Reviews

It's one of the best few series I've seen in recent years (and I've seen a lot). It is fast-paced like an American action show, but without the unnecessary explosions and time-filling talking and subplots, and it also has that European cinema feeling of making films on a tight budget which means they have to deliver through ideas and moral dilemmas. It is action stripped to the bone but it tells a scary cautionary tale, ironically, in the year before the COVID pandemic that almost brought society to the Collapse the title of this amazing series talks about. Also the ending is hard-hitting and, like all the rest of these short but tense episodes with almost no connection between them, brilliantly thought.

Action, stunning humor, political satire, great music (and a one of its kind dance act), post-modern nods to other films, great characters, nice views of Havana, unforgettable ending - this hidden gem has it all! It is one of those few actually good zombie movies, along Dawn of the Dead, 28 Days Later, Shaun of the Dead - though in my opinion it is way superior to Shaun of the Dead, which has a dry sense of humour, while Juan de los muertos elicits crazy laughter, including from the effect of the wild political satire. Not to mention the quality of making a movie on a presumably small budget but that doesn't look like a movie on a presumably small budget, due to the creativity involved. Do not miss this one!

I see a lot of people complain about this film as it isn't realistic or the character is "too" passive and coward etc. Well, that's exactly what the film is about: being passive in the face of danger because you can't imagine people can be that bad. It's a superb metaphor, more so after February 24th, but can easily be applied to any situation of abuse, at a historical level or in a family. If you see it at face value, "a movie about a family that...", of course it would be a film about characters who don't have the obvious and mandatory reactions (for example they don't effing run like hell the second the wife sees her daughter sleeping in that place - who saw the film knows what i'm talking about), but don't take it as a "Hills Have Eyes" film; it's a dire metaphor that serves as an explanation for what is happening in the world right now.

Very tough indeed, some parts are almost unbearable, but an amazing movie and warning!

The opening 5 minutes were perfect, I was surprised how carefully the scenes were written... and then Henry Thomas and Olivia Taylor Dudley entered and I was looking at porn-level acting. I'm not exaggerating, they can't act! Then Jennifer Robertson appeared and she was worse... and then the rest, each one worse than the previous one.

This film could have been good, enjoyable mindless fun, but the actors are beyond anything you would imagine in terms of bad, bad acting.

If they ever make a remake with *real* actors and they even hire a director, I'll watch it. Until then, I'm sorry, it's a hard no.

A 2021 ukrainian film about the 2014 war with russia should be relevant in 2022. The first scene is amazing and when you get it, it's like a punch in the guts. Then you notice meta things, you notice metaphors that are great, if obvious, and feel the film is up to something good. But then... it dawns on you the whole movie is made of static and extremely long shots, so long they make you not care about what's happening anymore. You want the film to end faster and half way through it, you feel watching the paint dry would be way more rewarding and thrilling.

Also, as the film progresses, the story is more and more disjointed, it misses milestones and rewards, it randomly jumps from a moment to another, you don't understand what's happening as action contradicts itself, until it ends with a scene that cries "Look at me, I make art film!".

I think the writer/director had a great idea for a movie, but ruined it because he tried to turn it into what he thinks is an art film. This film makes promises but then it doesn't deliver, most probably because the author thinks that lack of reward authomatically makes it an art film.

I just hope he'll come around and edit out those long, useless, alienating long shots, that were trendy 60 years ago, and make a real film out of it.

This movie is what cinema is for. Don't skip it because is Turkish; it is as Western as any Western independent films. It is obvious they didn't spend tens or hundreds of millions with it, but they made it not look like a cheap film and, benefitting also from the amazing scenery, came up with a movie that delivers perfectly.

If i have to find something bad, i would say the ending isn't as amazing as the rest of the film, but it's still good (and logical). All in all, the film is tense, scary, outrageous (because of the honor killings and of the medieval attitude of men against women) and makes you feel for the main character.

This is what you are after when wanting to see a film.

We've seen it all before: he is an ex-cop who is now a hard-drinking private detective, and he is also a cynical tough guy but who secretly has a big heart and reads a lot. Even the Jack Taylor name itself is a very common name. Still the show is so good, you'll never see it as clicheistic. I dont know its secret; maybe it's the amazing chemistry between the character and the actor, maybe it's the good source materials (the novels). Anyway, it got me through the COVID madness and lockdown and that's something.

This is a very good thriller, immersive from the first minute, but also with a heart. And especially with an amazing twist in the end, that almost brought tears in my eyes and that may hit home for anyone. With a single word, it rewrites the story, the film, it even shifts the role of main character to another one. I was also pleased to see Sandrine Bonnaire and Charles Berling again, but young Pablo Pauly was the main attraction. Please note I love good American thrillers and don't like European dramas too much, so don't be deterred from seeing this Belgian film just because it's European; it is is a lesson of writing, shooting and acting.

I hated this film. It just goes from A to B without any surprise or detour, on a road much better walked by other filmmakers. The film's premise is absurd, gratuitous, the "bad boys" are a travesty, and what the merde was that gross, needless, ridiculous scene in the end? Was that a way of showing us he was tough now? What is this, a porn Leslie Nielsen film? No, this movie doesn't know what is wants and leaves you disappointed, cheated, and swearing you'll never watch a film starring that boring and bored main actor again.

Sequels should be banned. They are the cancer of nowadays' cinema. And feminism is bad when it is aggressive; it should only be defensive. Replacing men characters with women and white characters with black just to be politically correct? Equally bad. But... This Charlie's Angels is actually fun. It's not feminist (not all films done by women are feminist; it's a trap that many people fall in, unfortunately). It has action, humour, beautiful talented women, funny cameos, smart self-references - it does what it's supposed to do. Maybe it's not exactly-exactly as good as the 2000s Charlie's Angels, but come on, it's not like those were arthouse films! (Not to say that 2000s Charlie's Angels are themselves a kind of sequel to the '70s Tv show, which in turn weren't exactly Fellini.) Elizabeth Banks had a great idea and made another fun Charlie's Angels movie. So if you don't judge it for being a sequel, made by a woman etc., you get 2 hours of entertainment, which is everything a Charlie's Angels film should be. PS I'm a guy.

Helen Mirren and Ian McKellan are so amazing, it's a real pleasure to watch anything they act in... even this film. Apart from that, this film disappointed me so much I had to write this review. The "twist" is extremely predictable; a surprise is a not a surprise if you're already waiting for it. (Other films had the decency to at least add another twist or two.) In this one, you know from the get go where it's going and it goes there and then the end. Implausible and forced, that what this film seemed to me. I only gave it 5 stars because the plot is a 0 and Mirren & McKellan are a 10.

This film isn't what it wanted to be. It is a film for easily-impressionable people, who are mesmerized by nice shots and think it's an arthouse film that we, the rest, don't understand. It fools them with suspense (but that doesn't pay in the end), great shots (but that make no higher sense), good acting (that one is true) and a great idea for a movie (but not a great movie). It's a beautiful empty shell. It's like that beautiful toy car that your parents forbidded you to break its original packing in order to play with, so you look at its and say: "Whoa, the things I would have done with it!" and your a*hole friend tells you: "You don't need to actually play with it, only stupid kids do that, you should imagine you play with it, that's the fun!". It's like the makers had a great idea but didn't know how to come up with details, so they only *hinted* at things. Those easily-impressionable people I was telling you about will say we didn't get it and we only like Marvel films, but come on, empty expectations are as bad as brainless explosions. So All I See Is my lost 1 h 49'.

This might have been decent if directed by Spielberg and written by let's say Ray Bradbury. But it's not. It's a film that doesn't know if it's for 10-years olds or for an adult audience. The girly toys and colors would freak the adults out, while the unnecessary torture scene would scar kids for life. It's like in the middle of "Mary Poppins" there were a scene where Mary strangled a kid until their eyes and blood popped out - it would have been appropriate (though horrible) in a horror movie, but not in "Mary Poppins". Same here. Of course the kid actress it's great, but the film is very, very, very bad. Badly thought, written and directed. It was released straight to video, but it deserved to be released straight to VCR. So that nobody can see it and lose 1 h 28' for nothing.

People who dont like rob schneider will not like this show and its jokes. nevertheless, this show is damn funny, with some really great moments. he's funny as usual, his wife is damn funny and dont get me started about his assistant friend! also, the take on reality shows is brilliant. just give it a try. it always makes me laugh and, even in episodes that dont really make me laugh, it makes me just feel good.

Just when I thought TV had died from boredom, Twin Peaks returned, after 26 years. And just when I thought TV shows had died from cliches, the innovating new season of Twin Peaks appeared. And when I thought there was nothing weirder then Twin Peaks 2017, there was THAT episode (I wont say which one, you'll know when you see it) of Twin Peaks 2017, very different - in the best sense - from even the rest of the show. Twin Peaks 2017 is the best TV shows that a lot of people will hate. Compared to the best series around - be it Game of Thrones, Westworld or House of Cards -, it's like Beethoven came to the Glastonbury fertival: they are all good there, but he is in another class. I found Twin Peaks 2017 the best thing one can see in TV these days: it has a sense of astonishment, it is a visual, musical and intertextual experience and it is as deep as you want to go. It has action, comedy, social commentary, SF, philosophy, it has everything, just like real life. Or actually more... Also, I think it is better then even the first two seasons. It is what the first two season should have been. It is happening again. But even better.

Some say it's slow and boring and not horror, others say it's a masterpiece. i think they are both right, and in the best way possible. it's not horror if by horror one means the new It or Poltergeist or Mirrors; it's another, more psychological, kind of horror, because IT IS very tense, suspenseful, and has some great scary scenes. and yes, i could say, in the actual landscape of horror movies, it is a masterpiece. i didn't like the linear story: it goes from A to B to C without any real end surprises, but on the other hand it kept me guessing all the time. all in all, i highly recommend it, but not if you want something gory with cheap thrills.

I think it would only be fair for this film to come with a warning: "Attention! It's just 2 actors talking in an apartment through all this low-budget black and white film. It's actually a theater play". Maybe the paying spectator doesn't want a play, they want a movie. It won't matter the film is very good, actors are great: the spectator will feel they were cheated.

First of all, do not get deterred by the fact that it is Swedish: it has nothing of the dry, coward European cinema. The subject itself is nothing new: the problems of a recent couple along with problems of their children, ex-partners, new partners of their ex-partners. But it is so brilliantly written and perfectly played, it doesn't let you down for a single episode. It a shows about serious matters (family, commitment, divorce, kids...) but approached with a great sense of humor and (rare thing) really funny jokes. It also has great characters and witty comebacks that make it a hidden gem that I hope Hollywood will never remake.

I expected this sequel to be very, very bad. Still I was surprised to see it was not bad! If it has flaws, it has the original 24's flaws. The new lead is, contrary to the disgusting "let's cast a different kind of actor" move, unexpectedly good. The series observe the good old 24 tropes, from the CTU employees spying on each other to setting a hard perimeter. I swear I find this new series better than some of the later seasons of the original show. If you're 24 fans, give it a try.

Great, great cinematography! Also suspense, thrills, actors, music - you name it, this film has it all; even that "This looks like a special film" look, which is a rare thing today. Too bad the "twist" is shockingly weak and the whole idea is BAD. It's something done dozens of times. The film markets itself as "The classic English ghost story gets a revision" - no, it doesn't. You're promised something special but you get something done to death and weak, very weak. And to add insult to injury, the bad guy in this British atmospheric, beautifully filmed movie dies like countless bad guys in cheap American B movies. No, I'm sorry, great landscapes don't make a film smart or good. Oh, and even the stunning Sophia Myles looks old and vapid!

Yeah, you can find a lot of problems with this film, from some of the characters being too cliché to the (I can't believe I'm saying this) lack of special effects, in a few scenes, that would have added weight to the movie. Still, it isn't bad at all and, most important, it delivers more than you expect. It has a good plot twist, it keeps you guessing and makes you think you got it - but you'll find out you didn't. I think it's the best a small budget, unknown actors (but they are actors, not Richard Grieco...), and aspiring writers and director can get. It may not be of Spielberg value, but it's on an honest path towards it.

This film is everything the good Terminators (1 and 2) were not. T1 and T2 took place in full daylight, Cameron was not afraid his SFX would be bad. This film's makers KNEW their SFX were bad, so 80% of the film take place at night, in dark! Explosions happen for the sake of it, jokes are very unfunny, the plot is ridiculous. TG even makes T3 and 4 look good. TG looks so bad, I was surprised Richard Grieco or Don The Dragon Wilson didn't show up. TG has the visual style of robot cartoons and the convenient solutions of bad B SF movies. Actually it is so bad, I can't even write a proper negative review. I'd like Cameron to return in time and delete the time line of TG, because it defiled and compromised one of the coolest SF franchises.

I think the main reason people hate this show is they were expecting something else. But that's their fault, not the show's. I was expecting something different myself, but I realized although it wasn't what I had expected, it was still good - and that's what matters. If you expect a SF show - well, it isn't SF. Only the premise is SF, but actually this is a comedy and a scathing satire show about marriage, relationships, today's world, democracy, men, women, the hypocrisy of society etc. The only thing I didn't like that much was the last episode - but even so the show is good. It's fresh and cleverly funny - something you don't get very often these days. Haters gonna hate, of course, and it's their right to do so. But this is definitely a quality show, it has smart humor, it's well acted, it doesn't look cheap and, most of all, you get to laugh. I recommend it.