Reviews

A very good movie that has exactly what is necessary: a well-told good story. Excellent performances by Zack Gottsagen and Shia LaBeouf. There are some minor issues in the plot development, but nothing that the suspension of disbelief can't greatly alleviate. It's only a good tale about challanges and friendship.

Much better than 90% of the films nominated for Best Picture by the "Academy" in recent years. It is simply shameful for the "Academy" to have completely ignored this film, as it could have received at least five nominations. Go in with low expectations, and it will be a good uplifting movie experience.

Despite its promising start and beautiful scenery, "Art of Love" ultimately disappoints. The story is filled with clichés and predictable moments, failing to engage the audience. Even the talented lead actors, known for some previous great performances, struggle to bring their characters to life, resulting in a lackluster performance. While the film boasts stunning visuals, it lacks a compelling storyline. In the end, "Art of Love" falls short of making a lasting impression as a captivating romantic comedy. So, if you are loongking for some fresh and nice rom-com, I am sorry to disappoint you, this is not the one, I think.

Now I understand why writers in Hollywood are so afraid of artificial intelligence tools in the industry. If this is the best they can do, THEY REALLY SHOULD BE AFRAID.

I really thought last year had been the bottom for Hollywood and its awards. I couldn't have been more wrong.

I'm already tired of saying that amazing performances and excellent technical aspects (makeup, cinematography, costume design etc.) can not save a movie if the narrative is plagued by pretentious and bizarre storytelling. That's the case with "Poor Things," and so many other celebrated films out there. It was painful to make it to the end.

For me, after "The Lobster," "The Killing of a Sacred Deer," and now "Poor Things", Yorgos Lanthimos' name is definitely banned from any watchlist of mine. Forever. I will never waste my time with his films again.

This is indeed an outstanding movie. This is proof that a good story, interesting characters, and well-directed talented actors are all that really matter. Telling a good story well.

Finally, a truly great movie among those nominated by the "Academy" for the Best Picture award (I haven't seen them all yet, this is the sixth one I've watched). A touching and inspiring drama, simple and beautiful, with amazing performances by Paul Giamatti and Da'Vine Joy Randolph. In "The Holdovers", there is no sign of that pretentious air, nor the eccentricities that have become so typical in the critics' favorite movies in Hollywood in recent years. Just a good story, very well told. Which is a lot.

Certainly, I am bound by the high standard that Pixar established in its first 10-15 years. The bar was set too high. With "Finding Nemo," "Monsters Inc.," the "Toy Story" movies, "The Incredibles" and "Up" as benchmarks, it is truly very difficult to make films that come close to that level. That is the Pixar "curse".

"Elemental" is good, but not great. It is full of kindness and cuteness, sure, but... there are so many lame points in the plot!

At some point, I even considered giving it a 7 rating (the movie is cute), but then I lowered it to a 5 (too easy and lame solutions to conflict), before bumping it back up to a 6 (cuteness again). The final rating is an average of the experience as a whole, and it wasn't because of technical issues, which are actually quite good. Rather, it's about the overall experience. For me, what matters most in a movie are the story and the characters, and in those aspects, "Elemental" is just average, I'm afraid. Sorry.

A disappointment. Three wasted hours. What's the point of such a talented cast, excellent cinematography, make up etc., for a long, tiresome, and poorly told story?

The impression left is that this story should have been told in an 40-episode series, each episode lasting an hour, over 5 seasons. Instead, everything was condensed into a frenetic pace within 3 hours. Names and events were rushed, dozens of characters thrown in the audience's face, without adequate character development, cuts and transitions were too quick and too frequent, there was an overload of information, everything happened too fast.

Nolan has incredible talent and knows how to make cinema at a very high level, he has proven that before. But unfortunately he lost his touch here, in my limited perception as a layperson who loves good stories that are well told.

I must really be getting too bitter and heartless, it's not possible. It's hard for me to believe that out of, I don't know, hundreds of films released last year, Academy considers this particular movie one of the top ten. Is this one of the top ten best movies produced worldwide last year? It just doesn't sit right with me, I can't, I'm sorry. The issue must be with me.

To be fair, only two quick scenes made me feel something other than anger or frustration, two quick scenes that alleviated the sense of complete waste of time for me. But it was brief, not more than six or seven minutes of something good.

I know, I am sure the issue must be with me.

Well, considering the average of the films nominated for the Oscar for Best Picture in recent years, some of which I classify as a "complete waste of time," "Anatomy of a Fall" is a very good movie.

I try to assess a movie based on the experience it provides me, considering the genre. Naturally, it's quite subjective. "Anatomy of a Fall" is a good movie, within the trial-drama genre. The pace is a bit slow at times, maybe a tad too long. Very good performances from its cast (including the dog's acting lol), good plot (and excellent insights about truth and what it really matters in the legal system). But nothing too exceptional, it won't make it to my all-time favorites list, not even my favorite courtroom favorite films list.

Good and decent trial-drama movie, that is all - and it is A LOT, for Oscar standards .

It's truly astonishing that the very same Best Motion Picture Award, previously bestowed upon films like "Platoon", "The Silence of the Lambs", "Gladiator", "The Godfather", "Forrest Gump" and "Braveheart," has now been granted to the producers of this particular film. The sheer incredibility of this situation is beyond comprehension.

The idea is good, the movie has its good moments (maybe 2% of the 2h20min), but I cannot help but be both impressed and frustrated. The Academy has shown signs of decline for many years, consistently nominating lackluster films for the Best Motion Picture Award. In 2023, it seems we have reached an intolerable low.

What a waste of time! It is so sad that we got to this point. This film goes beyond being merely bad and bizarre; it is even challenging to categorize.

"The Banshees of Inisherin" presents a mixed bag of cinematic elements.

The film boasts excellent performances from its cast, the cinematography is a standout feature, with visually stunning scenes that captivate the audience.

However, the film falls short in terms of its storyline. The plot is empty, silly, and tedious, offering a dull and vacuous dark humor. Despite attempts to incorporate symbolism into the narrative, the symbols lack the depth and intrigue needed to make them effective. The plot is simply not interesting, quite the opposite.

Tales with social metaphores don't need to be like this. They can have interesting storylines. This film unfolds over 1 hour and 45 minutes of an unbelievably ridiculous and tedious tale.

A reasonably solid action and suspense film, it has its share of contrived moments and forced situations, along with some implausible elements.

The performances, however, stand out as particularly commendable. Despite the narrative lacking in spectacular elements, the story holds its ground as engaging. It offers a decent level of entertainment, especially for those inclined towards action and suspense genres.

While the film occasionally succumbs to forced scenarios and implausibility, it manages to maintain an overall sense of coherence. The strong performances by the cast elevate the viewing experience, compensating for any shortcomings in the plot's extraordinariness. The storyline, although not reaching the heights of spectacularity, presents a compelling narrative that caters well to enthusiasts of action and suspense films. In essence, the movie strikes a balance between its flaws and strengths, offering a satisfactory level of entertainment for its target audience.

These are the steps that "Lost" (the TV show) has established as a standard to engage the audience: (1) Throw an initial mystery in the audience's face; (2) Without having solved mystery #1, throw another and another mystery. It needs to be something very bizarre and inexplicable; (3) Without having solved any of the previous mysteries, throw another 3 or 4 even more bizarre and inexplicable mysteries in the face of the audience. (4) Mysteries need to have a pretentious air of some vague and ambiguous moral symbology, to make the audience think they are smart in trying to understand. (5) End without any clear explanation, just some very vague and ambiguous hints, leaving the piece of art "open" to interpretation. Follow these steps, your movie is done.

The movie delivers what it promises: entertainment. At certain moments it goes well beyond that, bringing up interesting reflections on our relationships with people. The plot is intelligent and the conflicts are well developed. The problem is that it pushes too hard in some very unlikely situations, playing with nonsense in an uncomfortable way (like the gas station scene, for example). Even with suspension of disbelief it's hard to buy what's going on. It's a good movie, I liked it. Great performances in the main role, by Monika Frajczyk, and also some supporting roles. The male protagonist, on the other hand, was a bit too exaggerated and burlesque, in my opinion. It's probably not one of those movies that will make your top 10 ever list, but it's a good option for a Saturday night.

I don't like to write negative reviews. I prefer to write positive ones. I only write a negative review when something really bothers me. And here we have an example. After managing, not without effort, to finish watching "Carnage", which made 80 min seem like 3 hours, I was left with only one thought in mind: what a huge waste of talent! It is indisputable how talented these actors and actresses are. Scenery, costumes, lighting, etc., all excellent. But a plot that fails to find the point of comic absurdity and becomes just a filmed play. Obviously, this is my experience. It didn't work... And look, I was willing to like it and suspend my disbelief.

I could rate this movie a 9 or a 4, or something in between. It's very, very difficult to decide. What a strange movie! From the first to the last minute There is always a dark, bizarre, disturbing air. The plot is strange, but it grips you. The performances are spectacular. Jodie Foster and Martin Sheen are Amazing, really. But it's definitely not the kind of movie I would recommend to anyone, so I leave the warning that, in order to enjoy the movie, you have to be open-minded to something strange and disturbing. I repeat: it could be evaluated with a 4 or a 9, depending on the mood of the viewer.

Well... It turns out Netflix can produce good movies. It happens, sometimes. This is a very good road-trip-feel-good movie. I confess I didn't expect much, but I was pleasantly surprised.

This film is further proof that a good story and two or three good actors, well directed, can provide great entertainment and some thought without the need for hundreds of millions of dollars in visual effects and fancy cinematography.

Paul Rudd is taking Adam Sandler's place in making melancholy comedies well done. Which is great. I hadn't seen something like this in a while. Of course, one shouldn't expect too much. It won't take any part in your top 10 movies ever list, but it will provide you 100 minutes of good entertainment.

I was very interested in reading the book, it's been on my list for a long time. Then came the Netflix movie and I decided to watch it. Now, I no longer have the slightest desire to read the book. Incredible poor and dull plot.

It is a beautiful story. The film has some flaws in the screenplay and execution, but this is clearly the case of a film in which the storyline and characters stand out. Great acting performances ( Quinton Aaron and Sandra Bullock), touching story, beautiful message.

The plot is kind of obvious, the characters are quite stereotyped, but the film is cool, has a light and fun atmosphere. Not awful, nor great. Just okay.

What a pleasant surprise! I really liked "Take me", it has a very interesting storyline and great acting performances. Good entertainment, well above average in the comedy-crime subcategory.

Considering the action-comedy subcategory, "Keeping Up with the Joneses" does its job pretty well. Entertaining and enjoyable (but don't expect too much). Gal Gadot does have an impressive screen presence.

I really like the classic Woody Allen's acid-intellectual romantic comedies. But "Whatever Works" is vaguely reminiscent of Allen's clever and provocative style. It is only reminiscent of what he once was. It's not a bad movie, it has its high points. But I didn't think it was worth the time invested.

Well ... I tried to like this movie. But I could not. It has great cinematography and production design, but that's it. Artificial characters, artificial dialogues, artificial situations, a very weak storyline. It didn't work for me, unfortunately.

Telling a story can serve several purposes: propaganda, entertainment and make us think about existential issues. Most people are just looking for entertainment, which is not a problem in itself. But you can't expect every movie to have an impactful scene in the first 15 minutes, a fast pace or a big turnaround near the end, to get the viewer's attention. "What We Wanted" is a good example of a good movie that people miss because they just don't want to see "slow movies". This is a beautiful drama film, very well directed, beautiful in its delicacy, in its sensitivity, in its rawness, in its reality, in its sadness, with excellent performances, with special emphasis on the performance of Lavinia Wilson and the little Iva Höpperger.

Good spy-drama-thriller movie. The plot is very interesting, mixing past and present of three Mossad agents involved in an important mission. However, the actors chosen for the older version of the two male characters ended up confusing the story a bit. Apart from this problem, it's a pretty good movie. Not excellent, but pretty good.