timothybidmead

Tom Cruise really knows what he's doing. If you don't care for the original, you probably don't need to watch this and give it a 6/10 on IMDb.

This movie is unashamed fan service, nostalgic yet modern day, with high octane action that delivers in every scene. This is pure cinema, pure blockbuster entertainment (not Shakespeare) and the perfect sequel - tailored for Top Gun lovers.

Sit back and enjoy (at the theater!)

Faithful Year 2 Batman storyline of a billionaire finding his feet as the masked vigilante whilst also struggling even further with how to become the unmasked billionaire we know as Bruce Wayne, which is his real mask.

It's a long, film noir detective series - which is actually faithful to Batman and it's this angle that hasn't been addressed too much before. Gotham is beautiful in this instalment - often a criticism of Nolan - with dark, rainy cinematography. It is world-building a new franchise and it does so with aplomb.

RP is brutal and menacing as The Batman all the while still learning his craft, he's not a great Bruce Wayne but I think that's deliberate - this is Year 2 and we all know that Bruce has to teach himself how to be Bruce in the public eye. RP is also a little physically small despite attempts to make him look big in shirtless scenes, although in the suit he looks very imposing and is incredibly mobile and aggressive.

The action is more punctuated here amidst the detective narrative - short-attention spanned people looking for all out action every 2 minutes won't enjoy this.

Often gets criticised for not being as good as the Nolan trilogy, but "trilogy" is the key word. I'd say a better comparison is to compare this to Batman Begins and make your judgment rather than an entire trilogy against one movie. It doesn't supersede the trilogy for me, but further movies could allow to that happen with this fresh take.

Another criticism I've seen is it's like a movie version of the animated series - not sure you can pay a higher compliment.

It is a little long, some long movies don't feel long, but this felt the full 3 hours.

James Bond is dead. Long Live James Bond.

The modern trend of killing off anything iconic from the last 50 years continues due to past faux pas and trying to secure the new audiences of the future who are desperate to rectify those past flaws by erasing them with this tripe.

This movie is a 2 hr 43 minute suicide note for Bond and anyone that grew up with him.

I hope the producers try to milk the franchise for the next few years and that it fails and they disappear into obscurity.

(Ana de Armas was first class and woefully underused, with the only chemistry onscreen visible between Bond and Paloma).

So many of the negative reviews referencing that this is a remake of the original. It's not - the book is the source material and for anyone that's read it it's extremely detailed and universe-spanning, notoriously difficult to capture onscreen.

Villeneuve offers an extremely detailed Part One that leaves you wanting more. Deducted 1 point in my rating because it's not confirmed that Part 2 is coming - let's hope it delivers strong box office and HBO metrics to get the next instalment.

This is a scene-setting, sci-fi opera for purists. I can understand why people wouldn't like it but I'm not sure it's made for those people...

So I didn't see this when released at the cinema as I live in New York and, well, cinemas remain closed.

Based on the comments after cinema release, I did watch with subtitles on a 65" 4K with surround sound, which I guess is the best I'm going to get. I did have subtitles on but I think the sound mixing was fine for home viewing (not sure if they adjusted it), didn't need the subs.

The concept of the movie really is much more simple than it comes across - a simple time travel paradox with a neat concept about duty, sacrifice, and destiny. Don't overthink it, if you've seen it once and don't quite get it, just watch it again.

I really, really paid attention based on what I'd read so that's the only reason I think I got it first viewing. If you're reading this and haven't seen it, just pay attention to everything - it's such a cool pay off. There are lingering questions but that's simply because of the nature and paradox of time travel loops.

I'll be watching again to spot all the things I missed. People are hating on Nolan for the fact that you need to watch it more than once - I think this is the wrong viewpoint. This movie is understandable at first viewing, it's not a mindless bundle of tripe spelled out for you, but I'm excited to rewatch it and see new things. Nolan has done this before with Inception, Memento, Interstellar, The Prestige.

RPatz and JDW are superb, as is Debicki.

Please please keep making movies like this - raising the bar for people that don't need everything spelled out like Mission Impossible.

Disclaimer: haven't played the game or read the books, couldn't finish Game of Thrones, took me until Jan 1 2021 to watch this - not usually my type of show. I'm a massive Henry Cavill fan but really wouldn't have bothered with this as it's not a genre I enjoy.

Maybe low/no expectations boost my score but I really enjoyed it and binged the whole season. With zero prior knowledge of this world I found it really easy to follow and got pretty immersed; it's not Shakespeare but nor do I expect Shakespeare from a (let's face it) slightly camp, fantasy era, Nordic-themed action/sorcery/monster series.

Not sure who the dum-dums are saying it's hard to follow, either. If difficulty with the timelines contributed to a low score, ignore the review.

Oh and Henry is brilliant.

I'm English living in the USA so I have a special affinity for this show. It faithfully represents Richmond, the surrounding areas, and of course the world of football despite American creators. It makes me long for home.

Its release is timed perfectly during cynical times and Ted Lasso wins you over just like the characters. People that label Ted a loser and a failure are missing the point - he is unshakeable in his world view and is not a loser. The losers are those that judge others, think they have all the answers, and don't ask questions like "do you play darts, Ted?"

He's a Kansas tornado tearing through Richmond and we're all powerless to resist. Give us more!

A lot of other reviews compare to the book. I hadn't read the book. The themes and ending still work despite the apparent change to the book because the themes mirror the struggles of its characters - ie the burden of uncertainty and doubt.

Acting is brilliant throughout, nicely paced, sharp cinematography. JK Simmons just never fails to disappoint. Chris Evans steals the show.

Spoilers below:

The story ends with ambiguity; was Jacob a killer? We never really know, although his story is a very clear indicator he's a murderer, and that audience experience mirrors the emotion of the parents. The fact that the suicide / confession was staged adds to the parents' ambiguity about their son - they are robbed of the pure innocence of their son. If people here were frustrated by the ending, that feeling is a great insight into how a mother would feel not knowing if her son is a psychopath or not and why it would drive her to smash into the bridge.

The series chose this path - the not knowing is what tore the family apart more than the knowing and this is the central storyline. The book makes it clear he is the killer but I think the anguish at the end of the series is more powerful and more believable - a mother's murder/suicide to end her own pain and kill the son she believes is a murderer. The father is the one left behind, with a son he thinks could be a murderer and a wife who could have attempted to kill her son.

Didn't find this funny or interesting. Comedy is subjective, don't understand why those reviewing this show (saying it's funny) can't accept that. For reference to help you validate my opinion to see if I didn't "get" the show or if I'm a Trump fanboy, shows I do find funny (Not an exhaustive list):

The Office The Office USA Extras Scrubs Arrested Development Curb Seinfeld Parks & Rec Brooklyn 99 Malcolm in the Middle Archer Family Guy (when it was good) The Simpsons (when it was good) Frasier It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia South Park Modern Family

The good news is the cast are talented and Greg Daniels is a master at steering onwards from Season 2 (The Office and Parks and Rec did the same). Space Force? Not funny to me.

I never review movies, I'm actually reviewing the reviews.

If you see a low score in the reviews and 20 plot holes, they are from super super dumb morons who look at movies from only one view, their dummy view.

This is a very simple societal critique that uses very obvious metaphors: train on a loop that lasts exactly a year, class systems, deities and worship, population control, inequality, unequal distribution of wealth, megalomania, rebellion, false hope, manipulation, elitism, poverty.

"The train is stupid, how does it work blah blah blah" - this is not an apocalypse movie nor a documentary. This is a movie about society. The train is society, humanity, history, repetition, power, control, governments.

It's really not hard.

I scored the movie 8 because the movie themes were actually TOO obvious and literal. Obviously not literal enough for the dummies that reviewed it.

Summary: it's a faux apocalypse movie dealing with the themes of humanity, existence, society, power, and wealth. It's not actually about a train and how the train mechanically works.