PogoNeo

Theoretically this is no less than a good piece of cinema- and it is worth of seeing. But unfortunately thorough its entirety it has some inconsistencies, which makes this piece spoiled to the point of even diminishing it. {SPOILER ALERT} The epilogue shows that a stupid mistake noticed by the protagonist reveals the real truth and motives of the perpetrator-slash-victim - but thorough the entire movie there were some minor plot holes. And also the victim-act part of the perpetrator was going to work only if very specific conditions were met - of which he did not have control over and could not have predicted them to happen. ERGO: you can not make a semi-realistic crime drama with loosened rules and too farfetched modus operandi - and the expect the viewers at the very end to say "WOW" because of a great plot twist.

This flick is quite weak, with all those plot holes and unexplored ideas, thus making it kind of chaotic and underdeveloped. But all those good and interesting costumes and sets plus the overall quirkiness makes this feature an enjoyable spoof of space opera. In a mater of fact it is not merely a watchable one - but interesting enough for wanting to see it once more in the future. And it is even more funny than most of the "serious" comedies, even the modern ones - but its rating is lowered by it being quite conventional and because of its childishness and slapstick elements.

This 300 minute long paranormal mystery story start extremely boring - but an intelligent movie buff suspects that it is just an introduction that will lead most likely to some interesting developments. And in deed it does as it is a great horror, with extra ideas for showing the paranormal activities, with very fitting score and superb acting by Rebecca Ferguson. And you do not even have to know what happened in its prequel (but nevertheless it helps to get more out of it this one). Unfortunately aside from suffering from the non-cinematic 16:9 screen aspect ratio, the whole movie experience is spoiled with some character errors and plot holes like (SPOILER ALERT): why would the girl fighting supposed pedophiles with her unnatural powers jump in so quickly into her new clearly evil lifestyle and later on not even try to save herself by evoking her past good deeds?; why would Cliff Curtis' character apply so quickly and so much of suspension of disbelief to activities sold to him as being at the same criminal and unnatural when being told about them?; why would not the main adult protagonist inform at least the family of the young victim about his whereabouts after being quite clearly suggested to do to so by his soul mate i.e. The child protagonist?

(This review is gonna be very brief and not thorough- and will contain only mild spoilers which will not destroy the experience of watching)

This is an indie psychological thriller- and a very good. Tilda Cobham-Hervey was simply great as the main protagonist, a complex character; although one could diminish it by pointing out that her whole performance was kind of modeled after what Natalie Portman does. Suki Waterhouse was very good because she had to portray a not-so-obvious-bitch and she did it flawlessly. As for Josh Hutcherson as the antagonist- he was OK. And this whole movie would not fly if the actors would not rise up to the challenge. Also the sparse music fits nicely, but shining in one scene (the one with the locker)

It has only two major flaws. First is the scene with the bikers. It should not have been written like it was- they should just back out quietly, as it would be the most realistic thing to do in such situation, as to not draw attention and risk casualties. And the second one is also on the basis of realism / probability, which was a factor during this film-making, as it is never explained why the safe would be loaded with money, if most of the transactions (as established by the events) are made not with cash

Other than that: enjoy the movie

What is wrong with all those critics and people from the industry, showering this movie with accolades?

This "epic" motion picture constantly maneuvers between being borig-ish and plain boring, with the culmination part shifting to a plain boredom. At that point of the storytelling this is literally a telling of a story- watching the "movie" "scene" about the fish in the car it is like watching real life police officers reading out loud transcripts of tapes from wires during a court hearing. Throughout the overall 210 minutes only the epilogue is of real value- but that last part only lasts (depending on how you count it) around 20 of the ending minutes. And it is only then when this gang of old actors are playing believably people of different age- someone older than themselves that is. Because throughout the entire movie the viewer is feed with the supposition of the-CGI-makes-them-look-young-and-they-act-youthfully - but that is a total BS. The rages of Al Pacino are unintended parody of his earlier roles (and are even done intentionally in a matter of ageism humor), while the entire rest of cast is simply non convincing enough

In a matter of fact that epilogue is good enough that much, that it could be a stand alone short movie- and only because of that fragment this review is stamped with a 3/10 rating and not with a 2/10

This will be short as it goes like this:

Quality opening in an adventure western flick with comedic undertones- and that was OK. But then it turns into a serious drama which makes this flick a good motion picture- and that is great. But then for the last quarter or so it switches back to being an adventure- and that is horrible, as it is executed like a typical action stupidity fest for simpletons. Plus in the end it turns out that some of the characters are not utilized fully

Overall: do not avoid but just turn it off after the opening sequence, so to not waste time

"Tell No One" is a polish independent documentary founded by a couple of hundreds donors. It was made available free of charge on the Internet by the director, who is a known journalist in Poland- a country with a populace of about 38 500 000, ~90% of which is Catholic. And after exactly and merely 1 week since this motion picture went online it already had 19 500 000 views and over 64 000 comments beneath it (with a growing percentage of them being from foreigners)

What this movie is about?

It tells personal stories and struggles of victims of catholic priests, who sexually abused them or simply raped them, with confrontations between the now grownup children and the aged wrongdoers. It also shows step by step how the supervisors in Church should have known and / or indeed knew about these particular and such crimes in overall, but just ignored them or even made possible for new ones to happen. Last but not least it reveals that all of that is still going on, while the victims have to fight hard for the truth, their rights and even for a factual removal of such degenerated priests from the flock. Tragedies presented are various, with the oldest one being 40 years old and the newest one from the 2010's, also showcasing that both sexes were the target of male priests

What is this motion picture not?

It does not attack religion- one of the victims even became a priest himself. It does not advocacy for anything nor present organizations who fight with religions or with corruption within religious denominations (a segment about one has been removed from the final cut). It rarely call names, as it even often utilizes euphemisms, and leaves it mostly up to the viewers to drawn conclusions. And this motion picture almost does not go after pope John Paul II (a Pole himself), whose legacy is now questioned on the account of roaming pedophilia in the Church during his long time reign. But certainly it says nothing about government officials and politicians failing to protect the children. It is also not about the history of Catholic Church and the social background of it in Poland and it does not contain biographies

What is this documentary missing?

In course of the media frenzy after the premiere of this movie, some polish critics said that it lacked info about how communistic secret police recruited these very particular priests- thus gave them a supposed protection before the fall of communism in 1989. The director (along with his brother who was the producer) said after the premiere, that it was a conscious choice as to not distract from the main protagonists: the victims. But if we assume that such side information should have been included- then also the latter democratic judicial system and law order would had to be dissected. That post 1989 system is present to some extent in the movie, but it is not not presented in a negative light- which negativity in relation to policing agencies and enacted laws would not had been hard to show. But what could really benefit this documentary is a sample case of how some local community went against the families of victims and defended a molesting priest, as in past years such cases were reported by some polish media. That would expand and help to illustrate what an interviewed psychologist talks about and would also shed some light on what must be going inside the head of the first democratic polish president- Mr. Lech Walesa. In the political wake this movie had created in Poland, he commented on two sexual predators present in it, which whom he was closely affiliated with during his freedom fight and political carrier- by saying that knew nothing about their deviations so he simply cannot come to terms with crimes of his chaplains. And in regards to knowledge, this documentary does not inform always when a presented material took place. Also the font of subtitles for mumbled or anonymized speech and titles for location information are too small and too bright- on the technical side this film is simply missing a more readable font

What should not have been incorporated into this feature presentation?

Dramatization gimmicks. Of course movie buffs can argue, that all film productions can be called one big manipulation or alteration of reality. But aside from usual things like fade outs to black screen, "Tell No One" uses two obvious and intrusive cinematic gimmicks. First is inclusion of dramatic music. When one of the victims ends abruptly the meeting with the now retired priest, the viewers are fed with long continuous take from a hidden camera accompanied by what might be called sad strings- it is not diegetic music, but an original score. The video footage itself and its original sounds are more than enough in terms of emphasizing that victim's feelings. After all, this is suppose to be a dramatic documentary and not a drama flick- the music in it may be scarce, but nevertheless it manipulates the viewers when present. The second filmmaking trick is with (also scarce) alteration of (quite abundant) archive video and photo footage, making it look older and creepy. Although it rather OK to apply such effects for any new footage shot with purpose of recreating real events, it was also applied to e.g. quite fresh interview of (a priest) spokesperson of the polish catholic hierarchy. By the time that attempt to whitewash his compromised organization in front of a professional journalist is presented in this feature, viewers capable of critical thinking will be already outraged by what is said in that TV interview. And so altering of that footage is totally uncalled for- its original form is more than enough to shock the viewer

So, in overall is independent "Tell No One" an informative documentary about serious contemporary problems and a good movie made professionally enough? Yes

Should you watch it? Yes

And do tell everybody

First of all, the info for the fans of the originals: the story was completely remade but it retains many ideas / scenes from the anime movies and series. So if there is such category as a full scale remake, than this is it

Unfortunately the biggest problem with this adaptation is that this motion picture has way too much of popcorn-like obvious CGI. Most shots of the epic city and some of the action sequences are kind of disjointed as they look artificially cheap and at the same time they ring a plastic bell instead of evoking a deep dystopic feeling. This Hollywood version of GITS was released 25 years after "Blade Runner" and 18 years after "The Matrix"- and yet it comes (not all the time) as if the film industry technology was still not able to pull off such s-f endeavor. When watching, it can be often told what was a set, what was a location and what was a green screen. And what is more, this also goes for the fight scenes in regards to movement. So mix that with a lot of shoots of Disney-cyber-land and you will get an adequate picture of this motion picture

Also unfortunately, this review could be entitled "Ghost In The Cliché", because it has many of them. With the most annoying being the positive / neutral character smoking a cigarette- for which Hollywood imposes of course the capital punishment; and so you know right away the onscreen fate of that person

The third issue would be that there is way more action than character development. We know very little about the other Section 9 characters, to which belongs the main protagonist. And if there would be more thrill driven scenes instead of just shooting guns and melee combats, then that would also benefit this adaptation

As for the philosophical issues within that futuristic world, there are just slightly touched upon. For example there is this scene of main female character (the Major) getting all emotional with a woman on a street. But the viewers have to guess that it is a prostitute and also have to imagine, that after the short talk and after the feeling of her skin, there was at least an attempt from a cyborg (the Major) of having a sexual intercourse with a human professional (to experience what it means to be human). And what is even worst, they did shot a kiss scene between them but it was not included in the final cut. But at least there is this one great scene of diving into a machine for hacking purposes, which was made in an excellent surreal form (so the hacking is visualized, but in a completely different artistic way than in the anime features and series)

So the question is: what happened to this yet another adaptation of that (adult themed) manga? And the answer is: PG-13. All in all, it is the aiming at the PG-13 rating that is to be blamed for making the long awaited Hollywood GITS so mediocre: no swearing, no blood, no sex; no Ghost

This movie is at the same time the best and the worst of what the Hollywood can offer to movie enthusiasts. Because it is a cinematic syphilis on steroids And here is a list of main reasons for the negative labeling:

• weak dialogues
• among around dozen of characters, the female ones were reduced to only two, who exchange with each other around the same amount of sentences (two)
• main female character most of her time on the screen is shown wearing a body top (but for some perverse reason in a gray color instead of the standard horny white)
• stereotypical Angry Black Man, played by no other than Samuel L. Jackson
• comedy relief delivered by comedic actor who is so funny, that you smile as much as two times; almost
• setting the story in specific time of mankind history and then ignoring it by showing usage of advanced computers, not available for something like the next 20 years
• untrained soldiers and / or nonprofessionals using at easy all kind of machine guns and melee weapons
• ignoring the laws of physics by for example standing close to a gargantuan fire and not getting burned
• a scene after the end credits announcing the sequel
• very mediocre music score
• PG-13

As for the positives: it had a big budget and you can tell it right away. And yes, it is entertaining to watch palm trees vs. helicopters combat, amplified by a slow down of a song; and yes, the final fight is also impressing. Aside from the graphical artifacts with colors in the 2D version and its issues with sharpness of image, the whole technical side of this movie is at the top. But that is the core problem with this one: that is has no core. It is just a shiny packaging with nothing inside but some explosions and fights mixed with some clichés and with only a tiny pinch of essence And so, a king size pile of turd in a colorful wrapping paper deserves a 3/10. Although it is a comforting thought, that this reincarnation of King Kong only three months after its premiere has a mere 6.8 rating on the IMDb, while the previous one by Peter Jackson initially had 8.3 but it took a decade to bring it down to a more appropriate 7.2 grade. But still, none of them is much more than a waste of time (and in no way do they deserve at best anything than an average rating of 5/10)

How in just a few words presents itself the very last work of the supposed master of the cinema art, Mr. Stanley Kubrick? Plot holes; numerous. Rachitic and repetitive music, to the point of being annoying. Comedic thus completely out of place first of the two scenes at the costume shop. Very, very bad cheesy conversation with the masked woman at the orgy. Lack of proper pace and stretched scenes resulting in a completely unnecessary long screening time. To sum up: a failed movie. It is not like everything in it is bad, but overall it is a weak one

Some positive reviews say that all plot holes or artificial look of (staged) New York are to be a supposed hints at the dream nature of the events. But such claims are of equal value as those in regards to for example the bad lightning in "The Godfather" (1972), saying that it was done on purpose to underline the shady nature of Corleone family. But one of the actually good things in "Eyes Wide Shut" is Nicole Kidman. Unfortunately, she only has the supporting part while Tom Cruise on the other hand in his lead acting reverts way to often to that characteristic rascally wicked grin of his- a gimmick performed by him in probably half of his movies. And if you want to count as goodies "great tits" (to quote the movie), we do get to see a lot of them. But then again, the orgy itself does not go all the way and so does not hers sailor fantasy. there are both important and yet not fully utilized, thus this picture it a sexed up drama but with not enough sex in it. And also on the sexuality note: what was the purpose of that out of the blue scene of pedestrians shouting some homophobic slurs at the main character and that other later scene with a male hotel desk clerk clearly hitting on him? It is not explored further and probably only time will tell if that was the director laughing at gossips about Cruse's supposed homosexuality or was this the director shoveling them in the actor's face; or was this just another inconsistency of "Eyes Wide Shut"

The side of the movie dealing with the mystery of that whole orgy society instead of evolving into a full thriller just fizzled out with almost nothing. We do see some investigative work and some threats, but nothing really happens; while the paste continuous to be extremely slow. As for the marriage-adultery portion of the movie, it ends up with a confrontation / confession that the viewers do not actually get to see- contrary to what Tom Cruise says to his on screen and then also real life wife ("I'll tell you everything"). It is as if after two and a half hours of already edited up footage, Kubrick finally came to his senses and realized that the film is way too long; and so he decided to speed things up from that point, by cutting to the aftermath of this conversation. And that is truly disappointing, because the argument of the protagonist couple near the beginning had some real acting value in it. And also because it is a clear sign of laziness in script writing (just how many times do we see in movies, especially in comedies, a bold defiant statement that should be followed by extremely entertaining / interesting scene, but instead of that the filmmakers diffuse problems of difficult / sophisticated execution of it by simply jumping over it?)

To sum up: calling "Eyes Wide Shut" a masterpiece is a total misunderstanding. But if you do want to see a great piece of cinema work by Stanley Kubrick, then please go see his "Paths Of Glory" (1957) or the "2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968); but that other one only to the point when the s-f ends and that colorful rambling begins. Because let us be honest- not everything what Kubrick did was extraordinary / important / engaging. And his last picture is an example of a painfully bad end to a long and profound career; seeing this movie for the second time, at least 15 years after the first screening, only made the boredom experience twice as hard to bear

This film starts out as a hardcore action thriller set in a dystopic war driven world. Unfortunately, very soon it reveals its true genre: of artistic surrealism. And the problem with this "art" is that this surreal drivel just goes for ever, but never really catches the viewer either by the hart or mind. Instead of this, it just gradually builds up a huge disregard for a movie that presented itself with an excellent opening

Of course one can indulge self in seeking the true meaning of a given scene, hidden messages or themes running throughout the film. For example this movie as a whole could be viewed as a battle of a sexes. And the scene with the killing of the bird by the girl combined with the showing of the painting depicting a killing of a similar bird by a painted woman could imply, that the girl and the woman are the one and the same person; thus making girl and / or woman unreal. Or maybe even that also the elderly woman is the same person as the girl and that woman, because the repeated breastfeeding symbolizes a never ending cycle of life, happening even in the time of war blah-blah-blah how much more boring can this movie get? Was the often running around of the girl also to mean something, or was it only put in the film to wake up the audience falling asleep?

Aside from a great black and white movie poster, this picture presents us with an extraordinary performance by the leading actress Cathryn Harrison, who must have been of only 15 or 16 years of age at the time of the shooting. Other than that this picture is just a disappointment for the dystopic / sci-fi movie seekers and in overall a surreal waste of time. So in contusion: yes, watch it; but only up to the scene, in which the elderly woman starts a conversation with the animal (which happens 23 minutes into the picture)

This picture is epically overrated- it is not the number 46 of the 250 best movies, like the IMDb ratings system states at the time of writing of this review. Because it simply never should have been even near such top 250 list. Aside from a clearly visible big budget, only three things are worth of mentioning: shots of hand brushing thorough stalks of wheat (which are iconic), "Are you not entertained?!" shout out moment (of intensive emotions) and the point of story when there is a conspiracy created "to get him out" (which in turn leads to a few minutes of enjoyable suspense). Other than that, this picture is quite boring and mediocre

It is suppose to be an epic story, but it does not suck you in on any scale. Instead of that it just epically blows, like if it was a giant blown egg shell- decorated on the outside, but empty on the inside. Even the very first battle in the woods has some stupid visual techniques, with addition of some dog disguised as a wolf saving his master- and what a load of kitsch that was. And the kitsch comes back in epic size at the grand finale- the only missing thing at that point is a group of gladiators singing "Kumbaya" to the crowd of cheering and crying spectators

In this picture even the music is way below expectations. Yes, there are some good moments, but overall in the beginning and at the end the music is rather weak, while in the middle it is somewhat without a taste or noticeable substance. And what is more, the Wikipedia says that Hans Zimmer took some of this music from Gustav Holst and Richard Wagner. But there is more to it- most likely he also borrows from Henryk Gorecki. And on top of that, some tracks sound like a reworked version of music from "The Rock" [1996]", which Hans Zimmer co-composed; and also there is a musical motive in the "Gladiator" that he later on simply reused for the "Pirates Of The Caribbean" movie series. But what is the most disturbing in regards to the score is the fact, that he got nominated for that work by Academy Awards, while the co-composer Lisa Gerrard did not. So it is just ridiculous that the music which is at best mediocre got nominated, but at the same time it is scandalous, that only the man of the two persons that created it received such nomination. (Of course all those Oscars prizes for music / songs should not be viewed as something like some kind of musical Metre Convention agreements)

But what is most important- it does not matter, if you watch this movie in crappy conditions at the time of its release when you are entering your young adulthood, or if you watch it some 15 years later on a good home cinema system when you are an adult. It is still boring and also flat to some extent

Do not waste your time on this one. Go watch a "Spartacus" (2004) instead- although it is a TV movie and was not intended to play in the same league as Ridley Scott does with his big bucks flicks, that "Spartacus" beats the "Gladiator" almost to the ground (but also in no way constitutes as one of the 250 greatest movies ever made)

If you are either a cinema enthusiast in general or just a science fiction flicks fan, and somehow was able to sit through the entirety of "Project Moon Base" (1953) telling a story about an orbital survey mission changing into unplanned Moon landing, you can come to this conclusion: there are just light years of filmmaking between similar themed 1953 and 2015 movies. That first one does not get even the basic science elements right and has naively stupid and childish script, resulting in a picture just doomed to not withstand the test of time; while the newer "The Martian" is both so accurate / logical as a non-documentary feature can be and is technically at the highest levels

Unfortunately that great distance shrinks noticeably in the middle of this newer movie, when the first part of the absolutely thrilling and entertaining Robinson "The Martian" Crusoe hits the scene of kindergarten-like pandering to the Chinese audience. (Because let us Hollywood executives and investors do not forget, that our beloved comrades on Mainland China have more cinemas than we here have in The-US-Of-A-Land and that only thirty something foreign titles per year get a full distribution in China). It slowly but inevitably shifts from an excellent survival drama with educational values to a mediocre drama with more adventure driven orientation, sticking mostly to the entertainment side. Practically it is no longer a drama but a tragedy- a tragedy of a downfall from a possible 10 / 10 picture to a flick with a score of only 6-7 / 10. For example they start to put all those "classic" (boring) songs, and not just in fragments. Why, just why did they use the excellent "All Along The Watchtower" by Jimmy Hendrix in the trailer (and for that purpose even creatively remixed it a little), but in the movie itself they took the path of least resistance of using that kitschy "Starman" by David Bowie (and in its entirety)?

And that final rescue attempt, with more and more layers of obstacles? Were those space cowboy stunts really conceived some time before 2015 and not in 1953?

The first movie was a serious psychological dystopia on the topic of dehumanization, in particular of an inmate and in general of the society; that unfortunately after the first half had this very noticeable transition, ending with a rather disappointing finale in a style of B class action movies. And that shift was so profound, that even the (not so great) music (greatly) matching what was shown on the screen was practically removed during that transition, only to come back when the more action oriented last quarter of that first movie have started

And with this sequel, they took a practically different approach. The music is even worst and does not evoke any feelings in conjunction with the on screen events. Also the dystopic ingredient is somewhere in the back while the action is more in the front. But aside from the opening scene, the rest is coherent; unlike in the first picture of this duology. So if the viewer will enjoy the first 10-20 minutes (once the action is placed in the prison), then this joy will last to the end; unlike in the first picture of this diptych

Yes- there are plot holes and behaviors illogical to some extent, that normally would disqualify any movie from taking it serious. But that is the whole point- if you do not take it seriously, just in the terms of action comedy and not a drama, you will simply enjoy it. There are numerous great and funny moments, like when a female co-pilot is apparently learning how to dock under the supervision of the experienced male pilot. Both those characters are played absolutely great, especially given that the male pilot has only few spoken lines and the co-pilot only has one. Also, one of the characters from the hero's team of escapees that has a damaged brain is portrayed with such a craft, that he just makes the hero of the story look somewhat bleak

Aside from the cheap special effects and story that has only traces of being complex, this is a great entertainment. It is somewhat similar in style to the new "Mad Max: Fury Road" (2015): in that when put on paper it seems stupid and boring; but when put all together and presented on the screen, it is just so damn entertaining (and positively different from previous installments)

Fantastic movie. Until around the time Wes Anderson starts adding up his "fantastic" ideas to the original story from the book (which is around the time when the animals start digging in the middle of the picture). There are also some major changes even from the get go, but that first half is really something both enjoyable and clever. But then this out of ordinary and interesting stop motion picture goes down the drain, turning into yet another boring and somewhat stupid animation; with a climax (of this stupidity) in a form of jumping a fence on a motorcycle, by using a ramp that was placed there apparently for no logical reason. Yeah, let us just turn this movie into shallow action comedy

After witnessing that jump scene, no sane film enthusiast should dare to speak of this cinematic endeavor in terms of having a proper script. But than again: what else can you expect from Wes Anderson, that "artistic" writer-slash-director?

If you watch the trailer, it will be somewhat misleading, because the explosion of a ship does not really happen in the movie, among other things shown in the promo. But the bigger issue with this war academy movie is this: it has not enough soldier's life in it, while at the same time is has way too much sport in form of boxing, especially near the end. And also, like so many others pictures about men becoming soldiers (cops, firefighters, lifeguards etc.), it has a romance in it, panning to the female portion of the audience; which is a serious problem haunting not only the Hollywood film industry. Unfortunately in this case, Jordana Brewster is just not cut out from the same material as Demi "J.I. Jane" Moore and as such is not believable as an US Navy instructor. On the other hand, the rest of the cast probably could not be better

Although that extensive amount of boxing and preparation for the matches could also be viewed as a plus, because of them this "peacetime war" movie is not so typical as you could expect. And also the matches are presented not from A-to-Z way. For example from the second one only the finale is shown, with entertaining camera work; while in the third one there is this climax moment that is not the end of a fight, which is achieved by a slow motion technique in combination with extraordinary music of Brian Tyler. And that is another quality of this picture- the original score, with both nostalgic / love theme and energetic and not so classical-like action music. But on top of that, there is also very good music supervision, resulting in a a great usage of the song "Different Stars" by Trespassers William and "Born Too Slow" by The Crystal Method

All in all, this is not a war epic nor a great movie, but simply a good execution of interesting story and characters, with the US Navy serving merely as a setup. And most definitely it is not that stupid and / or boring, as some negative user reviews from IMDb describe it

This is a survival zombie picture, a quite slow one, with some action only later on. Of course those who liked this picture will probably say to that, that it is a character driven movie, with emphasis on both known and unknown threats, simply showing day to day survival after a big war somewhere in the future. But if it is suppose not to be an action flick, then why did they put in it that one typical zombie extermination scene? Also: why do they talk so much about means of survival and take care in maintaining order in the group to the degree of keeping reports from scavenger expeditions, and yet they have such holes in their defenses that it just beyond logical comprehension? And how did that lonely survivor was able not only to live outside that group for so long, but also at the same time in such vicinity to them, while staying under their radar? Things like that just show in clear sight, how (unfortunately) bad this movie really is

And the big plot twist at the end that reveals "the truth", could be the attempt of trying to save the movie by giving also a sense to the whole situation (and specially that other threat that is not named in this short review). But that twist does exactly the opposite, adding more faulty ideas. Because in the end that other (aside zombies) physical threat just does not make any sense. Was that suppose to be a thriller or horror? Sci-fi or fantasy? Or just a waste of film resources and the time of viewers?

This is surely not a science fiction movie. Unfortunately that is the problem with IMDb genres system: it does not have a "dystopia" or "apocalyptic" category, and as such often shows as a s-f something that has very little or nothing to do with that genre

This is a European low budget picture that makes the mistakes of a Hollywood big budget B-class movies. It slowly but inevitably degrades to a boring disappointment

This movie presents to its viewers a series of odd, unlikely and improbable events, glued together with apocalyptic love story. Or to be more precise: epic love stories revolving around the main male character; that interact and overlap with each other, thus creating a kind of chaos. And the splitting of the told story into two timelines, was officially intended as a way of making this picture more interesting and / or artistic. But in reality, this is just an artsy gimmick that serves as a blunt cover up for a poor script

That pretty bad script delivers a slow action, witch is not suppose to be a minus in a movie like that. But it also jumps from place to place for doubtful reasons. They probably just kept pushing buttons in a malfunctioning story generator, which gave the movie results like switching from an affair in Spain to a snowy Canada with bandits on snowmobiles (which are still connected to each other of course). And was that generator used originally for the book or only later on for the transformation of the book material into a movie script, it does not really matter. Because the story is quite bad and sometimes even laughable

If you expect to experience apocalyptic or dystopic themes, there are some but serving only as background for a quite sexed up drama, that turns into a road movie. Although there is this one scene definitely worth watching, because of both the high quality cinematography and mood: when a lone character roams a deserted city in a pitch black, making a way through it with a big flashlight. But this scene is simply out of place, because it belongs to a more thriller / horror driven movie pictures. And what is more, the scene that tells us more about what kind of movie this really is, is the one where certain nude characters are running in a still functioning city. Or the scene when the viewers find out that a parent had sex with a descendant, because it is the end of the world and there are no moral or legal consequences any more

Well, if you use a broken story generator, there are consequences: waste of ideas and of good acting

The story is so banal and predictable, that for over half of the characters you know how what was their past, the moment the show up on screen and says just a few lines. You also often instantly know how they are gonna end up and that you are watching the particular scene in which they will die. This movie has illogical events and simply stupid behavior of individuals. As for the music, it is as if it was written by some Hollywood composer at least 30 years ago. And Johnny Deep instead of acting, under the Tim Burton's weak direction delivers this display of severe case of face paralysis. And yet, some real movie Experts from US Of A wanted to give him an Oscar, apparently for that screaming / howling of his; but fortunately, they settled him only with an totally unearned Golden Globe

If it was not for the good showcase of London of the nineteenth century, this almost absolutely boring musical would have earned the 1/10 rating

It is just that and almost nothing more: a slapstick for uneducated people; who when watching a movie do not want to or do not like to bother their minds with things like plot, plausibility of events or laws of physics. If in reality nobody acts the way those various characters act and objects do not work the way that is shown on the screen, then it is no problem for those kind of viewers. And it should be no problem for others as well, because it is suppose to be an adventure fantasy comedy (with elements of musical), that even has a kind of a proper disclaimer at the beginning. But the problem is, that this picture is simply not funny. With an exception of one laugh and 2 or 3 smiles, this comedy is just boring, predictable and annoying

The only thing of value in it are the shots of high quality, in their entirety: lighting, sets, special effects; all those technical and visual aspects of the film. They not only stood the test of time in comparison to many other movies of that era. Moreover, for a film made in the Eastern Bloc, its quality is simply amazing when compared to other movie productions of economically struggling communist countries. (Although some part of this comes probably out from restoration process for the digital release)

And having pointed that out, it is no wonder that this movie is what it is- a sweet pill for the masses brutalized by a communist system. And it is not like this is "a stupid piece of cinematic feces", just because "it was made in the 70's in the USSR". Hollywood was making back then and still is making the same kind of unfunny comedic garbage for simpletons, just like the Russians did with this movie, but only without Benny-Hill-like running around (which Ivan Vasilevich is abundant of). Probably there are even more much worst "comedies" made in USA per decade now, than there were made thorough the entire Soviet period of Russian cinematography

This movie is full of clichés and is predictable from the get go (with an exception of one later scene). But the fact that it is boring only to some extent and that it is stupid only in a moderate way, will not land him a rating higher than 1/10. And there is just no sense in describing what exactly is wrong with it, because when you take such used up sport or parents-children relations stories like this one, and then execute them in (at best) a mediocre way, then you do not deserve such any extra attention for such "work"

Of course there will be those who will say "But wait a minute! Isn't this suppose to be a family movie, for the so called everyone? Or enjoyable at least to the kids? And as such shouldn't be hold to standards of serious / realistic cinema?". Well, this picture was (correctly) rated PG-13. And as for the family values presented in this picture, they are very dubious. Because what does the father teach his son? To break and entry. To loot someone's property but at the same time to ditch his partner in crime when you get tired. To avoid paying debts. To litter on the street. To not trust police when being a victim of a health threatening crime. To not go to the hospital after being beaten. And on top of that, you can add cruelty toward animal done for fun (to which, amongst other things, the character of the son is not exposed to- but hypothetical child viewer is)

Just like you can eat real food or junk food, you can watch a real movie or some junk movie. And this film is big pile of junk. For real

Interesting story. Beautiful shots of nature. A look at how the inland of US was build. Details in scenography. Real tensions between characters. Etc.

Unfortunately this movie is just too good to be so good right down to its end. I simply breaks down in the finale. Sadly, there is this switch from high quality to a somewhat lower level of movie-making for the last 20 minutes or so

And of course there is the problem of Bradley Cooper- the performer with capabilities adequate for TV chopping channel, who somehow became an successful actor. He plays the main male character, annoying the viewers with his presence. What a bummer this is

This movie is just unwatchable. Around 2/3 of what the viewer sees is simply annoying to the point of mental vomiting: characters, plot, visual effects, jokes. The rest is either boring or cheesy / kitschy: dialogs, camera work, acting, the sex scene. And those very few moments / ideas of some real content or value are always quickly covered with layers of cinematic oddness conceived in a wrong way

Counting on that after few more minutes this horror is going to stop is just futile- it goes on and on in the same sick style for at least 50 minutes. Because after those 50 minutes you would have to be a hard core sadomasochist to watch even few more minutes further. It is simply awful and painful to watch. It is a pure torture

This movie does not not deserve the 1/10 rating. If should be rated as 0/10

If you want to see a Vonnegut's adaptation, or cinematic oddness conceived in a good way, go watch the extraordinary "Slaughterhouse-Five" (1972). And then you can watch the "Mother Night" (1996); but only up to the point when a black Nazi from Harlem shows up on the screen, because after that it kind of starts to go down the toilet, to the pipe leading in the similar direction as the "Breakfast Of Champions" does

Your position in Hollywood is gigantic, because you are the maker of the (boring but) technically innovative and commercially successful The Lord Old The Rings Trilogy: you have written, directed and produced it. So you take the iconic subject of King Kong, because apparently you can do now whatever you want. You would probably even get away with making some kind of the "The King Kong In Space" attempt, which could be at least interesting / avant-gardeish

But instead you just make a quite boring movie for simpletons, not utilizing fully the acting capabilities of Naomi Watts and Adrien Brody, with the King Kong performing an ice ballet in Central Park in New York City

So, that is a nice one Peter Jackson: you have truly disappointed the world of cinema enthusiasts. You had everything at hand, but yet you made such a king sized turd of cinema?

Of course people at the time of the release do not realize how bad your film is and even praise this mildly commercial success: in December 2005 the rating on IMDb is 8.3. But now, after a little over a decade, it goes down to 7.2. So the question is: how long will it take till it drops to 6.1, a rating more suited for another one of your bad movies? Of course we will not probably ever see it with the 5.0 rating, but if it was to happen- even this would be a way too much for this complete waste of time

And it is just totally mind puzzling Mr. Jackson, how on earth did you happen to make such a good piece of cinema as "Heavenly Creatures" in 1995. Incomprehensible

Unfortunately the best part were the closing titles: with visually astounding stuff like arrows flying in closeup slow motion or an axe breaking ice sculpture of a bird; accompanied by a song "Castle" by Helsey, slightly reworked for the movie to its benefit. And on top of that, those end titles simply did their job: they ended the movie, which happened to be a festival of averageness. Because this movie is not very bad. But it is just a waste of Hollywood's resources

This is a sequel that is a little better and more interesting than the quite bad first installment (which is a quite of a surprise). But it is still only a waste of few good ideas and visual aspects, like an astounding architecture or a snake covered with skin made of grass (with the latter one being a thing that is simply repeated from the first film, among other things). And this movie is also a clear case of waste of severe acting by Charlize Theron and Emily Blunt near its end (which is counter parted throughout the movie with performance efforts by Chris "Actor" Hemsworth). Even the music has only a few moments above the average movie score

So unless you like fantasy, action / adventure or Charlize Theron, you probably will not find in this picture anything of worth