cjonesas

A "mini"-series for teens who love and adore supernatural, it's full of uninteresting cheesiness, the acting is actually good, all the rest are not and are just mishmash ticking and counting until each episode ends. As always with Disney productions, it has no serious layers, though with some depth, is totally kindergarten forgettable.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 3
• Production value/impact: 4.5
• Development: 6.5
• Realism: 5.5
• Entertainment: 3.5
• Acting: 6
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 7
• VFX: 7
• Music/score/sound: 5
• Depth: 3
• Logic: 2
• Flow: 4
• Drama/fantasy/thriller: 4.5
• Ending: 3.5.

What could you possibly write about this series besides wetness, screaming, moaning, hurting and "distasteful" peak sensations of the senses and faces. It is too weird slow with super uninteresting conversations and happenings, with good acting though, but failing to really grab viewers' attention.

You make a series, you want it impactful, enjoyable by both genders, so with that story, make it at least a sixteen episode one that slowly but surly unfolds with a real ending.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 4
• Production value/impact: 4
• Development: 7
• Realism: 6
• Entertainment: 4
• Acting: 6.5
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 7
• VFX: 7
• Music/score/sound: 6
• Depth: 4
• Logic: 3
• Flow: 3
• Drama: 4
• Ending: 3.

A soporific "limited" series where you just "woke up" from cars' engine roars, chases, gun shot bangs and wounds. Besides the good acting and semi-thrilling atmosphere it has nothing to offer, the worst and the most detrimental to the show was his family and any children in it. They sucked up any thrill, drama and crime soap-opera that you got involved with in its 6 tiny episodes.

Giancarlo Esposito performed at his usual peak with gray hairs and minuscule screenplay plots this time, but overall the series is a waste with too little episodes.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 5.5
• Production value/impact: 5.5
• Development: 7
• Realism: 6.5
• Entertainment: 4
• Acting: 7.5
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 7.5
• VFX: 7.5
• Music/score/sound: 7.5
• Depth: 6
• Logic: 4
• Flow: 3.5
• Crime/thriller/drama: 6
• Ending: 5.5.

Another fantasy show with an interesting idea and premise, but poorly executed with endless side plots and uninteresting to horrible sub-plots, taking woke boxes to another level. The acting is good, the girls more or less interesting, the visual effects and CGI the forte of the show and the score thrillingly accompanying.

Instead of PG-13, needed an R screenplay and so would have gathered another '2' ratings point.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 4
• Production value/impact: 4.5
• Development: 7
• Realism: 6
• Entertainment: 3
• Acting: 7
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 7.5
• VFX: 8
• Music/score/sound: 7
• Depth: 4
• Logic: 1
• Flow: 2.5
• Fantasy/sci-fi/drama: 6
• Ending: 2.5.

Nothing to say and tell about 'Tarot' besides being childishly, generically and not-so-mindlessly entertaining, not having an ounce of horror, interesting (only) in the astrologer-fortuneteller background and distant past and suffering most of all of PG-13 kindergarten scares. It needed gruesome annihilation of the the so scared friends and impossibility for the curse to being reversed back.

Budget wasted on this.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 4
• Production value/impact: 2.5
• Development: 7
• Realism: 4
• Entertainment: 2.5
• Acting: 4
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 5.5
• VFX: 7
• Music/score/sound: 4.5
• Depth: 3
• Logic: 1
• Flow: 2.5
• Horror/drama: 2
• Ending: 1.5.

A cupid documentary where natural beauty intermixes and is interlaced with extravagant creations, "poetic" rendering and 2.5-3D paintings combined with a horrible flow and below-average frozen entertainment.

The art is interesting, the creations and "paintings" so so and even artists would ineluctably have a hard time appreciating it.

Budget is wasted on this.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 2.5
• Production value/impact: 5
• Development: 6.5
• Realism: 5
• Entertainment: 2
• Acting: 4
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 7.5
• VFX: 7
• Music/score/sound: 5.5
• Depth: 5
• Logic: 2.5
• Flow: 1
• Documentary/drama: 5
• Ending: 2.

A dry film set in a wet picturesque rain forest bearing soporific flow and Valium-induced mysterious vibes, so much worse than the first film which by the genre standards was already a disaster.

Nothing shines out and holds your interest besides some good score and everything that is not related to humans and the movies' actors.

Just the map and compass by the end of the film was of above interest. Hope they make a third one ("jamais deux sans trois") and correct their past mistakes with a real crime/mystery/drama in the genre of 'The Tourist' with at least 2h20m real runtime.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 3.5
• Production value/impact: 4
• Development: 6.5
• Realism: 4.5
• Entertainment: 2
• Acting: 5
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 7
• VFX: 7
• Music/score/sound: 6.5
• Depth: 5
• Logic: 3.5
• Flow: 2
• Crime/drama/mystery: 3.5
• Ending: 2.5.

A laughable horror thriller drama where the horror factor is as gut-wrenching and thrilling as ducks' eggs hatching which by the way is adorable and thrilling in a feel-good way.

The acting and the visual effects are the forte of the movie, especially the "satire" blood that after zillion years in look-alike productions looked and felt like real blood.

The flow was another good part of it and had it had a better more horrorful ending, having Bob without (you choose which cells and parts) that would have been a great satirical movie, being accompanied and ending with delightful piano performance.

They had all the yummy ingredients, but they messed it up, having papa's sacrifice go to waste.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 5
• Production value/impact: 4.5
• Development: 6
• Realism: 5.5
• Entertainment: 5.5
• Acting: 6.5
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 6
• VFX: 8
• Music/score/sound: 5.5
• Depth: 4.5
• Logic: 1.5
• Flow: 7
• Horror/thriller/drama: 4
• Ending: 2.5.

Again, a movie that is a disgrace to the whole entertainment industry. I sometimes think that the producers, writers and directors of such "sizzling rotten shrimps" do it on purpose. Having viewers on the edge of their seats while banging their heads on their cell phones.

I'm not surprised, that's not the first drivel of such that I've watched, won't be the last, but I'm still struggling to find the reason of such movies.

So far, I've found none other than these are being made on purpose. Maybe some very hidden message or evil hypnosis between frames. Who knows?!

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 2
• Production value/impact: 1
• Development: 4
• Realism: 2.5
• Entertainment: 2
• Acting: 4
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 6
• VFX: 4
• Music/score/sound: 4.5
• Depth: 3
• Logic: 1.5
• Flow: 1.5
• Thriller/drama: 2.5
• Ending: 2.

One of the very "best" and emotionally ground-breaking WWII war drama with "amazing" photography and visual effects, a little slow most of the time and too few airplane fight (possibly low budget and to develop the story more and push it forward).

Without any ratings field, it deserves a neat "8". Especially, the ending, real one, in memoriam of the "heroes" is well-done.

Hope Apple TV makes a big series on WWII eastern front.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 7
• Production value/impact: 7.5
• Development: 8
• Realism: 7.5
• Entertainment: 7.5
• Acting: 7.5
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 8
• VFX: 8.5
• Music/score/sound: 6.5
• Depth: 7
• Logic: 4.5
• Flow: 7
• Biography/drama/history: 7
• Ending: 7.

A nice and different adaptation thanks to the original 1934 novel with 80s exotic attention to details, but not having and lacking the atmosphere and timeline specific to 'Murder in Three Acts', Peter Ustinov is semi-serious Hercule Poirot in this one, playing a theatrical ego of the famous detective.

Still above-average, but more or less satisfying.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 6.5
• Production value/impact: 6.5
• Development: 7
• Realism: 5.5
• Entertainment: 6
• Acting: 6.5
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 7
• VFX: 7
• Music/score/sound: 5
• Depth: 6
• Logic: 4
• Flow: 6
• Mystery/crime/thriller/drama: 6
• Ending: 6.

A good adaptation all thanks to the original book with 80s attention to details, but not having and lacking the atmosphere and 50s timeline specific to 'Dead Man's Folly', Peter Ustinov is less Hercule Poirot in this one, playing an imaginary adaptation of the famous detective. Worth noting were the play and acting of the drunken man, George's mother and a young and talented Nicollette Sheridan.

Above-average, but still satisfying.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 7
• Production value/impact: 6.5
• Development: 7
• Realism: 6.5
• Entertainment: 6
• Acting: 6.5
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 7
• VFX: 7
• Music/score/sound: 4
• Depth: 6
• Logic: 4.5
• Flow: 6
• Mystery/crime/thriller/drama: 6
• Ending: 5.5.

One of the very best of Peter Ustinov's Hercule Poirot, it is very well made with Faye Dunaway who truly shines in a dual role. It stays more than 90 percent true to the novel, has more than acceptable flow and vibe and the weird presence of David Suchet as Inspector Japp is forgiven and forgotten after 40 years.

One talked and wrote too much, the other did too much with little carefulness. The result, both were destroyed.

I enjoyed 'Thirteen at Dinner' more than I expected.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 7
• Production value/impact: 7
• Development: 8
• Realism: 7.5
• Entertainment: 7.5
• Acting: 7.5
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 7.5
• VFX: 7
• Music/score/sound: 6
• Depth: 7
• Logic: 7
• Flow: 7
• Mystery/crime/thriller/drama: 7
• Ending: 7.

A semi substantial crime drama thriller with touches of mystery. In reality, 'Jagged Edge' is not awesome, made me suspect from the beginning who was guilty, though I would have liked it otherwise. Really, I wanted someone out of the blue, someone you don't see coming, middle-age with white hairs, cause after all the "combinaison" and the gloves wouldn't make you deliberately suspect someone young, besides the sharp movement, the lustful touche of the knife on her skin, those and some other tiny details unmasked the killer from the beginning for many of us.

Nevertheless, a good movie, bearing all the 80s quality marks and though not very mysterious nor logical, is one you need to watch in your lifetime if you're a fan of Jeff Bridges and Glenn Close.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 6.5
• Production value/impact: 6
• Development: 7
• Realism: 5.5
• Entertainment: 6.5
• Acting: 7.5
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 7
• VFX: 7.5
• Music/score/sound: 6.5
• Depth: 5.5
• Logic: 4
• Flow: 6
• Mystery/thriller/drama: 6
• Ending: 6.

A well-made Canadian film, better watched with English subtitles, with convincing acting and above-average everything else. It is grim, it is sad and it is more or less "harrowingly" violent with lots of depressing clouds over.

Would have been better if it were made as a 4-5 parts mini-series with more developments, more background and more flashbacks-present time; then, it would have gathered another 1.5-2 ratings points.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 6
• Production value/impact: 5
• Development: 7
• Realism: 7
• Entertainment: 4.5
• Acting: 7
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 7
• VFX: 7.5
• Music/score/sound: 6.5
• Depth: 5
• Logic: 4
• Flow: 5
• Crime/drama: 6
• Ending: 6.

A failed production on all levels, missing the marks over the sky's million stars, not having the slightest touch of entertainment, lacking basic logic, action, drama and thrill. The few famous names that are in it must have undergone full hypnosis to even be there for 30 seconds.

One of the few movies that performs under the 30 percent mark.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 3
• Production value/impact: 1
• Development: 4
• Realism: 2
• Entertainment: 2
• Acting: 2
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 4
• VFX: 3.5
• Music/score/sound: 4.5
• Depth: 3
• Logic: 2
• Flow: 2.5
• Action/thriller/drama: 2
• Ending: 2.5.

A semi thrilling movie with unrealistic drama, many artificial "family" matters, not so much crime in it, not having a gripping flow and entertainment cause not having decisive leads and as much as Tom Berenger and Debra Winger endeavored and tried, they couldn't save the film all by themselves, though her relationship with Rachel was endearing and one of the forte of 'Betrayed'.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 5.5
• Production value/impact: 6
• Development: 6.5
• Realism: 6
• Entertainment: 6
• Acting: 6.5
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 7
• VFX: 6.5
• Music/score/sound: 6
• Depth: 5.5
• Logic: 2.5
• Flow: 6
• Crime/thriller/drama: 5.5
• Ending: 6.

Frankly, besides the trio "very" interesting "love" triangle romance and hard-sensation-romantic flick that sometimes made you wonder what tennis has to do with and in it; could have been any other sport, golf, skating, table tennis, gymnastic and even ballet! (ballet would have been the best and depicted much more naturally and flawlessly); Nevertheless, that's an eye-candy, sweetness for the senses movie that keeps you more or less interested and invested, had it not been almost ruined with those constant "50 horrible years" time jumps and back and forth.

Zendaya is the queen of the movie and deserves awards for her acting, believable tennis (playing) as well as making the fashion industry beauties drool and sweat with awe and jealousy.

For me, 'Challengers' was believable, entertaining and as a tennis lover sort of fantastically amazing (that's me with lots of pepper and condiments in praising it), though, toward the end and especially that abrupt ending, was a little head banging and unsatisfying both relating to its sport tale as well as its foggy romantic (hubby-wife-GF) conclusion.

Zendaya, I now believe in you more as an actress who sometimes looks like a very lean and distant cousin of Sofia Loren; you can act, you can show your emotions and maybe time for you to deservingly grow up and play more R productions for all your fans' pleasure.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 6.5
• Production value/impact: 7
• Development: 8
• Realism: 7.5
• Entertainment: 7
• Acting: 7
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 8
• VFX: 8
• Music/score/sound: 6
• Depth: 6
• Logic: 5.5
• Flow: 7
• Drama/romance/sport: 6.5
• Ending: 4.

A too slow-burn, snail-pace "crime drama mystery" where the lead actor is not suitable for it, too soft, too "shy", too indecisive in his overall actions and acting as if guilt-ridden.

Besides the last 15-20 minutes where all is revealed with gripping flow and the snail turning to a rabbit, the rest of the film is just a canned buildup for that.

Looking forward to "The Dry 2" !

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 5.5
• Production value/impact: 6
• Development: 7
• Realism: 6
• Entertainment: 2.5
• Acting: 6.5
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 7
• VFX: 7
• Music/score/sound: 6
• Depth: 5
• Logic: 3
• Flow: 2.5
• Crime/drama/mystery: 3.5
• Ending: 3.5.

An original horror "talk show" movie with better flow and entertainment than pure horror. Labeling it as a horror is misleading, it has some great 70s visual effects, semi-terrific acting by the whole cast, too few gut-wrenching real horror and all it basically does is play with your mind. All that would have been quite nice, pushing it towards a 6+1 ratings, had it had a more shocking and developed ending. Not just showing the "unbelievable" and then finishing.

What I would like in horror movies is special, long and detailed attention to horrific happenings and in that concept, the present movie is just "talk show-esque" semi-plus-entertaining.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 6.5
• Production value/impact: 6.5
• Development: 7.5
• Realism: 7
• Entertainment: 7
• Acting: 7
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 7.5
• VFX: 7.5
• Music/score/sound: 6.5
• Depth: 4.5
• Logic: 1.5
• Flow: 7
• Horror/drama: 5.5
• Ending: 3.5.

An unsatisfying kiddo spider "giant" movie in a very strange unsafe apartment building where nearly nobody lives besides an alien spider from space that lays eggs all by itself.

The problem with the movie is that it's more thrilling comical than pure horror thriller and besides the poor scientist and the brave little girl, we have just frowny funny characters in unrealistically tense situations.

The movie is lame, should have been made as a real R, in a bigger apartment complex with mutant spiders that make their victims morph and transform in turn to spiders with horrifying special effects.

"Vermines" (aka Infested) wasn't good, but it packed at least a big "restricted" punch.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 4
• Production value/impact: 3
• Development: 5.5
• Realism: 4.5
• Entertainment: 4.5
• Acting: 5.5
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 5.5
• VFX: 8
• Music/score/sound: 5.5
• Depth: 3
• Logic: 1.5
• Flow: 4
• Horror/sci-fi/thriller/drama: 4
• Ending: 2.5.

A below-average production where King Kong, Godzilla and Mothra just don't dance in it. Everything is just silly average and entertainingly bad with the humans doing nothing besides cashing paychecks.

My review is just too short, I know, thank you Entertainment Entity! The next similar movie in a potential 2027 (+0.5) screentime would have King Kong ride a newly tamed Godzilla with the humans in the background watching in fear and awe and clapping hard.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 2
• Production value/impact: 4.5
• Development: 5.5
• Realism: 4.5
• Entertainment: 4
• Acting: 4.5
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 5
• VFX: 9
• Music/score/sound: 5.5
• Depth: 3.5
• Logic: 1
• Flow: 4.5
• Action/adventure/fantasy/drama: 4.5
• Ending: 4.

When you start watching a series from a choice of 2-3 ones, not being sure which one is the one to swallow and 5 episodes in you totally forget about the other "candidates", that speaks lengths in favor of 'For All Mankind'.

Started with the first season and was already fully immersed into the drama, the superb sci-fi achievements and ground-breaking spatial plots.

I was never a special fan of space sci-fi from 'Star Trek' main and spinoffs to 'The Mandalorian', but in 'For All Mankind' I found a whole new interest in scientific science-fiction, Moon and Mars colonization deepened with believable drama around the ones involved in the show, some may call it soapish, but for me it complemented the space and scientific features of the series oh so well, passing important messages in-between.

Just finished the fourth season and while my eyes are wet with tiny tears droplets, I just wish that I already had the fifth season's episodes in my fist.

Again, a stellar show by Apple Original and a red gem that is not hidden anymore. Ultra highly recommended. It's the space sci-fi version of 'The Killing' and 'The Americans' combined.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 8
• Production value/impact: 9
• Development: 9.5
• Realism: 8.5
• Entertainment: 9
• Acting: 9
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 8.5
• VFX: 9
• Music/score/sound: 7.5
• Depth: 8.5
• Logic: 6.5
• Flow: 8.5
• Sci-fi/drama: 8
• Ending: 7.5.

Semi-interesting in its core as an improbable screenplay and plots, the first half is better and weaker at the same time, too much build-up and development, though nevertheless better than the second half.

The problem is it couldn't be taken seriously, there's no graphic visuals kills and gore, though the cocoons and infestation are well-made.

The ending very improbable and unsatisfying and just there for a "gateau" sequel.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 5
• Production value/impact: 6
• Development: 7
• Realism: 6.5
• Entertainment: 5.5
• Acting: 7
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 7
• VFX: 7.5
• Music/score/sound: 5.5
• Depth: 3.5
• Logic: 1.5
• Flow: 6
• Horror/drama: 6
• Ending: 2.

A mostly uninteresting comedy crime mystery with just big ounces of good acting, setting, mansion and costume design, with imbroglio humor and lots of understatement parodies. It is not extraordinarily entertaining cause it's weak in its core, its flow suffers all because of the poor logic and shaky plots and the ending is just nonsense mixed with horrible finishing vibes, all departing the mansion and that's it!

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 5.5
• Production value/impact: 6
• Development: 7
• Realism: 4.5
• Entertainment: 4
• Acting: 7
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 7.5
• VFX: 7
• Music/score/sound: 6.5
• Depth: 4.5
• Logic: 1.5
• Flow: 4
• Comedy/crime/mystery: 5.5
• Ending: 3.