Reviews

I always wondered; Is it a coincidence that the beautiful photography, the distinctive story, the poignant dialogue, the directing and the soundtrack all come together in one movie? Or is it story and dialogue that attract a good director, cameraman and musician? I don't really know the answer. While watching this movie, I sometimes laughed involuntarily, not at a joke in the movie or a comic scene, but sometimes the creative performance of the actors, the distinguished dialogue, or the exciting ideas made me laugh. In terms of the story, there is the unconventional idea, and there are the characters. Each character in the film is an independent world that can be a movie in itself. The photography made me feel at times that I was watching beautiful postal cards. The soundtrack sails you into a mystical world, and the directing is like a skilled weaver holding all threads are crafted to weave in the end a very beautiful piece. We need more of this cinematic beauty to quench our endless thirst.

Why this evaluation?! When evaluating a film, you take into account a number of issues such as the script, production, music, story, acting, directing, and others. Either your own vision is in agreement or inconsistent with the vision of the film, this is another issue that should not affect the evaluation of the film if you want to be fair. I repeat the question I asked at the beginning; Does this movie deserve this degree of evaluation?! The answer, quite objectively, is absolutely no.

A hearty meal, but also easy to digestl. A cocktail of thrills and action, science, religion, emotions, and humanitarian and moral issues. All these details are presented to us by this movie in a beautiful creative way. A movie definitely worth watching.

Actually as we can see till now it is overrated tv series. 35 minutes for each episode as average. there is nothing special on the level of direction, cinematography, production, scenario, underplot, acting...etc.

It is really hard to figure the basic elements of entertainment industry. The classical tradition emphasized upon handsome male and an attractive female, good story, some romance and violance will be good. In a movie such El Camino, the first male role Aaron Paul is not a handsome, athletic, sympatic. In fact he is short, very ordenry person. In the same time there is no female role in this movie! So, what about the classical standards of a good movie? Merely nothing, except the "western shooting scene". I think all the things here in this movie, is about the writter and director, Vince Gilligan, and the distinguish performance of Aaron Paul. In fact Aaron Paul has a distinctive mastry on his face muscles, he didn't count on only on his body in acting as the most actors did, but inded he use the muscle arround his eyas and forhead in distinve manner. And as I can see he can give his roles a lot and I really hope I can see him in another movies.

Again and again i just can't understand why we sometimes underrated some movies, and sometimes overrated others!!! this move as i seen -humbly- so simple, quiet, small budget, but so touchy, and as in Breaking Bad series, Aaron paul give us entertaining performance, besides the kid Dany Murphy, with flowless, quiet soundtrack. Simple movie, but convenance. simple movie but so convincing in performance, directing, soundtrack, scenario and the story.

This is all i can say about this movie; skip. and if I had to write more about it, because IMDb protocol about reviews did not allow to write only one line. so if you aske me about watching this movie, and how i feel after that, i can only say i feel sorry because i spent all that time to see such pathetic movie.

It is not a movie, it is a vision. it is not about events, but it is about poetry and music. it is not about fact or reality, but it is about "the middle earth" where the fact and reality became togather as a vision. i think this movie will be one if the Oscar nominees 2020 for best picture, and best cenamtograhy, and best orginal soundtrack.

What is so special in this movie to make someone decide to put it within criterion collection movies; a long side with greatest movies in the cinema industry history? absolutely i don't know, and i am totally confused.

When a person left his past behind, thoughts, attitudes, memory, and the people he knew, and makes decision may be he never thought all his life that he will make it, this is what we can call it transcendent. when a person can change whole community. simple move buget, simple scenario, simple story, even though, it is hurts. and i think humbly that Taraji P. Henson will be nominated in 2020 Oscar as best female leading role for her magnificent performance.

Yes... this film could have been better, but I do not know how to explain the author's failure. The atmosphere of the film was good, the actors' performance was not bad, the cinematography was good, the photography as well, and the dramatic theme was so distinctive even maybe 50 minutes. In the beginning, the film presented a great humanitarian, psychological and mental issue that represents real human dilemmas about how people view each other as they preconceived the other or what so called the preconceptions, making them think they are different from each other. And how can wars, enhance these conflicts and cross-cultural differences, and the tragedy of wars in general. But as I said after almost 50 minutes there was a serious deviation of the film when the previous main theme of the film changed to a traditional emotional theme. I could not understand this dangerous shift in the film. Why did the writer do this??? To be honest; I do not know. The objection is not necessarily on the emotional theme, but the objection is to the lack of the film's writer's ability to manage events of the movie as he should. There were two emotional lines in the film, the first line being the relationship between the German teenage girl (Freda Lubert) and the German young man (Albert), who tried to assassinate the colonel (Lewis Morgan). This line is entirely justified and reasonable, but the second line concerns the wife (Rachael Morgan) and the German engineer (Stephen Lubert) is entirely unjustified and unreasonable. In fact, there is no need at all to such emotional line in the context of the first issue brought to us by the film. I certainly do not see any reason other than this sudden change in the main film theme that greatly reduced the art value of the film.

Is it just a kids movie??? or is it the worst kids movie I ever saw with a $150 million budget and $397.9 million in the Box office!!! What a stroke of luck!!! really wasting of time and money.

I really wonder sometimes about the reason for the high ratings of some movies!!! why??? in our case what is really the distinctive things in Deadwood the movie to have such high ratings? the answer is not so difficult; nothing...except the fancy dialogues, which is more closer to the theatrical dialogue. except that; we spent less than two hours with ambiguous depressing atmospheres, and so many recalls of past incidents shortened and incomprehensible, odd characters without understandable roots or causes. I can't only say...Why!!!

Usually, we can enjoy with high one or two actor's performance in any dramatic work; but in this particular epic dramatic work, we can enjoy with more than a dozen significant characters with high performance, although most of those actors are almost unknown. Significant director; significant cinematography, significant photography, significant production, even significant costume design, and significant makeup. But there are serious defects regards building the personalities and creation of the events. There are too many of illogical and unjustified changing and alteration in the behavior of the personalities during the course of the events of this series of this work!!! There are too many of illogical and unjustified changing and alteration of the events; too many unanswered questions and open-ended events. If I may ask a question: is the writers of this epic work are the only weakness in this work?? Maybe the writers didn't respect the cleverness of the viewers?? Or maybe the writers simply couldn't control such huge events!!!

I don't really understand why the producers and all the cast, crew want to destroy their work!!! As I think; every artistic work must have a unit subject in order to communicate with the audience, but here in this particular movie there are scattered critics' ideas. We don't know if a Nokia company shared some of the production costs?? Or the movie tries to promote ideas about Green Peace, or atheism, or aunty superpower, or any digital-revolution, conspiracy-theory... extra... extra. It is a pure mess up, why; I really don't know!!!

It is really odd and frightened at the same time when someone facing his death alone. is it really that is what happens in our real life?? I really don't know and if is it so this is really frightening. all the characters in this movie are so negative because the didn't give any serious support to the Professor, simply they just let him face his death alone even his own family and this is really freaky and weird.

Obviously, the budget is an important thing to make a good movie, but, as we saw in this movie, it is not a crucial factor to make a good movie. We can see here a small budget movie, but, we can see also an overall good actor's performance, in fact, significant acting for the leading role Andrew Scott, a good direction, a good scenario, a meaningful story. And this is all that the good movie needs.

A few years ago I started to wonder if Hollywood creativity is dry? Now, with this epic movie; not in its events, but in its richness on both the human and artistic sides. A representative performance at the highest level. Four characters centered around; the character of Professor James Murray, played by Mel Gibson and his wife Ada Murray, played by Jennifer Ehle and Dr. William Chester Minor, played by Sean Penn and the wife of the murdered Eliza Merrett, played by Natalie Dormer. These personalities were at the top of their artistic representation, not to mention the characterization of the character and the depth of the human dimension of each. I humbly think that this film will enter Oscar 2020 nominations as the best film and another nomination for the best actor performance to Shin Bin.

When two exhausted people tired of their life meet; what do we expect of such a meeting?! When someone feels he lost everything and he has nothing to give, what we could expect when such a guy meets someone else just like him?! There is an old saying says "empty hand has nothing to give." Well, in this biography well-known movie we will find something different, you'll find that empty hand can give something, in fact; he can give others the meaning of whole life. This is as can I say the real meaning of this beautiful, deep, simple movie, it is always about hope and giving. Still, we can't forget the significant performance of the three leading roles; Kevin Hart, Bryan Cranston, Nicole Kidman.

Maybe somebody asks about the mysterious character; the (gunfighting stranger) in this movie!!! And maybe some of us ask about the main theme in this movie!!! Because when we want to evaluate good movies we must always ask about such questions. And as I can see that answer to these questions is something matching old wisdom says: "Every soul will be (held) in pledge for its deeds." there for the residents of the Lago town earns what they deserve, and pay their sin.

Why we try to rewrite history's events?? I searched what so-called The Battle of Hattin 1187 between the Crusader states of the Levant and the forces of Salah ad-Din, and I found on Wikipedia that "Saladin captured or killed the vast majority of the Crusader forces" and "As a direct result of the battle, Muslims once again became the eminent military power in the Holy Land". The question again is: why sometimes we try to rewrite history's events in a misguided manner??? At the same time, we must admit if we must evaluate a movie we must put previous discussions about writing history wrongly are set aside. Because, we have a work of art; and not documentation of historical events. Although, this fact does not take away much unfortunately.

Glass; the 3ed film of (Unbreakable trilogy) or (East rail 177 Trilogy). Humbly; from my point of view, Glass movie tries to tell us something as it should be in every movie, but as we can see not every movie can tell us a good story; and I say that Glass movie didn't succeed telling us anything at all. All we saw a bunch of scattered Opinions and ideas, not convincingly linked to the viewer, but the film tries to make it so by imposing these Opinions and ideas in an arbitrary manner lacks the unity of the cause or the main theme. In fact I didn't see any compelling case or a real theme in this movie.

When you frustrated because of your world; which governed by adults with all of their hatred, selfishness, and greediness. You will seek to survive, and maybe you'll look for another world; a world governed by children with all of their honest, passionate, and love.

This movie gives us two entertaining things. firstly, the biography movies always have some strength in its construction. secondly, the choice of the suited actors for such movies; and Kevin Costner, Woody Harrelson are such a good choice. cause we really miss not Bonnie and Clyde, but such high standard actors like Kevin Costner and Woody Harrelson.