Great action / spy parody. Bruce Willis (ex spy) is fighting bad guys. What's new? Nothing and everything, because this spy / action comedy is a very enjoyable parody of all the spy cliches.
What a great bunch of terrific actors, teaming up together for this rollercoaster action ride. Any older adult will know (and cherish) all these old actors for their great roles they have played in the past decades. For the youngsters who dont know them, no worries, there is still enough action and jokes to be enjoyed to have a good time.
Huge spectacle CGI movie warning about global warming
They dont come any bigger than this. Typical nineties CGI action blockbuster, with great special effects and decent acting performances by Dennis Quaid and Jake Gyllenhaal. Not an excellent movie, but good enough to be really enjoyable with a bag of popcorn and a coke.
The story is simple: global warming causes an catastrophic ice storm and America is in danger. Will they survive the icestorm?
The bad: of course this is a 100% formula movie. You know what is gonna happen. It will have a happy end.
The good: for once a movie that supports the theory of global warming. And it is done in a typical Hollywood feelgood style with lots of great action scenes. Seeing Manhattan freeze in seconds with buildings collapsing is mighty impressive. Recommended for the action fans.
A cop gets killed. A man gets the death penalty. Is he innocent?
This documentary gives a chilling and insightful look into the ways the American justice system worked, back in the eighties.
A cop gets killed. A man gets the death penalty, while claiming to be innocent. Framed for a crime he did not commit? It seems so, but he gets convicted anyway. But there is a snatch, There is a surprise turn of events...
Many documentaries about presumed innocent people have been made and this is one of the better ones. What makes this documentary stand out is the detailed observation of a sociopath, of a man without any conscience, without any remorse, who can smile and make jokes, right after telling how he has killed someone.
No fury, but FLUFFY. No real credibility. Cliche dialogues. Average direction. Lots of cruel slaughter scenes though for those who love that kind of stuff...
Brad Pitt is fighting the German nazis in World War 2, with only 1 American tank. Will he survive killing the enemy?
The bad: average direction, average writing, average photography, average soundtrack. Everything is AVERAGE. No fury, but fluffy...
Things that bug me in particular: the soundtrack sounds like music for a romantic dramatic movie, but this is a full on slaughter movie and such a fierce movie does not mix well with a sentimental soundtrack at all.
More bad: the photography is too clean and good looking, when war movies need a gritty and bleak looking photography.
Not any good? Well, it has got lots of gory action scenes with mutilated soldiers who get blown up in detail. For those who like that kind of stuff... But even this gory slaughter stuff has been done better in other war movies. The actors are okay, but they cant rescue the average direction either...
This is not a funny Will Smith action picture. Serious. There are no jokes. Would have been an 8 star movie for me if it had really good jokes. The supporting actress is pretty, but nothing more than that. Despite some flaws this movie is made well enough for me to enjoy it as a decent action flick. 7 stars.
It's a scifi story about rogue robots becoming more intelligent and powerful than humans are. The robots are taken over and Will Smith has to save humanity from these robot attacks.
The good: the robots look and act really impressive. Great special effects for those days (2004). The action is non stop. I didnt get bored for a second, despite the predictable story.
The bad: it's not as impressive as Arnold Schwarzenegger's Terminator. There are no jokes. There is no romance. No real drama or suspense. Straight action flick only, with lots of predictable plot turns.
Solid action thriller, with some silly plot turns and mediocre supporting actors
Get your coke and popcorn and enjoy the show. Dont expect originality (Die Hard copycat), but the leading actors are good and it is what it is: a blockbuster action thriller.
The story: Samuel L Jackson (Chicago police officer) gets framed by his colleagues for a crime he did not commit. In a desperate attempt to prove he is innocent Samuel L Jackson takes hostages and Kevin Spacey is the negotiator.
The good: the acting by Samuel L Jackson and Kevin Spacey.
The bad: it's not an original story and the supporting actors are mediocre.
Some seventies movies stay fresh and even actual and powerful. Some dont. This movie belongs into the "dont" category, because it is simply silly, yet not really funny. And it is disjointed as well. We see actors (good actors mind you) acting and it doesnt come across as believable.
Any good? Yes, as I said the actors in it are really good and perform well, it is the flimsy, disjointed direction that makes these great actors look lost...
Credible, slow burning, touching tale about love and family...
Credible dialogues, solid acting performances, slow burning natural warmhearted direction. What more could I wish for in this romantic story about a young girl (Scarlet Johanson) and her mother, who go to the desolated countryside only to see a genius horse whisperer (Robert Redford) hoping he can cure their sick horse...
I usually am not so fond of romantic movies, but this romance is told with so much credibility and without all the usual cheesy sentimentality that I am touched by it every time I see it. It never becomes dull even if the movie stretches well over 2 and a half hour.
Any bad? Well, no, but most likely it is not suited for those who dont like slowburning romantic movies, but for those who do like this genre, this movie is excellently suited and recommended. Can be seen by young (children) and old, because it is a wonderful, profound, credible tale about the love for family bonds...
Still stands strong. Still as important and actual as it was 45 years ago. Brilliant dialogue and impressive acting performances. All time CLASSIC.
I cant think of another movie in which everyone SHOUTS as much and with as much ANGER as in Network. But it isnt shouting because of a gimmick, it is shouting out of REAL ANGER, out of real inner frustration, in which emotions explode to the surface, but in a real life, credible way, with detailed portrayal of all the human insecurities and vulnerabilities.
And the characters in this story shout for a reason, because they get squashed by the corporate world of commercial television, which is the profit seeking monster, that will do anything to get higher ratings, even televising a mad man, who isnt mad at all though, but simply says what everybody else is thinking. The leading character (a news reader) in this movie is more of an angry prophet, warning people for the systematic destructive powers of corporate television.
Timeless classic about the vulgarity and ruthlessness of television.Terrific dialogues and great acting performances! I am amazed that it still has such a profound impact on me in 2020, after having seen it several times over the past decades...
No soundtrack. No fierce drama. Only a bleak portrait of 2 junkies. The bad: the leading actress is lacking chemistry.
The biggest problem with this otherwise decent movie, is that there is no chemistry between the (unknown) leading actress and Al Pacino, who wasnt known either back then, but at least he radiates, he oozes danger and restlessness. Al Pacino was to become one of the biggest actors in American history and everything characteristic and wonderful about his many characters in other films, can already be seen in this movie about 2 junkies.
The bad: no chemistry between the leading characters. No real fierce drama either. It is (likely) meant to be a bleak and sober (read tedious) portrait of the life of 2 junkies, but it is definitely lacking spark and punch, however impressive Al Pacino already can act at his young age. Basically it is a bit boring. Only recommended for die hard Al Pacino fans, who are in for a bleak (and somewhat boring) portrait of a junkie.
According to the credit notes of this movie every 6 minutes a woman is raped in the United States. That's a shocking statistic and rape is the subject of this movie.
The Accused is a slow burning, but suspenseful and touching court drama about a young woman (Jodie Foster), who got raped in a bar and who consequently has to struggle to bring the rapists to court. All the ins and outs of going to court when being raped are being portrayed in detail.
What makes this movie so good is the great acting performance by Jodie Foster. This role launched her career. Nice words are also due for Kelly McGillis' role, who plays Jodie Foster's lawyer.
For Jodie Foster fans or diehard Dennis Hopper fans only, because it has too many RIDICULOUS plotturns that spoil the broth...
Really great actors, almost all of them were at (or near) the peak of their careers at the time of making this movie, but however good an actor Dennis Hopper might be, he is NOT good at directing AT ALL. I blame him for some pretty stupid plot turns, of which there are simply too many to take this movie seriously. It is even listed as a comedy at Imdb, which it certainly is NOT. It was not meant to be a comedy anyway, but this goes to show the mere stupidity of certain scenes that are laughable dumb indeed.
Any good? You get to see Jodie Foster naked. Some men will like that perhaps? 4 stars for the cult factor combination of really great actors in a terrible movie.
Jack Reacher is nothing more than a inferior copy of the Bourne series. Silly, because it is NOT credible!
I have tried to like it, really I have, because I really do like Tom Cruise as an actor and I like quite a few of his other action movies, but I never have seen a CREDIBLE LOOKING Jack Reacher movie. It's laughably stupid at moments, while it is meant to be taken seriously!
The stench of a bad copy of the Bourne movies (with Matt Damon) can be smelled instantly. Even the soundtrack sounds similar to the Bourne series, but the Bourne credibility is NOWHERE to be found in Jack Reacher.
I mean, seriously, this movie is meant to be taken SERIOUSLY. It is NOT meant to be a COMEDY, but it is laughable stupid and unbelievable. I dont get it. Tom Cruise CAN deliver high quality action movies, but these Jack Reacher movies are so terribly WRITTEN that I just get instant headaches.
Just to give you 1, only 1 example of serious lack of credibility: 2 highly trained secret intelligence personnel try to break into high security military computers from inside a cafe with an insecure wifi hot spot. Then they act "surprised" they cant crack the security of the intelligence agency from within this bar! And their only "disguise" inside this cafe is a baseball cap. Yes, a baseball cap, so they wont get recognized, WHILE they are wearing ARMY clothing simultaneously. That's hilariously stupid. Only 6 year old kids wouldnt mind that sort of lack of credibility...
Good actors, surprising seductive, romantic (and evil) story about a woman, who is stuck in a violent marriage, until that day she meets the charming cop played by Ed Harris. Things spiral out of control soon...with many surprising plot turns.
Best suited for those who love to watch dangerous seductive gorgeous women having secret affairs.
Still stands strong after 30 years. Classic drama with touching acting performances and warmhearted direction by Peter Weir.
A wonderfully, touching uplifting portrait of teenagers coming of age, learning how to think for themselves and experiencing how to live LIFE to the FULLEST, inspired by an unconventional, loving English teacher played brilliantly by Robin Williams, which is one of his best roles of his entire career.
Dramas dont come any better than this one. BUT it isnt a drama for the first hour, because it starts out as an uplifting, vivacious portrait of teenagers at a strict boarding school, where everybody is suffocated by RULES and more rules, UNTIL that special day teacher Robin Williams starts teaching.
This movie can be seen by young and old, but I guess especially young people would really be impressed by it, because this movie, like no other, depicts with suffocating reality, the pressures kids can be burdened with when they have to OBEY their parents' will and wishes and when their own creativity and passions are stifled with ruthless restrictions and punishments by their parents and their "teachers"...
Right now I still have goosebumps merely thinking about this movie. It's so profoundly, impressive and touching and uplifting. One of the best dramas ever! Yes, EVER!
NOT convincing performances make it hard to get excited about this movie. Wants to be an epic spy story, but merely reaches mediocrity at best
I like NIck Nolte as an actor, he was the reason I started watching this movie, but he didnt look convincing at all as a German spy during World War II. This movie desires to be an epic spy story, but all it achieves to be is mediocre: the story and dialogues are average, the way it filmed looks cheap and it simply does not elicit any real drama.
Wannabe spy story. Very average AND most of al: tedious.
Starts out as a 7 star movie, slowly desintegrates into 5 stars, because it is kinda childish and boring.
Not a winner. This movie starts out okay, but slowly deteriorates into a childish, tedious story.
The story: Albert Brooks is a talent scout, who discovers a super talented baseball player, who hits homerun after homerun. Paradise found? Not quite, beccause this baseball wonder has got a screw loose. "Comical" situations arise...
One of Albert Brooks (director, writer and actor) lesser movies, which fails to become really funny, because the leading role by Brendan Fraser is not really believable at all and he is not really funny either. Bummer.
A bit too tedious, even for Albert Brooks standards.
Albert Brooks (director, writer AND actor) has got a subtle, ironic sense of humor. And in many movies he succeeds in making jokes about serious things, with a subtle stab. BUT this movie about moving in with his mother, in order to try to understand why he has had so much trouble (divorces) with women in his life, this movie about analysing his relationship problems simply does NOT elicit any spark or punch. Worse, it is one of the slowest, most tedious movies Albert Brooks has made that I have seen...
Any good? Acting is okay, the story in itself is okay, some of the jokes are okay. But it does never rise above "okay..."
The bad: NO speed AT ALL. NO drama AT ALL. NOT MANY laugh out loud moments AT ALL. Bit of a bummer.
Could have ended a decent 7 stars after 90 minutes, if it werent for a rather superfluous sentimental extra 30 minutes at the end...
Good actors, sentimental script. Especially the last 30 minutes of this movie are so cheesy and sentimental that my final ratings sinks to only 6 stars, while this movie would have been a solid 7 stars if it simply ended after 90 minutes. Nonetheless still a nice movie, although it could have been a lot better if it had been a little more bleak and hard hitting instead of violin soft and rosey sentimental.
The story: Cuba Gooding Jr wants to become the first black navy diver in the American Navy. Racist military superior Robert de Niro does everything to prevent it from happening. Who will prevail?
The good: good acting performances by both Robert de Niro and Cuba Gooding Jr.
The bad: it's Disney / Hallmark styled sentimental and predictable.
Uninspired. Formulaic. Seen it all before, done better in other movies. Even the great actors cant excite me.
I have seen ALL Robert de Niro movies. I adore this actor. HE was the reason (and Frances McDormand) I started watching this movie (again). I had seen it before, but had forgotten how mediocre and UNINSPIRED it was. This is a formula movie: seen it all before, but done better in other movies.
Any good? James Franco fans might like it. He acts convincingly. The actors arent to blame, the cheap looking and uinspired direction IS to blame though.
Simply forgettable...and it SHOULD be forgotten...
No. I didnt like it, because nothing much happens: no real drama for the first hour ( and after), no good jokes. It's NiCE, sure it's nice, it could please those who like to see a calm and soothing portrait of an old father (recently lost his wife) who feels alone and is sentimental about wanting to see his kids, while all of his kids are busy.
The bad: it's Hallmark. It's sentimental. It's a bit, quite a bit tedious. No drama. No jokes. What's left?
The good: Robert de Niro is okay, but nothing above average. He has certainly performed better in other movies.
Only die hard Stallone fans could like this silly nonsense...
Silly it is, completely laughably silly and mind you this movie is NOT meant to be a comedy, it is to be taken seriously ha ha ha...
The good: the actors are good, but they have to act in a completely ridiculous story, so their presence doesnt help.
The bad: this movie cant be taken seriously anymore and I wonder if anyone has ever taken it seriously. And it is meant to be taken seriously, there are NO jokes and that fact is killing, because without jokes these sort of fluffy movies are unbearable to watch for me personally.
The "story": Sylvester Stallone is a bomb specialist and he has to protect Sharon Stone from harm. Or something like that... It's all about "cool" (laughable) poses. The sunglasses and the shirt Stallone wears seem to be more important than the story.