Reviews

Back in the 1970s there were five filmmakers that gained so much attention not only by the critics, but also by the audience as well and all five of them received huge critical praises that even today are considered some of the greatest in film history and of course those five names are Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, George Lucas and Brian De Palma. Those names changed films forever and even the way we tell stories in general, but sadly nowadays out the five filmmakers only Martin Scorsese has retained the most vitality in his filmography, he rarely had a misstep and he still retains the voice and energy in his films that he's never lost, while the other four somehow just lost the magic of what made them fantastic in the first place and one of them is clearly trying so bad to bring back his old self, but doesn't succeed all that much (i'm looking at you, Steven Spielberg).

The film is very long and it is something that will definitely be criticized so much by many people for it's runtime. To be honest - i didn't had any problem with the runtime at all, since some of my favorite films of all time are super long, so i'm very used to it and i don't have complaints here. If a director wants to take his time to tell the story the right way, then they have my full support. I still find it weird that today not many directors make long films and people complain about a film being too long, since back in the twentieth century we had films that lasted over four to five hours. After watching the film, it didn't felt like it was three and half hours long thanks to the fantastic editing by Thelma Schoonmaker. For me it felted like it was an hour shorter. If you're still not convinced about the runtime, then my only suggestion is this: if you have a day that you're not studying at school, university or you've taken a day off from working, then the best option is to watch the film in the morning (this is exactly what i chose to do today) and by the time you finish the film or any film that is three hours long or more, then you have a long day ahead of you. Yes - the night time is always the best time to experience any film, but it does exist a moment, where you realize when the film is over - it's already the time that you have to go to bed.

What Martin Scorsese was able to bring to the big screen is truly incredible and with his masterful direction and Steven Zaillian's screenwriting talent ("Schindler's List", "Gangs of New York", "Moneyball" and David Fincher's "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo") were able to bring this story to life. Originally i didn't know what to think about this story that Martin Scorsese chose to adapt and tell, since i'm not all that familiar with Frank Sheeran, Jimmy Hoffa and the Bufalino crime family, but i did find it very interesting and after seeing the film - i really want to do a research to know more, because not all films that are based on true events cover everything in full detail and sometimes they do change things on purpose. Probably some things don't translate very well, when you adapt true events into a film.

I'm so happy to see Robert De Niro, Al Pacino and Joe Pesci in a great film again, because De Niro and Pacino have been in some shockingly terrible trash nowadays and Pesci is basically retired, so it's wonderful to see them give their best as actors once again. It's the case of when you have the right person behind the scenes showing how passionate he (the director) is, when he makes the films that he wants and motivates the actors to make something truly amazing, so that they can give their best as professional actors. The way they deliver their lines of dialogue and how all of it comes out from their mouths - it doesn't feels like it's scripted and it flows so naturally. It's so amazing the way these fantastic actors disappear and in their place the characters that they play came alive.

Alongside with it's amazing camera work, fantastic music (which perfectly reflects the time periods that the film is told), great sound, mind-blowing visual effects (i don't have the best eye for CGI, since i'm one of those people, who can't really notice bad CGI, unless it's very terrible or very noticeable (there are still times that i can tell, but when they are done so well - it's very hard to notice), but i was still surprised of how incredible all of it looked, even thought there was one moment where the physical performance of Robert De Niro wasn't all that convincing) - all of those aspects come together to make this film.

The only complaints that i have with "The Irishman" is that some of the side characters were very underutilized, especially Anna Paquin's character (Frank Sheeran's daughter, when she's older). When Peggy was young she had more screen time, but when she got older we don't see her enough. I understand why, since we're experiencing all of the events through Frank Sheeran's point of view. She looked up to Jimmy Hoffa and when she realizes that her father killed him - she doesn't want to have nothing to do with him and her father wasn't involved all that much in her childhood along with her sisters, which is very understandable, but i think it would have been better if we had the chance of knowing her more, but we don't and because of that - it doesn't have a huge impact to Frank Sheeran's arc. The other complaint that have is very small: scene where Frank Sheeran goes with his daughter to beat up a store owner of a supermarket, because he shoved her. He goes inside the supermarket and starts beating him up and the beat up continues outside. The punches and the kicking didn't look convincing at all and i wanted to point that out. Even though i did praised the CGI - i do have a small problem with that aspect. I did notice that they used CGI blood and those moments are the only time where the CGI was noticeable.

In short - it's fantastic that Martin Scorsese is still doing great work at the age of 77 (by the time i'm writing the review) and has this energy of continuing to make films that he's still passionate. If the film was directed by a different person, then the whole thing would probably not have worked in the way that Netflix was expecting. "The Irishman" will definitely be considered by many as a classic like the previous films by Martin Scorsese and each generation will have the chance to experience the tale of Frank Sheeran. I'm giving "The Irishman" a 9.4/10.

"The Silence" may not be as bad as everyone is making it out to be, but my god - it is a very flawed movie, which it may not be surprising for many, since it's directed by John R. Leonetti. The man, who is responsible for movies like Mortal Kombat: Annihilation, The Butterfly Effect 2, Annabelle, Wolves at the Door and Wish Upon.

The story goes as follows: "The world is under attack from terrifying creatures, who hunt by sound. A teenage girl named Ally Andrews that lost her hearing in a car accident tries to seek refuge alongside with her family, while the only way of communicating with each other is sign language, with some moments of whispering". If that sounds very familiar, then you might have heard that "The Silence" does share almost the same premise with a movie that came out last year and it's called "A Quiet Place", but here's the weirdest thing - "The Silence" is based on a book that was released back in 2015, so... at least there is something that distinct them from each other, but it will still be compared to "A Quiet Place", since it's impossible not to compare it. In my opinion - "A Quiet Place" is better, even though i wasn't a huge fan of that movie and at least it did some things that were good, unlike this movie.

"The Silence" is not very well made. It has a story that wasn't all that good in the first place, very average characters, bland dialogue, weak music, awful visual effects, OK cinematography and weak acting. The only things that i liked were the sound, Stanley Tucci's performance, 20% of the shot composition and a scene in the store, where the two main characters have to get antibiotics and that's it. Everything is either poorly made or hilariously bad.

The story is where i have many problems. They set up the fact that Ally (the daughter) lost her hearing, so everyone in the family knows sign language, since it's the only way they can communicate with her, but there are some moments that can be very inconsistent. There are moments, where Hugh (Stanley Tucci) is speaking to Ally (Kiernan Shipka) without sign language. He is speaking to her very normally and Ally can still understand him for some reason, even though there are a few moments that the movie did focus in her point of view to prove that she can't hear anything (only loud noise), but she can still hear him in some moments?

The movie started off OK (the scene with the bullies is one of the worst moments in the movie) and continues the same way and to be honest - i was starting to get invested into the movie little by little (shocking, right?), but then they introduce "The Reverend" and this is where everything went downhill and at that point the movie has become insufferable to watch, even after re-watching it - i wanted to skip everything after that moment, but i didn't and i choose to continue anyway.

"The Reverend" tries to recruit the two main characters in his cult, but unsuccessfully and then in 1 hour and 7 minutes the cult come to the house that the family is now staying and tries again to recruit them and he reveals that he has a interest in Ally's "fertility". This is where i was like "Are you serious? Do they really want to go in that direction?". From that point there are two ways it can go with that awful idea: 1. The cult will try to kidnap her, while all of the family are at the house and try to protect her. 2. They will successfully kidnap her and the father will go to hunt the cult members, kill the leader in a fight and saving his daughter. They went with the first way, but with a difference from my prediction. The movie ends in 1 hour and 24 minutes, which means that all of those things happens within the amount of 17 minutes and i'm like "How can they do all of that stuff in this short amount of time?"

Even the idea of how to kidnap Ally is ridiculous. They send a little girl to the front door that has phones strapped to her to be used as a distraction and they place more phones to the house, including upstairs (where Ally is sleeping) on the window outside, so that they can attract the vesps and to attack the family. I have one question: How did they put a phone outside the window upstairs? One of them has to climb to the roof to put a phone with a tape on the window, but he would make so much noise and in that way the vesps will hear him very easily. They do all of those things, so that they wait in the basement, if someone happens to go down there. That plan is stupid, because it would easily kill everyone, including the girl that they send and Ally, who they want to take away. All of this would not have happened, if the family locked the gate of the high fence when they returned with the antibiotics. Before i forget to mention: when "The Reverend" shows us that he has no tongue - it's so hilarious. He does that two times and that way he does it is very funny. He even snarls at the main characters and for me that was the cherry on top.

So yeah. Those are the complaints that i have with the movie. There are still things that don't work that i didn't mention, but it's better if you see it instead. For me - it barely managed to get a 3/10. It's like it was fighting very hard to get a good rating, but it would start losing and fall on the ground in every minute in a match and trying to get up, but even when he gives his best - he will accept his defeat very early. I'm giving "The Silence" a 2.6/10.

The way it's structured, executed and how the events play out - it feels too much like it belongs in Phase One, than a movie that is part of a bigger story in Phase Three.

Before it came out, some people were boycotting the movie, because Brie Larson said things that were not very nice to the people, who gave the movie very low scores. To be honest - i didn't pay all that much attention to all of the things that were happening outside my interest of the movie, so i'm going to leave all of the controversy behind and judge "Captain Marvel" as a movie. Unfortunately "Captain Marvel" is not good and it's easily the weakest movie in Phase Three.

I'll go first with the negatives, because there are so many that i have to write them down as a list, but i'll write them in a normal way as i know: The biggest and the most obvious problem is the main female character: Captain Marvel / Carol Danvers. The way she was written and presented is a very uninteresting and unlikable character and i had a very hard time trying to connect to her throughout the whole movie. I don't know how she is presented in the comics, since i didn't even know that she existed (aside from sharing the same name as Shazam), but based on what was shown in the movie and my first impressions when i saw the movie back in March - i didn't like her at all. The worst aspect is the main character and that's not really a good thing, since it's hard to care about everything that is happening in the story, but unfortunately it doesn't end there with the characters.

The main villain was very bland. It's one of those movies that tries to make you believe that he is the villain, but was very misunderstood and it's revealed that this character was the main villain the whole time. For some it may be predictable, but for me - i couldn't predict it at all, but that doesn't mean that i'll give points for that reason alone. Dr. Wendy Lawson / Supreme Intelligence is so forgettable, so i'm not going to go in full detail about her. Maria Rambeau (the friend of Carol Danvers) is nothing special at all. The character was so bland - it's hard to tell something memorable that the character did in the story. Monica Rambeau (the child) was also very bland.

Some characters appear, so that we can have fan service or that they want to remind us that they do exist in the MCU. The best example of a terrible fan service is Phil Coulson. After re-watching the movie: i still don't understand why they include him in the movie, since he was the most uninteresting character in the MCU and he is definitely the most pointless inclusion in the movie. It's very weird that they used the same de-aging effects on the character like Nick Fury, since it's set years before the first MCU movie "Iron Man" and for some reason he looks the exact same way as he was in his introduction in "Iron Man". Yon-Rogg (played by Jude Law) is OK and he works fine in the context of the story, but after it was revealed that he was the main villain, he is not threatening at all. The best character is definitely Nick Fury, who is the heart and soul of the movie and he did make the experience at least enjoyable.

The story was very bland. As i mention in the start of the review: it doesn't feel like a Phase Three movie.

The acting was very average. The only ones that were trying were Samuel L. Jackson, Ben Mendelsohn and Jude Law. Brie Larson's performance wasn't all that convincing as Captain Marvel and i don't know who is to blame: Brie Larson, the direction or both. By the way: the child performance wasn't all that good.

The music is the same standard MCU soundtrack as always. There's no need to add more, since there are people, who went in full detail on why the music of all MCU movies is very forgettable and bland.

There are moments that the visual effects can look very fake and in some occasions it's very obvious and distracting like for a example the cat Goose that for some reason they replace him with CGI. It didn't happen most of the time, but it was noticeable, when they did replace him. There is a scene in the end of the movie where Captain Marvel is flying and destroying ships of Ronan in space and you can tell that they use CGI to recreate her for that scene.

The dialogue can be very bland or very bad. Many of the jokes don't work and there are some lines of dialogue that were very stupid. Immediately after i saw the movie for the second time - i forgot all of the dialogue and it didn't had any that can be quotable or memorable.

In some moments the cinematography can be good, but most of the time it's very OK. The only times the camera work is creative or very good is when they use visual effects.

Now that we've taken care of the negatives, let's get to the positives, but i'll describe them in a very short way. Like i mentioned before: Samuel L. Jackson, Ben Mendelsohn and Jude Law were the only three that made the movie for me, especially Samuel L. Jackson, who is always entertaining and you can tell that he really cared when he was brought back to play a younger version of his character. Nick Fury was the only character that was at least likable thanks to the performance of Jackson and the way he functions in the story can be a bit of the comedic side, but at least he wasn't bland or something else.

The cinematography can be good, when the CGI is involved, but in some occasions i did find some nice shot composition that didn't had CGI involved, but it's a very small percent, which is not enough. The sound is great as always in the MCU movies and they don't disappoint with that aspect. The de-aging effects on Samuel L. Jackson look fantastic, even thought there were some moments of his physical performance that wasn't all that convincing.

Overall "Captain Marvel" is unfortunately not very good. If it had a good origin story, better written characters, good dialogue, better effects, better acting, good music and more creative cinematography, then it could have been something great, but it didn't came out in that way. Sadly after seeing "Avengers: Endgame" it makes the movie feel like a pointless addition, since in the post-credits scene of "Avengers: Infinity War" they made a huge deal that Captain Marvel will be very important and now - i'm wondering why did they even include her at the first place and sadly you're not going to miss all that much, if you decide to skip it.

It tries to capture the magic of "Terminator 2: Judgment Day", but just like the previous movies in the franchise - "Terminator: Dark Fate" does it unsuccessfully. The first two movies are fantastic, but after that - everything else is a giant waste and everyone is trying to forget that they existed and i don't blame them. "Terminator: Dark Fate" tells the same story as "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" with some small things that are new, so that it can feel different, but it's still the same story. I don't know why the people that make these movies can't tell a story that doesn't involve a Terminator protecting someone from a another Terminator.

When the movie begins we have a de-aged John Connor and Sarah Connor, who are now living their lives in peace, until a Terminator shows up and kills John Connor and Sarah hopelessly watching this moment happening right in front of her and this is where i couldn't believe it what i just saw. We got attached to John Connor so much in "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" and all of the sacrifices that were made to protect him, so that he can destroy Skynet, when he grows up - now it doesn't matter at all, because we know that he will die in this movie and it's a disservice to the character and after that they replace him with the main protagonist Dani. This is where everything feels pointless from now on.

The main protagonist Dani is not very interesting as John Connor was and the line that Sarah Connor says "She's John. You're John." is so obvious and was very bad. The actress, who is playing the character Dani does not help at all and gives the weakest performances in the movie. It wasn't terrible, but was weak. Linda Hamilton, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mackenzie Davis and Gabriel Luna were trying in the movie and you can tell. Gabriel Luna plays this movie's T-1000 and Arnold Schwarzenegger plays the same character, but was taken in a different direction in the story, which i wasn't a huge fan and he does a ultimate sacrifice in the end again. The only characters that i liked were Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) and Grace (Mackenzie Davis) and they are the only ones that are very well written.

The de-aging effects that they used look very impressive and unfortunately - that's the only time the CGI effects look good. The rest of CGI looks super fake and at moments they were very bad. The cinematography was the thing that i didn't like, but that doesn't mean there weren't any good shot composition, but most of it was very OK and the other problem is that there are shots that lasted only a few seconds, but that was the editing's fault. The editing was very average in the action sequences, especially when the characters have a fist fight. The way it cuts from one shot to another was so fast and for that i couldn't even enjoy the action.

The music was the aspect that i totally disliked, even after exiting the movie theater i immediately forgot it. It was the one of the most forgettable and generic soundtracks that i've listened this year. I wasn't surprised when i read that Tom Holkenborg (aka Junkie XL) composed it, since he has never composed a good or memorable soundtrack in his entire career. The dialogue for the most part was weak with some lines here and there that i liked. The biggest positive for me was the sound, so the people, who worked in the sound department did a fantastic job with it.

As a whole i was very disappointed by the movie. I was hoping that this movie will redeem the franchise, but sadly i was wrong. This is the sixth installment of a franchise that was doing downhill from "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines" and now no one cares about it anymore. The Terminator franchise has the most screwed up timeline in film history. It's hard to know which movie is canon and which isn't, since with each new installment they destroy the established timeline.