hennyxu

Henny's Movie Review: Bright (no spoilers)

In five words: TV movie with untapped potential.

Bright is a Netflix movie with an original take on the well-known "buddy cop" genre. Set in present Los Angeles, similar to our own, the movie tells a story of a world where fantasy creatures like orgs and elves live among us. Like most buddy cop movies our protagonists get into trouble and they have to solve it before the end credits roll. The movie has an intriguing setup with much potential to become a franchise; however with a meager story and 90s television quality filming it was mostly noise. I think everyone who is BRIGHT enough should watch something else on Netflix.

The story follows a human cop (played by Will Smith) and his org partner (played by Joel Edgerton) doing their job when they are called to investigate a building. There they discover an ancient weapon and learn that they have to prevent it from falling into the wrong hands. As aforementioned the story is quite meager and the only saving grace is the interaction between the two protagonists. The cinematography sets a grim depiction of LA with org street gangs ruling the streets, and it is mostly shot at night. The music is almost non-existent, which can also be said for the antagonist, setup and payoff. The three act structure of the movie consists of an unimpressive quite boring beginning, almost no middle (mostly noise), and an anticlimactic ending.

The movie fails on almost all levels. The story needs more depth, especially since we are talking about a mystical world with magic. I understand that the movie isn't focused on telling an epic story, but tries to tell a more grounded story. A story about a couple of cops doing their daily jobs in a mythical world. I get that, but why do all the characters react like this is a big event. All I'm trying to say is that the story doesn't fit how everyone is reacting. In addition the movie attempts to depict a world with different social classes where the Elves represent the rich, humans the middle class, and the orgs the lower class. Even though this is an interesting setup this aspect of the movie is dropped almost immediately after it was introduced (like most things in this movie). There are side stories that go nowhere and instead of setting up a scene, in order for it to be paid off later, the movie tend to run through it all without any setup. The movie uses close-ups for most scenes and everything is framed in the middle (like 90s television shows). This limits the world that they are trying to build and sometimes detracts us from what is truly important. Furthermore, the most important thing for a movie that is character focused is to show character growth, well there is very little of it.

Does that mean that the movie has nothing positive? Well no, I can without a doubt say that the org cop has some funny lines and moment and in my opinion should have been the main character. Also there are some action scenes where they slow everything down, which is also quite good. And lastly the make-up, CGI, and practical effects were very good.

Really people there are a lot of better things out there that can truly brighten your day.

I give this movie a 4.

Good movie with a good setup, focus, character development, tension and great pacing. It isn't original in anyway and certain parts are quite predictable, however the movie delivers everything marvelously with a great pacing and balance. Furthermore, the movie is very short only 1 hour and 30 minutes. So stop reading and start watching.

This may all sound familiar, we find a sample or organism in space and we try to analyze it only to find out it is hostile. It is the basic setup as Alien and/or Species; however is that a bad thing? Alien is considered a master piece by most and it is a recommended watch, Species not so much. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and when a movie is good we don't need to compare them, just enjoy them.

As aforementioned Life is quite short and within this short time the director is able to give us a hopeful beginning, tense middle with good character development, and a well enough ending. The cinematography is similar to the movie Gravity (2013) with a realistic view of space and the ISS. The music isn't anything special but it does its job to underscore the moments. What really stands out is the balance and pacing of the movie. The director knows how to setup a moment and how to pay it off later. Together with a fast pacing the movie almost never felt like it dragged on for too long (maybe a little at the end).

The movie's protagonist isn't one person but a group. It consists of 5 astronauts on the ISS doing research on a Martian specimen. Each member has their own function on the ISS and gets their own moment to shine in the movie. The antagonist, is off course the Martian organism, however the movie tells it from a neutral perspective, basically it isn't evil it just tries to survive.

That is it really. It is a shorter review than usual, but hey it is a short movie. Off course I can nitpick every small detail and give you all a detailed comparison with other movies, but this time it isn't about that. It is just me telling you that I liked the movie and that I can honestly recommend it.

It is a good watch.

I give this movie a 7.

The fifth movie in the Pirates of The Caribbean franchise is promoted as the final chapter. It will be the last time we'll see Jack Sparrow sail the open seas on the Black Pearl and follow him on a crazy adventure, depending on the box office results off course. So did they close the franchise with a swansong or did they jump the shark. Well let's order some rum and "drink up me hearties yoho!" and dive into "Davy Jones' locker" to review this movie.

First some background about the franchise. Pirates of the Caribbean is a movie franchise that started strong with a movie that breathed new life into the pirate movie genre in 2003. A genre that died in 1996 with Cutthroat Island starring Geena Davis. The first movie "The Curse of The Black Pearl" is a good and entertaining movie with a strong story and well balanced action and humor. This is also the first time we see Johnny Depp play a drunk and brilliant pirate named Jack Sparrow.

Following the success of The Black Pearl, Disney decided to shoot the back-to-back resulting in mediocre action movies with a convoluted story. The fourth movie however completely jumped the shark by including an uninteresting villain and a story that made no sense; furthermore it primarily focused on Jack Sparrow. Don't take me wrong, Jack Sparrow is a brilliant and funny character; however the fourth installment showed us that he can't carry a movie. So how is the fifth and final movie?

Story: The fifth movie is about a boy named Henry Turner whom wants to find the trident of Poseidon in order to free his father from a curse. To achieve this he needs the help of Jack Sparrow and a horologist named Carina Smyth. During this endeavor they are followed by Captain Salazar an old enemy of Jack Sparrow's and he is seeking revenge. While this is the main outline there are also multiple other side stories and none of them are paid-off properly, resulting in some plot holes. Basically they tried to juggle too many story lines and in the end they ended up with nothing. A shame though because there is a specific side-story about the character Carina Smyth that had much potential and in my opinion should've been the main story.

Characters: There are too many characters in this movie and they all do not have enough screen time to fully develop. Together with an unfocused story it isn't always clear who the main character truly is:

Carina Smyth (played by: Kaya Scodelario), a girl who tried to follow in her father's footsteps as a scientist. She is headstrong, inventive and personally I think she should have been the main focus of the movie. Her story has so much potential. She is portrait reasonably by Kaya and I think she can do better, however the script is letting her down.

Henry Turner (played by: Brenton Thwaites), the son of the main character from the previous movies Will Turner (played by: Orlando Bloom aka Legolas). He is adventures, innocent and focused on freeing his father from the curse. He doesn't really do much in the movie. A forgettable character and the performance by Brenton was bland.

Jack Sparrow (played by: Johnny Depp), worst performance yet by Depp. The character was entertaining in the previous movies, partly because we see a new side of Jack Sparrow, in this we're just going through the motions. While it is interesting to see his younger self and his relation with Captain Salazar it is regrettable that we never truly see this character grow.

Hector Barbossa (played by: Geoffrey Rush), I've said it once and I'm saying it again he should've been the lead in the previous movie and especially this movie. I don't want to spoil anything, so I'll keep it a bit cryptic. His part in this movie is a little short; however it has soooooo much potential. If only Geoffrey Rush had more lines and a better script this movie could've been great.

Cinematography: Nothing truly noteworthy. If you've seen the previous movies you'll know that the in camera shots on the sea are beautiful to look at. The CGI effects are a little dated but still good enough.

Three-Act-Structure: Beginning: The movie starts strong, mysterious followed by over the top action. However, after I don't know how long (felt like an hour), they were still introducing characters and unnecessarily fighting and it dragged.

Middle: Almost non-existent mostly action scenes and no character development. At least none that truly mattered.

End: Really, this movie has a dragged out beginning, and after that an anticlimactic ending. Because the movie doesn't give us any time to truly connect with the characters. They are mostly used to setup the next action scene or plot. And because of this we are not emotionally invested in their motivations and choices, resulting in a specific moment at the end of the movie that really wasn't earned.

Conclusion: A shame that is the only thing I can truly and honestly say about this movie. If they only had focused the story on the female lead Carina and invested time and money to rewrite the script they could've made one of the best pirates movie to end the franchise. As aforementioned, most of the stories aren't fleshed out properly and even though Salazar is portrait as the main villain he didn't leave an impression on me. It was mostly a copy paste work with interesting ideas and some with much potential.

So even though this movie isn't any good it is important to note that it didn't commit the unforgivable SIN a movie can ever commit and that is being boring. If you don't overthink it and just go with the flow, I think you'll have a good time.

Henny's Movie Review: Moana (aka Vaiana)

In three words: A Fun Movie.

With Pixar dropping the ball lately it is good to see that Disney is picking it up with great movies like, Tangled, Zootopia and now Moana. Yes, they made a mediocre over-hyped movie named Frozen, read my previous review for my thoughts about that movie. Moana really doesn't disappoint it has a good pacing, a great cast, and it is BEAUTIFUL. I could just leave my review at this and tell you to go and watch this movie, but let's see "How Far I'll Go".

Moana is a story that takes place in Ancient Polynesia, when a curse reaches the island Mata Nui a chieftain's daughter is determined to go on a journey, to find a demigod named Maui in order to stop the curse.

Like most Disney movies this is a coming of age story. Moana is a chieftain's daughter who is struggling with her love for her people and her love for the ocean. She is determined and a strong character. It is wonderful to see her grow and find herself throughout the movie. She is voiced by Auli'I Cravaljo and it fits like a glove, perfect love her accent.

Moana is joined by a demigod named Maui. He starts out as an egotistical/funny character but we quickly learn why and see him change for the better. He is voiced by Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and if you know The Rock YOU know what to expect. You can never go wrong with The Rock.

Other supporting characters were there to setup the plot and exposition.

The music, as expected, was typically Disney which is a good thing because I love Disney songs. After the movie you just can't get it out of your head. All the scores were very good. It did the basics like underscoring a scene but it also carried the movie for a huge part.

The three-act-structure. Moana has a great beginning, good middle, and a great ending. Furthermore, the pacing of this movie is fast in a good way. It doesn't hold on to a scene for too long and the movie knows when to cut.

The cinematography was beautiful it really shows that the creators have done their research. I love the bright colors and gorgeous sceneries. It would appear that Disney's new approach to movie making is starting to pay-off, by remaking their old animated movies into real-life and mocking their old movies with their new 3d-animated movies, they are breathing new life into their movies. As aforementioned in the introduction Moana is a must see movie that won't disappoint.

I give this movie a 8.5.

Henny's Movie Review: Arrival (NO SPOILERS)

In two words: MUST SEE.

Arrival was truly a welcome change in a time where mindless action movies reigned supreme. It is a good drama/scifi/mystery movie that will keep your attention from beginning to end (something most movies these days are struggling with). So why are you even reading this review? Really, go and watch this movie. You will not be disappointed, especially since "they have arrived".

The following will dissect the movie: Arrival, discuss the current movie industry and the art of film making. Don't worry I'll keep it all as concise as possible, however I do need to discuss all of the aforementioned topics since it is all related to the movie. The review will be divided into the following point:

• First I'll give my opinion/dissatisfaction of the movie industry (i.e., Hollywood). - Second, I'll talk about movie as a visual medium - And third I'll review the movie (certain parts of the review are intertwined with the first and second points) this time I'll keep it a bit superficial to prevent spoilers.

Movies these days are often catered to the common denominator with studio executives, more often than not, deciding which path to take. This is understandable since it will most likely lead to more profit. However, depending on the choices made, these decisions can also ruin a movie. Furthermore, it is restricting the director and the rest of the cast and crew creatively. This is something that is happening too often in Hollywood (e.g., suicide squad, fan4stic), resulting in mindless action movies or movies that are afraid to take the extra step. Movies have become safe and this can be traced back to how they treat the intelligence of the audience. I often say that it is important to treat your audience as smart people whom understand more than less. This will lead to better stories and positively affect the progression of a movie (e.g., less explaining). With all that said Arrival doesn't suffer from studio interferences and most importantly treats the audience as intelligent people (more on this later in the review). I do have to admit though that I do like simple movies, they are harmless fun.

Movies are a visual medium that uses images to convey a story. Even though, this is basic knowledge we still have many movies that spend hours and hours on explaining things. This shouldn't be necessary if the movie uses the visual medium properly. I'm not saying that we can cut all the dialogues out of a movie; however I'm saying that if you treat your audience as intelligent people you won't need certain dialogues. Sometimes a simple, better yet, a good impactful image can say more than a thousand words. This is something that immediately jumps to my mind when I was watching Arrival. The dialogues are short and most of the events are conveyed through visuals (e.g., facial expressions, surroundings) and atmosphere. It is one thing to tell a story but when we watch a movie we want to see it.

Thank you for listening to the ramblings of an old man. Without further ado let's talk about Arrival.

Arrival is a movie directed by Denis Villeneuve (Sicario, Prisoners) starring Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner. It is a well put together circa 2 hour movie that effectively uses imagery and atmosphere to convey the story and keep you intrigued.

The story (no spoilers): Arrival tells a story about a linguistics professor Louise Banks, played by Amy Adams, whom is tasked to interpret an alien language when twelve mysterious spacecraft appear around the world. The story has a very good progression, there are no moments within the movie that dragged and throughout the narrative the movie knows where to put the focus. The atmosphere is very good and more importantly constant. It doesn't jump all over the place.

Characters: The movie has two main characters namely Professor Louise Banks and physicist Ian Donnelly (played by Jeremy Renner). Louise is the main protagonist/lead character and we discover everything together with her. Her development throughout this movie is interestingly confusing. Ian is there to support Louise with scientific questions and discoveries. His role is quite minor but important to an extent. I know this is all quite vague but the reason for this is to prevent spoilers.

Cinematography: The cinematography of Arrival isn't that spectacular. It has a grey/greenish color with a serious vibe throughout the movie. The alien spacecraft is interesting, but most of the time the movie takes place in an army base.

Three-Act-Structure: - Beginning, Strong with a good setup for things to come. - Middle, Good continuation of what was setup with a short moment for everything to sink in. - End, Strong ending.

Music: It did a good job to set to mood but other than that it isn't really noteworthy (shame).

Summary/conclusion: As you can tell I really liked this movie. It was something I really needed especially since I've seen many B quality movies lately (also talking about you INFERNO). Arrival doesn't hold your hand throughout the movie and it assumes you have a basic understanding of science. I liked this because other movies would've used a part of the movie to explain every scientific theory. I would love to go into more detail about this movie especially the pros and cons, but that would spoil the movie. So I apologies for this superficial review and I promise I'll do better next time. The movie is called Arrival and it truly has. Finally a must watch movie has arrived.

I give this movie a: 8.5

Henny's Movie Review: Inferno

In Three Words: Missing the atmosphere.

10 years ago a movie named The Da Vinci Code was released in theaters telling a controversial story that reached the attention of the Catholic Church (yes it was the book that really caused the wrath of the church, but that's beside the point because this is about movies). The funny thing is at the same time another movie was released starring Nicolas Cage named National Treasure. Both a mystery movie, but one was a slow thriller and the other an action movie. So what does this have to do with Inferno? Well I'm intrigued in how movie franchises can evolve overtime, because this movie franchise, based on the books of Dan Brown, has completely changed from thriller to action and not in a good way.

The following review will first start with a short rambling by an old cinephile about the Dan Brown movies, after that I'll discuss Inferno.

I have always put the Dan Brown movies in a separate movie category than movies like National Treasure or even Indiana Jones. That is because these movies (Dan Brown) were different; they took their time to tell their story, with slow moments that visually helped us to solve the mystery together with the protagonist. And I LOVE these moments with great music by Hans Zimmer. That is why it is a shame that they have thrown all of this out and instead they have chosen for a quick mystery from point A to B. Yes, I know Angels and Demons wasn't a great movie either, but that movie still had its moments Inferno does not.

Inferno Story and Character:

Robert Langdon is back as the great professor of symbology, played by Tom Hanks, and this time he is in Italy. He wakes up in a hospital with amnesia and visions of horrible things. It is from that moment on that he needs to learn to understand these visions and why he is in Italy. This time he is supported by a doctor named Sienna Brooks (love that name), played by Felicity Jones.

The story follows a similar setup as previous movies only with a much faster pace. During the movie I felt like I was running through the story. I won't discuss the story too much since I don't want to spoil it. What I will say is that the story was mediocre at best.

Robert Langdon is always a great character and I would like to believe that Tom Hanks loves to play this character, but in this movie it felt like he was going through the motions. There were no moments for this character to truly shine. Sienna Brooks was an okay character, however I wish we could have had more character moments with her.

Three Act Structure:

• Inferno has a good beginning showing much potential of what the movie could've been. - It has a mediocre middle, - And a mediocre ending.

Music:

As aforementioned I like the music by Hans Zimmer especially the OST for these movies. However, did Hans Zimmer even compose anything for this movie? Because there were too many silent moments that could have used some underscores and other moments that could have used some true iconic music themes to establish certain scenes. They were ALL missing. Such a shame.

The reason why I started this review with a short comparison between Dan Brown movies and National Treasure is because I think it is funny how certain movies have evolved. I still remember when people called National Treasure a rip off of The Da Vinci Code and right now I would almost say that Inferno is ripping off National Treasure (based on pacing only :) ). It is a shame that things have turned out this way but the movie was still enjoyable enough for me to recommend it.

I will give this movie a 6.5

We all know how strange a Tim Burton movie can be, from Edward Scissorhands to one of the best BATMAN movie ever made, however his quality of work has been lacking lately. With movies like Alice in Wonderland and Dark Shadows, one would wonder if he will ever make a good movie again. Even though Miss Peregrine isn't one of his best works it is however quite peculiar.

In my opinion, Tim Burton used to be a unique director who was able to put his dark twisted vision on the big screen balanced with a good story. This balance has been shattered with his work lately, with too much emphasis on visuals instead of story. Miss peregrine isn't going to make everything better; however it is quite clear that Tim Burton it trying to get his carrier back on track.

So what makes this movie so interesting that it has compelled me to write a review? Well Miss Peregrine isn't a true Tim Burton movie. Visual wise he is holding back and story wise it is quite mediocre; however the combination of the two creates a stylish movie that will hold your interest. Hell, Danny Elfman didn't even do the music so that is really something right?

The following will discuss the movie in the following order: - Story - Character development - Three act structure - Music - Overall Opinion

Miss Peregrine is a movie about self-discovery and acceptance; it starts with a boy named Jake, played by Esa Butterfield, whom is sad and confused after the death of his grant father. After a while Jake receives a package from his grandfather with instructions/notes telling him to go to a special home in Wales. When he arrives at this place he discovers that peculiar things are happening. I'll leave it at that and to simplify it for some look at it as x-men or harry potter crossed with Gothic themes.

The three-act-structure in short: A mediocre beginning, great middle, mediocre ending.

The main protagonist is Jake played by Esa Butterfield; it is a shame that this character doesn't really grow much throughout the movie. Yes we do see a cliché hero arc where he changes from a normal boy into a hero; however it would have been better if he had to struggle more to get there. The reason for this is mostly the script but I think Esa's performance might have negatively affected the character. What's wrong Esa? You were great in Ender's Game and Hugo! But I digress. Esa Butterfield's performance was bland and really the low point of this movie.

The main antagonist is played by the great Samuel L. Jackson. Man he loves this character. Every time when you see him on screen he is chewing up the scenery. He is over performing and he loves it. The supporting cast consists of Judi Dench, Terence Stamp (yes General ZOD), Ella Purnell, and the beautiful Eva Green. The only one worth mentioning is Eva Green, because she is truly carrying the movie. Her presence sets up the movie atmosphere and her performance is, as always, perfect.

The music isn't done by Danny Elfman but by Michael Higham and Matthew Margeson and that isn't a disappointment. Their music does a perfect job of setting up the mood and it rightfully underscores the movie.

Miss Peregrine is a good movie worth watching if you wish to have a good time. It is one of those movies that everyone can watch with ease without huge plot points or unnecessary drama. It truly is a shame that Tim Burton didn't go one step beyond to make the visuals a little bit more Burton, however what we got was a good peculiar movie for all. Watch it with not too high expectations I will promise you it will not disappoint.

I will give this movie a 7.

I'm truly divided when it comes to reviewing this movie. First of all it's not a good movie, the acting was cheesy, the characters are beyond annoying, 80% is CGI/green screen, the story/script is half baked and the tone of the movie jumps from comedy to action to drama. But damn what did I have a good time watching this. Now LET ME EXPLAIN!!

Most of you all know that I'm a man of nostalgia. I love things that can pull my nostalgia strings  and boy did this movie do that and in spades. Why you may ask? Well let me tell you. Movies these days, good or bad, have become too serious and gritty, which isn't a bad thing. However, because of this I've noticed that a specific genre of movies have been dying out. Namely, fun adventure movies, or fun action flicks or just fun movies. How long has it been since you've seen an action movie in the vein of demolition man, commando, or (to stay in the theme of the movie) the mummy. Movies that can take you on an adventure and not take itself too seriously without emphasizing the humor.

DAMN Henny you're OLD!! That may be the case, but let me ask you (everyone older than 25 :P ) don't you miss fun movies? Movies with one liners, adventures with ridiculous plots, a basic message like "be good", and just have a good time watching it? NO? Hmmm . Well I do miss it and this movie brought me back to that time when these movies were the standard and not the exception.

Gods of Egypt hearkens back to a time of simpler movie making. A homage to the times of old. However, the question remains if this was the intention of the director. If it is I find it surprising that Alex Proyas, one of the founders of gritty and serious movies like The Crow and Dark City would make something like this.

Now let me sum it all up and quickly end this review (since everyone thinks that my reviews are too long).

The story: The movie is about the Egyptian gods of old and during a coronation of the god Horus (aka the protagonist) his uncle staged a coup d'etat and took the kingdom and his eyes away from him. After that we follow a mortal boy named Beck (sidekick) whom steals the eyes back. And together they go on an adventure to take revenge.

The bad: I've already summed up most of the bad in the introduction. What I do want to add is that the movie is too long: 2 hours. It was hard to keep my attention. I would cut 30 minutes from it. The movie also wasn't balanced, switching from a slow pace to a fast face. They should have cut some of the action and spend more time on character development and MYTHOLOGY building.

The good: It was fun for the most part but it is a shame that they didn't make the script more compact. I truly liked the cinematography (even though it was mostly cgi). But I especially liked the design of the movie. I thought it was original how they have given the mythological creatures form. And I truly liked the cheesy performance of every character (except the sidekick).

Three-Act-Structure: The movie has a fun interesting beginning, lazy middle, and an acceptable ending.

So should I recommend this movie? Absolutely NOT. If you truly want to visit the good old times just re-watch the old movies. This was fun for me since I had nothing better to do but it isn't worth your time.

I'm feeling generous today and I'll give this movie a: 5.5

In three words: Tell the truth

It is a shame that some movies are forgotten by the mass media or they are completely overshadowed by bigger over-hyped movies. This was the case in my country for Concussion. To my knowledge Concussion wasn't even shown in any theatre and I had completely forgotten about it until I saw a trailer on YouTube.

I'm emphasizing over-hyped movies and mass media since this movie was released around the time of the Oscars. How can a movie like the Revenant be nominated and a movie like Concussion not? Sometimes I really wonder how movies are nominated for an Oscar. Is there a checklist or is there a popularity meter? I'm not saying that this movie is Oscar worthy I'm just saying that in comparison to Oscar nominated movies Concussion isn't a lesser movie at all. However, it doesn't really matter since the Oscars haven't been a measure of a movie's quality, in my opinion, for a long time now.

Even if Concussion has been forgotten by most people I'm glad to at least spread some awareness for this movie and give you my opinion.

Concussion is a movie based on a true story about a pathologist named Dr. Bennet Omalu, who uncovers the truth about the damaging effects to the brain in football players, caused by repeated concussions through normal play. It is a compelling story about how flawed the system and corporations are, when there is a lot of money on the line, and the hardships people will have to endure to make others aware of a problem.

Dr. Bennet Omalu is a compelling character portrayed by Will Smith. Smith gives a good performance and an astounding job on speaking with an accent. He gives this character life and presence and carries the whole movie. There are many side characters, some with a large and other with a small but important part, however I'll focus on a couple who have left an impression on me. First of all Dr. Julian Bailes played by Alec Baldwin, he plays a doctor who worked for the NFL and decides to put his love for the game and carrier on the line to do what is right. I normally don't like the performance of Baldwin but it was acceptable in this movie. Dr. Cyril Wecht played by Albert Brooks, man what a guy. He supported Dr. Omalu throughout the whole ordeal and he occasionally made me laugh. He is portrayed as a mentor and a friend.

The movie was directed by Peter Landesman and that is all I can say about him since I've never seen any other movie directed by him. However, if he keeps making good movies like this one I'll keep my eyes open for his name in the near future. The music was good but not noteworthy.

The story was tight and focused with a warm beginning, strong middle, and a somewhat slow but redeeming ending. I personally think it could've cut 5 minutes from the movie to improve the pacing, especially in the middle/ending. The cinematography was fitting; the colors were warm and the contrast high.

I know I've been saying this quite often about certain movies but this is TRULY no exception. This movie is good. It tells the story that needs telling and it is performed beautifully. Sure there are problems and it is romanticized in some parts, what "based on true events "movie isn't.

If you want to watch a good drama, then give it a try, I promise you it won't disappoint.

Believe it or not but this is one of the few movies I regret not seeing in the theaters and even though I despise most 3D movies I think this would've been amazing in 3D. For some among us who have specific movie tastes NO it's not a Hollywood big action blockbuster; however it is an inspiring drama based on a true story. It's a bit different than most movies so please have an open mind when you watch it. So let us all take a step on the high wire and chase our dreams.

As stated before this movie is based on a true story. A story about a French guy named Philippe Petit and his lifelong dream to walk a high wire between the World Trade Center's Twin Towers in 1974. The story focuses on how he found his dream and his ambition and the drive to achieve it at all cost. So why is this a good movie? Well you all know that I hate the statement good or bad movie. But the reason why this movie has held my attention to write a review is because it knows where to put its focus and emphasis throughout the story. It doesn't have pointless drama like certain films. (BUT!!! Henny that isn't pointless drama it's called CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT!! Well, be quiet and let me explain!!).

Yes the movie has, to some degree, been romanticized and yes it may not be a perfect portrayal of the real Philippe Petit, I don't know the guy so I wouldn't know. However, I would like to believe that the director has captured the spirit of Philippe, by conveying his feelings and thoughts in the movie.

So what about drama for the sake of character development? Yes sometimes a little bit of drama is necessary to develop a character. Especially when it is intended to enrich the character. For example: by putting them in a situation to discover what kind of person he or she may be. I'm not saying that this type of storytelling is BAD, "on the contrary I welcome it" (Yes you fellow cinephiles you know the movie where this is quoted from :P ). However, there has been a time where movies have used this tool to add, unnecessary side plots that doesn't lead to anything and in addition it distracts the attention of the audience from the main story. While other movies would have hammered on a possible love story or hatred within the group, this movie tackles these problems in a subtle way. It spends time on some side plots, but it never detracts from the main story.

The credit for this movie truly goes to the director, the always GREAT Robert Zemeckis (from movies like, Forrest Gump, back to the future, contact). Robert is a director who knows how to capture a moment and how to communicate his thoughts to the actors. It's a shame that he hasn't directed many movies; however that could also be a blessing since we won't get saturated with his work.

The actors did a fine job. The main protagonist is played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt and he did a good job portraying a French guy, however for some reason I thought he had a strange French accent. The supporting characters were all fine and you can never go wrong with Ben Kingsley. I can't really say much about the supporting cast since the movie mostly revolved around the protagonist. You could even call this movie a character study.

The cinematography was alright, however I thought it was a little too gritty for my taste. It could've used a little bit more color. The music was beautiful especially at the end when he was performing. I've always loved Alan Silvestri's work since Back to The Future and even though he has had some bad scores over the years, it is good to hear him coming back.

So the basics: The movie has a funny beginning, serious middle, and strong ending. It is well cut with a runtime of circa 2 hours, from which they could've cut 15 min to improve the pacing.

Sorry everyone, I always try to keep my reviews as short as possible but there is always a lot to talk about. So should you watch this movie? Personally I would say yes. It checks all the boxes and provides a good warm feeling at the end. It inspires us to find a dream and work hard for it and most importantly never lose sight of it.

I give this movie a 7, go watch it.

Henny's movie Review: A Walk into the Woods (NO SPOILERS FYI, like all my REVIEWS :P )

In five words: Enjoyable, but far from perfect.

But first, HAPPY HAPPY NEW YEAR AND BEST WISHES EVERYBODY!!!!!!!!

Don't worry people I'll keep it short (after some feedback I've decided to change my format). A walk into the woods is a simple, reasonable, short movie that will provide a lot of enjoyment. Don't expect anything great, but it does have a lot of moments that will make you smile and feel good. Consider it a relaxing movie about the outdoors that will certainly give some of us nostalgic feelings about hiking (man I really miss it). If I've to categories it I would say that it belongs somewhere between drama and comedy, but mostly drama.

Some negatives: When you compare this to movies, within similar categories, like my all-time favorite Into the Wild or touching the void, or even 127 Hours then this is an underwhelming movie. The plot is paper thin we don't really know where it is going and let's not talk about the green screen effects. But even with all these missteps this movie has a lot of charm and heart. Based on the three-act-structure, it has a warm beginning, funny middle, and an underwhelming ending.

Should you watch this movie? Well to be honest there are better movies out there, however if you want something light and just enjoy a movie than pick this one up and have it a go. It isn't something for everyone but I promise you its well worth your time.

I give this movie a 7

------ONLY READ IF YOUR INTERESTED------ ------Now time for some thorough analysis-------

The story: The movie is about a guy named Bill Bryson who is a writer of nature/adventure/hiking books. After living abroad with his family for a long time, he decides to reconnect with his homeland by hiking the Appalachian Trail (3500km) with an old friend.

Characters: The movie stars, the "Sundance kid" himself, the great Robert Redford portraying the writer Bill Bryson. It's regrettable to see the acting skills of Redford to become a bit stale over the years, but it is really noticeable in this film. If you've seen some movies of him you would know that he can do better, but for some reason he just doesn't have his heart in it. However, he still provides a decent job and compensates with his voice (is it just me or do you people also think he has a great voice to deliver dialogues and exposition).

The second character and to me the star of the show has to be Stephen Katz portrayed by the BEEP, BEEP Nick Nolte. This character is a funny, likable, and problematic person who really wants to connect with someone. I love this character, yes it's a typical archetype, a person with alcohol abuse and problems with the law. But when he hears that an old friend wants to go on an adventure he just can't resist to tag along for old time's sake. The big surprise here is Nick Nolte. First some background info: Nick Nolte has had some problems in real live with smoking, drinking etc. resulting in problems with his voice and other stuff. While this could have ended his career he has turned it around and is using it in his acting. His delivery of his lines and how he moves in this movie is truly great.

Cinematography: The movie does an outstanding job of capturing the woods and the surroundings. I love the establishing shots (regrettably too few) showing a wide angle of the surroundings, but the close ups of the grass and trees truly captures the feeling of hiking.

Music: As expected from a Robert Redford movie Thomas Newman provides the music. Its okay, and it does the job but not really that noteworthy. Movie scores/music is really something that has become problematic in the past decade; they are just not memorable enough.

Green screen: The budget of this movie must have been very low because the effects are truly abominable. This isn't just TV show bad it is HIGH SCHOOL play bad. But luckily there are just a couple of moments when they use it.

Finishing words: As aforementioned it is far from a perfect movie and if you watch it is mostly for the first two acts. It could have been better if they did something grant in the third act but regrettably they didn't. Still I like the movie, it was funny, emotional, and to some extent I can relate. To be more specific I can relate to the character played by Nick Nolte. NO!! Not the drinking and the smoking and god no not the problems with the law. But there are times when I think to myself what if. What if I lost touch with my friends and I and up in this situation. Would I be the one to make contact would I pack my backs and join him or her on a great adventure? I hope I would. Thank you for reading my review.

In a time where action movies and expensive popcorn flicks are dominating the box-office, it's good to see a well-balanced movie with a lot of heart. Some of you may think that this movie is a chick flick, maybe because of trailers or promotional materials, but believe me this is not the case. It's a funny feel good movie with good, not over the top, drama. I Highly recommend this to everyone who wants to watch a movie, especially together, and feel good in the end.

The movie begins with a 70-year-old widower named Ben Whittaker, played by Oscar winner Robert Deniro, who is fed up with his retirement and longs for a goal/purpose in life. When suddenly an opportunity arises allowing him to apply for an senior internship at an online fashion site. He is assigned to the company's boss Jules Ostin, played by the beautiful Anne Hathaway, and from that moment on we embark on a journey where we get to know the characters.

The following will discuss the characters, music & cinematography, and the three-act-structure.

The characters within this movie are wonderful. The main characters Ben and Jules are portrait in a likable almost natural way, with moments that will evoke happiness and sadness. You can feel the relation between the two characters being built from the first moment to the last scene. The supporting characters are similarly likable, and luckily not annoying (I truly hate movies with annoying supporting characters). They are mostly funny characters used for the comedy relieve scenes, but the movie uses them in a subtle manner, which provides them a little bit of character development. In addition, remaining characters provide good dramatic support for the main characters in a not too cliché way (sorry don't want to spoil too much).

The music used is upbeat and fits the accompanying scenes, however it isn't really anything special. The cinematography is pretty good. The movie has a white gloomy feel to it, when it is showing the office or business side, and a warm and brighter look when showing family moments. Based on the three-act-structure, it has a funny energetic beginning, heartwarming middle, and a somewhat dramatic ending.

If there is one thing that is bothering me then it has to be the hammering of feminism. Please don't misunderstand me I've nothing against it and more power to it. But this movie tries to hammer it into us a little too much. Maybe they should have removed some lines or changed certain dialogs. It's a movie show us and don't repeatedly tell us. But hey, it's just a small quibble and it shouldn't bother most people (I hope). O and I think they should've trimmed the movie a little maybe 10min to better the flow :P.

Al in all it's a good movie worth watching and I promise you you'll have a good time.

I give this movie a 8.

Let's be honest here a movie called Ant-Man, which is about a guy who shrinks and talks to ants, has to be bad or at least belong to the "It's bad that it's good category" right? Well believe it or not Marvel did it again. Even though, this isn't that surprising since Marvel has been making pretty good movies over the years, many considered this one to be the big bomb of the Marvel franchise. This is because of a couple of reasons that I'll discuss in the review. So let's shrink our low expectations and let's enjoy Ant-man.

The movie starts with an exposition scene set in the past, which introduces us to a particle that can shrink a person or object. From this we go to the present and we see our protagonist Scot Lang who is being released from jail. He is a good, funny, everyday guy who wants nothing more than to spend some time with his daughter. However, because of problems that occur at the beginning of the movie he is only left with one option become the Ant-Man.

I know, the story sounds clichéd and I've still not persuaded you to watch this movie right? Well let me ask you this: What type of /or genre movie do you think this is? You're properly thinking about action, maybe a bit of drama or some of you may even have answered it's A MARVEL MOVIE!!, right? Well, believe it or not it's actually a Heist movie (compare it to Oceans Eleven) with a lot of good humor. The reason why I am really recommending this movie is because we don't see these type of movie very often, at least anymore. When is the last time you've seen a funny movie (good jokes, funny NOT OVER THE TOP moments and great timing), with a well-balanced atmosphere of action and feel good/warmth, AND It's actually good.

Credit has to be given when credit is due and personally I think the actors did a great job. Not with the acting mind you, but with their comedic timing. The protagonist played by Paul Rudd did a great job delivering his dialogues and expressions, which made it all feel very natural. Other great actors like Michael Douglas and Evangeline Lilly provided the necessary balance and gravitas to the movie. It has Michael Pena how can you go wrong! The music is nothing special by Christophe Beck, which is a shame, but it gets the job done. The movie uses a lot of CGI in combination with some practical effects, which helps the movie to ground its story. Based on the three act structure, the movie has a funny beginning, funny/great middle, and action packed ending. All in all, it's one of the best POPCORN Flicks of 2015 and I highly recommend it. Believe it or not but this is the first movie I've seen twice in a movie theatre since The Lord of the Rings Part 1.

Does that also mean that it is a good movie? Well that is a matter of perspective, but a dumbed down answer would be: it's an average movie. That is because, apart from all the positives, the movie does have some big negatives. Firstly, the story is told at a fast pace (good thing), but because of this some scenes are dumbed down to exposition, maybe with some script rewrites they could have fixed it. There are some plot holes (What movie doesn't). However, the biggest problem has to be the Antagonist, which the movie completely forgot to properly flesh out. However, apart from all of that and placed in the right context and genre MAN this is a good funny movie.

So what are the reasons why people thought this movie would bomb? The first reason, as aforementioned, is the premise of the movie, which is understandably a silly concept. Secondly, Marvel has been mostly making action/drama movies and even though The Guardians of the Galaxy was a funny roller-coaster ride, it was still mainly an action movie. This movie is a humor movie, which is uncharted waters for Marvel. And the third and biggest reason: the great Edgar Wright (producer/director of the CORNETTO TRILOGY) worked on the script for years and in the end dropped out. The script was then pushed back and forth and had some rewrites resulting in the current end product, which was a cause for concern for some people.

But hey I've been talking long enough. So all in all what am I saying? Ant-man is a GOOD funny movie with a lot of heart. And I certainly recommend this to everyone. No, you do not have to see any previous MARVEL movie, but if you have then it would only become better. Normally, I would type something funny or a movie related pun, but I'm tired and I've to get up early for work tomorrow, so I'll just say this: Watch this movie it's well worth your time.

I give this movie a 7.

To many people this movie is known as the big BOM of 2015 with ratings falling below the 1 (Rottentomatoes). This movie is even considered worse than Batman and Robin directed by Joel Schumacher. So is this negativity towards this movie justified? Well before I dive deeper within this conundrum I need to state that this is my own opinion, however for this movie I really hope you agree with me at least a little.

Let us begin with a little history lesson. Superhero movies have grown exponentially in the last couple of decades starting with the x-men (or Blade). During this period the superhero genre has evolved from parodies to a movie genre with deep character development, storytelling, and a good balance between action and drama. Also we can't ignore the power house that is Marvel with their line of interconnected movies. However, for every x-men movie there is an x-men 3 or for the Christopher Nolan Batman trilogy there is Dark Knight Rises (Am I wrong?!!).

So am I saying that this movie belongs in the bad category (e.g., Batman & Robin, Catwoman, Daredevil) NO I am NOT!!! Let me be honest here, YES I was one of the haters out there who believed that this movie would be bad. However, after watching it I was surprisingly and Fantastically entertained. Before I continue about this issue, why this movie has failed at the box office, I would like to talk about the movie first. Some of you may have seen a previous version made in 2005 and 2007 they were corny but fun popcorn flicks. So fast forward a couple of years after the Batman trilogy by Nolan and the Marvel effect and we have a complete movie remake: FANTASTIC FOUR 2015.

The story starts with a couple of kids named Reed Richards (Wizkid) and Ben Grimm (Muscle) becoming friends and trying to build their own teleporter. This hobby and relationship grows into their teens and during a science fair their project was discovered by Dr. Storm; who invites Reed to join his project to complete a dimensional gate/teleporter. During this time we get to know Johnny storm (Cool Guy), adopted sister Sue Storm (The Girl) and Victor Von Doom (Bad Guy). Eventually they succeed in building the machine and they teleport to an alien planet that contained some kind of unstable energy. This energy changed them before they could teleport back and from that moment on they have SUPER POWERS.

The character development starts strong (for some) but after the first act it feels like though the script lost focus. There was no character fleshed out completely and some characters didn't even get any development. The music was average to say the least with no memorable score (however many movies these days are guilty of this SIN). The atmosphere within this movie is constant with a feel towards the serious like the batman trilogy. The story flow is the biggest problem with this movie, because after they have gained their powers they decided to skip one year. It would have been better to use this time to develop and enrich the characters within this movie. Based on the three act structure I would say that the movie has a strong beginning, okay middle, and an enjoyable but not perfect ending.

The movie is about 90 minutes long, which is much shorter than an average superhero movie these days. However, this isn't a bad thing. Within this time span the director Josh Trank was able to make a movie that checked almost everything on the list, please note MOVIE. When comparing this with similar movies within its genre it becomes clear that this isn't a real Superhero movie. Yes people have powers and there is a bad guy, however for a superhero movie there isn't any superhero moment or feel. That is why I think this movie BOMBED at the box office. This movie IS NOT A SUPERHERO MOVIE.

With the growing amount of superhero movies these days people have created expectations of what a superhero movie should be, based on movies like batman or marvel. When a movie like Fantastic Four shows up that is not similar to any other superhero film people are happily to start saying that it is bad, which is very harsh and unfair. While this movie isn't as good as a typical marvel movie or other hero film it is very enjoyable. This movie contains many scientific explanations and technical constructions etc. etc. so in essence it is a SCIFI film.

So what am I saying? Fantastic Four is an enjoyable movie that does not deserve the harsh backlash that it got. People should accept the movie for what it is and not what it could have been or what they wanted it to be. When you watch it please watch it expecting it to be an average SCIFI film and I promise you it will not disappoint. This movie was truly Fantastic.

I give this movie a 6.5

"Jurassic Park: An adventure 65 Million Years in the Making" and after two less than stellar sequels and 22 years they've finally managed to make a fun and worthy sequel to the first movie. So what is this film about? In short, they've officially opened the park under the name Jurassic World and the park is doing well enough. However, to increase profit/ratings etc. they've decided to create something big and scary. This monster escapes from captivity and starts causing problems for the entire park. Resulting in our protagonists, played by Chriss Pratt (from: Guardians of the Galaxy) and Bryce Howard (from: The Village), to find a way to stop it and save the island.

After watching this film I have to admit that it was more enjoyable than I had expected, while it was far from perfect it was most certainly better than movie 2 and 3. Sure there were moments that really pushed my suspense of disbelieve and it even jumped the shark 1 time, however this didn't take away the fact that it was an enjoyable film to watch. The most important thing for me is that they brought back the sense of wonder and discovery something that was just glanced over in the previous sequels and totally neglected in other movies (yeah I'm talking about you "Jupiter Ascending"). This sense of wonder is achieved by the use of practical effects and GOOD use of CGI (this is something I would love to write about in the future). However, the most contributing thing about the movie is John Williams's score. He brought back the old theme to create a sense of nostalgia for old viewers (like me  ) and truly expanded the music creating an, for the lack of a better word, Jurassic atmosphere.

Three act structure: The beginning of the movie is truly the gem. This is the part that introduces/reintroduces us to the Jurassic and from a child's perspective we are shown how wonderful dinosaurs are (at least it shows us how pretty they are to look at). The movie uses references to Jurassic Park and ups the wow factor with its music and grandness that is Jurassic World with wide camera shots and overviews of the park. We are also introduced to the protagonists and antagonists and this is all done in a likable way. I do have to admit that the introduction of the movie's plot (the monster) was regrettable since this felt like something from another movie.

The middle: In my personal opinion I thought this was the weakest part of the film. Maybe with a little more build up or tension it would have been better. I would call this part the CHASE or the HUNT (depending on the perspective). The good thing is that we see our protagonists handle with real props and practical effects, which contributes to the feel of the movie. However, I think they should have used this part to better develop the antagonists since they weren't well developed at the end (IMHO).

The End The movie picks up the pace and combines the best of everything that happens in the movie. Sure this is the part that you'll have to suspend your sense of disbelieve to truly enjoy it, but the pace and action well make up for it. It is a great ride to the finish.

The Good: - Great Music Score by John Williams - A lot of Easter eggs for movie enthusiasts - Good beginning - Likable characters - Sense of wonder and excitement - T-Rex

The Bad - 3D is not worth it. I'm sick and tired of this stupid gimmick. Yes there are movies made for 3D and they do look amazing, but most movies are just 3D filtered using computer software. If possible do not watch this in 3D. - Antagonists needs to be better developed - Movie length. I think it needs at least 10 min cut to improve the pacing a little. - Pushed the suspense of disbelief to the limit and it jumped the shark 1 time. - Some movie quibbles

The dinosaurs are back looking better than ever. It's not a perfect movie but it is a good sequel to a great movie. It is a bit long with 124min but it is a ride worth taking. Plus it has baby triceratops that has to be a plus right? I liked this movie and I'm very curious about the sequel(s).

First let's make a couple of things clear. This will be the second time that I've seen this movie over a period of circa two years. I know that this movie originally had a perfect script, biblical almost, but it has been Hollywoodnised (I know not a word). And lastly, I haven't completely seen any of the ALIEN movies. I have partially seen movie 1 and 2 but for some reason I just never got around to it. So NO I will not be comparing to the alien franchise, but I will be referencing it a little. I know not seeing the ALIEN movies is a cardinal SIN, but there are so many good movies in the world, plus it's not like everyone has seen "into the wild" (one of my favorite movies  ), so let's continue.

As some of you may know "Prometheus" is a prequel to the Alien franchise and it tries to tell the origin story of the Aliens. It all starts on prehistoric earth where an alien species known as the engineers laid the biological foundations for humanity. We then jump cut to the end of the 21st century and scientists discover that these engineers have left clues in the form of coordinates. After a long journey we finally arrive at the engineer's planet only to find death.

Let me first start with what was good about it: - The quality of the visuals is gorgeous. People, who know me, know that I really dislike the fake feeling of CGI or the fake look of green screen effects. While not perfect this movie has great effects that provide depth. In addition, great set pieces and props (I like big props). It is a shame though that this was mostly limited to the first arc of the movie.

• Produced and directed by Ridley Scott. This doesn't mean that it is a good movie but it does give the movie a feeling of grandeur, which is something I've come to expect from him.

• Soundtrack, the movie didn't really have a lot of music but the little sound it did have gave the movie a mysterious and tense mood.

• One single bland character that held the movie together, which can be considered the saving grace of the movie, I will elaborate it later. The point is, in this movie there is a robot that discovers almost everything and he perfectly relates to the movies main them, which is life or the purpose of life to be exact.

So let's rip this movie apart: - The visuals may be good but this alone doesn't make a movie. Even though film is a visual medium it is an art form that tries to convey a story. The story of Prometheus does have potential to be good however, sometimes during the movie it becomes obviously clear that certain scenes have been changed or added to please a more "general" audience, which in the end killed the overall second and third arc. So basically what I'm trying to say is that it becomes boring at the end of the movie and this is truly a cardinal SIN! - But my main grime with this movie is the characters. Who thought that it would be a good idea to put preschoolers into adult bodies, because that is how the majority of the people behave in this movie. They keep doing stupid things that a normal person wouldn't do (e.g., person X sees a creepy alien worm. His reaction how adorable I want to pet it) and that really makes you lose interest in the movie. The only explanation for why they behave as they do is to move the plot forward, which is a perfect indicator that to script isn't done yet. The only person with a descent story arc is the robot and he is a bland character.

• It knows that it is related to the Alien franchise and it has many easter eggs. This can't be considered a good thing, because the movie doesn't have enough substance to stand on its own.

The movie was bad and I can go on for hours ranting about how to improve it, but the truth of the matter is I've seen this movie a second time. The story and characters may be bad but it is the combination of the mood and visuals that have a certain "je ne sais quoi" that makes it interesting enough to re-watch it. It is definitely better than the mindless piece of "PEEP" that Michael bay is producing. Do I recommend this movie? Yes, but only for one time.

Since Disney's decision to drop drawn animation for 3D animation it was uncertain what quality of animation we would get. However, after the great movie experience that was "Tangled" Disney has proved that they can indeed continue quality work in a new format. Just to be clear for this review I'm dividing Pixar and Disney as separate companies.

In my opinion the strength of the old drawn Disney movies lies in the character development and atmosphere. Together with a good pacing and songs to draw me into the moment, these movies have become a warm feeling of nostalgia for me. I understand that change is needed in order to keep things new and fresh and that is why I'm complimenting Tangled on a good blend of new and old, especially story and character development.

Now what about Frozen, well I'll be honest with you all this movie really needs to take itself more seriously and they should recut it. Compared to Tangled it seems like Disney has lost focus during development, which is a shame because it really had potential to become something good instead of the decent movie that it is.

Let me first start with what was bad about it. - The movie spends too much time on comedy relieve moments when the movie clearly doesn't need it and because of this some moments really suffered.

• Like old Disney movies Frozen also has singing moments to develop the story further and this was done well for the most part. However, some songs really weren't necessary and it felt that they were there just to be there. This dragged the movie down resulting in an uncomfortable story pacing midway.

• The biggest problem that I have with this movie is actually character development, more specifically the development of the antagonist (if there is one) and the side characters. The movie spends too little time on developing anyone else apart from the protagonist and because of this; it was hard to really feel for anyone. Ask yourself this question: how can you feel for someone if you don't really know him/her. If the protagonist doesn't REALLY know her own sister or anyone close to her, how can any emotional feelings develop? This is a shame and I hope Disney will not continue this trend because they were very good at conveying emotions.

• Plus there are some other minor things that could be considered nitpicking (e.g., Disney's subtle departure of their old story telling).

So is there anything good about the movie? Well yes there is.

• The saving grace of this movie is the protagonist. She is funny, likable and the only character that really shows any growth from beginning to end. Through her eyes we really do experience wonder.

• When the moment is right the humor in this movie is very funny and refreshing.

• 3D animation is very well done and beautiful to look at. Especially the beginning.

• Music is good especially the background music. The singing music was done very good by taking the situation and furthering the story.

If I've made the impression that I didn't liked the movie believe me this really isn't the case. However, it isn't the perfect movie people are talking about. It dragged and it was unfocused but still fun to watch. It gave me the chills of enjoyment.

For the People who have read my First hobbit review you may remember that I wasn't really positive about it and I called it a boring video game movie experience because of the CGI usage. So was this movie better?? Personally I think it is almost the same as it is very mediocre and if I have to be honest it may even be a little bit worse.

The reason why I didn't like this movie is because it felt like it was a very thin story held together with a lot of filler materials. Because of this the movie's pacing suffered and the rewards didn't pay off. Even though the first movie had boring action it at least had some scenes to develop the story. In this movie most dialogue's veld like exposition followed by action scenes plus fan service. I always wondered how Peter Jackson intended to split one book into 3 movies. Well, by extending the basic story line and adding fillers.

Without spoiling the movie I would like to say that the movie tried to follow a three act structure (beginning middle and end) but it really failed at the third act. The movie was more like a beginning and a very long middle.

Some titbits Character development was decent but it wasn't really noteworthy.

Music was okay but it failed at capturing the moment when I compare it to the lord trilogy or even hobbit one. And that is because of the movies pacing.

Cinematography was much better than the first movie with more scenery/nature shots but there was still a lot of green screen.

In the end the movie continued the story and it is already laying down the foundations for the next trilogy. I'll give this movie a 6.

When the success of a show is defined by its main protagonist for 50 years, then there is no better tribute then this drama movie. Based on true events, this movie/documentary focuses on the first actor and producer that defined and shaped the first doctor of the British television show Doctor Who. It shows how the production got started back in the 60's and how the actor William Hartnell (beautifully portrait by David Bradley) opened the minds of children and adults to fantasy and sci-fi.

It is however not entirely a happy story, for all good things must come to an end. Without spoiling it for everyone I would like to say that the end is very heart-breaking but filled with hope for the future.

In short, the movie was beautifully told with a fine pace. The acting was good conveying emotions at the right time. Furthermore, I'm very happy that this movie used almost no CGI and a lot of props which I think is becoming a lost art.

I give this movie an 8.

People I really recommend this movie if you want to see a good drama.

Olympus has Fallen; the story revolves around a retired presidential guard with a sad backstory and the need to redeem himself. One day he gets trapped in the white house where he has to protect the president of the United States from a terrorist attack. The story is straight forward and not that interesting, however the good thing about this movie is the fact that it knows what it wants to be. The movie is action packed, serious and it has an amazing pace that will capture and hold your attention from start to finish. There is a good character development and the acting it topnotch. The music is reasonable and the special effects have been kept at a minimum, which adds positively to the mood of the movie. The only thing that is left that I can say is that this movie is what the new Die Hard should have been.

Let's start with something important namely respecting people's opinions. I know most people on- or offline despise this movie, mostly because it was too long or it was too convoluted. If you are one of these people I would like to say that I respect your opinion and I would like to ask you to respect mine. In the end movie reviews, good or bad, are just people sharing their opinions within a network of movie lovers.

Cloud Atlas is a movie that is focused on various peoples within the past, present and distant future. These peoples are reincarnations of themselves experiencing events that are mostly different with slight recurring themes. As aforementioned this movie can be compared to a compilation of stories written by a writer that is using certain custom themes to reflect his own personality. Personally I think that this aspect of the movie should have been explained better or at least emphasized at the start of the movie. The lack of this explanation made this movie look like a plot driven story creating expectations for a big revelation at the end. Even though there is a plot, like most movies, it isn't the focus of the story. I perceived the story as a character study focusing on different events throughout time and space. Where past events are recurring in the future and how different characters, but the same person, make certain decisions.

The acting is good as expected from Tom Hanks, Hugo Weaving and Jim Broadbent; however I do have to admit that it felt a bit strange seeing the same actors wearing masks to change their appearances. The idea is interesting but the execution wasn't done right, to see Hugo weaving in drag or as an Asian really pushed the limits of my suspense of disbelieve. But apart from that the actors did a good job in portraying the world and their emotions.

Music wasn't that special it was okay and it succeeded in creating the right atmosphere.

Atmosphere is essential in all movies and I personally think that the Wachowski brothers have made a movie that oozed atmosphere. Every moment had its own color and feel that complimented the stories. The worlds were beautiful with a rich culture and much detail. I especially liked the language that was used in the future.

In my honest opinion Hollywood is making a lot of movies these days that is following a fixed overused pattern. A pattern that has been considered the standard and when you deviate from this standard you'll be either loved or hated. So if you want to watch this movie please forget the standard and consider this movie as an art movie with many symbolisms and openness for you to interpret as a viewer (much like the movies Mister Nobody or Holy Motors). Please have an open mind, no expectations, and try to be invested in all the stories, not just one, because then you'll see how good this movie truly is.

Most people are not going to like this, but I'm giving this movie a 7.

Before I start reviewing this movie let me tell you something about the source material. Avatar the last airbender is an animated series with a well told story, humor, a rich culture, and above all a good character development. It's a show with more than 60 episodes divided over three seasons and I really recommend it regardless of your age.

The story takes place in a world where people have the ability to bend/control one of the four elements (fire, water, earth, and air). The only person able to bend all four elements is called the Avatar and he is destined to keep/bring balance to the world. However, during a time of war he has gone missing. After a hundred years he is found by a girl named Katara and her brother Soka and together they will have to save the world.

Now, this movie written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan is nothing like the aforementioned. The characters are bland, the humor is forced, and the story transition is very fast. This is also the main problem of the movie the story progression and transition. Shyamalan is trying to compress circa 20 episodes of story material into a 1.5 hour movie, which isn't a problem if it is done right. However, this movie is just badly edited together with action, special effects, and character developments consisting of 5 second dialogues, expositions and plot lines. Furthermore, t7hey are mispronouncing a lot of names even though the original series is in English.

The only redeeming quality this movie has was the music and the special effects.

I give this movie a 4. M. Night Shyamalan should stick with thrillers or try to respect original source materials more.

I'll just end this now, people don't watch this movie!

In three words: A character study.

When I saw this movie I didn't had any expectations. If you like explosions, sfx, big plot lines or adventure then this isn't your cup of tea. However, this doesn't mean that this movie is bad. Personally, I think this movie is a welcome change compared to the amount of Hollywood blockbusters that are coming out every month. What I really liked about this movie is the fact that it takes its time, allowing the viewer to think and share the moments of the main character, good and bad.

The focus is on the main character Lachlan MacAldonich, a former Scottish rock band member who immigrated to America because of problems in the past. After living in America for many years, he gets caught drunk driving resulting in deportation. From this point on we follow Lachlan through his struggles caused by the pressure of the present and his burden of the past.

The movie is a character study with a slow pace, so please keep an open mind when watching it. California Solo focuses on the character Lachlan MacAldonich portrayed by Robert Carlyle, who gives a great performance. The supporting cast is reasonable and helps to create the right atmosphere and story progression. However, the movie has its flaws namely, that it is very slow and personally I think certain character interactions didn't work very well.

In the end I give California Solo a 7, because it was a reasonable movie with good acting, emotional content, and a deep submersion of the surroundings.

Recommendation: Watch this movie around 6pm during a sunny day, because the light and timing adds to the atmosphere of the movie.

Henny's Movie Review: The Hobbit unexpected journey": (Spoilers Free)

In three words: It had potential

After the success of "The Lord of The Rings" it was obvious that the movie studios could not resist the temptation to film "The Hobbit" for the big screen. This is not only just filmed with an ordinary movie camera, 3d camera, let alone IMAX, the movie was entirely filmed with High Frame Rate (HFR), witch is considered the future of cinema. But the QUESTION is how is the movie?

Well today I want to the movie with my brother with expectations that the film would be similar to the previous films. Before you all start to yell out blasphemy or heathen, I need to tell you all that I deliberately chose for a normal viewing (i.e., without IMAX, 3D, and HFR). The reason for this decision is because I think a movie should stand on his own without any extras, it's after all the story that matters. So what did I think of this movie?

Well personally I think the movie was okay, it was at least much better then "the dark knight rises (man I hate that movie)". I'll start with the pros followed with the cons and in the end a final mark:

Pros:

• The music fits the scenes very well with great orchestrated pieces.

• and the scenery/landscapes are beautiful to look at.

• The characters are well developed and performed by great actors, which gives you the incentive to really join the "unexpected journey".

• There is a good connection with the previous movies (sorry I can't say to much about this).

Cons: - In contrast to the previous movies this movie was way to long.

• Personally the movie felt like a 3d animated movie like "avatar". (to much green screen)

• Sometimes it felt like the pace of the movie wasn't consistent (e.g., fast pace, slow pace etc.)

• To often the action scenes were too much zoomed in.

• You will never have the feeling of immersing in the movie, at least for a long period of time.

• It takes itself not seriously enough.

As aforementioned I would say that it was a descent movie. However, I would recommend the following; do not compare this with the previous movies, and don't take it to serious.

Grade: 7

Recoomendation instead of this movie: Skyfall, The Words