**Alita: Battle Angel** is an awesome movie. It has great action, an interesting plot, lovable characters, amazing acting by Rosa Salazar and overall it's a wonderful and fun film. It includes some of the best CGI ever created in film. Without a doubt, it is the best manga/anime adaption by Hollywood. I highly recommend this movie. Definitely 10 out of 10.

Definitely a Robert Rodriguez movie, but a Robert Rodriguez movie made with that James Cameron money.
The world building was incredible. Rosa Salazar, Christophe Waltz, and the rest of the cast do a great job. The technical wizardry, not just with the visual effects but the use of 3-D and IMAX was nothing short of dazzling. The action is exhilarating. I'll also take Motorball over podracing or Quidditch any day.
Yes there are problems with the script because James Cameron has never been a strong writer. There is also way too much sequel baiting for my taste. But for a movie like this to come out in a time when all the profitable IPs are getting tedious, Alita Battle Angel was refreshing and tons of fun. Easily the best live action anime film adaptation to date and a kick ass sensory overload.
James Cameron, I would rather you devote time to make more Battle Angel and less Avatar.

I did enjoy _Alita_. It was a great big "pkyew-pkyew" sort of a mess, but I did still walk away having had a pretty good time.
Unfortunately, both Alita(the character)'s romantic interest and _Alita_(the movie)'s romantic plotline I despised. And this aspect took up **so much** on screen realestate that I could never see my way to giving _Alita_ a glowing score, even if everything else about it had been perfect (it wasn't).
An interesting part of the flim though that I also need to touch on is the special effects. They aren't even close to photorealism, but it honestly still totally works, just because there are so many of them. Impressive is the most appropriate word that comes to mind. See, even if the CGI effects don't always sell themselves as reality, the world that they are in fits, it's like how an animated movie doesn't look like real life, but you're still convinced because against its own backdrop, even though maybe they didn't use an actual elephant to play the role of Dumbo, you still believe that he's a real character **in that world**. _Alita's_ sheer abundance of creative, setting driven CGI, blurs the lines between live action and animation, delivering a totally new, unique product.
It's just a shame they couldn't have done that in a better, more coheseive (and less bogged down) narrative.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)
I’m writing this review one day after the Oscars night, and I can guarantee at least one thing: Alita: Battle Angel is getting a Best Visual Effects nomination and it’s probably going to win. Calling it now. There are no words that can describe how immersive, realistic and groundbreaking the IMAX 3D experience is. Weta Digital is undoubtedly the most incredible VFX/CGI company since the beginning of this millennium. From the Lord of the Rings trilogy to the Avatar movie(s) and through the most famous TV series of this time, Game of Thrones, Peter Jackson‘s company keeps surpassing the impossible.
Alita is a mix of Rosa Salazar‘s motion-capture performance and CGI animation, and it’s the most beautiful thing I’ve seen in a long time. Visuals are not the most important aspect of a film, they’re not even the key technical feature. The story and characters are and always will be the necessary ingredients for a movie’s success. That said, I’m also the first to defend that without remarkable technical achievements, a film won’t ever go above “very good.” If you want a movie to be one of the best of the year, a combination of compelling story/characters and great filmmaking attributes is essential. Robert Rodriguez‘s film nails the latter requirement, but has a lot of hits and misses regarding the former.
Like I wrote above, I have no vocabulary to describe how mind-blowing and eyegasmic this movie looks. If you’re intrigued by how fascinated I am, you know what to do: buy an IMAX ticket and watch it. The visuals alone compensate for the price of admission. Besides the jaw-dropping VFX, the sound and production design are unbelievable. I could feel every punch, kick or scream like I rarely feel with other high-budget films. The amount of work that went in to build this world is worthy of recognition, and I honestly hope that by the end of this year, Alita is receiving a whole bunch of nominations for its aesthetics.
I love how anime-like this feels. I didn’t read the original manga, but you will like this movie more if you’re a fan of anime. Rodriguez does a seamless job bringing Iron City to life, and there are tons of nods to how anime stories flow, which will surely please fans of said genre. Sadly, the screenplay isn’t exactly written as it should be. One of the most emotive moments of the film trusts the audience to buy into the romance displayed on-screen, but since it feels very forced from the get-go, this unnecessary subplot carries too much influence on the end result.
In addition to this, James Cameron and his team took a quite questionable decision concerning the main plot, having in mind the marketing surrounding this blockbuster. It’s still a minor spoiler, so I can’t really delve into details, but I’ll write this: the closest the movie gets to its third act, the more worried I became. From the moment the second acts ends, I start realizing something that not a single person working on this film even hinted at. And that was the worst call they could have ever made. Not only it dragged the first half of the movie, but it deeply damaged its narrative.
Once you see this film, you’ll understand what I’m talking about. You’ll get me when I say that the marketing strategy for Alita: Battle Angel ruined its story and it will definitely make a lot of people leave the theater frustrated, just like I did. Hopefully, this was just a misstep that doesn’t affect its box office because this is a movie worthy of watching at a movie theater and ONLY at such place. Yes, it does have issues with its storytelling. It has a whole world that doesn’t fit in just a 2-hour flick, so the plot becomes convoluted and a bit slow. However, I do think critics are being too harsh …
Alita is one of the most complex, intriguing and well-written characters of the last few years. While the screenplay contains fundamental writing flaws, its main protagonist is flawless. Despite still feeling a bit frustrated, I want to rewatch this movie so bad, just to get another opportunity to follow Alita throughout her journey. I love character-driven narratives, especially when the character in question is such a compelling one. Rosa Salazar delivers an amazing mo-cap performance (The Academy wants a new category? Well, Best Motion-Capture Performance suits your ceremony like a glove). Alita and Salazar share resemblances that can only be achieved with the unique camera-setup and technology that the production team had at their display, which is something pretty outstanding.
Christoph Waltz brilliantly portrays Ido, as expected from such a high-caliber actor. Mahershala Ali (Vector) and Jennifer Connelly (Chiren) are underused, but they make their characters work for the story. Keean Johnson is fine as Hugo, but he’s connected to one of the film’s major issues. Everyone else is pretty great, each performance elevates their respective character, which helps move the plot forward. However, it all goes back to Salazar‘s remarkable performance and the way she and Alita carried the whole thing to safe harbor. Hollywood, put your eyes on this girl!
Finally, the action. Oh my God! The action scenes are some of the most entertaining, riveting and thrilling sequences I’ve seen since Mission: Impossible - Fallout. While the latter based its action on real jaw-dropping stunts, Alita: Battle Angel probably delivers some of the best animated action ever. The motorball sequences are impossible of getting your eyes off-screen, and the fights that Alita goes through are so well-crafted. Honestly, I’m even scared of how these look in regular 2D. I doubt they feel seamless and flow as perfect as they do in IMAX 3D, so be careful with which choice you make. In my opinion …
Alita: Battle Angel is one of those movies that you HAVE TO watch at a movie theater, especially on IMAX 3D. You will not be able to grasp or feel the astonishingly immersive world that James Cameron produced, nor the powerful sound design. Its visuals effects are groundbreaking, and I promise you’ve never seen such a mixture of real and animation like this. Beautiful or gorgeous are not adjectives enough to describe the world where Alita lives. It’s a visual experience, so do waste your time and money in supporting this film.
I can’t deny neither its storytelling problems or the damaging marketing surrounding this blockbuster. However, Rosa Salazar‘s terrific performance and Alita as the protagonist are more than enough reasons to make you feel entertained and captivated until the very end. The action is mind-blowing, and I’m not lying when I state that it contains some of the best animated sequences ever. I left the theater frustrated, but I can’t wait to see it again on the big screen. Alita alone deserves that effort.
Rating: B+

I quite enjoyed this movie. Of course it was a good start that it was directed by Robert Rodriguez. It is perhaps a bit of a young adult movie but that did not stop this old fart from enjoying it.
I guess most people know the basic premise of the movie. It is based on a Japanese cyberpunk manga. Alita, a cyborg, is found by Dr. Ido. She is reawakened, given a new body (two actually), she is much more than she seems and … she kicks ass.
The movie plays out in a somewhat post apocalyptic world although it is not as dark and depressing as many post apocalyptic scenarios. It is actually quite colorful and sometimes both funny and cool. A lot of people, if not most of them, in this world are cybernetically enhanced. Alita herself is a “full body conversion”. It is a quite detailed world full of pretty cool cyberpunk gadgets.
The various cyborgs themselves are of course the “main feature” of the movie. They range in a wide variety from fairly human-like to cyborg tanks. Most of them wielding various kinds of bladed weapons. Of course the CGI and the various action scenes are top notch. Alita is really cool when she gets going with her ass-kicking.
Story? Well it is manga of course so it is pretty simple but having said that it’s not bad at all. I definitely feel there is some elements from Rollerball in the no rules racing and ball chasing games which is a centerpiece of the story.
One thing that I liked immensely is that there is really no preaching in this movie. No green nonsense and no social crap. Maybe that’s because it’s based on a Japanese manga and the Japanese has not yet developed the easily offended SJW mob that plagues all too many western countries nowadays. I know there’s a bunch of SJW retards that manages to cram some feminist message into it and another bunch that claims Alita is too pretty. Well if you like cyborgs with eyes like golf balls maybe but these asshats should perhaps stop their ranting and take a serious look at their sexual preferences in that case.
The only thing that I was not too happy about was that there is no real ending to it and what is there is rather sad. This Nova guy pulling the strings up in Zalem, the cloud city, is never even touched and the ending scenes just shows him smiling like a huge cliffhanger. I guess I should not be surprised because him and his cloud city is the foundation of this manga world so for the story to continue in a possible sequel that had to be kept but still … it irked me somewhat.

James Cameron has spent more than a decade trying to bring Alita: Battle Angel to the big screen. Based on a popular cyberpunk manga series by Yukito Kishiro, published between 1990-1995, he has spent that time refining the script and developing the world that Alita inhabits. And that’s pretty much what he now spends most of his time taking care of with the Avatar movies and the world of Pandora. Hence the reason why he eventually decided to step back into producer duties for this movie, letting Robert Rodriguez pick up the directing reins in order to finally get it finished. Rodriguez uses much of the script that Cameron wrote, but brings a little bit of his trademark style to the table too.
It’s 2563, and we’re in Iron City. Dr Dyson Ido (Christoph Waltz) is scavenging among a huge scrapyard, looking for cyborg spare parts that he can make use of, while fresh metal and rubbish rains down from Zalem – a man-made, floating city sitting in the sky above Iron City. 300 years ago there were many of these floating cities but following a brutal war all of them except for Zalem perished. During that time though, the elevator leading up to Zalem was destroyed, and these days only the ‘pure’ inhabitants of Zalem are permitted there. Nobody from Earth is allowed to visit and if anyone comes down from Zalem, they’re not allowed back. It’s to try and avoid any contamination from entering Zalem. If you’ve seen the Matt Damon movie Elysium… well, then it’s a bit like that really.
Among the usual items, such as robotic hands and eyeballs, Dr Ido discovers Alita, or rather the core of Alita – lying lifeless and broken, with only a battered hairless head and upper torso remaining. He takes her back to his laboratory/home, where he works as a cybernetics expert, repairing and upgrading the inhabitants of Iron City who are either cyborgs or humans with cyborg body parts. Along with his assisting nurse, and using a robotic body that had been previously built for his now deceased daughter (this gets briefly explained later), they rebuild her, giving her the name Alita (also his daughters name). Alita awakens later in a nice comfortable bed, in what was presumably Dr Ido’s daughters room. She has no memory of her previous existence and sets about experiencing all the sights, sensations and tastes that human life and Iron City has to offer, exploring and striking up a friendship with local boy Hugo and his group of friends. But, as the name of the movie implies, this cyborg was built for battle, and it’s not long before Alita begins to remember who exactly she used to be and just how good at kicking ass she is.
A quick word about the visuals, as they are by far the best thing about this movie. Iron City, despite clearly being a futuristic world, is certainly not dark or bleak looking in the way we’re used to with similar movies of this genre. Many of the early scenes take place during daylight hours and the city is a vibrant, bright, bustling home to thousand of humans and cyborgs. We get to go beyond the limits of Iron City – the city walls, out to the badlands beyond, and as you’d expect from Cameron a lot of thought and detail has gone into mapping out and building this world. The cyborgs and the other robots we meet are all pretty standard for a movie of this kind, but it’s Alita that is the most impressive. Much of this is down to the incredible CGI involved in making her look as realistic as she does, but a lot of what makes her so enjoyable and believable is down to Rosa Salazar, whose motion captured performance helps bring her to life. The visuals are obviously at their most impressive during the battle scenes involving Alita – where so many movies with heavy CGI battles end up as just a messy whirlpool of characters and action, that’s certainly not the case here. Slick, inventive and exhilarating choreography allowing you to actually track and follow every single character and action in crisp detail. It’s refreshing and impressive, even more so when watched in 3D and particularly so during the fast paced Motorball scenes featured towards the end of the movie.
Outside of the visuals though, other characters and plot lines don’t seem to stick so well, which is disappointing considering the rich source material available to the film makers. Alita: Battle Angel suffers from inconsistent pacing, dialogue that is clunky and exposition-heavy and there are many times when the accompanying soundtrack just felt distracting to me, out of place with whatever is currently happening. Christoph Waltz, Mahershala Ali and Jennifer Connolly all seem overqualified and underutilised, and the romance between Alita and Hugo is unnecessary, and at times annoying. It feels like it’s trying to cram too much story into its two hour run time, resulting in plot holes and frustrations later on. And there is even a cliffhanger ending – frustrating in that it feels as though we haven’t even properly concluded this part of the story and we’re now being left to wait should a sequel ever be given the go ahead.
I found much to enjoy with Alita: Battle Angel, and would gladly go see a sequel or two, should they get made. It’s enjoyable at times, and dazzling to look at, but overall it did leave me feeling a little bit frustrated and disappointed.

"Godzilla" is the sort of cinematic gift that keeps on giving, and the hunkily beefed-up Aaron Taylor-Johnson is always worth looking at - but sadly, neither of these features do enough to rescue this from a sort of disappointingly derivative mediocrity. This iteration of the plot picks up the story many years after a nuclear disaster in Japan. "Ford" (ATJ) is the son of the plant supervisor "Joe" (Bryan Cranston). They are not exactly close, but when they discover evidence near the ruins that the destruction was not accidental - and that a giant trapped, flying, "MUTO" - which feeds on radiation - might well be coming for more lunch, they can only hope that "Godzilla" might become aware and come to the rescue of a totally out-gunned mankind. It's a bit of a sprawler, this film. It takes far too long to get going, with characterisations that offer little of substance and a dialogue that borders on the inane - especially when the military are involved. The supporting cast features a sparingly used Juliette Binoche and Elisabeth Olsen, but they aren't really on screen long enough to add much value. On the plus side, the photography and visual effects are good - they flow with a realism that is quite convincing, but that's standard fayre nowadays for this kind of adventure. The rest of the photography really could have done with some more wattage. Darkness can add eeriness to a scenario, but after a while I do want to recalibrate my eyes! The ending is certainly effective, but I'm just not sure it was worth the wait - the whole film just needed something to bring it to life more.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
It's not easy to start off a new cinematic universe. The first installment must be an undeniable success on almost all fronts for the franchise to take off. From interesting world-building to delivering a good first film, it's a brutally challenging task for any director and writer to take on. Godzilla has been around forever, but Warner Bros. And Legendary Entertainment bravely brought on an inexperienced filmmaker, Gareth Edwards (Monsters), and a debutant screenwriter, Max Borenstein, to handle yet another version of the Godzilla story. Expectations-wise, I know that audiences look at this type of movie from an action-heavy perspective. A massive majority of the viewers just want to see monsters fighting, which is understandable.
I enjoy a big battle as much as any other moviegoer, but I do desire a remotely decent story. When it comes to this particular genre, I don't ask for an Oscar-worthy screenplay that leaves me floored by the end of the film. I don't need incredibly complex, multi-layered characters with exquisite motivations. I don't even mind heavy exposition as long as it's not overdone and sluggish. With that said, I also don't want the most annoying, cliche archetypes nor nonsensical plot points. I genuinely hate myself when I get too nitpicky with "movie logic" issues, but when the characters make the most ridiculously absurd decisions that no sane human being would make, then the film is really asking for a negative commentary.
Borenstein - who goes on to co-write two of the following three installments in the MonsterVerse - gets close to a perfectly balanced narrative, which in this genre is related to the amount of screentime allocated to humans and monsters. This movie can't just be Godzilla fighting a random monster since the visually appealing, constant battles would lose impact with time (besides the lack of a story), but it also can't waste all of its duration with the human characters - after all, the film is titled Godzilla, not The Brody Family. Audiences all over the world enter their respective theaters to be blown away by the action, visuals, score, and be thoroughly entertained by titans punching each other to death.
Several characters carry surprisingly compelling arcs, especially Ford and Joe Brody. The father-son relationship between Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Kickass) and Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad, Argo) feels authentic, with both having a common unsolved problem from their past that links to the King of the Monsters. The emotional attachment to this family elevates the dangerous sequences that the movie holds throughout its runtime. Cranston offers an undeniable commitment to his role, while Taylor-Johnson demonstrates some of the talent that would later be discovered by Marvel. Ken Watanabe (Inception, Batman Begins) is a fantastic addition to the cast as Dr. Ishiro Serizawa, a scientist who fortunately doesn't follow the formulaic development usually thrown at this type of character. Elizabeth Olsen (Oldboy, Martha Marcy May Marlene) and Sally Hawkins (Blue Jasmine, Happy-Go-Lucky) also get a bit of screentime, but they're basically just "people close to the important characters".
Gareth Edwards admittedly loves the Godzilla lore, but any viewer can tell the great care that both Edwards and Borenstein have with their characters. More screentime is handed to humanity than to the monsters, which will undoubtedly disappoint many fans. While I do feel invested in the protagonists, too much time is spent with the military, where countless exposition scenes drag the overall narrative. The suspenseful build-up to the climactic third act is efficient, but the action is frustratingly hidden from the viewers. Most of the titanic battles are seen through the windows of a car, train, building, or even TVs. The main problem with the film isn't spending time with humans when the monsters aren't fighting but choosing to remain with these characters even when Godzilla and co. Enter the scene.
Titans are fighting right behind the camera, and they keep the audience either entirely in the dark or just partially show a section of the battle. Most of the shots are ground-level, usually showing the POV of a certain character. While that brings a higher sense of danger and desperation to the screen, it also generates a frustrating feeling in the audience who's not seeing Godzilla fighting in its full splendor. I understand that part of this decision might be related to some less polished VFX, and in all honesty, despite the rare wide shots of the monsters, the action is definitely entertaining and quite riveting. Alexandre Desplat's score is vibrant, and the actual monsters look gorgeous in the purposefully dark environment (helps to hide visual imperfections), especially Godzilla.
Godzilla focuses more on the human characters than on the monster fights, and despite the narrative balance needing some adjustments, it surprisingly works quite well. As the first installment in the MonsterVerse, Gareth Edwards and Max Borenstein deliver an incredibly compelling story on the human side, fully developing the main characters and handing them interesting arcs. Most of the runtime is spent with these protagonists, which will undoubtedly disappoint some fans who crave the titanic battles, but the suspenseful build-up works in favor of the climactic third act. However, choosing to remain with the humans when the monsters are already fighting in the background is a questionable decision that leaves an extremely frustrating feeling in the audience. Cast, visuals, and score seem to hit the right notes, but the actual combat is rarely seen in its full glory - most of it is shown through a ground-level character's perspective - partially due to the necessity of hiding some VFX imperfections. Still, it's an utterly enjoyable monster flick that sets up a pretty entertaining cinematic universe.
Rating: B+

OK, let me start off by saying that the new Godzilla is definitely an entertaining movie and well worth the price of an admission ticket. That is – so long as you go into it with popcorn-level expectations. Now, it has to be said that the bar, since the most recent attempt by Roland Emmerich in 1998 (which was hilarious at best) wasn't set particularly high, to say it nicely. So in all honesty, with today's budget and special effects, it never had big chance of being that bad. But I have to admit, judging from the trailer – I thought it would be better.
It starts off pretty good. There is proper story build-up and character lay-out. Where we are – what's happening... It's all there. In fact, the story revolving around the main characters is pretty dramatic from the get-go. Death in the family, trauma leading to obsession over finding the truth surrounding the circumstances. Bryan Cranston is impressive as the family father and science guy. He just knows something is up concerning some big beastie and he won't let up until he figures it out. That is – if he gets the chance. Something happens around one third into the movie that is a pivotal turning point in the story. I knew this immediately when it happened and in the end I realised that I had been correct.
From this point on, it's out with the story and in with the action. An almost mind-numbing, pummelling assault of non-stop action. I'm not saying it's bad, I'm just saying it's a lot less interesting than it could have been.
Here's the deal: instead of just one Big Monster, they bring in three. One Godzilla, and two huge insect-like creatures that are only designated as MUTO (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Object). Seriously, they couldn't come up with a proper name? And instead of Godzilla being the big threat to mankind, the MUTO are. In fact, Godzilla turns out to be the good guy because he's the only one that can defeat these insect creeps. This story line is factor one in the reason that this movie isn't what it could have been. Factor two is the plot point that these creatures all feed on nuclear energy instead of "manburgers". Consequently, the only real threat they pose is the massive destruction they cause in big cities (and obviously, the human lives that become casualties by default). It's because of this that there is never any real sense of threat or danger. They don't hunt us, they don't care about us. All they want is nuclear energy and a place to breed. What's worse is, these MUTO take screen time and attention away from the monster who's supposed to be the main antagonist and namesake of the movie! It might as well have been called "Big Creepy Insects" instead of "Godzilla"...
In the end, what we're left with is billions of dollars worth of collateral damage and a big-ass monster who's really kind of a nice guy. Weird.
Still, it's certainly not bad. Aaron Taylor-Johnson does his best at looking very serious and all grown up since his Kick-Ass days, although I am certain that this is definitely one of his less compelling roles. The problem is that from the 1/3 turning point that I mentioned, his character becomes very formulaic and cliché. Our hero even shares an intimate moment of eye contact with Godzilla in the end... Aww.
_(May 2014)_

The big atomic lizard gets another make over.
Back in 1954 Ishirô Honda introduced to the film world Gojira, a creature that is still today seen as viable cinematic interest. Gojira, in spite of being a man in a rubber suit monster movie, is a smart and feisty film. Tapping into an oppressive nuclear age via moody atmospherics, whilst simultaneously imbuing plenty of creature feature carnage, it got the balance right. The makers of Godzilla 2014 have tried to do the same, they look back fondly to the original wave, pay it respect, but sadly they don't quite pull it off.
Plot essentially finds the world under attack by some Kaiju (MUTO) monsters after humans keep dabbling in all things nuclear. The end is nigh, that is unless mankind can find an ally in Godzilla, an almighty prehistoric type lizard who itself is a product of some prior nuclear shenanigans.
The human plot strands feature the usual secretive government suits mixing with science guys, all looking worried or running around in a fretful state. There's a father and son axis - with the son a bad ass army guy who has a loving wife and child back home. Characters are many, and they take up a good portion of the film, unfortunately very few of them are interestingly written, which is a shame given the pic is packed with acting talent.
It's a two hour plus movie, with the build up being very prolonged, with Zilla not showing up till the hour mark. This renders the main monster as a bit player in its own movie, a mistake often made by others in many a sequel to Honda's original. There's also the irritating fact that what all good Zilla movies need is a shed load of monster mayhem, plenty of smack-downs, but sadly they are in short supply here and are often rendered as background staples. Until the finale that is.
It takes a long time to get there, and thankfully saving the pic from below average hell, it's not a let down. It thrills and opens up the eyes and ears considerably, and fans of all things Zilla will get goosebumps upon the arrival of the electrical charge and breathing of nuclear fire sequence. But with that comes the annoyance that the good technical craft within the piece has previously been used sparingly, the decision to put bland characters at the forefront instead of cinema's most famous monster proving to be a huge error.
The makers have to considerably up their game for the planned sequels that will feature other legendary creatures. 6.5/10

**Fundamentals, reception.**
1. American/Japanese live action feature length film, 2014, PG-13, 123 minutes, science fiction, action, thriller. The spoken word is in English, with some sub-titled Japanese.
2. IMDB: 6.6/10.0 from 239,012 audience ratings.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 74% on the meter (average 6.6/10); 67% liked it from 171,052 audience ratings.
4. I saw this film off DVR from Cinemax.
5. Directed by: Gareth Edwards.
6. **Starring**: Bryan Cranston as Joe Brody, Ken Watanabe as Dr. Ishiro Serizawa, Juliette Binoche as Sandra Brody, Sally Hawkins as Dr. Vivienne Graham, Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Ford Brody, Carson Bolde as Sam Brody, David Strathairn as Admiral William Stenz, Elizabeth Olsen as Elle Brody.
7. Demographic targets: Godzilla fans, action fans, international market.
8. (from Box Office Mojo) Estimated production budget, 160 million USD. Estimated gross revenue as of 01jan2015: States, 200.7 million USD (38%); overseas, 328.0 million USD (62%).
**Setup and Plot**
1. In the opening sequence, Joe Brody, his wife Sandra and son Ford are in Japan. Joe and Sandra work at a project that aims to contain some unexplained phenomena involving huge amounts of energy and a partially buried large object. The object turns out to be living, breaks much of the containment apparatus, and causes widespread tragedy. A heavier blanket of secrecy is applied.
2. Jump forward to the present. Ford is grown up, is in the US armed services, and has a wife Elle and son Sam in San Francisco. Ford gets a call from Joe, then goes to Japan to get him out of jail. While Ford helps out Joe, the object (a 'muto') revives, breaks free this time, and flies away, leaving even more destruction and death than in years before.
3. A second, larger muto awakens in Nevada. The two mutos are tracked by the US Navy, which is now actively involved. The mutos' activity awakens Godzilla from his long slumber in the Pacific.
4. Ford and Dr. Serizawa are drawn into the military's quest to contain the mutos. Elle and Sam are at risk as the three giants converge on San Francisco.
**Observations**
1. True to tradition in Godzilla movies, human activity is depicted as futile. Most human efforts against giant monsters have no noticeable effect. The rest of our efforts catalyse the monsters to rain down more destruction on human cities and military personnel.
2. In a few of the many Godzilla films I have seen, a child is rescued, or a trapped helpless person is released. But for each such action, thousands of human lives are lost, and tens of billions of dollars of real estate value are zeroed out. The contrast accentuates the helplessness of the human race against forces it cannot control and never will control.
3. In a slight departure from what I'm used to in the Godzilla universe, a human being does something that will make the survival of the human race more likely. Watch the film; you can't miss it.
4. Godzilla causes a huge amount of property damage and loss of life, though not nearly as much as the mutos cause. The case could be made that Godzilla in this film, as in many others, is indifferent to the fate of the human race. He does in the mutos in order to get back to his snooze beneath the Pacific.
5. **One line summary:** Godzilla saves humanity from the mutos in an 8 minute appearance.
6. Three stars of five.
**Scores**
1. **Cinematography**: 8/10 Some of the SFX were cheesy, but most were fabulous.
2. **Sound**: 7/10 Few complaints. I could hear the dialog. The music was not too irritating.
3. **Acting**: 6/10 Bryan Cranston, Ken Watanabe, Juliette Binoche, David Strathairn, and Sally Hawkins were fine in their limited roles. Aaron Taylor-Johnson's performance was both boring (beginning) and believably heroic (toward the end), so I ended up liking him.
4. **Screenplay**: 6/10 The director stayed true to the franchise, but with updated SFX and a few other adjustments. The holes in the plot, though, seemed endless.

Why must Hollywood scriptwriters of some genres of movies, especially monster, superhero and horror movies, so often think that the audience are total idiots? Or maybe they themselves are severely lacking in brainpower and do not understand the level of trash in what they spew out. In Godzilla scriptwriter Dave (David) Callaham should have a special dishonourable mention for ruining a promising movie.
The movie started of with the obligatory nuclear power plant scenes. When it started I first thought, oh no not the blame nuclear power scare again. However, as it turned out, this was not so. Unfortunately, this was pretty much the only good part in the entire script. The rest of the script is just a collection of illogical, unintelligent garbage.
It starts quite quickly when Ford’s father suddenly pulls of his mask, takes a sniff, and declares that there is no radioactivity in the air. Only a scientifically ignorant idiot writes something like that. Then we have the scene were the soldiers rush into The Nevada nuclear waste facility and checks the inspection hatch on every door until they find one where there is a light only to discover that the monster have broken free and left a gargantuan hole. A huge monster have broken through the walls of a nuclear waste facility leaving a whole big enough to drive a battleship through and no one would have noticed until some marines goes around and inspects the doors on the inside? Again, you have to be pretty unintelligent to write a scene like that.
The entire plot is basically the same unintelligent mess. They follow the creatures around until they reach civilization. First then do they actually try and do something. That is just so nonsensical. In the case that a huge city-destroying creature would approach any large population center it would be blasted way before it reached it. Also, when they do attack they fire some light weaponry and maybe a tank gun or two against it. If millions of people were at risk I think it is not a very far fetched belief that the military would throw everything they had at the threat. And do not get me started on the hair-brained scheme of luring out the monsters to the sea with a nuke. What a load of bullocks!
Okay, so with all this ranting, why did I give the movie as much as 6 out of 10 stars? Well, I am a fan of huge monster movies and the parts where the monsters rampage around destroying things or slugging it out against each others are great. Unfortunately this is pretty much the good that can be said about this movie.

Muito bom.
Mas tem partes que é uma seca.

I suppose we could have guessed from Randy Newman's wild west type opening theme that we were in for something... just not, maybe, an insect version of the "Magnificent Seven"! The ants slave away day in day out to pick a harvest that they leave as an offering for the marauding grasshoppers. Thing is, the enthusiastic (and annoying) "Flik" likes to try his hand at inventing things and after creating his own type of combine harvester finds himself left above ground and managing to tip the assembled food down a hole in the ground. Needless to say the hungry bugs aren't happy - they vow to return after the next harvest and woe betide the ants if there's not a feast awaiting them. The Queen and her daughter "Princess Atta" know they've no hope, so when "Flik" offers to ride far and wide to assemble a gang to defend them all, they cheerfully see him off as a liability they can do without. Can he get together a group of formidable defenders for his seemingly doomed colony and redeem himself? It's quite a well paced story this, with loads of different, vibrantly coloured, critters, but there's no getting away from the fact that "Flik" is just a pain in the neck - and after a while of the fairly constant barrage of verbiage - there is a great deal of dialogue here - I found my attention wandering a bit. The last ten minutes are quite fun, and I did quite like the denouement - but the rest of this was just a wee bit too repetitive for me.

I'm not really into a lot of kid movies. My daughter made me watch this with her. It was a ok movie. It was something different to see. I'd probably never watch it again unless of course my daughter wants me to again.

A thoroughly enjoyable production from Disney and Pixar.
'A Bug’s Life' cobbles together nice animation, fun characters and a memorable voice cast. The premise is entertaining, as the film flies through its 95 minute run time. The score is pretty solid, also.
Dave Foley is good in the role of Flik, while Kevin Spacey is actually great as Hopper; shame about the actor himself, obviously. There's a load of other noteworthy members of the voice cast, including Julia Louis-Dreyfus (Atta), Hayden Panettiere (Dot), Bonnie Hunt (Rosie) and John Ratzenberger (P.T.) as well as many others - one of the studios' best casts.
I actually prefer, somewhat controversially I guess, 'Antz' to this - only marginally though, as I truly like them both. I'd say watch the pair, if you can!

The like... sixth-best version of _Seven Samurai_ to date.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

_**The "Apocalypse Now" of superhero films**_
Based on Alan Moore's graphic novel, 2009's "Watchmen" takes place in an alternative 1985 where Nixon is serving his fifth term and costumed vigilantism is illegal. A former masked crimefighter named The Comedian is murdered, prompting his previous teammates to investigate the crime. Things get complicated as the backstories of most of the Watchmen are revealed and worldwide nuclear war looms.
For some reason I was never interested in the Watchmen and therefore never read the graphic novel, even though I had the opportunity. Why? The fact that it took place in an alternative reality turned me off, as did the peculiarities of the team members which, I later discovered, Moore intended as satire. That said, this is mind-blowing. "Watchmen" is an adult-oriented superhero flick with a convoluted plot, strong characters and total originality. The latter two score high marks with me any day.
Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) stands out with his gravelly voice and right-wing ideology, although he's not very likable. He's impressive yet, at the same time, kind of pathetic. The character was based on Steve Ditko's The Question.
The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) exudes great charisma and is reminiscent of The Punisher, if he were a jokester. Unfortunately, The Comedian's arrogant & hotheaded and has a weakness towards the ladies, not to mention cold-blooded murder.
Night Owl (Patrick Wilson) is another strong character, obviously based on Batman or Blue Beetle. Unlike the previous two he's very likable. I always thought his costume looked really lame in the graphic novel but, as depicted in the film, it kicks axx.
Dr. Manhattan (Greg Plitt), named for the Manhattan Project and based on Captain Atom with a dash of Mr. Fantastic, is an almost God-like being who can do pretty much anything. He's so detached from the human experience that he walks around totally nude and has no time for his woman, Silk Spectre II. He'd rather hang out on Mars -- literally!
Silk Spectre II (Malin Akerman) stands out due to her sexy costume more than anything else, not to mention Akerman's drop-dead-gorgeous looks. The character was based on Phantom Lady and Black Canary. Silk can't handle Dr. Manhattan's increasing aloofness and consequently diverts to Night Owl for human warmth.
Silk Spectre (Carla Gugino) is Silk Spectre II's mother and has a pretty significant part. Like her daughter, she's hot, albeit in a whole different way.
Ozzyosbourne, whoops, I mean Ozymandias (Matthew Goode) is the least developed character and loosely based on Charlton Comic's Thunderbolt. He's ultra-smart, ultra-quick and kinda foppish.
Another highlight is the hypnotic score by Tyler Bates mixed with a quality soundtrack (e.g. "The Sound of Silence," "All Along the Watchtower," etc.)
BOTTOM LINE: The film is long, dark, mature, dialogue-driven and convoluted, but the strong characters and originality win the day. No moronic "blockbuster" trash here. Not to mention Silk Spectre II and her mother are extremely easy on the eyes. As far as superhero flicks go, there's really nothing else like "Watchmen." It's even more atypical than the X-Men and easily one of my favorite superhero flicks, maybe even THE favorite. "Watchmen" is like the "Apocalypse Now" of superhero films!
RUNTIME: Theatrical Cut: 162 minutes; Director's Cut: 186 minutes; The Ultimate Cut: 215 minutes
COMPARING CUTS: I own both the theatrical cut and Director's Cut. Although the theatrical version is just fine, the DC is worthwhile for extended dialogue to existing scenes in the theatrical cut; the biggest addition is an attack on Night Owl's Mentor, Hollis Mason, at the hands of a thug gang and Night Owl's subsequent brutal revenge at a bar. Despite the convoluted plot, I had no problem following the story in the theatrical cut, even though I've never read the graphic novel. The filmmakers did an excellent job cutting out the fat in the theatrical version. So don't think you'll need to purchase the DC to understand the story; it's not necessary. My recommendation is to check out the theatrical version first and only purchase the DC if the theatrical cut left you wanting even more, which is what it did for me. Even so, I PREFER the theatrical cut; it's leaner and just all-around better.
GRADE: A

Click here for a video version of this review: youtu.be/2tkzmGjXfdE
_Watchmen_ polarised audiences when it arrived in theatres in 2009. Coming not long after Marvel's _Iron Man_ many were expecting a fun action oriented super hero movie. _Watchmen_ however, is not that kind of movie. Just like the source material it comes from, this is a dark and brooding film that deals with some complicated questions.
Here is the official description:
_In a gritty and alternate 1985 the glory days of costumed vigilantes have been brought to a close by a government crackdown, but after one of the masked veterans is brutally murdered, an investigation into the killer is initiated. The reunited heroes set out to prevent their own destruction, but in doing so uncover a sinister plot that puts all of humanity in grave danger._
Starting off with a fantastic montage that, with barely a word, fills you in on the alternate history of the movie, and the timeline of things leading up to the start of the main story, Watchmen does a great job of building this world you are about to inhabit for two hours and 45 minutes. The characters are strong, and develop logically over the course of the film, and you can really feel their sense of despair or feeling of not belonging. I think of all the comic book movies I've seen, this one captures best those feelings the characters have of being lonely outsiders. Rorschach's commitment to the truth in the movie leads to a brilliant defining moment was where it all just bursts out from him. It was very well done. He, as a character, is so good that I think he deserves his own movie in the same noir-ish style.
The length and style of this will turn a lot of people off, it is much more of a character piece than a big explosive action extravaganza. In my opinion, it's one of the better comic book movies out there.
Top all that off with a fantastic sound track of 1980s music and this is a pretty good package. If you like bright lights and shiny tights, this is not the comic book movie for you. If however you like a super hero movie with some depth and that deals with some philosophical questions this will give you a lot more to chew over than some other DC adaptations.

As humans, we are drawn to what inspires us, interests us, and tickles our fancy. Human opinion can be a fickle thing, especially when it comes to film, books, and music, due to this the message that is interwoven through these mediums are missed by all of us simply because we won't take the time to watch, read or listen to what is being said to us.
The message throughout Watchman and Tales of The Black Freighter in film and more importantly in graphic novel form is that we as humans try so hard to make the world a better place, but being pushed so far while trying to rid the world of evil we become the very thing we're fighting against, sometimes this a fact we do not see, or we do when it's too late. When Alan Moore wrote the story for the graphic novel, he did so at the height of this planet's greatest threat of nuclear annihilation; The Cold War, The U.S. and Russia at a stalemate over nuclear arms, and Russia's invasion of Afghanistan, had meant that at any moment millions of people on this planet could have met a brutal end.
As far as the story goes, this is a concept that has been warped, and manipulated into a alternate universe where in 1985 Richard Nixon has changed the constitution of the USA and made it allowable for him to serve more than 2 terms of Presidency, it's also a universe where in the times after WWII ordinary citizens decided that crime and corruption throughout America, and especially New York had gotten to levels beyond the control of authorities that they would suit up as masked vigilantes, and fight crime head on. By 1985 masked heroes are outlawed, and former "heroes" were forced to reveal themselves, or stay hidden, but give up their lifestyle.
The story of the most part is told through the eyes of one character Rorschach (Haley) as he investigates the murder of a fellow vigilante, The Comedian (Morgan). Rorschach is the only vigilante who has not given up the lifestyle, and is wanted by the F.B.I. Rorschach tries to re-engage the remaining "heroes" to help him find the murderer, and get to the heart of why he was murdered. The other "heroes" are Night Owl II (Wilson); an aging recluse who inherited a fortune from his father and used it to engage in vigilante activities, Silk Spectre II (Ackerman); daughter of an original Minutewoman (Cugino), Ozymandias (Goode), a self made millionaire who has modeled himself and his life on Alexander the Great, and Dr. Manhattan (Crudup), the only real superhero due an accident in a atomic chamber in a lab when he was a physicist.
The film follows pretty closely the themes and tone of the book, much more than any comic related movie before it, thanks mostly to the dedication of director Zack Snyder. The look and feel of the film to date it in 1985 was very well handled, and can certainly be called a period piece due to the level of exact detail through-out. Performances are in general pretty well done, and reflect the emotions of the characters in the book, as this is the Ultimate Cut, the extended scenes, plus the interwoven story of the comic book within a comic book; "Tales of The Black Freighter" make for a film that is worthy of its 215 minute length. Having said that they leave well and truly enough of the story in the theatrical cut where the message still shines through.
The credits for this film are the best I have ever seen, using the Bob Dylan song "The Times They Are A-Changing", and features snapshots of the highs and lows of the Minutemen and Watchmen from the 1940's through to the 1980's against the backdrop of important cultural and political icons and events.
This movie is easily one of my favourites of the modern age of film, because of the well delivered message, and the uncompromised approach to bring the graphic novel to life.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)
First of all, this review is based on the theatrical version of Watchmen. Usually, Director's Cuts or Ultimate Editions are not preferred over the original release. Few films benefit from them, and most are simply an extended cut with a bunch of deleted scenes. It's only fair and rational that a reviewer watches the version which the whole world saw at the theaters at the respective time. With that said, despite knowing the story of the source material, I never indeed read it. Having in mind that most of the "hate" that this Zack Snyder's movie received is from comic-book purists (basically, every book/comic/game/whatever-lover who defends that any cinematic adaptations of any of these sources MUST be 100% the same, with no modifications whatsoever), I'm certain an unbiased perspective is the way to go.
And overall, this is a good feature. Watchmen isn't just another CBM (comic-book movie). It doesn't just follow one hero vs. one villain. It's a whole world (in today's standards, it's really a cinematic universe) of "superheroes" meant to be explored in fine detail (hence the release of a TV show today... reviewing that later). It's an extremely complex world that needs to be thoroughly explained in order to deeply understand how it works, and what's everyone's role in it. This is the film's main problem: it struggles to juggle all of its different storylines and distinct characters. Even with 163min of runtime, it's impossible to squeeze in all of the necessary information.
So, as expected, Snyder and his team of screenwriters had to simplify, shorten, or even wholly dismiss some story elements that would only stretch the runtime to an unfathomable length. Some of the adaptations work brilliantly, but some fail to give a character its importance or offer no interest to a subplot. However, it's still easy to understand everything, and how the ending is going to unravel, which leads me to my second issue with the movie: its final act's heavy exposition.
Like I wrote above, there is a lot of information to deliver. What Snyder did very well was to tell most of it through flashbacks or captivating conversations, but in the final act, where everything was self-explanatory and in no need of more exposition, there is an excess of redundant dialogue that doesn't really add anything relevant. What the characters are saying is significant, yes, but we, as the audience, already know all of that way before the film's climax. It's ironic how they make a joke about villains telling their masterplan to the hero and how this villain isn't dumb enough to do it, but then proceed to carefully explain everything (that we know already) through exposition.
Sincerely, these are the major problems that I have with the movie. However, I love so much about everything else. From the appropriated and fun soundtracks to the beautiful production design, Zack Snyder and his crew really do a fantastic work technically. Snyder's style captures Watchmen's world perfectly. It's one of those films that carry a "feel" due to its stylish cinematography. I love how little CGI is actually applied (I'm obviously ignoring the big blue guy), and the abundance of practical effects and real sets that are used. The action sequences look spectacular, way better than a lot of blockbusters nowadays (10 years later!).
Despite the terrific technical achievements, my main compliment is actually connected to my number one problem. Even though the storylines are incredibly hard to balance, characters like Rorschach, Nite Owl, Silk Spectre, and The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) have extraordinarily captivating and entertaining stories. There might be a few missteps here and there, but Snyder made ONE movie from a material that's worth a whole TV show or at least two films. And he delivered a GOOD one! Probably a better job than 80% of the directors working today could ever achieve. Finally, the social commentary is still quite relevant for this new generation, and if the so-called "source-material-purists" didn't exist, this movie would be a lot more appreciated.
All in all, Watchmen is as good as it could be, having in mind it's just one film with already a long runtime. Its narrative was always going to be extremely difficult to tell in a solid yet compelling manner, and Zack Snyder does struggle with balancing all of the storylines and its characters. However, he and his phenomenal team still delivered a good flick. Technically sublime, with a distinct style, brilliant production design, and gorgeous cinematography. Characters like Rorschach and Nite Owl have amazing moments, filled with excellent action sequences, but also with emotionally powerful scenes. If it could be better? Maybe. If it could be split into two or three movies. As it stands, as one and only film, it's really impressive even with its flaws.
Rating: B

The comic book geek blockbuster for adults only.
Watchmen is directed by Zack Snyder and adapted to screenplay by David Hayter and Alex Tse from the Alan Moore/David Gibbons graphic novel. It stars Patrick Wilson, Malin Ackerman, Billy Crudup, Jackie Earle Haley, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Carla Gugino and Matt Frewer. Music is by Tyler Bates and cinematography by Larry Fong.
1985 and someone is killing all our superheroes. Time for the remaining super heroes to band together - but what they find as they fight the good fight is potential annihilation for everyone.
It was quite a battle getting Watchmen onto the screen, over twenty years of legal wrangling and controversies, it got to the point where fans of the source material doubted it would ever happen - and even if it did it was sure to be a monstrous failure. How pleasing to find that not only did it make it to the screen, but it is also a genre bending winner - well to some of us of course...
One has to take into context just how potent and original the graphic novel was back in 1986/7, we are dealing with very mature themes, superheroes with serious psychological baggage. Alan Moore lit the touch paper in the comic book kingdom that the rest have since followed to keep the torch burning well into the new millennium. Snyder has achieved top line results in getting both the feel and look of the source, even if some of Moore's cunning cynicism has been lost in translation.
Story is set right in the middle of nuclear paranoia and the fear of the Soviets in 85, the America we view is dank and depressing, noirish in vibe (aided by Rorschach's clobber and detective inclinations), it's a world on the road to nowhere. We are also at a time in the alternate world where superheroes are banned from operating, forcing The Watchmen to become vigilantes - that is if they can get along and shunt their psycho discord to one side. The back stories of the main protagonists are fully formed, and these are not jolly characters, so much so you worry the fate of mankind is doomed if these are who we rely on to save us.
There was in no way that Snyder would be able to produce a comic book filmic adaptation that would be as worshipped in that sphere, to rival that of the worship the novel has in its own. However, coming at it as someone who only sought out the source material after seeing the film, it shines bright for newcomers who are ironically seeking darker tints in superhero tales. Oh it has the requisite nifty twists (a clinical mystery to be unearthed), booming visuals, excellent effects work and smartly constructed action set-pieces, but narratively it's moody and calls for the utmost attention on dialogue passages (I have found it gets better on repeat viewings).
Snyder clearly cared about the project and that love is evident in the movie. It was never going to appease all and sundry, but at worst to hardcore Moore fans it's at least an honourable failure, to many others it's a smart and stylishly refreshing genre booster. 8/10

Jacob Tremblay is really good in this curious, and slightly claustrophobic, tale of a young lad "Jack" who lives with his doting "Ma" (Brie Larson). Nothing odd about that, you might think - well, except for the fact that thus far in his short life, "Jack" has never actually left the room in which he lives. He eats there, plays there, sleeps there - he knows nowhere else. As he ages though, he begins to get itchy feet and his mother finds it more and more difficult to contain his enthusiasm for finding out what is going on outside. What also emerges from their scenario is that "Ma" herself is not exactly free to move about. She was taken by "Nick" (Sean Bridgers) many years earlier and it soon becomes clear that he is likely the father of the boy she is so desperate to protect. Are they better off indoors or seeking freedom? Well, she decides that the latter offers them a better chance of happiness (and quite possibly sanity, too) - but the execution of that plan is not without risk! Lenny Abrahamson directs this with quite a bit of subtlety. He allows the audience to become immersed in the relationship between the two principals; he lets them do the talking and as the narrative unravels we realise that the story is anything but what we may have expected at the start. There is a palpable chemistry between the confident Tremblay and his more experienced co-star, and she complements that well. This is a nuanced and engaging tale offering us plenty of parallels of modern life - good and bad; with a dialogue that is both poignant and frequently heartfelt too. Certainly, it was nothing at all like I was expecting and it's stimulating and enjoyable in equal measure. Well worth a watch.

"I want a different story!"
That line and the scene it's taken from is quintessential to what this movie is about — at least to me.
To me, this is so much **not** about being abducted and trapped in a room but about the apparent pointlessness of being, about coming to terms with it and understanding and accepting that any meaning that is to be found, comes from within ourselves. It's also about moving on, about love and parenthood ("Can I?" "There's nothing left."), and just... Well, humanity and love.
It reminds me of the beautiful relationship between father and son in The Road (the book — I don't remember if the movie conveys this relationship very well, but I do remember the beauty of it in the book). The relationship between mother and son in this movie is heartbreakingly beautiful as well.
Also, I don't remember the last time I've seen a child perform this well in a movie. I have a feeling I've seen better, but I can't remember having seen better.
I thought this would be a horror movie (I don't read synopsises or reviews or watch trailers before watching a movie), instead I was moved to tears again and again. But **not** disappointed.
Brilliant. Watch it.

> Discovering a whole new world beyond the 4 walls.
We all know the German folk tale 'Rupanzel', and this is a similar kind with entirely different motive. All the above it is not a fairy tale set in the medieval period, but inspired by many real events of the present era. A couple of years ago I saw a German movie called '3096 Days' based on the true story. When I heard of this movie is being made, at first obviously I remembered that title, but after seeing the poster alone convinced me not the same. Automatically the expectations rose, and now it's got the 4 Oscars nominees, including the best motion picture.
The both halves of the movie were entirely different from each other like the two sets of story, but the core of the theme remains same. The first half was a crucial part that takes place completely in a single room with a minimal cast. It does not go through the intro, just begins to tell the story like it's already happening and you might take a few minutes to realise the state of condition. The next half is a reaction to what happened in the previous. And again this is also an important storytelling section because like the title, it was not all about the room, but beyond that 4 walls and its roof and floor like how it affected the mother and son.
> "If you don't mind, it doesn't matter."
The movie does not talk about the crime feature at all. Not even considered to reveal behind the motive. So the other side mystery remains as it is. The whole narration was one sided, everything was seen through the eyes of a five year old boy. He begins with the line 'Once upon a time...' like a fairy tale, because it is to him and with his cute little performance along with Brie Larson's, the movie briefs their struggle for freedom.
It was a too casual opening, like nothing bad is really happening, just they're weird people or maybe agoraphobia, except they're not. You know when we say we love to be kids again to escape this complicated adult life, sometimes we won't mean it except it was a normal reaction to the situation we're in. But what if a five year old boy wants to be four again when her mother thinks its time to him know what the real world looks like. Yeah, that's a too much to take in for a young boy, but that's the best chance they had to break free from the psycho who put her mother in that room.
> "When I was small, I only knew small things.
> But now I'm five, I know everything."
It was a tidy place, but the camera angles were impressive. I know it was shot in a studio with a wide open space behind the camera, but that does not the viewpoint in the actual story. When the first half ends, it is an indication of the good parts are over, at least that's what I thought of, but what came after was the unexpected expansion in narration. Usually most of the similar tales end in that part itself like for example 'Prisoners' and the rest is understandable stuff that won't be shown.
When a tale had a ending like 'happily ever after', still some people desire for it to continue a few more minutes to know how happy really they are and that's what this film's second half. Remember, most of the similar themes have multiple perspectives, like how victim's family is coping with, cops are pursuing the suspect, abductor's plans and motive, and captives struggle. Like I said it was all about what a mother and her son goes through those years in captivity and after that.
There were some suspicious characters and events like I had a bad feeling over the doctor's soft talking, also the mother-son's master plan when in captive. Those are tiny diversions to viewers assume differently against where the story is heading. It is all about the mother and son's mental trauma, especially for the little boy similar to when Tarzan is in a big town for the first time leaving behind his other life. It was a perfect pace as well, neither hurried nor a slow development. The movie was a big break for many, especially for the Irish director, and Brie Larson and of course for the kid. Definitely one of the finest movie of 2015 and a must watch.
9/10

With no obvious connection between them, two men awaken to find themselves chained to the plumbing at opposite ends of a room. "Adam" (Leigh Whannell) is a photographer, the other is "Lawrence" (Cary Elwes), a doctor. Each have a micro-tape in their pocket and the only tape player in the room is nestled neatly in the hands of a corpse situated on the centre of the floor. A bit of ingenuity is needed to obtain the kit to play the tape and hopefully get some clue as to why there are there. Suffice to say that they do not like what they hear, and with the clock ticking they will have to learn to trust each other whilst having quite a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. Meantime, the police (Danny Glover) are interviewing a woman who might have managed to escape from a similarly orchestrated predicament. Might there be any way that she could help track down this devious mastermind who doesn't ever actually do any of his own killing - he just manipulates with astonishing purpose. Elwes and Whannell (who also wrote this) both deliver really quite strongly here as does their claustrophobic and distinctly unsanitary prison environment as the story tells us via contemporaneous and flashback imagery a little of their stories and of just why they have attracted the attention of this vengeful "jigsaw killer". It's not especially graphic, this film, though there is a fair smattering of gore - it's the psychology that helps it to deliver better. There's always that element of what might we do to survive, or - maybe more apposite - what might we be prepared to do to others. The writing also helps it along with the exasperation of all well exemplified without just resorting to loud voices and expletives. In the end, I found that I did actually care what happened to these men - but with the clock against them, what are their chances? It's tense and compelling and reminded me a little of "Se7en" (1995).

Though I tend to go for both older films (those made before 1970) and
especially so when it comes to the horror/thriller genre, I saw parts 3
and 5 upon theatrical release (yes, I know it's really not right to see
film series out of sequence but I simply don't care) and they were
intriguing and decent, don't ask me why. Now that I both date a horror
film aficionado and my 13-year-old son himself is one as well, I have
decided to check out the contemporarily well-received original (I may
decide now to see the entire series, and in order, but really who's to
say?). Instantly, such trusted, bankable actors as Cary Elwes and Danny
Glover give it credibility, just as Bette Davis and Joan Crawford gave
such films as 'What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?' way back in days gone
by. This was much better than I felt parts 3 and 5 were, by the way.

Sadly, this chose to go down the route of child stardom - which you either love or hate. Though "Short Round" (Ke Huy Quan) wasn't as irritating as many; he was still pretty persistently annoying and for my money helps make this quite a bit weaker. Aside from the elephant, this also lacks the depth of casting that the first of the films had - Kate Capshaw is almost slapstick as "Wille Scott" and the story isn't so hot, either, as our intrepid explorer has to try and track down some ancient stones that - along with their stolen children - are crucial to the agrarian lives of many peaceful citizens. The roller-coaster finish is still the stuff of Hollywood legend, though - and the films is a classy, well put together tale of clashes of culture with a healthy dose of mysticism, colonialism and Ford certainly has charisma to spare. Good fun, just not quite "Raiders".

Decent watch, might watch again, and can only recommend for people who are already big Indiana Jones fans.
This is a much cheaper movie than it's prequel, not in budget, but in writing and characters. With the trade out in female co-leads, Willie is an annoying if not irritating character and the movie might actually be improved if you just edited her out of the movie.
Short-Round is fun, but not to any degree to go as far as saving the movie. The atmosphere of the movie is darker than it is funny where it matters.
I'm not saying it's a bad movie by any means, but I'm not a big Indiana Jones fan and this is definitely the worst of the 4 movies.

Spielberg on devilishly OTT form!
Prior to the long mooted and eventual release of part 4, Temple Of Doom was often thought of as the weakest part of the series, yet it actually appears to me to be maturing nicely with age. With honest appraisal I see the only crime that Temple Of Doom can be charged with is is not being as good as Raiders Of The Lost Ark. But since few films can match that movie's classic status I find it churlish to do the second film down for it.
Temple Of Doom is a frenetic roller-coaster ride, full of enough crash bang wallop fit to grace any action adventure in the history of cinema. The set pieces are pure outrageous fun; life raft escape from a crashing plane, mine cart thrill ride & a bridge sequence that is pure boys own brilliance. And while the film finds Spielberg cramming the action with a darkly sinister streak (hence the PG13 rating), we find that the fun still far outweighs any horror that junior viewers might get from certain scenes.
The film also finds Ford giving his best performance as Indiana Jones since the plot calls for a more humane Jones. In fine physical shape, his witty interplay with Short Round is coupled with a textured feel of friendship that plays real well up on the screen. Kate Capshaw was always going to struggle to get close to Karen Allen's wonderful turn as Marion Ravenwood in Raiders, for where Marion was feisty and tough, Capshaw's Willie Scott is more scare-d-cat and reliant on Indy's guile to save her from peril, but she does OK and looks gorgeous into the bargain.
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was a massive hit at the box-office and firmly bought Spielberg the time to then go out and make two dramas in Empire of the Sun (1987) & The Color Purple (1985). He would then return with the third Indiana film to finish what was then a marvellous trilogy; of which Temple Of Doom is the prime piece of meat in the delightful (original) trilogy sandwich. 8.5/10