Stenian

I'm not sure why this film got terrible reviews. It's a lighthearted, silly fun. Do not take it too seriously. I think the reason why it did poor with critics and audiences alike was that they saw this as some sort of a Die Hard clone. And with Con-Air being released in 1997, obviously people naturally preferred Nicolas Cage, someone who was in the height of his career at that time. So this film was in the shadow. Not to mention, Air Force One was released that year as well, in addition to Speed 2. So 'Turbulence' did not really stand a chance. And also, people grew tired of such films.

I remember first watching this in 2000 as a kid. I grew so attached Terry and I remember feeling the menace. After rewatching it now, 24 years later, I was surprisingly impressed. It was just as suspenseful and gripping. Ray Liotta made an excellent villain (as he usually does). The acting was good all round and you felt attachment to the characters. I also loved the music score by the underrated late Shirley Walker.

You see, the 1990s were filled with such entrapment, race against time type of action thrillers (like the movies I mentioned earlier). If this were made post-911, when cinema became more serious and deeper, it definitely would've gotten more praise as people in that era generally admired and longed for "fun" type of films, no matter how silly they were (Snakes on a Plane anyone?). So this film was pretty much released in the wrong place and time, as they say.

Is it Citizen Kane? No. But it's a fun, exciting suspense thriller. Critics have been too harsh on it. Heck, I don't think it's plotline is that silly and unrealistic. In this day and age, so many absurd things have happened. Oh, for a film made in 1997, I think it has pretty aged well.

My biggest objection to the film was the unnecessary "subplot" in the first 15-20 minutes that was about masses of civilians being tormented by militants (or terrorists) of a totalitarian society. The main character Mia and her husband Nico were among the people, as they were shipped in containers (and others were in cages). These militants were shooting people, including children, indiscriminately and without remorse. The movie felt like 'Schindler's List' meets 'Children of Men' at this point.

What was the point of this dystopian subplot? What did it add to the film? Because it was irrelevant to the film's main plot and it never concerned the film's main storyline. Absolutely futile thematic device here. Audiences were preparing for a movie about a young woman being stuck in the middle of the ocean, not some dystopian drama about people being slaughtered and lynched by some fascist government militia (or whatever the hell they were). I'm sorry, but you can't be two completely different films at the same time. I mean, this is like 'Jaws' having a serial killer at the beginning, before becoming a movie about that infamous shark. Or 'Speed' opening with a shark attack then ending up being about, well, the speeding bus. Get it? That's what this film did.

As she becomes the only person in the container (since everyone inside were shot to death) and is then set adrift into the sea, you actually applaud this fact. Why? Because she's finally away from these cruel, vicious, monstrous terrorists in that country. So was I supposed to be more scared for her? Nope. I was like "thank God she's far away from that godforsaken dystopia!". Better here, than there! So, some bad screenwriting and storytelling here.

Pregnant Mia then gives birth inside the container. Not much really happens really. There isn't much suspense (well, the film was advertised as a thriller). The film just felt like a boring drama about a woman and her baby just living inside a container in the middle of the sea. Then Mia finally cuts a portion of the container's ceiling and gets out on top to fish. This is when the film becomes 'Cast Away' meets 'Life of Pi'.

And after that, the film just drags and drags. It would have made its point if it were 90 minutes long, but it went for 110 minutes. It's a cliched survival drama, and you've seen it all before, really (besides that bizarre subplot in the beginning). The direction, music, cinematography and the acting of the female lead were pretty amazing. They notched up the rating to a 4 at best, otherwise this would've been 2 rating.

As an agnostic-atheist, I thought The Passion of the Christ was incredibly touching and moving. I see this film being about a mother's love for her anguished son and his sacrifice for humanity. You really don't have to believe in the divinity of Christ in order to enjoy this film. As for its moving nature, the film gave me the same emotions that 'Lord of the Rings' and 'Dune' did. It just had this epic vibe and monumental aura. I would've gone far and given this a Best Picture nomination at the Oscars. Mel Gibson is a very talented filmmaker.

One of the most unique things about this film is the characters speaking Aramaic. As someone who speaks Assyrian (a modern Aramaic language), I thought the Aramaic language was accurate as we understood some words here and there. Regarding the characters, they were all portrayed by a talented European cast. Maia Morgenstern, who portrayed Mary, should have gotten an Oscar nomination. Jim Caviezel, an actor that generally seems wooden in other movies, was very naturalistic and compelling as Jesus.

The music was the best thing about this film. John Debney really knows how to create poignant, emotional music. I can't imagine this film without Debney's music (maybe, just maybe Zimmer would've been as good). The score is truly one of the best pieces of music I've ever listened to.

As for antisemitism, I do not see it, and this is coming from a staunch supporter of Israel (in light of the Israel-Hamas war). This film showed that there were good Jews and bad Jews. Every nation and ethnicity in the world has good and bad, terrible people. The Romans were also depicted as being despicable, heartless savages (i.e. The soldiers), but of course other Romans were depicted as compassionate and humble (Pilate, his wife Claudia and the Roman soldier who later believed in Christ). So everything was evened out. I never understood the fuss.

The violence was indeed very graphic. But need not worry, you can always view The Passion Recut, an edited version where 5 minutes of the strong violence is omitted. The Blu-Ray has that version. I watch 'Recut' every Easter. It is actually pleasant to watch due to its more temperate nature, and it flows pretty well. My only complain with the film was the demonic children chasing Judas. I think those scenes were too elaborate and protracted, and Gibson did not have to dwell on them, as they bordered the comical.

I have recently been watching gay movies. Brokeback Mountain was decent (2005) and Call Me Be Your Name (2017) was dreadful. Reading the film's plotline, I thought "hey, maybe this one will demolish the others". And nope, I was wrong.

Now the film is not terrible. But I just didn't feel any connection with the characters. There was also no strong sense of danger and tension - These are closeted gay men under Soviet laws. Sure, the Major gave us that sense of foreboding doom, as his suspicions rose and starting questioning the men. But that's it, these scenes ended quickly.

The storyline and characters are cliched. Two people fall in a forbidden love. They get together and avoid being seen. They then part ways. One tries to live "normal" life by getting married and having kids. The other remains single. They reunite after a few years. Wife finds outs. One of them dies. All typical, by-the-book stuff. And I did not feel any sadness towards the guy's death.

One thing that pestered me were the accents. Why speak English in a Slavic accent? You can might as well speak Estonian! But with such films, set in different countries, just have the characters speak English in a Received Pronunciation accent (as they do, for historical epics). That would've made more sense. I just found the eastern European accents so wrong.

I expected a sweeping, emotional film about a really racist woman in her 40s who meets a black man (her driver). And, as they get older, they start to get friendlier, closer and even affectionate. But I did not get that. Instead, the film begins with her being a snobby, snarky old lady and pretty much ends that way (with her having that same behaviour).

What was the point of time going by and characters ageing when Hoke and Miss Daisy barely develop and grow fond of each other (at least to that deep level)? It is very subtle, their relationship development. All they do, for the most part of the film, is just babble and bicker like an old couple in the car. Furthermore, Miss Daisy is perpetually argumentative and stubborn, particularly with Hoke. She will be like that for 75% part of the film. She only slightly tones down that attitude by the end of the film. But she is still virtually the same person.

About the ageing part, there was no point of an already elderly woman being aged (even more) throughout the film. What purpose did that serve? Her son begins to look in his late 50s with his grey hair, and yet she still looked like a normal elderly lady with just more wrinkles. That's why I would've preferred if a younger actress (say at the time, Meryl Streep) played Miss Daisy, with Tandy playing old Miss Daisy. This would've had a more realistic and emotional impact.

At times, Morgan Freeman's acting was unintentionally comical, with his twangy accent. Sounded like somebody from Mad TV skit pretending to be a Georgian. He really overdid his nasally twang accent and he sounded like an elastic band. Jessica Tandy's (Miss Daisy) posh English accent was slipping here and there. Also, was she supposed to be a racist? I did not catch that. Again, the film tried to be subtle at everything.

I did enjoy the cinematography and, of course, the whimsical music by Hans Zimmer. But the film, emotionally, left me unsatisfied and unsympathetic.

First thing's first, I'm not religious, so I don't really care about the film's "blasphemy" against Christianity. The Brooklyn accents and the comical "ethnic dance" scenes of idiotic looking villagers rather were more borderline "blasphemous" - By that I mean cringeworthy and embarrassing to watch.

Let me start with the film's flaws. How much of an ignoramus Scorsese is to have the actors speak in an east coast accent? I felt like I was watching New Yorkers doing a theatrical play about Jesus on stage. Dafoe, whilst a great actor, was miscast. He just doesn't look like a a Jew, let alone Jesus. He would've been a good Judas in all honesty. Keitel actually fit the part of Jesus better and I thought he was a decent actor in this as Judas (despite his Razzie nomination). Only problem was his New York accent, really (the guy even pronounced 'worse' like 'woys'). Good lord! Hire vocal coaches, Scorsese. Not everyone has to speak in your hometown dialect, pal. Was he lazy about this? I don't know.

Also, what was up with the campy, ethnic dance scenes and Moroccan style music? The songs were in Arabic. How the hell did Arabic exist in Judea in 1st century AD? So many of these pointless, ethnically and linguistically inaccurate scenes should have been cut. Moroccans are NOT Jews, nor do they look Jewish -- The extras looked extremely north African. I know the film was shot in Morocco, but they could have hired more Levantine looking extras. It's like a film about Rome being shot in Germany and having ethnic German extras in background (Italians and Germans look very different).

The baptism scene with John the Baptist, again with campy, cringeworthy fully nude dancers in the background shaking their heads like they're listening to Metallica. What is this tasteless, repugnant imagery? Oh, I digress. And Saul (who would later be known as Paul)? Useless character. Added nothing to the plot.

I thought the film was slow paced in the first 40 minutes or so. Too talky and wordy with Jesus talking about feeling love and whatnot. A lot could've been trimmed. This film, in its current length, would have easily been released as some extended edition. What carried this film was Dafoe's great acting, even though, paradoxically, he did not even suit the part. The filming location looked very natural with outstanding and convincing set design - It made me feel like I was in fact experiencing a 1st century Judea. Also, Peter Gabriel's somber, ethereal, ethnic music was beautiful. I could rewatch the film just for the score.

The film has this atmospheric, nostalgic 90s, suburban, Saturday afternoon-flick style to it. The score by Elmer Bernstein is beautiful and gorgeously quaint. Michelle Pfeiffer's acting is sublime.

The first act, or the beginning rather, is very riveting. Beth and her two sons go to a hotel, and moments later the young one goes missing. These are all powerful, engaging moments. Pfeiffer's acting here is very naturalistic and emotions sympathetic to the audience. Whoopi Goldberg makes a great, relatable detective with her little wits and light humor.

9 years later, Beth believes she's found her son (who will be around 12 and is named Sam). The part where she gazes at him and then goes to take snapshots of him is really adorable. But afterwards, everything happens rapidly - She informs the cops that she's found him and voila, they're arresting Ben's stepfather for "kidnapping" (although he had no part of it) and Ben/Sam is now back living with the Cappadora family. Um, okay.

So all this film was set up for how Ben (who is now Sam) would cope living with his biological parents. That is not how I wanted the movie to be, honestly. I wanted more scenes with Beth trying to figure out if this Sam was her son. More mystery and drama regarding that. Cops not believing her. And only at the end, it is revealed that he really is her son. I expected the film to flow that way.

Instead, by the 3rd act, Vincent (Ben's older brother) becomes a bit rebellious and would resent Ben. Then, ultimately, he becomes arrested out of nowhere. The plot really became unhinged and incohesive. Why would the audience care about Vincent being arrested? The ending was anticlimactic as it practically concluded in the front yard with the two brothers (Ben and Vincent) becoming closer and affectionate, as the parents watch in glee. There was no powerful moment. Looks like all these touching, somber moments where in the first act.

I still give it a 6 for the great acting and the intriguing first act. Also, for the outstanding score.

Danny Glover did not suit the part at all. Don't get me wrong, he's a great actor, but he looked too innocent to be an obnoxious, mouthy, tough cop. Was Wesley Snipes around at that time? He would've suited the role. But then again, his character was a nasty piece of work - Always angry and aggressive with people.

Speaking of obnoxious and over the top characters, the film focused too much on secondary villains such as the Jamaican and Colombian cartels in the first 40 minutes or so. The gunfight at the beginning between them (and the cops) was more annoying and nonsensical than exciting and thrilling. I really didn't care about them, nor the political messages the film subliminally had. At times, it seemed like a satire. I did like Leona though.

Either way, the film generally featured typical cheesy 80's action sequences with gunshots that resulted in massive explosions. There wasn't much suspense or tension. The 'urban jungle' setting overall did not impress me as well. It's become very dated.

The good thing about the film was, of course, Alan Silvestri's majestic music and the visual effects, which still hold up pretty well. I also liked the amazing ship set seen at the end of the film.

I watched the 1990 film with Mel Gibson, which was probably one of the worst movies I've ever watched. A rough looking, 'bad boy' Gibson did not suit playing Hamlet. I didn't know whether it was the source material or maybe the 1990 film was just terribly made.

So I watched this. Honestly, it was almost as bad as the 1990 film. This was incredibly talky, loquacious, sluggishly paced film. I got headaches from the hefty dialogue that just never seemed to cease. But I gave this one more credit because the actors had to work hard to remember all their lines, especially when they are in Shakespearian English.

Now I haven't read the play, but I'll take it that this film was immensely faithful to the source. Writer and director Kenneth Branagh probably included every line of dialogue in the movie. And this just didn't work. My brain really couldn't swallow all these talking scenes and the splattering of nearly ever word crammed up into a conversation that goes on for minutes. Yikes. Relax! Does this film hold the record for having the most words and sentences ever been put in a feature film? Wouldn't be surprised!

On top of this, the dialogue was in Shakespearean English (i.e. Early modern English). So it was a bit difficult understanding a lot of things the characters were saying, and that frustrated me. That said, I enjoyed learning some archaic English words, such as the expression "la!", which meant "an exclamation of anger or surprise" - And that's how I felt about this film. La, indeed! What a bloated, headache-inducing film that is filled with dialogue! Even Branagh began to look tired after his over the top performance.

Having watched the 1990 and 1996 films, I have to say the story of Hamlet itself is pretty subpar and insipid. It's like a poor man's Macbeth. I don't know why they made movies based on that play. But I have to write a whole review on why Hamlet (the play) is a terrible and uninteresting story. So I digress here.

I enjoyed Kate Winslet's performance and I had a smile on my dial when Robin Williams showed up. Branagh was not bad, despite his exaggerated mannerisms. Then again, he was supposed to be theatrical. The music was good and alluring. The lavish and attractive Victorian era set design kept me watching this film. The climax of the film was also intense and riveting. The film had some good scenes, but the tremendous amount of dull, overlong scenes of dialogue outweighed everything. If Branagh could release a 2 hour recut version of this film, maybe my review would be a lot different.

This film is only revered and remembered because it was one of the more early films about Jesus Christ in Hollywood cinema. The way I see it, this film plays out like a TV series set in 1st Century AD biblical Judea that has story arcs or subplots about the historical figures of that time, such as Herod, John the Baptist, Lucius, Pilate and Barabbas. Jesus was included because, well, without Jesus, no one would've watched this film.

This was supposedly a movie about Jesus, and yet Jesus did not have any more screentime as the other aforementioned "main characters" did. He just was one of the "main characters", not the main character, so to say.

Let me start with this film's "main characters". What was the point of Barabbas getting so much screen time? He was a murderer, caused riots, and he only get like two verses about him in the bible. He was such a prominent character in this film, and the audience were supposed to sympathize with him? I also didn't want to see his riots, which were pointless to this film's story. The Passion of the Christ (2004) depicted him pretty accurately for me; a deranged lunatic. Oh, here we see Lucius unchaining Barabbas in prison. Nope, we don't see Pilate releasing him in front of the crowd (who choose him over Jesus). Utterly ridiculous and unnecessary change.

The scenes with Herod and Pilate were boring and tiresome. I couldn't tell the difference between their characters because both were equally villainous and snobby, in a cartoonish manner. Pilate was a bratty antagonist with a posh accent, and Herod was a sly lecherous one. One dimensional characters at best. By the way, Pontius Pilate, at least according to the bible, was not depicted as a bad, foul person. Pilate even wanted the crowd to choose Jesus as he saw nothing wrong with the man. But this film made him the opposite.

John the Baptist had a lot of screen time for what's his worth. The actor's American accent was a bit over the top and distracting. John gets killed, so we don't get to see him anymore, stealing screentime. And who was this Lucius? Lucius of Cyrene? I thought he was in Acts only. I thought Longinus was the Roman soldier who believed in Christ, after he died. Anyway, I admit, I did like the Lucius character. Why? Because he evolved and had depth. He was an interesting character. He is the guy that said "he was truly the son of God" after Jesus dies on the cross. And yet we are introduced to him from the film's start.

All this focus on secondary characters, and yet we don't get much from the Jesus's disciples. Maybe a few words from Peter. But we do have a lengthy depiction of Judas, played by Rip Torn. A very apt name. Because the way the characters are shown in the film was in a ripped and torn fashion. The disciples were ripped and torn - Instead of them, we get irrelevant scenes of Judas, who ends up conversing with Barabbas when Jesus is carrying the cross. Um, okay.

Now to Jesus. What a bland, frozen, creepy looking Jesus. Jeffrey Hunter did not fit the part. He looked like he could play Jeffrey Dahmer. He looked cold and villainy. Him staggering away, saying "Do not weep for me", I thought he was a zombie for one second. Not the best Jesus.

The good things about this film was the amazing direction and sublime soundtrack. Also, the fight scenes were actually very well made for a film in the early 1960s. But this is not a movie about Jesus. It is not about the "King of Kings". It is a film with interconnected subplots or multiple storylines, and one features the "King of Kings". Oh yeah, we also did not see any of Jesus's miracles in this film (except for one where Jesus touches a crazy man and heals him). I guess they were focusing on the historicity and realism of Jesus's life. But it just didn't work out out for me.

I was very impressed and allured by the rave reviews this film had got, which enticed me to watch it. On top of that, I'm a fan of Timothee Chalamet after enjoying his great performance in Dune (2021). Not to mention, I have a soft spot for romantic drama films and I am also a gay male. So naturally, I would be interested in this film. But boy, did it disappoint me!

The film starts out rather slow and sluggish for the most part. What saved it was the beautiful and picturesque setting in Italy. Whilst we are introduced to Oliver in the first scene of the film, we don't see anything special or riveting between Elio and Oliver until an hour into the film. I actually enjoyed the chemistry, but what was actually happening in the film besides the characters conversing with each other, jumping in pools, walking around and dancing? Just fillers. Nothing much. No tension, no intrigue, nothing really to follow. Most of the film was the characters going in and out of their house, toing and froing (it was literally "Home and Away"). All these superfluous scenes pushed the film to over 2 hours.

From bad to worse, I got taken aback when Elio started to get very intimate with his girlfriend, even to the point of unnecessary strong sex scenes with the two. It genuinely undermined the relationship and romantic interest he has with Oliver. I just don't see how a (closeted) gay man would be enjoying kissing a girl so much - The two had prolonged kissing scenes, which went off at a tangent and really betrayed the point of the film. I reminded myself that I was watching a gay movie as the film focused on Elio and Marzia significantly as Oliver leaves the town. Besides, Elio was the man infatuated with another. So there's no point at all for him to have a sexual relationship with a woman when he was obsessed with Oliver. I would've understand Oliver doing that as he was probably more bisexual. Elio seemed unrealistic in this regard. He was supposed to be pretty gay, and yet he briefly becomes Casanova who melts women.

Now the tables turn - After becoming a Casanova, he transforms into a very salacious gay man. Okay, I felt a bit embarrassed and ashamed, as a gay man, to see Elio and Oliver acting overly salacious and ribald, from Elio shoving his penis inside an apricot to Oliver spontaneously pulling down his pants and giving him a blow job out of nowhere. Such absurdly unnecessary scenes and acts that didn't add much to the film, and rather made them look like perverted creeps. Which reminds me, why do gay movies usually depict homosexuals as sexual weirdos? Disobedience (2017) featured two lesbians (played by Weisz and McAdams) spitting on each other during sexual activity. Society will hate us more if we're depicted that way. By the way, the man who wrote the book was straight, unsurprisingly so (and honestly straight men do have a misconceived notion of us - that we're lubricious beings).

But most of all, where was the emotion in this film? I did not feel anything for the two characters. The ending was emotionless and it did not captivate me. I like sad music with two star-crossed lovers confessing their forbidden love (yeah, I'm being cheesy), and the movie lacked such emotionally sweeping scenes. Oh and another thing, how come Elio's parents didn't suspect anything? They were monotonous, uninvolved and covert throughout the film. They didn't add anything (or take anything, for that matter). Most characters didn't, including Elio's "girlfiend". They were all just there like pot plants. That's why I said the film had no tension, intrigue and suspense. The father's speech at the end made me cringe. Brokeback Mountain (2005) is still the best gay-male movie out there.

This is possibly the best documentary I've ever watched, rivalling "Planet Earth II" (2016) even. I'm ashamed and gobsmacked that it has a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes (only 5 reviewers thus far but still disappointing). The movie not only focuses on nature but also on human history and where we are headed. It has a very positive and optimistic view of the future, unlike some other climate alarmist works.

The documentary is monumentally shot with its aerial cinematography covering 55 countries. The images throughout the film are incredible and surreal. You would think they are a visual effect, but they are actual real shots of our beautiful world. The narration by the talented Glenn Close is relaxing and riveting, in addition to her concise and inspiring lines.

The quality and aura of the film overall is very ethereal and enticing. It keeps you glued to the screen thoroughly with its sustained shots of gorgeous vistas to even polluted clumps of land, all of which are beautified by the splendid cinematography. The music was also exceptional with Gladiator-style emotional wailing vocals and as well as the usage of the ravishing and touching Armenian duduk during melancholic sequences.

I find it very disappointing and pitiful that it wasn't nominated for an Oscar as best documentary feature in 2010.

First off all, Samsara seemed like a "reimagining" of Baraka (1992), which was a better film (although still not a big fan of it). It was a pretty unnecessary "sequel", or a follow-up to Baraka as it used a lot of its images either way (where you can say it was a loose remake), although this film focused more on East Asia from what I notice.

Now it started out pretty nice with the amazing, panoramic visuals of eastern Asian landscapes and the culture. Other gorgeous shots of churches, architecture, the arts and natural environments were abundant in the first 30-40 minutes or so, backed by the brilliant musical score and ethereal vocals by Lisa Gerrard, until...Until, well, the creator himself got bored and started to throw in disturbing and disquieting material of pigs being gashed as they hang dead, chickens mistreated in a factory, a graphic depiction of a shooting victim laying in a coffin, fancy shaped coffins, a gun shop with guns and bullets, and lastly some artsy-fartsy dude in an office slapping his face with paint and powder - Yep, beautiful and stunning images indeed. *eyes roll*

I was prepared to watch a 90 minute film with stunning visuals to relax and mesmerize me, but for the most part I pretty much got just random, successive images of people around the world just doing their daily activities or jobs (on top of the aforementioned disturbing imagery), including office clerks on their desks, overweight people eating at McDonald's, male prisoners dancing to campy techno music in the yard, women packing flatirons, more factory work stuff, sex dolls and Thai strippers pole-dancing awkwardly. Beautiful and stunning! I was in awe, particularly at the sight of flatirons!... Not! What was the point of such random sequences, really? This is "beautiful" to people? Why not keep the darn film consistent and stick with showing the natural beauty of the world instead of this mundane "city-life" content?

In comparison, Baraka (as overrated as it was, but still a respectful film for what it's worth) did not depict these things and it was far less preachy too. Baraka was more consistent with its imagery and style. But this one wanted to constantly and blatantly exhibit useless, irrelevant images that I began to beg for the film to end already! Hell, the film showed so many random and unnecessary imagery by the 50th minute that I really began expecting a scene of some guy defecating in a toilet and wiping his butt. The only good thing about was the first 20 minutes and Lisa Gerrard's music, in all frankness.

If you want a truly beautiful documentary of the world and her people -- that is also shot in numerous countries -- watch Home (2009), which is free to view on YouTube and is narrated by Glenn Close. I seriously can't believe that Samsara has gotten so much undeserving praise. Most of this praise, I believe, is retrospectively-based as critics and audiences alike admire the director's past works. So why not this film? If this were made by someone else, it would have critically flopped.

When I'm criticizing a film, I usually don't understand how people actually enjoy and praise that certain movie. In this film's case, I actually do "get" why people like it and praise it. Hands down, this film is sensational and visually gorgeous. It was filmed in real locations and I commend Tarsem Singh, the film director, for that.

My main gripe was the real-world setting with the injured stuntman Roy Walker and the little girl Alexandria in a Los Angeles hospital. The focus was on these two characters was a bit too much, and their surroundings. I preferred more of the "tale world" setting. Either they should have gotten a smaller screen time, or completely have the film start and end in the fantastical world (so, no storytelling).

Because the way the film switched between the beautiful imaginative world and real life seemed like a bothersome dissonance to me. At many times, I did not care about the man communicating with the girl, his medication problems and I just wanted to see the story in the fantasy world carried on, as it got interrupted by the events in the real world, which I didn't much care for.

What saved the film from being bad was the chemistry between Roy and Alexandria, and of course their great performance. So, in a way, I did begin to care for them and sympathise. But when I did, the movie would then switch to the fantasy world. I mean, you cannot be two movies at once. And this film felt like I watching two movies being meshed into one. It didn't work for me.

The music was amazing and totally Oscar-worthy, as was the direction and cinematography. I was reminded me of the documentary Baraka (1992), but I'm not the first person to point that out. Oh, the R rating is completely BS (and as well as the Australian equivalent MA15+). Lord of the Rings is more violent than this. So don't get taken aback with the restricted ratings assigned to the film.

In my bold and humble opinion, this is even better than The Ring (2002), another Asian horror film. And more, it's far better than the boring drab that was the original Korean film, A Tale of Two Sisters (2003), which was pretty much a confusing yawn-fest "artsie-fartsie" that went nowhere. All the flaws and wrongs in that film were corrected and improved here.

The reviews were mixed, which is unsurprising as people have had enough of Asian horror remakes by the late 2000s. But they prejudged the film too quickly. It was surprisingly good. Very gripping from the start to the end. It didn't become overlong and was nicely paced, flowing film with a fresh and satisfying twist ending that no one would see coming. I'll give you a hint. There are two plot twists. One may be unsurprising and perhaps even "obvious" as it is hinted throughout the film, but the other is relatively shocking.

I enjoyed the film thorough and thorough. It didn't take itself very seriously and go any deeper like the terrible original film. The theme music by Christopher Young was beautiful, which I believe was Anna's theme. Unlike the original film, which had the tedious Korean soap opera style of music.

Now to the cons. Actually, it's just one conspicuous con. I know the film wanted to be true to the original by including supernatural elements such as visions of scary ghosts (or whatever they were). I believe they were irrelevant to this film's story. The film should've played out like a normal psychological mystery thriller without any cheesy ghosts - Though I do grant the film that the ghosts were kept in minimal here, unlike the original, which was pretty much filled with them.

If The Uninvited was carried out as a "realistic" psychological thriller I would've given it a higher rating for sure. But still, this isn't a major and completely dreadful flaw. The film was still very enjoyable and riveting either way.

My biggest gripe with this amazingly shot film is its uneven pace. The movie is about Tom Ripley stealing Dickie Greenleaf's identification. But this doesn't happen until the 65th minute or so. In the first hour we're preoccupied with Dickie's lifestyle which includes his hobbies (jazz music) and as well his infidelity - All this could have been trimmed down, as they made it seem like we were watching a biopic. I honestly did not care about Dickie's way of living and story.

Now I'm all for an introduction and background story. But is a 60 minute background story really that necessary and crucial? Especially one that involves a secondary character (Dickie). What got me through the first hour of the film was the beautiful Italy setting. Other than that, the movie would have been really boring. As the film picks up its pace by 70th minute or so, the suspense and tension begins. That's pretty much where it begins for me. It is unfortunate that the first half was a completely different film, where it felt like a biographical drama or something.

Moreover, I wasn't a big fan of the really upsetting climactic ending. Tragedy is nice, but here I believe it was done in bad taste. Even Shakespeare wouldn't write something as tragic as that ending scene.

This film has an unfollowable, unattractive storyline, although the premise is interesting on the surface. The film is pretty much about two boring and wooden sisters who get to see female ghosts of some sort popping out from the silence. And that's the movie for you: Mostly long shots of silence and then wardrobe or cupboard doors that creak open. Yawn.

What's the point of the stereotypical 'Asian girl' ghosts popping out? At least The Uninvited (2009) explains this, and yet people find that one with the cheap scares. Dudes, this film not only has cheap and banal jump scares, they're also irrelevant and completely useless to the film's disorienting and dizzying plot. Again, the horror scenes in the remake are way more striking because they're relevant to the plot and they are explained. This film was a try-hard in comparison and it didn't explain much. At times, the ghost scenes were very random.

Lastly, I did not understand the stepmother in this. Was she really evil or just misunderstood? Or was she an alter ego? What I liked about the remake was that the stepmother was very well explained for the audience and there was that one big reveal at the end, which involved her character being explained and justified. This film threw in one twist after another in the most mundane way ever towards the last half hour. Now I'm not talking about exciting twist and turns, but rather different endings or endings after endings that were convoluted and mind-numbing. The movie just didn't want to end, which made it a torture to sit through!

Granted, the acting was good and the cinematography was excellent. But what's the use of those when it comes to terrible screenwriting and storytelling? Also, what was up with the inappropriately sentimental theme music? Suited more a Korean soap opera than a horror film. This film is truly messy. The remake is far more superior, despite its flaws, and this is something I'd rarely say. People hated "The Uninvited" because of a cognitive bias - Since, at that time, American horror remakes were a trend and thus audiences were tired of them.

And this why I give this film a 5. The premise is terrific. It keeps you guessing and wondering throughout with its intense and sweet background music (the track "Remain" is very inspirational). The twist isn't groundbreaking, but at least it is satisfying and explicable.

Other than that, what the hell was wrong with this film? The characters, particularly the children, speak like lawyers. Their lines sounded very stilted and artificial. People don't speak that formal amongst each other, especially children. Trent was the worst offender who, at 7, is saying things like "mortgage" and "considerably". So unrealistic. What is M. Night Shyamalan thinking? We get it Shy, you're a brilliant English-speaker, but don't show it through your characters, especially young children! Kids don't speak in such a formal, lawyer-ish manner.

Speaking of Trent and his family, they were miscast, because I just couldn't swallow the fact that a family with a European accent will be speaking English all the time. Now the film delved into the background story of the family. Why wasn't their nationality explained? I only knew that they were a Cappa (sounds Italian). Are you telling me a family with that thick European accent will be speaking English with each other all the time? That's hardly graspable. The mother spoke with such broken English that I couldn't take her seriously as one of the main characters. People with broken English will always switch back to their mother tongue in real life.

Speaking of the casting, Rufus Sewell should have played the father. That way, it would make sense why his European wife speaks English with him as he is an Englishman. Furthermore, the actor playing Trent as a child looked too dark to be an offspring of his western European looking parents, particularly his fair-skinned mother, and sister. I actually thought he was adopted. I understand diversity, but please cast the film properly and make the characters realistic in the ethnic sense!

My biggest gripe was when Maddox became a middle aged adult (played by the gorgeous Embeth Davidtz). Here, the last shred of realism completely disappeared - How the hell does a girl with large blue eyes begin to have dark, almond eyes in her 40s? For the record, Davidtz has brown elfin eyes. Why not have have the actress wear eye contact at least? Also, her mother aged like a granny and yet they didn't bother with old age makeup with the father - What was that for? It's like they just got lazy with the father.

Lastly, and most importantly, I did not like how it was reminiscing a slasher/body horror film towards the end with characters stabbing each other and others becoming contorted just for the "scares". That seemed like a total cop-out. This film would have fared much better if it were a psychological drama instead (with some suspense thrown in of course). It would've probably been much more successful with the critics, but Shyamalan still chooses this "horror" path that comes across as dull.

The movie starts out extremely terrible, felt as if it was a student film. A bunch of punks, dressed very fancy, who are supposed to be Montagues and Capulets, are involved in a bombastic and flamboyant shootout outside a petrol station. They act like juvenile goons and yet they exchange lines with the prestigious Shakespearean dialogue, whilst yelling like fratboys, which just adds insult to the injury. I cringed so hard at this, but I swallowed the opening scene, as dreadful as it was.

Maybe because I was so used to him as Jack, but I did not find Leonardo DiCaprio appropriate for Romeo. Claire Danes, a decent actress, was rather wooden and absent as Juliet. The two had no chemistry and it's no wonder they did not get along during the shooting of the film. Mercutio was, yet again, unjustifiably flamboyant and camp. The guy who played him was a good actor, but I blame Baz Luhrmann for this, really. He does not know how to tutor his cast.

What was up with the police helicopter shots and the fast cuts during aerial cinematography? Some of the modern scenes just didn't complement the play's middle ages setting. So now Prince Escalus is an FBI agent of some sort here? The action scenes were really unnecessary. Romeo was not chased by the authorities in the play as he was heading to see Juliet's "body". But here, we get to see him being chased and shot at for the action's sake. He also did not murder Tybalt in cold blood. He kills him accidentally during a sword duel.

The music (not the score) was bland and very early 90s disco. Mr Luhrmann, this is not Strictly Ballroom. He tried hard making this film like his typical, flashy music films. I just did not enjoy this style. Since he modernised it so much, why not just have the dialogue updated as well, to suit the film's setting? Romeo and Juliet (1968) beautifully welded the historical setting and the dialogue, and it succeeded. So why produce another film with the Shakespearean dialogue? It was utterly pointless and it didn't feel "different", just absurd and amusing. Speaking of amusing, I was chuckling when DiCaprio was speaking Shakespearean English in his Californian surfer accent and 1990s curtained haircut. Just no. Lol.

Whilst this was a terrible film, I gave it a 4 because I still enjoyed Leonardo DiCaprio's performance, even if he was somewhat miscast. He carried this film. Mercutio's death scene was well acted and profound with touching background music. The ending with Romeo and Juliet exchanging sentimental words was nice too. But that's it, really. Watch the 1968 version for a better experience.

The Dark Knight felt like a gritty, realistic crime film set in Chicago, but with a man in a batsuit and a killer clown thrown in. I'm sorry, but this film's realistic realistic atmosphere and setting did not complement a guy in a batsuit. The film took itself very seriously and it had a very depressing and realistic atmosphere with rather annoying, poorly acted extras and mediocre action sequences, on top of so many other unpleasant and aggravating flaws that I will go through. Batman and the Joker prancing around in this film's realistic environment was as bitter and dissonant as chocolate mixed with pizza. And everyone's has said this; This was not Batman's film. It was more about The Joker.

Let me start with the lousy, ridiculous editing. During the action scenes and other rousing scenes when the characters are being physical each other, there are always the dreaded "quick-cut" edits where, if you blink, you'll miss what just happened. I got quite furious with this editing habit. Because half of the time I had no idea what was going on. In the theaters I was left confused with this and I went "um, what just happened?". Only in my second and third watching, I finally knew what was going on, thanks to a few rewinds and repeats. What was Nolan thinking here? And he knew what he did was silly here -- That's why in TDKR his editing was vastly improved.

Now to the laughable opening scene. Again, full of quick cuts and you have no idea what is going on. Several men in clown masks are robbing a bank and are gibbering amongst each other, and they begin to shoot each other? Um okay, but why? I had no idea what has happening, and the quick-cuts weren't helping either! Then the sinister Joker appears, played by the late Heath Ledger. Sorry, as much as I like Ledger, I just didn't quite enjoy him as the Joker. I find it ironic that his catchphrase is "why so serious?" when his Joker is the most serious, ominous Joker there is. And I don't mean that as a compliment. The Joker is supposed to be comical and amusing. That's why he's The Joker. And is it just me, or did Ledger base his character on Depp's Jack Sparrow from POTC? He was merely a villainous, dark version of him!

Joker's henchmen were also risibly realistic in appearance, like something out of a mafia film. Guys like that would kick the Joker's ass for being a flamboyant freak. In the comics, his henchmen were zany wackos in quirky costumes, much like the Joker. They did not look like something out of Goodfellas. What was with the scenes of Batman in Hong Kong? The movie tried to squeeze in unnecessary subplots. I mean, this movie had such a boring, bleak and dull and uninviting atmosphere that even Christian Bale was bored, particularly as his Bruce Wayne character. Speaking of dull and bland, Hans Zimmer's music was a lackluster - The Joker's theme has to be one of the worst theme music ever written for film.

Now let's move on to Harvey Dent. What a rushed character. One minute he's the perfect hero of Gotham and the other he is a serial killer. He should have had his own movie, really. What I found really pathetic is the motive. So he became evil here only because the love of his life Rachel wasn't saved? That was just juvenile to me. So this gritty crime film also wanted to be a romantic tragedy? Sheesh. But setting that aside, I just could not take Dent as Two-Face seriously. No one can turn evil this quickly. And I thought this film was going for realism? Yeah, didn't work. Oh, Joker tells Harvey that he is a man without plans. And yet the Joker is the most scheming and conniving character there is. He's full of plans, alright.

In the film's climax, the Joker expects that one of the ferries will blow up the other, because he complacently thinks that most people are like him, selfish and evil. Well, sorry Nolan, because most humans are actually like that. We fight to survive, one way or the other. Realistically, I don't think a ferry filled with nasty criminals would "sacrifice" themselves. A very naïve way of storytelling here. This movie is basically saying that only Joker is the completely bad person, and the rest are all equally good. No nuance, no middle ground. So if you rightfully wanted a boat filled with felons to blow up to protect your innocent family, you're as evil as the Joker, according to Nolan. Utterly pathetic.

To the last annoying gripe with the film - I still can't ponder why the blame was put on Batman for Two-Face's rampage. That was the cheapest, most absurd gimmick put in film. Why not the Joker? Hell, why not just Harvey himself? Call out the mass murderer and let the world know about the heinous things he did (funnily, Nolan & Co this was wrong, that's why Gordon revealed the truth in TDKR). Again, a gritty crime drama that verges on the unrealistic and the ridiculous. Of course, to romanticize this absurdity they had to write a fancy statement, uttered gallantly by Gordon and backed up with uplifting music, about Batman being the culprit and why they should chase him off. This foolish contrivance did not work for me.

And this is coming from someone who enjoyed Batman Begins - A movie that actually felt like a superhero flick and had a followable, straightforward plot.

Setting aside Jodie Foster's good performance, I thought the film was just terrible. Everything about it is badly aged. This was released in 1976, but it felt more like the mid 1960s. But alright, that can be forgiven. What I despised about this film is that the mother (Mrs Andrews) and daughter (Annabel) switch bodies randomly, out of nowhere. The way the body swap happened in the remake was more profound and eventful. Here, it just happens arbitrarily by them saying they don't want to be themselves (whilst the mother is at home and the daughter is at some dine-in).

One very annoying thing in the film is that the body switch happens way too early and prematurely in the film, I think around 10 minutes in (if not less) - You don't get to see Mrs Andrews and Annabel being themselves, so we can get used to them, see how they're like and how they get along with each other. They only spend like 2 minutes together and off she goes to school. At least in the remake, which is a far superior film, we get to see Anna and her mother Tess as themselves for quite a time until they switch bodies. There was a major character development in the remake that absurdly lacked in this one.

As the film continues, the mother (who is now Annabel) begins to act like a silly 8 year old. If the Razzies existed I would've given the actress a nomination for worst supporting actress, honestly. Apparently, we see that she has a crush on a rather unattractive, geeky looking kid next door who creepily looks and acts like a 11 year old boy. Worse even, he is very unlikable and I just couldn't stand that twerp. Towards the end of the film, we have goofy, tiring scenes of Mrs Andrews as Annabel driving her car around and getting into little accidents whilst being pursued by the police - This had to be the most boring and tedious chase scene in film history, so much that I had to skip parts of it to end the torture.

Yet again, out of nowhere, they randomly switch back by uttering words in the likes of "I want to be myself again" (to paraphrase). What made the remake far more superior is that there was a reason to all this and a person was behind their body swap. In addition to that, there was tension and rather intriguing scenes before they switched bodies in the film. This film just lacked all of this. Did I mention that it was too long for its kind? A silly comedy film that takes place in one day should NOT be over 85 minutes long. This film was about to push 100 minutes.

Please watch the 2003 remake instead with the great Jamie Lee Curtis. Skip this uninspired, monotonous, lacking snoozefest.

I never had a good relationship with "Jaws". I tried to like it. I mean, I really did, but I couldn't. I first watched it back in 2007, in my mid teen days. I really loathed it. I couldn't believe how boring it was. I was pretty taken aback with the exceptional extolment towards it. Film snobs have always worshipped this film. Which makes sense, because of the great Steven Spielberg, the incomparable John Williams and the main cast.

So now in my 30s, I gave "Jaws" a rewatch. Maybe my adolescent mindset in 2007 could not comprehend the cinematic achievements of this film. So I did. But boy, was I wrong. Let's start with the pros. The score by John Williams was fantastic. The man never fails. The direction and cinematography were brilliant. The design of the shark was impeccable. The dialogue was neat. The cast was talented.

Now to the cons. The huge problem was the story and how it dully progressed. The pacing was a drab. I'm not sure why it had to be a 2 hour film. The scenes with Quint, Martin and Matt in the boat in the film's third act seemed to drag and drag. A lot could have been deleted here. Worst of all, there are only four shark attacks in the film. For 1970s, this may be enough for horror movie standards, because of censorship I presume. But still, this is a suspense movie and I was eager for more taut, tense scenes, but we didn't see much of that. No, this doesn't mean I wanted gore and limbs being dismembered. But just some good old suspense.

But why did people love "Jaws" so much? Easy. It was the first of its kind. At least the first significant ''shark movie''. I don't think there were shark attack films before it. Well, one was an unsuccessful 1950s adventure action movie ("The Sharkfighters") and the other was an obscure, cheap Australian horror film from the 1930s ("White Death"). Who even watched those? So it makes sense why "Jaws" was very well praised and enjoyed. It was the first shark movie made with a big production behind it. Not to mention, the nostalgia and the household names that came with the film. If this were made in the early 90s, I do not think that many people would praise it.

I believe deep inside people know that this is a really average movie. Why? Well, they despise the sequels so much. Because the latter "Jaws" movies have a ridiculous storyline anyway - If you don't want to get killed by sharks, easy, get out of the flippin' water. The sequels -- I mean Jaws 3 and 4 -- are only just slightly worse. Jaws 2 is just slightly better, but still a mediocre movie. But movie snobs see this one as The Godfather and Jaws 2 as The Matrix Reloaded, which is amusing to me because "Jaws" and "Jaws 2" are very much alike in the story and technical department. But I digress. It is amazing what bias and favouritism does to people. To me, Jaws 2 is a slight improvement for some of its sustained sense of menace. But still, to me, all of the Jaws films are tremendously flawed, where the franchise crescendos in atrocity with Jaws The Revenge, one of the worst films of all time.

If you're a die-hard musical film fan, you will enjoy this. But if you're not and if you want a film that is more faithful to the book, this movie will disappoint you so badly.

Let's start with the casting. This Matilda, whilst cute, was too angry and menacing. She had this teenage angst, whereas the actual Matilda was pure and innocent. And the "revenge" she sought was done in a mischievous manner, not in a vindictive way, as shown here. Also, in this film, her parents were just background characters and undeveloped. I actually wanted to see more of them, as instead of the boring Miss Phelps character. There was also no Michael, Matilda's spoiled brother - Not sure why? I would've omitted Mrs Phelps instead and included Michael.

I believe her parents needed much more screentime as they were rather major characters in the book and as well in the 1996 film. Nothing against the good actress playing Miss Honey, but Jennifer Honey was always supposed to be Caucasian. There was no point in changing her race. Emma Thompson as Miss Trunchbull was brilliant, rivaling Pam Ferris in the 1996 film. Her onscreen presence was brilliant. The other characters were not that memorable to even be mentioned. This is because we hardly heard their names - Who was Hortensia in this? Lavender? I only picked out Amanda Thripp in the movie, because she was called by name, and as well as Bruce Bogtrotter. The rest were barely mentioned! This just shows that character development in this film was appalling.

The subplot regarding Miss Honey's parents doing acrobatics (boring!) and her cruel step aunt didn't have to be included, or at least it didn't have be shown intermittently throughout the film (even though it is revealed who the step-aunt was at the end of the film). It was the worst thing about the movie. I really couldn't care less about her past nor her parents. If you want to add something that isn't in the book, then make it exciting. All these scenes with that galling subplot (which was a flashback) that wasn't even in the damn book, the woodenly acted Mrs Phelps who had the personality of a 10 year old, and the protracted musical numbers, pushed the film to an unnecessarily overlong 2 hour mark. This wouldn't have had happened if the film were trimmed down.

Whilst the songs were not so bad, I cringed at the theatrical dancing choreography and the surreal images that were exhibited - I disliked the dancing nurses in the hospital at the beginning of the film surrounded by surrealistic pink hues. Also, did the kids have to act out the music with their over the top, theatrical, dance movements? That was totally redundant. This style of dancing may have worked in the theater, but definitely not in film. Another hugely ridiculous thing was the part when the kids sing whilst they fantasize that they're driving and piloting a plane - What was that all about and how does that relate to Matilda? That scene honestly just made me angry as it was completely superfluous. Another was when Matilda was on a balloon above the clouds singing, rather tediously. These "vision songs" were not suited to this film's tone and atmosphere.

P. S. The song "Revolting Children" was a brilliant piece. I would've made a non-musical Matilda with that song's melody occurring as the film's theme. And in the credits, they could play the song with its spoken words, like Titanic did.

It wanted to be a concoction of many genres - A survival thriller? A couple drama? A horror? Or psychological drama? Stephen King thought, how about let's mix up all these and create a good story? Nope, sorry, Stephen King, this "soup" of ideas just didn't work.

The worst thing about the film, I mean the thing that really killed the film, was the backstory of the wife as a 12 year old and her abusive father who molested her (hey, isn't that Elliot from ET?). Totally irrelevant and incongruous to the plot. I couldn't give a rat's behind about her past.

Now I did not mind the wife talking to her imaginary husband (who had died after consensually handcuffing her to the bed) and her alter ego (or whatever that was). At least all these scenes were relevant to the plot and were taking place in the room. That ghoul figure (or Death) that appeared in the film wasn't such a far-fetched idea. But I would've hoped that he had more appearances and a deeper background story about him, because the twist which involved him really didn't astonish me due to the minor role he had in the film.

The biggest letdowns were the flashbacks with the wife as a young teen being molested by her dad, and other scenes pertaining to her youth life. Utterly unnecessary scenes - I am not watching a biography/drama film. A short 80 minute film with the wife hallucinating her husband and the "ghoul" appearing on and off, would have been sufficient, even if repetitive.

The film had a great production with nice sets and costumes, beautiful music, good art direction, etc. The concept is pretty alluring and that is why I watched the film. The movie starts out good, but there was something off about Jim Caviezel. He seemed bland to me. Guy Pearce was excellent as Ferdinand. He made the film watchable to me. Sad that we didn't see too much of his villainous gestures.

Now my biggest issue with the film is the story - Granted, I haven't read the source material. So if I'm criticizing the film's plot then I guess the book goes along with it. So Edmon Dantès is falsely accused of treason by his envious friend Ferdinand and is arrested. He manages to escapes from prison 14 years later. All seems fair enough and graspable. After he "magically" finds the treasure and becomes rich, I begin to really dislike the film. So after all this time no one found it, except for him? That seemed so contrived and far-fetched to me.

Again, this is an issue with the source material. I was reading the negative reviews and people reprimanded the film for not being too faithful. You know what? Maybe if it was even more unfaithful to the book, it may have been a better film? The book was a story of its time. The old cliched "tormented guy becomes magically rich and plans his revenge" has been done ad nauseam. No wonder that this was the last adaptation of the book. We've had enough of this.

My idea of a better plot is Dantès escaping from prison, finding a life of his own, getting work, earning his place, and then planning his revenge. A guy becoming accidentally rich where he gains servants will never be a likable character for me. And why did he have to become wealthy? He really didn't. Anyway, I guess I'm the only negative reviewer here lambasting the absurd plot, as others are saying how unfaithful it is to the source material.

The actress playing Dantès' love interest had a really corny accent. I couldn't stand listening to her when she spoke. But that's still not as unbearable as the film's contrived story.