Opiniones de Vic_max

It's been a long time since a movie made my jaw literally drop. I went in knowing nothing, and honestly, that's the best way to experience it.

The premise is unusual, and it's one of those rare films where you really can't guess where it's going. It is technically horror, but don't let that label fool you. This is more of a mystery first, horror second. The horror elements are used mostly in a smart way, not just for shock.

If you like movies that are unpredictable and keep you guessing, this is worth seeing. And if you do enjoy it, check out the director's other film, Barbarian (2022). Also excellent, and also best watched without knowing anything ahead of time.

Watch this in Dolby Cinema or Regal 4DX if you are able. Both will have you immersively shaking as giant twisters wreak havoc in the film.

This is an enjoyable remake of the very successful movie Twister. Amazingly, some of the same crew worked on the original. But - the cast is all new. And - the story is updated, acknowledging the technological advancements since the first movie.

It's a nice blend of storylines about people and the power of nature, character redemption, pushing the boundaries of science - and maybe even a little (though indirectly) reference to climate change.

If you're looking for a fun action movie (and esp. If you saw and liked the original) - this is a good bet.

This movie had a number of beautiful callouts to the original movie with Gene Wilder - like the wondrous melodic tunes and the colorful "land of chocolate" imagery. I absolutely LOVED those things about this movie.

However - the movie portrays Willy Wonka as some kind of wizard, capable of doing actual magic ... not magician-type tricks, but actual conjuring of virtually any kind of physical objects or landscapes .... albeit chocolate related. This is what confused the heck out of me.

He's not supposed to have magical powers. He's supposed to be an eccentric, highly imaginative, and innovative chocolatier..

Neither the book nor the two previous movies with Wilder and Depp portray Wonka this way. Even in this movie, he's just supposed to be a magician ... but then does continuous magical conjuring throughout the movie.

I know ... the movie is a fictional fantasy and there's a lot of creative license allowed - esp. In kids movies. But I've never seen it this grossly overstated. If they wanted to go in this direction, fine - make clear at the beginning that he's a magical being.

Anyway - I did emotionally enjoy the striking visuals, the references to the music of the original, Wonka's determined optimist attitude ... and, of course, every scene with Hugh Grant. However my brain rejected the storyline for the reason I mentioned.

If you're fan of the books or.any of the previous movies - you're going to feel the need to check this out. Hopefully, you'll be more open to the storyline.

This incantation of Godzilla, when you get a good look, has small head, big belly, huge thighs and an overly thick tail. It doesn't seem to slow Godzilla down though - it can be very fast. It's definitely a look that has a direct lineage to the old Japanese Godzilla movies of the '50s and '60s.

However, the movie was just "ok" to "good" if you're into monster movies. It's always nice to have a personal (human) story going on between the characters, but the one here was a little too sappy.

There's lots of weeping, groveling and over-acting. The characters are simple one-dimensional personas. For example, the female lead character could easily have made a good Virgin Mary if you take out the monster. Also - seemingly impossible coincidences and situations are rampant in the movie -- like individuals or groups of people showing up randomly out of nowhere to save others. Yes, it's sci-fi, but my brain felt insulted.

And what's with all the saluting? I won't go into details, but that makes no logical sense given the situations in the movie.

If you love early era Japanese Godzilla movies, this is for you. All the classical looks, scenarios, local ... and "death ray" elements are present. But if you need or want more, it isn't there.

I'm not sure where these positive or semi-positive reviews are coming from, but this movie is utterly ridiculous ... even if we account for "campiness", b-movie horror and the like.

The thinking and decisions of the characters involved are worst than the most brainless, drugged up teenagers who head up most slasher movies. It's so anti-intellectual that's it's often painful to watch.

Strangely, the production values are decent which gives it the feel of a much better movie. One would think a film veteran like Elizabeth Banks would have a better handle on things ... and that someone like Liota would stay as far away from something this as possible ... yet here they are.

I'll give it a few points for the acting (this is not their fault) and the production values, but I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone I considered a friend.

As a guy who never played with Barbie dolls, I was surprised to be caught up in the enthusiasm to see this movie; I purchased tickets well in advance when they first went on sale.

It's amazing to think that, a few years back, Amy Schumer was going to star in the title role. Though after seeing Margot Robbie, it's hard to imagine anyone else in that spot.

Anyway ... like most moviegoers - I enjoyed this movie. It's a lot like The Lego Movie with its high energy, colorful world-building, meta jokes, self-aware characters and variety of insider (fan) humor. The "2001 A Space Odyssey" beginning, (clearly aimed at adult viewers) was priceless.

However unlike The Lego Movie I can definitely say that the first half was enormously more entertaining compared to the second. The first half was energized by all the Barbie accessories, character introductions, high-energy music and a very cool plot reveal involving the "real world".

But unlike The Lego Movie, the second half (while not bad) wasn't able to keep the momentum going. While there was a lot of action and drama ... it felt more hit-and-miss.

The message was good: you don't have to be perfect to be happy ... just be true to yourself. However, its delivery felt a bit too complex for kids - and maybe even for some adults.

The empowering commentary about womanhood was eloquent ... but it seemed like the writers had trouble getting from that point to a strong and uplifting ending. It almost felt a bit melancholy for whatever reason.

But - don';t let that stop you from enjoying this movie! There's a lot to like and it's kind of a cultural moment and opportunity to connect with all the Barbie-love that spans generations. Enjoy this experience with a big audience and you'll be glad you did.

I had the good fortune of an advanced viewing of the S11 opener at Comic-Con. The event opened with a hilarious 30 seconds of Hypnotoad on the giant screens - it was perfect! After the panel was introduced, the screening began.

The jokes were sharp, fast and riotously funny - not to mention timely! The cast and writers haven't lost any of their energy. The audience reaction was immense. None of the other animated previews I went to got a similar response.

All key characters are back as well as many of the side-characters (and the panel promised more to come). They've only just begun to poke fun at everything that's happened since the last season in 2013. Binging, NFTs, thruples and more all make appearance in the first episode.

If this is any indication of what's to come, it's a can't miss opportunity for fans ... and really for anyone looking for clever, irreverent and timely humor.

This show is kind of a revised version of 2009's "Lie To Me" starring Tim Roth. That show was very interesting and it was loosely based on real life "lie-detecting" psychologist Dr. Paul Ekman.

Like "Lie to Me", the lead character of Poker Face seems infallible ... and that could be the show's undoing. While the episode plots are diverse and interesting, the formula is very repetitive.

Basically, bad stuff happens, then Natasha Lyonne's character shows up, she spots the lies, and then the show is over.

"Lie To Me" also had very similar stories, but the repetitive perfect "lie-detecting" formula grew predictable and eventually wearisome.

Hopefully, the bright minds behinds Poker Face know this and will be careful not to repeat history.

Maybe if Lyonne's character had some limitations or constraints in her lie-detecting ability, the stories may be have been less predictable. But for now, every show is essentially the same.

However, as of yet, the novelty hasn't worn off and the stories are fun. So if you like murder-mysteries, this should be fun ... for a while.

The phone was nicknamed "Crackberry" - due to its addictive quality ... (an omen of the future of smartphones). Here, people loved the clicking of the mini keyboard and the blinking "new messages" light. It was the rage of Wall Street, Fortune 500 companies government leaders and had dedicated fans ranging from Obama to Katy Perry to Kim Kardashian.

It was with this fascination that I watched "Blackberry". I wanted to know how did all of this get started and by whom? Well, the movie didn't disappoint - I'd have never guessed the people behind it and wild ride they had.

The story is brisk and the characters have radically different personalities. The latter made it interesting given that they all thrown together in an increasingly high-pressure environment. My favorite character was the comic-sidekick Doug Fregin (cofounder) - he reminds me of Jonah Hill. It also turns out that he's the co-writer and director of the film itself.

One thing I didn't immediately recognize was that the tech wiz / boy-wonder (Mike Lazaridis) was played by Jay Baruchel. He was the voice behind the lead character in How to Train Your Dragon. It was perfect casting.

Blackberry is definitely worth a watch if the subject matter interests you. It's yet another movie demonstrating that real-life events can be just as captivating as pure fiction itself. It joins the ranks of other great tech stories inspired by true events: The Dropout (Theranos / Elizabeth Holmes), We Crashed (WeWork), Super Pumped (Uber), and Tetris (the game).

What a nice surprise to see the backstory of Rocket - always wondered about his origin story. Overall, the movie was "good" - though not quite as over-the-top exciting as Vol 1 (my favorite) or Vol. 2, but still good.

The positives: more character time with the crew - really enjoy the interactions and the back-and-forth comedic banter, the revelation of Rocket's mysterious origins is nice, seeing all the creative ways Groot saves the day is awesome and the whacky (but cool) space ships are fun to watch.

The not-so-great: the music selections are kind of low-energy, the scenes with Gamora and Quill are a bit lackluster and seem wasted ... and the overall story feels rushed even given it's 2.5hr runtime (maybe there will be an extended director's cut at some point).

However, the hardest part is having to wait years to see what Marvel chooses to do with the future of these wonderful characters. We're given a limited a hint in the final end-credits for one of the characters, but curious minds will want to know more.

Nothing new here - just typical person vs. The extreme forces of nature film.

Whether it's sharks, endless wilderness or in this case, a harsh arctic environment ... the main idea is stay alive, move forward ... and allow the power of the insurmountable human drive to survive take over.

Just as this movie is a kind of copy of previous films, a variation of this film was done a few years later: "Infinite Storm". Though what's interesting about the latter movie is that it's based on true events.

Anyhow, this movie is mildly worth watching if you enjoy this genre - or are a fan of remote, desolate polar movie settings.

This show seems to have found the magic that The Walking Dead (TWD) had for seven straight seasons when it reached its peak viewership of 17 million viewers.

I'm amazed that the "zombie" genre can still attract a major audience. Since TWD debuted in 2010, there have been more than 15 zombie movies and series.

In shows like these, quality is everything. Here the acting, production values and most of the writing is pretty good. I've never played the game so I'm rating it purely on its own merits.

I think the big challenges for the series will be to keep the pacing brisk and stories moving forward (both of which plagued TWD as it aged). Are they ever going to reach their destination? Is it going to be what they were hoping? Will we ever see humanity being "saved"? Will they move around the timeline or "Last Of Us" universe or game versions? Who knows what's planned but hopefully they'll see the challenges of TWD and do something different.

But for now, if you're into post-apocalyptic zombie adventures ... or even just good sci-fi adventure shows, this one's for you.

Cameron has been hugely successful with epic storytelling - that includes spectacular world-building, memorable characters and a captivating adventure that takes you on a ride.

While this movie was good, it wasn't in the same league as his previous ones. In fact, it felt more like an episode than an epic.

Basically we get a familiar world (albeit a water location), unremarkable characters and a familiar enemy & plot. I didn't feel like I'd want to sit through the same movie again at the theater anytime soon (unlike my reactions to the first "Avatar" and Titanic).

Even so - the wonderful aquatic visuals for for most of the 3+ hours created an "experience" of sorts. It let me let off my feeling that the intro was a bit rushed with the character introductions and explanations (esp. The kids).

I hope Cameron is able to recapture his "epic" moviemaking style in Avatar 3. He's a great movie-maker and I still plan on getting tickets for the sequels.

What is the purpose of this show? Watching toxic people argue ... with occasional clips of luxury real estate?

"Selling Sunset" is kind of a guilty pleasure, so I watched this show hoping it would be a similar experience. It wasn't. The show is too focused on the petty squabbles of a handful of immature young agents. Many of them are new to selling real estate in OC.

Orange County also doesn't have world-famous iconic locations and celebrity-connections like Los Angeles. So the homes don't have that extra flair that homes in "Selling Sunset" or "Million Dollar Listing Los Angeles" do.

The show can still work - but the people have to be more interesting and there needs to more of the high-stakes nature of the biz: getting these coveted listings, negotiating high-dollar deals and all the wild / crazy problems that come up at the last minute.

But that's not what they've done. So for now, if you like watching human train-wrecks slug it out, this is your show. Given all the poor reviews I've seen, I hope the producers don't think everyone who watched season 1 will show up for season 2. This show needs some re-tooling.

The rating is > 1 for the real stars - the beautiful homes in OC.

The main individual that this documentary centers around is Richard ("Rick") Parks. He was a nuclear engineer hired as part of the clean-up operation at Three Mile Island. As he unequivocally says at the beginning and end of the series, he's a believer in nuclear energy. He is a proponent.

What he's not a believer in, after his experience, is putting nuclear safety in the hands of private enterprise. The pressures to be profitable (or avoid losses) can force lapses in safety ... and that should never be on the table.

As far as a documentary is concerned, it's "ok". It lags a lot in the middle and didn't have much in the way of counterpoint experts. However, because it compiled and presented a lot of interesting information about the incident that I knew little about ... I have to give it credit. The idea that there was a second potential disaster involved (the polar crane operation) - was truly eye-opening.

As far as the downsides - there wasn't a lot of counterpoint from nuclear experts. This is understandable. From friends I have in the industry, they tell me the nuclear industry is a small community. If your name gets associated with anything anti-industry, the professional hit could be a career ender. Still, it would have been nice to see more scientific experts presented ... esp. If they had counterpoint ideas.

A fun fact they showed was that Pres. Jimmy Carter was a nuclear engineer and was once involved in repairing a damaged reactor himself. He showed up at Three Mile Island to calm tensions and support the industry.

Near the beginning I wondered if this would have been more interesting as a dramatization, like the Chernobyl mini-series. However, after a while, I understood why this may have been better as a documentary. The story they tell is more of disasters being averted ... which is great, but different than the stories of Chernobyl, Titanic, etc.

All in all - it's an interesting watch. The world is a bit different today than in 1979; there's a focus on solar, wind and even the sea for new sources of power. If they don't pan out soon, interest may eventually refocus on nuclear energy.

If you want nuclear accident suspense, watch "The China syndrome" and "Chernobyl". If you want whistleblower drama, watch "Silkwood" ... and (though it's a documentary) this series.

This review will be in the minority here - and I get it. The characters in the show are over-the-top, one-dimensional and almost cartoon-like in the way they're portrayed.

So why the "10"? Because ... that's what it's really like with some founders and their corporate entourage / enablers. If you've lived through that experience, like many of us who've been involved in high-growth Silicon Valley startups, it's scary real.

There are brilliant founders out there with god-complexes and a reality-bubble surrounding them. It's like a distortion field. You get close enough and you start buying into the warped reality they have. The more successful company becomes - the stronger the bubble gets.

Anyway - while this won't be great viewing for everyone, to those who've lived through stuff like this, it can be captivating. To be on the outside and look into the crazy, fevered frenzy that sucks people in like a cult is quite an opportunity for reflection and learning.

So - that's why for me, it has to be a "10".

It's great to have a sci-fi cartoon that is connected to the Star Trek universe. The colorful visuals are nice, the locations are constantly changing and the action is non-stop. There's a lot to like about the series.

On the other hand, the main characters tend to be abrasive or pathologically flawed in some way. This often shows up as entitlement or bullying. A lot of them seem to need more psychiatric help than space missions.

Overall I like the show but rarely find myself laughing. While it's more cruel than uplifting, I do still enjoy the frequent references to TNG, Voyager and the original Star Trek.

Given the lack of choices for new Star Trek material - I'll certain take what I can get. So I'll continue to watch it. However, give me a better Star Trek comedy or animated show and I'd be happy to switch.

If you've ever been interested in marriage-track relationships where one party is very rich and the other isn't ... this show explores that idea in many ways.

Season 2 has just as much of a wild group as season 1 ... with a couple of carry-overs. Is it love, is it the desire for a certain lifestyle or is it a source of income? As Season 2's Desiry says, when she met Rodney ... "I hit the jackpot".

What adds a bit of spice to the relationships is that there's often an extra issue complicating things. For Desiry and Rodney (wealthy) ... there's the issue that she's refusing intimacy until they're married. For Kattie and Kevin (wealthy), he insists that that split all costs. For Nonie (wealthy) and Reese, his mother is trying to dissolve their relationship because Nonie is much older and can't have kids. Let the sparks fly.

To get a feel for the show, here's a rundown of the 6 couples followed through 10 episodes of season 1:

A 60 year old real estate developer and his 21 year old girlfriend.

A 36 year old publishing heir and his 25 year old yoga instructor girlfriend (who won't accept a prenup agreement)

A 37 year old mother of 4 whose dating her daughter's 23 year old male friend.

A 44 year old female real estate investor who's dating a 48 year old construction worker (who lives with his parents).

A 40 year old business owner who's dating a 22 year old he met on a sugar daddy website.

A 20 something eccentric entrepreneur / rapper who's dating a 30 something girl who's fearful she's wasting time as her biological clock ticks away.

If those kinds of matchups sound interesting ... you might enjoy watching the sparks fly in this series. While topic screams of shallowness and gold-digging, the direct and indirect power that money exerts in a relationship is real -- and you can see it played out in this show.

It's as pointless and superficial as any soapy relationship reality show ... so if that's your thing ... and the subject matter interests you, might consider checking it out.

Most of the great critical and audience reviews you'll see are based on the first couple of episodes directed by Jason Bateman. But then he's gone and other directors step in for the remaining 8 episodes. Sadly the show gets slow and boring from that point to the end.

I didn't know about any of this as I watched but found myself slowly procrastinating on watching new episodes. I did finally watch through to the end and wish I never watched any of it.

So ... if you're excited by the characters and mystery in the beginning - just realize, it never ever is that interesting again. If you do continue to watch beyond episode 2, you'll see what I mean.

Though there are some newbies behind this movie, it does do some things well: good special effects and production values. However, two big problems bring it down.

First, except for TJ Miller's comedic character, the characters aren't interesting enough to care about. Except for good jump scares, it's hard to care for any of the characters.

Second, there's not enough context or background information about what's happening to intellectually follow the plot changes. It's easy to understand scenes where they're alone and may be attacked -- but not intelligently follow what's happening at a bigger story level ... except in retrospect.

This movie may work well for younger audiences (which is where I think some of the high reviews are coming from), but if you're seeking intellectual satisfaction, this is not the right movie to see.

I'm a sci-fi fan and the bar is pretty low for me on sci-fi movies. The trailer looked like it might be a typical underwater monster movie ... nothing new but that's fine with me.

What I wasn't expecting was something that looked great on the surface but was a train wreck on screen. It turns out that both director and writer are relative novices when it comes to movies ... and this is the sad mess that resulted.

It's amazing that they blew through $80M without someone noticing things were going south. Somehow they made "B" movies and low-budget sci-fi look great in comparison. It's not because of bad special effects or production values (they were good), but rather the complete lack of character development, poor scene planning and empty story-telling. It's barely watchable.

If you look around, there is no audience or critical rating for this movie that indicates it's anything more than mediocre. Don't waste your time on this one, watch a rerun of any other sci-fi movie instead.

Maybe it was the recliner chairs in the theater, but I struggled to keep my eyes open during the first half of the movie. Nobody was laughing in a near-full theater.

But ... by the 2nd half, the main story got defined, the jokes were better and the action made sense. Plus, there were some good laughs (though almost all from little children).

I like the actors involved and the idea for the movie, but I think this is a little too simple-minded for adults; it's definitely a kids movie.

If you were to take a step back and think about all the different plot sequences (short events), they look good on the surface: fast-paced action, good dialog, humor, characters from previous movies, lots of cool worlds and great F/X.

Furthermore, if you look at the big-picture story ... it's quite acceptable for a Star Wars story.

So what went wrong? For me, the plot-sequences are not well-thought out and there too many of them for the movie's runtime. Many of the sequences have highly-convenient endings (like someone always swoops down at the last moment to avert disaster). You can almost count on that happening each an every time. It's a cop-out formula that's overused.

Furthermore, the big "reveals" were easy to guess. I'm usually terrible at guessing what happens next, but here it seemed obvious. They'd pose a question in a leading way, for example when raising the question of Rey's birth, pause for a long time ... and ... it's not that hard to put 2 and 2 together. It's like a spoiler during the movie.

Secondly, the movie needs to be longer or have fewer plot sequences. The sequence endings seemed rushed and not well integrated with the film itself. If they had a bit more time to edit the movie and catch these kinds of problems, the result could have been very different.

But without a doubt ... this is one of those movies you "have" to see sooner or later because it involves the completion of the culturally iconic Star Wars story.