athena24

There is a lot to like about 'Wonder Boys': very good acting, quirky, funny situations and nice camera work. Despite all that the movie as a whole doesn't work. Maybe it's because the characters lack a better background story. Maybe because the transition from one scene to another is not too clear.

It is still makes a nice watch due to the quality acting, primarily from Michael Douglas and Robert Downey Jr and several very funny scenes. It is still a Curtis Hanson movie and quality is preserved. We see the grainy images as in '8 mile' and the object and facial closeups, but the story lacks coherency.

The story starts well and there are are a few really cool slow motion shots, but the editing/cutting is quite horrible and unnecessary dramas (that also present in 2004 police story) degrade the experience. There are a few fights and stunts but you can't fully appreciate it because of the many close-up camera angles on one hand and fast cutting on the other. A very mediocre experience.

In an era where half of the movies are hyper-infused with CGI and the other half looks cheap, this is a real treat. This is a well scripted, well acted and wonderfully shot movie with frequent touches of creativity. It is such a pleasure to see a movie so beautifully crafted, where it takes just a few shots and several lines to understand the characters.

The story is not perfect, but the storytelling was extremely skillful as the director seemed to care about all the little details. I felt that I was treated with respect.

The Last Duel has a lot to offer: Great acting, interesting plot, historical references, and several exceptional scenes. It is a very well made movie on many levels. The scenes are structured well, constantly adding content and enriching the experience.

Acting is the best part. The characters are well defined and seem real. I think all the actors made a good job with Jodie Comer being quite exceptional.

It was also a good movie from historical point of view, showing the filth, the brutality, the futility of war and the absurdity of the rationalization of the church.

Now to the most debated aspect of the movie: the structure. Apart of one scene, there almost no repetition. Each of the stories adds much more new occurrences (and new scenes) than just being a different point of view of the same scene. So generally, I didn't find the movie being repetitive at all, despite its structure. That being said, it's not without shortcomings. The different stories are not conflicting, but rather complementing each other. And so the notion of 'The truth according to..." is just not relevant. They all add to the same story. It doesn't make the plot worse, but it definitely not according to what I had expected.

To sum it up, I think 'The Last Duel' is a very good movie.

After reading the reviews, here on IMDB, my expectations were set accordingly and unfortunately, 'No Time to Die' didn't surpass them. I will make a short list of the things I liked and what disappointed me in this movie:.

The good:

• Bond's first action sequence.

• Acting from most of the involved.

• I think that Daniel Craig portrayed Bond respectfully, similar to the previous installments.

The disappointing:

• Last action sequence. More of a 'shoot them up' than a properly staged/choreographed fight sequence. It felt rather cheap as well.

• Villain. Not enough screen time. No charisma, no real motives.

• Pace. I can't say it drags bug I had a genuine lack of interest towards what's happening.

'Interstate 60' is a light movie and despite being made in the early 2000's, it looks like the product of the eighties. Including the kitsch and the cheesiness involved. Generally, I thought it started kind of slow but gradually improved as the movie went on.

The things I liked:

• The story. It's original and rich. Not everything is great, but overall, I really appreciate the effort.

• Has genuinely funny moments.

• Never boring. You know how it ends, but you still want to see what's next.

• The lawyer town is a stroke of genius. Very smart and very funny episode.

The not so much:

• There was no real bond between me, the viewer, and the main character. Mainly because some of his actions made him look rather unlikable (nothing too serious but I wouldn't applaud such behavior). Also, there was no real depth to him.

• Visually too simple. It really could have used some atmospheric visuals/score to augment the surrealism.

• O. W. Grant's problem was really unnecessary.

My conclusion, is that if you have a mood for a light movie and don't mind a bit of surrealism, this one is a good choice. Eventually it bears a good message as well - which is follow your heart - even if it is not as pronounced as one would expect.

Whoever's review I was reading, everybody seem to agree on the superb technical aspects of the movie. The scenery and the camera work was impeccable. The delivery by Lubna Azabal (Nawal Marwan) was tense and emotionally charged.

The split timelines however was a mixed bag for me. Although the 'children's timeline' added narrative to the story, it 'stole' screen time from the 'mother's timeline' which was by far more compelling. In fact, nothing really occurred during the 'children's timeline'.

As for the twist, I didn't find it shocking. Maybe because it was contrived, and maybe because - comparing to the prior occurrences - it was an anticlimax. It wasn't bad, but I didn't feel it was a strong resolution either.

My biggest complaint was the evident bias, presented in this movie, with regard to the atrocities done by each fighting party. I tried to explain to myself that this is Nawal's point of view, but that just kept accumulating into being a one sided interpretation of the war. Personally, I find it irresponsible.

Jason Statham retained all his toughness but lost all of his charisma. Right now he's just a constant frowned face walking around through the whole movie. Mumbling words that you can barely understand. Unfortunately, lately this is the usual case of his movies.

Other than that, the cast is pretty decent. Scott Eastwood in a rather memorable performance, with few lines but very effective expression as the menacing villain.

The plot is OK, told from different timelines to make the story more interesting. Some of the aspects - such as Jason Statham's shooting skills - are needlessly exaggerated, while others - such as heist detailing were rather good.

My main problem with movie - as someone already pointed out - is that I didn't feel anything. No emotions whatsoever. And I wonder whether this would have benefited having a different actor instead of the cardboard portrayal of Jason Statham or would it be just the same.

Nowhere near its' influences. The action is mediocre. It lacks the intensity of 'Atomic Blonde' or 'John Wick'. Opposed to the aforementioned movies, it tries to be funny. Personally, I didn't find it even mildly entertaining.

If you're not tired of super assassins that can kill an army without blinking that might be your movie. If you like seeing people kill other people for fun and then laugh about it, then maybe. Otherwise, there's just not enough reason to watch it.

'Goldstone' features same atmospheric scenes and landscapes as Mystery Road, which alone makes it an interesting watch. The technical aspects - acting, cinematography and action - are very good. The plot is OK, but the storytelling is not as good as in Mystery Road.

It's not a detective story as in in Mystery Road, where the viewers follow the main character as he unveils the events. 30 minutes into the movie we know everything. So the plot is rather absent. But the atmosphere is there and there's slightly more action than in 'Mystery Road'.

'Mystery Road' is an Australian cousin of Alberto Rodriguez's Marshlands. Very similar in nature and production (things like areal shots). And (almost) equally as good.

The portrayal of the investigation is very interesting. It's much less chewed up than Hollywood, and you need to connect some dots by yourself. This is mostly good, however, in some cases it's hard to follow with only assumptions of what and why. This also leaves some open questions. One more thing, is that despite the very interesting progression of events, I wasn't emotionally attached to any of the characters.

Casting is great and cinematography is superb.

This movie made me think less of Rachel McAdams, who I think is one of the most loveliest actresses. In 'Game Night' she stepped into Jennifer Aniston's territory of rather dumb, flat comedies. Did she really think it's a good script?

Although I wasn't intrigued by the concept from the beginning, it had some semi-sophisticated jokes, which made me laugh slightly. But once the 'real' game started, It lost me. It became the usual case of trading sophistication with fights, shots, guns etc... Can't it be something more interesting that 'Oh baby, I shot you, I'm sorry' stuff? Is this what supposed to make me laugh?

Mid-movie, it became an apparent waste of time for me. I was bored. I turned it off.

Really nice romantic comedy carried mostly by good cast and clever writing. The balance between romance and comedy works and leans slightly towards the latter having enough funny jokes to hold the movie. The writing is witty and somewhat original. Not everywhere, but for the majority it feels so. It's not that all jokes land well, but there are enough that do, which kept me entertained through the whole movie. And while non of them made me grab my belly, they were certainly funny. Somehow, the writers also managed to avoid the obvious territories, such as sex and toilet jokes. The cast makes the movie work. Charlize Theron is exceptional. She just gets better and better with every role she plays. Always so delightful to watch her. June Diane Raphael was also a great casting choice. Seth Rogen is certainly not my cup of coffee but he fits the role. It is more mature than the usual Seth Rogen role/movie - which I think is a good thing.

I'm quite confused about the polarizing reviews here. The excellent cast alone makes it for a very watchable movie. It is a very well played movie to be given something below 4 star rating (in my opinion). The scale is right. Direction and camera work look professional.

Now, the plot is not without shortcomings. Largely, there are too many Deus ex machina moments to take this movie seriously - which, given the film's topic, and excellent realistic character portrayal, betrays the movie badly.

Run Hide Fight is not a popcorn movie as there are no 'cool' fights or shootouts. These are made in a more realistic manner. However, the unpolished writing prevents it from being a real winner.

'Boss Level' to 'Edge of Tomorrow' is like 'The Thirteenth Floor' to 'Matrix'. At least that was I felt after watching it. Same idea presented in a downscaled version. And actually, the budget ratio of the two pair of movies is about the same (1/4).

If you saw 'Edge of Tomorrow', this one probably won't add much novelty. Jokes, techniques, skill mastering... all been done in 'Edge of Tomorrow'. Yet, it was done nicely and it managed to keep me interested till the end. And it didn't hold on, so slept very well afterwards.

There is a saying in Russian: "Neither meat nor fish", which refers to something with an unclear taste. This is exactly what comes to my mind when I think about The Adjustment Bureau. It's not a bad movie, but doesn't have anything to stand out from the crowd. It has a nice plot and well played but lacks charisma and real drama to it. I watched it with my wife, and it's not a bad movie to spend an evening for a couple, but nothing to recommend either. Watchable but forgettable.

I finished watching the movie at midnight and the first thing I did after watching the movie was to hug my sleeping 3 year old daughter. I lied beside her, trying to fall asleep, but just couldn't. 'What happened to Monday' couldn't let me go.

I think the movie succeeded on all levels. Great concept, and overall a very well written story. The execution is quite awesome as well. With the amount of stunts, action, spot on CGI and it's 2 hour runtime it looks much more than it's 20 million dollar budget.

The technical aspects are great. The action is well choreographed. It looks real. It's violent, though without being too graphical about it (as is trended recently). The pace is perfect. Not one boring moment, having a clear progression of the events.

However, the best part is the intensity of the characters. At first, I wasn't sure, Noomi Rapace is the right actress to play the siblings, but after 30 minutes I was so immersed within the movie that I really forgot about it. I started to care for each of the siblings and more than once I was at the edge of my seat as to what happens next. By the end of the watch I couldn't think of anyone else pulling off this kind of role.

There were some discrepancies that I though as rather illogical, though they couldn't hurt the emotions I was having when watching the movie. What Happened to Monday made me care, made me think and it made me feel. Add to that clear sci-fi concept and intense action sequences and you get a hell of a movie.

I saw Anna Faris as a side kick in My Super Ex-Girlfriend and Just Friends - where she was definitely the best part of the movies. Now it's her show and she doesn't disappoint.

The movie is dumb, cliched and rehashed from every other school/college movie you've seen before. But it has Anna Faris and she fits well to the concept. It has Emma Stone (which became a wonderful actress) as a sidekick but this is the Anna Faris show.

Bottom line: it did what it meant to do - it made me laugh, a lot!!!

While a good movie in its core, I found myself cringing more than once and asking 'was it necessary'? Great, ingenious concept but through the mind journey it drifted too much into awkward hallucinations than focusing on relationship and what went wrong (And this is the main thing here - the relationship).

I think Kate Winslet is one of the best actresses of her generation. She's fully in and committed to the role. Best part of the movie. Unfortunately, didn't feel the same for Jim Carrey here. I wish I could see more Joel Barish (his character) than Jim Carrey but I saw the grimaces and it was hard to avoid.

I was also pleasantly surprised with Mark Ruffalo and Kirsten Dunst performance. Not so much with Elijah Wood's.

Technically this is a masterpiece. The leads are superb, great supporting cast, beautiful scenery, amazing camera work and absolutely fantastic editing. The plot is very interesting (and sadly relevant) but some redundant coincidence and loosing pace towards the end made me lower my score for the movie.

The acting is incredible. Not just good, incredible. Stellar cast performing a stellar work.

The editing is also worth to mention again. It delivers the message in a subliminal, but very effective way. It makes you feel and understand the love between the leads' characters.

Very good movie.

Crown Vic is a low budget cop movie. And this really detracts from it being better. This feeling of "cheapness' presents through the whole movie, even when contrasted by well done scenes and acting.

The feeling of 'cheapness' starts from the very first frame of the robber (which reminded me of the beginning of 'The Fury of a Patient Man'). The low people on set - especially in the streets which seem too desolate (well maybe except COVID-19 time) though I'm not from the U.S. Another thing is that sometimes you see mistakes, like crew reflected through glass, or few non-extra people walking peacefully in a scene of police activity.

The acting is good from both leads. At the beginning I though that Thomas Jane was overacting, but this feeling dispelled after 15 minutes, and I was absorbed with the plot and their conversation. Very good job.

The plot is nice, and it seems they tried to create an authentic feeling of police routine work (for example they constantly used police codes for felonies). And it certainly looked more realistic then Training Day, though it doesn't mean it's more entertaining. As Mark Twain put it: "Never Let The Truth Get in the Way of a Good Story."

Seeing the majority of good (to excellent) reviews from 2010, praising its' practical effects as well as its CGI, makes me think that Predators aged badly. Cliched, badly written dialogues, involving group dynamics, that were already seen many times. Boring, one dimensional characters, whose motivation is mostly stupid. But the biggest let down is the action. The tactics of the Predators is absent, no diversity in weaponry, horrible CGI when it comes to explosions.

In the end, it's not any better than Alien Vs Predator. At least that one had one good fight between the creatures.

This movie was a long time on my list, but it was only now that I have seen it. Much better than expected despite the already great reviews.

Firstly, it feels very authentic in its' representation of the lower class population in Detroit. It starts with the grey, grainy cinematography and proceeds to the profanity, drinking, violence, impoverishment and eventually the lack of opportunity versus the desire to get out of this life (especially from the younger population).

Secondly, it's the marvelous cast. Eminem shines. His dedication is imprinted everywhere. From his genuine outrage to his caring for sister Lilly and the amazing soundtrack. Pure genius. Kim Basinger is amazing. Very believable as the egocentric mother. One of her better roles. I could name other actors as well but all did a great job, so I'll save space and just say that all played very believable characters. Some played positive characters, others the negative side, but none of them were boring or annoying, so kudos to everyone involved.

The last and probably the most important point for me is the humanity displayed in the movie. Though 'Rabbit' is rapidly ignited and quickly drawn to violence, it's not the violence that dictates his actions. It's his love for music, his will to make things better and his love for his sister Lilly. '8 Mile' doesn't promote violence, but rather determination, drive, dedication and discipline. Things that help succeed in life.

I also agree with the view that there are no free things in life and one has to find his own path. Each shortcut you take either shortens or cuts your success.

I was moved by this great movie.

Technically the movie is a masterpiece. Top notch performance from everyone involved, great sense of the Russian mannerism, from all involved and raw violence. No doubt the cast and crew did a profound study on the subject.

All the actors involved do a brilliant job at being believable in their roles. Even the baby girl is so cute that one would want to have babies.

The portrayal of the Russian behavior is also a high note of the film. It's the way they hug each other, their eye movement, smirking and the seeming relaxed posture. The accent is also quite decent. Best interpretation of Russians by non-Russian actors.

The approach is very raw. Best example is the brutal fight in the Sauna.

The plot is good, and solidly executed, but a bit pales compared to the other merits of the movie. I think the reason is that there are two - not really connected - sub-plots. It seems as if each one of these plots could be evolved into a bigger concept and fill a movie by itself.

I think that Terminator: Dark Fate was much better than the previous three installments in the series. Yes, it's a rehash of T2 and it's much worse than T2. But that doesn't say that Dark Fate is bad, especially that T2 is listed #36 on IMDB Top 250.

The story is a rehash indeed. And since it's the second time around (or the third) it is not explained well as in the first two. Arnold played his role well, but the background for his characters is quite stupid (and again, not well explained). Sarah Connor in my opinion was the biggest letdown. It just didn't feel like the Sarah Connor we knew from T1 and T2.

On the positive side, the action and the CGI are great. The pace is also very good, with several intense action scenes. Leads (except Linda Hamilton) were good, and the rehashed story kept simple and avoided stupid convolutions of Genisys.

Overall, a very decent science fiction / action movie.