Reviews

The Marvels is a film like Barbie, made for women and by women, and yet, wasn't half as successful as Barbie and majority of their audience were men. As one of them, who skipped Barbie (as opposed to women who skipped this), I gotta say this was complete waste of time (and money). It's just a bad movie. But let's start from the beginning.

Brie Larson wasn't a very good choice for any Marvel superheroine, certainly not for an obscure character like Captain Marvel. But the movie came and the rest is history. And now its half-sequel is here. And boy, as I stated already, it was royally bad. The director, who skipped the post-production on The Marvels middle-way thru, attempted to sell her film as wacky, goofy fun. I can only say this. The Marvels is not wacky, but it is goofy. And goofy not in a good way. Superheroes are goofy by default, but this took the game a step further.

The plot is the biggest flaw. It lost its marbles after the first ten minutes and I didn't care about it for the rest of its 105mins running time. Which seems too short for these kinds of films, although 105mins was too much for me. The biggest selling gimmick, our trio exchanging powers, even after all obscure explanations, never really made any sense and their switching powers seem to work only when filmmakers tell you they work. Not one of the three heroines has a meaningful character arc, the movie should be about Carol Danvers, and while there was room for all three, I never had the feeling they were experiencing an emotional journey. Kamala just wants to be there, Monica acts like a job drone and Carol in the search of something that is even unknown to her. Even the villain is just a flat-out cardboard villain. People singing sequence is gross. Kittens swallowing people as a means of transportation massive gross. Music apart from generic bombastic tunes is meh, CGI atrocious, the editing a work of hack...a fail on very single level. The eponymous trio lacks chemistry. Kamala's quotes are sophomoric, but given she is an overexcited teenage girl, that can be forgiven, Monica seems the most level-headed of the trio, and Brie surprisingly acted less robotic and more nuanced than in the original Captain Marvel (those trailers didn't do her justice), but not in a game-changing manner.

I guess we are reaching now the twilight of superheroes. All pointing that similar fate awaits Aquaman 2.

Part of sophomoric slasher boom from the early 1980s, the film is by the book made. Heavy on cheap gore and subpar performances. Except Michael Ironside, the misogynist killer, whose part at least has some meaning to the role. Which can be evidental from the number of women who rated this film higher than me. Maybe we need a real Michael Ironside.

As Serbian, I am disgusted at the recent string of mystic thriller/horror series that offer nothing but a lame plot, overacting and myriad of graphic sex/nudity and gore, which seems necessary sight on our TVs. Seemingly such vulgarity is primary interest of a casual Serbian telephile (Mocvara, Senke nad Balkanom, for example). Dialogues are terrible and only get worse. I have seen better make-up done by kids.

It's as if we appropriated foreign models in making successful shows, forgetting that such genres aren't what entertained vox populi not that long ago. I am sorry, but dealing with horror and other mysterious themes isn't our thing.

Okay, coming from this background, my review might be biased, but objectively speaking, while definitely not a cinematographic masterpiece, this film has power to stay with long after the credits roll. Especially when you know that all you've seen is true. Ustashi regime was even worse than Nazi and death camp Jasenovac was literal hell on Earth. I am glad and thankful to director for bringing that vision on screen, vision we should never forget. Vision that was hidden or watered down during communist period. But that is now over. And I hope we make more movies like this. And no, this isn't for political reasons.

8/10

Well, sort of. This isn't some ridiculous cheesy actioneer, neither a gory horror sequel. In fact, imagine the mix of The Hangover and Back to the Future, and you'll get this surprisingly funny little gem. Truth to be told, I was skeptical about the film initially. Especially after Philips' money-smashing, acclaimed trilogy. But I was wrong. This movie is very funny, occasionally silly and gross, but it's still make you worth your time, especially during rainy Autumn days like now. Three friends with miserable life gather up to celebrate, or to better say, lament over their mostly missed lives. That is, until they discover a hot tub in the lodge that sends back through time in anachronistic 1986... This is where real fun starts. The cast is amazing and each play their parts very well, and each in their way, but imo Rob Corddry steals the movie. Kinda unexpected to me, considering the stars like John Cusack or Craig Robinson. Anyway, this the right type of movie to watch with your male friends, especially if you feel bored or depressed and not only during depressing rainy days in Autumn like now. But the best part of the film is that it is tasteful time capsule for 80s film fans, rife with references to 80s hits like Ferris Bueller, Sixteen Candles, National Lampoon, Night Shift, Porky's (the last two are the closest in the spirit of this titular film), beside said Back to the Future films. True, the movie isn't without flaws. There were some moments that kept you curious in terms of "whats going to happen" so be prepared. There is a LOT of drug use, said really vomit inducing pieces of humor and the fact that there is a chance that millenials won't pick-up many of the 80s jokes and references.

Grab your buddies, leave your spouse at home to cook dinner, and enjoy Hot Tub Machine. You won't regret.

Coming from my homeland, this movie is exactly everything I hate about our cinema. Troublesome youth, pretentiousness, poor acting (except Mirjana Karanovic who is typically much better actress than human being), deep meaningful subject matter that ultimately lead nowhere... Basically, what one messed up generation might do without their cellphones, locked in a school in Serbia? Whole movie feels like it's staged for country's immoral liberalism vs nationalism/conservatism counterpart , where is obvious which side the director picked up. The movie is boring, uninspired, plot is nearly non-existent and overall, I feel like I was being lectured, which is frivolous from a filmmaker to do so, as movies don't have power to change things. Certainly not in country called Serbia.

If this is the future of our movies, then I am deeply afraid for us. I am not saying that what was presented isn't true, just is done for the wrong purpose.

I admit, I hadn't have my hopes high on this film. To me, Rambo ended after the 3rd part and even that film along the previous film are inferior to 1982 classic original. I wasn't even expect 2008 film to be made, but there it was. Unfortunately, The Last Blood suffers from same problems. And it was insult to the franchise. Fairly ridiculously gory, violent, profane, depraved film with about 80 minutes of screen-time, excluding the end credits (which last for about 10 minutes). The build up is slow, and the it finishes real quick. Story makes no sense either. Also, there are some let's say, cringe pro-wahmen empowerment elements (you would think Rambo movies are allergic to those). In between, there are no any segments that made even 2&3 iconic - no jungle, no waterfall, no helicopters, no bandana... Not a single glimpse of Rambo we use to know from the 80s. Only onslaught of extremely graphic violence. Seriously, this is truly undeserving end for my hero.

So, don't listen to what people write here. Actually, if you are fan of 2008 Rambo, you'll probably (maybe) love this one. Otherwise, go look for entertaining movie someplace else.

This one is the first massive Marvel failure. At worst, previous Marvel films were okay. Not this one and it's more behind the scenes than actual film itself. The main actress, Tree Larson, is totally poor choice for the role. But keep in mind her her words that she hates men, and will use this film as a form of activism. Newsflash: men are those who read comics, men are those who will tell you something it's bad; I am sorry, but that's how it is. Next, to fully make this as female film, Marvel decided to promote her as "the first female superhero film?". Which includes several female co-writers, along female co-director. One was nothing apparently. And release today, on International Women's Day.

About the film, Tree's acting is bad, with cringey lines such us "Let's show these boys how we do it. - Higher, further, faster, baby". Lol. The story is pretty formulaic. Jude Low and Sam Jackson are wasted here. The only star is Annette Benning. The cgi is terrible. Oh, and the Skrulls were meh

All in all, skippable.

I thought that Predators is bad ,until I saw this. In short, unlikeable and stereotypical characters, Olivia Munn badass (wtf?), some silly plot points , cheesy lines, just I think, there are two many flaws to name here. Overall, the movie looks like it never got out of post production stage. Sorry but this hunting trip is not my cup of tea.

Well this certainly sounds like a fairly tale. It takes place amids Serb-Albanian conflict during Kosovo war. Premise is absolutely dumb. A Serbian wife is left with her two sons, as the father got killed (read: probably during killing some poor innocent Albanians). Then one day she founds an Albanian wooden soldier on the run (from gross Serbian militia) . The fairly tale begins when she nurtures him and then falls in love. This scenario might work in any other country but not here. It simply won't. This is not Helsinki syndrome case, it's even worse .I suppose the ultimate message is another "love conquers all" or "make love, not war". If it not was for gross political propaganda. A total waste of time.

Another sterile, bland entry from Zack Snyder, ultimately forgettable piece. Weak villain with ludicrous design, thin plot, infantile humor. RIP DCU. On the other hand, SFX are impressive and you get to hear Batman 1989 tune, albeit it doesn't last long. And ms Gadot standardly great.

I wonder where is Geoff Johns input here...

I watched it yesterday. First and foremost, I'll have to say this. I'll warn you that I may be chauvinistic to both sexes here. I was doubtful if female director can successfully pull off a testosterone "male" oriented blockbuster. Point Break is awesome, but Hurt Locker and Punisher:WZ I found to be boring and uninteresting. However, when it as announced that woman will direct WW, I felt they got it as I believe that only a female director can give the character justice. Of course, it if was a guy, it may totally be the same movie, so I digress.

But first before getting on the movie, let me say that I am not much of a fan of WW (neither I read many comics - Perez I love, Azzarello run and Hiketeia I intensely dislike, though I admire what the Finch couple did). About the movie: I think it's very, fair, honest and sympathetic portrayal of the title character, the best it can get and much in vein of Donner Superman IMO. Moreover, Gal is beautiful, sexy and lethal in equal measures (though I am bit nostalgic for Linda Carter:grin:) And this WW is bereft of the superhero antics I find in Nolan/Snyder verse, where are frustrated, confused character with phrases like:"should I do it; who am I; it hurts me being superhero, hurts me when being not...". No, this character is a hero and wants it to be. And I believe, just as the poster for Superman (1978) - "You'll believe a man can fly".

On the other hand, the plot is already chewed-up and clichéd. It didn't engage me much. I am not particularly convinced with Pine's performance (but he did good). Thewlis, though, ruined it for me. His later "reveal"... well, can't say I've seen it coming, but it didn't surprise me, either. Also, I find the main villain fight to be a bit cheap, tedious, and unconvincing, with WW all of suddenly unleash all her fury, before seriously eating dirt.

As for action scenes; the special effects are impressive, but the action itself I find just ostensibly thrilling. Don't know, probably because, I've grown spoiled, petulant and craving for more over the years, so that nothing much can surprise me. And flawed he may be, Snyder knows how to make a glory spectacle. Sorry, Patty.

What can I add that others didn't already. L.A Noire is IMO currently the best detective game ever created. This game can make you feel like true investigator, with occasional chase and "shoot rm up" sequences. It pays homage to the film noirs of 40s. Visually stunning, highely detailed and atmospheric in evoking post WWII Los Angeles. Characters expressions and motions are incredibly and voice actors have done their job superbly. Lots of older (exotic) cars contemporary to the time and some of them you'll need to find to unlock. Storyline is intriguing, emotional and well written. Cole Phelps is one of the best characters that exist in a video game. For this genre ans style, what can you ask for more? The only flaw is: it's very repetitive. But again, it doesn't spoil the overall experience.

Winning things shouldn't be called for change, eh? So, what the word "worst" stands for? Well, despite what gamers think, I more or less agree with critics. Maybe because people who developed it aren't coming from Rocksteady, but from WB Montreal. Seems to me that they didn't wanted much to toy upon. Game itself isn't really an improvement over AC. In fact, it is very much alike it. Graphic, game mechanic, control system and combat system are very much the same. But, that doesn't necessary mean it's bad. Arkham Origins is far, far from being a lame game. Who played Arkham predecessors, after first cut-scene (in Blackgate prison) will feel at home and breath with full lungs. Storyline of Arkham Origins, takes Batman 5 years (as developers described) before events in AC and his is at the beginning of his crime-fighting career. AO is said to be a "year two" story. Batman is young, cocky, uncertain, argues with Alfred. Those dramatic moments are essential part of the story and saying they're influenced from Nolan's movies is rubbish. Moments "who are you","why are you doing this" would not have much sense in AA and AC, but they are absolutely needed here. Also, developers claimed the game is inspired by several comics (which fans might recognize)such as Year One, The Long Halloween, Turning Points and so on. Batman fights with cops (Year One; also, Lt. Branded and Comissionar Loeb appear). Joker is telling his origins from The Killing Joke, that part we have to play with him. I wish it last a bit longer. As Batman, he is thrown against of new type of threat. Not some new super-enemy, but accomplished eight assassin, been hired and sent by Black Mask (also appears) to take Caped Crusader. Deathstroke, Copperhead, Firefly, Electrocutioner, Deadshot, Shiva, Killer Croc and Bane. Bane here has much bigger role than previous game, however his relationship with Bats is thinly portrayed. Same I cannot say with Joker. Though, I personally think that game lacks some epic confrontation and showdowns, considering it's the first time that Batman faces the villains he will fight throughout his escapades. The game however has few innovations. New type of enemy in combat, martial artist. He is kinda tricky as you have to counter his attacks twice and he can also counter your attack so watch out. Batwing is present, but you can't manually drive it, it serves to transport you on certain points on the map. In order to do so, you need to hack Enigma (Riddler) control towers to unlock them. As you progress, you gain electric gloves (don't wanna spoil how) which makes fights easier, but they can be used for limited periods of time. Glue grenade replaces ice grenade from AC. Sometimes in game, you have to solve particular crime using detective mode; which, as developers stated, is slightly improved. I'd disagree. Just look for the red triangle and scan it and Batman will in CSI manner deduce what happened. Such as angle of shot, point of impact, range of shoot and etc. Not that I did expect something from recent Sherlock Holmes games, but step forward in that manner will help. After all, Batman is considered world's greatest detective. Map in AO is larger than AC, as it expands on souther part of Gotham City. Over Pioneer Bridge intro Coventry, Diamond District and so. It is interesting to see how certain areas from AC look five years prior. Voice acting is great, especially Troy Baker's portrayal of younger Joker. He is definitely imitating Mark Hamill, and he did it splendidly. Enigma's challenges are presented with some variation. Once you go through all pain & sweet to collect them all, game will throw a big letdown on you (don't wanna spoil here). Overall, Batman Arkham Origins is very good and entertaining game, despite not offering much. I felt I am repeating AC, which I played few weeks prior this. So, I had very high expectations for this. Still, it gave me hours of fun. I'd rate it 8/10

This movie is made on ground of respectful reputation of Sly and Mr. Hill, especially during period of 80s (my personal favorite decade). The two each reunite with Hollywood mogul Joel Silver, who by the way, serves as executive producer. They worked together on; with Stallone in "Demolition Man" and with Hill on several titles including 48HRS (not sequel). This movie is some sort of homage to 48HRS and, unfortunately, inferior. Why? Its running time - 91 minute. It gets over quick since plot is shallow. But for Stallone (action) film, that might not be a real flaw. Real flaws come from bad acting and you don't have to be peculiar talent to notice. So, bad acting and even poorer dialog. Awful to listen. That means that script is work of amateur. I wish Mr. Hill had any input, unfortunately he doesn't. In some moments movie look like he came from B-production. What is good? Well... music is good. Combination of blues and jazz since the setting is in New Orleans. It plays very well between the scenes. Action sequences are also higher point and here is obvious where Hill earned his reputation of action director. They're bloody and violent, but relatively tame compared with today's standards. Sarah Shachi is too one of the brighter sides. Christian Slater plays supporting role as one of the villains. He is no better than Stallone and Kang. Stallone might irritate you in the role of professional assassin. He is portrayed as violent character who kills without remorse (similar role he done in similar disaster "Get Carter"). Wears strange tattoos on his back, nerd haircut and his especially mumbling voice like in no way any other film he did. Seriously. So is the movie worth watching? Depends. If you're hardcore Stallone fan and his movies regardless, then buy it, rent it, download it, whatever. However, if you aren't exactly his fan, but you liked to watch his and Hill's earlier film and enjoyed in them, forget on this title. Like it doesn't exist.

This is one of those "little great movies" made almost by low key approach and as art film. It tells the story of few guys planning to rob the safe in jewelry store. Each one of them has the same reason for it. Money. One character, Toto, leaves poorly in abandoned hangar, other guy, black man Leon, has a sister who is soon to be married and he needs dough for the wedding. Riley is also very poor, his wife is imprisoned and he leaves alone with his baby and so on... However, whole point of the movie is that robbery they looking to execute is doomed since the beginning. Only characters aren't aware of this issue. Movie reminds a bit of "Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" in terms of style and setting, but far less violent. Violence happens very rarely or almost never, and when it happens it's played for laughs and when you compare that with running time (86 minutes) you get very lightweight, very easy film. Those two things are only criticism I have. On brighter side, actors did their work tremendously and Sam Rockwell leads. I haven't watched many of his movies, but he is so damn good in this. Very good. Along with George Clooney, who appears in episodic role (3-4 minutes) as safe cracker veteran who teaches our guys how to crack the safe. Of course, it would be unfair if I don't mention late Michael Jetter and Luis Guzman, Patricia Clarkson and Isaiah Washington. Dialogue is well written and locations are realistic. Overall, movie is very enjoyable for anyone who loves crime/black comedy features, except when it ends, it'll leave you wondering why hadn't lasted a bit more.

Terrific war movie. And very underrated. Great ensemble cast and even better director. This is one of favorite John Woo movies and Nicolas cage too. Story is kinda stiff and movie itself could be little longer. It tells the story about Navaho Indians who use their native language as important code use during WWII on island called Saipan. Two marines (Cage and Slater) are assigned to protected them as the code must not fall into enemy's (Japanese)hands.Action is greatly built, fast-paced, typical John Woo style, lots of explosions and well choreographed ballistic shootouts. Music fades in the movies nicely. Few emotional moments here and there, especially at the end.

One of best WWII and 2002 films.

Should I really put my review with when many other already did that instead? Well... I'm not kinda fan of SF films, especially Blade Runner and Total Recall, but 2001 Odissey is... epic marvelous masterpiece! As Stanley Kubrick's film it some of his trademarks(close-ups on faces, classical music score, etc.)it's surely one of his best. Personally I prefer more "A Clockwork Orange" and "The Shining", but this one... As I fore-mentioned music score, well constructed shots, scientific accuracy, HAL 9000, ambiguous storyline open to every interpretations and outstanding special effects(which brought Kubrick's only Oscar)when character travels through time and space looks so lavish and better than most of other recent movies. But in overall, whole movie is and looks better than most newer SF-s.

Honestly, I don't think this is the worst movie ever or one of the worst. How movie is critically awful, its box office gross may tell otherwise. 237 millions in globe compared to 125 million budget. Not every movie can do that. Anyway...

I watched this film 2-3 times as a kid and it leaved solid impression on me. Now, I'm 23 and I watched it few days ago, now I understand why critics chopped this version of Batman in half. Schwarzenegger(one of my favorite actors)did his work below average. Still, the dull script poorly developed his characters. It lack some depth. Similar thing with the others. George Clooney-totally wrong choice for the main role. Other actors fit somewhere between them two. Plot is overtly and unnecessary complicated and bleak. Considering who's the writer(Akiva Goldsman)script could be better. Joel Schumacher approach is similar to his previous Batman film called "Forever". Even the opening sequence are the same in both films(Batman prepares for the night). Elliott Goldenthal did marvelous job writing the score, although same as it is in "Forever". Fits with film's dark, grim atmosphere. I couldn't compare it with Danny Elfman's music because it would not be fair since they two wrote equally the same thing, each on their way. Sets are built okay and the effects are nice. But, I must admit that action sequences look a bit childish. Speaking of childish, thing what definitely ruined the potential hit is its "toyetic" approach as Schumacher described in commentary. I'm pretty sure that everybody will know what it means so I'll move to conclusion.

"Batman & Robin could be watchable feature anyway. But as long as you don't take it seriously and do not compare it with 1966 film with Adam West which is self-parody in TV style.

Yes, John Woo is terrific director. At my opinion he was at his best in this mind blowing, kicked-ass action package. Everything that he has done before, and I mean particularly on A Better Tomorrow and The Killer reached its culmination in Hard Boiled. In fact, when John Woo completed this film, he went in U.S, later directed Hard Target, Face Off, which were a little bit disappointing compared to his Hong-Kong work.

Yes, there is massive amount of shootouts, graphic violence, explosions doves(symbol of piece), gun play(Mexican stand-off). Everything in John Woo's style. But the shooting is amazingly choreographed. Strongly stylized. Lots of special effects, explosions, glass shattering. Looks and sounds so real. I never have seen it so in an action film.

Bad things are choppy and ludicrous story, terrible dubbing and soundtrack as well the thing that irritated me most(but not enough to hate the movie). It is like a video game where some people get shot several times and then walk and shoot like nothing happened. Those guys(especially villains) sometimes looks so invulnerable.

At the end, Hard Boiled is masterpiece for action films. Loud, exciting, amazing, but with few oversights. i strongly recommended the movie for all action fans if they had not see it, to see. And enjoy!

This is one my favorite horror movies, beside "The Shining" and "Dreamcatcher". Why? Because from start to finish there is constant "jump" scares(particularly frightened me when Price found his employee's face half eaten), solid script, various interesting characters and high level of violence. Whole movie is EXTREMELY intense, though. Only it could be little more longer and little more psychological. But this is quite good. Special effects are real piece of work(specially when Darkness starts sucking everything in). Also, to mention, sequence with Price locked in room for "crazies" where he experiences seeing some horrific and twisted images is genuine and awesome. It can trip with your mind.

10 out of 10. Creepy, scary, fun to watch, but little unfinished.

As someone has wrote "violent, but spiritless" perfectly fits with this film. There is plenty of action, fast pace, some kick-ass fighting moves and standard humor for an buddy cop film. The acting isn't so bad, Dolph and Brandon made some chemistry between them. Director is Mark Lester who did great job on "Commando" couple years before. Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa holds outstanding performance as the ruthless villain Yoshida. On the other side, short length, poor sound in some action scenes, low visual effects and bad script ruined potential hit for an action film. Overall quality is somewhere between A- or B+ movie.

At the end worth watching if you don't take it seriously.