Avaliações de Movie_Rating_n_Ranking

Since John Wick, this new wave of action films focused on their invincible protagonist, with its many fast-paced and bloody hand-to-hand battles, nighttime shots, and neon lights, has given us plenty of examples of pure, unadulterated action. For instance, Hank-the protagonist of Nobody and Nobody 2-was considered a more mature version of John Wick, though only in terms of age, as he offered the same kind of action.

The sequel tries to capitalize on this formula, but I don't think it was as effective as the first film or other titles this year, such as Havok and Novocaine. Admittedly, it had a bigger budget for its pyrotechnics, but not so much for its writers.

Now, the worst part, without a doubt, was the villain. An out-of-place Sharon Stone, portraying a caricature instead of a character worthy of facing Hank, left much to be desired. The film could have had a better script, one that showed better motivations for both the protagonists and the villains, but it falls flat. Or maybe I'm just overanalyzing it and it's a masterpiece, who knows?

Recommended? Skip it, I'd say.

An entertaining romantic comedy with action elements and plenty of clichés, likely used with considerable skill and finesse. The themes it addresses could be debated if taken out of the comedic context, but that will depend on each viewer.

The lead couple manages to develop their performances around each other, but I felt there was a lack of chemistry between them.

It's a comedy with typical American spectacle and a decent display of CGI for buildings and settings.

In short, it's one of those movies that's fun to watch but doesn't particularly stand out, remaining a mere anecdote worth recommending if you're looking for a light comedy.

The Roses fulfills its purpose of entertaining.

This is one of those films that isn't elevated by the acting-despite the excellent work of the supporting actors and the casting choices-but rather by the film's more intellectual elements: screenplay, direction, editing, and cinematography. If you thought Darren Aronofsky couldn't make a comedy, think again, because not only did he, but he gave us the best comedy of the year, with one of the most intelligent screenplays in the genre, direction that screams his name throughout, perfect editing, and cinematography that many would envy.

I can even say that we can benefit from the elements that could be considered "stumbling blocks" (like the predictable sequences), because they are sequences that make you happy to have predicted them and see them executed masterfully.

Many unexpected twists, unscrupulous brutality, and dark humor complete an unbeatable framework for Darren Aronofsky's latest offering. A must-see for 2025 cinema.

This film feels like a soap opera with a character thrown in from a completely different world, a character with a name-The Smashing Machine-that sounds like it came straight out of a comic book. It's a mix that, for me, barely works. What everyone praises, yes, is worth mentioning and highlighting. The performances of Emily Blunt and Dwayne Johnson are undoubtedly the best thing about the film, perhaps second only to the prosthetics and The Rock's physique.

But the more I think about it, the less convincing the story becomes. I'll probably end up thinking that a 7 is too generous. Would I recommend it? Yes, if only to see one of Johnson's best performances, relatively speaking.

Good Fortune is one of the worst-acted films of 2025. The acting direction is horribly poor. The dialogue sounds like they were part of the previous rehearsals, before they shoot the movie, lacking fluency, naturalness, credibility, and any conviction. This is one of the worst performances I've ever seen from Keanu Reeves, and Aziz Ansari doesn't help at all, in a project that was clearly too much for him, as he ambitiously tried to take on the roles of writer, director, and lead actor. The basic technical aspects are decently executed, but they don't stand out or help raise the film's final rating.

A complete disappointment.

The purpose of remaking animated films in live-action format is clear: to sell. The 2025 Lilo & Stitch doesn't really bring anything new to the table compared to its predecessors, other than updating the techniques used, which, incidentally, might have been the best thing about the film: the visual effects, especially in the development of the main characters. Beyond that, the story is almost a carbon copy of the 2002 version, with a few minor creative strategic tweaks. As for the cast, the young actress performs very well. The comedic duo is adequate, but not outstanding. The rest are decent.

Overall, the film is quite forgettable. Recommended? Maybe. For younger children, especially.

Guillermo del Toro's lifelong dream has materialized into an epic two-and-a-half-hour work. It is definitely a film made with love for the original story and for cinema itself.

The screenplay is wonderful. Divided into two stories and a prologue, the story transports us as if we were children listening to an ancient tale-magical and lyrical, yet at the same time brutal, bloody, and passionate. Unfortunately, the plot has its stumbles, and although they are minor, they are noticeable. The editing is somewhat sluggish in certain passages, and the continuity is a bit sloppy in some sequences. The performances are all good, with Mia Goth and Christoph Waltz standing out above all, but I felt Oscar Isaac and Jacob Elordi were lacking. They did a good job, but they don't stand out enough to place them in the awards season. What does stand out, and by a wide margin, is the production design and the costumes. I would even bet that both of these aspects will be among the nominations for the major awards. The visual effects are good for depicting creatures, except for the wolf pack, which looks very computer-generated. The monster's final makeup also bothers me. I understand the desire to do something different from what's been done before, but the character's aesthetic design seems weak and uninspired.

This epic film stands as one of the great films of 2025 and further elevates Guillermo del Toro, even though it seems impossible, as one of the greats of the film industry.

Let's keep this review short and simple (as this film should have been). Good performances from the lead duo; mediocre editing; good direction; weak soundtrack; decent VFX. The rest isn't worth mentioning.

It could have been a shorter film; it had several unnecessary long scenes, and the ending never seemed to arrive. The protagonist's backstory feels forced. The dizzying climax sequences are well thought out and executed.

Kudos to Greengrass for transforming a difficult film into something entertaining to watch.

An entertaining adaptation of one of Stephen King's works that aims to be something more superficial than it actually is. And yes, it shows many very emotional deaths, perhaps too many and very exaggerated, deliberately playing on the viewer's emotions. But it also serves as a resounding and very clear metaphor for life itself, for the race we all run, that endless track with no finish line where some manage to go further than others, but where in the end everyone ends up bowing their knee to Lady Death.

In its technical aspects, the film is quite flat and adequate. David Jonsson's performance stands out above the rest, while the sound editing and montage leave much to be desired. Mark Hamill's cartoonish appearance is just another anecdote in a film that doesn't exceed two hours.

It's not much of a horror film; rather, it's all about survival. If you're looking for a story with a couple of basic life lessons, this is the film for you.

The fast-paced, intense, and unstoppable beginning, driven by the twists and turns of a fun prologue, gives way to a film that actually knows how to put its foot down to tell its story, although this ends up translating into passages of little interest within the film. The atmosphere and overall pace of this sequel is brisk, which is why the 104-minute running time feels somewhat excessive. The comedy is efficient, works, and entertains. The new characters are a good addition as supporting characters and hold their own. Finally, I want to highlight the art direction because the composition of the fast-paced sequences is out of the ordinary and contributes to the overall enjoyment of the film.

Now, what went wrong? Perhaps the order of events, or rather the order in which they chose to add and remove intensity. In addition, the villain's motivations for defeat were too superfluous, and defeating her took a couple of conveniences and another couple of Deux ex Machina.

It's recommended whether you liked the first one or are looking for a quick animated comedy.

Yes, this is clearly another Parker Finn film. With this sequel, he establishes his style in both his script and his directing, using elements and resources shared by Smile 1 and 2. Now, having established that, the first sequel in this nascent saga has its flaws and excesses. Unlike the first film, here we begin to see the overuse of jump scares and the plot dependence in a story that didn't really need to resort to that false need. This same fact makes the plot of Smile 2 feel a bit forced at the beginning of the film. As the story progresses, everything takes off in a maelstrom that takes on more artistic currents due to the very nature of the protagonist.

The visual effects and general choreography are, in my opinion, a bit more sloppy than the first film. However, they remain at a decent level, without standing out greatly.

The last act presents the biggest problem for this film, which sins by being overly ambitious. Reality and hallucinations blend efficiently and entertainingly, to the point where they become overwhelmingly confusing. The film ends up being a tangle of possible realities that are impossible to follow with the distractions typical of the genre.

For all these reasons, Smile 2 is inferior to the first film, in my opinion, which, despite its complex but definitely simpler plot, manages to convey a deeper and more relevant message.

In any case, the 2024 film is an entertaining option to add to the October horror month list, especially considering that this sequel already has a third part confirmed and in development.

Even though I've seen more than usual this year, horror films are a genre I need to pay more attention to because I'm missing out on pieces that are essential to the year they came out. For example, Smile was a highly talked-about film for 2022, and now I can see why.

The film is quite interesting; it has a simple story, perhaps not all that innovative, but it captivates you because it's well-told, full of tension, knows how to scare you at the right moments, and is complemented by a truly excellent soundtrack. This is the most notable aspect of the film, along with the lead actress's performance. I also highlight the direction because the director dares to use some very entertaining shots that contribute to the overall atmosphere of the film.

As for the visual effects, in most shots, or at least where they're most noticeable, the level is quite decent. There are some glitches and a few stumbles, but overall the CGI level is good, including where it matters most, which is the film's climax.

The other technical aspects are good, decent, and correct, but they don't stand out above the rest.

Smile becomes an unmissable recommendation for the contemporary horror genre, or at least for the decade we're living in.

This year, like few others, I've seen more horror films than I had planned. I'm not even sure if this was intentional or planned, but it is. It's a fact. And fortunately, I've seen good horror films. Sinners is one of the best films of the year; Together is a nice surprise in the body horror genre, and now that I've seen Weapons, everything is confirmed. Horror is enjoying a new boom in cinema. And not just a boom in popularity, but one of quality.

Weapons is a horror and mystery story like any other, but told intelligently. Several characters are brought in to view the events from their perspectives and then, logically, they all come together in a jaw-dropping climax.

The direction and editing in particular are outstanding. You don't expect to see this level of quality in a film of this genre, but there they are, like the jewels in a bloody and thorny crown. The performances are also good from an unexpectedly star-studded cast, especially Amy Madigan's.

Weapons is shocking, entertaining, bloody, and features events you never saw coming. It's one of the must-see movies of 2025.

This review isn't meant to tell you what this film is like, but rather, to explain why it's the best film of 2025 and the best film of the decade.

Imagine someone taking the best action and suspense elements of Christopher Nolan (like in Inception and The Dark Knight) and blending them with the best narrative elements of Denis Villeneuve (like in Arrival and Incendies), all seasoned with a touch of pure love for classic cinema, only the way Paul Thomas Anderson could do it.

One Battle After Another shakes your head from the very first moment. It's a film that seems to begin with its climax and never leaves, keeping you on edge for the full 160 minutes it runs. The editing is exceptional in terms of pacing, cuts, montage, and shots. A key element in maintaining that tension was the soundtrack, which Greenwood once again brings to Anderson. The script is one of the smartest and most astute I've seen in recent memory, transforming a simple story into a masterpiece. This film could have easily been just another action story, but the script transformed everything. Now, as for the performances, I can assure you right here and now that Sean Penn will be AT LEAST nominated for an Oscar, with a good chance of winning for Best Supporting Actor. DiCaprio also gives one of the best performances of his career, but Penn gloriously overshadows him.

Anyway, I don't want to say any more. Watch this movie and see what I'm saying.

Who hasn't had the misfortune of being the victim of a robbery? If your answer is yes, haven't you wanted revenge? Well, Anthony Hopkins' character did.

In this film, we are guided by the perspective of a car thief, who, having his reasons, whether valid or not, continues his criminal career until he stumbles upon something he never imagined. The ingenuity of an enraged millionaire, tired of being robbed. So, we have a fairly effective thriller, I'd say, although of course, with several liberties and conveniences that favor the script more than logic itself.

Overall, the film manages to be entertaining if you go with what it offers. The performances are good, although it may be clear that the director wanted Peter Davidson instead of one of the Skarsgards.

Anyway, a movie to watch once and turn the page looking for something more interesting. It serves as a suspenseful survival movie recommendation, but it's not one of those mind-blowing films.

Be careful, don't watch it drinking apple juice, as it might resemble something unpleasant seen on screen.

An interesting offering from one of Hollywood's most successful screenwriting minds. Presence is a film with a very good premise, but unfortunately, it fizzles along the way, becoming a bit of a disappointment in the third act. I like that it's not really a horror film, but rather a grounded story with the key fantasy (or non-fantasy, depending on the beliefs of the person reading this review) component the film offers.

Excellent choice of lenses for the first-person view, good sound editing, and a good choice of scenes that do and don't have a soundtrack.

As a final summary, Soderbergh and Koepp surprise, but fall short. My rating could have been lower, but it's a well-crafted film, with great attention to technical details.

Presence feels like the younger sister of David Lowery's A Ghost Story, which is an unforgettable work for those who like ghosts but aren't necessarily looking for horror.

I'm sad to admit that this is the first film I've seen by the master Akira Kurosawa, but I'm overjoyed to know that I've finally started watching some of his filmography. Even better after seeing this great 1960s piece full of suspense, mystery, and Japanese gallantry.

Directed and edited bordering on perfection, Kurosawa's adaptation, which Spike Lee would later remake horribly in 2025, is a masterpiece of film composition and direction for the ages. Almost theatrical choreography from a well-trained cast; an editing that knows exactly where to hit the gas and where to hit the brakes; enviable photography for a black and white film; and, of course, a spine-tingling soundtrack, all make High and Low rise to the Olympus of 1960s films.

Believe me, I now understand Spike Lee better, and at the same time, less, with his Highest 2 Lowest. But hey, cinema knows about successes and failures.

For names like Spike Lee, we should expect bigger and better things. Lee has the resources, the contacts, the connections-everything to make more notable films, however Highest 2 Lowest is a poor story. It's an unnecessarily long film, with editing as irritating as the main piano on the soundtrack. I completely understand the intention of repeating shots like greetings, hugs, or other lesser-impactful actions to enhance the film's atmosphere. But having sloppy and careless continuity becomes distracting and ends up being a problem. Mostly in the first and second acts, the editing inexplicably focuses on shots like characters opening doors, going from one room to another, descending stairs, or anything else that was completely unimportant. The soundtrack is a clear homage to '80s crime films, but every time the drama kicked in, the most anticlimactic piano I've ever heard came in. For a film about the music industry, it has a pretty bad soundtrack.

The acting is okay. Nothing to say. The third act becomes a bit more interesting, but only because of the action itself, which also doesn't reach entirely entertaining levels. There's good dialogue in the climax, there's good cinematography, there's good sound editing, and that's it.

A disappointing Spike Lee film.

Without a doubt, one of the most challenging films I've ever seen. Ari Aster laughs at everyone. In fact, he invites the viewer to laugh with him. And everything means political fanaticism, conspiracy theorists, cult creators, social media users, social media creators, deniers, pro-gun people, and a long etcetera. If all of this seems impossible to cram into a single story, well, it isn't, given Eddington's creation, which, despite its slow pace in the first two acts, manages to be entertaining, interesting, intentionally controversial, and funny. Yes, funny, because everyone tries to fix the world, everyone tries to raise hell, but in the end, all those attempts end up making things worse and become mere obstacles to real solutions. Now, it's not that the film tries to propose solutions either. It's far from that. And perhaps that's one of its enormous flaws. It ends with a rant and rave, making fun of everyone, but it lacks solidity, cohesion, and perhaps a more rounded, less chaotic idea.

Ultimately, Eddington isn't one of Aster's best films, but it manages to be controversial enough to remain in the spotlight.

I like intelligent films like The Amateur. And not only because it teams up the protagonist of Mr. Robot with one of the protagonists of Mindhunter and also one of the protagonists of The Matrix saga, but also because it's a film that was put together with planning to provide a good puzzle for the viewer. If conveniences exist in cinema, then let's use them in a script like this, where they can go unnoticed and do a great service to the story.

The overall pace is quite slow, so don't watch it when your eyes are closing from sleep.

Accompany the protagonist in his thirst for revenge and see how clever he is to achieve, or not, his goals.

Since the last decade, the concept of "elevated horror" has circulated in the film industry. When you find it fused (pun intended) with the body horror subgenre, you come face to face with a delicacy like Together.

The analogy of emotional dependence on one's partner is obvious, and it should be so that the plot gels perfectly and isn't confused with just another bizarre tale of cinematic horror. If you want, you can even dig deeper to find a few more layers beneath it all, but that will depend on each viewer.

Personally, I think that the Michael Shanks' film is one of the best of its genre for the year 2025 and becomes a must-see if you're looking for the concepts mentioned above.

Cheers to the horror of 2025!

Of the four superhero movies released this year, this one is by far the best. It's the only one I've given an 8/10, and that's saying something.

Let's see. I won't go into comparisons with the previous Fantastic Four films, because that would be repeating too much of what's been said ad nauseam. But I am interested in comparing them with this year's Marvel Studios and DC Studios films. Captain America 4 is the weakest of the bunch. It was just another episode of The Falcon and the Winter Soldier. Superman felt like an unnecessary reinvention of such an iconic character who doesn't need to be reinvented. Thunderbolts* was good, with the great Sentry finally on screen, but it wasn't a superhero movie per se. The Fantastic Four: First Steps is. It's a story of superheroes tasked with saving the planet. It's an entertaining heroic tale that lasts two hours, but keeps you on the edge of your seat to such an extent that it feels like it lasts 30 minutes. Obviously the most notable element is the production design, with an impeccable retro-futuristic setting.

What was the thorn in the side? The Thing. He has the best character design, but his CGI falls short when it comes to his wardrobe and movements. He looks like a video game character who, instead of walking or running heavily, floats like nothing. I thought the CGI in the entire movie was very good, except, for The Thing. Everything related to Galactus and Silver Surfer was impeccable. But The Thing still needs a lot of improvement.

Regarding the acting, the most notable performance is undoubtedly Pedro Pascal's. The rest are fine, fulfilling their roles. The soundtrack has some very good moments, but overall it's pretty average. I was left wishing for better scores.

Anyway, a great introduction to the superhero family in the MCU. I can't wait to see them integrated into the rest of the vast superhero universe orchestrated by Feige.

Celine Song brings us another interesting anthropological analysis starring Johnson, Evans, and Pascal, who perhaps weren't the best choices for their roles, especially the first two. Dakota was given the role of a lifetime, but blew it triumphantly with a terrible performance.

Now, what should be of interest here is what Song wants to convey with her second feature. She exposes various types of romantic relationships and lays them out on the table, like spheres with different characteristics, for us to grasp and analyze in great detail. Their roughness, their softness, their transparency, their weight, their fragility, their size, their density, their projection, their ergonomics, their flexibility, their capacity to provide us with fun, security, and stability. Because let's be clear, there are tons of types of romantic relationships. But there are few opportunities to question them: the whys, the hows, the wheres, the with whoms.

It's easy to navigate in shallow waters and frolic in shallow, meaningless streams of fun, until we reach the mouth that leads us to deeper waters, forcing us to organize and plan. Are we ready to have the courage to say who we want to be gravemates with? Are we ready to take a hand and never let go? And if we are, would we consider material things or true love?

Great script. My round of applause for Song. I'm sorry for her cast choices.

And here's another slasher with comedic overtones. Another in the long list that already seems like an army of masked serial killers straight out of the movies.

Let's agree that the reasons why Heart Eyes initially hunted are somewhat amusing. Until the lid is blown and the real reasons are revealed, which, instead of fixing the mess, actually tarnish it a bit with a bunch of unnecessary conveniences.

The film pokes fun at Valentine's Day romantic clichés, but at the same time, it's full of clichés, not just romantic ones, but those typical of the slasher subgenre. Let's also agree that Heart Eyes is undoubtedly a good Valentine's Day treat because, to be honest, we don't need a very elaborate plot for that afternoon/evening, but rather an excuse to go out with our significant other and enjoy a movie-loving evening.

A well-deserved 6/10, as the film is aware of its limitations and its purposes.

Before mentioning anything else, it should be said that this film is only for those who like chess. Otherwise, you'll be bored stiff. That being said, this film is interesting. Just that. It's not entertaining, due to its slow and sluggish pace. The script makes the acting a bit overdramatic. The soundtrack got the memo, because there are a couple of scenes where the intensity of the music skyrockets for no reason.

The overall story is interesting, but very predictable. You know the boy will succeed. You know he will face his nemesis, and you know he will win. So you're only in front of the screen for the journey, not the destination.

Fortunately, the third act has a good conclusion, otherwise my final rating would have been lower.

Anyway, as I said initially, I recommend this only to chess fans. For everyone else, leave it where I found it, in the pit of forgotten films.