Nobody-27

This film is a perfect example of a film too personal and unrelatable to be of any interest to anyone other than the author herself.

Documentaries are usually safe from such errors as they capture the unexpected and the unscripted so the audience gets their share of real-life surprises (Court and Cortney, Sherpa, Capturing Friedmans, come to mind). Even with less successful examples, I have never seen a documentary that didn't provide something of interest.

That's why so far, for me at least, documentaries have been a safe bet. But, as they say, there's a first time for everything, and this is it.

News From Home is a documentary only in the name of the genre that someone attached to it. In reality, this is a protracted read of soulless letters from a mother to her daughter, talking about the mundane and superficial. It may as well have been made into a bad radio drama, as a failed one act attempt. The letters are presented as the filmmakers lifeless voice-over, and are forcefully paired with unrelated images of dead-end streets, loading docks, and bankrupt businesses of 1970's NYC.

Only if you are a masochist who's enjoys being tortured by a monotonous drone describing someone's flu, cost of postage, or father's low blood pressure, you may be able to make it through this film. Otherwise, News From Home was made for one viewer only, the director/writer herself and I am not sure that it was successful at that either.

I tried to watch this film, but the cinematography made me want to vomit so I stopped after a while.

What's the point of trying to tell a story using a gimmick such as a shaky cam, to the point of ruining the film (and years after its expiration date)? To make things worse, most of the shots are extreme closeups, making it impossible to see what is going on in any scene or even on an actor's face. A double whammy for a serious viewer.

A good film is a good story well told. This one is so poorly "told" that it is unwatchable. Too bad, they could've just put a camera on a tripod and saved themselves some effort and possibly get a watchable feature in the end.

All in all, unwatchable, and judging by the cinematography, probably flawed in many other ways too.

I didn't have high expectations of this film, especially after I saw that it is about a retired couple who play lottery... I mean, how much more boring can the premise get?

Boy, was I wrong!

Wow.

Here I am, gladly eating my humble pie. No, this was anything but boring, and the two protagonists have more brains and life than most people, regardless of age.

I am trying not to give too much of a story, but suffice it to say that a newly retired husband figures a way to make money on lottery. Things don't always go perfectly well, but that's what makes this a great film.

David Frankel of The Devil Wears Prada fame, has made yet another feel good, smart and funny film, and I not only recommend it, I insist that you watch it. Yes, it is that good!

This "film", for lack of a better word, is so bad and on so many levels that a book could be written about it. The only good thing about it is that it shows complete lack of story or character sense among Hollywood crowd and actors who participated in it. The plot is beyond boring, characters are shallower than any of the Marvel Comics, and the pacing is so bad that I had to fast forward through most of the scenes, The film actually starts around the 2 hour mark, but even that is hardly made worth of a big screen or any screen at all. Funny, I've been wanting to see it but something always made me leave it for later, Now, 24 years after it came out and I finally saw it, I wish I never even knew about it, it is that bad. I don't even recommend it as an example of a bad film - only maybe as an example of a worthless, time-wasting, self-indulgent stupidity.

I went to see this film thinking that having Matt Damon and Christian Bale is sure not to disappoint - and I am glad to say I was right. I also wanted to see the legendary story of Ford vs Ferrari, as it happened, on the big screen and got more than I hoped for. The drama, characters, excellent music, and everything else that makes for a great film can be found here. I loved boh the performances of ALL actors as well as the life-like race cars and how they are driven and how they behave in different situations. If you are not a racing fan, there will be plenty to enjoy, but knowing a thing or two about cars, gearboxes and RPMs helps. The only thing that I didn't care for were few minor historically innacurrate details, which were added for entertainment value, I imagine. One, here or there, I could live with, but when they are piled up, and don't help the story, they should be left out. Other than those minor complaints, which is why I give it 9 instead of 10 stars, the film is as close to perfect as one can get.

As soon as I started watching this trash, I came upon a scene where at a funeral, a girl says to her bereaving mother that "that's a guy I had one night stand with when I was 14". That right there is enough to see that someone immature, unrefined and clueless wrote the script. Having still some goodwill left in me, I skip over more stupid scenes and dialogues hoping for something better. While skipping I come upon so many mindlessly boring dialogues that it didn't take too long to hit the "stop" button. The culmination was introduction of our protagonist's dad played by Kevin Klein. Wonderful actor, horrible role. Comes out he slept with his son's ex-girlfriend. In a typical immature, clueless filmmaker fashion, it's all delivered in a matter-of-fact manner. The story, dialogues, scenes and characters are so dumb, the film is unwatchable. Just when I thought that I have learned how low the Hollywood had sunk, I was proven wrong, Oh, well, you learn something new every day. ps. To her credit, Natalie Portman manages to look cute and believable, her dumb lines notwithstanding. pps. No, I could not watch it to the bitter end.

Question Pour Un Champion or "QPUC" as it is often called in France, used to be a popular and entertaining game quiz show with excellent questions (reminiscent of Jeopardy in their difficulty), great energy and always interesting participants, All that was thanks to its host who not only created questions on daily basis for each episode but also infused the series with his life and soul - Julien Lepers. His disappointments at his guests mistakes were genuine and often dramatic (for instance, he'd throw the question cards in reticent frustration, or gently scorn the player when they get it wrong) Unfortunately, a feminist at the helm of France 3, Delphine Ernotte, decided that "white man over 50" (her words!) are not welcome anymore on French TV and she fired the beloved host and replaced him with a journalist who has the charisma of a stale french fry. Needless to say, she killed the show, and this can be easily verified by numerous posts by frustrated fans on French websites and forums. While Julien Lepers was the host, the show was a pure "10". It even spawned many local organizations all over the Francophone world, where they played their own versions of QPUC. Now, with the new host, the show is a zero. So, a generous six stars in reference to its once glorious past, but zero for its current, dead-on-arrival incarnation.

I watched "A Promise" by accident - totally unprepared, and not even knowing what I was about to watch. But the fact that I watched it to the end already says a lot, since the film is not your typical shoot-them-up-superhero type of entertainment.

A Promise is essentially a love story set in times just before the WWI. It moves at its own, unhurried pace, but gives us plenty to observe and enjoy. While thoughtful, it manages to create suspense and drama without ever becoming sappy or boring. The story is inspiring, and screenplay well written. Besides great photography, and great story, all the actors were marvelous.

It is rare for me to be impressed by a film a day after I watched it, but A Promise achieved exactly that. It is refined, honest and deep enough to keep one engaged and only the most jaded will be unimpressed. Maybe there was a thing or two I would've done differently, but even with those imperfections, it stands out as an enviable work of seventh art.

Obviously, if you were looking for Ironman 12, or Halloween 13, you came to the wrong place.

There are fun movies, guilty pleasure movies, even silly or ridiculous films... and they can all be enjoyed, to some extent. But this one is way below any of those standards. It feels like it was written during a drunk weekend, and with no re-writing. Someone had money to burn. I won't go into details, because they are worthless. I wanted to see action and camera work, as well as chase sequences, and even those failed. Fighting was badly coordinated, chase scenes lack sense of space and orientation and therefore believability, story is barely there, twists and plot points absolutely ridiculous, timing is off throughout... In conclusion: this film sucks in every way imaginable.

I saw Scarface when it first came out, and then again some 35 years later. Through all those years only few images from that film stayed with me - mostly how gorgeous Michelle Pfeiffer was/is. This did not compare favorably to other great films which I remember to great detail, and upon watching it again recently, I found out why. First of all, the main character, well portrayed by Al Pacino is far from an interesting of likeable character. His love of violence, dirty money and drugs may be attractive to some, but even when I was much younger, I found him entirely forgettable. There was not much reason to root for him, or even feel for him. "A dumb, violent newcomer with (almost) no morals gets in trouble? Let's see what's on other channels..." Then there is the story which is entirely predictable. What can happen to a violent criminal other than violence? And that's what happens. Unless you like watching violence in all it's bloody glory, you don't get anything from watching this film. And then the story itself, or whatever story there is, is painfully long - overstretched to saga proportions to give it some weight. In the end, between all the "f" bombs, low-brow action and dialogues, and characters destined for self-destruction, I fail to see where the attraction that this film enjoys comes from. In a way, I think the audiences have been had by their own penchant for cheap thrills. Shock value? Sure. Blood and foul language? Galore. But artistic merit or inspirited storytelling with strong characters? Not even close. This is one of those films that managed to garner praise despite it's lack of quality on all fronts, except for decent acting. Oh, and don't get me started on terrible music score... it only made the film age terribly, although it's age shows even without the score. As I was watching it, I could not help but think of much older films which managed to stay fresh, films such as "M" by Fritz Lang or "Rififi" by Jules Dassin. Heck, even lighter fare such as "Pehlam 123" holds much better over time than this overrated, pretentious piece of sub-par, cheap "entertainment", for lack of better word. All in all, a forced three star. I had to watch something afterwards just to detox from the bad experience that left me wondering why did I even waste my time on it in the first place, when even on the first viewing in the theater, back in the 80's, I was not terribly impressed.

"La Confession" is a film based on a famous book "Passionate Heart" which was already made into a famous film "Léon Morin, prêtre" with J. P. Belmondo. I resisted seeing the original to avoid comparing the two, but now that I have seen Le Confession I firmly intend to watch the one with Belmondo.

La Confession is a story about a priest and people that surround him in his little parish. As it is set in WWII France, there is plenty of opportunity for emotional dialogues and events, and this film has plenty of that. The performances were absolutely impeccable - especially the two leads (And I LOVED the little girl!). However, even with all that, many scenes fail to take the full advantage of the drama that unfolds, and we get mere glimpses of what should have been much more powerful scenes, and in the end - film itself.

There are few loose ends and missed opportunities that if done well would have made this into a great film; but as it is, Le Confession is only good, not great.

Still, I enjoyed it, not only for Marine Vacth's and Romain Duris' performance, but also for the scenery, dialogues and story itself.

La Confession is a decent film that could have and should have been a lot better; it missed the mark by ever so little. Luckily, there is also plenty to enjoy here.

I started watching this film more because I had to than because I wanted to. I was fully aware that I may not like it. I can usually tolerate even watching terrible stuff like the new Bladerunner, when there is a good reason.

But this time, around 60 min mark, I had to stop. This film was hurting my brain, and burning holes in it. Why, you ask? Oh boy, where do I start. Let's see:

• A brother who jokes about oral sex (they used much more crude language in the scene however) with his brother during dinner with their mother present. That was supposed to be funny.
• An alienated looser of a drug salesman who has not a trace of humanity in him, falls in love with a girl who has no personality, other than her Parkinson. And I am supposed to care?
• Dialogues which confuse swearing with meaning. Crude and dumb to no end.
• Any time those things (bad dialogues, untenable relationship) fall apart, we get a sex scene, which is even worse. Sex is uninspired, loveless, crude, unfunny, uncaring, and all too logical/brainy to be interesting. It is what a teenager who never had sex imagines sex scenes should be like. Oh, and she does not want him back, and he falls for her even more, just like that. Bring that gawd-awful brother back!

Jake G. and Anne H. were quite good, but good acting does not a good film make, especially not when the script is awful. They should have rejected those roles. I bet this film did not look any better on paper either.

You get the idea. The film or script was made by people who have no interest or ability to understand human condition. They have the finesse of a nuclear weapon, and artistic flair of "paint by numbers" book. The result is this horror.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go and watch Miley Cirus to detox from this crap.

When I first watched this film, in French only with no subtitles, I thought that my French got a little rusty because many things did not make sense. Then, I watched it again, this time with subtitles. Good news: my French is not rusty. Bad news: the film makes no sense, or very little sense. Even the genre is hard to pin: it feels like it may be a comedy, or romantic comedy with quite a bit of drama... or... I don't know. Then there is a plot which revolves around a house that should/could be inherited by more than one person... all made more complicated by machinations of various individuals. But, even that part does not make much sense (cannot go into details without it being a spoiler). And then, finally, we are supposed to believe that people just fall in love, because, you know, it helps move the story forward. Too bad, because there were a few decent scenes and overall, performances were quite good. But the essence of this film is simple put - poor. Not believable, not engaging. In the end, the film left me completely indifferent. At least actors were good. That's the reason I did not give it 1 star but 3.

Before anyone gets a wrong idea that I am not a fan of French cinema, I have to say that I am quite the opposite, and it is with that state of mind that I approached this film. I really wanted to like it, and was willing to forgive many small and even some bigger mistakes. But, when an entire film is based on an unbelievable premise due to lack of motivation (and clear presence of repulsion toward such!), and when everything that follows is portrayed with distinct sense of repulsion, all of it wrapped up in a poor story, and even poorer observation of characters, there is really not much to celebrate here. The only reason I give this film three stars is Marine Vatch who was absolutely superb in her understated performance. Other than that, most everything was disappointing, from start to finish. The story could have been interesting if it better written. However, as it is, there is nothing to root for, nothing to discover, nothing to gain from watching what amounts to "watching the paint dry". It is slow, bordering with boring all the time, and the worst of all - empty. Devoid of any real emotion, good or bad. It is ennui at its worst. The ending missed a great opportunity for redemption, the middle part missed a great opportunity for some introspection, and the beginning missed a decent setup - as to why is the she doing the stuff she is doing... unless, of course, all you are after is a typical middle aged men's wet fantasy of a teenage girl who loves to get in bed with them. It appears that "Jeune and Jollie" is a thinly veiled attempt at selling us some sex as "deep and understated". It is neither deep nor understated, it is simply shallow and pointless. And yes, Marine is gorgeous, dressed or naked. I prefer her dressed as those other scenes were done in such poor taste I had to look away (literally). Not recommended at all, except as an insight into how quickly French cinema is failing.

The film itself deserves no stars; the performances in some scenes, thanks to a great cast - between 7 and 10 stars. But performances great story do not make, hence generous 2 stars for the entire experience. The film is a story within a story (as if you didn't know that already), and is based on too many unbelievable premises that it is hard to get into it. However, being master of popular tastes, Tom Ford knows what it takes to take the gullable and draw them in: give them lots of empty space (as in - loooong shots where everyone is silent), frame it with style and let the viewer see whatever they want in it. Nocturnal Animals is stylish, dark, slightly warped and so slow that moves at glacial pace. You can watch it with your finger on the FF button and save yourself lots of pain from waiting for "what will happen next?" It is also "slow" as in - stupid. Not a hint of intelligence in it. I would have to disclose some major spoilers, but let's just say that many scenes do not make much sense, unless we assume that protagonists have IQ in single digits. When a filmmaker has to resort to such tactics to move the story along, you know you are watching a terrible film. All in all, a 15 minute story stretched to painful two hours, that left me entirely indifferent.

Saw this without knowing much about it (except for above the line). Unlike many chick-flicks and romantic comedies that received praise when they should not, this one actually worked for me. It was not meant to be an earth-shattering experience, but as a dramedy, it worked - at least for me. Yes there were moments of overacting, and it seems that Ford is past his prime, and story peaks were a bit off, but snappy dialogue, good jokes and decent story make it all worthwhile. Even with its faults, I still recommend it. Rachel McAdams is absolutely wonderful here, even if her character needs a bit of massage, and so were most others. Again, there are many moments of brilliance and it is worth watching it just for that. You won't be sorry you saw it, unless your expectations are unrealistic.

There are many things wrong with this film, but it can best be summed up like this: I could feel my brain cells burn themselves to smoldering mess as I was trying to follow this incredible stupidity that somehow passes for a film. Other than that, this also has to be one of the stupidest screenplays ever written. If it were at least somewhat watchable, this film could be used as an example of how not to tell a story, and how not to write a screenplay, but as it is, it is useless. Not even two great actors in leading roles could save this tragedy that is killing itself trying to be funny. Watch it at your own risk. I had to stop after seeing half of it - it never gets better, only worse.

I still remember seeing the original Blade Runner. The theater was empty, and I knew nothing about the film. Yet, even though I was concerned that I made a poor choice, I was immediately drawn to the story, or rather - hooked into it, and could not help but fall in love with that film. What a relief it was to find that over time many others realized that original Blade Runner had a true value - which was missed by most reviewers at the time. Exact opposite is true of the Blade Runner sequel: it gets decent reviews and that only solidifies my belief that all new releases by major studios get reviews "made to order". It does not matter any more whether a film is good or bad; the only thing that matters is - how good is your PR campaign, which often means - dirty PR such as buying votes and positive reviews. Why is this film bad? There are many reasons, and I hate to give away spoilers, so I will tread gently. But before I start, I will just say that around 30 or 40 min mark I wanted to walk out. The only reason I did not, is because I had to see this film. But it was way too painful.

The first problem with this film is simple: lack of a good or at least watchable story. The film starts with some guy growing some fat, ugly larvae in a pool. Film-making rule #1: do not start a film with repulsive imagery. At least not before you set a tone. Film-making rule #2: make sure you show us what the main protagonist is after - and why. No such a thing here. Even when in the end we find out what is going on and so on, we are never really convinced about the importance of it all. Again, I have to refrain from giving away too much, but if you watch it, you will see. To put it mildly: this film is a "story" (for lack of a better word) about some bladerunner who is trying to solve a problem which does nothing for me or anyone else. It is also about 90 minutes too long. To add weight to feather light story, there are looooong drawn out scenes of nothingness, and most of the information is given in little snippets hoping to make it look like the story is smart, only you are dumb. Didn't work on me. The story is as dull as a sack of hammers. And then the worst offense of all: there is not a single scene, action, line of dialogue, or anyone's reaction that is based on proper motivation. Nothing. Zero. Nada. Zilch. The whole thing was written from the point of "Oh, this is act three, better get the energy up - OK, lets have these guys fight!" or "OK, here we have nothing, so lets throw in some nudity!" At one point someone is a dear guest; next scene, they are about to get killed by their host. Everyone behaves like they are beyond psychotic, and completely alienated. No emotion, no rhyme or reason, no motivation, no goal, nothing. Just emptiness mixed with some boredom for good measure. There are a few films I really hate, and I usually say I would rather watch Miley Cyrus than those films. In reality, I'd probably only pretend to watch Miley Cyrus because I cannot stand her "performance". But, in this case, I can say with my hand on my heart that I would truly beg to pay to watch Miley Cyrus in place of this awful thing, sorry - "film".

To give this movie a proper negative review, I'd have to explain all the problems with it, but that would mean spoilers... All in all, this is supposed to be a crime thriller with some psycho-drama mixed in. What it really is, is a pretentious piece of trash aimed at the lowest common denominator - people who are willing to forgive poor story and shallow, poorly created characters, for few sex scenes and some violence. I am not one of them, so I hated it. But to try and explain: - The film starts with a robber reminiscing about what a perfect home would be... as they are on the run from robbery they just committed. Am I the only one who finds this terribly unbelievable if not contrived? Just because you want to add some "depth" to your character, you are making him talk about his dreams and childhood while running from the law? - Then, the same character who starts of as cold blooded criminal becomes an outright psycho. Why? Because the film would fall flat on its face if he did not. It also helps to forget that the entire ending makes no sense all things considered. (they were on the run, remember?) - There are people falling in love, just like that. Actually, there is a reason: without it, there would be no excuse for a sex scene and those "hot" lines that the female protagonist utters... must be every teenage boy's wet dream or something... (albeit, Olivia Wilde was quite good all things considered) - So many convenient "accidents": they run into another shady character, and his house, and another important character, and few others, and they all get together... and it all happens just like that. One "lucky" incident after another. But it all leads to more violence, so all is good, as long as we get our dosage of violence, we should forget how we got there. - Hardly anyone has any motivation for anything. Horrible writing. Father hates his daughter. Girl is hated by her colleagues. Sister is abused by her brother. A guy is angry at someone just like that. On and on and on. I guess those immature kids who carry loads of anger due to abandonment issues will love this, but more sensible people will be left wondering.

Those are just some of the more basic problems. Beyond that, there are plenty more both plot-wise, story wise, character-wise, setup-wise...

All in all, a perfect example of how not to make a film. If it were not for few decent performances and few decent scenes (which were few seconds long) it would have been 1 star (or zero, whatever is lowest allowed).

I watched this film when it first came out, and then watched it again and again analyzing it ad nauseum... to try and learn a thing or two. Yes, it is that good. I like a few other Luc Besson films, but this one is a notch or two above his other creations.

Nikita is a story about a drug addicted woman who becomes a government agent, or rather - an assassin.

That part of the story is presented really well, and provides more than enough excitement to support the entire film. But what makes this film so good is everything that happens below the surface: complex relationships, unfinished business, never knowing if she will do this or that... yet, none of it feels forced or contrived. It all makes perfect sense.

I read some negative reviews here and was wondering if those people even watched this film: their questions almost feel like they should not be allowed in theaters alone. Carefully watching a film such as this one will go a long way toward enjoying it.

Perhaps the only "problem" with La Femme Nikita is that it came out at the time when no one knew who Luc Besson was, and with minimal, if any, promotion armchair film-critics found it to be an easy target for unjustified negativity. Too many people are on a lookout for what seems like an easy target for their vitriol, and this film did not come with any big names attached, so they could not pass on the opportunity.

The true greatness of this film is best illustrated by the fact that numerous TV shows and a remake or two were made soon after it came out. You know a film is good when other filmmakers are aching to make it again, and they fail to exceed its high standards.

The only other real problem with this film may be its subtitles. Since I speak French, I simply listen, rather than read, but a few times that I took a look at subtitles, I was shocked that they were so far off - it felt almost like someone was trying to change the story with their subtitles! If memory serves me well, the original VHS actually had excellent translation as did the theatrical release; but DVD and Bluray suffer from bad English subtitles (maybe Bluray less so? Don't remember any more).

All in all, action packed, brutally honest crime drama (yes, governments DO hire former criminals to be their assassins), with a heart. The single most important point of this film is not action but the main character's arc. Enjoy it and discover it yourself.

This is one of the finest examples of what French cinema is capable of. Hollywood cannot even come close.

Set in the 1980's Romania, this is supposed to be, I guess, a comedy. Maybe. Or action, with a little comedy. Very little bit of comedy. We could argue what this series is, but in a nutshell it is someone's brilliant idea to produce a cheap series by shooting it on location in Romania, using local talent, and then dubbing it in the US using Hollywood talent. You get the best of both worlds: dirt cheap production with big names attached. Except it didn't work. The story sucks, if there is a story at all, and nothing else keeps one's attention. The only people who may care are those who miss the 80's, Romania and the cold war, and who are ready to believe that Romania suffered similar drug problem in the 80's as the US today. Hint: they could not afford clothes and food, much less drugs and guns. Not to mention that Ceausesku killed people for much less, so drugs were never a problem. In the end, even if you could ignore all the ridiculous inaccuracies, which I can live with, it is still hard to follow a series with no story or plot. It does not help that there is no humor in it at all. If there was a plot and story, and humor, I did not notice it.

I just barely made it through this sorry excuse for a movie. I only watched it in hope that it just might get better, given the cast, who wrote it and so on. But it never delivered. Acting was all over the place, and that includes the two leads. Romance was nowhere to be found, and whatever little bit of romance was there was so uninspired, forced and political that it felt more like a courtroom drama than romance. And then there is the machine-gun dialogue: the non stop, rapid fire delivery of irrelevant stuff with such fake gusto one would think they all use to sell used cars just prior to starting to work on this film.

All in all, I can hardly remember the time I was more disappointed in a movie that was more promising (again, given its crew). The biggest problem of course being that there is no believable romance in this romantic drama/comedy whatever it is.

I'd give some examples of how bad it is, but you will have to watch it yourself to appreciate it. It left me so uninspired and tired that I can't even write about it. I just want to forget it, like a bad car accident I saw, and move on.

I remember watching this film when it first came out. Even as someone who at the time did not care for romantic comedies, I actually liked it. I mean, it was not another Eisenstein or Kubrick, but for what it was, it worked for me. That was some quarter of a century ago.

Then, recently I started watching all those romantic comedies that I avoided over the years, and this one came up. Why not - let's see how I feel about it now.

And I must admit, I was stunned, in the most positive way! Again, this is not Citizen Kane or City Lights. It is a fair tale set in the modern times, but what I loved about it, now that I have a few more years of experience under my belt, was that it was crafted with incredible attention to detail.

Everything, and I mean EVERY little thing was done impeccably: the smooth setup at the beginning, gentle and interesting enough that we are never bothered by how unrealistic it is. The dialogues which are never forced. Scenery, which obviously being set in Beverly Hills could not be better. And finally, the ending which works so well.

I generally don't believe in films created by a committee. Pretty Woman went through so many re-writes and test screenings that one cannot recognize the original idea in the final result. The original was supposed to be a gritty story about a hooker, and while more realistic, it could never achieve what the fairy tale story about a nice hooker with a big heart could achieve - that great feeling that there is still love in the world that maybe, just maybe, things could turn out really well for anyone. Yes, call me delusional or romantic, but all that really works in this film.

They say that there was a lot of improvisation in the scenes, and they were shot many different ways. I have also seen other films by Gary Marshall and was not impressed at all. This is the only one I liked. I am tempted to believe that the director was helped by the editor or someone like that to polish out what must have started as diamond in the rough.

Again, if you have not seen this film yet (highly unlikely), don't expect some "haute cinema"; but do expect some great fun, and a decent romance mixed together. One must admire the fact that such a fairy tale was made in modern times and that it manages to keep one believing in it. Never was I reminded that I was just watching a film - that's how well put together it is.

I am one of those guys who actually liked the first Cars film. That one had a soul. Then came the second installment, which was even better - one of those rare sequels that did not feel forced or redundant.

And then Cars 3 came along to spoil it all.

How bad is it? Well, bad enough that a kid next to me could not wait for the film to be over. And bad enough that I was struggling not to fall asleep due to pure boredom. The middle part of the film (like from 15min in to about 15 min before the end) is mostly a blur for me - it was that bad. They say that with any story, you want to leave audiences questioning "And then - what happened?" so that the story shows "and then - this happened, and then - this..." but this film has nothing happening. There was tons of talk, reminiscing, fear of old age, but nothing worth watching.

One saving grace is the film's visuals. And there was one camera move I loved. That was it.

Oh, in case you have heard of the ending, which I will not disclose here - it feels terribly forced. Lightning McQueen makes a random decision that is supposed to make us feel all warm and fuzzy, but it doesn't. It just leaves everyone with the big WTF on their face, and rightfully so, because it is so out of character and so stupid. So, the ending does not work, as much as it was cute as an idea. Good ideas need to be well executed to work, otherwise they fail.

All in all, the story feels like a typical Hollywood "paint by numbers" screenplay which was developed by going over McKee's or some such author's check list, and then going like this:

• Start with action on page 1? Check. - Unexpected ending? Check. - Lots of dialogue in the middle part? Check. - Take care of the minorities? Check.

And so on. Painting by numbers never produced anything worthwhile.

Story must come from the heart if it is to work, otherwise you get Cars 3 - an uninspired borefest.

Essentially, Cars 3 is a 10 minute story stretched to painfully long 110 minutes. I was shocked when I discovered that it was that long - for a CG feature with no story, those extra 10 minutes are both expensive and meaningless.

First of all: I managed to skip this movie for many years, mostly thanks to my, by now, well sharpened sixth sense about films I have not seen. This one had a vibe of "I may not like it..." so I waited and waited... until few people told me to watch it. So, it came highly recommended.

And, from the first second of this horrible excuse for a film, I could not believe what I was watching. A film that starts with no tone. I don't know what I am to expect; I know it is a comedy, but what type? I guess I will see as the film goes on.

I will be honest: I only managed to torture myself with the first 27 minutes of this horror. I was hoping that they would all die premature deaths so that I don't have to watch it. Then as the film regressed further, I started hoping for an earthquake and finally a WWIII. Didn't happen, so I finally had to stop and come here to warn others.

By the way, I have no idea what those who like this excuse for a film are on, but this is one of those times when I have serious doubts about the future of humanity, seeing that this sub-garbage gets 7.7 rating and high recommendations. I mean, even just judging it by simple standards of film making, this thing fails: characters have no motivation, they are absolutely unrealistic in every way possible, things happens just to get the story moving, and so on and so on. I mean, a 14 yr old could have written a better "comedy".

How this thing ever got made into a film, and how so many people got conned into thinking that it does not suck even things that cannot be sucked is beyond me. I am appalled.

I will stop here before I start using profanities. Simply put - this is as bad film making as it ever gets.