Change Your Image
finercreative
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
The Chase (1966)
The Chase: 6.5/10
The Chase" seemed like it would be a lot better. Many talented names are in the cast, directed by Arthur Penn of "Bonnie and Clyde", and it was produced by the man who gave us 3 best picture winners and a few more great films. Unfortunately, "The Chase" just doesn't meet expectations.
There were several moments of the film that felt pretty boring, and boring scenes lead to a boring viewing experience. They also made the film feel a lot slower. I don't think it had to be 2 1/4 hours long. I will say that there were moments of excitement, but said moments are far and few.
Well at least the acting is pretty good, and the film does succeed in conveying a message by the end of it, but I just felt the movie could've been a lot better. 6.5/10.
Also, all of this is just my opinion, and you are entitled to your own.
Midnight Cowboy (1969)
Midnight Cowboy: 8/10
If you are about to see John Schlesinger's "Midnight Cowboy", prepare yourself, because It will go distances you wouldn't expect it to go.
It is pretty humorous at times, but also incredibly emotional and hard hitting thanks to the script, acting, and atmosphere of the whole thing. You with laugh, and you will certainly cry. Out of the two leads, I thought Dustin Hoffman did the best as Ratso, but I also think Jon Voight did a great job in the role of Joe Buck.
But "Midnight Cowboy" does have a few flaws. The biggest one, in my opinion, is how some scenes seemed to either go on for too long or are sometimes even unnecessary.
Even so, I'd say "Midnight Cowboy" is worth a watch. 8/10.
Lastly, everything stated above is just my opinion, and it's completely fine if you disagree.
Gone with the Wind (1939)
Gone With the Wind: 8.75/10
"Gone With the wind" sits at a very long nearly 4 hours. I watched this on the big screen, and I will admit that it was pretty hard to sit through the whole thing, but I'd definitely consider it worth it.
It's pretty hard to tell what my favorite thing about the film was. Let's start with the visuals. Practically every frame of the movie is a work of art, and a beauty to look at, And I must give bravo to costume designer Walter Plunkett, designing over 5500 costume pieces for the film, and with all of them looking good.
Its characters are so enveloping, well acted, and go through so much development; the whole thing is seemingly a rollercoaster of emotions. You love some characters, hate others, then end up hating the ones you loves and loving the ones you hated, but all of them remain memorable after the film's end.
But there is a problem with "Gone With the wind". A big problem. Literally, it's a largely sized problem. The runtime. It's 4 hours long, and is sometimes quite a challenge to sit through, even with an intermission. Nevertheless, I'd say the runtime is worth it. I'd highly recommend the film. 8.75/10.
Lastly, everything stated in this review is only of my opinion, and it's completely fine if you disagree.
Time Bandits (1981)
Time Bandits: 6.5/10
Among the list of Terry Gilliam's films that I've watched, "Time Bandits" ranks in the bottom half. Don't get me wrong, I did think It was good, but not very good.
It's only funny sometimes, and by sometimes I mean around 25% of the time. Sorry, but I just didn't find it very funny, and though the special effects are pretty good, when compared to some of Gilliam's other works ("Brazil" for example), It doesn't really come off as anything special.
As for the acting, the main cast was for the most part ok, and sometimes exceeding ok. The best acting seemed to (surprisingly) come from the cameo stars (and there are a lot of them).
Overall, "Time Bandits" stands as a simply ok picture, 6.5/10.
Also, everything stated here is merely of my opinion, if you disagree with it, that's completely fine.
Marty (1955)
Marty: 7.75/10
"Marty" is a 1955 romance movie, and as for as movies go, it's a pretty simple one. It also happens to be a short one (the shortest movie to ever win best picture, barely 90 minutes). But I like the simpleness of Marty.
It's a movie with nothing crazy and/or spectacular, just a short, sweet, enjoyable little film, with likable, relatable characters, fine acting (specifically, I thought Borgnine was the best), and a fine script by Paddy Chayefsky. It also had a neat soundtrack to it.
"Marty" isn't the best movie to win best picture, not by a long shot. But, I still liked it a lot, and I would recommend that you watch it. 7.75/10.
Also, if you don't agree with my opinion on this film, that is completely fine, and you are entitled to your own.
How I Won the War (1967)
How I Won the War: 3.5/10
Richard Lester's "How I won the war" is certainly a unique movie; I've never really seen anything like it, but it's also a very disappointing dud from Richard Lester, and just about the worst World War Two movie I've ever seen, comedy or otherwise.
There are a few giggles scattered about its 2 hour runtime, but most of the jokes turned out merely as failed attempts at comedy.
For the plot, it's a disaster of storytelling. I knew what was going on for about 5 minutes or so (after the credits), but due to many fourth wall breaks, jumps in time, fast (and sometimes completely unintelligible) British accents, and the utter randomness of a few scenes, I sometimes didn't know whether the film was even following a plot at all.
In the end, the film attempts to convey a deep, meaningful message about war, or at least I think. Again, I couldn't tell what was going on, and even if it was trying to convey a message, it's pretty hard to take "How I Won the War" seriously.
I suppose the actors did an alright job, and there's a cameo by John Lennon even. I say cameo, because even though he's billed second and placed left, right, and center in all posters and material related to the film, he hardly plays any sort of role at all.
Overall, a big disappointment, and I wish it could've been better. 3.5/10.
Lastly, everything stated above is just my opinion, and it's completely fine if you disagree.
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Pulp Fiction: 10/10
Even after viewing it only once, Quintin Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction" probably ranks on my top 10 favorite movies of all time.
Tarantino manages to envelope us so deeply into his story and (strangely likable) characters, mostly due to the wonderfully written dialogue, which is gritty, witty, and even relatable at times. This dialogue also adds to the very stylish nature of "Pulp Fiction". It has a very prominent and very cool style throughout that's kind of hard to put my finger on. Its sets, costumes, and music choices also add to this style.
I also really liked the non linear approach with the storytelling. It's done in such a smart way, and there are little details in every scene that overlaps with another. It shows how, even in his beginnings (this was one of his first movies), Tarantino definitely knows what he's doing, and how to make a good movie.
It was hard to tell who did the best performance in the movie. Everyone did an awesome job in their roles, but I do think out of everyone, Samuel L. Jackson did the best.
Overall, I thought the movie was awesome, and I'd highly recommend it. 10/10.
Also, this is all my opinion only, and it's completely fine if you disagree with it.
Halloween (1978)
Halloween: 7/10
I saw Halloween in a theater a few days ago. The opening gave me high hopes for the film, but what followed (and I'm being serious) got more laughs than screams out of the audience.
There was good to it. John Carpenter's soundtrack has the same effect as films like "Jaws", and "Halloween" wouldn't be half as scary without it. Also, there were good acting performances by Pleasence, Curtis, and whoever acted Mike Myers, but pretty disappointingly, good deal of the acting was pretty bad.
The film, as some say, slowly builds tension. And I agree. There are time where Carpenter build tension up, but there is a line between building tension and just being slow paced, and It felt like "Halloween" crossed that line several times.
Now let's talk about the script. It has pretty much every slasher film trope, cliche, and stereotype in the book. Characters that make illogical decisions, or doors being inconveniently locked for no reason, or random teen sex, or cars not starting, or a seemingly invincible killer. It just felt very cliche at times.
I still liked it though, and there were times in the film that scared the piss out of me. I think Carpenter, overall, did a pretty good job with this movie. 7/10.
Also, everything stated in this review is just my opinion, and it's completely fine if you disagree with it.
Shichinin no samurai (1954)
Seven Samurai: 9.5/10
Akira Kurosawa's "Seven Samurai" sits at 3 1/2 hours long, one of the longest films I've seen. But if you're in the fence about watching it, don't let this runtime deter you from doing so. In my opinion, its worth every minute of it.
Let's start off with the characters. Rarely do you ever see a director or writer give so much life to their characters. Each one (and not just the samurai) has a their own story, distinct personality, arc, troubles, and much more. They are all unforgettable. I also loved the acting of these characters, especially with Toshirô Mifune and Takashi Shimura.
Next, its influence. Looking at many films made after this one, various elements from this film have paved the way for elements you see in action movies, westerns, etc. You see parts of this movie in pieces like "The Dirty Dozen", "Magnificent Seven" (which is actually a remake of this movie) and many others.
"Seven Samurai" isn't a perfect movie (sorry if this sounds nitpicky, but a few little bits of it proved to be just good, nothing great), so I won't give it a 10/10, but it's still probably the best foreign language film I've ever seen. 9.5/10.
And lastly, all of this is just my opinion, and you are entitled to your own.
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
A Clockwork Orange: 8.5/10
Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" is a film I wouldn't consider a masterpiece, but it's definitely a good movie.
"Clockwork Orange" isn't the scariest movie I've seen; not by a long-shot, but very few films I've seen have been as stylishly unsettling, uncomfortable, and disturbing as this one. It's an atmosphere that I wanted to look away from yet couldn't take my eyes off At the same time. Malcom McDowell's chilling performance as Alex and the eerie electronic music throughout only adds to this.
It's also a satire on society, government, youth culture, etc. While I don't think it's satire reaches the levels reached by Kubrick's earlier film "Dr Strangelove", I still liked it.
Overall, I enjoyed the film, and I'd recommend it. 8.5/10.
Also, this is all my opinion, and it's completely fine if you disagree with it.
Twelve Monkeys (1995)
12 Monkeys: 7.25/10
"12 Monkeys" is probably Terry Gilliam's most well-known movie, and is a prime example of the problem I have with his movies.
While I do think he can make good movies, and I do think this movie is good, Gilliam is clearly more preoccupied with the visuals and quirkiness of his movies more than anything else. I do think the visuals are good, but I just wish the other parts of the movie were given more focus.
I thought the acting was okay. I liked Willis a lot more in "Die Hard", but I still think he did a good job, and so did Brad Pitt. Its soundtrack wasn't as good though, and was a bit irritating at times.
Whatever, I liked it. It's not Gilliam's best, but I still liked it. 7.25/10.
Lastly, If you disagree with the opinions stated here, that is completely fine, and you are entitled to your own.
Saturday Night (2024)
Saturday Night: 7.5/10
Jason Rietman's "Saturday Night" recently hit theaters, and I'd recommend you go and see it. I'm not even an SNL fan and I enjoyed it.
Sure, the plot a bit of a jumble, with so many characters, so much going on, and so much chaos, but that was probably what the film was showing for anyway, so I'm not gonna knock it too much for that. I actually found the movie more fun than funny. It has its moments of intensity or drama (these aspects were helped by film's well-made score) but it also has moments of laughter.
Speaking of laughter, the comedy was ok. I'm not really a fan of raunchy/michael o'donoghue style humor which this movie has a lot of (very obviously), but there were still parts that I found funny.
Overall, It's a pretty good movie. I'd recommend it. 7.5/10.
Lastly, this is all just my opinion, and if you disagree with it, that is completely fine.
And Now for Something Completely Different (1971)
And Now for Something Completely Different: 7.5/10
"And Now For Something Completely Different" is not your usual film, and there isn't much to say about it.
It's basically a compilation of several skits from the classic British tv show "Monty Python's flying circus" except with higher production values. The movie is pretty much all classic and funny Monty Python, well acted and well executed.
There were problems though, for example, some skit were cut off early (fresh fruit) and others didn't live up to the original tv sketch (dirty fork), but nevertheless, it's a short, funny movie that I'd recommend. 7.5/10.
Also, this is all just my opinion, and it's completely fine if you disagree with it.
Casablanca (1942)
Casablanca: 9/10
The strangest thing about "Casablanca" is that it probably didn't have much thought put into it. It was just pumped out on an attempt to capitalize on the Second World War. And yet, with this in mind, "Casablanca" has one of the best scripts I've ever seen in a Hollywood movie. It's probably the best romance movie I've seen.
Not only that, but I thought the acting was very good, and so was the soundtrack. Speaking of the soundtrack, In my opinion, the song "As Time Goes by" is one my favorites in movies.
Overall, I think the best picture win is deserved, and I'd recommend it. 9/10.
Also, this is all just my opinion, and it's completely fine if you disagree with it.
O Lucky Man! (1973)
O Lucky Man!: 6.25/10
"O lucky man!" Is the second of Lindsay Anderson's Mick Travis trilogy, and lasts nearly 3 hours, and most of the content within that 3 hours varies largely on entertainment value.
It has these elaborate and strange yet good looking sets, so I will commend it for that. Malcom McDowell was sometimes good in it, but there were many times when the great actor seemed awkward or even wooden. There are a few good Alan Price songs scattered about the runtime, but only a few of them I'd listen to again.
It's a satire, and it sometimes works smartly as one, but there are several moments where the film stops being smart and starts being pretentious. I'm sorry, but I just didn't really like the movie that much.
Overall, I'd give it a 6.25/10
Lastly, if you disagree with my opinions or think differently, that is completely fine and you are entitled to your own.
Around the World in Eighty Days (1956)
Around the World in Eighty Days: 7.5/10
Mike Todd's best picture winning "Around The World in 80 days" was described as "The Greatest Show on Earth" by the National Board of Review. While I wouldn't call it the greatest, It probably ranks among the grandest.
The film contains so much spectacle from around the world, and combined with Victor Young's soundtrack (one my favorites in all of cinema), some scenes are simply breathtaking. It has good acting, and practically a famous star in every different shot. But there is a big problem with the movie.
It's very bloated, running at 3 hours long (with intermission). Some parts are drawn out for so long that they become tedious and tiresome. But still, the pros outweighs the cons, and I'd recommend it. 7.5/10.
Lastly, if you happen to disagree with my opinions stated here, that is completely fine, and you are entitled to your own.
The Chain Reaction (1980)
Chain Reaction: 5/10
"Chain Reaction" is an Australian action movie that I think is best described as a mixed bag.
Some scenes are very interesting and intriguing, and other scenes are very dull and boring. Same thing goes for the action sequences, which were exciting half the time, and wearisome the other half.
The best parts of the movie come from its unique, eerie, and electronic soundtrack and sound effects. Also, the acting was pretty good for the most part.
Overall, it's at least watchable. I'd recommend it. 5/10.
Lastly, if you disagree with the opinions stated here, that's completely okay, and you're entitled to your own.
Fargo (1996)
Fargo: 8.5/10
As a movie, "Fargo", in my opinion, isn't a masterpiece or anything like that. I just think it's a great movie that I'd highly recommend.
It has a lot to it. You want thrills? "Fargo" has it. You want suspense? "Fargo" has it. You want laughs? "Fargo" has it. You want action? "Fargo" has it. You want good acting? "Fargo" has it. You want a good soundtrack? "Fargo" has it. "Fargo" gets pretty much everything right, and pulls off all of its aspects successfully. I don't know what else to say about it, I kinda just listed everything good about it above.
Go see the movie, it's a very good one, and I don't think you'll regret it. 8.5/10.
Also, if you disagree with the opinions stated in this brief review, that is complete fine, and you are entitled to your own.
Megalopolis (2024)
Megalopolis: 5/10
Francis Ford Coppola's "Megalopolis" has been sitting on my watchlist for a long time, and it's been in development for an even longer time. Apparently, Francis started work on it in the 80s, and for a film that has had that much time to develop, and the fact of it being written and directed by the man of "The Godfather" trilogy, "Apocalypse Now", "The Conversation", and several other praised cinema classics, it left me severely disappointed.
It succeeds visually with its stylish mix of Roman times and a modern metropolis, and it also has some good sets and special effects. You can go into it expecting a visual feast. The acting was good, but It has numerous stars, including Adam Driver, Shia Lebeouf, Jon Voight, and Dustin Hoffman. Considering how great these actors can be, them only being good in a movie isn't that much of a compliment.
Its substance has an equal amount of enjoyable and unenjoyable moments, and the whole tone and feel of the movie felt off and uneven at times. Sometimes it felt like watching a Terry Gilliam movie. Sometimes it felt like watching a Mark Neveldine movie. Sometimes it felt like watching "Caligula". Sometimes it felt like Coppola is doing and saying too much. Sometimes it felt like Coppola is doing and saying too little.
Not only that, but at times it had so much going on that it left me feeling puzzled. (I still can't make head nor tail of some of the story elements in it). It's like a very messy spectacle of bewilderment.
Overall, while I'm still glad I watched it, and I do think you should see it, "Megalopolis" is a very mixed bag of a movie. 5/10.
Finally, if you disagree with some of the opinions stated here, that's completely fine, and you are entitled to your own opinion.
Goodfellas (1990)
Goodfellas: 9.25/10
Yesterday, I watched Martin Scorsese's "Goodfellas" for the first time, and I must say, it's definitely up there on favorite crime movies.
Joe Pesci gives off a terrific performance in the role of Tommy, and De Niro, Liotta, and the rest of cast also did very well.
The whole movie plays out like a "Godfather" but with a cool and humorous spin on it, provided by the great writing and direction by Martin Scorsese. There's also some good set design, cinematography (especially with those master shots) and editing.
Overall, it's a highly entertaining movie experience, and I'd highly recommend it. 9.25/10.
Also, if you disagree with the opinions stated here, that's completely fine.
Kidnapped (1960)
Kidnapped: 6.5/10
There's not much to say about Walt Disney's "Kidnapped" other than it's simply an ok movie. I don't mean that in a bad way, it was ok and enjoyable.
Some noteworthy things about it are Peter Finch's performance, the debut of Peter O' Toole, and the lovely looking setting (this is a little bias, as I happen to love natural landscape and forested areas). The soundtrack was ok, and most of everything else was around average.
It's simply enjoyable, and a good watch. It's pretty short at 90 minutes, but I'd still recommend it. 6.5/10.
Also, if you happen to disagree with my opinions, that completely fine.
The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
The Wolf of Wall Street: 8.25/10
"The Wolf of Wall Street" is, pretty surprisingly, my first Martin Scorsese movie. It isn't the best movie I've seen, but it is still a pretty good one.
In my opinion, there was a slight problem with the script. It's overly provocative, over-the-top, and in your face sometimes, but nevertheless, it's also sometimes very funny. Both Leonardo DiCaprio and Jonah Hill were great in it, and its editing and cinematography was pretty cool as well.
It sits at a lengthy 3 hours, which is not only a bit overlong, but also good deal of it is taken up by sex, drugs, and other stuff, which is what I mentioned above.
Still, it's a very good movie, and I'd recommend it. 8.25/10.
Also, if you disagree with my opinions, there is nothing wrong with it.
Britannia Hospital (1982)
Britannia Hospital: 4/10
Between the late 60s and early 80s, Lindsay Anderson partnered with Malcom McDowell to make several movies about the Everyman character named Mick Travis. "Britannia Hospital" was the last of the films, and was certainly disappointing.
It's loaded with satire of practically everyone and everything of the time, and the satire is sometimes funny, and so are a few jokes scattered about the film. Unfortunately, a good deal of it just wasn't very funny to me.
Its plot is intriguing, but the storyline is such a royal mess. With so many characters (over 60 speaking parts, a good deal of them being unlikeable) and so many subplots, the film doesn't confuse the viewer, rather it confuses itself, not knowing the direction it wants to go in or what to do with its characters. Hell, the character of Mick Travis really doesn't play much importance to the plot at all.
At least the acting is pretty good, with McDowell being my favorite of the cast, and there was a welcome surprise cameo from Mark Hamil. Nevertheless, the cons outweighed the pros. 4/10.
And if you disagree with my opinions stated here, that is completely fine.
The Sting (1973)
The Sting: 8.75/10
"The Sting" is, to put it simply, delightfully charming.
Its script is witty and funny, George Roy Hill provides great direction, and Redford, Newman and Shaw are great in their roles (I'm pretty surprised that the latter 2 weren't nominated for academy awards).
Its soundtrack reminds me of the soundtrack for "Jaws" in showing how important soundtracks are for movies. Without the Scott Joplin songs, "The Sting" probably wouldn't have a third of the charm it ended up having.
This was the last movie that Edith Head won an academy award for costumes, and I think it's well-deserved, and so is its awards for art direction and editing. It's all very reminiscent of the look of not only the 20s/30s, but also plays as a nice homage to the movies of the time.
Overall, I liked it a lot, and would highly recommend it. 8.75/10.
Also, if you disagree with my opinions, that's completely fine.
The Godfather Part II (1974)
The Godfather Part II: 9.25/10
"The Godfather Part II", though in my opinion isn't better than part I, Is still a terrific movie nonetheless.
It basically excels in everything. It had a great script, andAl Pacino's performance in both movies is one of my favorite acting performances of all time. The rest of the cast is awesome as well, and so was the soundtrack, its cinematography, etc.
There's just one problem. In nearly all the flashback scenes with it's pretty much all in Italian. That would be fine if they put captions in the scenes. Without them, the scenes are hard to follow, and the fact that these all-Italian scenes go on for a lot of time doesn't help it. But other than, everything else was amazing.
I feel like this movie could've been a 10/10 if they fixed that one issue, but since they didn't, I think I could only give this a 9.25/10.
Lastly, if you don't agree with my opinion, that is completely fine.