voyou-703-655350

Completely wasting a genre that's meant to be child-like, colourful and fun.

The writing is terrible: the plot is weak, the "surprise" is obvious from the very first spoken line, the timeline is nonsensical, the villain is powerless (yet manages to hold his ground for a while,) the inferno is breathable and doesn't spread, and to top it all, Corpollywood shamelessly pretends that the United Slums of America's homelessness is due to unemployment, instead of the reality of severely underpaid jobs.

Expect more cheap cash grabs like this one following The Joker's box office success.

( --- Here wasting characters to accommodate IMDB's policy of waste. ---)

The writing is atrocious, unimaginative, inconclusive, all over the place, uneducated, unfunny, schlock and whatnot.

The acting is atrocious. All the literate adults are mentally and often physically deficient (nearly as much the former as our illiterate IMDb censors/parasites.) For the lolz that never come. The cast portray them as ridiculously as humanly possible, way beyond over-the-top. Not to mention they are inarticulate and often unintelligible.

The pace and the tone are atrocious. Half the scenes are filler, repeated ad nauseam. Obviously, boring. Most the dialogue consist of the ramblings of airheads. Obviously, boring.

The humour is atrocious. The film clearly tries to be a comedy, yet its few gags were old in 1910. The director reiterates them ad nauseam as well. Whoever dozes off (expectedly most viewers) will still enjoy them not.

Three points for the pretty pictures (costumes, machines, period sets,) and for a promising young actress who played her cards right.

Heavily inspired by 12 Monkeys and by Terminator, with the T800 seen as the good guy by the makers.

My rating points go to the gimmick and the technique.

The gimmick is about showing a character, and the world surrounding him, every 9 years, over a span of 37 years. Besides the technology and the physical aging, we are treated to the filming/editing techniques and resulting atmospheres of each period. Thus it starts as an original buddy movie from the 80s before moving to grayer pastures.

Sadly, the writing is fully focused on the gimmick. It's all about convenience instead of a tight story. The full picture is unsatisfying, inconsistent, either underdeveloped or nonsensical. Ditto little ideas that are original and cool, like the murder weapon, also impractical, overcomplicated and overkill... Not to mention it's a bio-weapon developed by a physicist stuck in a bootstrap paradox.

...Or for their grandparents ? Not sure. It's a mix of yucky and adorable.

Low budget FX, amateurish acting, and loose ends to the story on one hand.

Originality, spectacular scenery, and a natural feel to the dialogue and village life on the other hand.

What matters in the end is that it's entertaining, amusing in places, immersive, and makes you care for the protagonists.

Bonus points for everything happening in broad day light. That's refreshing.

I bet the sequel will be Batman vs Sparkling Vampire.

And it will be 5 hours long.

With more slow-mo, even less colour, even less daylight, and an even worse haircut.

And whenever you think you are watching the most stupid thing ever written, remember that the next scene will be worse, until the very post-credit and its hyper-predictable umpteenth failed joke.

Constant cringe, on top of the arrogance displayed in every single WWI English movie (in which they tell themselves that they were the main player and behave as if the tragedy happened on their soil.)

And all that garbage for what? The turkey is boring, unlike its predecessors. It takes itself seriously despite mountains of ludicrous tripe thrown in.

Speaking of which, I never imagined that a human brain could design so ridiculous and so fake looking a mountain peak (somewhere on the border between Switzerland and Kashmir.)

One of the many corporate turkeys designed to kill cinema for good:

• It's an episode. Like a mere TV series. It's totally worthless as long as the rest hasn't been released, yet you won't be able to see it all at once in a theater. You must watch the intro years before the conclusion, then try to keep some memory of it and a modicum of involvement.

• Plodding. Of course it's plodding. It's Villeneuve, the slowest-minded director in Hollywood. However, in order to beat his own record, the man decided to tell half the story in slow motion. Good grief !

• It's colourless. Say what you want about the 80s version, at least it was never dull. This one is constantly dull. A complete waste of perfectly good pictures.

• It's lifeless. The cast for the most part has no personality. The central kid has the screen presence of a toothpick. Worse yet, many follow the dreadful acting school of whispers. Imagine Highlanders living inside a public library.

• Lastly, the music score has been replaced by some screechy garbage, Nolan-style. It's awful. Hans Zimmer-level of bad. The worst composer of the century. The one who single-handedly proved that the majority of humans have hearing problems.

Terrific story... Terrific character design.... Terrific backgrounds... Terrific voice-overs...

Those who tell of poor animation are mistaken: the rotoscoping is great. Only of low quality is the uniform, shadeless colouring of bodies. If a stylistic choice, it fails; looks cheap; detracts from perfection.

The unpredictable, sharp, perfectly paced story makes this film better than its inspirations from the 80s. Remember, those were beautiful, but had mediocre writing at best.

Some of the ideas are pretty entertaining. Some of them even original. The storytelling is consistently good. However, each storyline ends without being entirely satisfying. They just end; they lack a meaningful conclusion.

A company owner would rather destroy his computers / servers / assets with an axe than turn them off by flipping a switch, or by unplugging them.

That's how this film understands technology.

Although an obvious example that anybody would notice, it's just one from a bottomless pool. And it's not the only way in which the script is dreadful. And the writing isn't the only flaw of this turkey.

Mountains of cringe.

I rate 1 point above the standard Hollowood garbage because several of the jokes do land.

It's pretty much the plot of Pirates of the Caribbeans, only with the heroes channeling the trio from the 90s' Mummy.

Plus them puking on camera.

Plus fake animals.

Plus puking fake animals.

In terms of logic, it's about a Spaniard who speaks nothing but English in the middle of Brazil's jungle, a language he learned from the natives, complete with puns and USA accent.

In terms of magic, there's plenty of fantasy. The biggest one is London having a visible sky; not only that, but a blue and sunny one, every day.

The bad guys want to destroy all life on Earth to make sure they won't reincarnate ever again, be it into a platypus, a mosquito, a cactus, an amoeba, a bacteria or whatnot. Meanwhile, every woman has always reincarnated into a woman, every man into a man. Bad guys must be complete idiots.

Although the good guys never thought of looking inside, so they aren't any brighter.

Bad guys have a gun that stops a reincarnation cycle. They use it on hundreds of people who want to keep reincarnating. They never use it on themselves, which would achieve their only goal. No good guy ever suggests that they should. Everybody is a complete moron.

At least, all these people have great powers, like their 2000 years old martial techniques, which must be better than modern military training. Or that bullet-dodging ability they acquired in the 11th century. Their katana mastery, so superior a tradition that today's yakuzas still prefer it to guns. Their power of Latin. Their mummification or head-shrinking skills. Their medieval science.

You know the drill: Watch the better one instead, the model.

Ritchie is bland here. Could be anyone directing.

Watched for Rosie Perez. This is her debut in the boring and cringy film genre. I still love her. I also like Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who almost managed to be funny. And Ewan McGregor also did. Almost.

Technically though, it's typical corporate laziness. Never captured my interest, never made me care for anyone, not even the kid.

I have a zero-tolerance policy for boring villains. This movie is full of them.

And don't forget that Imdb is but an exemplar of corporate garbage service that censors reviews by silently disappearing them. What they censor is actual quotes from relevant movies, because we have obviously nothing better to do than rewrite reviews to provide free content that will pay the wages of some of the lowest form of human scum on Earth: censors.

Otherwise, watch the original, Les Valseuses, from the 70s. The Jesus Rolls is as pointless as they come.

Watched despite the obvious partisan commendations, the fake ratings that mechanically keep many of us away from movies.

I stayed until the end, most likely because I dig RPGs. Broken Swords is like a filmed role-playing game session, an episode of a large campaign. We get glimpses of a coherent, well-developed fantasy world as background, with character classes, original magic spells, etc.

The makeups and costumes are great. Easily the highlight of the project.

The acting, very uneven. Some performers are good, others are ridiculous. Natural selection shall do its thing.

The narrative is decidedly "tell, don't show." That weighs heavily; it will lose many a viewer; it will lower the rating.

One thing I personally disliked, from the first seconds, is the characters talking like a contemporary military unit. Even touching their magical objects with today's gestures associated with very specific technologies.

To conclude, this is as close to a radio show as it is to cinema. Watch if you like your fantasy more talkative than visual.

Why watch a flick about the one superhero possibly ridiculouser than Superman if you are over 10 years old and not a masochist? I did precisely because I hoped to get the fun parts of the genre, instead of the borefests and would-be-dramas we are sold 90% of the time.

Well, I did get some. This Corpollywood product fits the mold of "not-great with a couple of newish, entertaining scenes that can stick." Here, they are comedy parts.

What went wrong:

• Main one first: hero and villain with similar powers. This trope is so common and so dull, I figure all has been written, said and yodeled about it already.
• The teen is all serious, his adult version childish and goofy, often acting like a drag queen or a dolt or a toon or je-ne-sais-quoi. Not the same guy. Not such a big deal, but grating.
• Gloom. There is colour, there is daylight, but the makers couldn't resist some Iron Age darkness. Wouldn't have cost much to paint the demons bright and the climax under the Sun, for example.
• Annoying kid. I won't tell which one, but you might feel like shoving his crutch somewhere. Fine, for a film with so many juves, they didn't do bad here.

What went well:

• The powers testing scenes are the shining ones. Kid-superheroes being kids first.
• Simplicity. The story is straightforward, the motivations simple, the villain focused (though he would be dull if Mark Strong wasn't such a dependable young man.) In this genre, simplicity is a quality.
• Adorable kid. I won't tell which one, but the two black girls who played her nailed it.

One last thing: This isn't a movie for 10 years old kids, despite being Shazam. The first 30 minutes are too seriously violent. Oddly.

If you want a good film with blind monsters attracted to sound, watch Tremors.

I watched The Vanishing because:

• It's a period piece
• I love lighthouses
• Scotland is gorgeous
• Lighthouses are even better on an island.

I got all of these, of course, in a classic tale that owes to authors such as Stevenson or Leroux. A pretty good story indeed.

Great cast. Including a very credible Scotsman played by that Greek actor, the one from Sparta.

Bloated, dark, boring, ugly, unimaginative, soulless, unfinished, etc. In short, your typical 21st century Hollowood turkey. That's what you get from corporate bureaucracies staffed with dozens of useless cascading "managers" instead of talented people.

Or maybe, it's just my fault for thinking it would be about Newt and fantastic beasts, whatever gave me that ridiculous idea...

Take the gimmick of Walther Hill's 1979 classic The Warriors, add post-apoc elements from various places, notably a radio station a la Fallout games, use some spaghetti western recipes to pace character scenes and action scenes, have it served by a good cast, and you get a taste of old-school fun cinema.

The script isn't tight around the characters, which limits my rating, but it's an enjoyable throwback, an easy watch with a rewatch value.

(I watched the English-voiced version.)

Strange humour. It took me half the movie to start smiling.

Excellent technique though, great scenery, animation and sound.

Main flaws are pacing and continuity issues. The film would benefit from better writing or editing.

I wan't planning to waste time writing how boring this overfed turkey is, but then, after hours of ugly nonsense, yawning, waiting for the ex machina that had to be the only possible resolution to this bloated mess, they didn't even bother to conclude.

It's a drokkin' episode.

I've been conned. I'll never spend a cent for Marvel ever again. After 20 years of iron age ennui, just when I fought they were finally bringing some silver age fun with Ant Man and Spiderman, they release their worst soulless product ever, and close it with a big middle finger to our faces.

Just let this company die out, you'll do the world a service.

Usually I wouldn't bother, but an animation movie that manages to make me give up after 15 minutes tops, that's exceptional indeed.

Terrible story-telling through terrible animation... what else need I say ? Most third-rate video games do better than that. Very, very and unexpectedly bad. It's sad, really, when an underdog reaches that low.

From the Gobelins animation school, which regularly gives us short pieces of entertainment, comes this tale of a king doing what kings do best : exploiting labour. I found the pace of this one a bit too fast, too frantic. I would have liked to see the castle a bit more for example, or at least a bit longer.

However, the end got me. First, because it's very funny, and second, because it shows very good story-telling indeed, explaining inconspicuous details while broadening the scope of the tale. Which is a tale with a moral, the old-fashioned way.