Reviews

Was this movie a biography of Spielberg's mum? I was really perplexed by the time I'd finished this movie. I had read that it was a masterpiece. I was mildly entertained throughout the movie, but try as I will I just cannot see what the point of the movie was, except to make another movie, or why anyone would call it a masterpiece? There was not a single line of dialogue that jumped out at me or threw me into a 'lost in thought' moment as to it's meaning. If this was Spielberg's life then I should make a movie about mine, because a lot more strange and dramatic things happened in my life than his. Why did he even make this? It was entertaining because it was quirky, the acting was good and the sets were spot on. But there is no real story. It doesn't give any real insight. It's almost like he made it to cover his tracks so nobody will ever really know how he became what he is. It really doesn't tell you anything real. In fact that is the entire problem with this movie: it's lack of meaning. I can see echoes of what may have been the reality behind it. But I cannot believe this is how it really was. It's seems to me the big thing in his life was that he makes great movies, not that his own personal life was any different from a billion other people.

A happy and sad tale about a pandemic memory loss disease and how it affects the love between two young people. This movie is low budget and built on a simple story-line. But it is well crafted and you get carried along to the very end by the sublime acting and understated presentation. Well worth watching on a quiet night.

Anyone who has looked after a relative with dementia will know that this movie wasn't just close to the mark, but hit it dead right centre. It shows not only what it's like to look after someone with this awful illness, but uses tricks so you can appreciate what it's like for the sufferer. Fortunately for me it wasn't always this hard. But this reminded me vividly of the most difficult times. This should become required viewing for anyone training to care for dementia patients. I now consider Anthony Hopkins Britain's greatest actor without doubt.

I've had a bit of a historical interest in the war on the Eastern Front since childhood. The attempt at historical accuracy in this movie was much appreciated, although I'm not an expert. The battle scenes might seem a little slow to some, but when you compare it to actual war footage it's not really. Hollywood movies tend to speed things up for extra dramatic effect.

There is an air attack scene by Stukas dropping what appear to be barrel bombs. I guess that must have actually happened. But that scene ends with a Heinkel dumping it's load on the front line. It's a bombing scene that is high budget and impressive, clearly not CGI. It reminded me of that bombing scene in Apocalypse Now where they had only one chance to get it right due to the cost. I expect that was true for this given all the explosives and damage it actually did.

As somebody else pointed out the Germans were highly trained and the Russians usually lost more people in confrontations. This is reflected in the movie. Unlike some Hollywood movies where a dozen or more German soldiers are killed for every allied soldier. It also shows realistic tactics used by the Germans to deal with a Russian ambush by fighting while repositioning to flank their artillery.

It shows women right up there on the front line. That was authentic for the Eastern Front. Completely unheard of on the Western Front.

Yes the dialogue is pants and it's clearly hyper patriotic. But then how must our war movies seem to them? Despite this there are no happy endings here and a very worthwhile watch to see the variety of German tanks, the artillery tactics and the realistic location.

Although not the same type of movie, and not in the same league, it has given me the idea to re-watch Klimov's masterpiece of war horror: Come and See. If you haven't seen that one I very highly recommend it.

This was a wonderful film. Had I known when watching it that it was a true story I would have been even more immersed. The Nazis and the persecution of the Jews takes a back seat to what is really a movie about people living in the country in that region during the war and the interactions between the lead character Sara and the other two main characters. The acting is completely believable. There is nothing contrived. Nothing felt like padding. So glad that movies like this are being made. A true education about human beings.

This is why I would never take a job in a skyscraper.

I know I'm really late to the party with this one. I must have skipped over it because of the reviews. But here we go.

There is a real disconnect between the actual rating score for this movie and the avalanche of bad reviews giving the movie 1 star. Normally I go with the reviews but this time I definitely side with the rating score. I gave it 8. Why?

Firstly the movie avoids most of the tropes. The characters are not deep, but neither are Quentin Tarantino's characters. They are more like comic characters. But I found them entertaining. I even found the much criticized dialogue entertaining, even the long sandwich eating scene and the smoking like an advert scene. I guess it's not the kind of humour the younger generations are into these days. But this kind of thing was actually quite common in the 80s and 90s and Mel Gibson will surely remember that. Quirky scenes that were not really enough to make you laugh but sort of laughed at the way we waste our time on stupid humdrum conversations and behaviours.

Secondly, I applaud the movie for it's attacks on PC culture. I am, or was, moderate traditional left-wing but PC culture for me is nothing more than the controlling elites hiding among the traditional left and basically using young people for their agenda. A new and very effective tactic. Using their control of the media, movies and education to basically brainwash what was once the free, youthful left-wing movement, through the 60s to the 90s, but sadly is no more. I was very left-wing and I can tell you for sure there is no relationship between the left-wing of my youth in the 80s and the left-wing of today. They are entirely different in character and believe(d) entirely different things. The main difference is that the left-wing back then were very libertarian and believed in people and the modern PC left are very anti-libertarian and believe in money, popularity and status. Just in case you were not sure on that. I guess secretly they just want to hang out with the big boys and girls!

I didn't see how anything in the movie was misogynistic. Unless they are referring to the female bank worker captive or maybe the three girls coming down the escalator. In the latter, they have an air of entitlement and superiority to which Mel Gibson's character shows clear disapproval of. So does that mean approval of entitlement and superiority is the new cool? But in fact Jennifer Carpenter's character, and her fate was anything but boring. But instead reviewer's focus on the sandwich scene. Talk about selective in order to satisfy your bias!

Thirdly, the best character in this movie by far is not Mel Gibson or Vince Vaughn, it's Tory Kittles, who plays Henry Johns. One of the black lesser crooks. He was the only one I really felt for and listened to. So even though this movie slams PC culture, in fact it felt to me that it was hiding a real anti-racist agenda, not just sound-bites for social media or the cameras or to push a political group. Too many people these days shout about racism but probably only hang around with their own race. That people, is NOT anti-racism. That is hiding with your head in the sand while shouting out you're on the job.

Fourthly, there is no central moral point to the entire story, although most of the main characters have redeeming qualities. Why would you omit that? I guess it's because morality is now used as a tool to cudgel people with. So what's the point in trying to explicitly present a moral tale and encourage that trend. Of course that leaves you open to the criticism of promoting immorality. But when all values are messed up it really is time for what Nietzsche called "a revaluation of all values". I definitely think that time has come and anything that promotes that idea I'm on side with.

Finally, I think some people should examine why they got so bored with this movie. Don't you know that boredom is often a defence mechanism because something is subliminally showing you something you don't like about yourself. That is really an adolescent thing. Time to progress. Take the devil by the horns and pull up his head so you can see his real identity.

I know there are some who will have genuinely disliked this movie for good reasons. It has some ugly scenes. That's okay. I also expect to get mostly down votes for this review. That's okay too. I'm criticizing the "critics", always dangerous. But this time I side with the silent majority who gave this movie a high rating without reviewing it. This is by far the dumbest set of reviews I have ever seen for a movie on IMDB. I just hope the Amazon reviewer of reviewers will give me a pass on this one and let me come to it's defence.

I haven't given a movie an 8 for at least a year. Give this movie a chance. It might become a classic.

I admire Gal Gadot and to some extent the director, Patty Jenkins. I quite liked their previous Wonder Woman. But this movie was not a win for me. The storyline was disjointed, it had way too many B-movie moments and the special effects were very ... 1984! Maybe Coronavirus has caused serious problems for film making. I just hope their next joint venture, Cleopatra, is better. I won't knock this movie anymore though because it had good intentions and maybe the kids will like it. So unless you are taking them to the cinema to see it, I wouldn't bother.

Walking Dead for the precious generation. These kids wouldn't survive and neither will this show. I actually want the zombies to gobble them up.

This is a "Oh my God, don't say I have to wait a week until the next episode" kind of show. Great thriller. Great acting by Kidman, Grant and Sutherland. Well worth setting aside an evening just to watch.

I've only watched the first episode, but to me it was like Game Of Thrones for a sci-fi fan. I hope it continues that way. I've watched scores of sci-fi movies lately but they all seem to have gone down the road of concepts, ideas, and tech rather than atmosphere. Too many movies and shows try to put tech ideas right up front. That doesn't work very well ... on me anyway, we have so much tech in our everyday lives anyway.

From the trailer I thought it would be muddled. Not at all. It's very slick, dark, artistic, pure sci-fi like you imagine when reading a classic book. It feels very much like it's trying to weave the future and the past. Violence just pops out of nowhere.

My initial impressions were that the acting might sink into the bland, as sometimes happens when acting androids. But in fact the opposite happened.

The story arc has only just begun but it's not predictable so far. The screenwriter has done a solid job, and Ridley Scott has brought it to life. If you didn't know it was him directing you'd soon guess. Ten episodes!

At the start it seemed like it was going to be very low budget, bad horror movie. But somehow the two girls carried off a pretty dumb plot quite well and kept me on board till the end. They deserve better. Cadence had nice hair. In fact I spent way too much time looking at her hair! The style of the movie had a bit of an original Twilight Zone feel to it. If there were jump scenes I must have missed them. Definitely better than the 4 it's got. I gave it a 6.

A competent UK thriller set in New York. Better than I had expected. The action is very limited, but the story weaves through its events in a very engaging way. You know it's worth a watch if it's got Clive Owen, Rosamund Pike and Joel Kinnaman. Kind of amusing to see a UK movie follow the US trend of preferring our British actors to play the main villain.

I watched this movie in 2012 on BBC2 I think. I remember just turning it on when the initial battle was under way. I was utterly horrified by it's brutality and realism, perhaps made all the more so because I was ill at the time. Like the Russian movie 'Come and See' it projected me into a world I didn't really want to know about, but felt helplessly drawn into. This movie is brilliant for what it achieves. But it is not entertaining. It's the ultimate horror movie. It's a lesson about life and death. The title is completely apt.

The event in question is the Japanese capture of the then capital of China, Nanking, shortly before WWII proper started. Historians refer to it as the Rape of Nanking because after it's capture, not only was there widespread rape, but 200,000 Chinese civilians were murdered in brutal ways. It was so bad that even the Nazis offered to intervene to negotiate an end to the brutality.

There is a historical book about the event by a US author Iris Chang who spent many years researching the event. It's not at all surprising that one day she drove off a road and shot herself.

I love Gothic horror and I enjoyed the first episode. I have been waiting for this version for months now. I forced myself to ignore the blatant injections of gender and sexual politics, probably insisted on by middle-aged executives who think human rights and gory Gothic horror go together!?* Then I could just enjoy the atmospheric scenes and horror that was evident in the trailer and plentiful throughout the first episode. Fortunately the politics were not the wreaking ball they usually are this time. The tense scenes were built up well. The castle scenes were among the most creepy I've seen. I thought the campy Londoner side of Claes Bang's Dracula was a bit off, but compensated for by the dark humour and his vicious bestial side. I also was reminded of Christopher Lee at times albeit more vicious.

I am a fan of the original novel but I believe that it really isn't necessary to try and follow Bram Stoker's original story line. Hammer created great Dracula movies that were not even close to the original book. When I finally got around to reading it many years ago I was surprised how it differed from all the movies I had seen up to then. But I read the book and I personally don't need adaptions to closely follow it, although it would be nice to get one eventually. So I was generally pleased with this Dracula version and look forward to the next episodes. Perhaps they could have a go at Dracula's Guest as well.

Young girl goes to see The Aeronauts. Is inspired to greatness because of the great historical heroine Amelia. Puts posters of the movie on her wall and dreams of emulating her achievements. Only to discover down the line that she didn't even exist and was simply a substitute for a male historical hero. Tell her her dreams will only ever be realised in fiction, and will never be real. Deflate her belief in herself and make her feel a fraud and lied to. Way to go.

The things I discovered after watching this movie: Two men did something to do with weather in a balloon. Amelia Wren is based on a real, earlier female Aeronaut, Sophie Blanchard. Two potentially decent historically accurate movies. The latter serving as a real inspiration for young girls. Instead we got one historical mish-mash that just upsets everyone who bothers to check it out.

I'll give it three stars for making me aware of a few things from history. Something most won't bother to follow through.

Absolutely great horror flick. Like American Werewolf in London I watch this over again every few years.

Pretentious, lame, awkward acting, boring, disjointed plot, all characters seemed to fit one of the types that the BBC thinks we should all be. I kept waiting for a scene where it wasn't obvious they were acting to a camera, some reality, some real emotion. Nothing. Not once did I feel good watching this tripe. Some of the dialogue just seemed to ooze out of their mouths and dribble onto the floor. It felt like a bad episode of a soap. I honestly couldn't make it through the first episode. It was like they just couldn't be bothered. They just turned up for the pay cheques.