Da 5 Bloods
On the Record
I May Destroy You
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
Already have an account? Log in here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
No user info supplied.
Has major script flaws, courtesy of Zack Snyder and his signature male gaze. Patty Jenkins and Gal Gadot do what they can, it seems. The result is strained but seems genuine. The last act is everything most theatre-goers have already seen (rehashing popular themes, dialogue, even scenes from better movies -- Captain America to Star Wars). But as the first film in a new push toward more female action leads, Wonder Woman is memorable despite being unremarkable.
It's terrible. Loses its direction 3/4 of the way through. Has a cheap ending that screams of a funding cut and writer's block. Avoid this disappointment.
Could have been significantly improved if "TK" was not introduced solely as a plot device. Plot driven movies are just low caliber. TK could have explained the emergence of time travel. It could have tied in with the "droppers" as a potential birth defect. There was so much more it could have contributed to in the background details. While the film's universe was richly detailed and surprisingly realistic, it just wasn't up to point in this regard.
OVERLOADED! Woahs, lots of plot holes. Lots of extraextra characters ... with some uncomfortable semi-racist undertones. Lots of super annoying Jar Jar Binks - ish sidekicks. Lots of action to keep you distracted from the above!
As someone who's never ever seen a Terminator movie before (but who's a big fan of the Sarah Connor Chronicles), I didn't think this was as horrible as all the reviews were making it out to be. On IMAX, it gave some serious motion sickness which started five minutes in and lasted two hours, but it was oh-so entertaining. Like a literal thrill ride. Haha.
The only time I've watched the original cast of Star Trek was a week before this movie, when my boyfriend made me watch The Wrath of Khan. But even though I'm not a die-hard Trekkie or anything, I still thought this movie was fantastic. Mind-blowing effects too. Though the casting of Spock really bothers me because I kept shuddering at the thought of Sylar. Ugh. And even though time-warping the story line can always be seen as a mini cop-out, the way the plot unfolded seemed very loyal to the Star Trek universe. I'm not too much of an Abrams fan because Fringe is completely unwatchable, but he did a surprisingly admirable job here. Major kudos!
Didn't really get the point of bringing in all the secondary characters who had nothing to do with the plot. They were mostly annoying too. The effects blew hard. Especially when Logan was examining his newly adamantium-ized claws in the bathroom. Sooooooo old school looking. Also, too many "DO NOT WAAAAAAANT" moments, I had a hard time holding back the chuckles.
Why in the heck can't I find å
æ¨ååº§2 å®¶å±¬è¬ç¦® on Flixster? Boo.
Not faithful to the actual essence of the graphic novel. The closest Synder gets is to mimicking a few of the initial cels...then he abandons even that. What the hell was up with Rorschach's character development? Saw Watchmen on IMAX and the CGI was terrible! Manhattan exploding the tank? LAAAAAAME. Akerman is a horrible actress. She's only ever been in crappy comedies so I don't get the casting choice in the slightest. The ending is also really drawn out. Loses all its steam after armageddon. Really disappointing.
I cannot stand even the smallest SUGGESTION of brutal violence. My friends know me as easily queasy around the subject. But this is a powerful story and even though there were many things to improve upon in the first adaptation of Tore's Daughter in Vange, it was a masterful story for the time. I will definitely be making it a point to see this film. Whether or not it will be more faithful to The Virgin Spring, I have been waiting for Craven's second chance for quite some time and am truly excited for its release.
Don't waste your money on the 3-D; it wasn't stellar.
Surprising, unexpectedly abounding with substance. Charming in every way. I went into this with no expectations and thoroughly enjoyed myself. The open-ended conclusion was perfection; prevented the film from slipping into mediocre fairy-tale conventions. Absolutely fantastic editing (the camouflage scene is one of the most spectacular clips of film I've seen in years).
No character development. Those unfamiliar with the novel will not understand Edward's struggling. REALLY BAD ACTING. Too much weirdo Spiderman stuff going on. The plot is loyal to the book, but NOT the substance.
Absolutely stunning. Mesmerizing and universally touching.
4.5 stars because the sparkling, picturesque quality fades out half way through, when romance steps aside in favor of some commentary on obesity, consumption, and human interaction. But it recovers brilliantly.
A stepping stone for the animation industry. A modern classic.
I'm assuming then that the title of Cloverfield implies that the monster in the film is some apocalyptic side-effect to mankind's "shallow" and "self-serving" attempts to develop better, albeit riskier, technology.
Yup. Well, the nuclear title is just as convoluted as this tragic, end-of-the-world, you-only-have-yourselves-to-blame film.