Reviews

Breaking Bad (2008-2013) is by far the best thing I have personally watched in my 15 years of experience watching movies and shows on television. On levels of acting, directing, writing and even cinematography you can't ask for anything more than what you get from that TV-show. It reaches pretty much perfection across the board.

So even if the same exact team behind that masterpiece is announcing in 2014 that they are planning a return to the same universe with a prequel series, focusing on several of the secondary characters from that show, there is actual basis for me to be nervous: RARELY does that work. I can't help but remember the frustration so many projects leave me with because the creators just won't understand that it is far better to leave something successful alone, rather than keep going until you reach bottom. How many times have we seen this mistake? Depending on the success of a project, producers and directors get caught up in the moment, return with sequels, prequels and alike only to end up destroying something unique and beautiful.

And yet... Better Call Saul's Vince Gilligan and Peter Gould were not only able to make this prequel story work, but ultimately write a second masterpiece that completely enhances and capitalizes every single thing that made Breaking Bad a great show. This is world building at its best and I really hope writers and producers around the globe take an example of how to concept new stories on already established characters and properties.

After immersing in the world of Breaking Bad, the first season of Better Call Saul is not going to be a surprise to anyone. It is only dedicated to slowly explore the characters and get to know their traits. Bob Odenkirk as Jimmy McGill, Rhea Seehorn as Kim Wexler and Jonathan Banks as Mike Ermehntraut are the stand outs from the very beginning. Many returning characters from Breaking Bad appear throughout, but I won't spoil anything for anyone who hasn't seen it/them. Beginning the series, Jimmy is a lawyer who is trying his best to make it big whatever the cost it seems to have by the law or his private life. Kim is a uniquely skilled and respected lawyer who is apparently attracted to the whimsical skills and traits of Jimmy, even when he crosses the line. And Mike is a man of many capabilities who gets in deep with all kinds of wrong people while managing to keep his private life to himself. These 3 different lives and paths are crossed in several ways and come to test all boundaries of right and wrong. And what is left in the end of the first season is an apparent fondness) of all these people to cross boundaries at the first sight they can; whether it is by choice or not.

Now I won't continue to describe in detail, because I trust it's so much better to not know very much in order to enjoy. What I wanted to focus on is the general themes of this incredible story that we are told and the things we should all benefit from attending. Since the very first moment and throughout the 6 years of its run, the story describing what happened up until the last scene of the very last episode is something that I could describe as a study of human emotion. The heart of this series is the underlying sadness of all participants. There are many moments of happiness, there are many points of joy, delight and blissfulness but especially at the end it all feels like it was deprived, depressed and underprivileged. There comes a point in your life where every single choice you ever made is put to the test and Better Call Saul is a primary example of people paying their life debt in horrific ways.

And this is something that Vince Gilligan and all the other writers have done before.

Breaking Bad had the power of seducing you to dark sides of human behavior by making it seem like it was the only way to rise in power or be respected by others. The whole story of Walter White's character for example, had so many scenes along his journey making us believe he wasn't only doing what he did for himself, but it was the only way for him to get the money and the respect we believed he deserved. That recurring theme is one of the only to be so apparently the same in the character of Jimmy McGill. Especially in the beginning, we are actually rooting for him to be successful and when the right ways and legal ways simply won't help him, we accept his decisions to rise above certain circumstances because we see it like he doesn't have any other choice. Same thing happens with Mike and Kim at several situations.

As the show goes on however, we get to know more. And man, is it exciting. I can't even explain the exceptional writing that made me so disarrayed about how to feel and for who. In most cases, that last sentence would of course sound as something bad from a screenwriting perspective... you apparently are supposed to know who is the hero and who is the antagonist in the process. But this is so not what happens here. As pasts are unfolded and cases collide rapidly, the morals of every character become all the more fragile. Ways of thinking you thought you knew have changed to the core and it never comes down to a simple scene or moment that defines everything... it is slow-burning darkness resisting the light within them, only to be detected when it will be already too late.

The key to all success here is patience. This series is a perfect example of what you can get in return of waiting for the right moment to shine. The last two episodes capture the magic feeling of nostalgia and completion because the characters within this universe commanded it. We feel obligated to sense their feelings and understand their emotions. It has been 7 years since the beginning of this terrific ride and the ending was fully satisfying for what it had to do. If you haven't been able to check it out, I suggest you do. Otherwise you'll be missing on something you may not be able to find ever again.

The Electrical Life of Louis Wain (2021) Rarely does a movie nowadays provoke its own ambition. This is the way I would try to commercially propose "The Electrical Life of Louis Wain". I have said in the past that "The first signs of a unique film are usually shown during the first 10 or 20 minutes." You simply just know if it's worth your while... Yet this time (in my own humble opinion) it is one of those exceptions where the more you invest in the characters presented in this picture... the more you harvest. The more patient you are, the more receiving it will be as a whole.

Are there flaws? Yes. Are they easily recognizable? Depends on how many movies you've seen and of course how much forgiving of a person you are. Many of the attempts at creating emotion or attention come as delightful as you would think it can get; but there seems to be a lot of other attempts at crafting something surreal and extremely unique that feel way too forced. Now this does not mean that it's all just an unbalanced mess. It's just that the screenplay and direction often seem to try a bit too hard.

The story of a man enthralled by cats (even as a "True Story" as it is presented) has a lot of ambition to be put on the big screen. That alone could be considered a risk and in a world full of empty and emotionless films we should all applaud such great work. Director Will Sharpe has not only captured my interest for any future work, but he has the potential of even been considered a great new talent. What has been achieved here is worth recognizing: a character study of a person that not many (or even a few) came to know, within two hours becomes a person whose life means more than we could ever possibly imagine and a face that some would like to get to know better. ("Some" I said. Let's not overdo it.) That face is hard to pick. Who can bring such a character to life? Director Sharpe obviously went right away to his fellow "Sherlock" co-worker Benedict Cumberbatch, who once again understands the task he is given. He really gives everything here and is truly remarkable at capturing the essence of this deep personality. His way of appreciating and portraying mr. Wain is for sure another performance to add in his great film career. It's one of those castings that you would definitely look back and say: "I can't think of a person who could do this better." Claire Foy is once again great as the love of his life, portraying a woman sad, tormented whilst inspiring (especially to our protagonist).

Wain is a man full of talent. He loves his family but the thing that shapes his life is his hobby: cats and drawing cats. His manners are distinctive. He likes to draw and has a lot to show for it, but his smarts are limited. Even if he could be rich, he just can't use his brain at finances the outstanding way he uses it for the paper. Therefore, the world around him soon takes advantage of his weaknesses. It all just doesn't matter to him, because he is just not like any other person. Except for one thing. That one little thing that seems to be the same need for us all, isn't it? He meets Miss Emily Richardson and falls in love... that woman will soon help him discover whole other worlds inside his warm little heart. It won't change his love for cats though... rather encourage and inflame it.

What happens after is just full of spoilers and I don't want to ruin it for anyone. The blending of past traumas and future personal problems of Wain is one of the greatest strengths of this film. I would give recognition to the screenplay even if it would be just for those parts alone.

At a certain poignant (favorite) moment in the middle of the film, Foy (as miss Emily Richardson Wain) marks the question that could very well be a long subtitle or theme of the film: "What's going on in that funny little head of yours?" she asks and we are to be left to wonder alongside her. In the end, the purposes of all those lives we enter at the beginning of the film have something to comment on our own personalities. Near the end we discover of course serious obvious medical reasons and such that have been under the radar for most of the family members portrayed. But that still doesn't take away the weight of love and passion that especially Wain showed in his life for his wife and others. Relationships that shaped who he was were now long gone and only kept alive by his own nostalgia... His passion for cats was the only thing left that kept him going.

The scope of this film is sometimes larger than it should be. Its meaning might not be buried under pretences, but rather lost in tired sequences. I would end the film a bit earlier but I wouldn't want to insult such great attempts at being so distinctive. If you like films that want to go deep and not just try to be another one of those classic romantic\cheesy ones, I would definitely recommend watching "The Electrical Life of Louis Wain".

8/10 Stars.

Let me say it. I want Daniel Craig to stay in this age and forever only play Jamed Bond every couple of years. I want that, please, give me that.

For starters, I loved this movie. Spectre is intense, it has an awesome score, it is definitely one of the best looking movies of all time, all the set-pieces, oceans, places, all great. The cinematography is absolutely Oscar-worthy. Daniel Craig is once again so great as James Bond, so is everyone else in the movie... all-in-all, I'm pretty sure I'll be watching this another 20 times very very soon. (Though probably skipping the intro song... Bored out my mind throughout that one, bring back Adele!)

Having said all that... if you are a fan of James Bond and you want to be simply entertained when one of his films comes around, I don't want to say anything that could possibly make you upset or worried about Spectre. Seriously, the film is great. The opening scene alone is one of the best intro's in a James Bond film ever.

I just had a couple of thoughts and 2 days after watching the film I want to share things that cross my mind.

See, the thing is that the previous movie was Skyfall. And Skyfall was for the most people the best James Bond film ever. So how do you try to top that? You don't. You go to a different direction. Spectre tried to do that, it actually worked for the most part, but unfortunately a lot of moments felt abrupt.

Daniel Craig proved in all his previous movies (even in Quantum) he deserves the name of "James Bond". The new way he and Martin Campbell handled the journey of him becoming James Bond in Casino Royale was done extremely well. Then you walked into Skyfall, a much more personal movie, dealing with the past and serving a lot of nostalgic moments, both indoors and outdoors of the Bond franchise.

And then enter Spectre. It does try to change a couple of things (particularly bringing back some of the silliness and funny moments of previous Bonds), allowing Craig to have a bit more fun and less stress throughout a mission (also enter Mrs. Monica Belluchi at this point). But what is the problem? Well, it's not one, so to sum it up, while hoping not to spoil anything, I'll list them.

1) The villain. Spectre tries to deliver this unbelievably greatest villain of all time with this guy named Blofeld (played by the underused I felt Cristoph Waltz)... well, in the end it just felt like trying to top other villains.

2) The running time. Man, I just feel like it could have been so much better if it was like 20 minutes shorter. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind watching Daniel Craig wearing suits and jackets even for 20 hours, but the story didn't need it. Which brings me to my final point...

3) The Story. Spectre unfolds like the last page of a very good book that was completely rushed when it had to be finished. While it doesn't have to, it tries to piece together everything in this weird, supposedly smart and complicated way... I didn't get it. At least, not all of it.

Perhaps it's just nitpicking. The sure thing is that I'm proud of Spectre. It comes at a time where most blockbusters try to blow everything up and only use superheroes and superpowers to bring excitement. Spectre is proof that you can still have all that fun and seriousness without anything being "super". Sam Mendes is a director definitely worth remaining in the action genre.

I don't know if Daniel Craig makes another movie or not (I think one more is in his contract), I want as much as I can get. He knows the character, he has studied the character, he wears those suits so fine, he IS James Bond. I feel like whoever they choose to fill his shoes, will be a disappointment. Spectre is one more excellent movie in his Bond agenda and I'm sure I'll be forgetting most of its flaws pretty soon.

That's why it deserves a 9/10. Love you, Danny!

Watching "The Devil Wears Prada" is one huge pleasant experience. I thought I would end up cutting my wrists since it seems like a typical girl movie with her boyfriend featuring dilemmas like "does he love me or does he not?", but no. This film doesn't bother us with boring issues like that, it says much more.

The delightful and friendly Andy Sachs (Hathaway) is an ambitious young lady who just got hired from Miranda Priestly (stunning Merryl Streep), the editor-in-chief of a high fashion magazine. Situation becomes complex for Andy: she loves the job but dislikes the people surrounding it and the influence it has on their lives. Money replaces happiness, fame diminishes personal life, while power and clothes replace friendship and family. Time goes by and that influence soon enters Andy's own life. And in the end she must make the tough choice: deciding who she really wants to be. What and who she wants to matter in her life.

Don't bother trying to find which performance is the best. They are all amazing, with Anne Hathaway proving she's got the chops, Emily Blunt is superb and Meryl Streep as always is incomparable. One more perfect role to remember.

What really got me in this film is the lesson. The ending could be claimed as a wake up call. Undeniably, we all have been or will be in Andy's place. We all have to choose at some point in our lives what matters the most to us. No matter when is that opportunity going to come along, this movie reminded me to be awaken and not let that chance go by untapped. The amount of time and impact my job or other activities will have in my life is my own choice. Am I sure it's really what I want? Is there balance in my life or am I being controlled by my desires and goals to the point where I don't have a life?

It's a simple film about girl fashion if you want to not read too much into it. But it's a great film about priorities if you want to appreciate it. Somewhere around the end, we have the final lesson: the effect of previous choices and mistakes. Here you have Andy wisely concluding with something we all relate to at some point in our lives whether you're a boy or a girl:

"Learned a lot. In the end though, I kind of screwed it up."

To make a film full of apes running around is simple. To make it interesting; well, that's a challenge. To make it compelling and stunning and top-quality; well, that's worth recognizing.

Where "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" left us to pick up is an inhospitable earth, where almost every human has been whipped out from the deadly virus. What's left is a small habitant where leftovers of resources keep the last survivors alive. During that time, not very far away in the woods, we get to know the encampment of the apes. Time is spent on understanding the culture, feelings and order within their world. Ceasar, the leader is presented as a appreciable human-thinking ape: with morals and fairness... apparently things he learned from his human mentor-father.

But Ceasar seems the only one to believe in humans. His struggles of passing along his wisdom is mostly failing. The main reason happens to be the fact that the other apes do not share experiences of happiness, joy and love from the humans. They mostly remember the torture and humiliation the humans put them through. And when the time comes for them to actually encounter, a superior ape named Koba will find a way to turn their will against them.

"Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" benefits from your low expectations. Sure, the previous 1st installment was decent, but how much can you really wait for in this type of film? Still, creating a dark and realistic world was surprisingly fun and sensible. What also counts as an achievement is the convenient and without-realizing-it way you find yourself feeling for the apes as much as the humans. And what a guilty pleasure was it to stare and follow Andy Serkis as Ceasar (wrongdoing his absence from Oscars, personal opinion, although understandable reason that he had CGI help).

The way the family relationships of apes are developed is excellently put. And all situations involving them are portrayed with honesty and common sense. In simple words, the director does well by not thinking "let's make it cool" all the time but prefers to ask himself "how would it happen if it would be real?". That results in our advantage: the silly and campy funniness from the previous generations movies of the "Planet of the Apes" movies is gone. The franchise suffered enough from deadly hilarious and wacky pictures. Forget all that; this is serious film-making and definitely worth-viewing.

"It's not who you are underneath, it's what you do that defines you." Did we seriously just hear that in a "Batman" movie? You're kidding, right?

The last depictions of this comic book character on screen before Cristopher Nolan put his hands on him in 2005, had ripped apart every detail of the true origins of his greatness. It was so sad. Thank God I was only 10 when things got reinvented and re-imagined in the right places; or better put, in the perfect places.

Batman is comics. So what needed to happen was complicated and needed good imagination. Someone should read the comics, evaluate the development of the characters and bring it on-screen righteously. Not treating it completely like comics (with the fear of making it hilarious), nor take it way too seriously and lose the fun out of it. And who better to do that than Nolan? This movie is in total difference with all previous attempts of the Dark Knight's depiction. And that is the main reason it worked.

The first hour we get to know Bruce Wayne. We see in great depths the sorrow and the motives of Bruce. He is hurt and devastated on the inside. At first, after witnessing his parent's death, he tries to find justice by revenge. Failing to find comfort in that, he seeks an anonymous life just so that he can feel true despair, away from his wealth and name. In the end of his journey, he meets Ra's Al Ghoul, a man who makes him an offer to "find what he's looking for". Training hardly, he finds a way to use his pain and fears to scare and intimidate the outright. All that achieved with the boost and assistance of Ducard, a mentor who helps him find his purpose. After a series of events that strike him, he returns to his city determined to find a way to end corruption in his city, creating a symbol for hope and justice.

Nolan's voice is silently transparent. The end of the film suggests escalation as a main point but this film extracts so many lessons and hidden hints. For instance, the villain proving to be just the person who helped him find himself; which means now having to stop the very person who was your mentor. Also, we get to see the difference between justice and revenge. And those are just a part of overall brilliant issues this film carries along.

This is the first film in the Dark Knight saga. After so long, it still remains for many as their favorite. I may disagree but it's enough for me not to trash this type of film just because its comics. Nolan opened the door for great reboots and serious takes on otherwise forgotten concepts. Watching this again recently I have to speak my mind: "Batman Begins" is Nolan's first masterpiece.

For such classic scenario, the greatest strength of "Heat" is that it takes itself seriously. It never makes the mistake of derailing from its purpose. Too many films at the time depicting similar cop-thief story lines tried flipping the mood at any given chance (humor or comic- relief characters) just so they could separate themselves and often offer surprise (something that happens until today). Micheal Mann is not the best director, but he made sure his movie's standards to be set high and be focused. Focus that's excellent, leading to a movie that is not driven by the plot alone or the strong performances; it is driven by both.

Al Pacino, Robert De Niro and Val Kilmer portray three men with very different lives. Vincent Hanna tries to balance between his life as a detective and his time as a decent husband. Neil McCaley is a master-thief who knows nothing but crime as his whole life. And Chris Shiherlis is a younger, confused man as being somewhere in between. Addapting to stealing and lying, he wonders of the tempered impact this way of life will have on his family and has to constantly face dilemmas. Each one of these people appears as troubled and indecisive. Their occupation is their relief and at the same time the reason they suffer. At the bottom line, no matter the effort they all appear stuck and failing on whatever their goal. Even De Niro's character (McCaley), the man dedicated to stealing and killing, now in a weird way, finds a person to connect to and now is offered a chance to make the last business and find a true and clean life. But can he really give up his world and change himself? Can he simply forget and move on? The captivating final scene will give you the answer.

I made the mistake of watching this film too long after its release and I deeply regret it. Al Pacino and De Niro are two of the greatest actors ever and in the one and only scene we see them together, we get why. The accusations to this movie are many, including the "performances being forced for no reason" and "the screenplay being poor". I disagree. I think no mistakes are accepted in this one and if anything, the performances are unique and the slow pace demanded heavy screenplay with no rush.

I would further my comments on a great degree since the movie reaches 160 minutes screen time but I think the point's been made. "Heat" is a must-see movie either if you're just a movie fan or fanatic.

"Crimson Tide" could be simply described with adjectives such as: Intense, powerful, dark, suspenseful and full of heart. Absolutely flawless, this is one of the best of 1995. And I will throw it right at the beginning: like the movie suggests it itself by including one and only woman (!) and only for about 3 minutes, this is no film for the ladies.

Both leading men topped themselves with this one. Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington at the time seem so hungry for film-making! This movie is a proof of their talent and their charisma at delivering lines with such focused drama and power; no way won't you be amazed. I dare to compare them to great names after this and so should everyone. Great factor for what is the final result of course is the one who mastered it. Can't praise enough the great director Tony Scott. Picture and performances are superb and of total high quality and it's because of him. This is a film hugely underrated for absolutely no reason, except the one mentioned before on women. And that is kind of a minus but so obviously necessary.

Commander Ron Hunter is one skilled, family, officer man. Under the directions of Captain Frank Ramsey (an experienced war hero with years of service on his back), the two of them embark upon a mission underwater. While introducing themselves on the US nuclear missile sub, we get to know 2 different men: a man approaching the topic of war as a family man, who's drawn to views of preventing disastrous outcomes and intends to keep peace; while the captain is a man resilient and tough who, spending the years in conditions of war, has come to embrace disastrous situations and in the fear of danger (as a fearless Captain) is willing to do anything before risking his sub, even if that means risking a nuclear war. Those conflicts may be disclosed at the beginning of their encounter, but when the boundaries are crossed and the status changes, that conflict becomes the heart of a mutiny that produces madness, fear and danger on massive levels; and that happens on underwater terms and also risks consequences of sure war on the outside world.

Right from the start and continuing in the heart and heat of the movie, we feel disturbed by one unintentional feeling to disagree with both of them and at the same time, agree with both of them. We are never demanded to sympathize or understand neither opinion fully, even if we have a personal preference. In the end, they were both right, right? The bar of the movie is so high, it never provokes the standard sense of righteousness of the hero and the viciousness of the villain. This time they are both on the good side; just failing to make us (and sometimes themselves) understand it. It's sort of like they both shared a misguided sense of right and wrong; one relying completely on rules (Ramsey) and the other one leaning more towards principles (Hunter).

By the time the end comes, I understand it as it was all just a play between the safe choice and the wise choice. Does anyone else think that's the coolest dilemma ever?

While watching "High Crimes" you can't just not fall in love with Ashley Judd. People have been saying it for years and now it's my turn: I'm telling you, the camera loves that woman. And besides her, Morgan Freeman is delivering in what might be one of the least demanding roles in his career.

But the composition of the film falls way too short. Perhaps it's the fact that there are so many movies out there covering the same ground: sudden arrest, then court, pretty drama, unnecessary characters then filling the running time (to be specific, what is Amanda Peet actually doing here?), then courtrooms with typical types of personalities: the smart ones, the flat ones, the evil ones, the heroes and the judge. Everything is watchable for 2 and only reasons: Ashley Judd and Morgan Freeman.

By the time this movie got made, Mr. Freeman had the status of playing a cop-doctor (in the under-appreciated "Kiss the Girls" and "Along Came A Spider" as Alex Cross), so why not see him as a lawyer? I'm sold. His characters' words and ways in the movie are the only things exciting. Of course, perhaps you will wonder like I do, how is he recovering so easily from drunken status when the plot needs him to? Well, give the movie a credit, that's the least important mistake it makes.

In general, I would recommend this film to anyone who enjoys good but not great film-making. It never enlightens us with power and it can't give us the chills but it won't disappoint if you cut it some slack from the beginning. Perfect for a Friday night I guess.

This cannot be a serious movie. I'm not the biggest fan of Star Trek in general, so I can't say I'm devastated, but die hard fans of the franchise will probably cry when they see this. Cry and laugh.

The movie starts great. The first one wasn't that bad and it had a lot of potential. One could think that this could improve on its strengths on a great length, considering the addition of Benedict Cumberbatch as the legendary "Khan" in the mix. So in the beginning we are sucked in with all the meetings, conventions, silent conversations and the one good thing that happened throughout: Bruce Greenwood. (Man, what an actor!)

Then after the half-hour, when the explosions start... eh. When the ship goes up... eh. And even if we get some good moments now and then, and even if Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto have a good chemistry... it's when the resurrection happens that I go like "Oh, my God". I can't believe they approved of this.

Star Trek is a whole generations' family. It has been a remarkable standout speaking for family, love, faith, wisdom and culture through its movies and series worldwide. But if they continue down this road, with the super-powered humanoids and the dark feel and the forced situations, we won't see that greatness. There could be magic somewhere in there and there could be something great to be told. But you are going to have to wait for it, because Star Trek Into Darkness may stand as a normal, typical action film, but never delivers as a true Star Trek film owes to. Star Trek stands for so much more.

Hope they figure it out and deliver it before I die and can't see it. But I guess they're not so nervous because even if they get it right a hundred years from now, I guess they can always resurrect us too, and watch it.

Rocky Balboa is not a movie for everyone, it's a mature and grown-up movie. This picture crosses the line from a simple boxing adrenaline film and becomes a psychological, incredibly-moving drama. I keep listening to people saying this film is "so sad" and "dark". Well, that's the point.

This is my favorite installment in the franchise. I know most people watch the first three and jump up and down with the training and the running sequences but this one has something different. We get to see an older Rocky in a depiction that gains our attention.

This is a once glorious man whose world has now fallen apart. His wife is gone, and the people who cared about him cannot stand next to him the way they used to. His way of life has changed and across time, he seems to have accepted the loss of his courage and any thought for attempting to reclaim his pride back has faded. He is sad and at the same time mad... when silent, seems unintentionally loud... his words are meant to be hopeful and yet sound desperate... trying to keep his world optimistic, even though he knows nothing is going the way he wanted to. But through a series of events, that small itch is now coming back. Everything is black but it doesn't have to be. He decides to go back to the ring for one last time. Apparently that's not okay with his son, who can't let go of his name and its impact. Around that time, we are drawn in Rocky's way of thinking and his struggle against the system and the people who stand in his way. Along the way we find out more than ever about his inner sides and his deeper feelings. Rocky is fully unwrapped and the last fight comes to show the determination, of this old legend, coming back to life for one last time.

It is safe to say that this is the best performance of Silvester Stallone and for sure his best script. For me, both Oscar- worthy and undermined. His speeches (sometimes under-appreciated) are so truthful and captivating (drawn as he has admitted from his real life), that I don't see how they didn't get more recognition. Best choice in the world for Mr. Stallone to leave Talia Shire out of this movie. It achieved the emotional impact needed for Rocky and his return and prevail. That was the basic move for the general mood he wanted to be set. And even though I really don't think he is a good actor, Milo Ventimiglia is catching the spirit of his role as Rocky's son.

When I watch this film, one word comes to mind: Nostalgia. The climate, the colors, the pace... it's all so withered and silent. Watching this movie is not happy-time and no picnic. But at times I catch myself wishing there were more of these types of films... where the struggle and endeavor of one man is shown with actual honesty within a world that "ain't all sunshine and rainbows". This is a thoughtful, noir picture, full of emotions and implied meanings for life. And its worth a whole lot more attention than what has gotten.

It is inevitable for a movie depicting the World War II era with such imagery and honesty to prevail and gain success. It is also inevitable for a movie depicting the World War II era with such imagery and honesty to not provoke and excite younger audiences. I belong to those younger audiences and that is the reason I have not given 10 stars to this picture.

We know Steven Spielberg is one of the greatest directors of all time. He proved it in 1993 by providing us the most decent and thoughtful depiction of one of the saddest facts that ever happened in man's history. A few complain about the Holocaust brutal scenes being unnecessary. I won't even put a comment to that. It's obvious that they won't thrill or excite us, but the power of the film is mostly based on those brutal scenes, which moved us all to think about those lives that were lost. The saddest thing is that WE can't do anything. But who could?

Schindler could. And he did. At the start of the movie you meet a respected official among the Nazi, with all the things you come to expect from a business man of their side, dedicated to his purpose. That means money, commitment, women and money. Absolutely no caring for other people... only profit and wealth counts. By the end of the movie, these things are nothing but ashes to this man. Step by step, the film is changing Schindler from a cold-hearted, normal business arrogant to a man feeling sympathy, love, care and affection for his fellows. Can his efforts matter? Do one's efforts against all odds and conditions really make sense?

Liam Neeson is great in the film, but clearly Ralph Fiennes gives the defining performance. Both portrayals are worth so much, mainly because they are so true to the circumstances of the time presented.

This film is a one-time significant piece of history; it places you for 3 hours in the unforgotten times of misery this world once saw. Perhaps it bores you in the beginning... but you won't regret a minute once you're at the end.

Some people say: "Poker? Really? I don't want to see James Bond playing the quietest game ever!! I want to see him kill and shoot endless bullets!!" Okay, if you insist, you can always watch "Die Another Day" and cry your eyes out.

"Casino Royale" is a total reinvigoration of the "Bond" franchise. Thank you, producers and Martin Campbell for making a great casting choice: Daniel Craig is so "James Bond". I don't care if he doesn't have the dark hair and the tall waist... I don't care if he's not like Sean Connery and not like Ian Flemming's imagination of the character. I care for what "James Bond" stands for, and that's style and persona. Well, I'm here to tell you, Daniel Craig is the best at both. And I would like to take a moment here and congratulate him for proving anyone who questioned him wrong.

I never thought I would see this character developed so uniquely anytime in the future. Watching the previous ones, I expected that all followers would rehash and redo everything again and again. But no. The screenplay for "Casino Royale", deferring from all the previous movies (where whether it was bloated and loud or way too long and full of stupid gadgets), this time is focused and it takes its time. "M" is fully embraced as the MI6 leader (although Judi Dench's acting is the main reason why), the villain has a purpose and actually stands on his own, and of course James Bond is so decisive, pitiful where he has to, ruthless when he has to, steamy when he owes to and quiet when demanded.

This movie is also exploring several aspects of our protagonist that we never really got to see before. Specifically we get to see Bond's first mission and Bond actually bonding with someone and falling (trully) in love. Both are interpreted in such a great way, we finally get to sympathize with him on tough and mellow times in his life.

And speaking of mellow... Eva Green is lure, enticing and excellent chosen to play Vesper. If you wondered whether the great James could actually fall for someone, I can't see anyone else than her. I left her for the end because the movie left her for the end. Using her character as a way to emphasize and, in a way, question Bond's feelings, Martin Campbell makes time irrelevant for the last 20 minutes of the film to make us see something of the weaker and vulnerable side of the great Bond. He is supposed to not let feelings get in the way of his business. And yet, it all matters all of a sudden. Those last 20 minutes are actually what made the film successful. Smartly constructed, the film elevates Bond, not by taking him higher but by making him grounded to our surprise. By the end, Bond introduces himself like he does for 30-40 years now, but this is one of the times (like yesteryear) where the movie has ended and we have learned something.

That James Bond is just like us... except of course when he's the best killer in the world.

"The Godfather" has been a title so beloved and entirely embraced as a significant, cultural phenomenon, that in a certain level demands of you to watch it with full recommendations off of it. Especially if you're young, there is absolutely no way that the buzz of the "greatest movie in history" did not get you. So, even though that buzz doesn't necessarily ruin the viewing for you all-together, I will accept that while I was watching, I was unintentionally trying to like it and feel it.

The beginning of the film sets the mood perfectly. There are no attachments to settled humor or dry dialogue. It warns us that this is going to be a serious take, on some pretty serious issues. Don Corleone's first lines are self-aware and carefully put. This dominating appearance shows us a man trusted, beloved and respected and at the same time feared, depressed and deserted. And that goes for both his family and outsiders. He is a mafia man, one of the greatest, and his life is surrounded by his business partners, by his associates and comrades in this dark lifestyle. And throughout the entire movie, he is presented to have balanced the time between family and business, yet that seems like one impossible task.

Micheal Corleone, son of the Godfather, is introduced like a man with a very different approach and very different opinions on the case of life and choices than the rest of his family and especially his father. That happens for two reasons: early on his life he decided not to be like him (even though he seems to be the one attached by the Godfather as the favorite) and he has chosen a decent life for him and Kay, the love of his life.

Then, everything goes down the drain: someone attempts to kill the Godfather.

It is at that point when the son Micheal starts his decay... No promises, no commitments, no wrongs... Someone tried to kill his loving father. He stares at every single person in his family just standing by, so in his rage, decides to do the unthinkable. Using his status as the most innocent of the Corleone family, he exacts revenge.

When he succeeds, he exiles himself out of the country until things can settle down. He attempts to start a new life away from the madness with Apollonia, a beautiful woman he meets and falls in love with (although never convincing even himself that he has forgotten Kay). He comes to know the hard way that he can't run away from what he has done and what his family stands for. Someone tries to kill him even so far from his home but gets to Apollonia. So upon his return, he accepts the position of the new "Godfather" and immediately seems to be a changed man.

Micheal retrieves Kay, makes unconditional promises and ends up being the very person he was trying to avoid.

There are several things in this film that make it astounding. Relationships within the family are displayed in such a truthful way. Francis Ford Coppola offers us a chance to connect with many different characters and their several views. The main plot is driven excellently, with Don Corleone and Micheal taking the grandeur, but in the meanwhile we get to know the deep motions and powers of every person slightly connected to this world. What we get is a fiery and passionate film exploring deep meanings and strong notions.

Marlon Brando won the Academy Award for what was an unbelievably great performance. After this film, I totally get his worldwide fame as one of the greatest actors of all time. Al Pacino shines with charisma (which he perfected on the second part) in the greatest role of his career. And besides these two super-actors, is there anyone from the cast that I can talk badly for? All great.

I guess the only issue with this movie is it's running-time and most importantly the somewhat complicated way things glue together. I understand that Mario Puzo had a difficult task of bringing the book on- screen, but it's the way we are drawn to these characters that makes me confused about who is who. And that is the reason I suggest we stick to the father-son relationship and not worry about certain aspects and scenes we don't understand or just keep asking "who is that guy talking"?

This is the "Godfather" that everyone is talking about for decades, and if you don't like what you hear in the very first scene in that dark room, I warn you... turn of the picture and don't watch anymore. Come back a few years later when you could probably handle it.

On the other hand, you must ask yourself: can you feel the zest for respect and loyalty when Don Corleone whispers his lines? Don't you yearn for the moral and innocent Micheal as the movie goes? Can you sympathize with Kay when the door closes at the end? Then "The Godfather" got you where it should have.

Can you make a decent sequel to a perfect movie? Christopher Nolan exceeds himself by proving that it can happen and delivers, not just a proper movie, but a great finale to the best trilogy you could possibly ask for a superhero genre.

The great director promised us a good and satisfying finale with this one. And we got it in every single way.

Nolan by now has accomplished to create this realistic, comic-booky world for us in the city of Gotham. So much that in the beginning of the movie he attempts to throw in several situations and events that have happened in the time between The Dark Knight's epic finale up to 8 years later and expects us to accept them with a blink of an eye. I'm not sure it exactly works all the time (especially the first 40 minutes in, you are a bit confused), but I was OK filling in the blanks later. After that, you get a wonderfully paced action movie, with Bane (the villain) portraying a purposive figure of a tyrant who has supposedly come to bring deliverance, but truthfully plans to destroy the city at its core. Meanwhile, Bruce Wayne has to cope with his own pains, thoughts and guilt. Wayne Enterprises struggles as well, with its owner now being Luscious Fox. The lovable Alfred tries to stand by the side of his master but seems to fail. Things have changed within the city as well, with a female burglar taking advantage of Batmans' absence. And the last hour is the thrilling non-stop climax (where you can't get enough of Hans Zimmers' amazing score bumping in your ears).

The film is a masterpiece. It has everything we have come to expect from Nolans' filmmaking. I will accept people who point out some plot points that could be argued in the film. But saying that The Dark Knight Rises "is not a good movie", now anyone who claims that is mislead and being unfair. The only way to be disappointed and dissatisfied from this film, is if you have decided to question it and not like it before you watch it (most commonly, those are the people who constantly compare it to the "The Dark Knight").

We don't get to see a lot of Batman in this film. Bale mostly portrays amazingly a broken and suffered Bruce Wayne, fighting his inner demons and struggling to keep the symbol he has created, alive. Joseph-Gordon Levitt is a welcomed addition as the fearless newcomer detective who soon discovers that not everything is so bright. Morgan Freeman has more screen time than before, giving a heavier push to his role as a mentor to Batman. Gary Oldman is simply flawless. He should be considered a primal and fundamental piece of the entire trilogy. His guilty and determined Gordon is with no doubt superb. Excellent and surprisingly ultimate performance is Catwoman (or at Nolan's better suggestion: the "Cat"). Anne Hathaway is watchable to death. She owns the part with her voice, style and appeal being a highlight throughout.

And then you have Bane. Villains are proved to be, by the end of this trilogy, an important part of its' success. I have come to understand that Nolan uses his villains in a specific way to highlight Batmans' strengths and weaknesses. Ra's Al Ghoul and the Joker did it concerning Batmans' fears and psychology respectively. But Bane manipulates and destroys almost everything Bruce has and fights for. Claiming he does it for the sake of the world and the future, he breaks Batmans' ethics, morals, strengths, hope and spirit.

And therefore gave us the perfect way to end the trilogy: Bruce overcoming once again, proving to all of us that symbols just can't die no matter what. Emotionally sensational, Batman in the end truly "Rises" to our delight.

What I specifically loved in all three films is the way that Nolan is not afraid to explore the moral implications of decisions made throughout the trilogy and explains the impact, the results and of course the effects that collide. The Dark Knight Trilogy can be a great inspiration if you look for the meanings. All the writers and associates who worked on it gave a new meaning to words we already knew, like: heroism, truth and lies, purpose, symbols, faith, death, suffering and so on. I feel like what has left in me is a whole lot of pieces of advise rather than just a superhero story. The beginning, middle and end of this superb saga can be so insightful at times, that I feel it often gets recognition but for the wrong reasons.

I'm pretty sure that 50 years from now, it'll still stand as an example of terrific filmmaking. That's because these 3 films mean something and give you something to think about.

The Dark Knight trilogy is art.

If you have seen The Amazing Spiderman 1, then you know that Marc Webb is a good director. Before this film I admit he had me. And I still think that he has a lot of potential.

What's pretty clear to me is that during pre and post-production for the film, someone wasn't thinking straight. The trailer was awesome! And it was so awesome and got so much recognition, that someone apparently approached the writers and said: "Hey! Why don't we make a 2,5 hour trailer! That would be awesome too!"

Well, it wasn't. All you get is a Sinister-Six worse-than-ever introduction that never works. It's all just a big, all-over-the-place, huge budget commercial, supposedly for the next movies in the planned Sony Universe. (by the way, I hope that Universe is dead by now.)

Story in 2 lines: Spiderman chooses to ignore the promise he made to Gwen's father (so Spidey is a big fat liar for all we know), he learns more details about his parents' long boring past that is all about secrets, secrets, secrets and he meets Harry Osborn who is creepy as hell. Oh, and don't forget the worst and most-clichéd origin of a villain in the Electro bit.

I gave this movie 3, because of 3 reasons: Andrew Garfield's attempts to save this movie, Emma Stone's attempts to save this movie and the chemistry between these 2 people whose attempts tried to save the movie. Dane De Haan tried hard too, but never convinced... It's also true failure to have Jamie Fox in your cast and use him so badly.

Unfortunately, this movie made me want to never see Spiderman again. Perhaps Marvel has something better to offer. It's a shame to make this idolized superhero a joke. I just hope it doesn't destroy the careers of those involved.

Man, the casting must hate the movie more than I do by now.

I remember the first time I watched this film. When the last scene was over and the ending credits started rolling, I felt some kind of a shudder. I was thrilled. What had just ended couldn't just be a "movie" or a simple "film". I had witnessed something far more important. It was the most exhilarating experience I ever had.

There is something about these 2,5 hours that makes it something of a bigger statement. It's granted that it's the best movie in the superhero genre ever, but I would argue that it could be one of the best films in general. Here you have an amazing script (written by Cristopher and Jonathan Nolan) (covering issues like friendship, family, loss, death, madness, politics, pain and suffering, failures and lies, commitment and justice, even technology and of course chaos). You have the excellent direction from one of the greatest directors of our time, Cristopher Nolan. If you really think about it, the main protagonist is wearing a suit that resembles a bat and running the streets with some kind of tank, trying to save the world. And yet, it translates on the big screen as if it's a great tragic story taking place in the real world.

As for other important recognitions: Wally Pfister does an amazing work at cinematography and Hans Zimmer with James Newton Howard decided to give us the most amazing score in years. It all went so great mainly because of the great collaboration between the director and everyone else. Nolan is proving to be really trying at getting the best out of his crew... and his attempts to keep every aspect of his work at the top level is shown, without denying, in the Dark Knight.

I'm sure you can all understand why it's pretty clear that the best thing in the movie is the performances. If anyone told me that he managed to watch this movie and not chill at least for one time while the Joker was on screen... well, I would not believe him. Heath Ledger as the Joker is resilient. His representation of this comic book character is epic. Take Cristopher Nolan's script and execute it in a perfect way... then take out Heath Ledger and replace him. It would still be great, but never the same. He elevated everything. Ledger was the only and perfect choice to play the Joker, who (for many years to come) will represent the absolute and complete villain.

But it's not just the incomparable Ledger. Christian Bale's act is so unique; it's as if he has convinced himself to fit so well into his role; so realistically, that we feel like we're participants in his decisions. Michael Caine is Micheal Caine at his best again, while his collaboration (although never on-screen) with Morgan Freeman, unites us with previous generations of great actors. And I would have to write a whole other review if I wanted to do justice to the greatness of Gary Oldman's Gordon, Aaron Eckhart's both performances as Two-face and Harvey and Maggie Gylenhaal's Rachel.

For my final words, I'll quote something of Gordon's great epilogue speech: "Batman is not a hero". After this movie, Batman is not just a toy or a comic book good guy who beats thieves and burglars. Now he is one lone tragic figure that, even when losing everything in his struggled battle between justice and chaos, he will find a way to make hope prevail. And that is the message the Dark Knight wants us to hold on to.

You see, Batman is not really a "Dark Knight", he is the brightest example of justice. But he chose to be a Dark Knight... so that we can be better. Well, I think the value of this movie is internalized by the beginning of the ending credits, where I come to understand "the Batman" is the best hero of them all.

So the story is about Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins), a man who has been falsely sentenced to prison. In prison, he meets Ellis Boyd "Red" (Morgan Freeman), to help him understand many things about life within the four walls. The newcomer seems different than most of the rest though, and, especially in the beginning, attempts to give his co- prisoners moments to live for, moments forgotten for most of them through simple and imaginative ways. As time goes by, he comes to terms with what has happened and (no matter how he tries to help and evolve), he understands what he is supposed to do for the rest of his life. But there is one thing he won't let go: Hope.

I will agree with those who have an issue with the fact that this movie is considered to be "the best of all time". I think it's really not THAT good. Although I understand it may has a reason and it's on purpose, the pace is slow (could be characterized "too slow") and the music (pretty important for this class of a movie) is "eh.." And last complaint: Gil Belows as "Tommy" was so annoying...

Having said that, there is no one who can deny that it's a beautiful story and greatly told. It's pretty simple really. And it's that simplicity of the story that makes it great... The film takes place in a prison and while most of the people who are going to see it have never been in prison (obviously), Frank Darabont makes you connect with every single character in the film. And he does it so elegantly, you won't even understand it happened. It says more about hope and life with lost purpose than any other film I have recently seen. And when I say "recently", I mean films that have been out there the last 20 years.

The performances in the movie are extraordinary. Morgan Freeman is great and I guess, even if most people don't really like him, Tim Robbins plays a role he fits exactly into. Bob Gunton is the perfect Warden to portray the necessary villain. I didn't really like William Sadler as Haywood but hey... that's the point, "not to like him", right?

What I really liked most is the way this movie found time to cover all those issues without losing it's focus. It's great how you are not distracted at all when several things take place, while they are not contributing to the full-story. And yet... you care. Because it's something more than just a case or a chase... It's about life. And you can never get bored in this movie if you're watching to learn something.

That's why the people who choose this movie to be moved and capture something emotionally greater and more ambitious than huge gunfights and cop-stories, will be fully pleased. People who choose this expecting for the bomb to blow up and some guys yelling "Get Down!" and swearing... sorry, this is not for you.