cristiandeiana

INTRO This is another example of one of those games where fanboys don't get exactly what they expect from a sequel so they ridicule what is in fact an exceptional game. I'll be honest, I always thought the ORIGINAL was overrated, I mean it had a great story but the gameplay is so dated by this point, and even though I had played the remaster I just think it was very 'meh' in terms of gameplay.

GAMEPLAY On the contrary, Part 2 includes some of the best combat and survival adventure gameplay I've experience from this generation. I'd say it shares similarities to that of the Resident Evil remakes, you have a vast selection of diverse weapons at your disposal, the stealth gameplay is excellent and the controls feel responsive. I also like the way characters interact with the environment, it all looks and feels very natural and some of the animations look awesome. I like the way you have to manage and salvage materials to craft what you need and that ammo is at a short supply forcing you to be clever with your weapon use.

STORY >spoiler free< As I write this I would guess I'm about at least mid to possibly late game and I've found the story to be thoroughly enjoyable. Characters are given a significant amount of depth and backstory which I think is always a key ingredient in the development of a truly engaging and meaningful story. There are plot twists and surprises to keep you on the edge of your seat and the addition of some of the best motion capture you will have ever seen in a game to date, it's truly exceptional.

CONCLUSION Not only is the gameplay and story on point, which is all I think a good game really needs, but the graphics are also top notch with immersive environments which push the PS4 to it's absolute limits. If you want to play one of the best games available on the ps4 then this is a must play, I think it has the best gameplay out of the whole Naughty Dog series, including Uncharted 4! 10/10, must play.

After watching Midsommar I feel somewhat conflicted, on the one hand it's a beautiful work of art, very cinematic and it delivers on quite a few levels. However I can't deny that it's a horrific experience and not necessarily in a good way, the ending chapter of the movie is hard to watch and overall the narrative is awful. The style of horror in Midsommar reminds me of watching some other atrocities such as Hostel (2005) where the movie is centred on gore/torture type of horror which I've never understood how people can enjoy. I think that using horror in such a way is just an excuse for a poor narrative and ultimately is where the movie fails.

I do want to mention however some of the areas where Midsommar triumphs. The overall casting/acting is excellent, in particular that of Florence Pugh (Dani). As the main protagonist her character is given a lot of depth and is portrayed very well. There's also interesting and complex relationships between the characters throughout the movie, however this is ultimately ruined by all of the characters being killed off or drugged to the point that they can't even speak.

This is where again I am conflicted, I want to give an honest rating to this movie where the reviews are so polarised as I can see many good and bad things about it. I have to be honest and say that overall as a movie it fails, the narrative is very poor, would I watch this again absolutely not. The final chapter of the movie was so bad it leaves a bad taste in your mouth with some scenes so horrific you'll feel like you wished you hadn't seen them. There's no underlying deep message or allegory to take away from this it's just horror for horror's sake and I know some people like that sort of thing but it's just not for me. However I do feel like the cinematography, acting deserves some merit which alone might be worth a watch, other than that it's utter garbage.

I mean it was pretty good but nothing to get so excited about. The plot is solid and keeps you engaged throughout, maybe dropping off a bit towards the end. The overall acting and cinematography was pretty solid too, it's definitely worth a watch. However if you're going into it expecting some Oscar winning movie experience then you may be disappointed as it is very much overrated.

The plot could have come straight out of the early 90s with a particularly strong influence from Sleeping With the Enemy (1991). There's the same sort of controlling husband however in The Invisible Man he lacks any depth to his character, which can also be said about the rest of the characters. I feel they overdid it with the whole invisibility thing which was used as an excuse for weak plot, which overall was as shallow as a puddle.

Let's just say this is a very different type of horror compared to Get Out, it's more akin to a spoof horror/comedy like Scary Movie or Nightmare on Elm St. Ultimately I found it difficult to watch after 40 minutes in because it airs too much on the side of comedy in combination with a very weak plot, you feel like you're watching complete nonsense and it drags on for an excruciating 2 hours! It's a shame because the acting is great, Peele's directing style shows some real class with an overall very high quality of production. There also some nice touches like the eerie soundtrack which suggest a sort of classic Japanese horror movie, and some of the imagery manages a certain creepy atmosphere. But ultimately I don't like the direction he's gone with this movie, I hope he can come up with a better script for his next one.

I'll start by trying to review this like a stand alone film as opposed to a remake. There are a a few aspects of this film which are good, which is that the story and the songs are well written, and the setting is great, but of course this is no surprise. Sadly it doesn't shine through in all areas, most notably for the very poor CGI, as well as poor acting by most of the cast, especially from Mena Massoud who plays Aladdin. Now had this been an original release I would give this a 6/10, it's a distinctly average movie, good songs and story but with jokes that fall very flat, some poor acting and CGI.

The reality is however that this is a remake, a remake of a very accomplished film, and so this is where I have mixed feelings. Anyone who has watched the original and had the chance to fully appreciate it before watching the remake can see that the casting in this movie is undeniably very bad. Aladdin lacks the charm and charisma which defined the original character, Jasmin lacks that distinct kind of fiery character of the original, Jafar has become this very generic bad guy, again nothing like the original, and as for the Genie, well Will Smith was just never gonna come close to the incredible performance of Robin Williams. The casting in this remake is just all wrong, and I find it quite disappointing. Honestly I don't think there really was a need to remake this movie in the first place as the original is still fantastic. Ultimately this version is easily good enough to entertain children, so sure you can take your kids to the cinema to watch it and they'll love it no doubt. But what irks me is that the next generation kids are gonna grow up watching this shoddy remake which is just a mere shadow of it's predecessor, and that the pure class of the original may no longer be appreciated by many.

I do wish Disney would stop doing this as it's killing the classics. At least if you're gonna go through the effort to remake a classic then cast the right actors for the part and don't skimp on the CGI, otherwise what's the point other than to just money grab at the box office, it's just greed and a lack of original ideas which is killing cinema, and it's for this reason I have to lower my rating because I just can't advocate this garbage. If you want to enjoy the story of Aladdin, watch the original as it's far superior in every single way and if possible try to even find a classic cinema that can play the original if you want to take your kids to see it for the first time.

I just wanna write a quick note regarding the poor reviews, I can tell you it's really not bad. Sure it's not quite on par with the original, but rarely a sequel is anyway. It's definitely worth a watch, especially with kids, and personally I find it far better than all the other CGI/superhero garbage that's overproduced as of late, at least this is original. And what's with people saying it doesn't have a plot? It clearly does.

There are a few things that I find strange about this movie. For a start it's not labelled as a horror, which I think is odd considering the plot revolves around an evil mirror twin who's set free and goes on a murderous rampage. It's supernatural, it's bloody, it's creepy... But what makes the plot really strange is that there's no real protagonist, well not in the conventional sense. Switching Maria out with her mirror twin effectively removed her from the protagonist role, and replaces her with the movies main villain. It flips what was set up to be a conventional horror movie into something with a villain protagonist, yet with the father being the new villain. I just find this twist wasn't particularly effective. Usually you are on the edge of your seat because something scary is coming after the protagonist, yet in 'Look Away' we are placed in the shoes of a murderous supernatural villain, and what happens after this point completely loses impact.

I did appreciate the old school creepy horror vibes, something that's been missing from cinema for a while, but it's a shame that it was wasted on a very poor script. It was an impressive performance from India Eisley as Maria, with both her roles contrasting nicely, but some particularly poor acting by others. There was however some nice cinematography which does improve the movies standards a bit, and the reason I wont give it 5/10.

I'll start by saying that I did enjoy the film. There are some decent comedic moments as well as some fine visual effects, but that being said, it's gotta be the highest budget 'B-movie' I've ever seen. Because ultimately that's what it feels like, with very cheesy/poor acting, even for Statham's standards. There's no notable directing, cinematography or soundtrack, the plot is predictable, and so overall it's a very mediocre viewing experience. As a horror the jump scares are far too predictable and lack any real impact, which is an area they could have focused better on, something which decent soundtrack would have helped with. The romance element felt unnecessary and too under developed, which could easily have been cut out of the movie. So ultimately it's just a few laughs thrown in with some eye candy, which I find relatively disappointing considering this kind of budget could have been used to create a real decent thriller like Jaws. I feel like cinema should just be far better than this, like since when did the standards drop so low?

I enjoyed this movie, the acting is solid, and I like the characters. It's also quite horrifying, it builds suspense well and it remains enjoyable to watch throughout. The main reason why I decided to leave this review is because it definitely doesn't deserve all the 1 star reviews, people saying how unrealistic it is, it's just plain annoying. It seems like everyone thinks they're some sort of physics professor or rocket scientist in that they think they know everything, like how can these small details about a sci fi movie being 'unrealistic' ruin the experience for you. And besides, it's better than all the Marvel garbage that's been horribly overproduced in recent years.

If you fancy watching a solid, suspenseful sci fi/horror, with a decent storyline then I totally recommend giving it a watch. And sure, some extra attention to detail concerning 'realism', and some more stylised cinematography could have elevated Life closer to 10/10. It may not go down in history as one of the all time greats in sci fi/horror, but at the same time is far from being a B-movie.

I'm surprised by the low rating on IMDb, it's actually a pretty good movie. It has very similar vibes to Taken, so if you're like me and you love thrillers and Taken, then you'll definitely love this. I'd actually say that Taken isn't even necessarily better than Extortion considering it's rated much higher. The protagonist in Taken is much 'cooler', and much stronger, and so the story focuses more on revenge, which is something not present in Extortion, a quality which really sets these stories apart. Unlike Taken, the protagonist of Extortion is much more vulnerable. He doesn't have the resources and the training that Liam Neeson's character had, and so you fear much more for his wellbeing as well as his family, and so Extortion becomes a story more about survival and redemption. The protagonist himself has a much more humane quality, which makes him all the more likeable. The whole movie is suspenseful, the characters are well developed enough, the setting is beautiful and the action scenes are to a high standard. There's also notably good performances by Danny Glover and Barkhad Abdi which round off the movie well. Easily 8/10, watch it. ;)

So let me get this straight, I'm supposed to believe that society has fallen apart and people are all obsessed with gaming. We aren't even given a clear explanation about what went wrong with the world, which should clearly be an important factor to help drive the story. People can apparently play games everyday without a care in the world, and I feel like I would have to be completely ignorant to just accept that and enjoy the movie without questioning this fatal flaw. If you want to watch a story about a world harnessing the power of VR then watch Sword Art Online. At least the anime can identify more realistic issues concerning the overuse of such technology and its effect on the real world.

A sci-fi is supposed to at least attempt to answer such questions, and to paint a world which is believable enough for the story to be built around and so in retrospect it falls very flat. Even the characters are very flat, with no attempt to build any depth into their character or backstory, which leaves you feeling no connection or care of any of them.

Not only does Ready Player One fail to tackle any of these problems, but in itself as a movie it's mediocre at best. As a comedy it's predictable, as a romance it's cringe worthy, and in fact all it has going for it is it's lame overuse of CGI and over the top action scenes. We are living in an age where we have the most incredible resource of technology available to us to make high countless high budget movies, and in that sense we're really lucky. But all we get are is an endless collection of superhero movies and rubbish like this.

I'm disappointed with cinema for creating such garbage, and Steven Spielberg should be ashamed of himself for creating such a thing. People need to stop promoting and advocating such rubbish because it's killing cinema.

Wouldn't you know it, yet another movie which revolves around a metaphor, something that I'm seeing a lot of these days, and that's not a good thing. I honestly don't understand who these kind of movies are supposed to appeal to. It doesn't at all make you particularly intelligent to watch something like this, just to be able to say, 'yep that's a metaphor for that'.... etc. It's getting incredibly tiring to see this in cinema, and what's more is the movie is excruciatingly painful to watch. Easily one of the worst movies I've ever seen, it's a complete abomination of a film.

I suppose this might just come down to personal preference but I personally find that Annihilation tries too hard to be overly intellectual/complicated, and I find it interesting how this seems to be a trend in cinema in recent times. If you think about how sci-fi movies were made decades ago, they were usually a lot more action oriented with a plot that is fairly obvious. You also had movies like Blade Runner for example which on the one hand is fairly cheesy as you'd expect from an 80s movie, but at the same time it has a deep thought provoking plot. There are even modern examples like Inception in the same way is deep thought provoking, and can even be somewhat complicated, but what I'm trying to explain here is that these movies don't try to be overly complicated. They have a plot which is easy to grasp and understand but at the same time has depth.

The problem with movies like Annihilation is that it tries to use an underlying theme with which runs throughout, you're suppose to try and be intellectual and understand these themes and supposed metaphors in order to appreciate the plot and for it to provoke further discussion. Where I find this goes wrong for Annihilation is that I don't feel like the theme is particularly interesting or thought provoking, and whereas it may have worked if used more subtly as a side theme and for the rest of the movie to have a more solid plot, Annihilation commits fully to the theme which results in a bizarre and in my opinion pretty weak ending. In short what I mean is the movie tries to be more complicated than it actually is which in turn weakens the plot.

Annihilation does contain some satisfying action sequences, horror, special effects and acting, all of which bring the quality of the movie up a notch. However I'm not particularly impressed with the directing, with too many slow sequences where nothing much happens to the point where it becomes a bit tedious to watch. It works in movies like 2001:A Space Odyssey where the setting and artistry of space welcomes the slow pace, and also Blade Runner does this well with beautiful stylised shots and an amazing soundtrack. Annihilation doesn't have these same qualities and therefore the slow pace just doesn't work. I mean sure some of the CGI looked pretty nice, but that doesn't mean I wanna watch a slow pan of the scene for 10 seconds if it has nothing else going for it.

In conclusion, it's safe to say Annihilation isn't going to be a cult classic. It's merely a nod to a particular theme or set of themes running throughout humanity/society. If you fancy watching a bit of horror, and some decent suspense then you may enjoy the ride at least to some extent. However I think that's about all the movie has going for it, and so with a weak plot and poor directing it overall ranks low in my book.

I went into it not actually expecting the movie to be as good as it was, and my god was it a hell of a watch. The fight scenes are jaw dropping, some of the best I've ever scene, and you can tell they put a lot of time and effort into the production. The plot is incredibly deep with twist upon twist, it's very satisfying. Highly recommended!

A rom com type movie that manages gets you emotionally invested, yet at the same time incredibly funny, with the help of a very loveable and hilarious protagonist. I loved the story and the characters and was pleasantly surprised to learn that it's based on Kumail's real life story. It's also the wonderful sort of dryness to the humour which is what really makes the movie so special.

Darkest Hour will completely transport you back to post-industrial Britain. It already does a good enough job with the setting, but it's having such an exceptional performance by Gary Oldman, as well as the rest of the cast, which really brings it to life. Oldman's depiction of Churchill is so enjoyable to watch, it's really quite incredible, you just have to see it for yourself. Easily one of the best historical biographies I've seen in cinema, a must see.

I feel like the movie tries too hard to come off as incredibly intelligent and profound, but overall it's merely quite boring to watch, very slow paced, and there's far too many repetitive shots of buildings. I mean my god does the director love symmetry, it's like every other shot is lined up perfectly symmetrical. All it showcases is a very poor skill at cinematography and a fairly average skill at photography. As for the plot, although it does develop the characters nicely, and touches on some very real life problems, it's all however quite.... depressing. I wouldn't dream of rewatching this movie for the directing, nor the story. And even the topics based on architecture were fairly disinteresting, especially considering I'm a student of the subject.

In conclusion this movie really doesn't have much going for it so I really can't recommend it. I will however give full props to Haley Lu Richardson for an exceptional performance, an actor I'll have to look out for in future. Kogonada however I think I'll have to pass.

I'm quite surprised with the positive reviews, I mean Jackie was great but the rest of the acting is really quite bad and ruined what could have been a good movie. I'll be generous and give it 5 stars just for Jackie's excellent performance, because otherwise it's just a really lame action movie with a way over the top budget. Usually I write longer reviews but I honestly didn't care much for this movie so I'm gonna leave it at that.

I'll start by stating the obvious, that this is an unusual movie because it's setting is restricted merely to the interior of a car, which could give the impression that it could be quite boring. In actual fact this movie delivers more suspense than many other so called thrillers that I've seen in recent years. It's a testament to the importance of good dialogue, and a well written script which delivers on many levels. I admire the character of Ivan Locke because of how he handles the many situations in the movie, it conveys a strong message in anger management, and morality. When he makes the choice to do the right thing, even though he ends up pushed into a corner he still remains calm and finds the best solution. I think it's a really good message to present in the movie, which is what compelled me to write this review. I will however say that I think the movie rates a bit lower on rewatchability, other than that it was a great watch.

I feel like this had the potential to be a great thriller, but there's so many things that went wrong so sadly I can't say it is. The main problem is the pacing, there's just no build up of suspense for the majority of the movie, and so the final sequence of events happen so quickly so as to almost feel rushed. Also whereas the husband is clearly meant to be the antagonist in the story, and the wife is the heroine, there's just something that doesn't quite sit right with me about her, and I feel like both characters come off as quite unlikeable by the end. I mean I know it was really bad for him to change the eye drops, so sure I can accept him as the bad guy, he got it coming to him in the end. But as for the wife let's just put it this way, when she gets her vision back she becomes quite rude towards her husband, self centred, sleeps with another guy, then lies about it and even has a baby which she clearly tries to pass off as the husband's, and then pretends that she's still blind when she can actually see, and by the end after he kills himself and she has the baby it's like it was supposedly a good turn of events, like a sort of redemption. There's a feminist quality to the protagonist, and by regaining her sight it distills this power within her, and that by challenging her newfound self empowerment the husband became the villain. The funny thing is that I felt more sympathy for the husband for the most of the movie... hell maybe that's just me, but I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of people who like this movie are women, but either way it's just bad.

So to answer the initial question 'It's not really a thriller, so what's it supposed to be?', well it's kind of like a very average drama with unlikeable characters, really not a good combination. But if we could take away any real moral from the story it's that people can change, and not just from regaining eyesight, these things happen, and you just have to be careful about heavily investing your life into someone when they can completely change. And to realise when you are both no longer compatible for each other and when to walk away. Clearly this movie deals with this in a very negative way, and ultimately the ending was just downright depressing.

No doubt one of the greatest movies ever made. It has pretty much everything you could want from a movie (of the action thriller genre). The acting is top notch, notably from the fantastic duo of DiCaprio and Hounsou, DiCaprio already being one of my favourite actors of all time is incredible as always, but I gotta say Hounsou really steals the show with this one. His portrayal of Solomon Vandy is moving to say the least, having seen the movie several times, his performance never fails to bring me to tears. And let's not overlook the acting of Jennifer Connelly who also did a fantastic job and the great chemistry created between her and DiCaprio, and even Kuyper's depiction of Dia is wonderful. So great acting all across the board.

The movie flows beautifully, it never feels like it drags, and although it feature a lot of dialogue it's never difficult to follow what's going on. It's the perfect balance of action and narrative, a very deep story which at no point feels convoluted, and the icing on the cake is that the story is meaningful, that is, it morally tells a very important story which sends a strong message. Zwick's directing is captivating, and it's no wonder that he's also the director of The Last Samurai (also a fantastic movie), which makes me feel like I should explore some more of his work. In an era where cinema is arguably a dying art, it's a rare case for a film of this caliber to be released, and still over 10 years later it remains one of my top films of all time.

The acting in this sequel leaves a lot to be desired, notably that of Gosling and Leto, especially when you reflect on the many incredible characters that were in the original. I'm talking monotone dialogue and lack of facial expression throughout the majority of the movie, especially when it's the protagonist, I mean I get that he's a replicant, specifically a nexus 9 replicant, made to be more obedient therefore the role may require to act in such a way (or not act). BUT, even if that's the case I feel like casting such a role as the main protagonist is a bad move as it detaches the audience from the story. We're usually engaged with the protagonist to feel more connected with the story because we feel like we can connect with them, that we can feel what they feel, can empathise with them, and care about their fate. I feel like when the main character is designed to be so devoid of emotion, closed off from the audience, it makes it more difficult to care about them and ultimately disconnects the audience with the story, at least in relation to the main character. The opposite in fact can be said about Hoeks' portrayal of Luv, who despite also being a nexus 9 replicant is actually a much more interesting character to watch on screen, which goes to show that Goslings wooden performance was completely unnecessary. And as for Leto's acting, given that he's playing a human character, and especially given that he's the main antagonist, we're given no explanation as to why he would act (or not act) in such a way. I mean seriously, is it just me or is his acting in this movie really really bad, I mean his portrayal of the joker wasn't exactly idyllic, yet from Dallas Buyer's Club it's no secret that he can in fact act his socks off, so why is his acting here so goddamn bad?

There's on more gripe that I have with this movie, that is the ending (or lack of). Not only did it's predecessors have far superior characters and acting, but the movie as a complete whole was much more accomplished. It feels like they've tried way to hard to keep the story open to a sequel, and in doing so have failed to create a well structured movie. It doesn't really build to any grand finale, the ending for me falls very flat, and it feels like sure it'll flow nicely into a sequel, which I'm sure is exactly what they want because that means there's more money to be made, but it just takes so much away from the movie. Clearly they've been able to make a sequel from the first movie just fine, which means that it didn't have to be left so blatantly wide open for a sequel, and on the contrary the original stands alone as a solid story. I ultimately found the first half of the film to be dare I say it, a bit too slow, followed by a lack of thrill/build up, and finally a very underwhelming ending sequence, especially in contrast with the prequel.

Despite these two major flaws the movie still holds up, thanks to the first class directing of Villeneuve, and the incredible sound design. The overall sensory experience of this movie feels about as good as cinema can get, it really is that good. This combined with a solid continuation of the original story and some interesting plot twists makes for a memorable viewing experience, and something I'd happily revisit. It does feel like it's begging for yet another sequel, and so I'd gladly welcome a finale to give us a satisfying trilogy, and ideally with a solid ending this time and some decent acting/iconic characters. Until then 2049 feels like it has unfinished business.

I felt terribly disappointed when I looked on IMDb and saw such bad reviews on this movie. Nonetheless I gave it a go and it became apparently clear that the reviews are just many disappointed fans who were overhyped for the movie. Ok it's not my favourite Star Wars movie, it may even be my least favourite, but that's not to say that it's bad, I mean it's not 1/10 stars bad, I'd merely rank it as my least favourite because I love the rest of the saga so much. You see the thing is I understand that there may never be a Star Wars sequel that'll be better than the classics, but there are people on the other hand who will rank it 1/10 just because it didn't blow them away... Honestly it's quite ridiculous. Sure I much more enjoyed The Force Awakens, and it is a shame that this installment wasn't as good, but there's still a lot going on in this movie to enjoy and it's definitely worth watching if you really love Star Wars.

Wow, what's with all the terrible reviews on this movie? I thought it was pretty good. Sure it doesn't have such an iconic bad ass protagonist as Ripley, but overall it was a thoroughly entertaining watching experience. And saying that, actually the protagonist in Covenant isn't at all bad, her acting is impressive, and she gets stuck into incredible action scenes. I have to disagree with what some of the other reviewers have said, that it 'lacks suspense' or that 'the CGI is really bad', it looked good to me, and the movie was full of plot twists and tense moments, as well as interesting dialogue such as questioning an AI's ability to love, their purpose in life, and how they were made without the ability to create so as to lack idiosyncrasy, to name a few.

I found the sets/CGI to be very impressive, and the aliens failed to disappoint and were both creepy and scary. Sure it's not quite like the originals, but what more to you f****ing want? It was much better than Prometheus, which was a bit underwhelming running at a very slow pace. On the contrary a lot happens in this movie, I only wish it was longer and that they could delve a bit deeper into some of the characters and have a few more memorable scenes of dialogue, but that would be nitpicking because actually the movie was very enjoyable.