Reviews

There are times where one thinks that things are done without love. Without care. Without passion. This animated film fits into those situations, since the final result is visually horrible and very boring as far as the story is concerned. The character design is terrible, there are no textures anywhere, the contrasts are inadequate, the movement dynamics make everything uncomfortable to watch, and the saddest thing of all is that the story blatantly lacks originality. And don't tell me all this is because CGI animation was developing in the 2000s. By the time this film was released, there were already Shrek 1 and 2, which have everything that this film lacks.

I don't recommend this movie to any family looking for entertaining afternoons watching something on the screen. Look for another one.

This new film in the Sony Animations franchise shows us what would happen after an interesting role exchange situation. It develops the plot as one would expect, with a lot of comedy and situations full of adventure and light suspense. The plot genuinely sparks interest in seeing the movie... but it's time to save the Hotel Transylvania name for a while, before it becomes saturated and these reviews are not so favorable. Since they are all separated by a couple of years you do not feel the saturation of having seen the four films in marathon form, but even so I think this needs a long pause. The comedy is becoming less consistent, there are not as many nods to classic horror monsters and everything is taking a too generic cartoonish path.

However, I insist that it is not a bad movie. It is still enjoyable to watch with the family.

This is a clear example of a sequel that burns through its cartridges too soon. They killed the goose that laid the golden eggs too quickly. This film shows a noticeable improvement in its visual quality, maintaining the style of the original film, but the comedy suffers a great setback. The jokes are no longer as funny as in the previous film and even feel a little forced. There was a good attempt in the third act to enhance everything with an action sequence, however it may not have been enough.

If the first film positively surprised me, this one did so by not meeting expectations. Anyway, it's not a disaster either. It's still recommended, although perhaps only for those who really liked its predecessor.

This movie really surprised me. I had a great time with the comedy that the plot has. The story is full of short jokes that fit very well with all the characters and with the context, which, by the way, is a very well done reimagining of traditional horror classics, to include them in a children's and family environment.

The film offers a very cartoonish tone but through CGI animation, which greatly increases the quality of the complete product, well, the castle is full of surprises even in the simplest details. The characters effectively blend into the context and the plot, which is simple, but in the end serves as a framework for the comic situations between Dracula and the human.

Great movie to watch and have fun with the family.

Nowadays movies that feature an action hero are absolutely formulaic. Each movie star linked to the action genre has its own signature within this same formula. You know what to expect when seeing Stalone or Chuck Norris or one of Jackie Chang in the 80s and the same thing currently happens with Jason Statham because every time he appears with a new film it's usually the same character surrounded by the same dynamics. This may or may not work, it may or may not have an audience, but the truth is that it's a product that sells and the production companies know it.

There's not much to say in particular about Beekeeper: mediocre performances although with good sequences involving stuntmen. Poor script, however, good chases, explosions and hand-to-hand fights, etc. Despite trying, films like this do not stand up to deeper analysis.

Recommended only for lovers of the action genre.

There are small films that focus on human events around a certain context, with slow, lethargic and cancine rhythms. These films usually know how to evolve you into an aura of self-identification, charisma or simply fill your mind for two hours with realistic anecdotes. It is a cinema that is there for certain occasions where you are looking for something quiet to watch. Past Lives starts from there but goes up several levels with an invitation to a deep tunnel of emotions. Past Lives is compared to other great stories like The Whale or EEAAO where human connections give way to personal reflection, personal discovery or rediscovery, debate about emotions, instances, conditions and assumptions. Now I largely understand why this film was considered one of the best of 2023, since it is easy to take the audience to an identifiable place, with its nostalgic atmosphere, with its uncomfortable laughter, with its knowing looks. From here arise very valuable characters for the decisions they make, for the evolution they have together (and separately) and the very outcome that is not always so realistic, leaving aside the melodrama.

I suggest watching this movie with someone, as interesting conversations can arise during and after this wonderful plot.

This film is clearly one of those stories where you want to achieve success by showing multiple real situations so that people can identify. If we add a comic and anecdotal tone to this, we already have the almost complete formula. An extra to all this can be a famous, recognizable cast with many familiar faces. Now, the question is: Is the formula really well applied? And the answer for this film is not clear, because even with all the clear intention that the film had, it still feels as if everything was somewhat forced, there are cynical laughs, there are moments that are too staged. The story lacks naturalness, it lacks more genuineness, it lacks realism. If you are looking for a movie where you say "yes, that happens, but not that way" then this movie is for you.

No father or mother is fortunate enough to know in advance what their future children will be like. What would be the fun in knowing it? But yes, everyone, absolutely everyone, is certain that the new generational line in their charge will have both happy and difficult moments. There are situations that are indescribably more difficult and even more so, under certain social or cultural pressure, make us doubt whether our steps are being marked on the correct path. Float makes us reflect on this and teaches us that we owe total priority to our little ones, unconditionally, even if the whole world says otherwise. They are and should always be our horizon.

This beautiful short film of only 7 minutes is a thousand times more powerful and effective than many other films that have tried to highlight similar topics.

I recommend it for those who are struggling with difficult parenthood, whatever the reason, because although this story is aimed at a clear target audience, it can be extrapolated to several other niches.

Lilo and Stitch is one of those few different Disney films, which is greatly appreciated because the style takes a great distance from the typical princess stories. On the contrary, we see that the protagonist couple are a gale of chaos and rebellious fun, although with a lot of charisma. The photography and color palette, specifically the backgrounds, are well done, but for Hawaii it's a fairly dark film. The sun's rays and summer days could have been used much more. The edition is almost ideally round. The directable decisions are also good.

My big stone in the shoe for this film is that the story plays a lot with emotional blackmail and it's noticeable from the beginning. Apart from that great detail the film becomes entertaining, the 90 minutes fly by and most of the comic situations are enjoyed.

Absolutely recommended for family viewing on a warm Saturday morning.

When you walk into a movie from the 2000s featuring Seth Rogen, you already know what to expect to see. Normally his films are differentiated according to the cast around him. In this case Elizabeth Banks does a very good job being a co-star that fits Rogen's type of humor and at the same time adds extra bonuses for the quality of her performance. If you are interested in this type of comedies, then you will find it funny just like I do, on the contrary if you aim for another type of humor this would seem grotesque and meaningless to you. There is nothing to highlight in technical aspects because as a small film it's clear that they tried to distribute the budget in the best way. Recommended for fans of Seth Rogen in his craziest years.

It's incredible the level that Disney animated productions used to have during the first half of the last century. The golden and silver era of the studio produced great children's classics with a quality that amazes adults.

In this particular case, we start the story of the curious Alice with an accelerated pace, showing off beautiful and colorful backgrounds, worthy of the best of Studio Ghibli. The animation itself is dizzying and fast-paced to capture the attention of the little ones. The plot of Alice in Wonderland is basically a psychedelic trip full of imagination and rebelling against the normal, the established and the sane. Great supporting characters, who create fun sequences along Alice's path.

The low points, in my opinion, are the soundtrack, which has songs that are perhaps a little loud, and the dubbing work. Outside of this, it's a spectacular animated film, worthy of the great work that Tim Burton would do at the beginning of our century.

Years and decades go by, and these classics are still valid and recommended for the whole family.

I resisted seeing this movie because of the bad reputation it created, and now I see that said reputation... is totally accurate. Things happen only because at all times, the acting is horribly flat and unconvincing, the visual effects are terrible, and even the sound editing is not saved! There are scenes where the actors speak and the sound doesn't match the movement of their mouths. There was horrible post-production work. It's not understood how Sony continues to produce such bad Spider-Man universe movies.

To look for good things in this film is like looking for a needle in a haystack. The directing work had a couple of good sparks, but quickly falls into abuse of resources and exaggerations. The photography is not so bad... and that's where we stop counting.

Totally recommended... that you skip this rubbish.

It has rarely happened to me that I find films too orchestrated. Too structured. With a huge lack of naturalness and fluidity. Dark Mountain seems to have been written by someone specialized in literary stories, but not in the film industry. The story can be entertaining, consistent, and even with humor and action, but the actors seem like mannequins. They don't move or speak like natural people and in the end it is such a noticeable detail that it is annoying.

The film had the potential to be a great thriller, but added to this were the unnecessarily dark photography and a couple of small errors in editing.

Let's also say it's not a disaster. The direction does its best with the few resources at hand and the actors are not necessarily amateurs.

Dark Mountain caught my attention, but Dark Mountain distracted me from itself. Good climax, at least.

Recommended with the warning that it will not be the best 1944 you will ever see in your life.

Sometimes, there are stories in which from the beginning you already know how they will end, but what is interesting is seeing the entire journey that took place in between. It's fun and anecdotal. This applies to When Harry Met Sally. You know at all times how the young couple will end up, but the journey they take together is what is entertaining about the film. Now, when I say entertaining, I say it under the assumption that it will be, however, in this particular plot, the level of entertainment is quite measured. It is there, but with its levels merely in the category of "decent" or "meets expectations." The truth is that despite only having almost 90 minutes, they feel like they were much more, as the film is too redundant, stalling several times without letting the story progress naturally. At times it was like watching several similar episodes of a romantic sitcom. I must admit that there are some points where the script makes a good pair with the editing. They are quite intelligent moments, although they are clearly just isolated sparks. Most of the time, the editing has minimal errors that are not distracting, but they are there. The performances are regular. A better leading couple could have made better use of the roles.

In short, a movie to spend the afternoon with something that creates a light adult conversation, but does not transcend beyond that.

It's great when in the middle of a movie that seems to be boring, flat and predictable, things happen that leave you confused and wanting to continue seeing more about the development of the story. This twisted plot with touches of black humor ends up traveling a macabre path that is indifferent to conventional crime films, showing itself sarcastically, bordering on the lines of satire of the comedies themselves. Lately the idea is really good, even if it lacks originality, although this is not a big problem.

My biggest problem is that there is a rushed and sloppy ending. It follows the guidelines of the bizarre that you have seen throughout the film, but you are left wanting to see a greater overlap between the two realities of the protagonist.

Among the aspects I highlight the photography and direction. They are the elements that mainly tell you that you are traveling between situations and they are very well put together.

As for the performances, a young Ryan Reynolds seems ambitious and eager to demonstrate his acting potential, but I am still undecided as to whether it is a good performance or not.

In short, a small film that surprises, that could have ended better and is worth revisiting even once.

One of the strangest movies I've seen in recent times. It contains a very unique structure, a very anticlimactic story, a very atypical painting. It's certainly difficult to analyze. The truth is that The Zone of Interest is a very interesting proposal, a different and very strange look at a context in which direct and explicit war sequences usually take place.

Without a doubt, the most notable are the technical aspects, starting with the production design. Neat, geometric, symmetrical, detailed, meticulous. The sets are impeccable. The locations, beautiful. The main house, absolutely perfect for the events on display.

But not only that, the sound editing is impeccable, he is another character in the film. A fundamental element in the general proposal. The soundtrack, another key element. It serves to make the audience uncomfortable to create the necessary dissonance within all the bizarre contrast. Editing and Photography, perfect. Great level. Moving on to the performances, the most notable is that of the female lead. The rest complies.

In short, a different and challenging film. It horrifies the viewer from a new perspective.

Alice, Darling...really? What a boring movie! Ok, let's see, there is a powerful message, yes. But it was approached and built in a terrible way. The first two acts of the film are not able to engage the audience's attention, as there is a slow and tiring pace. The editing is confusing at times, there is no focus on what is really important in the plot and well, the third act never explodes. There is an increase in tension, but nothing more. Worst of all, the film ends with a cathartic sequence that comes out of nowhere.

Bad script, bad direction. However, Anna Kendrick gives her best to try to save a doomed shipwreck early on.

For the importance of the central message, the film should have been much clearer, explicit, direct and/or at least overwhelming. But nothing.

I wouldn't recommend this film, so as not to waste 90 minutes in vain.

An emotionally charged film, full of visceral situations that point directly to the emotional core of the audience, and to achieve this, there could not be a better cast. Florence Pugh and Morgan Freeman have very good performances, leading a tragic and tear-jerking story. The drama of the film is easy to approach and incorporate as your own, since the cast of the film does it in a very good way.

Unfortunately I have a problem with the script. Without mentioning any particular situation to avoid spoilers, there is a key moment, almost the climax, where logic pointed out that things would go in a certain direction, but understanding that the story needed an optimistic turn, the events become brighter. For me, this is a big mistake, since it's a twist as unexpected as it's improbable, considering everything shown before said twist.

The technicalities are all at a good level, highlighting production design and makeup, since everything has a realistic approach that works very effectively.

It's a film recommended for a mature audience, hopefully with developed emotional intelligence.

Okay. Miles Morales in a battle against his own interior. Without counting the credits, we have a story of about five minutes that feels rushed and sloppy. It is obviously a story from the Spider-Verse, however, the reason for its existence is not clear. It does not present new characters, it is not relevant or a complement to the two films released to date, nor does it present technical improvements compared to the previous material already released. The style is maintained, there are some interesting sparks in direction, and everything else seems to be on point, but very on the verge of being something mediocre, just like its script.

My rating is generous. It will probably change in the near future.

Yes, it's difficult to make a movie these days that is completely original, and that works at the same time. But what if instead of looking for originality you only look for the formula to entertain and engage the audience? Talk to Me is that. A horror film that draws on many classic elements that are considered cliché within the genre, but that surprisingly work thanks to a simple story to approach and a performance that promises an ascending career, at least for its protagonist.

The directing work also stands out enormously in the 90 minutes that this film lasts, making use of dynamic shots that make us participate in a creepy and entertaining plot. The photography is also very well done, complementing the main story well. The last but not least of the aspects to highlight is the makeup, as it brings out the best of B horror movies for a limited budget like that of Talk to Me, which is deservedly labeled as an excellent proposal of classic horror seen from a contemporary and fresh perspective.

Richard Says Goodbye (aka The Professor) shamelessly takes advantage of the charisma of Johnny Depp, who fulfills what the producers probably wanted, a plot around the actor's natural personality. The resources are there, humor, gallantry, rebellion plus a couple of basic elements that can be incorporated into the script, such as some depressive story for which to have some empathy or pity. The truth is that there is still Johnny Depp. The film achieves its goal. If you are focused and concentrated enough on the plot, you will have a pleasant time watching how a dying man spends a pleasant time before perishing. However, even if you have invested your attention in the story, it becomes repetitive and lacking in ideas very quickly. Fortunately, it's only 90 minutes, as the film manages to go around in circles at least two or three times before ending.

In its technical aspects, the film is well made and put together. Nothing to reproach.

It can be a good recommendation if you are looking for something light and forgettable.

Sound of Freedom kicks you in the guts from the first act, showing you everything that anyone who is a parent never wants to see. It's a film fully aware of how heartbreaking it is and plays with that effectively until about halfway through, when the story progresses and evolves until it's reduced to a slightly more conventional plot.

Overall it's a technically well made film. The best is undoubtedly the production design and locations. Script, photography and soundtrack also stand out with a level above average. Direction, editing and makeup could have been better, but still, they all work well and keep the plot at the center point to keep the audience on the edge of their seat.

I agree with those who maintain that this film is one of the surprises of 2023. I suggest an audience that is mentally prepared and has formed criteria. Sensitive viewers, please refrain.

A remake of which I haven't seen the original film, but it's irrelevant when you realize that the script is one of those repeated and used endlessly in action films, in at least the last three decades. Still, it's a film with an entertaining dynamic, largely due to how it is put together and filmed. The directorial work is captivating for those who enjoy the genre, as there are shots that dare to innovate by incorporating first-person views in the midst of the whirlwind of fight sequences. The photography also adds to an entertaining choice of cameras during the confrontations. There is also good and measured use of drones. Good technical work.

As for the performances, Gyllenhaal's acting range and charisma are known, which are maintained in this story. All the supporting characters fulfill their roles decently, with the exception of the main villain to defeat. Everything about Conor McGregor is off the mark. Overwhelming exaggeration, terrible acting and a laughably implausible corporality. He could have been a good cameo, henchman or even an extra, but he has too much screen time, which is not justified.

Road House is described as an entertaining and dynamic film, but unoriginal, clichéd and cartoonish.

There are movies where the journey matters more than the destination. Anatomy of a Fall is clearly one of those. The outcome of the trial is actually left to be elucidated for the audience, since what matters here is the dilemma that the child goes through and how the judicial system processes the facts based on existing and non-existent evidence.

That said, however, the highlight isn't the script, but the directing work, as it's tepidly daring in showing certain scenes that could perfectly suffice as they are static, but instead, are shown to be dynamic within a context that becomes quite tedious.

The performances are good, especially those of the leading duo. The rest support in a good way, but no one stands out.

Cinematography, soundtrack, makeup and hair are disappointing.

The editing and general tone can be boring, because at the end of the day this is almost an analysis of a court case that moves its threads very slowly, at a safe and calculated pace, meticulous and sure.

I don't think it's part of the best of 2023, but it's worth at least one viewing.

What the hell was the director thinking when at some point sitting in his chair drinking whiskey he just thought about doing something like this?

I don't even know how to start this. The film is attractively boring. What I wrote doesn't make any sense, right? But that's it, it's slow, it's in an endless loop of explanations that lead nowhere, they just stay in the same place, going around, trying to explain to you about the kidnapping. And why the hell did they have a church as their center of operations? Was there not a theater or some underground in which to carry out his misdeeds? Or did God give them all the answers?

The performances were completely horrible. Some were too exaggerated, reaching the point of being unintentionally funny, and the rest, the vast majority, were flat and unconvincing.

The sets were sloppy and untidy. The editing was mediocre. The sound never contributed anything the few times it was present. And the management was quite disorganized.

Anyway, does it have flaws? Yes, is it boring? Of course, but I feel like I should at least give credit to the director for daring to do something that came out as strange and crazy as this. I hope the 1956 remake is better than this or at least less disgusting.