Reviews

Reading the critics reviews one gets a wonderful perspective of autism, but not a lot about the movie. This is a review of the movie and not of autism. Overall, a good concept and a fair indie movie. However, low budget is no excuse for poor directing, poor editing and allowing lame acting to pass as final product. The visual effects and stylistic elements are excellent. Really good work there. But sadly it cannot carry the movie. I just feel that there was so much more that could have been done to make it better. It's as if someone's "good enough" bar was set too low. I did manage to get to the end of the movie, which took some effort. But the effort wasn't really worth it at the end.

In an age of cookie-cutter productions, this movie stands out. Refreshingly different, with a slow-burning delivery, this movie does everything good Sci-Fi should. Atmosphere, mood, feelings, thinking, suspense, mystery - all delivered capably. Great work by Andrew Patterson. Excellent performances from Jake Horowitz and Sierra McCormick. Also Gail Cronauer. It takes guts and dedication to the art to deliver a movie that focuses on creating and developing a story and mood without glitzy OTT effects and CGI. Kudos to Andrew Patterson - you pulled it off!

(Well, actually there are many non-Hollywood productions that work better than some of the rubbish we get fed as entertainment). Brilliant movie - perhaps not, but the acting is solid, the innovation and novelty is better than good, and I through the CGI and production was exceptional. The story carried well and even my Marvel-generation 18-year-old enjoyed it thoroughly. We watched the dubbed version which was a little sad, and sometimes hilarious. In all, really watchable and really well done! If this is what will come out of Ruskiwood, then I'll be buying!

I really enjoyed this movie. A good old family all-rounder. Romance, but not sickly sweet. Sadness, but not lingering on it too long. This is a movie about life, love and loss. Kostner gives a unique feel to the movie. A solid and grounded narrative that could have gone horribly wrong with the wrong voice. The movie is very well balance, with the chapters of the movie and the themes of love and excitement and injustice and complicated family issues woven into a rich tapestry of a good story. Very good to see Milo Ventimiglia's career developing so well. I still see him as Peter Patrelli from Heroes. "This is us" was "not for me". He is excellent in this role. In some scenes I thought that should they ever want to do a Rambo prequel, they have the man here. He has the same slanted mouth thingy that is so much Stallone. The movie leaves you feeling fulfilled as you tuck your wet tissues into your handbag or pocket before the lights come on...

When I looked at the rating of the movie I almost didn't watch it. Luckily I distrust the ratings these days. I'm so happy I do. This is a rare find of a movie. I think one should focus on it being a spy drama. It is not a thriller. Not that it does not have its thrilling moments. The movie is about an end-of-the-road spy and a youngster that has to shadow him. And herein lies the brilliance of the movie. Using relationships and not technology, using common sense and not apps. There is much to glean from the rich experience of the old spy. The pace is perfect. There are reminiscences and emotions, moments of style and moments of sadness. It's all there. This is more like a good old spy novel than a genre movie. And frankly, the genre has little to offer. Which is why Daniel Craig's Bond rebuilt the fading franchise. Almost no gadgets. The story develops and the suspense is well-tuned. For those who "couldn't get to the end", well, your loss. It has a wonderful twist that I for one didn't see coming. Kingley makes the movie. What a giant of acting. And Monica Belucci almost renders the same impact as a Sophia Loren. What a dame! Itay Tiran is someone to keep an eye on. Well, I loved the movie. Every bit of it. But then, I watched the first Star Wars in the cinema and thought that it was the most incredible thing I ever saw. That's when Michael Bay was 12.

I prepared my son for the movie when he decided to watch it with me. "It will most probably be bad", were my words. I have to admit that was wrong. Afterwards, he was keen to watch the others. Especially First Blood. Stallone surprises at 73-years old. Yes, he looks a bit jaded, and he decidedly doesn't take his shirt off to ripple those oiled muscles, as they would most probably wobble feebly, not ripple. But when he unleashes his "inner darkness", he makes up for muscle tone with blood and guts. Even my son, desensitized as his generation is, found some of the scenes over-the-top. Wrath has no limits in this geriatric revenge spree. The recipe of Clint Eastwood's "Gran Torino" and Liam Neeson's "Taken" franchise works well. Stallone actually acts better than I anticipated in this movie. Never too late to learn, I guess. I loved the scenes in the end credits, celebrating the other Rambo movies.

I would venture that this is perhaps not as good as the other two in the franchise, but still good enough to enjoy. As far as a good and honest action flick goes, it has all the ingredients. Butler does have more "wobble chops", but it fits the narrative of the story - the ageing warrior. I liked the tech presented - gave it a bit of a "007" feel. In all, a good two hours to enjoy, with just the right speed and development to keep you from hitting the "off" switch. I guess the next step would be a prequel with a younger look-alike?

There is something to this movie that could have worked. Hence the "2" rating. 1 for bad and 1 for nice try. Sadly, it didn't work. A lack of coherence and building a story-line makes it feel as if it was conceptualized as it went on. The acting just didn't carry it through. Moments of promise were destroyed by the next moment of mehness. I think "cut" and "retake" were foreign concepts to the director. Sorry, but this "good enough" is just not good enough. Sad, really, as good directing could have made it much better. Some good cinematography in a few places. Kudos to the drone camera work. But in all, it ends like an old stale biscuit. The "Great" reviews are mostly by new IMDB accounts. Not too difficult to decipher this phenomenon. I wish they would do something about this. Really spoils the validity, doesn't it?

It always fascinates me how reviewers either go in the direction of a. "Like" or b. "Unlike", with a few "could have been's" added. So, according to Douglas Adamsian logic, the movie is almost completely unlike "2001"? Frankly, if you wanted to watch 2001 then watch it already. This is a slow-burning space drama with a feeling of reality to it. The physics felt right, and didn't have to make sense. (As if laser "sounds" in Star Wars can ever make sense). It is a story and has some thrills, drama, character development and a back-story that entwines with the culmination and resolution. I felt great after the movie. Satisfied. Thoughts were provoked, emotions were felt. Which is why I loved it. Well done! Another good movie from a good director.

The positive of this movie is that it should give hope to aspirant movie makers, directors, actors, well, pretty much anyone who wants to be in the business of movies. Unencumbered with the basics of script, character development, suspense, special effects and even historical accuracy, this plodding patchwork of scenes only fits the categorization of "movie" by being displayed on a screen. Woody acting, general stupidity and lack of direction should provide exceptional learning material on "how not to do it" from school production level upwards. Actually this is unfair. I have seen school productions that are vastly superior to this. I feel for the poor souls involved and the harm it must have done to their careers. I guess a buck is a buck...

This was an incredible find. The pace and structure of the movie is simply exquisite. The acting is superb. One of the best sci-fi finds I have had in a long time. Patrick J Adams is wonderful to see outside "Suits". A very good role for him. Troian Bellisario also shines. Watch this. You won't be disappointed.

This is a decent movie, with good action scenes and good acting. The power of CG in a young Will Smith is impressive. Irrespective of the typical plot issues (if you want plot, read a good novel, this is cinema), the pace and story is good. I don't know why there are so many Benioff haters in the reviews. Seems a bit unfair, all in all. The one thing that bugs me is the budget - this is by all counts a big budget movie, yet it feels like small to medium budget. Other than the CG of Will Junior, what did they do? Buy the yacht? In terms of the business of movies, the ROI is there, but if I put that amount of money in, I would want spectacular ROI, thankyouverymuch. In the last twenty minutes or so, it is as if they ran out of time for special effects, or out of budget, if that is possible. Still gets a 7, though. Even if just for the motorbike scene.

Firstly, I am biased. I grew up on B-movies. And this one takes me back with a nostalgic smile. The movie has so much bad to it that it's almost laughable, but when adjusting your lenses to "B", then it kinda pulls it off. Yes, the acting is stinted. But still enjoyable. The script? What script? Some of the snippets are choice inputs for memes! Yet, with everything going against it, I could still watch it to the end. This is a sci-fi movie for B-movie fans. If you cannot deal with the "B", it's not for you. For me, out of all the rubbish out there, this was recyclable. It didn't need to be unique. It just needed to be honest. And it will get you to rate other movies more honestly too. When you see bad, you appreciate good all the more.

As far as journalism and a documentary style goes, I found this title to be well-balanced. What makes it difficult is that, just as the tobacco industry shaped public opinion, as did the sugar industry, as did the meat industry, to report well you need to face these facts. As we live in a fake-news society, led by opinions neatly packed in little blue bird symbols, "doing homework" on a subject is probably too much work. People would rather listen to a shared opinion and agree with it than come up with their own. The results that this title presents is undeniable. It is not about stories. It is about validated facts. And having Arnold in there - "you hit like a vegetarian" - just hilariously appropriate. And looking at his bodybuilding career and achievements, it's worth listening to his accent when he shares his opinions. This is more than a documentary. This is a change of life moment. Just like "that sugar film" that made us think a little more about our intake, and "Forks over Knives" that punched us in the flabby gut, you will not watch this and think the same about the world around you. And that's a good thing. Thinking, specifically.

It saddens me that so many would review the movie only on the basis of comparison to the others. If you love 1-3, then watch them again! Looking at Toy Story 4 in isolation does not require a frontal lobotomy. Rate the story, how it made you feel and what you feel at the end. Was it a good journey? Or did you get off half way? Gilda Radner wrote: "I wanted a perfect ending. Now I've learned, the hard way, that some poems don't rhyme, and some stories don't have a clear beginning, middle, and end. Life is about not knowing, having to change, taking the moment and making the best of it, without knowing what's going to happen next. Delicious Ambiguity." I believe that summarizes the movie for me. I liked the characters, got swept along a torrent of adventure and emotions and even loved the end. I think this is a great way to end a story that is an era in itself. Well done!

The average rating of this movie is impossible, and has the potential to destroy the entire IMDB rating system reputation. This movie is utterly unwatchable. Not fun, not entertaining at all. Just incredibly poorly made, acted, directed and scripted. Could possibly be used to torture suspects into confessions.

Good sci-fi movie well executed. Worth a watch. Can't see what some of the reviewers are fussing about. Suspense. Yes. Plot. Yes. Acting. Yes. Effects. Yes. Perfect. No. But good entertainment. Yes.

I am a huge fan of M Night Shayamalan's movies. Who isn't, right? But Krazinsky has nailed it in his directorial debut. Only reason I've not watched it to you now, is the damn poster. I thought, typical horror movie blah. Then I saw a little insert on how sound was used in the movie on IMDB. And had to watch it. So glad I did. Exceptionally well made and directed. Will watch it again soon. Well done! Very good story. Very good acting. Very good suspense. Very good ending. Everything just works. Really worth it.

These days you have to read through droves of reviews to decide whether a movie is worth it to watch. As most of the reviews were singularly idiotic, they actually got me to watch the movie. And I am glad I did. Solid performances, a great escalation in suspense, with just enough irritants to make it work well. Like a good video game that has to frustrate you to be good. The entire colour palate of the movie is excellent. Yes, it has some silly bits. But this is a meal, not a damn take-away hot-dog. Chew it well and spit out the gristle. I guarantee a worthwhile experience. Thumbs up for me.

Willis and Christensen together? And it's a snoozefest? Wow, couldn't have imagined. Found the movie sloppy and characters stony. Willis played his typical cop role like a caricature. Christensen did much better but with everything else stacked against him, it was wasted. Nope, not recommended.

Where this could have been good, I feel it turned out limp and unfulfilling. All the ingredients are there but like your coffee getting cold, it just does not hit the mark. I am a huge Willis fan but found his performance stinted and unconvincing. It felt as if the character bored him. Vincent D'Onofrio Should have played lead as his acting was good. Even Dean Norris pulled it off.

Thoroughly enjoyable movie. Good acting and excellent storytelling. When faced with a situation where there is literally no way to win, what would you do? The suspense is well constructed and I found the pace to be in sync with the story. Good to see the lead actors reunited again (since '71, which was brilliant). Worth giving a watch.

Accidentally happened on this movie and was glad I watched it. Many Christian movies try and present a reality that is either aspirational or divorced from reality. This one doesn't. It addresses issues in the church community head-on. The church, like any other organisation is plagued by a lack of strategy, structure and the abuse of power and position. That is just how it is. And this movie presents it as such. A really different movie with some great moments. Brings church into community - not above it.

The reason I love indie movies is this: A story told without the budget to make a mediocre story look better with the glitzy tricks of post-production polishing. And this is a good example. A story. Some good characters. Some moments of good acting. Moments of laughter and touching moments. Yes, in all honesty mixed with some poor acting, some caricatures and some predictability. Which are all found in a series like Dynasty. At the end of the day, who really cares. You don't read James Joyce every day. Sometimes you just want a David Baldacci. This is not a brilliant movie by any stretch, but it is watchable and enjoyable.

It was Cillian Murphy that attracted me to watch this movie. And I got so much more. Solid story with a presentation of moral dilemmas that have a lasting effect - both in thought and discussions. What would you do when impossible situations present themselves as attractive temptations? Cillian Murphy and Catherine Walker carry the movie, with great moments of Andrew Scott and Eva Birthistle. Solid hour and 3/4 of good acting. Most probably for the deeper thinkers, as this is not a light romance. I loved the ending and the outcome and the statement it makes. Counter-intuitive, I would say. Watch it to understand.