manusanchez90

I love most animated movies from Disney. I also like the ones from other companies. I even like some cartoon TV-series like "Johny Bravo", "Scooby-Doo", "Tom and Jerry", etc. I must recognize my favorite cartoon movies are the ones I first saw as a child: "Aladdin", "Peter Pan", "Pocahontas", "Finding Nemo", "Atlantis"... Most of the ones that are released are worse than the ones released years ago, but there are still good ones. "Monster university" is in my opinion a bit worse than "Monster, Inc", but it is pretty good anyway. It is a prequel, so it begins telling the university life of the two main characters. The director could have done a better job with the pace and duration, but I think they are right enough. What I missed is some particular songs typical in this type of movies. The visuals are beautiful and so is the design of every character. They are very funny and children surely enjoy them. The voices are good because they come from good actors, like John Goodman, Helen Mirren and Steve Buscemi. This is a relevant element in every movie, specially in cartoons. The dialogues and the script as a whole are very correct and full of gags that will make both children and parents laugh and have a good time. There is some message, but not as profound as in other animated movies. It is nice to notice the difficulty of Wachowski to scare and the relationship between the two main characters and how Wachowski want to be a very scary monster. In conclusion, this is another rather watchable movie (specially for the little ones, but also for adults). The strenghtes are the visuals, voices and design of the characters while the weaknesses are the soundtrack and the lack of innovation and a deeper message. I recommend this to all those who like cartoon movies and liked the other in the saga. 7,1.

I watched "Superman: man of steel" with very high expectations. I am a fan of the character Superman, read and have many comicbooks of him and have loved the character since I was very little. In fact, with Batman and Spider-Man, Superman is my number one superhero. I love the first movie in the old saga, but the other are worse, specially the last three. I am not a simple spectator of this movie, I am a real fan, so I am reviewing it from another point of view than a normal guy who just watched to see another movie. First, I have to say the movie is very good, but worse than the comicbooks, so it is not that good as an addaptation. I thought it would be better, one of the best in 2013, but some other I saw this year released this year are better or equally good. I was disappointed by four errors (two bigger than the other two). One of the best elements in the movie is the cast and interpretations. Henry Cavill is a young British actor who is promising and did a great job: serious, dramatic and with a good physic. He really looks like the Superman from the comicbooks. Russell Crowe as Jor-El is very correct, like he is always: a really solid and veteran actor as well as versatile. Michael Shannon is excellent as the general Zodd. He is very believable and evil. I had not seen him act that well, but I already thought he was good. Kevin Costner and Diane Lane (I particularly like her) are very efficient in their roles as Jonathan and Martha Kent. Amy Adams, who I find so attractive, is another great promising actress nowadays. She is Lois Lane in the movie and did a really good job. Lawrence Fishbourne is the Daily Planet's editor Perry White. In the movie, the character is too secondary so it does not exploit all his capacity, but very correct anyway. The rest of the cast did a more than decent job. Zack Snyder (who also directed "300" and "Wachtmen" and "Dawn of the dead") did another excellent job with the pace and lenght of the movie. He put a dramatic serious tone not designed for the whole family. He captured the essence of the comicbooks. The movie is quite long even though it looks shorter because it is too amusing and fluid. It has much action but lots of drama, as well, in the right proportion. Like in the comicbooks, humour is not very present. The script has two errors during the battle in Smallville that I do not understand how David S. Goyer (one of the best screenwriters in Hollywood) committed. The romance between Clark and Lois is not so developed, but it is not bad nor good. The dialogues are not incredibly good, but very correct and proper. Jonathan Kent's death is ridiculous and does not happen in the same way as in the original story. Zodd's death is pathetic and illogical, too. These two errors made the movie not be one of the best in the year besides the other two during the fights in the last quarter part of the movie. The soundtrack is good enough, but worse than the one in "Superman". Another good point is the apparation of elements from the DC Comics Universe, like Luthorcorp, Wayne Enterprises, Lana Lang, etc. The ending is very good, to. How Lois and Clark meet one another is not the same as in the comics and I think how Jor-El dies is neither, however I liked this change taking into account thousands of comicbooks are condemsed in one movie. The visuals are great: Krypton, the fights, the ships, Metropolis, the destructions... This is not strange in a so expensive movie. In conclusion, the comicbooks it is based upon, the direction, the seriousness, the cast and the interpretations are the best things in the movie whereas the stupid script holes and changes with the original story have made it much worse than it would be. I recommend the movie for those who like superheroes from comics in general and Superman concretly. 8.

My expectations about "Stuck in love" were high before entering the cinema where I saw it thanks to the trailer, the cast and the fact that I love the stories starred by writers because I aspire to be one. The director Josh Boone is new in the industry, but I am sure he did a very good job with the adequate pace and length for the movie. It is quite short and highly entertaining. Moreover, he took advantage of the most known actors in the cast making them act very well. He directed in a simple way, which was the best alternative. The photography is simple, but the proper one and the soundtrack is beautiful and full of charming songs that make watching this movie an incredible experience. The cast is composed by Greg Kinnear, Jennifer Connelly, Logan Lerman, Lilly Collins, Nat Wolff and Patrick Schawenegger mainly. They are all very correct. I see much potential in the three youngest actor, was surprised by Arnold's son and did not expect less from Kinnear and Connelly, who are already good veterans in movies. Maybe, some more secondary actors could have done it better, but it does not matter at all. Each one has a defined role which they portray very well and in a believable way. The plot is another strong point to me because I like this genre and this type of stories. Furthermore, it is quite original taking into account it is about a divorced father who is a well-known actor and his son and daughter, who aspire to work as writers. His ex-wife married another man who is totally different from the writer. Their two children are finishing the school period and live some experiences that are nice and interesting. Although there are funny moments, I do not call this movie a comedy at all. It is just a family realistic drama with some romance and humour. In conclusion, the cast, music, direction in terms of length and pace and the story are the best elements in the movie ·Stuck in love". Maybe, some performances could have been a little bit better, but this is one of the best dramas of the year and of the best movies in general in 2013 so far. We cannot say it has too many topics. Also, it has some interesting twists that can make somebody cry. I specially like Jennifer Connelly as a pretty dramatic actress. Greg Kinnear perfectly fits his role and Logan Lerman is one the best of the range of ages. Nat Wolff was able to portray a starring role in a solid way. The ending is quite enjoyable, too. I think it is not predictable. I recommend this movie to all those enjoying stories about writers and family dramas and good movies in general and the author Stephen King. 8,5.

I have seen many movies based on books written by Stephen King. In fact, I would consider myself a King's fan if I had read, at least, one of the numerous books he has written. "Carrie" is one of the best of them I saw. King's traits are very visible in this story: his sense of humour, horror, supernatural elements, mystery, drama, good performances, etc. The fact that John Travolta acted in the movie and that Brian de Palma directed it made me wish to watch "Carrie". Moreover, I am looking forward to seeing its remake. This movie is wonderfully directed with the right pace and duration. Brian de Palma did a very entertaining job with a very good script. The story is about a teenage girl who has telekinetic abilities and is bullied by her schoolmates. She lacks of a social life and is not like most teenagers. Moreover, she lives with her mother, who is a very possessive and mad women left by his husband. I prefer not to tell anything else about the plot not to spoil. The cast is mainly composed by Sissy Spacek, Piper Laurie and John Travolta. Sissy Spacek delivered a solid performance, maybe, a little bit overacted. The performances are very correct. The story is original and the capacity of entertainment is really high. The plot and the performances are the strongest points of this movie. There are several shocking scenes which are very amazing. In conclusion, this is a must-see for those like the stories from King. 8.

"The place beyond the pines" lived up to my expectations. It is an excellent dramatic movie. I do not know why it has not still been released in the theaters from my country (Spain). The thing that firstly attracted me the most from the movie is its cast: Eva Mendes (one of my favourite actresses, Ryan Gosling, Bradley Cooper and Ray Liotta. I saw another movie directed by director Derek Cianfrance and starred by Gosling called "Blue valentine" which I disliked. This time, he did a better job. This movie focuses on both the plot and the characters development. The pace is a bit slow, which does not mean at all that the movie is boring, in fact it is very entertaining, but realistic, too. One of the best things in the movie is the fact that there is not just one protagonist, but three. It is not about three independent stories that join in one moment like "Babel" and "21 grams". In this case, it is more sequential. During the first third of the movie, the protagonist is Ryan Gosling, next, he is Cooper and later, the first protagonist's son. The movie takes place in a rural town or village from the State of New York. The scenography is simple, but very correct and adequate for a drama like this. The cast is another strong thing. Ryan Gosling plays the part of stunt motorbike cycler who disappears from his home for a year, so his lover leaves him for another man in spite of having a son with him. For a living, Ryan's character begins to rob banks. Bradley Cooper plays the part of a rogue cop. They two delivered solid performances (Cooper's most serious one of his career). Eva Mendes is more than correct in a very dramatic and serious role. Ray Liotta is more secondary, but very good, too. Rose Byrne is another actress from the part who worked well but more secondarily. The young actor Dane Dehaan plays the part of Gosling's character's teenager son. His role is very dramatic and shows lots of potential. Do not expect action. There is action just in a chase between the robber and the policemen and the two bank robberies (very realistic and necessary action). The script is centered on both the story and the characters, that is why good and profound performances were required. There are some violently dramatic scenes (realistic again, not gore or tarantinesque). In conclusion, the strenghts of this movie are its cast, performances and plot. It is not the fluidest movie of the year anyway and there is nothing special about dialogues (they are not bad at all). I recommend "The place beyond the pines" for the fans of any of the main actors and to those who enjoy realistic dramas with some intrigue. 8,1.

I must mention I like Law and am a fan of thrillers and courtroom movies and novels. I did not see the original version. Also, I have seen most of the movies directed by Peter Hyams and like them all (some more than other, but I really like "Timecop", for example. He is very good at thrillers). I was about to start the Law degree in my town, but finally, decided to start another, in fact. The movie has a very adequate lenght. It is quite short, which makes it enjoyable and amusing. The pace is very good for a dramatic intriguing thriller with a bit of action. Moreover, it contains a few twists that make it worth watching and interesting. Peter Hyams really knows how to direct thrillers of almost all kinds. This movie is very focused on its plot more than in the character development. The cast is good. The most well-known and only famous is Michael Douglas (the best actor in the movie). He delivered a deep and believable performance as a rogue prosecutor. Maybe, he is not the most versatile actor, but he is always believable and has a solid career. The protagonist is played by Jesse Metcalfe, whose career is not so good. This time, he delivered a correct performance as a young reporter struggling to proof the prosecutor is rogue. Joel David Moore, a young quite unknown actor, is also correct as his best friend. Amber Tamblyn has worked in well-known movies even though she is not famous at all. She is more than good as the female sentimental partner of the main character. Moreover, the character has a lot of relevance for the plot. The sceneography is nothing special, the typical for a courtroom thriller in a typical U.S. town. The problem with the movie is that something relevant happens at a given moment and is misunderstood like it were nothing relevant. This is what I disliked the most about the movie, apart from the main actor (he is not bad, but he should have done it better taking into account he is the head character. Maybe, this has been a casting error). In conclusion, Michael Douglas and the plot itself are the strenghts in the movie whereas the main actor's performance and the plothole I am afraid I cannot explain are its defects. Anyway, this is a very enjoyable and solid thriller. I specially recommend it to those that like the courtroom subgenre and both Hyams' and Douglas' fans. 8.

I must say this is a saga I like. I liked the first installment, hated the two and third movies (awful) and was positively surprised by the next three, in fact, these are the best, specially the sixth. It is not an epic saga, like "Star wars", "Indiana Jones", "Mission: impossible" and "007", but it is very enjoyable and worth watching for the action fans like me. Justin Lin managed to revitalize the saga with the fourth part of it after those two piece of rubbish. In fact, the six one fixed in some way the third one (I should say it gives some sense to the third movie at the end). He really knows how to deal with action. It is true the action scenes are inverosimile, but they agree with the movie's tone. The car chases, gunshots and body fights are spectacular and one of the main attraction in the movie. The pace is another strong point. It never made me bored in spite of its more-than-two-hour-duration and poor performances. It begins by introducing the characters and their situation and then, the action begins with many explosions, chases, shots, twists, etc. The sceneography is very nice, the best in the saga: the Canary Islands, London and L.A. The soundtrack is very good and proper, too (listen to the song "We own it"). The cast is attractive: Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, The Rock, Elsa Pataky, Ludicrous, Gina Carano, Luke Evans, Jason Statham... Except the last two, these are not very good as actors, but are very appropriate for this kind of movies and deliver fun (not deep and dramatic) performance. This is not about character development at all, however it is true there is an evolution in the main character's lifes, which is good indeed. Vin Diesel is one of the least expressive actors in Hollywood's history (The Rock acts better even though he is not a real actor but a wrestling factor, unlike Vin). Paul Walker is dull and they should dress him better to take advantage of his beauty. Fortunately, Elsa's character is unimportant and the script contains many jokes. Anyway, in this aspect, this is the best movie in the saga because the cast contains both Jason Statham and Luke Evans. They are evil characters. The first only appears for a few seconds but very intensely. Luke Evans as the main villain plays a very believable and tough role which represents an added value for the movie. In conclusion, the worst in the movie are its lack of originality, rather flat characters and dull performances from many actors. The best thing is that it gives sense to the threequel, the pace, the capacity of entertaining, the cast, the action scenes (specially the first car chase in London), the sceneography (London is the city I visited I like the most), the main villain, Statham's cameo and the cars. I recommend it to the fans of this saga. 8.

I am a real fan of Colin Farrell and also like Dominic Cooper, Terrence Howard and Ronney Mara as actors. Colin is not my favorite actor of all, but surely he is a top one for me. The trailer of the movie really attracted me. I have not seen anything else directed by this director, but he did a good job with this Hollywood commercial thriller. It is not the best movie in which Colin Farrell has acted, but it is very good. The director did a good job mixing three main genres in one thriller: action, drama and mystery. The atmosphere is not nice, but it is adequate. It shows a humid, cloudy and dark New York. I meant the photography was ugly because it had to be like this taking into account the movie's story. The timing is correct as well, but the main defect from the movie is its irregularities in the pace. They are not serious at all, but sometimes, it is too low. It does not matter because it is not a strictly-action film. The action scenes are very well done. They are rather realistic, but not very frequent. Violence and blood is very present in the movie. The story is about revenge (a very frequent issue in movies), which is not new at all, however the plot has a few twists and characters and situations that make this a very entertaining and tense film. One of the strengths is the cast and its performances. They all did an excellent job, specially Colin, the main one. He played the part of a simple inmigrant who seeks revenge from the ones who killed her wife and daughter. Rooney Mara is his sentimental partner, with a deep performance, as well, as a tormented woman. Dominic Cooper is the "best friend" of Colin's character. He delivers a more than correct performance. His career is every time better. And Terrence Howard is the boss of the criminal organization responsible for the murders of the protagonist's wife and daughter. I think I had never seen Howard play the part of an evil character. This time, he did a very believable job. Another strong point is the character development. This is supported by these amazing performances. As it is not a purely action film, it has drama and mystery, the character development is relevant. We know what motivates every important character very well. In conclusion, despite its irregularities in terms of pace, the movie is tense and entertaining. These irregularities are partially due to the mix of genres. Farrell, the character development and the action are the best elements (apart from something I will not explain that occurs almost at the end). I recommend this to those who like action thrillers and any of the actor's fans. 8.

I think "Ghosts of Mars" is a bit underrated, so I expected a worse movie. It is clear that the director John Carpenter has an irregular career. I have not seen all them movies he has directed, but I liked "The thing", "Vampires", "Halloween", "Escape from N.Y.", "In the mouth of madness" and "Big trouble in Little China". Some of them are better than other, some are more focused on action and other are more focused on horror. Anyway, he has an original mark and well-known faces among the casts he has worked with. "Ghosts of Mars" is not based on any other story, such a novel, comic, TV-series or movies, so nowadays, this is good. I decided to see it partially because I am a fan of Jason Statham and love scifi futuristic stories. This movie is more focused on action than horror. I must take into account that I saw it twelve years after it was released, so I found the special effects quite poor, but they were correct for its year. John Carpenter did a good job in terms of duration and pace. The film is fluid and fun, so it has not made me bored. The action scenes are well filmed and loaded of gunshots, blood, etc.

The scenography is set in Mars in the future. It is very adequate. The "ghosts" are scary and contains some proper violent scenes. There is nothing special about the music. The cast has some well-known faces such as Statham, Ice Cube and Natasha Henstridge. They were less known in 2001 than now, specially Statham. The acting is a weak point, but it is true that the script does not demand deep performances and that it is not so bad that it spoils the movie. Let us say there is not much character development, it is a straight movie without any messages. The main story is told as a flashback. I would not say this is a horror movie, but an action one. Its best thing is the capacity of entertaining and the action scenes, apart from the fact that it is futuristic. I recommend it to Carpenter's and Jason's fans and those who enjoy scifi action movies. 7,4.

This is not the most common type of romantic comedies because its dramatic load is quite heavy, but surely I laughed with the movie. The story seemed interesting to me because it was centered in the editorial business, so I, as an aspirant to novelist and writer, was interested in it and decided to watch "Suburban girl". Alec Baldwin is very correct. This is not the best movie he has acted in nor his best performance, but he is always believable and nice to watch. Sarah Michelle Gellar, a very pretty actress with less experience and category, delivers a more than correct performance in this movie. She played the part of young girl who wants to be an editor and falls in love with a veteran editor portrayed by Baldwin. This love relationship has some problems because she had a young boyfriend who she leaves for the older editor and many do not like the fact that he is that old. There are some good jokes about this in the movie. The movie is correctly directed and paced by Marc Klein, specially taken into account he has directed no more movies because he has worked principally as a screenwriter. The pace and duration are both very adequate for the movie itself, which is rather short. There is nothing else to highlight about "Suburban girl", but a few songs and New York as the place where it is set. It is just a simple movie that those who like dramatic commercial comedies will enjoy watching, specially the followers and any of the two head actors. The idea of being set in the editorial business is a strong point to me personally. 7.

I did not expect "The great Gatsby" to be so good. I expected it would be another good movie with a great cast, but no so deep and entertaining. I had not seen the version released in 1974 and did not read the novel it is based on. The day after seeing the new version at a cinema, I saw the version released in 1974 starred by Robert Redford. I will begin to read the novel with the same title when I finish the novel I currently read. I already saw the most known movies directed by the Australian Baz Luhrmann. I particularly enjoyed "Australia", liked "Romeo and Juliet", hated "Moulin Rouge" and loved "The great Gatsby" in all aspects, except its lenght (it has to have some defect). This director has a personal characteristics present in all these films. The pace is excellent for a intriguing realistic romantic drama. As I explained, it would be better if it lasted 10 mins. less, but not important at all. The movie kept me amused during its entire duration, partially thanks to the amazing performances and backgrounds. The scenography is very colorful and beautiful. It is set in New York during the twenties. They took care with every detail: clothing, automobiles, architecture, vocabulary, etc. The soundtrack is very nice, too, with very well-known songs. This is one of the best points in the movie. The 1974 version is colorful and nice, too, but this is one is fascinating (partially thanks to technology and special effects). The cast is another strenght: Leonardo Dicaprio, Tobey Maguire, Carey Mulligan and Joel Edgerton are the main components. They are all excellent. I particularly liked Dicaprio as Gatsby, who is always so believable and changeling (special attention to his voice). In my humble opinion, with Robert Deniro and Jonhy Depp, he is objectively the best actor nowadays (I did not mean he was my favorite). Maguire is not as expressive as other actors, but he is very good anyway. He did an excellent job as the coprotagonist and narrator. Carey Mulligan, who is not that veteran, plays the part of the girl. She is very believable, too, and promising... Joel Edgerton, who acted even better in the movie "Warrior", is the antagonist in this case: Buchanan. He delivered a solid performance, the second best I have seen in him. The rest of the cast has done a more than correct job. The movie is intriguing and dramatic at the same time. The intrigue is focused on the character of Gatsby. The movie presents profound characters and deep performances, so we know what moves each one. At the same time, the movie is critical with the U.S. society of those years. The character development is another advantage of this movie. In conclusion, the movie is fascinating in nearly everything. I cannot say if the fans of the novel can enjoy or not because I have not read it yet, but surely those who like good-quality-dramas and Leo's fans will enjoy it. 9.

I did not know anything about the exact real event on which "Ghosts of Mississippi" is based on, but I found them very interesting, and the movie, too. I am quite interested in Law (I almost began the Law degree at my town college and am still a little frustrated not to have done it), so I like many courtroom movies like "The Lincoln lawyer", "A time to kill", "A few good men", "The firm", "Murder in the first"... Those not interested in this subgenre will not probably enjoy the one I am reviewing... "Ghosts of Mississippi" may sound like a horror movie, that is why I think it is not the most apropiated tittle. The story is mainly about a district attorney from Mississippi who allies with the widow of a black civil rights leader who was murdered about thirty years ago while his murderer was living free. The end will be predictable if we know the real case well but even in this case, it is worth to discover this movie with its good acting, cast, scenography and so on. This is not the movie in the subgenre, but really, it is better than some other I have seen. The director is Rob Reiner, who directed very good movies like "A few good men", "Misery" and "The bucket list" as well as other worse like "The magic of Belle Isle" and "When Harry met Sally". In this case, he did a very good job taking into account the script is very tied to the reality. The pace is excellent for a movie of this kind and it has many moving moments and dialogues. I think the duration of the film is the proper one, too. The cast is starred by Alec Baldwin with his powerful voice and believable interpretation of the district attorney convinced of making justice. Although not my favorite, he is noticeable actor with an incredible career, but I think he should work in more varied movies. Anyway, his work in this and others is very intense. Baldwin, in concret, and the performances in general represent a strong point in the movie James Woods (I liked him in "The specialist") is not as present in the movie, but his performance is one of the best I have seen him do. He plays the part of the murderer when he was younger and old: a masterful performance. Whoopi Goldberg plays a very powerful and dramatic and relevant role as the widow. The rest of the cast is OK: Willian H. Macy, Craig T. Nelson... The scenography is simple but realistic and aproppiate as it has to be. In conclusion, the movie is good in every aspect without reaching the top levels of courtroom movies like "A time to kill" and some others, but will really satisfy those interested in this subgenre and realistic reality-based dramas, in general. 7,7.

I thought I would be watching one more commercial romantic comedy, but I was mistade. This is not a pure comedy and is better than most comedies. The peculiar thing is that it has a dramatic tone contrasting with lots of funny jokes, dialogues and situations. The plot is about a young couple with a neurotic dog which seems to make them happy and angry at the same time. As the movie goes, we see the life development of the two protagonists as a couple. The cast is more than good. The starring actors are Owen Wilson and Jennifer Anniston. First, he showed once again he is more versatile than many think. He is able to act well in comedies (he has worked in one directed by Woody Allen himself), dramas, mixes of comedy and drama (like "Marley and me"), action and horror. He plays the part of a very nice guy and in concret, the best part of the movie has something to do with his performance at the sad end of the movie. Anniston is not just phisically attractive. She is versatiles, as well. I particularly liked her in "Derailed" and "Bruce almighty", besides this movie I am reviewing. They two have enough chemistry and work well as a couple. The rest of the cast is good. I must mention the dog's performance the character of Marley is like a third protagonist. Other quite well-known people such as Eric Dane and Kathleen Turner are present inside the cast, but more secondarily. The pace is great for a movie of this kind. The director David Frankel (also, director of the good comedy "The Devil wears Prada" and the mediocre not bad comedy "Hope Springs") has done a very good job. The length is perfect and longer than in most commercial comedies, but never boring and made me laugh much, but almost cry at the very end! In its soundtrack, we hear some nice commercial songs already existing before the movie's project that I enjoyed listening to. The scenography is nice, too. You can see locations in Miami and Ireland. In conclusion, I recommend to watch this movie to all those who like dogs, comedies, family dramas and are fans of both Owen Wilson an/or Jennifer Aniston. 7,1.

I saw this movie without high expectations. I thought it would be more boring and slow. I saw many more movies directed by Steven Soderbergh. I liked most of them, some more than others. "Side effects", "Traffic", "Oceans's eleven" and "Out of sight" may be the ones I liked the most from them. "Solaris", "Contagion" and "Magic Mike", for example, are normal while "Lies, sex and videotapes" is bad in my opinion. Finally, "Erin Brockovich" surprised me and I really enjoyed it. It is based on real events. It is biographic. The story is about a young mother who begins to work as a legal assistant. I did not know anything about the real character, but Julia Roberts portrays the best performance in her career, or at least, one of the best ones. Aaron Eckhart plays the part of his new boyfriend (very correct, as well). The other secondary actors did a more than decent job. Performances are clearly a strong point in this movie. The pace is adequate, as well, taking into account it is a realistic biographic courtroom drama. The lentgh is the proper one, so we can say the director has done a very good job. There are also some good dialogues and funny situations because, although the movie is a drama, it contains some humour. The movie is not excellent, but it is very correct in every aspect. The story is moving and contains some social criticism which is so visible and great (I like movies to have messages like this). So, those who like biopics and dramas will surely enjoy this film, and Julia's fans, of course. 7,5.

I love superheroes, specially those from the American comicbooks, like Spider-Man, Superman, Batman, Captain America... Also, I like Green Arrow even though he is very secondary to me. Before watching the TV series "Arrow", I was familiar with the character. I read a few comics of him (in my country, only a few are published). I wrote all this to let know that I am a fan of the subgenre because people who are not interested in the superhero stuff and Green Arrow in concret will not probably like the series. The series contains many divergences with the original story told by the comicbooks. In the comicbook, Oliver Queen has been an orphan since childhood, the city where he lives is called Star City, he does not kill anybody and so on. I do not agree with all the licenses, but understand that many are necessary to addapt a comicbook series to a TV series and to give a fresh air to the characters. The performances are not the best (they look worse when synchronized into my idiom), but are good enough. It is true that there are little plot holes and some bad dialogues, but nothing relevant. The good thing about the "Arrow" are the original stories and sources it is based upon and the pace. Every chapter lasts about 40 minutes and has lots of suspense and action. The romantic-drama is a very big part of the plots, as well. The action is well-made. There is no famous actor in the cast, but it is not a problem. I would like to see in the next season (I have just finished to see the first one) more interaction with the DC universe. In conclusion, this TV series is a mustsee for Green Arrow's fans. Those who are not will not find it very interesting, but it is true that it is highly entertaining and has some nice faces to catch the young's attention. 7,5.

I did not expect "Olympus has fallen" to be so good. I thought it would be a decent action movie without many twists in the plot, just a simple action movie with a well-known director and a very good cast. However, it is not just that. It is one of the best realistic action movies I have ever seen. What first really attracted me was the story: the fact that the U. S. President is kidnapped inside the White House itself. I had never heard of anything like that, and at the end of 2013, two movies with the same nuclear plot will have been released. The problem with "Olympus has fallen" is the marketing people responsible for it. I do not know why it was released so late in my country, why the marketing campaigns were not huge (like the ones from "Ironman 3", which is quite worse as a movie)... I heard the budget had been too low for being a Hollywood commercial action flick, but I am sure not even one cent has been wasted. One strong point in the movie is its cast. The protagonist, Gerard Butler, is a very versatile actor. He is good in comedies, action, drama and mystery. I specially liked him in "300", "Law abiding citizen" and this one. This time, he plays the part of a bodyguard of the President who is fired after he is unable to rescue the First Lady from an accident and then must save the President inside the White House. The character is a real tough guy with a good heart. Aaron Eckhart (who I liked in "Batman 2 the dark knight"), another notable actor, plays the role of the U. S. President. He is very believable in his role even though it is not a spectacular performance, but more than correct. Morgan Freeman, the White House's speaker, is very good, too, as always. He is a luxurious secondary actor which elevates the quality level of the films he works in. Rick Yune is the villain, like in "007 die another day". I really hated his character, which means he did a very fine job as a cruel southernkorean terrorist without any mercy. There are many more known faces among the actors, like Melissa Leo, Phil Austin, Angela Basset... They are all more than correct portraying believable performances. Anyway, the characters which are most developed are the ones of the protagonist and the president. The pace is maybe the best thing in the movie. Antoine Fuqua, known for "Trainin day", "Brooklyn's finest" and "Shooter" (three excellent movies with action), did an outstanding job. It is very well directed, no minute is boring and combines drama, action, tension and intrigue during almost its one-hour-fifty-five-minute-lenght. The action part is the predominant one, but this does not mean the script is empty and flat at all. I think the plot is quite original. As I said, I did not know any story about a direct attack to the White House. Although the very end is previsible, there are several unexpected twists that kept me at the edge of the seat. The first 30 minutes are introductory. Then, it is all about spectacular action scenes, tense dialogues, violence and dramatic moments. The movie contains many realistically violent scenes. The visuals are not the best in the industry, but they are more than sufficiently good and amazing. Let us not forget the movie is realistic. The scenes of the attack on Washington are incredible and the action scenes are very well-designed. There are many good dialogues, as well. In conclusion, tension and capacity of entertaining are the key words here. Every fan of the action genre must enjoy this extraordinary movie. I am looking forwards to watching "White House down" in order to compare both of them, but I do not think that will be this good, but I did not think this would be that good... 9.

I entered the cinema without much expectations. I was aware I was going to see another common American comedy which takes advantage of a very good cast with both young and old performers. I was not disappointed because I saw a nice average comedy. Although not my favorite genre, I usually enjoy commercial comedies. The cast (Diane Keaton, Susan Sarandon, Robert Deniro, Topher Grace, Amanda Seyfried, Ben Burnes...) is the strongest element in the movie. They do not portrait the performances of their careers, but they did a fine job and are usually nice to watch. They show they can work in many kinds of roles and movies. I particularly like Deniro (objectively, the best actor nowadays) and Grace. The pace and duration are very proper, too. The director is unknown, but he has done a good job taking into account that the project is not ambitious at all. At least, this movie is not as predictable as many comedies in a few points. Another good point in the movie is the photography. I do not exactly where it all takes place, but it is very nice (the house, the lake, etc.) The bad thing about the movie is that it is not so funny and has no differentiator factor from many other comedies. In conclusion, I recommend to see "The big wedding" with relatives, friends, etc. You will surely have a good time if you enjoy comedies, but you will forget about it in a few minutes. 6,5.

Firstly, I must say that I did not know the novel on which the movie "Beautiful creatures" is based on before hearing about the movie itself and did not read it yet, so I cannot state if it is or not a good adaptation. What I found is that it is a entertaining enough movie with good special effects and a nice plot. I liked this more than any of the movies from the "Twilight" saga, which I also liked, but less. The story is centered on the "forbidden" romance between a young boy and a young girl who is something like a witch. The movie is sometimes slow but it is well-paced and has an apropiate length. Richard Lagravanese has done a good job. I saw other two movies he directed and think they are quite good ("P.S. I love you" and "Freedom writers"; which are totally realistic, in fact the second one is based on some real facts. This one is totally different). The problem is that some elements about the plot are unexplained and undeveloped (I guess they are more detailed in the novel), which is a bad point for those who have not read the book. In the cast, the main actor and actress are unknown (Aldon Erenchdeich and Alice Englert), which does not mean at all they did a bad job. I think they are rather believable in their roles respectively. Also, we find veteran people like Jeremy Irons, Emma Thompson and Viola Davis. Jeremy Irons is more than correct, like usually and the rest did a fine job. The scenography and special effects are very good, as well. They are not as spectacular as in other movies, but just because this kind of effects are not apropiate for the script. To sum up, the weakest thing in the movie is the fact that there are already many stories like this one and that some elements are poorly explained and developed while the strongest point is that it entertains and is nice to watch and takes advantage of two unknown young actors. In conclusion, I recommend "Beautiful creatures" for the fans of the novel and the ones who like movies mixing romance, adventure and fantasy (specially, teenager-girls...). 7,2.

I was stunned when I first saw "The town". It was at a cinema in my town with an old friend of mine, a cloudy and humid day in Autumn. I did not still read the novel on which it is based, but I know there are some divergences between them two. This is the best realistic thriller I have ever seen. It takes inspiration from another masterpiece titled "Heat", but "The town" is just a bit superior. Also, from "Ronin", which to me, is a good heist movie, but rather worse than these two. It is wonderfully directed and starred by Ben Affleck. He is better as a director than as an actor, but he is a very good actor, as well, who was and is very lucky with the movies and people he has been working with. The movie is tense, has some unexpected twists and is not slow or boring at all. It contains the right amount of action, very crafted and realistic, like the initial heist, the car chase, the final heist at the arena... Apart from Ben, nobody from the cast was really a star when the movie was released, but nearly all of them are well-known (Chris Cooper, John Hamm, Rebecca Hall, Jeremy Renner and Blake Lively among others). All of them are perfect in their respective roles. Maybe, Jeremy Renner delivered the best role in his career. He is as believable as scary, but I love the character. The profoundization in the characters is very present, that is why good performances were required. Ben is not the most expressive actor in Hollywood, but we cannot say he overacted at all. The length and pace of the movie are perfect. The photography of Boston is very adequate and is convenient to know that Ben Affleck grew up in this city. There are some amazing twists. I do not know much about the novel, but the ending is unexpected because partially, it is not the same as in the book. I highly recommend this movie for those who like realistic thrillers with action (but not just action, also drama, suspense and good dialogues). I cannot tell more about the movie, but it is so intense and thrilling... 9,7.

"Wimbledon" would be the typical romantic comedy if it were not about tennis. This makes it both a romantic comedy and a sports movie at the same time. It would not be original at all in case tennis were not the main issue in the plot. In general, it is a very nice comedy with very good length and pace and fine actors and acting. Another strong point in the movie is its nice photography of London and a nearby English town, specially the first, which is a city I like a lot. Paul Bettany is the main actor and plays the role of a relatively veteran tennis player who is not at his best. In Wimbledon, he meets a younger player portrayed by Kirsten Durnst. Sam Neill is in the movie her father and there are a couple more well-known actors doing decent jobs in their respective roles. I am not a particular fan of any of these actors, but they are all good. Paul Bettany shows he is versatile: comedies, action, dramas, mystery; diverse roles, etc. I think the tennis scenes are pretty well.-made. Probable, tennis fans will enjoy more than I did or will find more defects, but surely, everyone who does not demand too much and enjoy this kind of comedies will like it. I insist on that it is not so innovator and the end is predictable, like in most romantic comedies, but enjoyable indeed. 7.

Firts, I must announce that I am an avid fan of comics, specially the superheroes comics from DC and Marvel, and Superman, with Batman and Spider-Man, is my favorite character. I know the character quite well and read many comics of him. I really enjoyed this TV series. It is mandatory for any fan of Superman. I began to watch "Smallville" when I was about 12 years old and it really made a mark on me. I remember in my country, it started one summer in one staten channel. The worst thing in the series is that it was stretched too long: they released too many seasons (a common defect in many series of TV). Also, they have modified many things from the original comicbooks series, but it is usually necessary while adapting to the pace of a movie or a TV series. The first seasons are the best. They explain very well the origins of Superman, the special effects are very good and the stories, too. The acting is more than fine: Tom Welling is perfect in the role (I have seen him in a couple of movies in which he did not act that well. This role seems perfect to him). The rest of the cast did an excellent job as well, specially the actor playing the part of Lex Luthor. Almost every chapter from the first two seasons is based on somebody affected by the meteorites that fell while Clark was reaching the Earth. Many elements from the comics are present in the series, like Bizarro, the Daily Globe, the Green Arrow, the Justice League, etc. Kryptonite plays an important role in the series, as well. As I mentioned before, the last series are quite worse than the first ones, but entertaining anyway. In conclusion, Superman's fans must follow this series, but the rest will not find it that interesting even though characters like Clark, his father from Earth and Lex have much charisma. 8,8.

I used to watch many TV series as a child, both cartoon and real image ones: "Scooby-Doo", "Johny Bravo", "The Simpsons", "Spider-Man"; "Smallville", "C.S.I. Miami", "The X-Files", "Hercules: the legendary journeys", "The A-Team" and "Baywatch" were my favorite. I do not follow many of the current ones. I think there are too many of them and most are too long (too many seasons and chapters). Anyway, I decided to begin watching "Homeland" thanks to a flatmate. I have liked it since the first chapter began. I just saw the first season and the first six from the second one. By now, I think the first seasons is a bit better, but they are both very good. "Homeland" is based on another TV series from Israel which I have never seen. "Homeland" is a mix of drama, action and intrigue. It contains good dialogues and a fine acting from every actor even though none is famous. The starring actor is the English Damian Lewis, the most well-known in the cast. He plays a quite believable role. The plot is full of twists and surprises and almost no chapter is empty, so in each one, something relevant occurs. Another strong point is that there are still just two seasons with twelve chapters each with an average length of 50 minutes. That is why I can say that time and direction are well-managed. I will not reveal anything about the plot except that it is about a U.S. soldier who is rescued from Iraqi terrorist in Iraq after several years as a prisoner. Then, the C.I.A. suspects he is on their side. The spectator never really knows what goes on and the plot is as confusing as entertaining. It is true that sometimes, there are too many dialogues and that the acting from some is not the best, but it is excellent anyway. I recommend "Homeland" to all those who like to watch TV series and thrillers. 8.

I do not understand why this movie was not released in my country. I think it is one of the most moving dramas I saw. This one is short and well-paced. It means it is very entertaining, as well as moving and shocking. It contains some humour, as well. I have not seen any more movies directed by Jonathan Levine, but he did an excellent job in this case. The cast is good, without many stars, but with actors portraying very believable roles and nice characters. Joseph Gordon Levitt, still very young as an actor, has an excellent career. He does very believable jobs. You should see him in movies like "Batman: the dark knight rises", "Ten reasons to hate you", "Looper", "The lookout" and "500 days of summer". He is good at many different genres and roles. He is the protagonist and does an excellent job portraying the part of a young man who suffers from a very serious cancer. Seth Rogen, a specialist in comedies, delivered his best performance in the movie. I did not like him much before. He is the main character's best friend and adds a comedy tone. The actresses Anna Kendrick, Bryce Dallas Howard and specially, Anjelica Huston, are very good in their female-roles. The whole cast is excellent. The best thing about the movie is its capacity of making us believe what it tells. It actually made me feel in the characters' foots. I almost cried at the end. There are some disgusting and necessary scenes. It is curious that it adds some humour in the scenes (I guess some patients like this tell jokes in order to take it easier as a therapy). The movie makes you value your health even more. In conclusion, I recommend this movie to anyone who likes good movies, specially dramas... 8.

I am a great fan of comics, specially of those about superheroes. Ironman is not my favourite because my favourite are Spider-Man, Batman, Superman and Daredevil, but I love Ironman and its comics anyway. He is one of my favorite in the Avengers. I read lots of comics from Ironman series. Both "Ironman" and "Ironman 2" are fantastic, like the comic-books, but this one is a bit disappointing. It is not bad at all, but not at the height of the original comicbooks. I think it is the worst in the Avengers whole saga and the least faithful. The other movies from the Avengers are, more or less, of the same quality of their respectiveI comics. The pace is excellent. I was not bored at all. The lenght is almost perfect. The director did a very good job in directing the movie. He combined good action with lots of humour and good locations, like Miami and L.A. He has known how to deal with Hollywood's stars such as Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Guy Pearce, etc.

The action scenes are great. It uses a lot of CGI but in a justified way (many shoots, explosions, punches and so on). The scenes in which Stark's house is destroyed is spectacular.

The cast is amazing and the performances, too. I love how Robert Downey Jr.portrays Tony Stark, Gwyneth Paltrow is very good as Pepper Potts or Stark's girlfriend. Guy Pearce (another fantastic actor with an excellent career) plays the part of the main villain in a very good way. Ben Kingsley is very good as the Mandarin (the problem is that this Mandarin has different roles and personalities than in the comicbooks, which is the most disappointing thing in the whole Avengers' saga). Rebecca Hall does a decent job, as well. I must not forget Don Cheadle as James Rhodes and War Machine (Stark's best friend and another superhero). The main error in this movie is a twist in which we Ironman's fans find out that the Mandarin has different roles and personality than in the comic-books. I will not explain here what I exactly mean. I understand that one or more comics of Ironman have been published since the sixties and to addapt all that into several movies is not easy and makes us modify things, but not the essence.

Another important defect is that Ironman appears for just a little time as Ironman itself. I like Tony a lot, but I like Ironman in his armor even more... Some jokes may be a little repetitive, but they are nearly all very funny. Also, I missed some darkness. We cannot say that this movie is similar to "Batman: the dark knight rises". This is nor good neither bad, it is just that they are two different superheroes (personally, I prefer Batman, its comics and its trilogy, but love both of them). The best things in the movie are the things already explained: length, pace, the visual part, scenography, performances, cast, Guy Pearce, Roberto Downey Jr, Gwyneth Paltrow, the pace, the armors, the characters, etc. In conclusion, the real fans of Ironman will be a little disappointed, specially for what they did with the Mandarin, but I cannot say the movie is bad, simply it is not a that good adaptation. 7,25.

I do not know much about the real events on which "Notes on a scandal" is based on. I remember I heard about it on the TV news when I was a kid and it shocked me quite a bit. I do not even know if the movie is totally faithful to reality. Really, it is not so interesting, but this movie is a clear example of how it is possible to make a very good movie with an average story but great direction, performances, environment and pace (what we tell matters as much as what we tell it). The cast is mainly composed by Cate Blanchett (the Australian plays the part of the teacher who has an affair with one of her sixteen-year-old pupil), Judi Dench (as a colleague and "friend" of hers), Bill Nighy (the younger teacher's husband) and Andrew Simpson (the pupil in love with his teacher). This cast did an excellent job. All of them are excellent in their respective roles. Maybe, Judi Dench is the best one. She is very intense and believable and shows us again she is one of the best actresses. In fact, I consider this and Meryl Streep as the two top actresses of that range of ages. Bill Nighy is excellent as the husband and Cate Blanchett (another incredible actress) performed so well... The environment is correct. The story takes place at a typical dull, cloudy, grey and humid English town. The pace and timing are probably the best things in the movie apart from the performances. It makes you pay attention all the time and is very intense. It made me feel in the shoes of the characters let us say... This is not very common in biopics and dramas, which are often slower and longer. The director Richard Eyre (I have not seen any more movies directed by him)¨did an excellent job even though it was probably easier thanks to the cast he worked with. The plot is very predictable for those who know a lot about what supossedly really went on and is not exceptionally good, but it is managed in a way that compensates it. In conclusion, this movie will surely be enjoyed by those who like dramatic and real-facts-based movies and Judi Dench's fans. The strongest from the movie are the performances, Judi Dench and the pace and timing whereas the weakest thing is probably the plot itself and that this biography is not as interesting as the ones from other people, like Howard Hughes, Alexander the Great, etc. 8.