SilverDiamond1987

Where do I start? They showed and revealed too much in the trailers first, it was a mistake, big mistake! While watching the movie yesterday, it felt like "I saw this before, also saw this, also saw that! Over advertising and introduction especially at movie theaters have sicken us. We have lost our desire to be excited. I always say trailers from 90s and 80s must be a lesson for producers and filmmakers in the industry. They have been in a rush to putting this "team" together, making this movie as soon as possible! Well, the result is pathetic. People in these days don't try to make a great movie, instead to make a great amount of profit. That's the problem. CGI in this movie is very cheesy like I couldn't believe my eyes. Especially the scenes with Steppenwolf are like a video game in medium quality. Henry Cavill's upper lip "touch" needs no comment. Batman/Bruce Wayne suffers from a character shift from "BvS: Dawn of Justice". He is a totally different man here and I have no idea they did it intentionally or unintentionally! He is not serious, not powerful, not intimidating and definitely not a leader in this movie. Flash is fun, but not the version that the character deserves. His jokes are mostly forced and pretentious. The catastrophic events are not handled well, there is a family who serves almost no purpose etc. Aquaman was very intimidating and cool in the trailers, but in the movie, it is meh! After a while, the character loses his charm, from the top, he goes down like Batman. I like and the most importantly were satisfied with Cyborg. He was the only character with Wonder Woman who gave me reason during the movie to enjoy the picture. The villain of the movie, Steppenwolf with a very poor CGI is no much different than that bland villain Ares of Wonder Woman which is a decent movie by the way. Wonder Woman is the star of this movie. She steals the show and it is wonderful, but the entrance of the character was more like a parody itself. Mostly, character motivations are missing and character development is poor. As for Superman, it was one of the biggest screen disappointments I have ever had in my life! No heart, no soul and it makes "Man of Steel" a masterful work of art or a great masterpiece! They cannot feel us the consequences of a world without Superman. Even Superman Returns was very good at discussing these issues. Batman and Superman here are like the parodies of their actual characters. What does Superman do in this movie? This means the comeback story isn't handled well. Is there any iconic moment which will give you goosebumps? Well, go and see it for yourself. We cannot feel his real power potential in this saving world adventure. Justice League is a two-hour popcorn entertainment with almost zero background, if you say that's enough for me, then there is nothing to discuss about. For example, the great Commissioner Gordon is just there.. We don't meet him yet. We don't know him yet. Humor is very forced at times. Action scenes are boring and we already saw most of them in the trailers which is a pity for us. I have no interest for Lois Lane anymore. I prefer to look at a picture of Margot Kidder on a wall for hours rather than watching the relationship between Lois Lane and Superman in these movies. The slow motion moments of Flash feels amateurish and it doesn't create any spark, thrill or even fun during the action. By the way, I am still not sure about whether this nerdy version of Flash is hilarious or pathetic? Finally, the second after the credits scene is better than the whole movie itself.

Blade Runner 2049 is a movie which is stuck between being a low key art film and an entertaining blockbuster. It is dark, but also very colorful, it is moving filled with action, but also a slow paced, philosophical film, so this contrast itself disrupts the integrity of the movie. It tries to be sophisticated but in an artsy way. By the way, I have no idea, why some people almost force us to acclaim the movie and accept the fact that it is a masterpiece? No, it is not. However, probably the most disappointing element in the whole movie for me is Harrison Ford. We don't watch Deckart in this movie, we watch Harrison Ford like he just gets out of bed, wearing a t- shirt and comes to the movie set! I couldn't see any big difference between his character in Expendables 3 and here though. His "updated" or modernized character serves nostalgia, but he is just there.. Deckart and also Mr. Ford deserves a much better credit. I have mixed feelings about this movie, because it is not totally great as it is not a total failure. Opening scene is perfect, a cinematic triumph, Ryan Gosling shines and delivers perfectly, on the other hand, it is no more about replicants and a deadly pursuit, this sequel deals with some other subjects. This is good, because the movie isn't a bad copy of the original, at the same time, it is bad, because we move away from the "essence" or spirit of Blade Runner concept. There is also a sentimental relationship which I don't explain to avoid spoiler, but it is just out of place and it kills the atmosphere and the dark tone of the film. Roger Deakinks, the greatest cinematographer alive does a spectacular job here, but unfortunately, the movie cannot escape being a copy of Ghost in The Shell's live action version. Both movies have very similar visual images throughout. The final showdown is unfortunately pretty bland and boring instead of being epic. Jared Leto's anticipated and mysterious character is a blank shot in the film with almost zero motivation and purpose. Joi is a cry-baby and an uninteresting character with no sympathy. Overall, Blade Runner 2049 is a fine effort, but it is an "ok" film.

Let's be honest, The Wolf of Wall Street is hilarious but also an empty ride. Directed by a master filmmaker, Martin Scorsese doesn't help that the movie is great or something. The movie is filled with sex, drugs, money, games, drink, girls etc. but really nothing more! I know that this is the story of a guy whose life consists of such kind of activities, but the problem is that The Wolf of Wall Street is just a hilarious biopic, an entertaining popcorn flick, a dark comedy, an amusing adventure, but no more than that. This is a rise and fall story and during the whole movie, you don't feel bored. Comparing to Scorsese's old classics, this is just an ordinary movie. It doesn't feel like a Scorsese flick. The Big Short, American Hustle, American Made, this movie is in the same category. Some jokes, some scenes are amusing, but there is no emotion, thrill or an amazing piece of cinema feeling in this movie. Oliver Stone's Wall Street is a much, much better film, but I understand that this movie is for our generation and Scorsese adapts himself into this generic, formulaic storytelling instead of putting his one of a kind signature. Everyone with me at the theatre left satisfied and pleased except for me I guess. Jonah Hill does his part as a comedian, Di Caprio gives a hilarious performance, but not among the best (may I remind you The Revenant, The Departed, Django Unchained etc?), Matthew McConaughey steals all the scenes he is in, Margot Robbie plays a sexy housewife and in the end, this movie is considered to be a masterpiece!

Arrival is a flat, stagnant and pretty uninspiring sci-fi drama with clichés throughout. If you are a science fiction fan or having an interest in alien invasion movies, it is a little possibility that you will be pleased and satisfied, because this film is not about aliens or the world society's reactions after the possibility of an alien invasion. It is more about communication, language barrier, linguistics etc. but it fails to deliver its messages and themes because of several flaws. All those posters and trailers evoke a mystery, suspense and little action, but the film's point is pretty different. We have a main character who is a go-getter type of a woman, she is talented, determined, an alpha female which is another cliché, but that's OK. Cliché casting choices? Never mind. Her character has also a sad background which is an emotional exploitation of the audience! The movie asks some important questions about life, death, future and past, our destiny and the words we speak, but it focuses on a few characters and doesn't care about the rest. The real flaw of this film is that the story becomes too personal after a while which is another famous cliché and unavoidable fate of blockbuster movies: the chosen one! I have a problem with the aliens in this movie. The envisagement of them is uninspiring. They look like giant octopuses and sometimes they feel like they are pets. I call this Transformers syndrome, because since the creators of these creatures are humans, they think like a human which causes a creativity problem in this movies such as a robot with beard and cigar or an octopus-like alien etc. The film also deals with Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, but this is not a comprehensive academic essay, a documentary or an important scientific study on linguistics, this is just a sci-fi drama, that's why I believe that it is overrated. Arrival has some statements about war and peace, unity and solidarity, but it is not effective and it drops a few plot holes into the story. The editing of the movie is smart, honestly brilliant, but no more than that. Arrival is not a thought-provoking or a very deep film, is it? These movies such as Arrival, The Fountain etc. don't reveal the secret of universe or the meaning of life. By the way, Arrival is not an action film definitely and I didn't have such an expectation. I knew that this movie wouldn't be like Independence Day, but this is not the point. The movie fails to deliver panic, chaos, suspense and paranoia well thanks to the script or low budget, I have no idea about that.

Guardians of the Galaxy 2 is like The Avengers: Age of Ultron. After a spectacular, wonderful first film, it becomes a formulaic mess! Again, the movie opens by a scene which our heroes are threw into a mission for no reason and they are in danger, so they fight against an unknown enemy without building an introduction or tension. Just pure audiovisual joy. That's the key word to describe this movie: pure joy, but nothing else. We had high expectations and expected the movie to be greater than the first, but instead it was a total mess. The star of this movie is baby Groot but he is too cute. The mature Groot in the first movie was naturally funny and intimidating at the same time, here everybody tries to be amusing. The sentimentality in some scenes feel superficial. I just didn't buy it. Kurt Russell and Sylvester Stallone are cast in the same movie together years after Tango and Cash for the first time which is a historic moment, but they never come across during the movie. What??? The villain of the movie makes no sense and there is a relationship between the villain's motivation and Peter Quill's past, but why do you dig for the stories which were perfectly built in the first movie? What is wrong with you? We were exposed to the same forced sentimentality and story being tied to another story in the latest sequel of The Pirates of the Caribbean. Maybe, the most annoying relationship in the movie is between two sisters. It was ridiculous. I almost couldn't endure watching this character and her relationship with her sister, because it looks fake. It is just a plot device. The movie recalls the movie Zardoz which is nice, little Greek tragedy and definitely the best part of the movie is trying to escape from space prison part, but oh man, this was a total mess! Even the post credit scenes were boring and uninteresting. In the second half, we watch action, action and more action until we become mentally tired! The team has "we are a family" message for you like Fast and Furious movies and as said before, the movie is very similar with its poster: a complete audiovisual mess! Lots of CGI, lots of noisy action and overblown visuals with no properly built up story, no development, no tension and no heart and soul. By the way, like most of the movies in these days, the villain explains everything one by one, evil plans are included, to make everything clear for us at some point! Jokes are mostly unfunny and forced, Gamora has a lesser screen time, it is a pity, Drax doesn't fight much this time and everything else is a mess except for great Stallone! This is a must see for "GOTG" fans to follow the story, but keep your expectations low. However, your kids may love it!

You know, the first chapter "The Rise of the Planet of the Apes" was a good beginning. It was a solid action adventure. A modernized version of the old "ape" movies. When the second movie was released, people almost loved it, so the movie got lots of praise and admiration as a brilliant movie. However, if you ask me, it was seriously dull by a lazy editing and storytelling. All those trailers and posters of the second film (apes grabbing weapons etc.) gave us a promise of lots of action and suspense, but actually it was not, that's why it was a boring movie. While the most of the second movie takes place in an ape shelter with an imperceptible story, this third movie mostly takes place in a military base! This is because the director takes the easy way out while telling us the story. The third movie is the same, maybe worse, I don't know, but I can figure out easily that why a lot of audiences felt cheated. It is because the last two movies were misleading. Look at the poster of this movie! You can see clearly a grand battle between apes and humans, but the director cannot tell us this war in a wider scale, instead, most of the movie takes place in a military base/internment camp this time, so? We expect lots of action, adventure, a worldwide battle, but we get stuck in that military base and we cannot escape from there as audiences! The film starts like "The Predator", but after this promise, it gets worse and worse. We get lost inside the weird plot of the movie. This movie has not a proper beginning, a proper development and a proper end/climax. It feels like a semi documentary at times, but it is not. This is not a human vs. ape story. This is a boring movie about captured apes, killer apes, apes with a good heart etc. This movie, also the previous one have a pace issue! The first chapter was perfect for this, but the last two movies have a serious pace problem. It is somewhere between a semi drama and semi documentary and an action adventure film. Also, now we have a second Apocalypse Now "homage" after "King Kong: The Skull Island", but despite Woody Harrelson is such an amazing actor, his villain character here is not intimidating, influential or dramatic. In the movie, there is always a glimpse or feeling that something is going to happen, but that moment never comes. There is a special forces unit in white who reminds me storm-troopers in Star Wars, but wait a minute! They get wasted in the plot. There is a virus danger added into the plot, but it gets ridiculous and pointless. And I have never been a fan of Caesar. Yes, he is an alpha male, he is a leader, he is not evil etc. but he is overrated. I don't adore or have admiration for this ape. He is not like Dr. Zira in the original film. In these movies, humans are depicted as villains and apes are depicted as heroes to root for, but this doesn't work here actually. Is this a sentimental movie? Will you break into tears? Hell, No! If you ask me, even Tim Burton's disappointing The Planet of the Apes version is better than these movies. This movie could have been an epic finale.

I like and follow Mr. Wright as an original and creative director and in my opinion, "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World" is his masterpiece. Hot Fuzz was flawed, but it was a fun and thrill ride and I enjoyed it. Shaun of the Dead was brilliant and funny, but The Baby Driver doesn't feel like it was made by Edgar Wright. This is not his style as a filmmaker. The first half is very entertaining and very colorful like a candy, the camera work, music, characters are all great. However, in the second half, the movie turns into an ordinary crime/heist movie like any other director can shoot. The movie pays homage to some cult movies such as The Terminator, Bonnie and Clyde etc. but it loses its charm and becomes predictable with a boring, weird and unnecessary climax. This movie is supposed to be about music, old tracks and car chases, but other than songs, actually it is not! Don't expect impressive and long car chases like Bullitt or Gone in 60 Seconds etc. If you think that this movie is a car-driven film, you get seriously disappointed. Kevin Spacey is fun here, but the character's changeable motivations kill the rationality here. Jamie Foxx is the star of the movie and also he was my favorite character in the movie. The other couple was very repulsive for me, but the actors plays in a very passionate way, but I didn't care their survival. Music is great here like The first Guardians of the Galaxy and especially the first half was a great piece of entertainment, but the movie has so many flaws. The chemistry and love story between two main characters feels superficial and unrealistic. It is just a plot device. In the final chapter, the movie is a real letdown because of some bad plot twists. I recommend this movie for entertainment, but also if you have zero expectation.

The first John Wick was a flourishing, surprisingly well done and solid action film which was even better than people'd expected. The main character were cool thanks to great Keanu Reeves. The story was mysterious, asking questions. The film was stylistic in a natural manner and had lots of action, a real gem of a film! This second John Wick tries to explain everything like what is what and who is who? A big mistake! The director tries to deepen the story and enriches his universe by adding some new characters and their stories, but it slows the story down. In other words, it makes the story heavier. The first movie was all about questions, this movie is about intrigues like an episode of a serial TV action. The first film was a sincere letter to action genre, but this second installment feels like a pseudo artistic work. The flashy climactic scene frankly proves that. This movie tries to look "elegant", but it falls too short. The action is great at times, but even if it is also an action packed film, it feels like boring if we think about the pace of the first movie. I believe that the best scene of the movie is when John Wick (Keanu Reeves) meets Bowery King (Laurence Fishburne) and you start to cry! Maybe, John Wick 2 is a more dignified film than the other in some ways, but all those explanations and narrative make it a less entertaining experience, probably because this is an intermediate chapter between the first and the probable third film. By the way, it is sad that Ruby Rose is wasted here. We can never see that expected breaking point happening. We love Keanu Reeves and he is great here again and the action scenes are professional and classy, but the movie is somehow dreary. I hope, in the next chapter, the director can work things out.

Nocturnal Animals is a distant and pointless effort. There is nothing to thrill you or make you think. The first layer is somehow cold. It doesn't grab your attention. The audience cannot have a connection with the characters and the atmosphere and the second layer is pointless, because the book which is also the name of the film is revived on screen, but since it is fiction within fiction, you don't care about the characters and the events happen to them. The first layer tries to be a criticism of society or upper class, but it fails too short. It just throws us just a bunch of glimpses and there is nothing dark, sexy or smart in this tale! I wanted the movie to dig down expectations, roles and dynamics in human relationships and a criticism of modern society, but the film doesn't prefer to deal with these themes generally. In fact, I'd expected a movie like "Sleeping with Enemy", "Mortal Thoughts" or "Diabolique", but this movie is just an insult to the viewer, because instead of the promises of the plot, we rather watch a crime thriller in a modern Western atmosphere! That story is gripping, little suspenseful and intense thanks to the cinematography, a great Michael Shannon and an amazing Aaron Taylor-Johnson as his best acting yet. However, the movie tries to be nightmarish, but it falls too short. I love all type of Western movies and neo-noir type of films, but this was supposed to be a dark "relationship" movie with cynicism, so if you expect a dark relationship movie or a bitter revenge movie, you will be seriously disappointed. I like Amy Adams, but since she is in almost every movie, I have no more attraction or excitement for this beautiful lady. Jake Gylenhaal gave one of the greatest male performances of all time in "Nightcrawler", but he is not that great or unforgettable in this movie. Honestly, Mr. Shannon steals the whole show and he was my favorite character in this movie though! A few flashbacks, a boring opening sequence and an abrupt ending turn this movie into a big missed opportunity. Especially, after seeing that ending, I asked to myself, "so what?" I think that this movie deserves a shocking ending or at least an unforgettable one, but it just doesn't deliver its message. However, the movie has a hilarious opening credits which is maybe the only thing that has a meaning! I didn't buy all those metaphors between the two parallel stories in the movie. If you watch a real revenge movie, watch a few Korean films or In The Bedroom.

Hacksaw Ridge shows the brutal and sorrowful side of war, it is a must see especially for the audience who loves the genre, but it falls too short, because it works like a dated war melodrama with some brutal and bloody battle scenes which has only shocking effect. Hacksaw Ridge is like "We Were Soldiers" with a better quality, better theme and higher budget.

I believe that a war movie doesn't have to be "anti- war" to be great. For example, Ridley Scott's Black Hawk Down is not an anti war movie, it is a military operation movie, but I think it is a masterpiece. I have the same opinions for some other movies such as Saving Private Ryan, Enemy at the Gates and I enjoyed movies such as Fury, The Lone Survivor (flawed, but a solid survival action) However, Hacksaw Ridge fails too short.

I didn't find the first half compelling or a great story introduction. You don't care about the main protagonist as you did for William Wallace for example. Honestly, I didn't enjoy what most people did for the prologue, so I did find it little boring. Maybe, because I'd expected a movie like The Fury. An intense war drama with some great moments and set pieces with an interesting character gallery. Many people praise what Gibson did for the movie, especially visual effects, set pieces and battle scenes, but I think it was not point of the film, also it was not that impressive or special. There is not such a rule that more brutal it becomes, greater it gets.

I was not at the edge of my seat during the battle scenes most of the time as I didn't really feel the despair of the characters and their dilemmas when they face with it. For example, in the movie Papillon, you feel every kind of pain as you are there with them or you are one of them! so the storytelling in this movie was not powerful enough to carry its subject matter.

Many people praise Andrew Garfield, I am in the minority again, but I think it was a mistake. He has some haters maybe, but I think Shia Labeouf would play the character better. Maybe, Garfield has a talent of his own, but he is not that gifted to play such a character. The real star of the movie was Vince Vaughn as the commander, nobody else!

The battle scenes has some shocking effects, but no more than that. The dramatic tension and humanism factor are poor. Some parts in the army before going to war are not realistic as it should be. As for Mel Gibson, I don't care about what other people think or say about him, but I am a fan of his movies. He is one of the best stars of his time like Bruce Willis. Hacksaw Ridge is his weakest movie so far as director. Maybe, he tried to make an old school and romantic, also gritty war drama, but there was nothing new and the movie itself was dated.

This is not a subject which I am sensitive in movies, but the depiction and portrayal of Japans in this movie made me little annoyed. In the movie, Japanese soldiers are like evil forces, different from Clint Eastwood's Letters from Iwo Jima. Why?

What makes this film worthy is its subject and conflict. Hacksaw Ridge lacks the tragic nature of Braveheart. Mel Gibson's masterpiece is still Braveheart. If you look for an epic anti war movie like Platoon, you'll get disappointed. If you look for a stylish war/action drama like Fury, you'll get disappointed. If you look for an artistic journey like The Hurt Locker, you'll be disappointed anyway. However, what you want is to learn about history by watching the revival of the events or watching a technically good war drama with some matters, this film is a good choice for you.

"X-Men: Apocalypse" is seen as a disappointment by almost many fans after "The Days of Future Past", but I think "Apocalypse is a better film on many counts. "TDOFP" didn't have comics tone, the movie took itself too seriously, the story was basic, but it tried to be sophisticated etc. "X-Men: Apocalypse" is a fun ride, but also it has also an intelligent story. The opening scene and the villain En Sabah Nur reminds me "The Mummy" and it was entertaining! Yes, Raven played by Lawrence has no big function in the story, she is just there, but I've started to like her character, even if I know the fact that nobody can surpass Rebecca Romijn. The parts which we visit each character with them are very interesting and enjoyable. Magneto's past being revealed was creepy and sad and masterfully done! It shows the dawn of evil inside him. "Two new students (Jean Grey and Cyclops) in a boarding school meet and slowly fall in love" is a cliché story tool, but that's OK. The so called platonic love of Xavier was hilarious! Angel is darker and more intense here. We witness some very important moments in X-Men history, seeing what happens to the characters we know for a very long time etc. I need to confess that I was disappointed by Quicksilver here, because his new famous scene here is a rehash of "The Days of Future Past" unfortunately and that one was better for sure. This one was just funny, maybe hilarious, but definitely not jaw dropping like the previous one. The relationship between Charles and Magneto is gripping and impressive here like Shakespeare plays. Wolverine scene was perfect and the most brutal Wolverine scene in any Wolverine film so far! The climactic final part is an action packed. It could have been better, but with perfect CGI, little emotion and some team work, it just delivers and the mind games were very exciting! "Apocalypse" is a more entertaining and more colorful film than its predecessor. It has the perfect tone for a X-Men film.

"CA: Civil War" is an important step in super hero movies, because as known, it deals with some moral themes, asking some moral questions, it focuses on the destruction and mayhem in the cities by heroes. Therefore, it is an emotional movie also which is nice. Despite the movie is called "civil war", this is not exactly a war, a mini battle between the allies. This feels like an epic film, but unfortunately it is not. The best action part of the film comes at this point: the famous airport scene! It could have been much better, but still great! Recently, some super hero movies have started to inspire from "Empire Strikes Back" and this movie is one of them. It tries to be dark and epic like "ESB". Crossbones was a disappointment as a cameo, the other villain is pretty interesting though. The opening sequence of the movie which recalls "Expendables" movies are fun, but no more than that. The meetings among the heroes to discuss the subjects are key points of the film and very interesting to listen, but it could have been deeper, darker and longer. There is a few moments of an avenger in the middle of the movie and it is pretty touching indeed, Russo Brothers can touch your heart which is a plus, but again, the movie could have been much more touching and also intense. Black Panther is perfect! He is the star of the movie like Bucky in "The Winter Soldier." The chase scene is one of the bests in Marvel history. The shoots are jaw dropping! The battle between Cap and Stark which is the main focus of the story is fairly done and technically masterful, but it feels rushed. It is not brilliant or unforgettable, but touching and impressive! Iron Man is not too powerful in this movie which is an improvement (realistic) By the way, I was very impressed by the strong friendship between Steve and Bucky. "Civil War" is not epic or action packed, but it is very good. Spider- Man here is hilarious here and it is not a disappointment. I just didn't like his new "camera" eyes. Also, I don't like these frequent casting changes, but every new change means a new chance. As for Aunt May, a bold choice, but it was OK. All the other heroes do their part without question. For War Machine, I prefer Terrence Howard, but Cheadle is OK, too. Black Panther is cool, but too assertive and too self confident, but the character was extremely impressive. "Captain America: Civil War" is a very good and strong super hero movie, but it could have been better. I prefer "The Winter Soldier" over "Civil War."

I see Mission: Impossible 2 as "Hulk 03" of M:I movies. Both were hated and bashed by moviegoers, although those were excellent. For example Hulk 03 still has the best CGI and it has lots of action, but people remember the first 40 minutes, being very boring for them while the real boring one with bad CGI was the second one. People say that this sequel with a boring first half has a different style than the original first film, but wasn't it supposed to be like that? If you ask me, the first film was an exclusively stylish, low key espionage thriller, but it was little boring and slow paced at times. I liked and very enjoyed even the third movie with magical JJ Abrams touch! However, this second film perfectly delivers as an action packed and believe me that cliché virus story and the dated romance is not the point. This is a John Woo movie! In this sequel, now Ethan Hunt is a trained martial artist, a gunfighter, what would be the best that could happen? In this movie, the mission teller device does not terminate itself by smoldering, because this is a John Woo movie! In the second half, you are awarded with some incredible stunt work and action sequences! Also I think the best soundtrack for a M:I movie is here, too. The things that Hunt performs by that motorbike is amazing. If you expect a Bullitt type of a movie, of course you will be disappointed, but it is pure action and pure entertainment. If you look at the posters of the first two films, you can see that while the first one looks like a classical, old school spy thriller, the second one prepares you for a hell ride! We watch a different, tricky Ethan Hunt here equipped with lots of skills, almost like a single army and I love that! This is not a sophisticated or intellectual action film, but it is definitely not an empty or dumb summer blockbuster. The tone of the movie is just perfect for a M:I movie of course with a different touch by Woo! The mountain scene of the film is a hilarious and pure joy! The last 20 minutes of the film is an awesome action packed! Is it exaggerating? Yes. Is it overblown? No. Is it hilarious and cool? Definitely Yes! John Woo is a great action filmmaker and he doesn't make movies like this anymore.

The problem with "BVS: Dawn of Justice" is the built up tension between the two men and their motivations against each other to defeat. Years, but years ago, when Freddy vs. Jason was released, with no expectation, I saw and liked the movie at home theater. The spin-off showdown was executed pretty well and it was fun. However, "Batman v Superman" cannot give us goosebumps or even little excitement.

Ben Affleck is great, Bruce Wayne is great, as for Batman, he looks dark and intimidating and the best hand to hand combat in Batman franchise is here, but thanks to some cheesy visual effects, that also the movie itself suffers from, ruins the experience! In some scenes, Batman looks like a computer generated character from a PC game and it really bothered me!

There is something wrong with the way of storytelling in this movie. We don't care about the "gladiator" fight between the two, maybe because the tone of the movie is cold? In contrast with Zack Snyder's masterpiece "Watchmen", "Batman v Superman" is pretty heartless and soulless. The opening sequence of the movie is amazing!

The connection between the destruction in "Man of Steel" and Bruce Wayne's anger against Superman considering the casualties is very smart. However, the very beginning of the movie was not that impressive, because I know Mr. Snyder can do much better.

I think, the movie is not too dark as claimed by some people, the problem is not being too dark, it is the editing, the storytelling, the motivations, the clichés, the visual effects and so on.. Also, the movie has not a comic book tone or atmosphere which is an unforgivable mistake! Visually, the movie was just flat and at times, it was dull which is very surprising.

The purpose of this movie should have been focusing on the showdown between two of the greatest super heroes on earth, but instead, the purpose of this movie is to make a way for the upcoming Justice League movies. You make an almost three hour long movie, but you fill that movie with lots of other stories and characters. The expected fight between the two is a pure disappointment. It has a few priceless moments, but in the end, it was too short and not extraordinary, unforgettable or magnificent as it should be. Mr. Snyder didn't do "justice" to it!

Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor wasn't bad, but annoying. His evil plans felt like we were watching a "Pinky and The Brain" episode. Doomsday? Ohh, man! Producers must abandon the idea of releasing a big monster in every big budget action movie! Therefore, this "monster movie" mood stabs the film even more. In the last half, the movie speeds up and again we see lots of destruction, explosion and mayhem! Batmobile is great, but in some action moments, the visual effects ruin everything again.

Gal Gadot is the second star of this movie after Ben Affleck's success! She is amazing, hot and strong! However, I prefer daily Wonder Woman who is more interesting than most of the "Bond girls" in James Bond flicks! The relationship between her and Bruce Wayne is very similar with classic spy movies. She was convincing as the character that made me want more of her in the movie.

The long first half of the movie is slow paced, then things hot up and then the movie speeds up like crazy! If you ask me, I prefer the slow first half over the action packed second half, especially because of some terrible CGI moments, clichés and rushed feeling. And the suddenly revealing humor between characters change the mood of the film in a bad way.

There are two parts in the movie which you can watch with awe. The dream sequence of Bruce Wayne is creepy, surreal and the second best part of the movie, but the best part of the movie is definitely the hand to hand combat sequence following an attack.

Henry Cavill as Superman is always perfect and he is the same here, nothing less and nothing more, but in this cold and soulless film, we cannot feel anything about a character in a real way. By the way, I want to mention again that Ben Affleck really delivers as Bruce Wayne and Batman and even if my personal favorite is Michael Keaton, I loved how Affleck portrays the character and having no problem with it. As a Batman fan, also my favorite super hero, I appreciate Mr. Affleck.

What this film succeeds in is to question what is wrong and what is right, to question the ethics of being a superhero, to question the decision of super heroes and reactions against them by the public and the government. By the way, the most interesting and intense character in the whole movie was Holly Hunter's Senator Finch! Lovely and beautiful actress Holly Hunter is remarkable in this story. And, Jeremy Irons was cool as Alfred!

"Days of Future Past is not your brainless blockbuster film, it is moving, entertaining and classy, but the main focus of the story, time travel adventure is not intriguing or that sophisticated or mind blowing. It was plain and simple working as a plot device, so this X- Men movie is not "The Butterfly Effect" or "Donnie Darko" of X-Men movies. By the way, in social media, this film is compared to "The Usual Suspects" and it is said that "Days of Future Past is as brilliant as that. I have to disagree. Briefly, there is an event which shouldn't happen and our team tries to stop it before happening, but there is no really a puzzle to solve. Personally, my favorite X-Men film is the first one, it has a special place in my heart. X-2 was great and the most powerful film in the series maybe. As for The Last Stand, I am terribly sorry, but I liked and enjoyed that movie very much. The third movie had the best action and the most "close to comic book" tone. It was not cheesy like some other super hero movies and some deaths might be frustrating for many fans, but it was realistic and dark. The second serious problem of "Days of Future Past" is that the future depiction in the film was pretty disappointing like a sci-fi movie made for cable TV and the designs lacked creativity. It was like I was watching Mortal Kombat 2. By the way, I would have wanted to see Storm and old Magneto more. Those characters have very short appearances. Briefly, the future scenes were poor somehow. At the beginnings, the movie has a light tone, but it gets darker after a while which is good. The characters? Well, The Beast is more intense here, Fassbender steals the show and as for Jennifer Lawrance and her Mystique, she is gorgeous, she has a charming beauty and as a character, she delivers, but I still looked for Rebecca Romijn for some reason. Toad is passive here. Sentinels are impressive, but I had problem with their size. The famous Quicksilver scene is brilliant, the best scene of the movie, but it was like a copy of Nightcrawler scene in X-2. The action in the film is neither over the top nor bad. Days of Future Past is not an action packed like the third or the first film, but the action was solid. I disagree that drama and action is perfectly balanced in the film. The stadium scene is another must see part of the film. Finally, like The First Class, the tone of the movie is more realistic rather than fantastic, by the way The First Class is a way better film than DOFP. "Days of Future Past" is not a masterpiece or even great, but a pretty solid film.

Zack Snyder's Superman interpretation "Man of Steel" had a big promise in the trailers, but as a movie, it is a pretty soulless, CGI based and shallow adaptation. The odd first part seems pretty familiar for us: a CGI feast planet in a bad way like any other science fiction movie. The atmosphere really doesn't fit the soul of Superman and with all those dragons and spaceships, it doesn't feel like Superman. I liked Jor El, not because I liked the character, it was because I love Russell Crowe! Otherwise, the character was not believable or captivating. Henry Cavill is perfect as Superman and Clark Kent both. Probably, even Christopher Reeve must be happy in his grave. It is just an example of perfect cast choice in the history of filmmaking. A pretty realistic and little depressing version of the character. Kevin Costner plays his part very well, he was cool, so does Diane Lane, but an attitude of the character in the middle of the movie is pure nonsense and it seems like an unreasonable plot device. As for Lois Lane and Amy Adams, I just want to point out that Lois Lane character shouldn't be a strong or dominant woman like this or boring like Kate Bosworth's interpretation in "Superman Returns". She should be like Margot Kidder. Michael Shannon is no disappointment as an intimidating villain also with his powerful acting. CGI in this movie ruins your experience like "I am Legend" did. I have no idea what kind of technology they used in the film, but it looks cheesy and superficial. Some fights remind me Thor's fight in the town in a bad way. The villain's cliché evil plans for the world and humanity is a CGI victory, but who cares? The final battle which ends ridiculously is like an endless destruction that leaves you dazed. The movie has some great visuals, on the other hand very cheesy and superficial visual effects, but this is not a sophisticated, dark or fascinating film like "Watchmen". The action was solid, but not brilliant or stunning. It is true that Zack Snyder is a good visual myth teller or a magical technician, but what is missing in his movies is little heart and excitement.

The Avengers Age of Ultron starts out with a soulless and pointless action sequence and the rest of the movie is not much different than this part. Since we don't know our heroes fight for who and why, we don't get excited for the adventure that our heroes have. Then, somehow, the cinematography is lifeless, the technical craftsmanship accomplishment is boring. Everything is too mechanic here. The villain of the movie is an artificial intelligence, again "mechanic". Everything about this villain is so cliché from his words to his evil plans to destroy the world, humanity, whatever. In the first movie, almost everything was perfect. This second installment is lack of heart and soul and an exciting adventure. The movie was like an empty roller coaster ride. The action and the fight scenes are uninspiring, lifeless. Everything happens just so quickly and it is overblown. Another thing the movie was lack of is the tension or clash between the allies. What makes the first movie spectacular was the sweet conflicts among the heroes. Returning to Ultron, it was not intimidating, not hilarious like Loki, honestly, it is just a machine! (Terminator fans, please don't be offended, this is a different case) In contrast with the promises by the director, this is not a darker movie. This is a boring action film. For example, adding romance into a movie doesn't make it deeper or sophisticated. Action is soulless and completely forgettable here except for two scenes. The first and the best is Hulk vs. Hulbuster scene which was fairly done. I have seen it dozens of times. The second one is the highway chase with Captain America and Black Widow, but it was like a copy of The Matrix Reloaded and nothing new. From the beginning, I don't like the appearance or the manners of this new Hulk (the first is favorite), but Hulk is OK here. The second half of the movie focuses on destruction like Man of Steel in a bad way. Do you want to hear Iron Man's witty comments? Thor's majesty? Captain America's work discipline? Hulk's anger? None of them is here. Loki? I miss him. Unfortunately, Quicksilver loses the game from the first minute, because we had seen a brilliant Quicksilver before. Scarlett Witch bewitched me, but I just couldn't get warm to her. I hope I will start to love her in future installments. Vision was completely unnecessary. Hulk is not like a gorilla or a fun mascot here which is good, but he is used like a pawn in this movie. Finally, Age of Ultron is sometimes dreadful, sometimes cheesy, sometimes dull, sometimes pretentious and mostly soulless sequel. I am very happy that the next adventures are going to be directed by Russo Brothers who gave us terrific "The Winter Soldier".

I admire the director Cronenberg and like most of his works, but A History of Violence is not about violence, it is exploitation of violence in sick, disgusting manner. There is something wrong with the way of handling violence and sex of this film. Even the sex scenes between the couple is somehow different, crude and nasty. In real life, it is OK maybe, but the question is what is the point? If it is to show us the passion between them, there are lots of ways to do that. I think this movie is an example of violence porn. The movie starts out well with a powerful opening scene, good atmosphere like a modern Western, amazing villains, but then it turns into a nasty B movie in the end. I love B movies from 90s and 80s especially, but it doesn't fit here. The cinematography here is very well done, Ed Harris was the real star of the movie for me. However, our anti hero and his origin story don't work because of all those sickness and sadism and it is like the movie glorifies his nasty actions and probably want us to accept his acts and root for him. The story with memory loss or secret identity themes make no sense here. Sorry, but this movie is not Total Recall which is a real masterpiece. The man who appears in the final act doesn't add anything to the story in spite of that great actor who was wasted here. The final act that reminds you a bad B movie is another violence porn, softer this time. Our anti hero is not another manly man unfortunately. His violent actions cause some sick and sadistic moments, so what would you do if your anti hero is a hateful man? I was with Ed Harris's character though. By the way, I disagree with the idea that A History of Violence is a deep or thought provoking film. This film is no Shakespeare, it is like a violent action movie for video with some great actors and good cinematography. I enjoyed some parts, but overall I was disgusted. One final word, I think Eastern Promises is a better film.

This film which has a beautiful name was adored by the youth and loved by the critics. People said how smart and brilliant the story was, how beautiful the romance was and how nice the couple were. I found the characters realistic, I liked the guy and liked that nice girl with colorful hair style like her philosophy about life and I like the whole idea behind them. However, I just didn't find their story touching, heartbreaking or miraculous, so I was not that impressed. Are the technical aspects of the film such as editing etc. fascinating? Well, I don't think it is, but the film is pretty inventive and good surrealism overall, however, the film itself is little cold and there is a barrier between the characters and the audience. I couldn't feel the film. I cannot say style over substance problem, but something else was missing in the film. The supporting characters were not interesting, rather tedious. I will be honest, I don't know why, but I enjoyed The Science of Sleep more and thought it was a better film than "Spotless Mind". It delivers for me, but for this film, I appreciate the film for its inventive story, cinematography and cool love story with realism and the chemistry between Carrey and Winslett were perfect indeed, but I don't think it is a great story or an unforgettable experience. I believe that the story was supposed to be touching, but it suffers from style over substance issue. On the contrary, I find the main theme of the film significant, but I couldn't feel the film as I was not impressed by the whole picture.

Hateful Eight is less cheesy than "Django", but the movie has problems of its own. This time, Tarantino gives us a more solid Western but also, gives us a little nasty work (no pun indeed) For the first time, in a Tarantino movie, I found some dialogs very unnecessary and uninteresting especially in the first two acts. Conversations in Pulp Fiction, Basterds and even Death Proof were brilliant, moving and smart. To watch Kurt Russell years later as the main hero (or at least one of them) was pure joy, a nostalgia, especially for 90s kids, but since his character is not deep or dominant caused by Tarantino's lazy script, his effect on the screen doesn't continue long. The character cannot be an unforgettable character like some other Tarantino characters. Michael Madsen by his offbeat character, was entertaining, but a bad-ass character would fit him much better. Just to throw us a curve, Tarantino wastes him. The character's low key manners don't make the movie brilliant or something. Then another plot twist in the flashback sequence, then another plot twist etc. all those u- turns don't give you goosebumps. The star of the movie is Leigh like Waltz in "Basterds". It was not acting, something else. It was just crazy and it may get Merly Streep roll in her bed! Tim Roth is the movie's Christopher Waltz in "Django". As for Samuel L. Jackson, anything to say? He is extraordinary! Leigh and Jackson steal the show whenever they have that chance! Zoe Bell was disappointing in her role. I am terribly sorry. Channing Tatum was good and solid, but he needed more adequate screen time. The flashback sequence is terrifying, it reminds you Kill Bill, but the tone of this sequence doesn't have an integrity with the other chapters. It sounds like a short film itself. A really impressive and shocking short film, but inside the movie, it was little odd. By the way, some cruel and vicious acts of some characters have a difficulty in giving us a "hateful" effect against them because of their portrayal in the previous chapters. My "hero" of the movie was Daisy and I can understand "this film has some misogynist" criticisms, not because of those punches, but because of that disgusting final who may give you vomiting! In the movie " Inglourious Basterds", we love Shosanna and then we hate Shosanna and then again we love Shosanna, but later we hate Shosanna. It is like Mr. Tarantino has a confusion about some of his characters written by him. In "Hateful Eight", for example, there is a character that ninety nine percent of the people would hate or there is another character with some repulsive actions, but later, they become hero. Sorry, but what? In contrast with the hype, "Hateful Eight" is not a bloodbath like "Django" or "Kill Bill Vol. 1" It is not an action movie also. Don't expect gunfights like "Unforgiven" or like some other Western classics. The cowboys in this movie use their brains rather than their guns, but it is not like a smart chess game between cowboys. Also, slow-mo effects lessen the effect of some action moments. The character Warren played by hilarious Jackson loses his charm after his confessions. As said before, Russell is just great, but his potential was wasted after a while, because of some plot twists. Finally, in the final moments, I don't believe that there is anything for catharsis or anything that would make you cheered up. After the end credits, I asked myself, has justice been done?

The Revenant is an example of real cinema. It is not a pretentious, pseudo intellectual and pseudo artistic work, it is not a brainless blockbuster, it is not an example of "style over substance" film as it is not a story or dialog oriented bore-fest. Some people say that it was overlong. Why does everyone need short films nowadays? Because, they want to consume a movie as soon as possible, then go back their home or text messages by their precious cell phones? Another complaint for the movie is lack of story and depth. I have to disagree. The story in the film is not sophisticated maybe and maybe it is a conventional one for such an unconventional film (not a typical example of mainstream cinema though) However, this doesn't mean that the movie is shallow or it has nothing to say to the audience. There is no real character depth in the film, but do we really need "Shakespearean" characters for this film? This is not "Who is afraid of Virginia Woolf?" As for realism of the movie, of course there are some parts that require suspension of disbelief, but it does not ruin your experience. As for the bear scene, I didn't see anything like this before. Period. The movie could have been boring if Inarritu would have tried to tell us the love story between our survivor and his wife, because then the movie would be another Pocahontas tale or a very similar film with Terrence Malick's "The New World." Also The Revenant is not this year's Dances with Wolves or something. If we don't consider "Man in Wilderness", this is a totally unique and distinctive film. Honestly, I hated "Birdman", because it was pretentious and no heart and soul in the delivery. The Revenant is natural and emotional, yet not overly sentimental or heartwarming. I don't enjoy "cold" movies personally, but The Revenant is not such a movie. You feel the film. You feel the scenery. You feel the situation of the characters. However, the most important, you feel the film. Birdman? It is hard to say. Leonardo Di Caprio delivers very well, even if still his greatest performance is in "What's eating Gilbert Grape?" Nobody, but nobody can be better than Leo in that film in cinema history! Leo deserves the Oscar this time maybe (also he should have won in "The Departed") but honestly, if there is someone better than him in the movie, he is Tom Hardy! He does it again. One more time, he proves that he is one of the best actors in this generation and he steals every scene he is in. A trenchant, brutal and stunning performance! Leo's great performance is based on physical difficulties and emotion. Inarritu's direction is perfect here. No need to say that the scenery is beautiful, the cinematography is mesmerizing, the shots are terrific, the editing is brilliant, visual effects are superb etc. Don't expect some clichés like Di Caprio's character befriends Indians, then fight back etc. No. This is a different film. That's why it is not boring. The Revenant has a gripping story. It has a story. It has substance. Yes, maybe, in the second half, the movie loses its intensity and agonizing tone and maybe the final act is not that unusual or unforgettable or surprising, but still it delivers. The Revenant is not a thought provoking film, the revenge story is not bitter, intense or powerful like "Unforgiven, but it has enough words to say about life and death, revenge, human nature and God. And I am very glad that the characters don't speak too much so we enjoy the great scenery.

The director is a genius. The cast is fantastic. The filmmaking seems brilliant. However, the result? When I heard that Inarritu would make a comedy, in fact black comedy, I approached this idea with suspicion, but later after the posters, trailers and the story revealed, I was excited enough to see and appreciate the film. Birdman is a typical example of "style over substance" word by word. The one shot nature of the work makes the film worthy and technically brilliant, also it is an important event for the history of cinema, but there was no emotion among those very talky characters. This is a very talky movie. People talk, talk and talk, so there is no time to think about, there is no time for "art". This is a different type of art house movie. The idea of a disgraced actor played by great Michael Keaton ironically who has an alter ego Birdman (need to say Batman?) sounds very interesting and emotional, but the film ignores all and just deals with technical wizardry. Michael Keaton is great, but there is not any single character who you can develop empathy or sympathy in this movie. They just talk! This is that kind of a film that all those great actors or actresses come together in a movie, but the film is not as glorious as the dreamy cast. I am sorry, but I think the upcoming movie "Hail Caesar!" will be much like the same. Emma Stone was remarkable, Naomi Watts does her parts, Amy Ryan is the same, but Edward Norton was just there... One of the greatest actors of all time! He was like a ghost. Again nothing to deliver. The fall and ruined life of our main character could have been delivered in a different way, a more powerful, devastating way like Mickey Rourke's The Wrestler. However, what we have is a very pretentious artsy film. Of course, there are some very interesting or funny moments in the film, but other than this, it feels like an empty style over substance film. Style for style. The criticism of mainstream cinema, entertainment industry or fame works pretty well, but it remains an idea rather than a story in the film. I prefer Robert Altman's masterpiece The Player over this film. I appreciate that Inarritu takes risk and tries different type of films, but the result is not spectacular. You cannot enter the movie, it just spits you out. Some people call Birdman as quintessential cinema, but if you ask me it is rather "anti-cinema". I appreciate the movie for what it is, I can appreciate its technical aspect and the making of the film, but I didn't enjoy the movie a bit, because the movie was not natural, it was far fetched thanks to its pseudo intellectual manner. The story includes a tragedy, but the movie just cannot deliver it to us. If you like Fellini's Otto e Mezzo, you will love this film.

The Big Short has a vital importance in my life, because it is the first movie which I walked out during the intermission in my life. I enjoy movies such as The Wolf of Wall Street, Moneyball, but since The Big Short has no entertainment value, it is a different type of a film. What about art? Please, next! Story? There is no dramatic material, but yes, there is a story, with two words, it is economic crisis, but the film itself is too informative. It was a motion picture, but on the other hand, not exactly. As for the acting, Bale just delivers, he was incredible! Steve Carrell was appreciable, but he was not as amazing as he was in Foxcatcher. The Big Short seems a hilarious joy ride, but it is not (considering only the first half of the film) The director tries some tricks to make the movie interesting, but it does not help. The Wolf of Wall Street which has a similar tone and plot looks like a real masterpiece in comparison with The Big Short despite "Wall Street" was not a perfect or amazing film considering other Scorsese masterpieces. As for Ryan Gosling, he is a joy to watch, but his character was boring. Brad Pitt? In the first half, he appeared for three minutes or something, then in the break, I walked out and I don't know about the second half. All those confusing and senseless terms make the movie more unbearable, but it was OK. Since my cinema experience was almost zero, I just couldn't make it. I don't know how can somebody tell us this story in a different way, but if there is not, maybe this could have been a mini TV series, semi documentary, a TV show or even a "mockumentary" Sincerely I apologize from all the actors in the movie who gave their best effort, the director and all the cast members and crew.

This new adaptation of Macbeth got excited me weeks before and when I saw the cast, Fassbender and Cotillard, I got excited even more! Because they are just great and I am a fan of both. However, from the first minute, the film couldn't catch the viewer's attention fully, because it lacks emotion, depth and thrill. This is not an exactly drama film, because there is not much of it. You can see this even in the first battle of the film. A pretentious way of film making just to be seen poetic and artistic. The movie visually looks beautiful at some moments, but those images serve nothing. Fassbender and Cotillard make us surprised by their "low key" performances, so please don't expect any kind of tour-de-force acting from them. If you do, you are seriously disappointed. In the film, there is no character depth at all and the dramatization of the events was totally ineffective. For example, a character is portrayed evil, but you have no idea or clue why he or she is evil? A character is portrayed brave, but you have no idea, why he is such a brave man? It is mostly because there is no tension which should increase gradually like Akira Kurosawa's masterpiece Throne of Blood. As expected, this is not a "war" film. If you expect a Kingdom of Heaven like film, then you are seriously disappointed. I had not any problem with unusual monologues/dialogs in the film, but some may find it hard to follow. It doesn't ruin the reality of the film which is a success. Especially, in the second act, the film becomes more pretentious with the over the top and "poetic" visuals and just leaves you with no emotion. This new Macbeth is a film lacking heart and soul in the material caused by its pompous narration.

As a real Ridley Scott fan, I hate to say this, but the director has lost his spark and talent in recent years. In other words, do you remember "A Ridley Scott movie". You can't feel this anymore which is sad for fans like me. The Martian is another disappointment, so if you don't know about the fact that this film was shot by Scott before watching the film, you cannot understand until the end credits. As for the problem of the movie, the movie is not "Cast Away on space". I wish it was, but it is not. Why? Because there is no suspense, no mystery and no horror. The film ignores the psychological nature of the character and he doesn't face with any real challenge or trouble. Do you remember? When After Earth was released, it was mostly criticized for not being "too dangerous". The Martian is much worse. You cannot feel the danger, so does character! Because there is no real danger in the film. The main character behaves like John McClane at times, but he is not John McClane though. I mean a witty John McClane perfectly fits Die Hard franchise, but here it doesn't work. Most of the time, our man alone is "happy". And this "happy" mood defines the tone of the film. I would even prefer Red Planet over The Martian, because despite Red Planet was just a passable popcorn flick, it was mysterious, dark, suspenseful and interesting. The story in The Martian is not interesting, because it is not a survival type of a movie! I am a Matt Damon fan, I can watch him peeling potatoes and onion for hours, I am such a fan, but even he was dull here. The Martian is also a talky film, in fact too much talky, but the story needs more visuals than chatting, in other words more silence than words. 3D was just fine except for a few dazzling Mars images. The film reminded me the masterpiece Silent Running and I wish it would have been as great as that movie. The final chapter of the movie becomes lazy, dull and cliché unfortunately and it cannot add something fresh to the story. And do I have to say the film lacks emotion and real entertainment which is weird. Additionally, some supporting characters were supposed to be funny, but actually they are not. I can prefer even Prometheus over The Martian honestly.