Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
I wasn't really interested in Encanto and watched it just to know what film won the Golden Globe and almost for sure will win the Oscar. And what can I say? I'm slightly disappointed. There is one fundamental reason for that, at it lies in its plot. Almost every Disney/Pixar movie tells us about how it's important to love your family. Some do it just for the fact, and the others do it masterfully and touchingly as Coco, for example. And what's most important, both of these two categories have an interesting plot so even without this moralizing they're enjoyable to watch (if they're enjoyable at all, of course). But in Encanto we have nothing but the story of the family. I'm tired of this family cliché in every animated film, and Encanto has nothing except it. Literally no plot except for family disputes. And if the other animations have something else to offer, this one doesn't. It's visuals and songs are average for a Disney movie too. Among 2021 animated films I prefer Raya and the Last Dragon to Encanto. Raya wasn't a genius revelation and it had this family keynote as well, but it had way more inventive graphics, world, characters and story. Thus, choosing between these two, I'd give an award to Raya. But it's almost for certain that Encanto will win, so I'll be very disappointed. I don't recommend this movie, since you won't see anything new. It's okay for a 5-year-old to watch, but if you're an adult or you've seen many animated films, you'd better skip it. You can watch it only if you don't ger disturbed by repetitive cliches or you want to see what will probably get an Oscar, but in other cases don't do it.
A Room with a View (1985)
Typical XIX century romance
A Room with a View comprises many of the cliches of the romantic novels written between the beginning of the XIX century and 1920's. Their foundations are mostly impossibility of love, and, in case when both main characters are rich, unbearable lightness of their being. This is my main reproach for this film. This picture's characters are typical types of that time, when people couldn't behave like a real human beings. They couldn't say they love someone; they couldn't admit it to the others, they just behaved like adult children. I didn't like it in Wuthering Heights and didn't like in this film either, though in this case characters behave way more human and mature and don't die from their stupidity. And I don't like this "great suffering" of rich people who just don't know what to do since they don't work and don't have real problems, so they just fool around. But I guess these XIX century romances are just not my type of a story. If you're fond of these unreasonable suffering, it won't be a problem for you.
Still, this film is brilliant in all the respects which don't concern the story basis. It has more or less good script (for this type of story), great directing, beautiful land- and cityscapes, glorious setting and costumes and remarkable cinematography. It is visually brilliant. Advantages concern cast's performances as well. Maggie Smith, Denholm Elliott and Daniel Day-Lewis did a great job. Others are not that great, but good enough as well. And of course, Helena Bonham Carter in first role looks great for a beginner. Thus, you may also watch A Room with a View if you're not this genre's fan, since it's mostly great, but be aware of the genre's specifics.
A film that wanted to be like Scream
IKWYDLS released just a year after the first Scream and the same year the second one came out. It features the same screenwriter and Sarah Michelle Gellar, who was also killed in Scream 2. Unlike Scream, this film was based on the book of the same name, but most of the plot was changed to resemble Scream movie and to make it a typical teenage slasher. I Know What You Did Last Summer was successful in financial respect, but is it as good as Wes Craven's picture? Certainly not.
There are several reasons of this film's inferiority to Scream. The first problem is directing. Watching I Know What You Did Last Summer I noticed that director Jim Gillespie had little experience, especially comparing to Wes Craven. Then goes the script. It's not as interesting and as gripping as it should be and has some flaws. For instance, instead of the kid the characters ran over in the book, this time they knock some old fisherman down. It would be a miracle if a real person survived such a collision at all, but this man doesn't even become disabled. Moreover, just a year after he chases and easily kills young people. And his killings are not justified enough. The creators want us to believe that his motivation is to take a revenge, but he kills several absolutely innocent people. Also, I don't get it why he tried to scare them at first if he could have had problems, whereas killing them silently would be a better way. And finally, the plot develops in a slightly dull way. The third problem concerns all the characters. They're just not written on a decent level. Unlike charismatic characters from Scream, these are not interesting at all. If not for the famous cast, they would be completely out of place. The actors worked better than their characters were written. Only Freddie Prinze Jr. Didn't perform good enough, but the rest are OK for a teenage slasher. Still, there's no serious chemistry between them, so I don't care about these people. They just don't look like real friends and couples. There is also a problem with a slasher part. All the murders in Scream were inventive and memorable, but in this movie we have only 1 such murder out of 4.
Thus, the fim is watchable, but only for one time and only if you don't raise your expectations.
It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
Still a great film
Some people here write that this film is considered classic because it was in public domain and was shown on many channels every year, whereas it wasn't successful when it released. Others agree with 40's critics, who wrote that it's too sentimental and doesn't resemble the real life. It may be so, but it doesn't mean that It's a Wonderful Life is somehow overrated. It's still a great film and there's several reasons why:
The first is the great cast. Even kids played their parts well, not to mention really great performances by James Stewart, Donna Reed, Lionel Barrymore, Henry Travers and others. They masterfully complement the part of the script which concerns their characters; thus, we like or dislike someone not just because they're good written, but are incredibly performed as well. The second is the script itself. Yes, it's not completely realistic even in the parts concerning the real life, but it's not a drawback since this film is a pure fantasy. For what It's a Wonderful Life is, this screenplay is really great. Chekhov's gun principle is used perfectly and nothing is eventually useless, though it may seem so at the beginning. The only things I didn't completely understand is Violet character and the Donna Reed's character in the world where George Bailey wasn't born. Violet is slightly useless, since she doesn't have any significant impact on the story, neither before nor after George gets in the alternative reality. And speaking of Donna Reed's character, I just don't believe that without George Bailey such beautiful and sweet woman would be an old maid. It works as an incentive for George to reconsider his life, but doesn't look realistic even for a fantasy. The other advantages of the film are great directing, great sets and the atmosphere of Bedford Falls and the Christmas itself, though Frank Capra didn't intend to make a Christmas movie. It's a Wonderful Life makes us think about our lives and appreciate and cherish what we have. It shows how important every person is, not only for him/herself, but for the others.
Thus, if you understand all this and you don't want this film to be a realistic harsh drama about the reality and how it actually resembles Pottersville rather than Bedford Falls, you'll get a great Christmas classic and you won't be disappointed.
The French Dispatch (2020)
Here we go again
I like Wes Anderson's style and I've seen half of his films. He always creates great scenery and invites talented actors. To my mind, The Life Aquatic, Fantastic Mr. Fox, Moonrise Kingdom and especially The Grand Budapest Hotel are very charming movies. But there's one thing I don't understand. That is why does he make every film so similar to the other ones. At first it fascinates, but when I see the same actors, symmetrical shots and unrealistic character behavior every single time, it starts to irritate. It seems like Wes is stuck with his own technique and doesn't even think of altering it for a change. I'd like to see elaborate cinematography instead of steady symmetrical one and watch a movie about real people, not the ones behaving like imbeciles.
Speaking of The French Dispatch itself, it's not that bad, but is definitely boring in the second part. If Anderson does his next film in the same way and with the same actors again, I'll rate it lower than this film. I'm sure he's capable of more than constantly repeating himself.
The Matrix Resurrections (2021)
Even worse than the third film
I thought The Matrix Revolutions was bad (though not completely), but here's the new worst Matrix. It's completely unnecessary, its story is useless and pointless, there's no interesting and inventive action scenes, the cinematography sucks, the actors are almost completely miscast. This film lost the original films' atmosphere and is no longer revolutionary for the industry. Resurrections is just not interesting to watch - there's its most prominent drawback. I'm happy that for Lana Wachowski it was a relief from the depression, but for us - the viewers, this film is a torture to watch. I thought that when the original creators of any movie series return to them, it should be a good sign, but not in this case. If you're planning on going to the cinema to watch The Matrix Resurrections, don't do it. It doesn't worth your time and money. Better rewatch the old movies, even if you dislike the second and/or the third.
Both better and worse than the original
This movie has its rating higher than the first Hunger Games by 0.3 points, whereas most of the sequels get lower marks even if they're not worse than the original. But does it deserve it? To my mind it is better than the original in some respects and worse in other.
Speaking of the advantages comparing to the first film, it has greater visuals due to increased budget. Monkeys look more convincing than the dogs from the original, as well as CGI landscapes and other aspects. It's deprived of the first film's epileptic cinematography as well. But the pluses are not only about the visual part. I also liked the non-game part more than in the original Hunger Games. It shows the characters' progress, their development and is just more interesting, well-made and complex than in its predecessor.
And finally, what seems inferior to me in this sequel. For me it's the games themselves. They're more elaborate than the previous ones and end up with something bigger than just an ending. But it's the biggest flaw. The first film showed how cruel and useless these games are and made me feel it, unlike Japanese Battle Royale, which didn't make me care about its characters. Catching Fire has its games too, but they just end up being useless. Yes, they were part of the rebels' plan, but for me as a viewer not only their consequences, but the games themselves matter. Hunger games in this film became a large and rush cliffhanger. Thus, for having both stronger and weaker points than the original movie, I can rate it neither higher nor lower.
The Forbidden Kingdom (2008)
Just an average 00's fantasy
The Forbidden Kingdom is another example of 00's fantasy film, which were quite frequent guests in those times' cinemas. It's just a product of its time and has numerous cliches. Actually, it's only original concept is being partially based on Chinese mythology. It has some anti-cliches, such as Jason losing a fight against the witch, though in such situations in other films characters always miraculously win. Another example is Sparrow girl dying and not becoming Jason's girlfriend, though in other films of this kind she would resurrect and they would kiss. In other aspects it's a typical 00's fantasy. It tells a story about another common teenage guy who is no one, but saves everyone. There are cliched moments of directing, lightnings in the moments of misery, some scenes are obviously copies of Lord of the Rings, the guy gets good skills in no time, of course he kills the main villain, Jackie Chan's character resurrects miraculously (unlike Sparrow girl). Also, there is one stupid joke and some other cliches. And, of course, in some moment the budget deficiency is very obvious.
Still, due to good fights and some peculiarities of this specific story, it was enjoyable to watch. Actors don't do brilliant performances, but they look good enough. And the film doesn't irritate and isn't long. So being unprejudiced and not expecting something great it's quite possible to spend a good evening with this film. For kids it will be even better.
Midnight in Paris (2011)
Very charming movie
Midnight in Paris is definitely one of the best Woody Allen's pictures in 21st century. It's actually brilliant in any respect. Good cinematography, good editing, good directing, perfect and realistic performances by all the actors (literary all of them), great shots of Paris, beautiful music, funny jokes, well-made sets, interesting story and really Oscar-worthy script. I rarely see films which depict their characters in such a real way. They sound, look and act like real people, rather than actors reading their lines. This is so due to the elaborate script, of course. Some jokes were really funny, and none of them were vulgar, which is rare in modern movies. And of course, it makes you fall in love with Paris, cause it's represented in a very charming manner. I rate it lower than 9-10 only because it's not my favorite genre of movies, but I understand that it's almost perfect. So, if love romantic comedies more than I do, don't miss it in any case. And even if you're not this genre's fan, you won't be disappointed.
Funny Face (1957)
Not enjoyable enough
The moments without songs and dances are quite interesting, but when they sing and dance, it's just too dull. None of these dances and songs were good enough. It's much inferior to Singing in the Rain or some other musicals. Still, Audrey and Fred play well, cinematography is marvelous and the movie is colourful and beautiful for 1957. But I wouldn't rate it higher than 7/10 because of its bad musical moments, plenty of which we have.
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934)
The worst among the best
Among the Hitchcock's films of the 30's I liked brilliant The Lady Vanishes, Sabotage and The 39 Steps, as well as just good film Young and Innocent. This is the last of his 30's films that I liked, and I think it's the weakest of them. And the later remake was also more decent than this movie. Still, it's quite watchable. It's quite rush and has some plot holes, such as villains not killing the girl, though her parents broke the rules they had to obey. But mostly it's quite enjoyable and has great performance by Peter Lorre. He was great as he was in another Hitchcock's movie - Secret Agent.
Don't expect The Man Who Knew Too Much to be a masterpiece, as the first masterpiece of Alfred Hitchcock was his next film - The 39 Steps. But if you don't have high expectations and just want to see an early Hitchcock movie - feel free to enjoy it.
The Paradine Case (1947)
So much wasted potential
This is the second disappointing film by Hitchcock for me. The first was Jamaica Inn, and in that case, I didn't know what's wrong with the movie except for its dullness. But with The Paradine Case I clearly see one tremendous flaw. It lies in a great potential lost due to overlength and bad script. There are lots of excessively long scenes and useless dialogues. It should've been 20 minutes shorter, especially in the first part. Believe it or not, but in the film about the trial we first see the trial itself only on the 63rd minute. Unlike a brilliant film called Anatomy of a Murder, where we also don't have the trial from the beginning, this film doesn't use this preparation time effectively.
We've seen lots of films where a protagonist wins the case, either miraculously or because of great preparation. But among the ones where the case is lost, I recall only Witness for the Prosecution. The Paradine Case differs from the latter one and could be another great example of unpredictable courtroom drama. Still, unlike Witness of the Prosecution, this film hardly presents us motivation for many characters. Anthony Keane loves Maddalena for absolutely no reason, and Maddalena herself with her lover Andre just don't look convincing enough. And the climax of all this is caused only by mental exhaustion of the criminal couple.
Nevertheless, the film has some strong points. Certain scenes were beautifully directed and the typical Hitchcock's camera work is as good as always. Some moments of cross examination are quite tense and gripping. Actors mostly did fine. Gregory Peck looks quite plain and usual, but Ann Todd, Charles Laughton, Alida Valli and some of the other actors made great performances. For all this I give the film 6/10.
Mr. & Mrs. Smith (1941)
Pretty little comedy
Not Hitchcock's best film of course, but has its moments. Many people dislike it because a comedy is not a typical genre for Hitchcock, but generally it's not worse than many other comedies of that time. It's obviously inferior to The Philadelphia Story, but I like it more than His Girl Friday. Comparing to the latter, it doesn't have tons of useless fast-pace gibberish. The only thing that's worse in Mr. & Mrs. Smith is not having Cary Grant, who wasted his talent for His Girl Friday. Having him in this film would make it better. Still, the original Mr. & Mrs. Smith's cast is good enough to enjoy the movie. Robert Montgomery and Carole Lombard look quite fine, they don't irritate and made decent performances. Directing and camera work are good enough too. Many jokes are funny and there's no stupid humour. The only serious flaw for me is some of the characters' actions. Ann behaves like a beach and David sometimes looks spineless, though this doesn't spoil the film much. I reckon this film is so low-rated because of having no big stars and being untypical for Hitchcock. If you cannot watch Hitchcock's movies other than thrillers, than skip it, but if you're not prejudiced, give it a try, especially if you like old comedies.
Jamaica Inn (1939)
The most disappointing Hitchcock film so far
I write this review having seen 33 of Hitchcock's movies, and for now it's the most disappointing of them for me. I was slightly disappointed by Lifeboat, Topaz and The Trouble with Harry, but they at least had something interesting in their plots. This film is based on the book by Daphne du Maurier, as well as Rebecca and Birds, but among these three Hitchcock made the worst movie of the Jamaica Inn. I haven't read the book, but I'm sure it's far more decent than this film is. Here we have almost nothing of Hitchcock's directing. He made brilliant pictures both before and after Jamaica Inn, but he definitely failed this time. The story may have been represented interestingly, but it isn't. There's no suspense or interesting twists. The film is dull, though it is watchable. If I were some usual viewer who watches only new popular movies, I would have dropped it after 10 minutes. Still, for some good moments, another good performance by Charles Laughton and respect for Hitchcock, I rate it 6/10 - the lowest rating I gave to a Hitchcock movie so far. You can watch it only if you plan to see all of the Hitchcock's movies. If not - you're better skip it.
Torn Curtain (1966)
Not the best, but still entertaining
Torn Curtain is not the best work of Hitchcock, and is obviously inferior to North by Northwest, but it's still good in some respect. To me it seems like a more realistic version of a spy movie, as opposed to James Bond ones. Nobody here shots 30 people without even getting a single wound, there's no stupid plans of starting a nuclear war and no villain that would tell all of it to the main character (though it's not completely realistic either). I like the idea of replacing an experienced spy with an amateur, it provides us with a more realistic angle. That killing scene was awesome and tense, which all other spy movies lack. The plot itself is more interesting and realistic that in other spy movies of that time as well.
Speaking of Julie Andrews, critics say that she didn't manage to perform a typical Hitchcock blonde, but I think she didn't have to. Her character is a more usual type and looks more like a real person. Paul Newman doesn't look like a spy either, but this is the thing. They both did a great job, as well as all other cast.
The film has undoubtful drawbacks, such as obviously artificial scenery, especially the museum in Berlin. It is overlength too. It needed to be 10-15 minutes shorter to have the right pace. And Hitchcock's directing wasn't the best in his career. It's obvious that he wasn't very interested in this production. Still, for it's good moments, gripping parts of the story and actors I recommend this film, though you shouldn't have high expectations.
Sicario: Day of the Soldado (2018)
Though this film's director is not Denis Villeneuve, it retained good directing and everything except one thing. Its actors and action scenes are great, and the story is gripping enough. It's not boring to watch and I really enjoyed it. Still, it doesn't have the real ending. We have an ending for Alejandro and Miguel, but not for Isabel and the whole plot. We don't see this war that our characters wanted to start, and don't see how Reyes reacts to his daughter being kidnapped either. It makes an impression that she's just a girl nobody cares about. Thus, I rate this film only 7/10, but only for it's incompleteness. Maybe we'll see the story development in sequel if it releases, but today we don't have all the answers.
The Piano (1993)
When I saw how many Oscars did it win and how many nominations did it obtain, as well as titles like "The best female-director's film", I expected something great. Critic's reviews were highly positive as well. But what did I eventually get? A masterpiece? Definitely no. Speaking of its Oscars, The Piano hardly deserves them. The one for screenplay was won due to weak rivals, among which all of them wouldn't look obvious and were of the same level. I saw only one of them - Philadelphia, and to my mind, it deserves the Oscar for the best original screenplay more than The Piano. The Oscar for Anna Paquin is more or less deserved, though Emma Thompson was great in In the Name of the Father too. Nonetheless, Anna did a great job for a kid. And the last Oscar - the one for the best actress. Though Holly Hunter played well, her performance is a typical role of disabled person, which, along with playing a real person, is one of the cheating ways of winning an Oscar. They just already have someone to repeat after and need less effort to make everything what's needed from them. Playing a usual person, whether it is a book character or the one from original screenplay is tougher, and it's a shame that the Academy doesn't understand it.
Speaking of the film itself, it has two main drawbacks: the story and its color solution. I don't know why did they decide to make the colors so cold and unpleasant, but it didn't do any good. And the story is just shallow and pointless. Everyone tells how deep it is and how it reveals all the passion, but I suspect they just want to seem like critics. Brilliant, modern and tragic love stories are A Star Is Born and Atonement, but not this one. These characters just don't look as they need this affair. Ada looks like a whor, as Harvey Keitel's character described her. His character isn't good either. There's no chemistry and real passion, I just don't believe them. Nothing happens between them except for sx. Thus, I don't recommend to waste your time on this movie. Better watch A Star Is Born or Atonement if you haven't seen them yet.
Thelma & Louise (1991)
Don't understand what's so feminist about it
Everybody here tells how feminist this movie is, but I see it in a different way. There is no "Girl power" or anything of that kind, it's just a story about two women. Male characters are not distorted as they are in modern real feminist movies like Birds of Prey. Harvey Keitel played a surprisingly good cop. I expected him to be a typical maniac-like policeman who would use any means to catch usual criminals as though they are the most wanted in the whole world. Main characters' husband and boyfriend are not typical oppressors either. Thelma's husband is a frequent type who wants his wife to stay at home while he's at work. He also makes Thelma more motivated to do what she does further in the film, since she's bored with her daily routine. Louise's boyfriend is a type of guys who is tough outside but sensitive inside. Harlan and J. D. are just criminals who make the story develop. The only odd male character is the policeman who stops the two women on the road. He could be made less freaky.
Thelma & Louise seems like an analogue of Bonnie & Clyde but with several differences. It's about two women rather than man and woman, and they begin their criminal "career" accidentally rather than intentionally and at first, they just want to escape from the punishment. Speaking of the screenplay, it's magnificent, everything works just perfect. All the characters look so real and good written, as well as the story itself. The screenwriter really deserved her Oscar. Directing and cinematography are great either. And of course, the cast, especially the two leading actresses. The ending which some people don't like is fine for me. Though some people say it look unnatural that after all this running away they just commit suicide, it doesn't look that odd. Look at Thelma at the beginning and in the end of the movie, for instance. She doesn't look like robbing stores and assaulting people in the first part of the movie, but she does so later. So if the creators decided to make this ending, I don't object.
Flesh and the Devil (1926)
A great silent classic
Flesh and the Devil shows us one more time how beautiful and expressive movies were before the sound came. Unlike films of following decades, especially 30's -50's in American film industry, this film perfectly tells the story without tons of useless dialogues and twaddle. That is due to great directing of Clarence Brown. Unlike most of American 40's films, which could be just transmitted by radio and nothing would change, Flesh and the Devil doesn't let you to hesitate and look away, as we have great camera work, great acting and feeling of a real picture. All actors including the main three and their screen relatives made a fantastic job. Apart from this, I'd also like to highlight that at the beginning we are given some really funny jokes, so it made me smile more than some comedies, though the film has a dramatic story and ending. And of course, the message of the film - it is great and enlightening. The film tells us that nothing should stand between real friends, including a woman, which can ruin their friendship. It shows that it's more important to love and care for the ones who really love you, not the one who can easily betray you, no matter how big the temptation is.
The film is a must-see for silent movies fans and especially for young ones to learn about how important the friendship is.
His Girl Friday (1940)
The first dissapointing film with Cary Grant
Grant himself is great as usual, but the film is far away from being brilliant. This is the first Cary Grant's film which I rated lower than 8/10I don't understand why is it considered so important and funny. This fast pace isn't funny but rather irritating. Only a few times I smiled or appreciated the jokes. My idea of a great picture is not only decent dialogues (which this film doesn't have either), but also a good story, camera work, directing. His Girl Friday doesn't have a single one of them. Directing is pretty usual, the story is cockeyed. Only actors did a really good job, especially the leading ones. Maybe I just don't like these 30's - 50's films about nothing and with lots of babble and no sense and good story at all, but I give this film only 6/10 for good actors' performances and some funny moments.
The Lego Movie (2014)
An overrated movie
I'm the one who likes watching animation and family films, rating some of them even higher that in childhood, and watching the ones I've never seen before with delight. But this movie totally disappointed me. I heard how brilliant it is many times, as well as I saw the rating from both critics and usual users. All this made me hope for a good animated film, but it turned out to be worse than I expected. Many jokes are not funny, though some of them are. The animation may be well-performed, but it's not pleasant to watch. The plot itself is a typical and trivial story about the chosen one. Later we discover that he is not, but it doesn't change the situation much, since we don't know about it till the end and the story remains the same. The characters I didn't like as well. If not for some good jokes and some interesting scenes such as the ending with reals humans, it would be undearable for me to watch it till the end.
Some people here compare it to Toy Story, but don't be fooled. The Lego Movie doesn't worth such comparison. It's better to skip it if you're older than 12 and you've seen at least some movies and animation, cause the only original thing in this film is it's being about Lego.
Fright Night (1985)
A witty 80's horror film
I expected Fright Night to be a typical 80's horror film which could be watched only for a few laughs and isn't a bit scary. Well, it made me laugh and didn't scare me (I guess I just can't be frightened by a movie), but for different reasons. It's not pointless and stupid like many other horrors of that time and is funny not for its stupidity, but for really witty jokes and moments due to good script. All these dialogues are pretty good, as well as the elaborate story. Actors make decent performances, especially Roddy McDowall, Stephen Geoffreys and Chris Sarandon. Their characters are quite interesting comparing to others from the other vampire films. So are the special effects - they look awesome for 1985 horror.
Thus, if you want to watch quite an original and witty vampire movie, be free to spend an evening with Fright Night.
Serpico is not a bad film, but it definitelty could have been better. Directing and acting are as good as they always are when Sidney Lumet and Al Pacino are involved. Pacino made a really Oscar-worthy performance, and Lumet's directing is brilliant, especially at the beginning of the film. And the story itself is gripping and intriguing. But the way it is presented is not that good as it may seem when you read the film's description. The script is not good enough, there are lots of useless dialoges and scenes. For instance, Serpico's two women almost don't make sense, especially the first one. They don't have influence on the story, but serve only for Serpico to express his attitude towards the police, which he expresses directly towards his collegues in the same way. His fellow policemen don't look like real bandits and most of them are shallow too. It seems as the film's crew made this film only for the ones who already knew everything about the real Frank. His story deserved to be presented more thoroughly. Nevertheless, the film is still good and I can recommend it.
The Mummy (1999)
Still looks good
The Mummy is of course a bit silly and has some cliches, as well as it is not perfect , but it's a decent blockbuster which is enjoyable to watch even 22 years later. If you watched it only in your childhood or haven't seen it at all, don't expect it to be a very serious film or to be comparable to Indiana Jones. Just be ready for a good, but not the best adventure film ever. Just enjoy it, especially if you want to watch something with your kids. Good actors, music, good visual effects and adventure spirit will make you enjoy if you're not too nagging.
Brief Encounter (1945)
Too dull for me
To my mind, David Lean is a great director, and the romance genre is as good as any other, but this film definitely has problems. For me the brilliant examples of the old romance films are It Happened One Night, Bringing Up Baby, The Shop Around the Corner, Casablanca, Meet Me in St. Louis and many others, and Brief Encounter seems to be the first classic film of this genre that I've rated so low. The actors and the directing are quite fine, but the story is the biggest flaw of this film. It's not interesting enough. It has some dramatic moments, but it doesn't have passion. Laura doesn't look like a lonely woman, she has her loving husband and two kids. Alec in his turn is too plain and boring. I don't know, maybe there was a point in showing them so simple and common, but it doesn't do any good. They just don't look like two persons who need this affair. The film runs slightly less than an hour and a half, and for me it was as though I watched a 3-hour movie. It lacks good dialoges, interesting characters and moments. Too plain and boring to have a user rating higher than Bringing Up Baby or Meet Me in St. Louis and higher critic rating than It Happened One Night and Bringing Up Baby. Maybe some more charismatic actors could bring life in this, but we'll never know. I don't recommend Brief Encounter and advise you to watch any of the other films I listed, if you haven't seen them of course.