Reviews

This movie wasn't special, just like 'moonlight' wasn't special. The difference is 'moonlight' had homosexuality which suddenly made hollywood erupt and cheer. Either way, if either of these movies were about white people, no one would care about them at all. Insufferable bratty characters we're supposed to feel sorry just for the color of their skin. There's nothing to see here. Move along.

I read this book for my English class summer of 2003. I had to write a paper on it for the first day of school. (I was a senior) I remember it being pretty brutal. This movie I remembered as nothing but an acid trip. I'm watching it now and I might have been a bit unfair. Is it still an acid trip? Yes, but it's pretty faithful to the book until Suzie dies. Then cinematography takes over story. It's a shame because it could have been a great film but it eventually only cares about looking pretty.

Of all the remakes, so far this is the 'best' But that's not saying much. Just like 'beauty and the beast', this film was ruined by a rewriting of the script and particularly the removal of jokes that are not PC. 🙄 A movie you hope to sit and quote is just gone. I was happy they got James earl jones back but even he couldn't save this hot mess. And I'm Sorry but like everyone else says, BEYONCÉ WAS DISTRACTING. The movie still made me cry because they kept its epic music but that's basically it. Just stick to the original.

I'm very late on this review as I saw this film many years back. Maybe I blocked it from my mind until now. It was SO SO BAD. I'm a screenwriter and I've had many arguments with people about whether you have to like characters to care about a movie. I certainly do and I didn't like anyone but Joanna. I mean I can't even talk about how much of a mess this film was and how much I didn't care. It didn't even feel like it was a movie about Steve Jobs. It felt like a movie about a rich and successful dead beat dad. That's literally all I remember from it. Goes without saying but DO NOT RECOMMEND. (I would have failed this film but Kate winslet)

I'm a girly girl so race car films aren't my thing. However I'm also a video editor screenwriter so it's my duty to catch up on hyped films. (Eventually. Lol) because of the 2019 hype of 'ford vs Ferrari', I felt compelled to watch that film, and this one too. It says a lot I couldn't finish 'ford vs Ferrari' but this one grabbed me immediately and didn't let go until it had me in tears. This film really proved Hemsworth as a good actor, and Brühl, who I've been a fan of a long time, an even better one. It's infuriating to me to find out only now Bruhl was nominated for practically every single award except the oscar. My only consolation is this is considered an industry travesty. Looking up the 2014 oscar year, it was inundated by 'Dallas buyers club', so no surprise there this film would be snubbed. It wasn't political enough. I'm also not saying Hemsworth deserved the oscar over mccaunghey, but Brühl definitely deserved it over Leto. C'est la vie. I'm just glad to have found this film and will be watching it again over the years.

I didn't realize this series was the same as 'the golden compass'. Considering from what I remember of that movie it was a hot mess, I thought anything would be better. That's partially true. I'm on episode 3 and sticking through it. But I also find my mind wandering and I edit at the same time, or write this review as I'm Still watching. I'm realizing my problem may be a total bias though. I wanted to see it for James McAvoy and he's hardly in it, so my attention is wandering. It's just not engaging enough otherwise. The actors are fine, with Ruth Wilson as a stand out, I may be writing prematurely and should finish the series but I'm not really seeing why right now.

Yet somehow that's all I'm seeing. From the beginning of the movie, I was like 'is this a dark comedy?'. I've never read the book but I've heard it's messed up and dark and twisted. I didn't see any of that here. The Performances were caricatures, like they were mocking the source material. If this was baz luhrman, maybe you could get away from it. Jude law seemed to be the only person in the movie who could do the source material with a straight face. Well that's not true. Domhnall Gleeson and Alicia Vikander (who was a pleasant surprise in an early role) were the only couple to take it seriously. The movie is still on as I write this. That's how bad it is.

I was very excited to see this movie. I had semi realistic expectations. I already knew it wasn't about mr. rogers but about the journalist who interviewed him. What I didn't expect was to not care about that character. He was just a jerk. I know he's supposed to be a reformed better man at the end of the movie, but it's really hard to care when a grown man is acting like a child the whole movie. I know we're supposed to get Mr. Rogers made him a better person by the end but I just didn't buy it. It didn't ring true. Tom Hanks was a great Mr. Rogers, but Matthew Rhys was just too unlikable for me to care.

I see a lot of people here saying they put off seeing this film because of its hype. Despite being a screenwriter/video editor, I am in this category. My rule of thumb is if critics love it, I will hate it. Well, this time the critics got it right. This is a great film. I can't give it a perfect ten because I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed and there were far too many twists for me to keep track of. I still have too many questions. (Maybe that's WHY some people would give it a perfect ten) it is a heartbreaking film but I feel also a misunderstood one. When you're my age (34) and a movie revolves around a 13 year old with an unreliable narrative, you know this Isn't going to go well but you also know SHE'S 13! Without spoiling the film, some events happen prior to Briony falsely accusing Robbie of rape that aren't exactly outside the realms of possibility of someone that WOULD commit rape. It's not impossible for a young impressionable child to deduce this from prior events. I had a lot of pre conceived notions before seeing this film. Every time this movie is mentioned, Briony is referred to as practically the worst villain in the cinematic universe. Having seen the film myself now, I think we need to go easier on her. She repents (atones, as the film IS called 'atonement') but it's too late in a twist I won't spoil for you. Your heart breaks for the fate of the characters yes, but your heart breaks for the young girl who (understandably) never had the courage to come forward with the real story until she was an old lady too. Or at least mine did.

My one gripe with the film is we never resolve once we do find out who did commit the crime and to whom, and in fact a little bit of logic would have told you who committed the crime based on who was missing that night, but I guess they weren't the point.

This could have been a really good movie. If it wasn't three movies. I've read and seen Cianfrance's interviews on this film and I get the fathers and sons theme. It would have been effective without the dragged out middle. In fact it would have been a really powerful film. As it is, it's still on while I write this review. That's how bored I got. To be honest it deserves a six but I gave half a point for cooper and gosling each because they're pretty to look at.

This is really great movie, especially when you consider the short story it's based on. as a screenwriter myself, i know how hard it is to take a short story concept and make a feature film and the filmmakers did a great job. I'm kind of appalled at some of the criticisms of this movie. someone called it a romantic comedy. i didn't laugh once. i don't know what you think is so funny. romantic drama, maybe, but it's really a sci fi film with a romantic element. imdb just isn't happy until a movie is 'inception' and you have to watch it 30 times to understand what just happened. someone made a comment about the writer of the short story and i looked up his writing. He really is one of the most influential writers of the last half century and a brilliant writer. i think his genius is underestimated. anyway, this is a really enjoyable film that i was glad i could watch once, maybe twice only, to understand. I find it's not enjoyable to watch a movie you don't understand but hey maybe that's just me. Matt Damon is a great actor but we know this already. Emily Blunt also does a great job as his ultimately confused love interest. Their chemistry is really what holds the movie together. you're really rooting for them and feel bad when things don't go well. I wouldn't call this movie AMAZING, but the negative reviews make me wanna offset them. story 8/10, plus chemistry add 1 point plus everyone else's negativity=10. definitely recommend.

I've been intrigued by this movie for many years but always forget to look it up. I found it on Hulu today and was impressed. My main morbid curiosity was watching a holocaust denier defend himself. As I expected, it was embarrassing, which is why he lost the case. He grasped at straws the whole time. I kept waiting to see how he'd crawl out of the hole he'd dig himself. The worst part was the footage of his speaking and people applauding his nonsense. The fact that multiple people like that exist is terrifying. I think people are being cruel to Weisz's performance. Her character was essentially silenced, and she owned every scene she was allowed to express emotion in. Another thing people aren't taking into account is this film was 1998ish. There's too much complaining about the dialogue (all taken verbatim by the way) the style, etc. it is true to the time. It does not take place in 2016. Maybe the most important lesson we learned about this movie is people need to pay better attention.

I enjoyed this movie. I watched it strictly for vikander as I love her as an actress, but it was a truly enjoyable (at times stressful) watch. I never played the game it was based on, but video games are video games. They don't really have 'plots' so to complain about the writing in this film is unfair i think. I also followed it quite nicely and I'm not very smart, so that may be a sign it was written for dummies. 😂 but seriously, everyone. Stop expecting 'Jurassic park' and enjoy the film.

I know this film is based on a book, so it's completely worthless of me to say this but I'm going to say it anyway: if this film had been what the IMDb longline has it about, it would have been a very compelling film. If the last half an hour had been the first half an hour, you have a great film. As it is, you have a tedious 2 1/2 hour film trying to figure out how ANY of this is relevant and why should we care? They might as well advertised the film as a coming of age story after a boy loses his mom in a bombing. Only then would people have been prepared for the snoozefest that ensued. For those people saying this would have made a better miniseries: ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND? I can't imagine watching this crap for 6-8 weeks just for THAT to be the conclusion. I also see people praising the director because he did 'Brooklyn'-one: that was a bore of a film that reminded me of watching Nicholas sparks worst film and 2) roger deakins legendary cinematography couldn't save this movie. It want even that impressive, don't know what people are going on about. Anyway, as a screenwriter and video editor myself, I'm glad to see film critics have some sense left and won't fall for ALL oscar bait films. The worst part about this film is the waste of a cast. Oh well.

The film takes a serious subject and tries to present it with humor. I'm a screenwriter And I always struggled when people told me my writing was on the nose. I understand it now-it's writing like your audience is stupid. This film is ultimately propaganda filled at its finest, not even giving you the facts and you come to your conclusion. It makes the conclusion for you- if you are capitalist, you are bad. I'd say the film is a a waste of talent but they probably all believe the crap that's in it anyway. Props to movie critics for seeing through it and voting the movie down though.

It's not hard to figure out the problem with this movie-the dialogue. In the hands of Sorkin, this would be a great, intriguing film like 'Molly's game' but it really falls flat. We're supposed to root for the strippers 'hustling' wall street's bad guys, but both sides are equally stupid and sloppy. This movie was just boring to watch. I was mostly on my phone. I don't understand how it got any award hype at all.

I'm a screenwriter and am currently writing a story about what happens when a popular guy and not so popular girl get together and the fall out. I'm a product of the 90's (I was born in 85, so I was too young for 'pretty in pink' at its time) where movies like 'she's all that' and 'can't hardly wait' happened. This was reminiscent of that. It wasn't my experience that the popular kids in school were mean so I don't want to make them mean in my script and I came across a description of this movie. It seemed to fit the inspiration I need for my own screenplay so I watched it. I loved it. A lot of people are focusing way too much on a) the fact it was Veronica's fault it all started in the first place and b) paying too much attention to the whole cat fishing thing. Seriously, it's not that serious. Sierra was totally harmless. If the roles were reversed, it'd be your typical teen movie, because all the mean things people are accusing Sierra of, a 'Veronica' type would actually do. I think you're all just not used to the role reversal. Ultimately it was a sweet movie that did turn stereotypes on their head. Really enjoyed and really inspired me for my research.

I'm 34 years old so i didn't grow up with john hughes but i am a screenwriter and i'm writing a project where the popular gets with the not so popular and how friends react. someone told me 'you HAVE to see 'some kind of wonderful'. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? first of all, this movie takes forever to get off the ground. second of all, they never even have a relationship. they go on ONE DATE that gets interrupted by the girls epiphany she wants to be alone and the boy realizing he's been in love with his best friend all along. HOW IS THIS SUPPOSED TO HELP ME IF THERE IS NO RELATIONSHIP? at least in 'pretty in pink' they have a relationship that succumbs to peer pressure. that being said, I did prefer the best friend in this ending and did not mind they end up together, whereas i will forever fly my 'duckie is a pain in the ass' flag.

Save for the fact they're not inner city kids (or maybe they are. it's a private school) you've seen this movie before. you've seen 'dangerous minds', 'freedom writers', 'coach carter'. this movie has nothing new to offer, except a twist. let's just say there's a loss and a parent doesn't take it well and starts drinking. i could understand if it was something the parent could control, like he drove drunk and killed this person, but it was no one's fault. maybe i have sympathy to addiction because i suffer depression and depression can lead to addiction, but if the family members around the main character had maybe treated him differently, he wouldn't be where he is. anyway, boring, generic, cliche film and i'm very disappointed in how it handled its 'heavy subjects'.

This movie is incredible. I hadn't watched it for a long time and it was on tv again last night and I was blown away by her ability to be so narcissistic and such a sociopath. (I say sociopath because they still have the ability to be warm and charming) the way movie handled astrid's love of her mother but having to come to terms with what a selfish person she really was, was beautiful to watch. This movie gets rated very low and I think it's because it makes people uncomfortable to watch. Uncomfortable doesn't mean bad, guys. It was just unsettling to see everything Astrid had to suffer and go through. I think everyone can relate to her journey of Can she ever trust her mother and let her in ever again? You'll have to watch to find out.

But not great either. i love the book and i love the '94 version of this film. this one did not sit super well with me. i thought i would be confused by the flashbacks but i was not so that was a nice surprise. i also liked that beth was given more to work with. overall though the film felt like the actresses were mocking the material (or maybe i picked up on how much fun they had making the film. i don't know) either way the tone didnt fit right. wasn't upset about the ending like i thought i'd be because they did NOTHING to establish jo and bhaer's relationship. in fact, jo wasn't very likable at all. she came off quite selfish in the end. i don't have a lot more to say except surprisingly this cast looked WAY too young to play the ages they played in older years. timothee chalamet and florence pugh were the worst offenders. (pugh was the opposite actually. she looked too old) also, i don't know if this was the purpose, but they made the family look a hot mess. in the 94 version, for example, they're refined despite being poor. here, the girls were loud, boisterous, obnoxious. the film is called 'little women' but they did not behave like women at all.

Shocked to see so many low scores and reviews here. I was 10 when this movie came out and have loved it ever since. I've never been one of those people that cares what a persons religion is or their politician affiliation so all the comments about this movie being Scientology propaganda are shocking to me. Can you really not separate character and actor? You've got a problem if you can't. This is just a heartbreaking film about an extraordinary event that turns tragic. I remember it being my first time seeing forest whitaker and he was so great as the comedic character of the film. John travolta and kyra Sedgwick have amazing chemistry. You really can't go wrong with it.