The Tomatometer rating – based on the published opinions of hundreds of film and
television critics – is a trusted measurement of movie and TV programming quality
for millions of moviegoers. It represents the percentage of professional critic reviews
that are positive for a given film or television show.
From the Critics
From RT Users Like You!
The Tomatometer is 60% or higher.
The Tomatometer is 59% or lower.
The Tomatometer is 75% or higher, with 40 reviews (movies) or 20 reviews (TV). At least 5 reviews from Top Critics.
Percentage of users who rate a movie or TV show positively.
Film Reviewer/Writer, Podcaster, Video Game Player, Comic Book Reader, Disc Golfer, and a Lefty.
Read full film reviews at TheCodeIsZeek.com or WhySoBlu.com
Find my podcast on iTunes - Out Now with Aaron and Abe
Louie Zamperini: I've got good news and I've got bad news.
On the surface, Unbroken has everything needed to not only be a surefire hit for audiences and critics of a certain generation, but also one that could seemingly have awards just handed over to it. This is a film adaptation of a best-selling and well-reviewed novel based around the true story of a former Olympic athlete, who went to war, survived a plane crash, spent time lost at sea, and then lived a tortured life in a prisoner of war camp, only to prove how strong the human spirit can be. This film is directed by a major Hollywood player, who happens to be female, and was co-scripted by the two of the most celebrated filmmakers working today. What is not to like about that? Certainly not a lot, as Unbroken is a good film, with its heart in the right place and plenty of other positive elements going for it. With that in mind, the film does have an issue with finding a way to connect in a stronger sense, given what we are seeing. Unbroken misunderstands that seeing so much happen to someone is not the same as really getting us to understand how much some of these things may matter.
Witch: Sometimes the things you most wish for are not to be touched.
Given how much they talked/sang about it, I was glad that everyone definitely went into the woods. Two things: I was not at all hip to knowing anything about the original Into the Woods stage musical before this film was announced and I enjoy the musical style of Stephen Sondheim. With that in mind, I can say that, for the most part, I was wrapped up in this story that essentially combines many of the most popular fairy tale characters through a common thread that finds each character heading into the woods at some point. Add to that the style of Sondheim's musicals, which is a big part of why I love Tim Burton's Sweeny Tood, and you have a film that is at least great to listen to, let alone watch, as we see a number of gifted performers really delivering in the singing department, within a variety of elaborate sets. Given the heavy emphasis on practical effects, it only leads to more praise I would be happy to give the film, if only I was not let down by the film's final act.
Margaret: I painted every single one of em'; every 'big eye'; me. And no one will ever know but you...
The chance to see a director switch gears and focus on something far separated from their previous work can be exciting. As a Tim Burton fan, I do not fault him for making a lot of films that seem right up his alley. That the recent output has not been as compelling as the films in his past is unfortunate, but now we have Big Eyes, which reteams Burton with the writers of Ed Wood, arguably Tim Burton's best feature film. The resulting product is a smaller scale, more personal story than anything Burton has been involved with in quite some time, featuring two strong, lead performances. It is not an over-the-top fantasy, but a drama that delves into the worth of one's identity.
Gandalf: You have but one question to answer: How shall this day end?
The second cinematic Middle-Earth trilogy has ended and now we are back where we started in 2002. I am happy for those who are excited to rewatch The Lord of the Rings trilogy, following this 'defining chapter,' but I am left with other curiosities. Having never read J.R.R Tolkien's The Hobbit, I am curious about whether or not audiences who enjoyed what I am aware is a reasonably amusing book for a younger crowd were hoping to see a blood-thirsty final film to close this three-film adaptation. My impression, after first learning of the films that we would be getting was that of an understanding that we'd be dealing with more light-hearted Middle-Earth adventures. I did not get much of that in the previous Hobbit films and certainly not with The Battle of the Five Armies, but that would be less of an issue, if the movie was still good, regardless. Well, it's not bad, but as much as I like seeing lots of action on display, there is a point where enough is enough, and with this film...well I'm just happy "One Last Time" is part of its mantra.
I had fun with this film. There is more to read, but how much do I really need to say about the third film in a series about Ben Stiller interacting with museum exhibits that come to life at night, thanks to the power of a magic tablet? Okay, so maybe that sentence alone can be deconstructed plenty, given how absurd it may sound, but with that in mind, I cannot say the Night at the Museum franchise has been one I have been overly enthusiastic about, but I can say I've enjoyed the sequels more than the original film. They are simple enough family comedies, featuring enough supporting performances going over-the-top in ways that make me smile to recommend them for what they are: harmless fun. Given the sense of finality in this installment, a little extra something is added, but for the most part, Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb may not be the sequel everyone has been pining for, but it is an easy watch for the intended audience.