Disappointing and forgettable. By the numbers, lazy cash grab for the three stars. The script is so weak it probably took just a week or two to write. I give it 3 stars for the charm of the trio and for some nice locations.
Poorly written, poorly directed and badly acted. And the "music" is awful, especially for a show about a musician. But the worst part is the kid. She's almost as important to the plot as Idris Elba's character, and unfortunately she's an irritating, smug, little know-it-all. Not for a moment she behaves like a normal child. And Idris Elba is unconvincing as an aspiring, unsuccessful musician/dj in his thirties.
I found it boring and mediocre. Very good music and cinematography, but the script pretty dumb and direction weak. I think it's by far the worst Villeneuve's film so far, I liked much more all of his previous films, especially Incendies and Sicario.
An OK horror, with a few memorable scenes, quite gory and nasty kills, some bones being broken. Good music. Acting a bit cheesy, writing could be better. Is it nasty and gory? Yes. Scary? Not so much. Does the story make sense? Not at all.
It's a very well made and satisfactory 007 film, but the ending is a huge mistake for me. Bond films I normally like to revisit, watch a few times. This one, because of the ending, I'll not watch again, it is so depressing and unnecessary. Couldn't James Bond simply retire and live happily ever after, with his nice family? If he did, I think I'd gladly rewatch this film, several times. Real life, outside movies, sucks enough as it is, the producers and script writers should have allowed us this bit of escapist happy ending. With a better ending I'd give it 9 stars, but because it's such a melodramatic downer I give only 7.
Bleh, I recommend that you don't spend money on this, better wait until you can watch it for free. Unless you plan to watch it with your kids, kids and teenagers probably can enjoy it a lot. It's a bit like "Truman show" but for children and intellectually challenged.
A nice surprise. Very charming and clever. A smart romantic comedy, a fresh variation on Groundhog Day or Palm Springs. Excellent soundtrack. Good actors. Highly recommended, especially when you feel sad or depressed.
A worthy sequel to the first one. Good script, decently directed, with violent, gory fighting scenes. Acting is good too, including the little girl and two dogs. It's not an Oscars contender of course, but for what it's trying to be it's really satisfactory.
Two stars entirely for nice shots of Tokyo and the beautiful, medieval Japanese castle. The rest: no stars. A stupid script that makes no sense, ridiculous dialogue lines, and a bad director who doesn't know how to direct fighting scenes. Nothing to like or admire here, apart from nice vistas of Tokyo and the castle.
It's amazing how bad this film is. Awful script and bad director. Boring, not funny, dumb, and looking like a movie on a very small budget. I wonder why acting heavyweights like De Niro, Freeman and Lee Jones agreed to participate, maybe they did it as a favor to someone, or maybe these days they will do any movie for any paycheck.
A mediocre film. Good acting, excellent musical score but a weak script and weak direction, with fighting scenes damaged by too many editing cuts. The pacing is not very good, there's a 15 to 20 minutes mid section when they only talk, and the dialogs are rather boring. Also, Russian "accents" are ridiculous, they should have employed Russian actors instead of Barbour and Weisz, that family would never speak English to each other while in Russia, they were not pretending to be an American family anymore.
Huge disappointment. The cinema room was half full, only one or two viewers chuckled once or twice during the entire film. It's dull and devoid of real fun, I even wonder if this film should be described as comedy.
3 stars because it takes place in LA, which I like, and the girls are nice to look at. Other than that nothing to praise or recommend. Poor and unrealistic script, weak dialogue, poorly shot action scenes, irritating soundtrack.
The first half pretty good, the second disappointing. It's like John Wick the light version. Similar to John Wick but on 20 percent budget and 20 percent effort and imagination. Unfortunately for a film about a fighter like Wick, only one fight stands out - the one on the bus, which is really very good. The rest is forgettable .
It was disappointing. The script is average at best and the execution, especially directing, is bad. The film has the feel of a cheap movie made for TV. And don't get fooled by opinions that the film is somehow anti-christianity and especially anti-Catholic. On the contrary, it is savvy, smart Catholic propaganda.
Is it recommended and useful to persons studying theory of film, history of cinema etc? Yes, certainly. Is it interesting, and enlightening about how to better understand cinema in general? Yes. But.... it is a very personal, Tavernier's history of French cinema, which means it is subjective and ultimately frustrating. I think "personal Bertrand Tavernier's" should have been included in the title, so that viewers don't feel misled and frustrated. For example, he spends a lot of time on the actor Jean Gabin or the director Melville but ignores many important and interesting personalities of French cinema, like Jean Vigo, Robert Bresson, Truffault, Delon, Deneuve, Auteil and many, many others. He spends short few minutes on Godard... and ignores the phenomenon of the French Nouvelle Vague altogether. And not one word is mentioned about modern French cinema in the 21st century. These 191 minutes (!) are worth your while, but also frustrating.
Dreadfully boring and disappointing, on every level: directing, writing, acting, cinematography. Rubbish. And please, don't tell me that Michael B. Jordan can act. He cannot. He is a wooden, wooden actor with very limited acting ability. Similar to Keanu Reeves. Both look interesting and sexy, and people confuse it with acting.