sul-uddin96
Joined Oct 2013
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges5
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings577
sul-uddin96's rating
Reviews3
sul-uddin96's rating
'Star Wars: The Last Jedi' is a very difficult movie to talk about... not just because of worrying about giving away spoilers (which I will NOT DO), but mostly about what is so good about the movie, and what isn't. Having seen it twice now, and properly digesting it, it is a great movie. Personally, I feel that 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens' (2015) was slightly better simply because the pacing was faster, and the story was minimal, though simple and straightforward.
This movie, as you would know, takes place literally straight after where TFA left off. Rey meets Luke Skywalker and is ready to take some training into the larger world of the Jedi and how to use the Force. Gone are the days of Rey being a desert scavenger, and she is ready for whatever battle lies ahead, particularly with the menacing Kylo Ren.
The Resistance base, led by General Leia, is planning to get back to safety, but not long until the First Order plan revenge since the destruction of Starkiller Base.
Now, I know what you're thinking. "Hey! I knew it! This is EXACTLY like THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK!!! WAAHH! NO MORE ORIGINALITY!!!", No... while everything I explained sounds like it is a repeat of TESB, it actually is not. Rian Johnson does what he can to give this movie as much originality as possible. And that's where the "dividing fans" thing comes in.
As we all know, not only is 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens' guilty of "ripping off" 'Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope' (1977), but the franchise overall has a tendency to repeat itself, as George Lucas did - at one point - compare the franchise to a poem... and how it sometimes rhymes at the end of each sentence.
Director Rian Johnson lives up to his promise of not inserting too much familiar material, whether that's with narrative, or with aesthetics. He does take more risks with this chapter, more so than J.J. Abrams did back in 2015. This movie looks nothing like any other 'Star Wars' film... but there is one problem I had.
Without spoiling too much, let's just say there is a scene where two characters have to travel to a planet to find something, and when they get to that planet, it feels like an entirely different movie overall (maybe this was Rian Johnson's intention). Plus, this planet was too much like Earth... but what it could look like 50 years from now. I felt that this scene didn't need to be in the movie, and at times, brought the pacing to a certain slow-down.
Luckily, everything else in this movie was great. Rian Johnson throws so much at you, and there are so many plot-twists, you will find yourself exhausted, and emotionally overwhelmed. Plus, Johnson obviously has a unique vision that no other director would have. He knows how he wants to tell a story, and he knows how he sees these characters, so much to the point where Mark Hamill said he "disagrees" with Johnson's vision... take that as you will.
I loved J.J. Abrams' 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens', and I really enjoyed Rian Johnson's 'Star Wars: The Last Jedi'. Hopefully, we'll see where the characters' fate lies in "Episode IX". For now, watch the movie, but don't let my high score dictate your views... this is just my thoughts, and not me telling you what you should think.
This movie, as you would know, takes place literally straight after where TFA left off. Rey meets Luke Skywalker and is ready to take some training into the larger world of the Jedi and how to use the Force. Gone are the days of Rey being a desert scavenger, and she is ready for whatever battle lies ahead, particularly with the menacing Kylo Ren.
The Resistance base, led by General Leia, is planning to get back to safety, but not long until the First Order plan revenge since the destruction of Starkiller Base.
Now, I know what you're thinking. "Hey! I knew it! This is EXACTLY like THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK!!! WAAHH! NO MORE ORIGINALITY!!!", No... while everything I explained sounds like it is a repeat of TESB, it actually is not. Rian Johnson does what he can to give this movie as much originality as possible. And that's where the "dividing fans" thing comes in.
As we all know, not only is 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens' guilty of "ripping off" 'Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope' (1977), but the franchise overall has a tendency to repeat itself, as George Lucas did - at one point - compare the franchise to a poem... and how it sometimes rhymes at the end of each sentence.
Director Rian Johnson lives up to his promise of not inserting too much familiar material, whether that's with narrative, or with aesthetics. He does take more risks with this chapter, more so than J.J. Abrams did back in 2015. This movie looks nothing like any other 'Star Wars' film... but there is one problem I had.
Without spoiling too much, let's just say there is a scene where two characters have to travel to a planet to find something, and when they get to that planet, it feels like an entirely different movie overall (maybe this was Rian Johnson's intention). Plus, this planet was too much like Earth... but what it could look like 50 years from now. I felt that this scene didn't need to be in the movie, and at times, brought the pacing to a certain slow-down.
Luckily, everything else in this movie was great. Rian Johnson throws so much at you, and there are so many plot-twists, you will find yourself exhausted, and emotionally overwhelmed. Plus, Johnson obviously has a unique vision that no other director would have. He knows how he wants to tell a story, and he knows how he sees these characters, so much to the point where Mark Hamill said he "disagrees" with Johnson's vision... take that as you will.
I loved J.J. Abrams' 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens', and I really enjoyed Rian Johnson's 'Star Wars: The Last Jedi'. Hopefully, we'll see where the characters' fate lies in "Episode IX". For now, watch the movie, but don't let my high score dictate your views... this is just my thoughts, and not me telling you what you should think.
Oh hi, IMDb user... how's your sex life? Sorry, I just couldn't resist.
'The Room' (2003), is, without a doubt, one of the worst films ever made. Tommy Wiseau (who wrote, directed, produced and starred in it), had a vision that nobody else could understand. A vision so unique, that it just did not make sense.
We see aspiring young actor Greg Sestero (Dave Franco) struggling in acting class, feeling ridiculous and having no confidence to act in front of people, afraid that they will humiliate him. It is there that he meets a strange looking man with long black hair, odd fashion sense and an accent so bizarre, it sounds like a cross between American, French, and maybe Russian(?). That man is Tommy Wiseau (James Franco), who feels no shame in performing however he can in front of an audience, despite his over-acting and messing up the lines.
These two seem to form an unlikely friendship. Greg admires Tommy's confidence and willing to go the extra mile to be a movie star. Tommy decides to take the time to teach Greg how to "express himself". They decide to head to Los Angeles to fully achieve their goals to become actors, but everywhere they go, they get rejections from all over. Greg meets a girl, and Tommy feels strongly about this, as he fears he could lose his only friend.
After a plethora of rejections, Tommy and Greg come up with an idea that they should just make their own movie to prove what they have got. So Tommy gets writing, and comes up with... "The Room".
This movie directed by James Franco - based on Greg Sestero's "The Disaster Artist: My Life Inside The Room" - is mostly about friendship. I found myself caring for the close bond that Tommy and Greg have. It's heartwarming to see Tommy - who probably struggled to make friends throughout his life - find someone as caring as Greg, who looks out for this strange human being. James Franco does a great job making Tommy Wiseau seem sympathetic and down-to-earth. I actually found myself feeling sorry for him at one point... never thought I could, but wow!
Dave Franco does a terrific job at playing the troubled actor, Greg. The guy that always has to help Tommy stand on his own two feet and support him, no matter what everyone else says.
If you're an aspiring filmmaker, this is definitely the film for you. It reminds me a lot of Tim Burton's 'Ed Wood' (1994) and/or Disney's 'Saving Mr. Banks' (2013), about the somewhat troubled production behind some films. Tommy Wiseau is kind of an odd inspiration, but one thing you got to give to him... he was never afraid to give up. He did what he could, and in a way, he did achieve it.
'The Room' will always be an inspiration for bad movies, and after seeing James Franco's biopic, Wiseau should definitely look back and be proud of what he's done.
Now, let's go eat, huh...
'The Room' (2003), is, without a doubt, one of the worst films ever made. Tommy Wiseau (who wrote, directed, produced and starred in it), had a vision that nobody else could understand. A vision so unique, that it just did not make sense.
We see aspiring young actor Greg Sestero (Dave Franco) struggling in acting class, feeling ridiculous and having no confidence to act in front of people, afraid that they will humiliate him. It is there that he meets a strange looking man with long black hair, odd fashion sense and an accent so bizarre, it sounds like a cross between American, French, and maybe Russian(?). That man is Tommy Wiseau (James Franco), who feels no shame in performing however he can in front of an audience, despite his over-acting and messing up the lines.
These two seem to form an unlikely friendship. Greg admires Tommy's confidence and willing to go the extra mile to be a movie star. Tommy decides to take the time to teach Greg how to "express himself". They decide to head to Los Angeles to fully achieve their goals to become actors, but everywhere they go, they get rejections from all over. Greg meets a girl, and Tommy feels strongly about this, as he fears he could lose his only friend.
After a plethora of rejections, Tommy and Greg come up with an idea that they should just make their own movie to prove what they have got. So Tommy gets writing, and comes up with... "The Room".
This movie directed by James Franco - based on Greg Sestero's "The Disaster Artist: My Life Inside The Room" - is mostly about friendship. I found myself caring for the close bond that Tommy and Greg have. It's heartwarming to see Tommy - who probably struggled to make friends throughout his life - find someone as caring as Greg, who looks out for this strange human being. James Franco does a great job making Tommy Wiseau seem sympathetic and down-to-earth. I actually found myself feeling sorry for him at one point... never thought I could, but wow!
Dave Franco does a terrific job at playing the troubled actor, Greg. The guy that always has to help Tommy stand on his own two feet and support him, no matter what everyone else says.
If you're an aspiring filmmaker, this is definitely the film for you. It reminds me a lot of Tim Burton's 'Ed Wood' (1994) and/or Disney's 'Saving Mr. Banks' (2013), about the somewhat troubled production behind some films. Tommy Wiseau is kind of an odd inspiration, but one thing you got to give to him... he was never afraid to give up. He did what he could, and in a way, he did achieve it.
'The Room' will always be an inspiration for bad movies, and after seeing James Franco's biopic, Wiseau should definitely look back and be proud of what he's done.
Now, let's go eat, huh...
I hope you all had a nice Thanksgiving, anyway, with the holiday season upon us, for moviegoers like me, it also means a lot of quality films will be out as well. From family films like 'Coco' (2017) (which this short is attached to), to big event blockbusters like 'Star Wars: The Last Jedi' (2017) (which I am really hyped for).
'Olaf's Frozen Adventure' is a harmless family short, something that I think many kids - who love 'Frozen' (2013) - would probably enjoy. The "controversy" (if you can call it that) is that this short film is a whopping 21 minutes long, when we expect to see one that is no more than 5 minutes. This is due to the fact that this was meant to be a TV holiday special, but at the last minute, Disney decided to release this theatrically with 'Coco'.
This is where that "not such a good idea" thing comes in. I enjoyed the 2013, Oscar-winning animated film. I rated it 9/10 on my IMDb account, which is the same rating I gave to other Disney classics from 'Pinocchio' (1940), to 'The Lion King' (1994), and even 'Zootopia' (2016). I also enjoyed the 2015 short film 'Frozen Fever' as it does keep my nieces and nephews quiet when they're unsettled.
I guess the main issue I have with this is that, it would be better if it aired on TV, and that, well... the "Frozen Mania" can only last so long before it - no pun intended - melts away. Especially since the highly anticipated sequel is set to be released in 2019. Just two years away. It's pretty clear that Disney is using everything they can to make 'Frozen' as profitable and relevant as possible. Then again, as a 'Star Wars' fan, they're milking that franchise too, especially the Marvel films.
In other words, I don't want something like 'Frozen' to become what 'Despicable Me' has for Universal, or what 'Cars' is to Pixar. Those films were made to sell toys with their sequels, and people quickly got sick of them. Remember when 'Despicable Me' (2010) was popular?
Anyway, 'Olaf's Frozen Adventure' is harmless enough to keep your kids entertained... but is it as bad as... say... The 'Star Wars' holiday special? Not quite... but it's close to that if you're a massive 'Frozen' fan. The story does feel a little repetitive with the whole "Elsa feels guilty of not spending ten annual holidays with Anna because she shut the door on her face", they did this with 'Frozen Fever' on Anna's birthday. Josh Gad does what he can as the voice of Olaf, but giving him center stage is about as good of an idea as doing the same with Jeff Goldblum in 'The Lost World: Jurassic Park' (1997), or Dory in 'Finding Dory' (2016). They're not annoying, they're just better off as side characters to keep the comedy minimal.
Take what you can about this review... if the length dismays you, just think, you could be watching 'The Emoji Movie', which is more than an hour longer than this. So, take a second guess before you label this as "torture".
'Olaf's Frozen Adventure' is a harmless family short, something that I think many kids - who love 'Frozen' (2013) - would probably enjoy. The "controversy" (if you can call it that) is that this short film is a whopping 21 minutes long, when we expect to see one that is no more than 5 minutes. This is due to the fact that this was meant to be a TV holiday special, but at the last minute, Disney decided to release this theatrically with 'Coco'.
This is where that "not such a good idea" thing comes in. I enjoyed the 2013, Oscar-winning animated film. I rated it 9/10 on my IMDb account, which is the same rating I gave to other Disney classics from 'Pinocchio' (1940), to 'The Lion King' (1994), and even 'Zootopia' (2016). I also enjoyed the 2015 short film 'Frozen Fever' as it does keep my nieces and nephews quiet when they're unsettled.
I guess the main issue I have with this is that, it would be better if it aired on TV, and that, well... the "Frozen Mania" can only last so long before it - no pun intended - melts away. Especially since the highly anticipated sequel is set to be released in 2019. Just two years away. It's pretty clear that Disney is using everything they can to make 'Frozen' as profitable and relevant as possible. Then again, as a 'Star Wars' fan, they're milking that franchise too, especially the Marvel films.
In other words, I don't want something like 'Frozen' to become what 'Despicable Me' has for Universal, or what 'Cars' is to Pixar. Those films were made to sell toys with their sequels, and people quickly got sick of them. Remember when 'Despicable Me' (2010) was popular?
Anyway, 'Olaf's Frozen Adventure' is harmless enough to keep your kids entertained... but is it as bad as... say... The 'Star Wars' holiday special? Not quite... but it's close to that if you're a massive 'Frozen' fan. The story does feel a little repetitive with the whole "Elsa feels guilty of not spending ten annual holidays with Anna because she shut the door on her face", they did this with 'Frozen Fever' on Anna's birthday. Josh Gad does what he can as the voice of Olaf, but giving him center stage is about as good of an idea as doing the same with Jeff Goldblum in 'The Lost World: Jurassic Park' (1997), or Dory in 'Finding Dory' (2016). They're not annoying, they're just better off as side characters to keep the comedy minimal.
Take what you can about this review... if the length dismays you, just think, you could be watching 'The Emoji Movie', which is more than an hour longer than this. So, take a second guess before you label this as "torture".
