assassin's Fist" is very positive.

I didn't care much about 'how true was the plot to the game?', but it looked coherent so I found it to be quite interesting. Moreover, it looked very mature relatively to its content, something that cannot be said about most of computer game adaptations. It is wrapped very well and I had a satisfactory feeling after watching it. It flows smoothly and can be perfectly watched as a movie (in fact I hope they will release it as a single movie on cable).

Another thing that I liked about "Street Fighter: Assassin's Fist" is that it doesn't contain violence. No gore or brutality, which is very prevalent today. I think it is suited well for the younger generation. It focuses on martial arts and training rather than violence.

Couple of words about the fight choreography. I looks very solid and visually pleasant. However, since it retells the story of practitioners of a single style, the fights share similarity.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Ichimei (2011)
Very good. Very poignant.
19 May 2015
After reading the reviews of others I got an impression that people didn't understand the message the movie or the main hero tried to convey (or they just expected something totally different, by comparing it to director's other work). Yes, the catharsis here is not as strong as in the original, and generally it's not as complete. Nonetheless, the story is masterfully told both visually and emotionally and the actors perfectly fit their roles, so for me it was a very moving, very strong experience.

There is one detail in the third act that makes a difference between the two movies (in favor of the original). There is also a slight, but subtle, difference in the messages of the movies. The message of the original is that honor and principles are empty words, without much substance behind them. People living by them are hypocrites. The message of this one is that the intrinsic value of life is (or should be) higher than any honor bound principles. And this is a much personal message not tying itself to times, places or nations.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Salvation (2014)
Violence driven
17 May 2015
Having a very thin layer of plot, The Salvation is driven largely by its brutality. The plot serves only as a background for the violence. Visuals and camera angles are good. Character portrayal of the main protagonist and the main antagonist are also fine. However, the lack of proper conversation leaves them one dimensional.

All the main characters retained constant, changeless expressions through the whole movie. Yes, the villain here is really cruel and Jeffrey Dean Morgan portrayed this cruelty well. Unfortunately, no basis for this cruelty is revealed - is he a sadist? Greedy? Avenging something? Craving for power?

Same thing can be said for the characters of Eva Green and Mads Mikkelsen. Both actors maintain a constant expression being far far away from their charm in 'Casino Royale'

One more drawback is the jumps between scenes in several occasions. In one frame someone guards a home, in the second he is dead. And since there is no mystery involved, it looks a bit awkward.

The good thing about the movie is that it's relatively short, and feels accordingly.
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10 January 2015
I didn't like it. I don't think it's bad, but beyond couple of smiles it wasn't funny for me. It's not that the jokes were bad or misfitted, they just were predictable.

Strangely, Christian Clavier reminded me of Louis De Funes, and some of the situations here reminded me of older french movies that i liked. However, this time I could foresee each and every madness Claude Verneuil had.

The jokes weren't neither rude nor offending, which is good, but they definitely lacked a spark or originality.

I felt that the director didn't want to break any rules or do something really crazy and funny, but rather go by an existing well established formula.
22 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Trash (I) (2014)
Very Childish
1 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I actually don't have much more to say about this movie. It exhibits high production values, along with very good acting from all involved. But the mix of depicting the brutal and corrupted reality doesn't really fit in with the immature way the story evolves. And along the way it becomes less and less coherent.

Someone noted it being a roller coaster of feelings. Well, not for me. I could guess how it will end from the way it developed. And the mix of believable violence with unbelievable actions from the main characters made me quite calm regarding their fate, throughout the whole movie. I would give Trash an OK rating. No more, no less.
23 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Full Contact (1992)
Don't expect John Woo here.
9 November 2014
From a 2014 point of view Full Contact is outdated. The camera work and the action itself doesn't look unique. There are some interesting camera angles at the end, but it still looks old. Even the bullet shots look outdated. If this movie was released in the US, it would automatically fall in the B-movie category, quite rightfully.

Full Contact has plenty of action, but after seeing lots of action movies, it doesn't stand out from the crowd. The other aspects of the movie didn't add any value, though I found them to be much less significant.

Despite the higher rating of Full Contact, I think his Van Damme projects were better. Well at least it is true for Maximum Risk.

Finally, if you're expecting John Woo's kind of action here, don't. I have recently watched Hard Boiled (for the third time). Having the same release year as Full Contact, it still manages to look very solid (actually it's quite an understatement for Hard Boiled). In fact, all of the better known John Woo movies from Hong Kong are far better. Full Contact is OK for the action, just don't expect it to be what it's not.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
No Way Out (1987)
The Kinder garden Investigation
3 August 2014
This is how me and my wife felt while watching this movie. As if the nerdiest kid have got with the cover up plot, and they have decided to follow it. Actually if the whole setup was switched to the kinder garden instead of the Pentagon, whole thing would be looking much better. Only, instead of the murder, they should have to come up with something like a disappearance of a chewing gum, by the most popular kid. And to cover up, his nerdy friend had devised a master plan. Something like that. I think it would be much funnier and credible that way.

Other than that, the production values are good. Actors are good as well, maybe except of Gene Hackman from whom I expected more.

Ah, well, a disappointment.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6 July 2014
Very, very average movie. And considering the cast, it's actually bad. I don't know why there is a comedy tag on the movie. There were about 2 comic occasions in a 138 minutes long movie. There is also a clear stance on showing the FBI as the 'bad guys' while trying to make Carmine Polito as Maria Teresa. Another irritating thing was the notion that the whole FBI operation was conducted by a single guy. And not a very bright one.

I liked the plot. Though it took about an hour to ignite the engines, it progressed interestingly afterwords. Even the unnecessary relationship matters, that delayed the progress as the movie went on, didn't damage the plot extensively.

Other bright spots are the performances of Christian Bale, Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner. Jennifer Lawrence did a great job, but her character got much more screen time that it should.

Bradley Cooper, on the other hand, ruined what others built. Every scene he was in, brought some antagonism from my side. Instead of having a serious, smart and restrained type of agent we got a stupid and a cocky one. This wasn't the right type of character, and Bradley Cooper wasn't the right actor.

In all, FBI looked like a bunch of clowns. Bypassing the chain of command, beating your supervisor.

There is another drawback in focusing on the unnecessary meandering relationship between the main characters. However, on the most part, the actors played their roles well and it wasn't the accent.

In conclusion I would say that the director, David O. Russel, has some gift of storytelling but fails to make it entertaining. And the latter happens mainly because of the implicit stupidity in the movie. For myself, I have a very low tolerance for implicit stupidity. As I see it, the director assumes the audience is not smart enough, and that is a major fault. For some movies it is alright to be stupid. American Hustle on the other hand, is plot and character driven drama, so it does not have any excuse of being such.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I wished the movie had lasted longer
1 June 2014
The plot is known from the trailer, half an hour through the movie you already know everything and the end is guessable. But getting to the end is very entertaining.

The pace of the movie is perfect. No unnecessary scenes were repeated. You could clearly see how the plot advanced from A to B. And at the end, it felt short despite being almost 2 hours of length.

The leads were perfect as well. They had the necessary on screen chemistry between them, and the difference of age was not so visible. I liked Emily Blunts' English accent, it sounds very sexy. As for Tom Cruise, he is the one who pulls it through. He just doesn't know how to disappoint.

Visuals are fantastic. Aliens are very interesting and I found them to be quite original. Sometimes however, the camera movement was very quick, and it wasn't always clear what is happening during the fight. I saw the 3D version, which had its interesting additions but I don't think it's a must.

Edge of Tomorrow doesn't have romance, which is quite unusual lately. Lead characters had an affection towards each other, but it didn't evolve beyond that. I thought it was good (no unbelievable love story in the middle of nowhere), but maybe that's why my wife wasn't as entertained as I am.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Very very rushed.
25 May 2014
Matthew Vaughn doesn't have the class of Brian Singer. X-men: first class is not the worst installment (I would honor X-Men origins: Wolverine with this title) but considering the standards set by the first two X-Men movies, it is quite a flop.

Aside from repetitive patterned script, stupid moments and inconsistencies regarding the previous installments it tried to close all loose ends and to explain everything. It seems that the writers (one of which is the director) didn't have the long vision. They didn't think about spanning some of the events on several movies, building relationships so when they break them, it would be believable.

Instead, everything is thrown at once. How Charles and Erik meet, how Erik/Magneto becomes the bad guy, Charles' injury (and more pieces on Beast and Mystique). So, considering the plot and the large portion of action, there is not much depth in the friendship of Erik and Charles. And worst of all is that half of these loose end closing occurs at the last 10 minutes. So it seemed very rushed and unbelievable.

The bright spot is the majority of the cast. McAvoy and January Jones were very good. Fassbender is absolutely fantastic.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
About Time (I) (2013)
Essentially Good.
10 May 2014
About Time is a really good movie, that manages to deliver a message and touch feelings. Someone noted here that this is the reason we go to see movies, and taking About Time as a whole, I totally agree. I was moved, and this feeling is still with me as I write. And I know I'll watch it again.

Now for the technical side. About Time is a light comic drama with a good heart. From the very start one can see the good production values. Very good narrative, performances and cinematography. However, it also introduces some awkwardness, primarily due to the awkward, off bit characters, including Tim. In fact most of the male characters through the movie are such, and this is a bit of a down side.

At start it reminds very much of Groundhog Day. But somewhere along the way it takes its own direction and Groundhog Day is forgotten. It is not always engaging, but for its' above 2 hours length, it has a very good pace, narrative and performances and never boring. For its last part, it starts to be engaging and very moving.

About Time has some drawbacks. First are the already mentioned, off bit characters. I think they were made such to add a comic side, but it mostly felt a bit out of place. However, this wasn't too severe (not in terms of screen time nor in its intensity). The second was some of the occurrences Tim decided to change. He seemed to be quite smart, so understanding the major risks and outcomes of changing the past shouldn't be too hard. Instead, he makes a mistake of changing events too far in time, more than once, which makes him a bit less likable.

However, nothing is flawless. And like a person, this movie has its own drawbacks. And while they're visible, they are outweighed by far by its benefits. About Time succeeds in getting the best emotions from ourselves. Making us think of how we can improve our lives, being us, but looking at things from a slightly different point of view. And just for this, I would recommend it as a must watch.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Dark Blue (2002)
Very good plot, lots of miscasts
10 April 2014
For someone who saw L.A Confidential, Training Day or Street Kings, the plot would seem familiar, at the very least. Nonetheless, it was quite smart, without too many apparent plot holes and with a great set-up of riots in L.A.

Kurt Russell was very persuasive in his role. His character of a corrupt policeman is easily believable. He has done it right. Not overacted and without unnecessary sentiments. He plays someone who enjoys being who he is; corrupt but not greedy. Smart and knows how to do his job well, but closing his eyes on the means. Very reminiscent of Kurt Russells' role in Backdraft. Very good deliverance.

Brendan Gleeson was OK, but he could do more with his role. Scott Speedman was OK either. Didn't shine, but definitely didn't ruin anything. Michael Michele was sexy and Lolita Davidovich had a small part but she did it well.

Now, Ving Rhames, Kurupt and Dash Mihok were awful in their roles. Not quite awful but really awful. They have worsened the whole experience. And I don't think that it's they're fault. They're just not fit for the roles they had been given.

Ving Rhames was a total miscast. Instead of being a strong, powerful character he was just psychotic and nervous, and stood on my nerves as well. Kurupt and Dash Mihok, had a very crucial roles as the killers, despite their relatively small screen time. They played cold blooded killers but looked like a rapper and a clown. And instead of bringing tension only looked laughable. Very irritating performance from both.

Despite the huge hole in casting the plot was well put through, Kurt Russell as the driving force was good and the ending is almost satisfying.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Jewtopia (2012)
Yea it's dumb, but I left the theater in a good mood.
30 March 2014
I've contemplated whether to give it a 5 or a 6. I left the theater with a smile, and actually had a good time watching it. I had smiled, laughed at times, and at one point even grabbed my belly. So I'll give it a six.

On the bad side, it is very dumb and there is lots of toilet humor. One problem is that most of the jokes are very dumb and are not funny enough to compensate for the lack of wit.

On the good side, it is not rude at all, even with all the amount of sex jokes, clitoris jokes, and toilet jokes. Even when the jokes didn't make me laugh too much, they weren't offensive and I didn't have any inconvenience watching. There are also nice stereotypes about Jews. Exaggerated of course, but taken from the reality.
6 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.