manuel_medeiros

This version of Batman is definitely darker and grittier than most I've seen.

Pattinson nails this, and he seems more aggressive than his predecessors. Aside from the fact he is trying to catch a criminal, I could argue the approach of Batman vs. The villains isn't all that different.

He sold really well this more secretive, introvert version of the dark knight. For someone who has seen him in films across the years, his tone/voice as Batman is truly impressive.

But as far as the film is concerned - this coming from someone who is not a Marvel fan - I think it could be shorter.

Although much more a (noir) mystery than an action move, it still counts a 10min car chase sequence which visually didn't do much for me (unlike other magnificent shots in the film).

The other thing that put me off is the romantic aspect to it. Seemed incredible cliche and quite forced, I doubt most viewers get emotionally involved in Batman and Catwoman's relationship at all.

That being said, it's a terrific film to watch in the cinema - soundtrack choice is flawless and very involving - but more geared towards noir detective fans than proper superhero/action flicks.

I was lucky enough to see this film at BFI's London Film Festival

If you like slow, but emotionally layered dramas with unconventional perspectives/subject matters, this is a great film, based on a book by Elena Ferrante.

Lost Daughter takes place in an island in Greece where a university professor called Leda (played by Olivia Colman) is spending a "working-vacation", but instead goes through what seems like a much overdue emotional self-examination.

Initially as an observer, witnessing another family's struggle with their daughter, she is forced to confront her own battles with her motherhood - she was, after all, an "unnatural mother" as she puts it.

The look at the responsibility of motherhood and how not every woman is not necessarily 100% wired for it is a very refreshing take; and obviously powered by a magnificent performance by Olivia Colman.

Although Dakota Johnson as the young mother she tries to relate to; and Jessie Buckley as young Leda do not disappoint either.

Given this was Maggie Gyllenhaal's first feature film as a director - I'd have to say it is a success.

Everything from the carefully selected shots, to the soundtrack works perfectly for the viewer to feel completely in Leda's shoes.

Great directorial debut overall, and definitely worth a watch if you like the drama genre (and you don't require high stake actions to get involved)

What an unbelievable performance by Anthony Hopkins.

The Father is a proper experience - beyond sitting back and enjoying the movie - and it stays with you for hours, or even days after. The journey throughout that hour and half is as emotionally intense as anything I've seen.

What a film.

Nine Perfect Strangers is not a bad show, but an enticing premise and a stacked cast made me expect much more

Performances-wise Kidman is a great actress, don't get me wrong, but I don't think she was the best one to play Masha, the main character and an innovative guru / therapy master. She is supposed to be from Russian descent, but the accent comes and goes. And what is supposed to be this larger than life intimidating figure, very quickly loses after the 1st episode.

Michael Shannon on the other hand, impressed me - amazing range across the span of a few episodes.

Quite a few clichés in there - there's a romance brewing throughout the show which was incredibly obvious from episode 1; as is the character arc of Masha.

Also disappointing was the actual "therapy" involved in the story. The show is supposed to take place in a one-of-kind wellness centre which gets amazing results through unorthodox methods. In what is at worse a mild spoiler, I was disappointed to find out this "therapy" consists only of drugs...

All in all I think this show had the budget and talent to be much better; but fails to deliver on a promising trailer and plot (I can imagine the book it is based on must be great source material).

And pales in comparison to how refreshing White Lotus was!

Principio, Meio e Fim is not an easy one to explain.

But it is definitely special because it tries, very valiantly, to allow writers and creators to share the same level of limelight the actors do on every show.

So here's my best attempt to explain what the show is about, relying also on a free translation from the Portuguese synopsis:

Every week, 5 friends meet up for dinner. What they don't however, is that they are fictional characters and the events of the dinner will be shaped by creativity (or lack therefore) of 4 (comedy) writers.

So we see, on a weekly basis, how writers come up with entertaining scenarios which are (to a degree) confined to a living room and 5 lightly described characters.

The rules are simple - they have 2 hours to write whatever they want, and not a single second more. When the time comes, whatever typo, continuation error or plot hole left must be acted out as is written on the script.

This makes up for a naturally bipolar episode composed of two parts 1) the 4 writers' creative process, as they struggle with the deadline and the coherence of their ideas; and 2) the actors acting out whatever was written in those two hours (which are condensed into c.10mins for the episode) - including every mistake that made it to the page

Both the creative process of writing AND the actors loyalty to what is clearly a far from ideal script (with unnecessary screams, for example) make for a very entertaining watch.

Bruno Nogueira (Último a Sair, Sara) has done a successful show yet again - and this time in particularly innovative fashion.

The Trial of the Chicago 7 is a courtroom drama about the 7 people who were accused of inciting riots back in 1968 in Chicago.

Staged in the backdrop of social unrest caused by the Vietnam war, the film shows how this diverse group of activists face trial for their role in bringing about confrontations between protesters in police around the Democratic National Convention.

We get to watch the escalation of the protests that ultimately turned into a riot via a series of flashbacks, making the movie into a powerful drama that doesn't end in the courtroom - although Sorkin is a master at writing for that setting.

This film has one of the strongest ensembles I've seen recently.

From Succession's Jeremy Strong role as co-Yuppie leader Jerry Rubin to the more palatable activist Tom Hayden played by Eddie Redmayne, all the way to the brilliantly ironic Abbie Hoffman character of Sacha Baron Cohen or Frank Langella's delusional judge, it's very hard to single out a performance.

That's part of the beauty of the film.

There are actors as well-known as Michael Keaton with a 5-minute screentime. Or others, like The GetDown's Yahya Abdul-Mateen II who are incredibly poignant despite appearing for only half of the movie.

Mark Rylance's role as the defence attorney, for example, seems to embody the audience's reaction, as he gets more and more frustrated by the developments in the trials as the movie progresses.

I could be here all day. But what makes The Trial of the Chicago 7 so enjoyable is how all of these characters feed on one another.

Also, in spite of years writing and producing WestWing, he only took upon the director's chair for the first time in 2017's Molly's Game, which didn't exactly wow-ed audiences.

Yet, in The Trial of The Chicago 7, Sorkin translates his boldness in writing very well into the structure of the film.

The film couldn't have been better constructed, as at the same time the tension rises within the courtroom, the audience also gets to see in sequence the events that led to the riots in Chicago, shown by very timely flashbacks. Lastly, It's hard to think of a better time to watch a film about a true story of political activists who stand trial for their role in social unrest.

As the divide in the United States grows deeper and the presidential election date os closer by the day, The Trial of the Chicago 7 makes for a perfect watch.

All in all, this movie works so well because it is a very lively courtroom drama with ever-rising tension, that still manages to slip a few comedy moments into the cracks.

Also thanks to an incredible cast - can't stress this enough - who becomes even better when put together.

Sorkin pulled off a very entertaining movie, perfectly constructed which is sure to make audiences want to dive further in the social upheaval of the 60's.

I would be surprised if The Trial of the Chicago 7 is not in this year's award discussion. It's certainly one of the best I've seen in 2020

"The whole world is watching!"

The Morning Show's is a drama that follows the backstage (and backstabbing) ongoings of America's most popular morning show when one of the lead anchors faces an accusation of sexual abuse.

Here's why I think this great drama is worth a watch.

It tackles the Me Too theme in a very different way than most series have so far. Instead of depicting the accused - in this case, Morning Show's lead anchor Mitch Kessler (Steve Carrel) - as a cartoonish villain sexual predator, it gives him a lot of depth.

The narrative doesn't force a narrative down the audience's throat, instead, it lets the viewer decide whether Mitch's rationalization around his wrongdoing is valid or not.

Also, this show has incredible actors playing genuinely different characters.

Carell plays perfectly the Me-Too-shunned anchor, who is a charming, lovable douchebag with a god-complex.

Anniston - who plays Alex Levy, Carrel's character's co-anchor - really surprised me in her range. Despair, grief, rage and ambition all drip from Anniston's wonderful portrayal.

Someone who really caught my eye was Billy Culdrup, who plays an enigmatic network executive. In the midst of a star-studded cast, his character manages to steal the show very often with memorable lines and hard-to-crack motivations.

I could write a 10-minute long article on The Morning Show's actors alone, but don't just take my word for it - 5(!) actors from the cast were nominated for acting Emmy's, with the aforementioned Billy Culdrup taking home the prize for his Cory Ellison.

Lastly, for a show that falls in the Drama category, The Morning show is riddled with tension and confrontation.

Awkward silences, shouting contest and accusatory rants all make an appearance in this very well-written show.

The Morning Show works on every well - production, writing, acting, you name it. Even the theme song is on point.

Surely Apple+'s magnum opus so far and definitely worth a watch.

I jumped straight to this Netflix's thriller The Devil All The Time when it debuted, and it didn't disappoint me one bit.

I was drawn by the impressive cast - Robert Pattinson, Bill Skarsgård, Tom Holland and other familiar faces - especially when those same actors clearly step out of their usual range by taking on a regional American accent.

The film is staged in post-World War II America, namely between two rural towns in Ohio and West Virginia. We start by following Willard upon his return from the Pacific front, but the story stretches until the Vietnam war - it is, ultimately, a noir thriller that turns into a family-driven saga almost.

Based on Donald Ray's Pollock novel by the same name, published in 2011. As for the script, it was written by brother Paulo and Antonio Campos, the latter is also the director.

Having not read the novel or heard of Campos before - to be fair, he has few credits as a director in feature films, and his most notable directing work is on Netflix's series The Sinner - I went completely blind into this tale.

I was very pleasantly surprised.

The Devil All the Time is a thriller where the tension is always growing until the final climax, so it depends on actors to be able to transmit that emotional escalation to the viewer. The cast delivers perfectly on that.

Starting with an emotional depiction of a war veteran Willard (Bill Skargsgard) in which we get to see a slow dive into despair tangled with religious belief, we then get rewarded with two memorable performances by Tom Holland (Willard's son) and Robert Pattinson (the new preacher in town).

Pattinson in particular is spell-binding. He is very convincing as a Southern preacher who is as passionate in his speeches as he is flexible in interpreting God's word outside his church. This movie might not be for everyone.

This dark thriller is slow building, and you might not be able to pinpoint where the story is headed for the first hour - Tom Holland's character for example only shows up after 45 minutes for example.

But the time it takes in the first half is crucial to explain the actions of characters later on. Only through this attentive look at their past experiences can you truly understand their dark, tragic actions as the plot unfolds.

In that sense, the director Antonio Campos does a brilliant job of showing you the building blocks of those characters' character (no pun intended) and progressively speeding up the action and the tension in the story.

With The Devil All the Time, Netflix adds another excellent movie to its pile of originals. A brilliantly acted, involving noir thriller where tension is ever rising.

Definitely worth watching.

The Fall is a good TV show overall about a London detective that goes to Belfast to help the local police find the culprit of a series of twisted murders.

It's not a mistery to the viewer who is the guilty party, we follow his perversion from day 1. But that doesn't mean the show isn't riddle with tension and confrontation.

What also adds some value to the show are the flashy camera angles and cinematography in the first few episodes, which are less common in these type of shows.

But the one the two main characters, detective Stella Gibson played by Gillian Anderson, really steals the show in my opinion. Her voice and speech is spell-biding throughout, and make for a complex character all in all - seemingly cold, yet passionate but still with a practical view when it comes to romance and intercourse. Outside the portfolio of cliche detectives we see day in, day out on TV.

The only reason I give it a 7, rather than 8, is due to its 3rd season.

It seems the writers team changed all together or simply ran out of ideas.

Without giving it a way, the first episode of season 3 seems like an episode of ER, which outweighed focus on medical issues. And throughout the rest of the season, the story is much less plausible in terms of policing and prosecution procedures.

Despite the compelling characters, that stained a bit the show for me.

They would be better off wrapping it on season 2, but overall worth a watch, especially season 1

The Farewell was one of 2019's film vintage best surprises. The premise of Lulu Wang's second feature film is triggered by the oldest member of the chinese family, grandmother Nai Nai, receiving a cancer diagnosis, with the doctors estimating she has only 3 months to live. Most of the family agrees to hide the diagnosis from their matriarch, thanks in part to a Chinese saying - "when people get cancer, they die" - suggesting many people die not necessarily from the disease itself, but from the fear of living with it.

The film focuses on one of Nai Nai's descendents, granddaughter Bili - played brilliantly by Awkwafina - who isn't particularly convinced that lying to her grandmother is the best course of action.

Why is the movie so great?

It is a great take on family and grief

Based on "real lie", as the movie puts it, the plot launches a discussion about what is the best course of action when faced with an impending death, but equally exposes the importance of family and looks at the different ties between these family members. The different relationships are very moving and built on believable characters, rather than cliches. The same goes for the depiction of grief, which ranges from denial to emotional outburst - and not one resorts to the easy tear-jerking moment we have seen many times again

It nails comedy when it needs to

Comedic moments come only from very pertinent conversation or family interactions, in a way that's incredibly natural to the narrative. There's a particular scene - let's say over a family drinking game to avoid spoilers - which is genius, and hilarious. But throughout the movie, the dialogues are very well constructed, and even when discussing US vs. America (as some family members live in the US) it does not get in any way political. It portrays well the discussion in a informal setting

Awkwafina's and the overall cast performance

She was a very worthy winner of the Golden Globe for Best Actress. After a career as an hip hop artist and on the screen with wackyer roles - Nora from Queens, Crazy Rich Asians - Awkwafina really nails the more nuanced role of Bili. Not only because she opposes somewhat the family's decision to omit Nai Nai's diagnosis, but because she effectively a great vehicle for Western audiences - her character was also raised in New York for most of her life, and we can see through her eyes as well a side of Chinese culture most of us are oblivious to.

The 7.6 rating (at time of writing) can only be attributed to the Average Joe's unwillingness to watch movies with subtitles - although in this case it is 50% in English.

This family drama has moments of true comedic relief with outstanding actors and is a great film overall, which should have been an Oscar contender, especially in the Original Screenplay category.

Released on YouTube by Netflix Is A Joke - the streamer's comedy and stand-up "brand" - the audience could be misled into thinking this was another installment of Chappelle's latest run of hilarious stand-up specials, like Sticks and Stones.

The name 8:46, inspired by how long the police officer who killed George Floyd's knelt on his neck, should give viewers an indication that this half-hour shouldn't be as filled with laughs as other times Chappelle got up on a stage. The brief description -

"Normally I wouldn't show you something so unrefined, I hope you understand"

• is another clue.

From the pandemic-compliant live audience sitting meters apart of each other and with masks, to the use of a notebook to the keep the comedian on track, 8:46 is definitely raw. That helps to make it much closer to a podcast or a personal essay than to a fully rehearsed stand-up routine.

But 8:46 is a captivating watch.

Chappelle's takes you on a journey by narrating through many events in his life that are tied to violence against or involving the African-American community.

It is true, the laughs are few and far in between. The distance between audience members also makes each joke harder to land. But you still get glimpses of quintessential Chappelle in this 30-minute long "special", including a reference to the famous "Where's Ja Rule?" joke.

In fact, what makes 8:46 bewitching is Chappelle's command of his own tone and enunciation.

8:46 is not a hilarious watch, no.

But if you are at all interested in the current social unrest in the US and the (latest) events that triggered it, watching a personal essay by Dave Chappelle - an African-American comedy legend who always spoke on the issue of race - should be very high up on your list.

Almost unanimously slammed by critics, it's safe to say that Netflix's comedy Space Force has not lived up to its expectations.

The show portrays how a new branch of the US' Armed Forces focused on warfare in space would work. It may sound out of touch with reality, but Trump voiced his intention to do his exactly that in 2019.

The show was created by none other than Steve Carell (star of The Office US) and Greg Daniels (producer of The Office but also episodes of Parks and Recs, King of the Hill) Overall, a heavyweight comedy duo.

Hence the let down for some people versus the massive expectations.

Adding to that was also the star-studded cast, pairing Carrel with John Malkovich, Lisa Kudrow, and Ben Schwartz (hilarious as Jean Ralphio on Parks and Rec) along with the high production value.

But here's why I think the show is much better than a 6.9:

• Steve Carell and John Malkovich make a great duo - they are both outstanding actors and their portrayal of, respectively, Space Force's 4-star general and Head Scientist guarantees laughs throughout

• There's room for political jokes - the premise is in itself a satire of Trump's megalomaniac idea of space warfare. This means that throughout the show we can see clever political jabs to the current administration (another reason for the bad ratings perhaps?)

• It's only season 1 - thinking back at shows who define Comedy on TV, was The Office (US) first season all that good? Was Seinfeld's?

• It ventures beyond comedy - Space Force almost goes into the realm of sci-fi adventure show. It even ends the season with a cliffhanger. How many comedies can say that?

I get that there a few jokes that miss the mark, where it can seem that the creators are trying to hard. I also understand the lack of engagement with some of the show's secondary narratives.

But overall I'd say is definitely a comedy worth watching.

The second season announcement, or lack thereof, will be its final judgment, not critics. I for one am certainly rooting for its green light.

I have just re-watched this with my girlfriend as we are always hungry for good quality yet light / romantic movies. Having a romantic movie with an 8.1, Before Sunrise was a no brainer.

But I was disappointed.

I think there's definitely a genre or type or movie like this one. The one where you follow a couple attentively as they progress through their relationship and discuss many of life's big themes. I get that. But within that formula there are better movies in my view.

I don't like Ethan Hawke here one bit. I don't think he is very believable as a cynic.

Aside from the poem scene - which is a great one - I found myself eye-rolling more than once. That scene in the cafe where Jesse says "come here, I have a secret" and then kisses Natalie? Ugh. Dreadful.

I'd think I would like it more if the story was self-contained. Knowing there are 2 more movies also ruins it a bit for me, because that was supposed to be the best part about the plot, they only had one night and that was it.

It's a decent movie at best but within this type of movie there are much better ones - When Harry Met Sally and Annie Hall in particular come to mind.

Those are 8 and above movies, not this one.

Doing a documentary about Jeffrey Epstein had to, of course, be focused on the victims

The victims are the ones who deserve to have their voices ampiflied, so that they maximize the chance of being (even marginally) compensated by the damages they suffered

But this ultimately makes the documentary, as a source of TV entertainment, rather repetitive

The testemonies did not change materially from ep. 1 to ep.3. They go towards proving the scale of this depraved man's abuse, yes. But at only 4 episodes, seems too much time was spent saying the same thing

When the doc had the name "Filty Rich", you would imagine they would go deeper into analyzing his ties with friens in high places, how he became a billionaire - and on that end, I feel the barely scractched the surface.

Robbed 45m from Lexner, Ok. How did he turn that into his own private island? Probably more figures involved there...

Other than Prince Andrew and US Attorney Alex Acosta (who already had his public life ruined by this case beforehand), very few stones were cast. Very little of veil was lifted

And that is why I was disappointed - I don't think it added much to the debate or new information to the case

I do hope it might help pressure the state to prosecute his co-conspirators. It was painfully obvious there was many of them.

More worth a watch for those oblivious as to who Jeffrey Epstein was. If you are familiar with the story, there's hardly anything groundbreaking in the doc. Despite of how shocking it is

White Lines is a murder mistery / family drama / personal development story, mostly spent in sunny Ibiza.

The premise is interesting - an English (Mancunian) woman travels to Ibiza to find out what happened to his brother as his body is discovered 20 years after his disappearance.

A compelling premised paired with being written by Casa de Papel / Money Heist's Alex Pina, and produced by The Crown's Left Bank Pictures really left me intrigued. I had to watch this show.

Which is why I am ultimately disappointed.

I think White Lines came out at the right time, because it showcases some of the things that people most long for at the moment - beaches, drinks and having a great time with large gatherings. But aside from addressing that emotional gap, there's not a lot of good things in White Lines. Let me start there:

The Good:

• Nuno Lopes as Boxer. I'm probably biased because I am Portuguese but I think his acting was phenomenal. He was also given the most layered, interesting character as well, but he comes across as an incredibly convincing in his moral duality and also while interchangeably speaking two languages, none of which are native to him. Daniel Mays as Marcus is also fairly good, although his character is a tad more inconsistent

The Bad:

• Characters are incredibly inconsistent. They go in one episode from being actively driven by personal development and feeling fulfilled, to only motivated by greed and justice in another. The main character Zoe - played by gorgeous Laura Haddock - is perhaps the worse one, whose feelings towards the other characters can change at every scene without much explanation as to why

• The murder mistery takes a back seat many times. As I mentioned, this show has a strong premise built on a woman trying to figure out what happened to her brother. But you can spend as much as half of an episode focused on the family drama evolving around other characters, which are not necessarily central to the action. I think the creators had a lot of ideas, but their harmony was a bit off. Because this show focus on too many things, so it feels it never really focus on any of those

The ugly

• Some of the dialogue is cringeworthy.

I mean, there are things in there that could be straight out of every geek-turned-beauty romantic comedy film. Which is especially disappointing coming from someone who wrote Casa de Papel. Sentences like "Come on, you need to loosen up" and alike sound incredibly cliche' and that a lot of the dialogue.

I would argue this is perhaps worth viewing if you like murder mysteries and don't mind that you get a bit of soap-y drama in the mix. Because it is set mostly on the beautiful background of Ibiza, White Lines still provides a very much needed feeling of escaping reality. Even if big budgets don't make up for crappy dialogue.

6.5 is dead on the money for White Lines. It's just is perhaps more worth a watch than most series which share that rating.

This doc is great because it shines light on why Michael Jordan is (or should be) the undisputed GOAT of basketball and the same time one of the most iconic sports personas in history.

He changed athletics forever, carrying his weight far beyond the court in a time where tweets did not yet grab the attention of millions.

Last Dance does all that and also showcases the absolute distinct mentality you need to reach his level, while at the same time does not shy away from addressing the biggest "controversies" / narratives of his unparalleled career - the 1st retirement correlation with his gambling comes to mind. Each week, the episodes created the debate, which is a great testament for a documentary

The only things that perhaps stop me from giving it a 10

1) not sure I would've like it as much if I wasn't born in the 90s and already a fan of Michael Jordan. It may be less of a compelling watch for those with little interest in basket up to this point, even though Michael Jordan is an extremely interesting subject matter (as opposed to for example F1: Drive to Survive which is made for people who know little to nothing about the sport)

2) Having his last season with the Bulls as a focus is great (hence "The Last Dance") but going back and forth on the timeline throughout the documentary through me off balance a bit at times. I did not know who they were playing in 1998 or in 1997 at times. Especially when the 10 episodes came in batches of 2 (and therefore not bingeable) it can be harder to follow if you don't know the Bulls path to the championship by heart

All in all, definitely a must watch for any sports fan!

This is Us is all that soap / telenovelas which they could be, because how successfully extracts so many touching narratives out of a few characters

Brilliantly written, this show smoothly pulls off parallel timelines that follow the same characters throughout different periods of their life. Exactly because of that, it excels in creating an emotional bond with the audience. I don't think any show as made me tear as frequently as this one.

It does have a soap-y side to it, of course, as everything in the life of these characters is riddled with drama and conflict, but the writers have done a wonderful job in making it always very believable and, more importantly, consistent with each character's arch.

The Pilot has to be Top 3 across any genre of TV I have ever seen, because of how heartwarming, touching it is. You are supposed to get familiar with the characters on the first episode, not root from them straight out of the gate, but Dan Fogelman nails that and then some - with a wonderful twist. (PS: I'd recommend die-hard fans of the show to have a read of the pilot's script, a great reminder of how good it is)

I could go on praising the writing, but I must say the actors do put the whole thing together. Milo Ventimiglia (Jack) and Mandy Moore (Rebecca) are the most enviable couple I have ever seen on screen. They are both incredibly touching and their chemistry is nearly palpable. K. Sterling Brown (Randall) also stands out and is perhaps the most consistent character of all - the (shockingly) first ever Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama for an African-American suits him perfectly. Justin Hartley's Kevin gets less praise, but I find him also very convincing in his role as a troubled actor trying to get recognition.

There's no doubt as to why this is a critically acclaimed show.

If you like real-life, relationship-driven dramas (with little to no gimmicks) focused on a few characters that you'll learn to love, then This is Us is a must watch.

It is worth saying upfront that MidSommar should be a very divisive movie. If you tend to watch mostly popular movies or standard horror films, Midsommar is not for you. Which explains the amount of 1 out of 10 reviews here on IMDb, despite an overall 7.1 rating.

But if you don't mind a slow building narrative with tension, innovative cinematography and plenty of look-away gore, then you might be able to appreciate just how unique Midsommar really is.

Briefly - MidSommar shows us a group of friends going on what seems like an idyllic trip to the Midsummer festival in a village in Northern Sweden. But that quickly turns into a harrowing display of Pagan rituals and ceremonies.

The movie is long because it's not afraid to take its time explaining the background of the characters (the group of friends and particularly the young woman in which it focuses). So from the start you can feel that this will be a different experience from most horror films.

But the movie really takes off once they arrive in Sweden. And it goes a long way to explain why Ari Aster is being so buzzed as a new director. Some of the shots shown are, at least in my book, completely outside the norm. And early on help you involve in the world of the film, and in the experience of the main characters.

In the terms of cinematography, it is one of the most beautiful movies I have ever seen. And that becomes an even more impressive achievement because of its contrast with the horrid gore images displayed throughout the movie.

The grass's green, the floral arrangements, the group dances, everything really paints a picturesque image of the Midsommar festivities. Despite all the unexpected events the characters are witnessing, that sense is kept all throughout 2h30 of film.

All of the imagery helped me, as a viewer, to truly feel in the perspective of the characters. Walking into the festival, hopeful, experience the shock of everything that happens in front of them.

I felt I too went on that trip with the characters, and I was shocked again and again together with them. It stuck with me for hours on end after watching. Which is one the best complements I can make to the work of a director in my view.

Truly recommended it if you are up to watching a different yet aesthetically beautiful piece of cinema.

As far as visual art goes in animation movies, I have never seen anything like this film. It surpasses even the beauty of Myazaki's work in my view, because it is so colourful and innovative.

The whole experience felt like watching a comic book that leaps out of the pages, onto the screen.

Everything worked for me in this film. The story, the characters, the soundtrack all tied together in a fast-paced movie that, in spite of that, never felt rushed.

The only reason I am giving it a 9 rather than a 10, is because I recognise that while engaging, the plot is somewhat formulaic. The villain reveal and the introduction of an over-the-top comic character felt a bit predictable. But other than that, I have no flaws to point out. Especially because the multi-universe aspect of it really gives it a distinct flare.

It was a joy to watch such a visually stunning movie. The best way to explain it, is through actually watching the movie. But I'll try to put it words - not only does it feel like a comic book come to life, the animation is so well put together, that it manages to successfully coexist one Spiderman from an anime-background, with another from 1930's Noir New York. That's how diverse the movie really is.

My hats-off to Sony Animation - this film has definitely ruined many animated movies to come for me. Because of how high it raised the bar.

I don't think this film is anywhere near the 8.3 rating it currently holds.

Obviously, it has a very sad plot. I'll give it that. A mentally-challenged father ends up in jail for a crime he did not commit, thus being separated from his only daughter.

There's a lot of material there to make people cry. Which is why there are many 10 ratings.

But in my view, there shouldn't be such a high correlation between a movie that makes you cry and one which is superb. That is why Green Mile is a much better movie than E.T. or Lion, even though I cried perhaps just as much on the last two.

Miracle in Cell no.7 is a hit with audiences because it is emotional, sure. I am not taking that way from the movie. But when the movie's biggest merit is how touching its plot is, how can I give it half the credit if its based on a 2013 Korean movie with the same name? A lot of value is lost there already.

Still, it could be a great movie. A lot of remakes are. Here's why I think it's not.

• The twists or climax resolutions are incredibly predictable. They are obvious from a story telling point yes, but made even more discernible by the shots made by the director in the scenes leading up to it. They always have an unbalanced, outweighed focus on a character which until then was irrelevant. Why? Because he/she will turn its original intentions or role on its head. It made the storyline too predictable early on. I'll leave at that to avoid spoilers

• the transitions between scenes are tolerable, at best. Not only are they pointing out in a very loud way the connections between scenes to the audience (as if this was exactly made for children) they also use a terrible looking fade-away that seems taken out of windows movie maker.

• the acting. Aside from the leader of cell no.7, I found the acting average at best. I've read many people raving about the main character's performance as a mentally-challenged man. The character is striking yes, but when you have watched I Am Sam, What's Eating Gilbert Grape or even Rainman, you can definitely tell how much more difficult it can be to portray a character of that nature

If you are looking for a emotionally-charged movie to cry, than perhaps yes, Miracle on Cell no.7 can be an answer. But don't be fooled by 8.3 - this movie is much closer to the Fault is in Our Stars and Marley & Me than it is to Green Mile or I Am Sam.

I believe the greatest testament to El Hoyo achievement as a film is its IMDb review section.

Most user reviews share their own interpretation of the movie, discuss the symbolisms evoked rather than comment on the film itself. Which is one another way of saying - El Hoyo is definitely thought-provoking.

The premise is simple but engaging, and definitely what attracts most people to the movie - There is a vertical prison, with two inmates per floor. Each day, there's a platform with food that starts at level Zero with a banquet. As each pair of inmates goes through the food, less is left for the ones below. You cannot keep food from one day to the other. Therefore, the lower level you are, the harder it is to feed yourself, although you move levels each month.

The plot alone creates for enough tension and debate. The interactions between floors and each inmates cause enough tension to keep the audience on edge. Because the inmates you follow have different views on the functioning and survival within El Hoyo, that results in several philosophical debates, which reverberate in the review section here.

There is a fair share of gore (both food and blood wise), which may put some people off. Personally, I have seen worse.

I definitely valued the tension and the gripping aspect of the movie. The only thing I disliked was the ending, because it leaves to much room for interpretation. I would much rather see the filmmaker take a clearer stand on the matter. Perhaps they did - but I did not think it was the one the movie was leading up to.

All in all, it is surely an innovative movie and definitely worth a watch. Another score for Netflix's Spanish intellectual property in my view.

I went into this show with some degree of scepticism because I was told that nor Ferrar nor Mercedes would be featured in season 1. For the less knowledgeable, this sounded too me as doing a series about La Liga without Barcelona and Real Madrid. I couldn't be more wrong.

There is a vast amount of interesting narratives, stories, relationships and rivalries outside the two contenders. Enough to make me sit through season 1 in 3 days.

I believe this show makes for a very entertaining watch for any (even remote) sports fans, because it has many unexpected turns, emotionally draining episodes and plenty of feel good stories. You do get emotionally attached to a few drivers, and find yourself rooting for or against them on any given episode.

In my view, this show aims to get people excited about F1, much more so than entertain those who already die hard fans already. Namely because:

1) Die hard fans know the outcomes of the races going in (the show reflects on the previous season, it's not live) and therefore there's less surprise or emotion. For me it was an absolute thrill to see the end of some of those grand prixs

2) the show is not focus on the technical side of racing. It spends much more time on the relationships, the rivalries, the thrifts - overall the human side of the sport. Which is what makes it so engaging

It definitely made me hungrier to watch the 2020 season (whenever it can be underway) and has nurtured a bond that makes me cheer for some drivers and boo the others

F1: Drive to Survive is an absolute genius move by Liberty Media, F1 and Netflix to market Formula 1 to new audiences. I think they have nailed that objective completely.

As far as converting audiences to a particular sport - I have seen nothing better. F1 Drive to Survive is an emotional and thrilling ride in one of the most challenging sports in the world. And it's truly worth it

I truly believe Casa de Papel is one of the most gripping series ever made for television. I breezed through series 4 in 3 days, even though there's a downgrade in quality versus previous seasons.

Why is it so good?

There's action at every turn. The stakes are constantly raised for those robbers and therefore so is the viewer's attention. It keeps you glued to your screen throughout.

Not only that, is does so while creating 1) compelling characters (who you root for) and 2) the narrative that this convoluted heist is much more than that. There's a reason why the Salvador Dali masks have broken from the screen and into our generation's culture - the characters seem to be part of a bigger feeling of anti-establishment, revolt. And as an audience, that definitely makes you more engaged.

The closest thing I can find perhaps to the first 2 series of Casa de Papel, is the first season of Prison Break. Never a dull moment, incredibly involving characters and full of heartfelt moments and suspense at the same time.

The only downside of Casa de Papel is a natural one - it felt a victim of its own, unprecedented success. It's no accident it is the most successful non-English language show on Netflix.

But as the creators tried to stretch the narrative for more seasons, it became less compelling. A new heist felt less believable, the human bonds between the robbers felt too forced and more corners were taken in terms of storytelling to advance the story.

Series 3/4 are not as bad as some reviewers claim here, but indeed you should expect some decay in the show's grip.

That being said - this is still very much worth a watch. Especially you are after a compelling, binge-worthy show. You needn't look further. The first 2 series will not disappoint you for sure. It is the perfect show to introduce English speaking audiences to quality television done beyond that realm.

PS: the score throughout the show is on point. It brought back Bella Ciao into people's imaginary, but many episodes absolutely nail the chosen soundtrack. Another aspect worth praising the creators for.

Bojack Horseman tricked me. I started watching it with little hope that it would go near the status of other adult, edgy cartoons I love - South Park and Family Guy. It has absolutely nothing to do with those two titles. It's a very distinct type of TV altogether.

If you stick around for the first season, you'll have no choice but to become emotionally attached to these characters. And then, you are served with one of the deepest dives into depression, addiction and struggles of making it into show business. All on the back of a life of a failed actor still living off of the success of a TV show he starred in back in the 90's. With the minor detail that he is a talking horse.

It amazes me how a show about anthropomorphic animals made me feel and think so much more about life than 90% of the shows I have watched. And it nails that because of how believable its character development really is. Because of how truthful these character's struggles come across. Which I can only attribute to absolutely genius writing. There are no obvious happy endings. Just an ending. And guess what? That's infinity more relatable.

If you are looking to make you laugh all the time - I don't think Bojack Horseman is the best show out there. Aside from Bojack's sarcasm and Todd's antics, there's not a lot in this series that made me actually laugh out loud. Even the (I imagine successful) running gags like the animal puns or Princess Carolyn's alliterations aren't particularly funny to me.

Still, I stuck around. And I did because I became incredibly involved in these character's fate. I stopped seeing them as animals. It's just a minor detail in the show's plot.

Not only is the writing genius, it is incredibly innovative. There's an episode which is a 25 minute monologue of the title character. And I wasn't distracted for 2 seconds. There's another set under water which has no dialogue for 70% of it. This show was not afraid to do things differently. And I am really glad it saw the light of day nonetheless. Especially because I cannot find anything like it out there.

I am giving it a 9, not 10. Not sure why. But it surely made me go back and downgrade a lot of 9s to 8s for other TV shows. Because this brilliant show did not seize to surprise me at every turn.

I dove into Luther in the hope to find a new series to get addicted to. One that almost demands me to binge-watch it.

It delivers partly on that note, I must admit - it's intense, the plot is not afraid to be gruesome / gory and it's fairly condensed at 6 episodes in series 1, 4 in series 2. It also has that dark noir feeling to it.

Everything else disappointed me in Luther.

The premise is so worn over by now - the detective who doesn't play by the rules but gets results so the audience roots for him. Seriously? He commits a crime almost every episode. It's just not believable.

Perhaps worse - the writing is lazy. Everytime Luther cracks a case, he reaches a conclusion based on a hunch. Which is as plausible as any one-in-a-million hunch given by other policemen. But somehow he is always right. For someone reason he is able to guess things others can't see. But the audience never knows why. After watching shows like Sherlock, this is painful. Plus the dialogues are almost cringeworthy - they end episodes by having the characters saying "what now?". I mean, they might as well have them shout "please watch the next episode". If the suspense is built properly, then you needn't force it into the dialogues.

Overall I believe it had potential as a series but I think viewers who want a gripping mistery /police show are much better off watching True Detective or even Bodyguard.