Reviews

Yes, it's a drama. And those who don't know what that is or don't know how to appreciate it .. just don't write comments-- ok?

I'm not really a drama fan and so I can't judge about "quality" of drama. The only thing that matters to me is story and how actors tell the story. If I can identify with story and if actors make story believable, then I call that a good drama movie.

I can say, I've seen quite a lot of movies so far.. also some dramas. But I can easily say that "Waiting for Bojangles" is one of the best in past 20 years.

Ok, it's starts kinda silly, which made me thinking it's "another cheap" try... but soon we realize the beginning makes so much sense and the tempo of the story is just right.

Both main actors are quite new to me and truth to be told, my first visual impression was, that Romain Duris is probably wrong choice. How to say, his appearance next to Virginie Efira just didn't "fit in". But how wrong I was -only these two excellent actors could make this movie authentic.

Highly recommended for mature audience!

I give 9 out of 10 stars -because I'm picky.

I started watching this documentary by coincidence -that is, I didn't search for such content. I did watch few docu's in the past, which covered the same topic, so I though I might learn something new.

Sadly, that didn't happen. Not that I'm that smart knowing everything. It's just, this documentary doesn't give new answers, simply because wrong people have been asked to answer the questions. Asking someone, who is directly a part of monetary chain, how the money is made.. seriously?

No wonder, some didn't care, some didn't know the answer, some didn't know how to explain,.. some were confronted with question for the first time, and so, no wonder they didn't know the answer... and some avoided to answer.

So far, total documentary failure.

Besides that, the whole thing is unnecessary long, filled with long boring shots of buildings and interiors. The whole actual content would easily fit into 20 minutes movie. But if that would be the case, then the whole thing wouldn't give impression of "serious" content. Length should increase impression of some big investigation.. result of a lot of research... for trying to find the answer to question nobody asked before.

Sorry director C. Lossman, but this topic has already been beaten to death in media in much better way and presentation. And meanwhile, answer is pretty much known -at least to those who can do 1+1=2 math.

Waste of time (2 stars)

Before I continue: not that I'm some fan of it, but I quite like romance/drama movies. And even better, if spiced with moderate humor.

Ok, there's no doubt that S. Weaver and K. Kline are great actors -which also influenced my decision to watch The Good house.

Now, I can't really say if the whole movie is good or bad .. because my "patience" ended at 31st minute of watching it. You know, I made my personal rule: if movie doesn't "engage" me in first 20 minutes, then it just isn't worth my time -so far, this works very well for me. Ok, I gave it additional 10min's, because I hoped... After I stopped watching it, I checked IMDb and see rating of 6.7 (which is good rating in my eyes). But then, I see only 715 people voted, and only 15 made a review. In short: this movie didn't really caught some attention.

First 31 minutes... story doesn't develop at all. There's only narrative (by S. Weaver) introduction of characters (so we know, "who is who") -a great way to have movie content, without telling anything. I mean an average movie is about 90 minutes long -so don't waste the time!

I'm probably not entitled to comment it, but my impression is, this movie was made for those, who dream (or can't forget) about their lost youth love... the possibility to spark again? I have nothing against such stories, though. It's just, this one starts very poor. Does it become better later? I really don't care anymore.

Ok, I almost hit eight stars, but then I decided for seven -which is more realistic, I guess. But how come I considered eight stars first? I mean, movies we can see lately... yes, it has been a while since a saw a good movie and so, no wonder I became a little over excited.

Raymond & Ray is not some epic drama. What makes this movie to stand out, is simple story which doesn't become boring not even for a second. I wouldn't categorize this movie as a comedy, even there are some "weird" situations -to put it mildly.

I'm quite a fan of both main actors, E. Hawk and E. McGregor, and they both deliver classy performance here. The rest of the cast was good too, however they don't stand out that much in this story. But even then, it's impossible not to notice Vondie Curtis-Hall's presence (in role of Reverend West).

Let's say it's just a simple "real life" story.. there's something to think about and there's something to laugh about. I really enjoyed watching it -and that's the whole point of a good movie.

I don't know much about cinematography in Far East, because I've only seen a handful of movies from there. Being from Europe, I can't really distinct between movies from China, South Korea, or Japan. I think it's in Japanese movies, where men always shout even in normal conversation -at least it sounds so in my ears.. but then, I don't speak Japanese :-)

Lightning up the stars is quite emotional and entertaining movie. Story is simple and realistic, without pretending to be melodramatic. And so is the cast. They are not just "acting".. they are "real" and very good at that -I hope, you understand what I mean.

To keep it short: If you're in the mood for "light drama", watch this movie before Hollywood decides to do a remake (and makes a cr*p out of it).

I insisted for about 25 minutes (yes, I'm patient), but then I just couldn't watch it anymore.

I didn't check any reviews before watching this movie. I just though, Brad Pitt had few decent movies in past, so it shouldn't be a total waste of my time -I was wrong, obviously.

And then I check imdb and see rating of 7.5 stars. I assume these ratings come from teenagers, who don't care about how pointless the story is and how moronic dialogs there are... as long there are "cool" guys and gals -welcome in Tarantino's world.

Just to fill up the last 50 required characters: I think, movie industry was never at such low level as it is now.

Thanks for reading.. but then, nobody cares, though.

As of writing this, this movie has rating of 7.7 out of 10 stars and so, it's supposed to be above average good movie.. right?

I'm quite a fan of Elvis since I was 13 or 14. And when I heard on radio about his death (I was 17 at that time), I was shocked -as was the rest of the world.

After seeing some good (and many bad) movies about worlds greatest singers and musicians, I wondered, how come nobody made Elvis movie. Ok, truth to be told, I had no idea who could play Elvis. I mean, it must be said, that he had very unique face, charm and charisma. We just need to accept compromises in this regard (so my thoughts). But yeah, in that case, we wouldn't look at Elvis anymore. In some way, I hoped there would be no Elvis movie, because I was afraid of being disappointed.

And now, in 2022, we got the movie. Of course I watched trailers and some related interviews. I must admit I became quite excited after that. Ok, let me put this way: from trailer, I was ready to accept Austin Butler as Elvis and Olivia DeJonge as Priscilla. And honestly, I couldn't care less who plays col. Parker.

Finally, moment of truth came: I can watch the movie.. to revive my youth.. to bow again to Elvis.

I will skip details in movie, because it's just too much. In my opinion, that's not a movie about Elvis, nor is about col. Parker -it is a movie about (director) Luhrman making a movie.

Why I say that? Because in this movie, Elvis isn't shown as persona of interest. There are no dialogs between Elvis and (you name it) at all: no exchange of opinions and no shared thoughts (about anything). Not to speak about emotions between Elvis and Priscilla... there are none. The only thing we get, is how col. Parker (Hanks) repeats himself again and again (some "snowman" stuff).

Yes, I watched the whole movie.. and ended angry. I was ready for compromises and in that sense, I accepted acting crew. I still think that Butler was quite convincing in performance on stage -but the rest is mostly posing. I can't say much about Olivia DeJong, because according to this movie, Priscilla had minor role in Elvis's life... I mean.. seriously?? Visually, she was the right choice, though.

The name "The Jordanaires" isn't mentioned at all, even the quartet was performing with Elvis for 15 years. And so on and so on...

So, how come 7.7 stars? If you check the pattern, then you'll realize that there's very big deviation in ratings. Practically it's either 1 or 10 -and in such case, one shouldn't trust the statistics.

My recommendation for younger people who are interested about Elvis... don't waste the time by watching this movie. Now aday we have Youtube, where you can find authentic information. Someone already recommended "Elvis by The Presleys", but there are also many interviews of people who were close to Elvis. Watch all that and then listen to Elvis's songs. I know times have changed meanwhile.. but hopefully you will understand the magic of Elvis.

Thank you for reading.

I'm giving 3 stars because of Butler's imitation and because of DeJonge's appearance -the rest is zero.

And another waste of time movie.

This movie has nothing to do with "sci" part of sci-fi. No idea where from such high rating comes... maybe covid influences good taste?

I won't go into what's wrong in this movie, because list would be too long. But in short: everything.

I didn't know that's a sequel of another movie and according to some "reviewers", it's better than the first one... Now I feel a bit happier.. by knowing there exist even a worse one.

If you never experienced dementia in family, then you'll probably find this movie kinda.. boring. Watching repeatable simple dialogs and scenes isn't really entertaining. Some will maybe be touched at the end of the movie.. either because they're sensitive or simply because that is "expected" when watching such movie.

My father had dementia and all I can say is, this movie is the closest I've ever seen. I say closest, because movie mostly shows demented person's view and behavior and doesn't touch much other's family members feelings and thoughts (in this case, daughter and her husband). I think that was made on purpose, so observer can concentrate more on main character -so observer can understand him better (as far that's even possible).

In that sense, this is an one actor movie. And what an act it is! Hopkins's execution in brilliant... real... he IS demented -and I know what I am talking about.

No, I won't watch this movie ever again.. too many memories become alive.

Well, I watched whole movie... because I was hoping there will be some plot or twist at the end.. or anything! But there's none -and I've seen few (sci-fi) movies in my life. Seriously, don't waste your time on it, you'll get more excitement by watching commercials on TV. Now, do I really need to give a star to submit this "review"?

I'm surprised this movie practically got no attention and me being the first writing a comment. Yes, the story isn't really that new. And the cast.. well, it's actually two actors only -both quite unknown (at least to me). Hopefully I won't be bored to death -was my thought when I started watching it. Btw. I have a rule: if movie doesn't catch my attention in first 15 minutes, it's dumped. I try to keep it short.. Both actors did their job excellent and made the story believable. Penny and Harris, both pleasant to look at, are natural in showing just enough emotions. Ok, maybe I'm biased because I find Penny very cute... Story itself maybe isn't that special. Still, it's never boring and keeps your attention all the time. As always, the end is very important for such kind of movies, as it can (and often does) ruin the whole experience. The end is different than I expected during watching the movie.. is better than I thought it will be.

Sometimes I can't understand reviewers here. I mean, if a sci-fi movie is reviewed, then writer should criticize it (good or bad) from sci-fi view angle. And even then, one shouldn't compare one sci-fi genre with another.

Anon is raw sci-fi, without amazing effects and stunning fights. It's story is more actual than ever.. or at least it should be. In a society, where we "feel the need" to be "connected" all the time.. without second thoughts about possible consequences in very near future.

In short: good actors and good idea well presented. Makes you thinking after movie ends -which is the main point of good sci-fi. I give it 8 stars.

When young, I was a big fan of Agatha Christie and I've read most of her books. Most of them have a "unexpected twist" at the end, which is probably the reason one just need to grab her next book. Needless to say, A. Christie was a master in playing games with readers mind. But you know how's with the stories that have "unique" twist at the end: one is surprised (jaw-drop) only reading/seeing them for the first time. Murder on the Orient express is no exception: if you know "the story", then there's no point to watch this remake. Actually, compared to the book, this remake is quite poor and I can imagine, those who didn't read the book, may be disappointed (in sense "what made this title so famous?"). We have a bunch of great actors, but none of them leaves a mark -except K.Branagh playing famous detective. I would blame a script for that. Let me explain: In A.Christie's books, reader has always the feeling he can solve the mystery. Of course, reader's guess is usually wrong.. still, even after the crime is solved, reader still believes he could solve that, if he would pay enough attention when reading. Now, in this movie, that feeling doesn't happen.. it can't happen, because there's no time for small details and hints. Regardless of my title above, I recommend the book.

Being picky about details myself: landscape between Vinkovci and Brod (where story happens), is in reality totally flat.

Now, after reading other reviews here, I feel lucky I've watched this crap only first 30 minutes -then I skipped to last 10 minutes. Hey, don't envy me, it was pure luck :-) Anyway, I still regret watching R.Mara eating for over 5 minutes. I wonder.. people actually pay to see this "movie"?

And you know what? Now I find "no-signal" screensaver on my TV quite entertaining.

If you're younger than, say 40, then you'll find this movie extremely boring. Well, I think it's boring and I'm over 50. To be honest, I would probably stop watching this movie in the middle, if there wouldn't be Sam Elliot. It's his appearance that keep you watching, not the story. The thing is, there isn't much of a story: no "big" questions and no answers... you need to imagine them just by looking at Sam's face expressions. Or maybe even I am too young to understand "the message". About relationships.. there aren't any either. The idea of good looking young woman (Laura Prepon) falling for such old man is kinda unbelievable, so it should be supported by some dialogs -looking into each others eyes just isn't enough in such case.

Btw. Who at IMDb decides about movies genre? Because, if this movie contains any of comedy elements, then I really need to get checked by a shrink.

Before I watched this movie, I didn't read reviews about it, nor did I pay much attention about kinda poor rating. I only knew director S.Hicks from his "Hearts in Atlantis", which I quite liked at that time. And for that reason, I didn't wanted to be influenced by other opinions before seeing Fallen. Here it goes, my opinion...

OK, I realize this movie wasn't made for me. Meaning, if you're male above 40's (or above any age?), don't watch it, because it's just silly. I can't imagine even teenager would buy such story nowadays. As for women/girls of any age, if you like seeing romantic fantasy (say, angels) movies, maybe you watch again "Ghost" (1990) or "City of Angels" (1998) movie -after all these years, both will leave bigger impact.

I rate Fallen with 3 stars -truth to be told, Fallen is better than watching commercials.

I started to watch this movie with big hopes... and I insisted to watch it for over 45 boring minutes. And I just can't stop asking myself, where from those high ratings (at IMDb) come? Or maybe it's because I'm from Europe, not understanding how people live and act over the pond?... how they cope with death in family? I ask, because whole 'drama' in this movie is highly unnatural and relationships unreal. Not to mention, that so many "f*ck you" just has no place in such story -I assume script writer ran out of ideas on many places. C.Affleck is.. as he is in most movies: in bad mood, thinking about something all the time, asocial. For the rest of the cast, I already forgot them. "Masterpiece", huh? I would give it 1 star out of 10, but because I suffered only first 45 minutes, I give it 3.

Crime, drama, mystery... no action. Not easy to make a good movie of such genre nowadays. And when reading story-line, one might think "haven't we seen them all?". Yes, we probably did.. but this one belongs to good ones.

Main role suits Adrien Brody perfectly. His "average guy" appearance gives the movie certain authenticity. But then, he never disappointed me. I never heard of Yvonne Strahovski before, though. In this movie however, she reminded me on Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct. Difference being, Yvonne doesn't appear that cool'n'smart -which is only good in this case.

Story, in general, is not that new. But it has interesting plot, which is presented very good and kept my attention all the time. Now, even this movie is categorized (also) as mystery, I wouldn't say there's any. There are just things we don't know till the end of movie. OK, I admit, I found relationship between Ivonne and her husband kinda "weird"...

And finally, movie ending. In my opinion, it's perfect!

So, if you like this genre and you're in the right mood, I recommend to give it a try. I give 8 stars.

I'm not really a fan of thriller movies in which legends and cults are used for a plot. Because most are quite predictable and so it is Sacrifice. Thus, after reading a storyline at IMDb, I kinda knew what to expect.

I admit, main reason for watching this movie anyway, was Radha Mitchell. I just think, over the years, she's getting better and better. I can't judge her acting, but one is for sure: she leaves a mark in a movie.

So, even nothing really surprised me during watching Sacrifice, it got my attention all the time -it's something that makes a good movie in my eyes.

Thus, if you like such genre, I recommend seeing this movie. I give it 7 stars.

Before seeing a movie, I usually check it's rating on IMDb. I don't read reviews, though, so I can make MY opinion about movie after seeing it. And if my 'judgement' doesn't fall close to IMDb rating, then I read reviews -asking myself, maybe I just missed something. We learn all the time, right?

In short: this movie is utter crap. Not even worth to analyze it.

So I wonder, where from rating of 7.3 (at this time) for this movie comes? I mean, on scale up to 10, if movie is rated above 5, then it should be worth seeing it in cinema... I guess. Anyway, if you haven't seen this movie yet, don't waste your time on it when (if) it comes on TV. Switch to commercials instead -will be more entertaining. I give 1 star rating for this movie.

When I started looking this movie, I didn't know what to expect nor did I read any reviews. M.Jovovich may not be the best actress out there, but Resident Evil was quite entertaining and Perfect Gateway worth to see. As I never heard about Osunsanmi (director of 4th kind), I was hoping to be surprised with some fresh idea... you know, like M.Night Shyamalan did with Sixth Sense.

No, I won't "analyze" Fourth Kind here, because it doesn't deserve that.. it is utter crap even for brainless people.

What wonders me is, how come this movie can have (hight) rating of 6.5 right now on IMDb?

For those, who get their movies "for free": don't! -it really isn't worth.