Reviews

Monsters University is the best Pixar film since Toy Story 3 in 2010, and as good as Monsters Inc.

After Toy Story 3, Pixar Animation has been doing films that got short for the standards make by them. Cars 2 in 2011 didn't make it to the final round on the Academy Awards and Brave in 2012 won that year just because it was Pixar and they didn't receive the Oscar the year before, but the movie didn't have anything special. So, after the good streak of Wall-E, Up and Toy Story 3, Pixar fell way too low, buy this summer they have raise up and brought the perfect family movie of 2013 (by far).

Even thou we are seeing some of the old characters like (obviously), Mike, Sully, Randall and even George Sanderson (the monsters that is shaved for the 3312 alert), this movie feels different from its predecessor/sequel. What Monsters Inc. gain in sweetness with the Boo's character, this one compensates it with laughs. Since Finding Nemo in 2003, Pixar films has lost a little laughs, and introduced sweetness, but in University the smiles are back.

But it's not only about the laughs. The whole philosophy of the world is different. Inc. was about questioning the world they live in and everything they know about human kids. In University, scaring a kid is a good thing and is what give value a monster. If a monster is not scary then, what kind of monster is it? So, those two simple things gave the movie a whole new and different vibe.

The story is pretty much what we have seen in the trailers, but funnier. However, there are some unexpected twists that make it a even more solid film. So, we are safe to say that you haven't seen it all, even if you have seen every single trailer and clip in the internet. The ending is great, odd coming from Pixar, it works perfectly to the story when you think about it and don't make room for any sequel to the prequel, because it closes every gap.

It would be a cliché to say that the animation is amazing. This is Pixar that we're talking about. All the details on hair, scales, skin and even feathers are stunning. Even better than that is the animation on the characters expression. It is unbelievable. They don't have to say a word to send a message because with their faces they say it all. Sully could be an Academy Award winner, but what Mike does with one eye and a round body doesn't have a word to be described.

Some people will say that in Monsters Inc. Mike says to Sully, "You have been jealous of my looks since fourth grade". However, the characters first meet in college. Well, director Dan Scalon said that they actually thought about that and get to the conclusion that Mike said that as a common expression referring to a long time period and not literally that they have meet since 4th grade. The only problem is that to sustain that excuse they should have use it at least one time in this film. However, we never hear such a phrase to be told by Mike or any other character in the film. That will make those people think that Scalon only said that excuse to safe the story.

If you are human enough to ignore that stupid and insignificant expression, then you will enjoy Monsters University. You will laugh, the kids will love it and everyone will remember why they fell in love with Pixar and this particularly characters 12 years ago.

A promise is a promise and the produced have said the truth, they delivered the Superman movie they said they would. For years Warner Bros. has tried to bring back the greatest hero of all, and it was David S. Goyer and Christopher Nolan the ones that find out how to do it. The seriousness of the story, the depth in Clarks feeling and the entertained spectacle they bring in screams Chris Nolan everywhere. There is no doubt (and Goyer and director Zack Snyder has said so), that without Nolan, this movie couldn't be possible.

The script, based on the story by Nolan, is the first great script by David S. Goyer. Everything this guy has done is dumb, except for The Dark Knight trilogy and he did those with Nolan. But if you check out some of his solo works you will see titles like The Unborn and Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance. But this time, he wrote the script alone and is his first mature and serious work on his own. Excellent script, with no dumb lines and shallow characters.

Then enter Zack Snyder. Because I hate everything this guy has done, I was very nervous of him directing this movie. I told to myself "In Nolan I trust", so if Nolan chooses this one, then he could do the job. Thank God Snyder decided to change his style for Man of Steel. He promised in the beginning there will be no slow motion scenes, and there are none. The cinematographic style goes with the premise, "what if this happens tomorrow?" It has a lot of hand-held shots, very fast and brutal. It must be a 3D nightmare, but if fit perfect in the mood of the movie. Snyder proved he can do better than he has done in the past.

What is an awesome story, beautifully directed without an amazing score? Hans Zimmer proves he is the master. The best he did was not trying to imitate John Williams. Zimmer comes with a different score, full of emotion, and with a simple melody he makes a statement: "This is a new Superman, and this is his song". Music is very present during the movie and it will be as memorable as the original John William score.

The cherry of the pie came with the cast. There is no superhero movie with a better cast than this one. No Avenger or X-men can be compared with this cast. First there is Henry Cavill. After Immortals I had my doubts about him, but make no mistake, this guy was born for this roll. All previously actors, were the perfect Clark Kent, but Cavill is the perfect Clark and Superman. He is big and strong, but at the same time has this sad face, full with the pain of not being part of this world.

Finally we can enjoy a Lois Lane that is not a damsel in distress. Amy Adams is strong and independent. She might get in some big trouble, but she definitely can defend herself. With her it is Michal Shannon. Who would think that man could be a good bad guy? Well, he is. He is as strong as Superman and he is dangerous, he have no mercy and is capable of destroy the whole planet if Superman let him.

The character I feared most was Jonathan Kent. After seeing TV series Smallville I understand that Jonathan has to be a strong man, but honest. He is the man responsible that Clark is the good man he is. He raised him, and teaches him about good and evil. Kevin Costner is a good dad. He is solid on his position and very honest. He brings to life the kind of character makes you think: "I want him to be my dad". Well, he is Superman dad. The other dad is Russell Crowe and he'll make you forget the ghost of Marlon Brandon. I like this Jor-El better. He is not just a voice, but a presence. He is there teaching his son who he is and what is the purpose of being sent to Earth.

Even thou this is a realistic look at Superman, it is a solid sci-fi movie. There is a lot of action, a lot of science fiction themes around it, and very good special effects. At some point of the movie it feels like is going to get boring, but never does. Just when I thought, "if you stop now it's going to get boring", it was when it got better. The action starts and it never stops until the very end.

Man of Steel is the perfect summer movie of 2013, full of action and feelings. You can't miss this.

"The Rock" is not the only one who got bigger. The whole movie goes to a massive level never before seen in the franchise.

The creators of this franchise must ask themselves with each movie: How do we make this bigger? Because is getting ridiculous how massive are the racing scenes on Furious 6 (yes, that's the title showed in the intro). Well, there are not exactly racing scenes on this one (safe for one), it their place the writer puts a lot of car chasing scenes. There are so much persecution scenes on this movie that every character suffers at least one big accident in which, of course, none of them gets hurt. Everyone survives accidents that could finish with all the nine lives of a cat, without a single scratch. Between that and sort scene on a bridge involving certain characters flying on the air, the phrase "Oh common!" is useless in this one.

That said, it is clear that we are not talking about an Academy Award Winner movie. We are talking about the Die Hard of racing cars. All the car sequences are great, full with action and emotion. Every single fan is going to be pleased at the end of the film.

The story is very simple. There is a bad guy. Letty is working with him. The crew must bring Letty back home. The truth is that it works. The focus point of the film is to discover how she survives and why she didn't came back home. At least I can say that they came up with a good explanation of how that happens. But it must be clear that everything here has been made to please the fans. In other words, there are some decisions made in this film that if you think about it you will probably be disappointed. So is better if you just enjoy the ride and don't think about it too much.

The theme is the family. That's actually how (finally) the cast is feeling. On Fast Five there are characters knowing each other, but in this one everybody knows everybody. So they're one big family in the film and it is perceive as if they have become one big family outside the set. Even Hobbs feels like part of the family, even being a cop. The new guy is the villain, Sebastian Shaw (Luke Evans). He did a fine job and maybe that's because he is a good actor or because at last we have a bad guy who isn't a drug dealer. Shaw is more like a terrorist, so he is more memorable than the others.

Universal Pictures has confirmed the seventh film for July 2014 release date. That means that, even when we got a close ending, if you stay 10 more seconds you will witness an extra scene. In that scene we close one character gap (sadly but at last), and we're introduced the new bad guy. And he makes an impression on both, ladies and men. With that scene the producers make a statement: Fast & Furious 7 will be bigger than this.

This was meant to be the movie that would make us said: "the summer season has started" but it's turned out to be the greatest deception of 2013.

This movie is the one thing a movie cannot be: boring. In the past few days I've heard in the media that this film was good but the first act actually was kind of slow. How wrong they've been. The whole movie is boring, second act is even worse than the first and the third is so bad directed that it makes you wish get over it. The screenplay is focused on the solitude of the protagonist when it should have been focus on the action, what Jack will do when he discover that nothing is what is seems.

I blame entirely the screenwriters. It is sad to say that one of the screenwriters is in fact the Director Joseph Kosinski (Tron: Legacy). Even saddest is to say that he actually is one of the creators of the graphic novel the film is based on. This is the proof that it is bad idea for a writer to direct his own movies. Take David S. Goyer for example. He is the hell of a writer, but all the movies he has directed sucks.

But if you think that is some serious stuff, you must know then that the second screenwriter is no other than the Academy Award Winner, Michael Arndt. Yes, the same guy that wrote Littler Miss Sunshine and Toy Story 3. The same man that is about to give us the adaptation of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, and must not forget, that is the same man that Disney picked up to write Star Wars Episode VII. I have only one thing to say to this man: make them take out your good name from Oblivion or stay away from the sci-fi genre. The only one writer that is safe is Karl Gajdusek, because he only has written one film and it wasn't very big. So he is just a rookie making mistakes.

Kosinski definitely got an F on directing. To be honest, the special effects and the production design were brilliant, amazing. That said, this film is full with unnecessary repeated scene (like Jack dreams). I can't even remember when was the last time I felt insulted on a movie theater. Mr. Director, the audience is not dump, we don't need to see a man closing a capsule, lifting up the capsule, walking outside with the capsule and putting it on a spaceship. Showing only that Jack closed the capsule and then we see it on the ship was enough to figure that he took it there. This movie is full of dump actions like the one I have just described.

For those who know a little about screen writing I will tell you why is this film unbalanced. What in the film is the end of the first act should have been the inciting incident. What in the film is the first twist of the second act should have been the end of the first act. What in the movie is the last twist of the second act it should have been the twist of the first half of the second act. And the third act, well, if only were better directed. Seriously, the very last scene was unnecessary, dump, and nothing special. The film should have ended in the scene before that.

If you're hoping to hear some good things about Oblivion I can say that it has 2.5 things that were good. The first one was the visuals (already said that). The second one was the cast. It was an enormous cast, full of good actors and actress, but bad directed. And the .5 is for the score. The music was good, but our great director turn it off when it was about to get better. Like he did in every single action sequence.

Try not to see this on the movie, safe your money. This is the greatest deception of 2013to the date. I can honestly say that because the person who thought that G.I. Joe 2 was going to be good after the disaster of the first movie just because The Rock was on it, well, that person is an innocent soul. But this movie had big expectations and got short on every point, even using Morgan Freeman was shameful, he only have 10 minutes on screen.

A prehistoric adventure full of beautiful animated landscapes and constant laugh that makes it perfect for the whole family.

The publicity of this movie makes you think that the main character is Eep (Emma Stone), but actually her father Grug (Nicolas Cage), is also a main character. The plot of the story go around this two, everything one of them do affects the other to the point that at a time Grug is more a protagonist than Eep. The fact that this is so makes a different approach on certain themes, like that the message is more for adult parents than for the young audience, which is odd on animated movies.

Of course, the story is not complicated and either deep, but Dreamworks is not known for making that kind of movies. It doesn't have anything special either, except for the final approach to adults than to kids. But it is fun, full of physic and verbal jokes, which keep the audience laughing all the time. Regularly I wouldn't say that physical jokes (like punching), are well used and effective, but in this case we are talking about cavemen, brutal force is suppose to be the principal characteristic. So in this movie all the "punch to laugh" is justified and proper to the setting.

The dynamic between the members of the family is very close to a reality. None of us need to go out hunting to survive, but we often fight with our relative. Imagine that you are in a trip with your whole family. Well, all the talking, arguing and everything that drive you crazy about the guy next to you is in this movie. So there are plenty of elements that make this family of the Stone Age similar to modern families. Like the fact that you can fight all you want with your mom, dad, brother or grandma, but in the end you will protect them and give everything for them.

The world where this movie takes place is beautiful and unique. All the things that you encounter aren't real, the animals, the plants, everything has been invented by the creators with references of real creatures. That puts you in the same spot that the Croods. As they will discover new creatures and explore new worlds, the audience will know the world too. So the audience can't muck of the fact that the Croods don't know what kind of animals live on the earth, because they don't know either what are the species living on that world.

This is a good movie to go and enjoy with the whole family. Kids will love the graphics, the colors, some of them the 3D, and the jokes. Adults will laugh too with the jokes and will have a nice time with the ones they love.

Funny, entertaining and is worth catching it in the movies but, it is not as great as many expected.

Visually this movie is great. The first act is entirely black and white in a 16mm format that is too small for the big screen. What makes it so great is that director Sam Raimi decides that the location set was going to look just like the original Wizard of Oz (1939), fake. So it feels like if you were looking at a movie produced on the 40's. Then, as we enter to Oz, the image expands and fit to the screen with the brighter colors. And so the journey begins worthy of an attraction on Disney World.

The computer effects looks as it should look in a movie that cost $200 millions. Very much of the technique used on them make you desire for once seen it on 3D. So I'm safe to say that this movie should be quite an experience in IMAX 3D. Of course, nothing looks real. But that's the point, is a magic land, the creatures in there are not suppose to look real but magical.

The cast job is very hard to appreciate. Oz is a man that lies for a living, so every time he is in public he acts like if he were on stage. The problem is that Oz is always on public, so he is always trying to hide his true nature. So it is hard to say if James Franco is doing a terrific job or if he is doing his greatest performance yet playing a dude that is playing a dude. The same happens with Rachel Weisz. She is a witch and you can't tell when she is doing a bad job or if the movie required that she acts like that so everybody can tell when she is faking.

Michelle Williams and Mila Kunis are the ones that bring some serious acting to the screen. Of course their characters are not serious, but at least they act in public like they act in private so you don't have to think which scenes were good acting because all of them are. Is the same with the voice of Zach Braff (he is the flying monkey), his character stay natural all the time.

The biggest defect of this movie is that runs for 130 minutes and you can feel every minute of it. It is not boring, but either is this epic adventure that is so cool that time flies and you don't even notice. The reason why this happens maybe is because it last more than it should. It is a good story but, maybe could have tell it in less time and leave the audience wanting more, not thinking "God, this movie is quite long". So, if the 1939 movie runs 100 minutes with songs in it, this movie was suppose to run the same time without the singing.

The most memorable moment of the movie is when the Evil Witch appears; green, with the big nose, the pointing hat, the black dress and the broom. She has an entrance worthy of post Pirate of the Caribbean's Disney. On the other side, you may hate the character of Oz, the guy is a jerk.

It's good to catching this movie just for fun. It is better than Alice in Wonderland of 2010 so if you liked that one, then you might love this one. All is left to say is that Disney already ordered the sequel but Sam Raimi said that he will not be the one behind it.

It's sad that the Valentine's weekend movie is not worth the money, not even considering that is a "romantic" movie.

I saw a TV Spot the other day that said "the best Nicholas Spark movie since The Notebook), I thought that was interesting but, the truth is that is far from being that. Take this from a guy that doesn't like Nicholas Sparks work, Dear John, The Last Song and The Lucky Ones were better movies than this one. The first half hour of the film is about Katie walking on the street, the forest, getting a job (finding one the first day), walking home, going to work, meets Alex, walk back home, go to work, keep walking, go to Alex store again and BOOM it start the second act of the movie. The results: a movie where happens nothing half the time.

Obviously the story of this film isn't strong enough. Producers should think twice before deciding which book of Nicholas Sparks they will adapt. Being the author of The Notebook doesn't mean that everything he makes is good. I haven't read Safe Haven but I suppose that is a story where the entire dilemma takes place inside the protagonist mind. That's a problem because a movie is about what you show and tell, but you can't show thoughts. So in this movie there isn't much to tell, just two persons meeting, dating and falling in love. In the end there is a small confrontation but that's it.

I have no idea how Katie's character is describe on the book, but I do know that Julianne Hough was a bad choice. This girls looks older than her 24 years old, but when she acts (especially when she talks), is evident that she lacks the maturity and experience to do this kind of character. In Rock of Ages she was the perfect naïve girl moving to the big city, but Katie is something else and she wasn't the right choice. It gets worse when you put her side by side Josh Duhamel. At his 40 Duhamel is the perfect widow father of two kids, he has the sympathy and charisma to play it, but it doesn't look like the couple to a 24 years old. Remember that people thought that he was too young to be the love interest of Sarah Jessica Parker in New Years Eve? Well, is the same here, only that this time he is the one that is too old for her.

As a production, there is not much to tell. The soundtrack isn't something special, the photography is not interesting and the production design is too simple: just a forest, a dock and a couples of stores. It is hard to believe that this is the movie of the three times Oscar nominee, Lasse Hallstrom. The truth is that this movie is hard to watch, it doesn't have the story or development to last the 112 minutes that last. You can feel every single minute.

Honestly, I can only thing in one kind of audience for this movie: the hard fans of Nicholas Sparks, because doesn't matter how much the movie will suck, they will enjoy it. Only those fans will enjoy two hours of "nothing happens". This movie is cataloged by "romance" just because is about to people who fall in love, but is not even romantic.

An interesting story, with excellent cast but, with a small and significant flaw in the narrative.

Detective Billy Taggart (Marc Wahlberg), is accused of killing a man but, it is set free when the judge can't find enough evidence to put on the trial. The evidence however, is in the hands of the Mayor Nick Hostetler (Russell Crowe), who decide to keep it to himself because the victim was after all, a criminal who deserve to die. The case does cost Tagger his badge so seven years later he's working as a private detective when the Mayor calls him for a job. During his own investigation Billy learns that in politics nothing is what it's seems.

The best of the film is its characters, both in the script and on screen. They are 100% humans with flaws and good qualities. The protagonist isn't good or bad; he is a man who has done bad things and has to live with it. So he is not a hero and the only reason why is he on such a big trouble is because at some point the thing became personal to him. But that's how we all are, we decide not the get into the mud except when is our own. Wahlberg does a good job by portraying this man, he have this "not so bad" look that makes him perfect for the job. It is not his most acclaimed job, but isn't worse than The Happening.

The one with the great character is Russell Crowe. For some reason the bad guy is always attractive to the audience (in terms of acting). He is a real politician. This is a guy that can say his crime to the press and even so people go and vote for him. Crowe best moment in this film is during the final debate for the mayoralty, he got everything a politician would dream about. He dominates the art of change things to make you look like a hero or the victim.

The story on its own is below the acting, but doesn't mean that is bad. Brian Tucker is a first timer as a screenwriter and he had some good ideas for this thriller. Its big, complicated, and it get worse when we consider that the movie takes place during election time, and of course, is not boring. The elements of surprise and good twist are there, but the problem is that he never uses it. I'll have to say that the one who makes that mistake is not the writer but the director.

Allen Hughes is not a first timer. He directed movies like The Book of Eli, so he is no amateur. The way that Hughes decided to narrate this story makes it lose its surprise elements and twist. The film doesn't have suspense or big twist on the story. The reason is because we, as an audience, know everything is happening all the time. Some people believe that a writer shouldn't keep secrets to the audience. If the main character knows, the audiences have to know. The problem with that is that sometimes the big twist is what the protagonist is hiding.

But for this movie in particularly the real problem was that the protagonist (Billy), know from the beginning that he is a free man because the Mayor wants to. So, why is he surprise of what happened in the end? Doesn't make sense in the story and destroys the final big twist of the movie. The greatest flaw in this film is that reveals everything too soon and the suspense is not there. And a Thriller without suspense is not so interesting anymore.

I have to say it is not that bad. Is entertaining, has good acting, and is a good story. Not a perfect movie or the top of the careers of Mark Wahlberg and Russell Crowe, but is enjoyable.

The best thing this movie has is that only runs for 88 minutes so there is no chance to get bored.

But this is also its weakness, because if its duration is 88 minutes and those minutes are full of action, there is no way you can go deep on the characters. They are completely flat. Hansel only sees thing black and white, but when life starts showing him the grey areas of things, he don't have any trouble accepting them. Gretel is the one with almost emotions, because she thinks of her mother and father, but there is no big deal about it. And when she learn some truth about their past, she just go with it, no trouble with that either.

The problem with character without emotions is that they cannot connect with the audience. And if the audience doesn't connect with your protagonist, they won't care whether they live or die on action. I have no sympathy with any of them so I didn't care if anyone dies.

The story isn't so powerful either. They have a life; they kill witches for a living. Why are these witches so important? They are not. This is just another job, one job that will make them learn some truth about themselves, but as I said, they didn't care about that either, so no big deal, just, let's kill some witches.

What is really good is the action. All sequences are great and entertaining, which I think is the most important thing. Production values are awesome, the special effects, the settings, make up, everything is cool. And the best thing is the R rating. Is blood everywhere, which makes sense because if you're telling a story about two hunters whom kill their prey by cutting the head and turning them in fire, the less you can do is show some blood and head exploding. That is great, a lot of heads exploding, blood everywhere. It's an action movie and a bloody way to kill the victims so it makes sense that the movie becomes that gory.

But what I couldn't stand was the guns. This a medieval or something like it movie. Why the hell there are guns, shotguns and even a machine gun maxim. People lives in huts, ride on horse and use arrows, but when thing get messy they use a shotgun and some 50 caliber bullets. It doesn't make sense and I hate when filmmakers can't adapt themselves to the period they are setting them own story.

I would suggest you to wait for the DVD and see it in your sofa with some popcorn. But there are always people who likes going to the movies and see this kind of movie. But I can guarantee that there is nothing special about this one and when you see it you will only remember it for 24 hours.

Over a year ago Dreamworks make the announcement for this movie. When I saw the cast and the character that they were playing I got very excited about this. Imagine my disappointment when this movie didn't full my expectations.

The animation is great. All characters look really cool, especially Bunnybund, Sandman and Jack Frost hear. But I can't understand why ever since 3D gets into the theaters all 3D movies are darker than usual. If you are going to make a movie that take action during night time, why are you making it in 3D when 3D gets better with bright not dark. I will never understand why the hell filmmakers do something like that, buy they do.

What really happens with this movie is that even when all characters are cool including Pitch played by Jude Law, the story isn't deep enough. Almost every Pixar movies are powerful dramas on the roots, brought to us in a way that kids will like. Like "Toy Story", "Wall-e" and "Up". Even "How to Train Your Dragon", that is also from Dreamworks, work based on a intensive drama (a father that don't accept his own son as he is). But Jack Frost on this move don't have a strong issue. He can't understand WHY he is on this planet or why do people can't see him. But all the answers to that question is something like MEH, we already know it. Even worse, the reason why he is on Earth as a "ghost" is something he already does. A protagonist needs to change during the movie. All that Jack do is realize that he was doing it right. It's just dump.

Other thing that I hated is the score. I can't understand why Alexandre Desplat has been nominated to 4 Oscar. He might be a good musician, but he doesn't deliver emotion to the scenes. Action scenes need cool fast music that make the audience feel inspired. A sad emotional scene needs a melody that takes the tears out of your eyes just by listening to it. More important, every movie (especially the kids ones), need a theme song. Everybody know the theme song of Toy Story, the 60's melody of Monsters Inc. or the beautiful/Oscar nominated score created for How to Train Your Dragon. What is the theme song of Rise of the Guardians? It doesn't have one, because Desplat fails every time on doing this.

If you watch this movie you won't get bored. Kids will love it. I bet is better than Twilight now playing on theaters. But go without expecting something deep and powerful that will make you believe in fairy tales again, because you will go out disappointed.

The movie narrates an incredible story using the most beautiful special effects and great actors.

It is more that a survival story and it is not about friendship. This story is about faith. Director Ang Lee use all the tools he have to make this movie about a solitary young man not a boring one. It is narrated by both, young Pi and the Adult Pi, it uses music all the time so there is not space for uncomfortable silents and the rhythm of the scenes is fast. The result a very entertained film.

The most important thing of this film is it character. It is obvious because we are seeing for almost 2 hours just one character. So it is not only important to have a great character that appeals to the audience feelings, but to have an actor that portray this person the right way. Suraj Sharma was brilliant as Pi. He can make happy scenes as equal as sad, desperate, hopelessness, exhaustion and anger ones. Very few movies allow an actor represent so many emotions.

But if Pi is a good character, Richard Parker can only be describe as unique. The tiger as personality of it's own. Not many films can make an animal with so many human features and yet never stop being a wild animal. This tiger is computed animated but the audience will barely notice, because the way it walks, eats, its factions, the eyes. It doesn't matter if it is computer animation, Richard Parker is alive and is his own character just as important as Pi is.

If you think that "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" have good animal effects, you have to see how this people make a zebra, a hyena and a orangutan. All this, combine with a photography created by the same guy that make "Tron: Legacy" looks so cool and "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" so beautiful, Claudio Miranda, makes it an incredible experience to see.

This movie is definitely an Oscar runner for Special Effects, Cinematography, Director and Movie of the year.

This is a slow, classic story with nothing new to offer.

The story can only be describe as "bad". It is "Girl meet boy, in a horror movie". All the characters are completely flat, there is no deep in any of them. They are what you see, there is no even a change on them.

But the most incredible thing is that this is a horror movie without the horror factor. You can count with one hand the times you kind of jump. There is no mystery, no surprises, the audience know everything before it happens.

The last scene... completely stupid. It is there just to tell the audience something that is already obvious in the last 20 minutes of the movie. When a writer use that kind of tools is because they have fail in deliver the story the right way.

Even thou, it is not boring. The 100 minutes of run are not a nightmare like in other horror movies. Except for that, all the other things are failure, not even a good acting from the Academy Award nominee Jennifer Lawrence.

Go and catch another movie, because this is not worth the money.