avis de Balzer13

When I saw the trailer I thought it looked like a C grade movie - ya know not too amazing but not terrible. Then I read the reviews which painted it more of a B grade due to the good acting etc. Just saw it last night and I'd say it's closer to D grade. Other than some real chemistry by the two leads and nice nuanced moments, the film was clearly developed and created by Sony executives rather than the writers or the previously very talented director. Marc Webb's 500 Days of Summer was the Amazing movie on his resume, not this horribly realized and surprisingly boring film. Nothing in it worked: not the set pieces where the action itself was very choppy and confusing and worst of all, not engaging or thrilling. My guess is that Sony needed a hit desperately, felt they had the secret to a successful movie learned from the other 3 Spiderman's, and felt they could push around the writers and the action-inexperienced director and what came out was this very poorly realized film on every level. On the one hand I want it to do well because I think the director is very talented and I want him to have enough success to show us how amazing he can really be on future movies, on the other hand, I'm hoping it under performs and forces all would be controlling movie executives to let good writers and directors do their best work and make good movie instead of subjecting us to a Frankenstein's monster of a film like The Amazing Spiderman.

Not quite sure why this movie has been destroyed so much. It's super enjoyable fun from start to finish. It takes 80's rock anthems and breathes new life into them with super imaginatively choreographed dance sequences. My teen daughters are on their 3rd or 4th viewing. I've lost track. Very well cast; the female lead, Julianne Hough, is quite the find and has that rare movie star X factor and lights up the screen every time she's on. The story is light and fluffy for sure but is very well told for what it is. It reaches its goal of being high energy fun in spades. The screenwriters balance several story lines in a very satisfying way. And then there is Tom Cruise. He kills it as the washed up, dissolutioned rocker like he did the Les Grossman character in Tropic Thunder. And he can actually sing. It's kind of like the guilty pleasure people felt watching Mama Mia but with ratty 80's hair.

Just took my twin 13 year old daughters to see Brave and we all wanted to like it but the film didn't help us much.

Pixar is kind of the Stanley Kubrick of animation studios. Meaning they have been so preternaturally stunning with each of their films, they have set the bar so high, with so many ground breaking, narratively bulletproof films, that when they turn out an ill conceived, bland, and sadly boring film like this, we give it less leeway than we would other mortal film companies like Dreamworks Animation or even Disney. I'm sure Kubrick felt the pressure later in his career to create greatness as much as Pixar head John Lassiter does. And much like Kubrick's streak of great films, maybe Pixar's run as come to a close as well.

And the fact that it is such a utter cookie cutter entry like Disney has been turning out for years is alarming considering John Lassiter is now running both Pixar and Disney Animation. I hope he isn't spread too thin and being tainted by the lost and wandering Disney brand.

I'm not sure why Pixar felt the need to get into the uber saturated princess business. Kinda seen every permutation of that story a few times over. The only thing I could say as a positive on the film, is that the animation of the princess herself is first rate, her luminescent skin, her flowing red hair, is quite an accomplishment. And that might have been enough for another studio, but Pixar has to hit it out of the park each time which has got to be kind of daunting but that's what comes along with greatness I guess.

Saw it today in a sneak preview today at the Director's Guild in LA. James Cameron who was there professed it's a masterpiece and the best 3D to date. And he's right on both fronts. The film is exquisitely crafted. The cinematography and set design is likely going to take home a couple gold guys. It's a film lover's dream movie. As with many of Scorsese's films, it's an inspired film history lesson along side of being a dreamlike children's fable. A really unique combination that will work for the film enthusiasts and discerning family's with kids. Maybe a bit long for broad audiences with very little kids, but the images are so enchanting, it should win over most everybody. Sasha Baron Cohen is a brilliant and hilarious standout as the twitchy constable. It should be very well received just on the 3D alone.

Saw the film this morning and have been laughing all day as I remember lines from it.

Maybe the funniest film I've seen in five years. Haven't had the bust-a-gut variety of laughter in memory like I had with Tropic Thunder.

As we were walking out of the theater, another viewer shrugged and said: it wasn't as good as Batman.

If you're in the market for a whiz bang action film (although the action scenes are done superbly) you may not dig it. But if you're a fan of twisted, dark, ultra funny satire - you'll very likely LOVE it.

This in only the 2nd review I've done in years of IMDb viewing. I just want everyone to see this film because I think it may get overlooked and it would be a shame. It's smart and balls-out daring.

A prediction: like all films that are gutsy and ahead of their time - it will steadily gain a huge following in years to come on DVD.

I'm 7 and I saw the movie with my dad and my twin sister. It wasn't very good because it was very dumb with all that driving around in that motorcycle in the place where nothing happened. Plus it was only about the boy. And the girl was really good in the other movies. She only came out at the last minute in this movie. The other movies were better because they had more excitement and this was the same thing over and over in that computer world that was really dumb. I don't think you should see it. Believe me, take my advice! I think if they make Spy Kids 4, they should bring the girl back more and put the story back home and not in computerland. ~ Sophia

I've never written one of these reviews but strongly felt the need after sitting through this amateurish misfire of a film.

I can see other people have sparked to it, so all I can think of is that this is the status of movies these days and what our level of expectation has dropped to.

Binder clearly wants to emulate James L. Brooks' work (specifically "Terms of Edearment") but has nowhere near the chops for it. Brooks is an expert emotion manipulator, knowing exactly when to make you laugh and cry and the delicate balance between the two. God love Binder for trying, but he hit the wall with this mess.

I can see how the movie got made because it gave an opportunity for Kevin Costner and Joan Allen a chance to strut their stuff. But this film is an excellent example that even great actors need a well written script and a director to know how to guide them.

I should probably be glowing over the film, knowing that if it does well at the box office, Hollywood executives will green light more dramas with challenging content. But hopefully they can do more films with real conflict and complex characters, rather than card board cut outs and clichés.