I've got a talent for avoiding bad movies, mainly due to a lot of magasine reading, and internet browsing, therefore more than 50% of my reviews are between the 3 and 4 stars, there are lots of movies to see, and I prefer catching the good ones :) But anyone will eventually go against the critics sometimes !
Now my rating system differs a little from most users on flixster, that consider a "3" as a fair movie. I rate the british way, taking "EMPIRE" and "TOTAL FILM" into consideration.
1/2 ====> A disaster ; to avoid at all costs.
1 ====> A Terrible Movie ; Nothing works here.
1 1/2====> A Very bad Movie ; has some potential that haven't been exploited.
2 ====> A Bad Movie. Watchable though, has some positive aspects.
2 1/2====> A Fair Movie. Lot of positive aspects, but something just went wrong. These movies are watchable, and may be considered good for other users.
3 =====> A Good Movie. An enjoyable watch, but somehow couldn't make it to the top. Easily Forgettable.
3 1/2=====> A Very good Movie. Here's where it gets really interesting. I'm very satisfied when I deliver this rating, but these movies won't be remembered after 20, or 30 years.
4 =====> An exellent Movie. Everything's perfect here, no flows that affects the movie. Couldn't make it further up due to its style or its ability to completely move my feelings.
4 1/2=====> Oustanding Movie. A Perfect movie. There's no reason whatsoever for any person missing a 4.5 movie. A movie like that doesn't come up every month.
5 =====> A Masterpiece. The reason why we watch movies. Such a movie will surely be remembered in ages to come. Perfect in every way, Most of the time has an ability to infiltrate your soul and make you weep. When I watch a film of that sort, i'll stay happy for 3 or 4 days afterwards, still thinking of it.
You couldn't actually believe how difficult it is for any director / screenwriter to take out a true story that is known for almost every single soul on the planet, and make out something suspenseful from it. Well not only did multitalented Ben Affleck do that, but he made our hearts beat up so fast to build up for an ending that we totally knew ! That is what made argo one of the best movies we had in 2012. Of course, the true story has been powdered a little, especially at the last airport climax, but it has been done very smoothly by brilliant director Ben Affleck you could actually believe everything you were witnessing. The photography, script, costume design, art direction and editing were all top notch, making this easily a near-perfect technical film. Moreover, the film never slowed down in pacing, hence was always entertaining ; Mr. Affleck has been doing extremely good pictures (three in a row now.....and they are the only three), so we can't overlook that he has become a brilliant director, despite his young age. I completely disagree that Argo has won all those awards this year due to political factors, despite the facts that it's always good for the states to show and point out they have vanquished their enemies, but Argo deserved all those awards it got, even though I would have always preferred life of pi for best picture. Argo will however always be remembered as one of the best films of 2012.
As a fan of the play, adaptations, and movie musicals in general, I can say les miserables was a treat for me long before the premiere. Despite some mixed reviews, I went in with high expectations. I was happy seeing this film reaching oscar heights, and I wasn't disappointed. The combination of Hugh and Anne was sublime, just as they shined at the oscars opening number 4 or 5 years ago. The difficult choice of Tom Hooper to let everyone sing live on stage was very risky, and I'm convinced it paid off big time, especially on tracks like "I dreamed a dream" and the whole Valjean's introduction. I didn't quite enjoy Russel Crowe's voice, but he did just fine as Javert is supposed to have a very difficult Barytone range that must show its peak in "Stars". I don't think anyone could find a normal actor with that kind of voice that needs tons of practice to get the needed feel. On the technical side, I strongly believe the film excelled, be it on the sound mixing of tracks, the art direction and the beautiful rendition of Paris in the nineteenth century, or the direction of Tom Hooper. Whether this will turn out to be a classic, only time will tell. For the time being, I can say I enjoyed this film, and encourage everyone who still didn't watch this piece of art to do so whenever given the chance.
Without a shadow of a doubt, this is the most overrated picture of the last decade. A film nominated for 12 Oscars must certainly be better than this. The factor that brought the movie down is the script written by Tony Kushner. I know Kushner was the frontrunner for best Adapted Screenplay of the year, and I strongly disagree since it slowed the movie's pace and brought a very complicated jargon for a film, even if the film is based on the great Abraham Lincoln. However, this isn't solely the mistake of Kushner since Spielberg's should have asked modifications to be made from the script. I was surprised Spielberg's experience couldn't foresee that. However, this was a well shot film, the DOP and the editor did a great job, Williams provided a good score, Daniel Day-Lewis did what he always does best (and was the only nomination to fully deserve the oscar), and Sally Field also delivered a fine performance. It's a shame there's also no climax to the movie, and that's also the mistake of Kushner. For all who say the book is not filmable, I also disagree....If Ang Lee could shoot a film like "life of pi", every book can be brought to the screen.
I may get a lot of criticism for this statement, but I'm confident that with Skyfall confirming the character Craig developed in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, he has surpassed Brosnan, Moore, Lazenby, and even Connery. A bond film is also measured by the Villain, and who's better that Javier Bardem to portray the psychopathic ex-MI6 Silva. "Q" is re-introduced as a very young Ben Whishaw, and we have got "M" in the heat of the action this time ; the main central point of attention in the film. Ralph Fiennes is also introduced as an important character I won't be spoiling for the people who didn't see the film yet. But that's not all, we got MoneyPenny back, we saw some old gadgets (obviously since Q's there), and very specifically we saw that Old Aston Martin again ! The script was splendid, the acting top notch, and i'm very sad that neither Judi Dench nor Bardem got a best nod for best supporting actors this year. The direction of Mendes was sublime, just perfect, and for an action film, the photography was perfect. A new era for James Bond has now Begun, and I can't wait for the next installment !
Seriously, we never needed a reboot that soon since Sam Raimi has closed on this franchise 5 years ago. Anyway, I went to see the film after reading the fine reviews and I wasn't disappointed. It was a good reboot, even though it wasn't needed. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone share are sympathetic duo, and for once you feel the chemistry between both lead actors. I was also glad to see Martin Sheet and Sally Field as Ben Parker and Aunt May. I agree the 3D visuals were stunning, and i will easily drop half a star for the 2D experience. After all, you will be definitely lost in the versions you've seen Spider Man in, and i'm convinced that if Sam Raimi didn't make his films a decade back, I would have enjoyed Marc Webb's movie a lot more. We need a little more creativity in the film business......that's about it.