Opiniones de witster18

The original film was a bit camp, and relied on digital wonder, sound, and root-worthy characters. Its plot was similarly simple, but fascinatingly fresh. Tron Legacy built upon that foundation, providing an update, and Daft Punk's extraordinary soundtrack. Legacy did a fine job of entertaining the audience while having a secure connection to the original film.

Like Legacy, Ares received early mixed reviews, but fits perfectly in the franchise. The look is still fasinating, and unsurprisingly, NIN's soundtrack works as effectively as Daft Punks, fitting rather seemlessly into this entertaining "popcorn-flick". The film sounds incredible.

Leto's Ares is the real show stealer, providing a bit more character depth than i expected. The films' plot is no more complex than the first two films, but none of the films are as systematically complex as the subject matter might suggest.

I suspect Tron fans, and those who don't mind some style over substance, will enjoy the film, while others will find it as forgettable as the original. That's to say that those who have looked forward to the film, those who kniw what to expect, will not be disappointed

At the very least; it looks good, it sounds great, and it didn't overstay its welcome - that's more than I can say about the third installments from some other franchises. Not bad.

69/100

.

Monolith is a slow-burning thriller with a rather convincing lead-performance. It shares some admirable qualities with films like Pellington's "I Melt with You", or Jonathan Glazer's "Under the Skin". Fans of creepy atmospheric indie-thrillers will truly enjoy this little film. Instantly thrust onto '22s top-25, and even though I'm only 1/3 of the way through the '22 watchlist, I'd say there's little chance this won't hold onto a top 15-20 spot. For now it's number 7,

The film is deliberatly paced, but builds nicely throughout. It evolves from mysterious to more thrilling and intriguing as it moves along. The ending will divide audiences, and surely draw its share of ire, but I found it quite effective and symbolic. The entire film centers around the weight of guilt, lies, and decisions, and the way this is all tied into her career-is, in hindsite, quite brilliant.

Monolith is definitely worth a spin, and will be going on the 4th installment of ""Jeremy's B-Movie Marathon".

70/100

You might like this if you liked: I melt with You - about even Under the Skin - About Even Finchers The Girl with The Dragon Tattoo - better Wasted on the Young - about even.

PYW is a smart and entertaining tonal mish-mash starring Carey Mulligan as a vengeful, witty, supposed-killer. There is a delicate balance between the films' disturbing subject matter, its' dark humor/satire, poignancy and stylization.

Fennels' debut is undeniably fascinating. Now, it's not Antal's "Kontroll(Control/87/100)" fascinating, nor Mendes' American Beauty(90/100), beautiful, but she definitely scores here with sharp casting, storyline, and pure-shock value. Mulligan is fantastic. The opening sequence is fantastic. I guess, after the title sequence, I was hoping the whole thing would go robert rodriguez' grindhouse aesthetic. I understand what the film was going-for in terms of content restraint and anti-exploitation, but the abandonment of the typical exploitation look/gore kinda hurts the film imo. It could have exploited the heck out of every aspect except the women, and still served its' message, no?

The opening and title sequence have a pleasant grind-house quality. I wish the film had kept that sharp edge/stylization throughout, but it gets slightly-less visually creative as it goes. At times, it looks a bit too much like its' light-hearted indy!roots. I wish it would have been a bit darker and more serious in tone tbh, but then again, Anna Kendrick's "Woman of the Hour(75/100)" did that, and was no better than this(both are pretty good - despite my criticisms).

The film does an excellent job with the late twists and its' unexpectedly "tidy" conclusion. It is entertaining and certainly buzz-worthy. Straight to '20s Top-25 List.

You'll like this if you liked: American Psycho(better), Spring Breakers(much worse), Brick(slightly better), or Deathproof(better).

76/100.

Glen Powell is a rising star, as Netflix's "Hitman" displays. Jonathan Majors is also a rising star. His performance in Creed 3 had me weighing if he was the best villain of the entire series. I had wanted to watch this one for a while because the trailer looked solid, and that's before I watched the performances of the two leads in those other films. For what it's worth, I gave all 3 films 6-7 (inc this one) a 7/10(Hitman 74, Creed 3 71, and Devotion 68. This is a 6.5 - 68/100

It's solid, but it is more of a heartfelt drama and character study than an action or "warfilm". It reminded me a bit of "men of honor" starring DeNiro and Gooding Jr., with similar results and tone. Devotion has high production values. The film looks great, and the action sequences do too, but it is a deliberately-paced film, and at over 2 hours will draw angst from impatient viewers and action-popcorn fans.

That said, patient viewers who enjoy solid performances may be smitten. I was. I should mention: Christina Jackson is also solid as Majors wife. Majors knocks it out of the park, and Powell balances things out. However, i feel like the film was limited due to staying true to the story and subject matter, which is both a compliment, and perhaps a bit of a crutch. I'm not one to just throw the real story out the window, but a little embellishment or controversy here might have gone a long way.

The film tells an important story, but it is also a bit too safe, too slow, and too anti-climactic to have the resonating impact(and scores) that the production and performances deserve. I enjoyed the film, personally, but the criticisms are accurate. I'm a genxer, meaning I dont need "Revenge of the Fallen(45)" or "300(83)" to be entertained. In another era - this would be more highly regarded. Recommended for those with patience, who enjoy solid performances and production value, but not recommended for those who need more action and cgi to be entertained.

You'll like this if you liked: Men of Honor(about equal), An Officer and A Gentleman(better), or Black Book(zwartbook/subt/better). This could hold a top 25 spot for 2022. Bottom half, but still.

Besson has fashioned another stylish and entertaining yarn. Dogman will spark some hate with all its' transgender/religious undertones; My feelings: Leave the ratings to the ratings board, and check your sensitivities at the box office..

Detractors might complain about realism, as well as loath the films' taboo/dark themes, orrrr, one could just sit-back and go along for the ride.

This is too fast-paced to be slow burning. It's too dark to be this much fun, and too well-fashioned to be that bad, on any level(rogerebertdotcom 1/5). To each their own. I'm in it for the style/direction.

There are a lot of bad movies when people say, "it's popcorn movie", or "turn your brain off". Zero character depth, poor performances, CGI overload, etc. This is a different type of shut your brain off and enjoy-it, the story is outlandish and disturbing, but Besson edits like an experienced fortnighter, and the dogs are a relatable blast. Dog lovers will like this just for the dog elements. Gives new meaning to the dogs of war. Fans of the directors' previous work will like this. It's dsrk but sleek, it's criminal underbelly stuff has been done a million times before, but it always looks and sounds great with this director, always.

Besson has used similar themes to bring an edge to his films. He paints a paradox of good and evil. You think you know the difference between good and bad(?) until u meet a hero from a Luc Besson movie. He questions innocence, questions religion, and uses revenge as salvation. He's done it again, and it looks great, again, and its entertaining as hell, again.

The film isn't really about these dogmas anyway. It will receive some unfair hate because of their inclusion.

Besson's films have always been an escape, for both their' lead characters, and their viewers' sometimes less than desirable and unfulfilling lives. His characters more criminal lives are still entertaining. When life gets too serious, leave it for a 2-hr Luc Besson film, where style and flare abound, where entertainment beguiles and trumps reality, where escape is not just the theme, but the purpose, where the born ruthless get justice, and born innocent, seek and unashamedly-get, salvation. Loosen up.

It's a shame these websites like rogerebertdotcom(1/5 for example) will spend so much time analyzing this or that aspect of Dogman. I can just see them taking notes as the film starts. As if, in "their" position, they should expect anything but this. For some, this is why and what we came here-for. For some, the escape iS the purpose.

Yeah, one could loath a lot about Dogman - Unless entertainment and sharp direction are near the top of your list. You could just shut your brain off and smile at it. That's my recommendation. Leonard Maltin gave "Weird Science" a similar scathing review.

76/100

Similar in tone to monkey man. Besson is a stylish and polished director. This doesn't have the action of Monkeyman, but it will likely, similarly, hold-down a top 10-12 spot in 2024's top-25. It might even be a touch better, if not just because its' more sleek editing, direction, and lead performance. Dog and sleek-movie-lovers alike will balance the political/religious/censorship hate on the other side.

In summary - I don't know what the detractors thought they were gonna get. The film, is everything I envisioned and hoped it would be, and perhaps even better than I knew it could be.

Recommended. Like Split, Joker, Ghostdog and Angel-A had a baby. Another stylized, entertaining Besson film. If only other 6.8's were this good looking, or entertaining. Charlie Countryman(78/100) left me with the same impression.

A surviving video store(in 2012 no less) offered this dvd rental to me over a decade ago, setting the stage for future payoffs, becoming the first of many excellent films from Director Denis Villenueve, I was never one to shy away from subtitles, and saw Radiohead was attached for some of the music. I was in. Sometimes the game of movie watching pays-off, and this nugget led to a goldmine. You can read more, but the less you know about this one, the better.

The effort here is clear departure from the subsequent films in the Denis Villeneuve filmography. Just saying that it's one of the director's best, Is saying a lot. After all, Dune 2 was the first 10(93/100)I'd awarded in a few years. Sicario 83/100 was excellent, and Prisoners 87/100 was one of the best crime thrillers of the last 2 decades. Incendies is the biggest over-achievement of the lot. It's also the heaviest. The director typically paints in social macabre, or more recently, artistic science fiction. Incendies is an unrelenting, disturbing(yet undeniably impactful) drama about a mother, torn from her three children amidst civil and religious unrest in Lebanon.

I really don't wish to dive further into Indendies' plot, because in this case, the journey is more impactful and engrossing when the viewer goes-in knowing little more than, "this is going to be a serious war-torn drama". The source material, direction, cinematography, editing, acting, music, style And ending are all top-notch. I wouldn't doubt that some may consider this his best work. As I write, I'm questioning what could be my own genre-biases in that regard. Is the film the equal to Prisoners or Dune 2? Can a film made for 6 Million pack that much punch? The answer is Yes.

Those few years at that video store showcased many young directors' high-potential, like Duncan Jones' "Moon", or Nimrod Antal's "Kontroll", and Morten Tyldum's "Headhunters"; all gems from that period, but Villeneuve's "Incendies" was the best of the impressive lot of upstart directors' early work, and it is, undoubtedly, one of the best "unknown" films of the millennium.

Wear your headgear for this one. This is absolutely Not for the kiddos, or faint of heart.

The only flaws in Villeneuve's Incendies come in the form of liberties taken by the director in terms of the languages in the film, and the european appearance of the twins. For some, these issues will be glaring turn-offs, for others they may go unnoticed. For me, one or two scenes could have been reshot, and the language and congruence issues were more of a discovery, than a distraction.. Post-being-blown-away, the language and "appearance" issues are somewhat valid, and perhaps just a byproduct of the only thing that Villenueve lacked at this period in his career, time, money, and resources. Neither the appearance of the twins or the language congruency/accuracy seriously affected my first two viewings, or my score here. That could depend on the viewer, or just the awareness of the ever-so-slight shortcomings going-into a viewing. 87/100.

..will be put on my B-movie-Marathon List, and it is a shoe-in for top-25 of the year. That's saying something because Keaton's direction is meh, and the film lacks a little style. It's a gem though, and tbh, it could have been a diamond.

Where the film excels, is in it's storyline and subject matter. What first appears as your run of the mill crime mystery, is consistently providing nuggets that take it to the next level. Michael Keaton and James Marsden are rock-solid, The last half hour of storyline is more tightly woven than a bulletproof vest. The film offers some moments of laughter and heartbreak. There are many well-thought-out and unexpected turns.

Knox Goes Away is undeniably clever, and despite its' deliberate pacing, it's steady and never stops getting better. Keaton's camera is nothing to harp about, but the screenplay and performances more than offset its' average aesthetics. .

I teetered on 8/10 here and may go back to it, because the film just does such an excellent job of covering its' bases. 2/3rds of the way through I had hoped it would do a good job wrapping up the mystery/storyline, and in that regard it far exceeded my expectations.

Keaton's film will be pure joy for unsuspecting fans of the genre, and above-average for most anyone that doesn't need nonstop action to enjoy a movie. A little more style would have gone a long way, but its hard to complain when the acting and storyline are as good as they are here.

Kudo's Mr. Keaton. 75/100.

Peter Weir's "Truman Show" is a heartfelt and tightly-woven examination of the human spirit. Some birds are not meant to be caged, and Truman's feathers are, indeed, too bright for the tiny town of Seahaven.

The films' score is fantastic, and the absurdity of it all, is tempered by its design elements, brilliant cast, and brisk pace.

Jim Carrey fans (and detractors alike) may be surprised by this performance. He perfectly captures Truman's sincerity, naivety and curiosity; slightly toning-down his physical comedy, capturing the characters' expressiveness, and sublimely (in)human condition.

The film is so tightly structured and entertaining, that it feels like an hour long. It packs-in more life lessons than a Sesame Street episode, and is the perfect cross-genre, multi-age, and multi-faceted crowd pleaser for any movie-night.

If someone asks, "what are we watching", just reply, "I'm being spontaneous", you get the credit, and the satisfaction: Thanks for reading. In case I don't see ya, good afternoon, good evening, and good night.

81/100.

This is, at heart, an action adventure film. Janney and Marshall-Green have been standouts in other films/work. It was only a couple years ago that I was watching the low-budget sci-fi-action flick "Upgrade"(8/10) with a smile on my face that made Jokers' look small.

I started "Lou" with little-to-no anticipation, but felt a little more comfortable when I saw J. J. Abrams name attached. I thought, "well, at the very least it will look good", and it did.

This film has some really big issues. Almost all of them are based around a skeleton script and many terribly implausible moments, and I'm really not the kind of guy to nit-pick that kind-of stuff, especially in an action flick.

The characterizations are all extremely shallow, under-written, contradictory, and puzzling, and it makes the emotional impact the same. The plot is a serious mess.

One of the biggest lines, or at least seemingly-so, is "I left this world a more dangerous place", and be absolutely prepared for that statement, and it's impact, to fizzle, but not like wet wood in a fire.

And that leads me to the pantry of implausible and ridiculous scenes. The entire premise doesn't even make sense. The more I think about the film the more I think i'm over-rating-it here, but hey, I didn't turn it off. The scenery and settings were great. The '80s music doesn't hurt, but this feels very blah to me considering it's action, it's not poorly acted, and it's a JJ Abrams production. Tbh, I've had similar issues with a couple recent jjabrams productions(Annihilation 5/10) comes to mind.

Action films can be mindless, but they need to have heart. If you're gonna attempt a back-story like this - you need to give the viewer more, otherwise we just do not understand who these people are, why they're here, and why they do what they do, and in that way, "Lou" fails miserably.

The ending is predictable, but less predictable than it is stupid and implausible.

Please Netflix do NOT make a sequel. It's not terrible, but it's much worse than I thought it would be. Messy film.

You "might" like this is you liked: Shoot to Kill(slightly better than Lou), Ava(about even), or No Time to Die(better).

John Carpenter's second film, "Assault on Precinct 13", is an exercise in over-achievement; a true coming-out party for the director. In concept, it is little more than a short story on a shoe-string budget, but nonetheless, trailblazing.

Carpenter's score transposed '70s-pulp into '80s-cool. The minimal cast, save 25 gang-members that are both mute and moot, does a superb job. The film is strange, dark, witty fun from start to finish. It draws inspiration from Rio Bravo, and Night of the Living Dead, but Carpenter, having put his own stamp on every aspect of the film, is far from simply retreading here. He developed the score in 3 days, and shot the entire film in under 3-weeks. He wrote, directed, edited, and scored the film. It may borrow and be influenced by other films, but it still reeks of originality and style. The director's budding talent here could be compared to Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs(9)or Scorcese's Mean Streets(8.5), only Assault, admittedly, isn't as good as those films; but it's still good. Without AOP13, the great iconic horror films of the '80s may not even exist. It is as important as Friedkin, Romero and Hitchock's work, in that regard. Carpenter started to create a template for '80s horror and sci-fi right here, in 1976.

Hollywood wasn't prepared for a film this dark to explode at the time, and the director didn't have quite the resources for it to be that either, but it would open the door for Halloween to do just that(2 years later). Carpenter's signatures that made "They Live", "The Fog", "Christine", and "The Thing" so enjoyably tense, are all here.

The film is simultaneously simple yet dynamic, as are its' characters. The short run-time doesn't hurt it's re-watchability, and the moments of brevity, balanced with the tension, would become yet another staple of this under-appreciated and talented director.

73/100

What it lacks in scale -it makes up for in style. Recommended.

"A Good Person", at the surface, is a nothing film. An indie drama with little-to-no buzz, all-too familiar subject matter, and no action or CGI.

I remember when I saw David Schwimmer's film, "Trust". I didn't know much about the subject of internet/sexual predators(especially the depth of its' impact on families), but it became very obvious to me that the filmmaker DID! It wasn't until after I finished the film, that I found-out that Schwimmer had a lot of experience/knowledge of the subject matter, and that is what elevated the drama/realism to a level you don't often see in film. This film does the same thing.

The first hour of "A Good Person" is about the best hour of any drama that I have ever seen. That's a bold statement from a guy that's seen about 4500 films, but I'm sticking to-it. I have been affected by both addiction and major car accidents, so in this case, I know the subject matter quite well. Perhaps that skews my opinions about the film, but it also qualifies me in some way to critic the writing, acting, and subject matter(realism); under a more powerful(and watchful) lense.

Zach Braff's writing and Florence Pugh and Morgan Freemans' acting make this, undoubtedly, one of the years best.

An hour-in, I had to stop the film after a couple different scenes, at that point, I was befuddled and truly shell-shocked by the effectiveness and realism of the first 2 acts. Scene after scene it was just so well done. I went from going-into the film quite blind, to realizing I was watching something VERY special. I felt like Indiana Jones in THe Last Crusade, "You have chosen, wisely". I also realized, that if the last act was as good as the first 2, that I would undoubtedly be rating the film as the 48th 10/10 that I have awarded. At the halfway point, definitely a 10 out of 10! Each scene in the films' first hour is realistic, completely engrossing and impeccably written.

I knew Braff had an impossible task. To finish the film on as high of a note as the films' first hour, would be difficult for any director. Its not that the final act is that bad, it's that the first two are just simply that good.. The only problem is that the film gets so many subplots involved, that it stood no chance of timely and adequately resolving each of them. Therefore the final act is slightly convoluted, rushed, and overdone. IF the final act were as strong as the films' first hour, literally removing one-less than perfect 5-min scene, I would have nudged-it onto the exceptional shelf with my favorite dramas of the last 2 decades; films like Whiplash, There Will Be Blood, The Descendants, and Short Term 12. As it sits(or finished), it will rank at or near the final film, "Short Term 12", in overall quality(9/10), and most akin to that comparison in genre and scope. Zero doubt that this film will hold a top-5 spot for 2023, and it currently sits at #1.

This is one of the best films I've ever seen in terms of tackling multiple dramatic subplots like addiction, grief, rehabilitation, friendship/support and hope; and by simply doing-it so well. It literally has the potential to save real peoples lives, and i don't think too many films can say that. It understands the subject matter. It realistically portrays serious family dynamics(maybe minus one scene), but is mostly, uncomfortably, realistic and dynamic.... Zach Braff moved way up the drama-director to watch list, if there is one. The writing of the entire film, the extremely well-fashioned scenes of the films' first hour(in particular), and those incredible performances, are what truly sets this film apart. It's a little more restraint in one particular scene away from 10/10 for this reviewer.

The Covenant is easily Guy Ritchie's most serious work. Detractors will likely describe-it as unrealistic; perhaps predictable, formulaic, or even "propaganda".. All of which may be true(or certainly arguable). I still think it's one heckuva good movie.

The closest comparisons would be Lone Survivor(8.5) Outpost(7.5) and Traitor(7.5). At worst, it's better than the last-two, and those are 3 good films. At best, Ritchie's film may be as good as Wahlberg's more decorated, more realistic, true story. . Sure, Covenant may have more faults/suspension-of-belief than Lone Survivor; though I wouldn't know on the military accuracy/nuance tbh(but I can imagine - if only because Lone Survivor IS certainly a much "safer"film. That's the irony, is that Ritchie will take "sell-out" criticism for this film because its not in his usual style, but the film is actually incredibly daring and impactful....

I'm also not one to nitpick through that detailed stuff, some are, so if u do that, u may not like it.

Accuracy-fiction-or-not-stuff aside - many aspects of this film are superb. It looks ridiculously good. The acting is top-notch. It has more heart than all three of the films I mentioned, combined!

This film is more psychologically complex and dramatic than those other films. It's an emotional war film centered sround two central characters. Ritchie's protagonists are bound by respect, debt and honor. They are men of conviction.

I think a bit more restraint from Ritchie in certain scenes, snd perhaps a longer(and even More epic) runtime, would've gone a long way.

As it sits, we have a lock for top-25 of '23.

This is a film about debt and respect. It includes some really good dialogue and deep emotions. The action and cinematography are truly superb. Gyllenhaal is great, but his counterpart, equally as good.

Another superb Ritchie film. I'd never guess he directed-it, not because it isn't good, but because it isn't as stylized, British, or dare I say Elmore Leonard as his previous work. I'll be watching this again.

79/100

For the record - I rated Lone Survivor a smidge higher(83/100) - even though this film looks better and strikes more of an emotional-chord for me. Like I said- it's almost too big for itself. Ritchie will take criticism, but I consider this quite the achievement for the director. No one will be able to say it lacks serious aesthetic and emotional punch. Highly Recommended.

Alex Garland via Ex Machina led me to this viewing. Oscar, Jennifer and Natalie's attachment certainly didn't deter-me, and the 6.8 ranking didn't either. I was anxious - sometimes i take a while to find something to watch. Ive just seen a lot of films, and i don't like to waste time. Haha, says the guy who spends 20minutes shuffling through movies to watch. Annihilation checked quite a few boxes going-in, and I was eager to start-it.

I'll be honest - I was disappointed. All of the fantastical ideas are fresh, interesting.. truly original, and thought provoking... It's conceptually awesome, And aesthetically pleasing .......but it's also tedious, emotionless, under-and-poorly scripted, unnecessarily violent, and ultimately disappointing. I wanted ex machina - I got Adam Project Meets Maze Runner, only with more horror aspects, and not as average. Eeek.

There's no one(and nothing) to root-for -all the characters are dull and unlikable. The subplots are scattered about without any real impact. Another reviewer mentioned the poorly executed "government" operation, and that critic is also accurate. To take this idea, these actors, and combine sci-fi and horror aspects, make it look good, and then somehow dumbfound me as to how I didn't enjoy watching-it.. wew.. Ex Machina is a polished, damn-near masterpiece - Annihilation is a film I will watch once in my lifetime.

Is similar-to, and unfortunately, as average as: Adam Project, Maze Runner, No Escape(Liota), another Jennifer Jason Lee stinker and slight director disappointment the likes of Cronenbergs' "Existenz", Schumachers' "Blood Creek",Duncan Jones' "Mute", and Antals' Predators. Didn't love it.

I mean some people might like it, but I'm just not one of those people. Still gets a near average score for look, concept, and because the set-up(first 30-min) is pretty good. From the moment she arrives at the base, till the end, this is an average film.