Amazing movie!These Fast & Furious movies keep getting better and better! I recommend you go see this movie and hopefully seven comes out!

> Good Movie !!

It might have been a better idea to rather than follow up "Monsters, Inc." (2001) with a sequel, instead to wait twelve years and tell us all just how "Sully" and "Mike" et al actually met. So off we go to university where the takes it all for granted "Sully" is a natural at scaring folks, "Mike" - well he couldn't scare the skin off a custard! Initially, it's "Randall" that makes more of an impact on the young green cyclops and, indeed, he and his big wooly colleague really can't stand the sight of each other. A fluke of misfortune forces them to get their act together, though, after they manage to seriously annoy "Dean Hardscrabble" who throws them out of scare class. Only by forming their own fraternity can they hope to survive in the "Scare Games" - winning them being the only way to assuage their furious professor and get back to class. Loads of enjoyable escapades follow as they have to learn to rely upon and trust one another. The mischievous "Randall" shows us some early signs of his duplicity and the competitive nature of the episodic narrative works well at allowing the characters to have fun as they begin that lifelong bond (or not). The writing provides for some humour as we build to a denouement that isn't exactly a surprise, but is still just a little quirkier than expected. Not so good as the first one, but as a re-invention of some amiable characters goes, this is a quickly paced adventure that's not bad at all.

This is a great movie. The quality of animation is amazing, and they captured the University feel perfectly. Lots of fun little scenes, backgrounds, and homages to the original movie.

A fun prequel to 'Monsters, Inc.'.
It isn't on the same level as the preceding film, but 'Monsters University' is a pleasing film nonetheless. It takes a trip backwards in time to see Mike and Sully pre-Inc. and it comes out good, it doesn't have as much as heart but the comedy is still there at a strong level.
John Goodman (Sully) and Billy Crystal (Mike) are again fantastic, while Helen Mirren comes in as a new character, Hardscrabble, and gives a pleasant performance. I don't love the other new characters, but they certainly serve a purpose and play a part.
The plot is entertaining, it drops a little bit once the competition begins but everything is still enjoyable - the 104 minute run time flies by. I think I would've preferred a sequel story featuring a grown up Boo (admittedly not sure in what way), but this production is a suitable attachment to the quality 2001 original.

Monsters University, it’s great, it’s the best thing Pixar’s brought out in the past three years leading up to it. It’s enjoyable, it’s well casted and it’s cute without being too cheesy. It’s also the third miss in a row for Pixar.
MU, just like Brave (and unlike Cars 2) is filled with merit, and well worth watching. But in 1995 when Pixar came out swinging with Toy Story, people expect that sort of a trend to continue. Which it did! Right up until 2006, when they released their seventh film (Cars); the first film they’d gotten behind that didn’t blow audiences world wide out of the Goddamn water. Pixar’s limped up and down the approval ladder ever since, with MU sitting comfortably somewhere in the middle.
It is a great film. Especially for a kids’ film, especially for a prequel, all of that, but it is not the return to greatness audiences keep hoping for. It plays it safe, it lulls in the dreary, rarely well-pulled-off format of “College Comedy” (which is again, a safe area to sit in). It may not be as triumphant as the original, but it’s not all together disappointing either.
The film does what virtually any film with large amount of money behind it does: It stands in front of you for an hour and a half, does its job in the entertainment industry of “entertaining” you, then it sidles out, leaving you smiling, but not thoroughly satisfied. It takes as few risks as possible, and vehemently avoids anything new, just in case it pisses people off, and risks not making their money back.
It’s fine, people of the world are used to this, it’s a fun ride, and then it’s done. Worth your money, worth your time, but not what people have come to expect from the powerhouse of Pixar’s heyday.
74%
-Gimly

This is one of those movies where the French decided on an English name but for some inexplicable reason the original English name was not good enough for them. So in France it is called Fast & Furious 7 but I believe it is called Furious Seven in the US. Typical French way of doing things I am afraid.
This movie is probably not for everyone. It is very typical for the latest Fast & Furious movies though. The movie can be summed up by explosions, fast cars, fighting, did I mention explosions, repeat until credits roll. For me it was just what I expected and just what I wanted from this particular movie as well. If you are into fast cars, lots of action and explosive special effects and a bit of male macho talk then this movie will please you just fine.
The gang is back. I have to confess that I like both Vin Diesel and Dwayne Johnson even though they are rather far from Shakespeare material as far as acting goes. For this kind of movie they are perfect though. Unfortunately Dwayne Johnson was absent for a good chunk of the movie. When he came back from his brief presence in the beginning of the movie he did so with a vengeance though. I was actually expecting to dislike “Mr Nobody” but I have to say that I quite liked him.
Despite the fact that this is a macho action movie there is at least a small kernel of story in there. It is a classical revenge story but it is embellished with enough material to make it fairly decent. Well, decent within the confines of this kind of movie of course. Seen from a reasonable point of view the entire movie is of course totally ludicrous. The stunts are really cool but if you sober up from the adrenaline feast you rather quickly find a lot of the stunts pretty far out. Like jumping between buildings in fancy cars and such like. Even if we skip the most ridiculous scenes there are plenty more to nit-pick about. Like the fact that those old, but cool, American cars that Torretto drives would not have a chance in hell against his more modern adversaries unless possibly if the road was entirely straight. But then, these ridiculous things are what the fast and furious series is all about is it not?
Well, after about two hours of ludicrous, but very entertaining, actions stunts there is a happy ending and when the credits roll this viewer is definitely a happy customer.

Revenge is so so cold...... action packed, thrilling and suspense filled but still some bits of make believe tricks here and there.
How did Hobbs know that there's a need for the drone to be brought down right after leaving the hospital bed? how did he know where the drone was at the moment when he left with the ambulance? How did Deckard Shaw know both that Toretto and his crew will be both on the route of Afghanistan and also when they were at Abu Dhabi?
Its a little bit odd and out of place for the director and script editor....
As for the next upcoming part in the franchise, i think Mark Wahlberg should be considered for a part in the rest of Fast and furious franchise..... Cheers ! ! !

A bit of a corny movie with quite a simplistic resolution and soppy ending. But it's Tom Cruse, It's Sci-fi and it looks cool so what more do you need?

Oblivion was a decent watch. It had an interesting concept at first, but as the layers began to unfold, it felt bloated and contrived. It was as if the writers were adding fake depth to story that was very surface level. Performances were pretty bad too, Tom Cruise felt out of place in a sci-fi film, and none of the other actors worked for me. There is some gorgeous cinematography and an absolutely masterful score that helps raise the score bit. I really enjoyed the more quiet moments that were just Cruise and the world, one in particular was the scenes of him at his cabin on the lake. Overall, I was a bit disappointed based on what this film could have been. For Sci-Fi lovers, this might be worth a watch but don't expect greatness.
Score: 55%
Verdict: Decent

Love this movie! There seams to be material for much more than just the one, but maybe it's just that feeling after a good movie that it ended too soon.
I watch movies to be entertained, and I don't care too much about realism especially in SciFi movies, maybe that's why I enjoy watching Oblivion again and again.

I guess I am the rare viewer who enjoyed this movie. But I tend to cut some slack for sci-if movies. I don’t carefully parse out the special effects or pull out a book on physics to make sure every detail is kosher. As long as I am entertained, the plot doesn’t insult my intelligence, and the dialogue is realistic and if possible witty, I am in for the duration.
Early in the movie I thought I spotted a rather large plot hole and I thought, Oh-oh, but I waded through it. Then later I was pleasantly surprised to find they had subtly explained what I had thought was a mistake, and it wasn’t. Perhaps this wasn’t just a space opera with romance and action. I had to pay attention.
I wouldn’t call it a cerebral sci-fi movie, but I am glad I stuck with it.

Oblivion was definitely well made but the story seemed to just sputter out somewhere around 60 minutes in.
I was completely engaged and interested as we learned about this repair crew who had the left overs of earth to themselves. They could have ran with that single idea for 2 hours and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have complained.
All is not lost though, visually, Oblivion was a blast and M83 did a great job with the soundtrack. If you like science fiction movies you should probably add this to your watch list but don't expect too much. Overall, you'll probably be disappointed.

This movie was a total waste! one of the weirdest movies. Not good at all would recommend you watch something better!

Completely unoriginal plot, brings nothing new to the table. Good cinematography by Claudio Miranda, Tom Cruise is horrendous.

This generally considered the best Bond film and for me it's top 3.

Depressingly predictably Hollywood.
This is hardly a 007 movie, and can't be called a "film". It's just the same Hollywood formula of contriving a story to be as depressing as possible.
The same formula Hollywood had prided itself on since about 1965.
It's very dull, and there's no imagery.
007 films once had exotic scenery that was done in a cinematic way.
No more.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Daniel Craig. It doesn't matter who plays 007 when the writer and director are control freaks for hatefulness.
If you can stay awake through the dull scenery and ridiculous lines (Bond even says it doesn't matter what cards you have in a poker game. This movie goes beyond "retarded"), then you wonder what the plot is. Bond goes through a kidnapping ordeal and losing in cards, and he's obviously a victim of card cheating, but this genius doesn't suspect that.
Then, we get the predictable ending that is so Hollywood.
This movie would be the worst Bond movie ever if not for "A View to a Kill".

It honestly wasn't bad and I really hate Daniel Craig as James Bond, he seems to be the only person on earth that does NOT want to be James Bond. And it kind of sucks watching someone play Bond that doesn't look like he wants to be there.
And then there is the fact that they rebooted the franchise, and I am not a fan of that either.
And, well, the film had 3 endings didn't it? I mean, literally there were two natural endings but they milked it for a third one. So by the time you get around to ending three you're screaming "enough already!"
However, it started strong. I mean, it started REALLY strong even for a reboot. And it made the clever move of keeping the same M, and that helped stop the people like me that hate reboots from grumbling too much.
It did away with Q and the over-the-top gadgets and, yeah, Python Q wasn't good plus every Bond has his own feel.
So what was left was a solid action movie with mostly great acting (especially from the Villains) that was great... up until it SHOULD have ended the first time.

As reboots go, this is probably the best I've seen. Daniel Craig takes up the mantle of Ian Fleming's "007" in this two-part thriller that starts off at break neck speed and rarely drops below third gear for almost 2½ hours. Having just attained his licence to kill status - after disposing of the double-crossing "Dryden" (Malcolm Sinclair), he is now hot on the trail of a courier in an African republic. After a chase of pretty epic proportions that sees them leaping from buildings and cranes before "Bond" finally manages to trash an embassy, he obtains a cellphone with just one word. What does it mean? Well now he must use all of his roughly hewn skills to find out - a challenge that takes him via the Bahamas to Miami where he has two thwart a daring attack at the airport on a brand new airliner, that would bankrupt the manufacturer and make someone $100m. That someone is now seriously annoyed - and in quite considerable danger themselves, so phase two of the story starts - and this is where it gets interesting. Off to the beautiful land of Montenegro for the ultimate game of poker. Staked by a rather wary HM Government, he is put in the capable hands of "Vesper" (Eva Green) and with the help of local fixer "Mathis" (Giancarlo Giannini) faces his new nemesis "Le Schifre" (Mads Mikkelsen). Quite literally - winner takes all. The story here is strong, the plot has twists - especially towards the end; there is loads of action, gadgets - a cracking Aston Martin; and loads of glamour. That latter element was largely missing during the Dalton/Brosnan eras for this suave and debonaire super-spy. Craig exudes a classiness about him, and Green likewise as she quickly realises that his is a dangerous business. Mikkelsen makes for a good baddie - so much of his acting is done through his expressions, and here he radiates a sort of measured menace that proves quite effective as the story reaches it's rather painful climax! David Arnold has written a score that nods to the John Barry sweeping and orchestral style of the early films and the writing doesn't waste time trying with the puerile double-entendres that dogged some of the earlier outings for "Bond". The one man missing, rather notably, is "Q" and "Moneypenny" has become a bloke called "Villiers" (Tobias Menzies) working for Dame Judi Dench's no-nonsense "M". The denouement is as action packed as the rest of it, and it introduces us to the idea that there is an organisation out there guiding so much of the criminal fraternity. A spectre of things to come, perhaps? Let's hope this is a sign of a new and improved vivacity for this tiring franchise. This is a very good re-start.

From the breathtaking stunts in the opening chase to the suspenseful high-stakes poker game, ‘Casino Royale’ gets everything right, introducing Craig as a tougher, grittier and more realistic Bond. James Bond.
10/10

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/casino-royale-spoiler-free-review
"Casino Royale is a near-perfect debut of Daniel Craig as the new James Bond. This brutal version of the famous protagonist is beautifully interpreted by Craig, who contradicted the naysayers at the time of release and delivers a phenomenal performance as the iconic 007. His witty humor, irresistible charm, and excellent line deliveries find a close match in Eva Green's take of the "Bond girl", whose intelligence and strong attitude puts aside any generic, formulaic traits. Mads Mikkelsen is outstanding as always as the vulnerable antagonist, but his impact on the overall picture is slightly underwhelming. The action set pieces are worthy of belonging to blockbusters of today, holding impressive stunt work and cinematography. Martin Campbell creates one of those films I can't pinpoint any flaws. Bond fans will feel delighted."
Rating: A-

_**Daniel Craig debuts as Bond**_
Based on Ian Fleming’s novel, “Casino Royale” (2006) goes back to the beginning with James Bond (Daniel Craig) earning his 00 status with MI6. ‘M’ (Judi Dench) then sends Bond after a private banker who funds terrorists (Mads Mikkelsen), which leads to action in Madagascar, a poker game & romance in the Bahamas, thwarting the destruction of a prototype airliner in Miami, a high-stakes tournament at the Casino Royale in Montenegro and a thrilling finale in Venice. Caterina Murino and Eva Green also appear on the feminine front.
Craig is more rough-hewn than Pierce Brosnan and more akin to Timothy Dalton, albeit without the smirk. Craig has the gravitas to pull-off the role and is utterly convincing.
Let's face it, James Bond flicks aren’t that deep. They may have convoluted plots, but there's little character depth and no heavy subtext commenting on the human condition. They're spy thrillers with an ultra-cool protagonist, beautiful women, spectacular locations, amazing gadgets, global political intrigue, gambling matches, wild action and megalomaniac villains. That's it. Yet they're very entertaining, which is why the series has been such a hit since 1962 when "Dr. No" was released.
Yet, with the exception of "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" (1969), there's very little character depth. Take James himself: Women to him are only meaningful as (1) a sexual dalliance or (2) a means to fulfill his mission. I mention this to point out how "Casino Royale" boldly changes this. The film has character depth and shows why Bond is the way he is. For instance, there are a couple amazing conversations between James and his potential woman in the story, Vesper (Eva Green), and they're full of insights. The dialog is snappy & intriguing and the performances are right-on.
By the way, someone complained that all the women in Bond flicks are loose and willing to sleep with any man at the drop of a hat. No, they're just willing to sleep with James Bond, lol. I'm not saying it's right, but it does reflect the alluring charisma of the suave Mr. Bond.
There are some thrilling action sequences, like the long, unrelenting chase at a construction site after the title credits, but there are also some quality dramatic segments. For instance, the main poker match at the titular casino is well-staged and suspenseful.
"Casino Royale" strikes me as a mixture of the first half of "Goldfinger" with the serious tone of "The Living Daylights" & "Licence to Kill.” Don't expect the comic booky approach of "You Only Live Twice," the cartoonish-ness of “Diamonds are Forever” or the science-fiction (and sometimes goofiness) of "Moonraker.”
The film runs 2 hours, 24 minutes, and was shot in the Czech Republic, Venice, Bahamas and England.
GRADE: A-/B+

Great James Bond movie and perfect debut for Daniel Craig. He may, at least in the last couple outings, resent the role, he makes for a bruiser version of the character. Pierce Brosnan is still my favorite as his movies came out in the 90s (i.e. the years for watching Bond movies), but this was an all around great film, not to mention the lovely Eva Green coming on to the scene. **4.5/5**

i liked Daniel Craig more as the right bond with action, charm, cunning all in one

Arrogance and self-awareness seldom go hand in hand.
Casino Royale is directed by Martin Campbell and adapted by Neil Purvis, Robert Wade & Paul Haggis from a story written by Ian Fleming. It stars Daniel Craig, Eva Green, Mads Mikkelsen, Judi Dench, Jeffrey Wright & Giancarlo Giannini. It's the 21st film in the James Bond franchise.
Plot finds Craig as Bond, newly promoted to 00 status, he is thrust into the murky world of high financed terrorism.
One of the hardest series of films to get right, with some of the most committed of fans, is that of the James Bond series. To wit, there will never ever be a Bond film that will appease every fan across the board. The complaints will range from not enough gadgets, too far removed from Fleming's essence, not serious enough and vice a versa: too darn serious. Then there is the usual round of arguments concerning the leading man stepping into the tuxedo, for every Bond fan ready to fight to the death in the name of Sean Connery, I'll find you another prepared to back Timothy Dalton's take on the Martini swigging legend. Once it became clear that Pierce Brosnan had run his course as Bond, bowing out with the super silly Die Another Day in 2002, the pressure for any new Bond, both the actor and the makers, was immense. 2006 and time had moved on, and we live in different cinema times, spy movies are a different breed to what went before, The Bourne Identity had raised the bar. The news filtered thru that Bond was to be rebooted and that Daniel Craig was the man to be Bond. The howls of derision could be heard from as far as the tropical locations so in keeping with a James Bond plot. Too Blonde, too craggy faced, not tall enough, and why reboot a much loved franchise anyway? It was war and the heat was turned up to full.
Casino Royale still has its critics, but as majorities go as regards a Bond film, this one has the biggest sway. Sure, the Daniel Craig haters will not be bowed, they can't after all lose face after such a vitriolic campaign against his casting, but few, I suspect, can seriously deny Casino Royale is not a magnificent Bond movie. Just a peak at the Worldwide box office figures shows you how well received it was, making nearly $600 million, those are figures that do not lie. The truth is that Casino Royale has almost everything you could wish for from a Bond movie, and a little more. Gorgeous locations, beautiful women and reams of action; where, the stunt department reach new heights. It's also refreshingly in keeping with Fleming's original story, only major difference here is that the makers have upgraded it to a post 9/11 world. There's nods to traditional franchise staples, whilst also neatly streamlining some of the previous film's comedy scene fillers. Smart villain too, Mads Mikkelsen's Le Chiffre, complete with creepy eye issue and loyal girlfriend, is a villain not trying to blow up the world because he's mad, but trying to outwit Bond to stay alive! That's great stuff that keeps a Bond thriller alive and well.
But for all the energy and pyrotechnics (there's enough in this one film to have filled half a dozen of previous Bond entries), a Bond film can only succeed if the leading man is up to scratch. Thankfully, and joyously, Craig nails it, both in physicality, swagger and raw egotistical aggression. More telling is that Craig's Bond is more human that what we are used too, at one time suave and appearing unruffled, the next, bruised battered and emotionally conflicted. This is a new and rounded Bond, given impetus by Craig's powerful presence. He is helped by Eva Green putting brains and slinkiness into Vesper Lynd, a Bond girl to turn Bond's head in a way not seen since Diana Rigg's Tracy di Vicenzo in OHMSS. Though one of the film's rare missteps is to under write the part. Felix Leiter also gets a quality tune up in the form of Jeffrey Wright, Judi Dench's M kicks arse and Giancarlo Giannini adds a touch of continental class as Bond's Montenegro contact René Mathis. Layered over the top is a nifty score by David Arnold, blending traditional Bond flavours with high energy bursts and Phil Meheux's photography brings optical delights in the Bahamas, Czech Republic and Italy.
Opening with the best chase sequence in the whole franchise and closing with an ultimate Bond moment, this is reboot supreme. It's high energy with intelligent humanistic smarts and Bond is back: blonder, brutal and most assuredly better. 9/10

**2006 - the year they turned Bond into a common soccer hooligan.**
In 2006, the film makers - no longer under the watchful eye of the late Cubby Broccoli decided to run away from making James Bond movies. They also cast a short blonde man as 007. They screwed with the gun barrel and the tone of the once lively, over the top and amusing series was now one of tedium.
It's all over for Bond films now unless they decide to make real Bond films again and not this monotonous and bland rubbish.
It's shame that Cubby was not still around to keep Eon Productions in line and stop them ruining 40 years of hard work.
- Potential Kermode

Another one of my favorite movies of all time. Jim Carey is one of my favorite actors. This movie is so funny. Who doesn't want to play God. I know would love to give it a shot if it was possible.

**Bruce Almighty leverages Carrey's comedy strengths and a solid supporting cast to create a top-notch lighthearted comedy. **
Honestly, I had a traumatic experience from seeing The Mask way too young, and it left me terrified of Jim Carrey for quite a while. Even after I grew out of the Carreyphobia, I still wasn't a fan, but Bruce Almighty changed everything. The first time I saw it, it was against my will, but I am so glad I was forced to watch it because it's a wonderful movie! It has fun with Christian values and themes without bashing or harassing its source material. It's just a good-natured funny movie that sees Carrey's Bruce Nolan grow from kind but self-absorbed to considerate and caring of those around him and appreciating all that he already had in his life, especially his love interest played by Jennifer Anniston. Bruce Almighty also showcases a young Steve Carrell in his big breakout role as Carrey's rival, who faces the wrath of Carrey's God powers in a hilarious way. This film is by far my favorite Jim Carrey film and one of my favorite comedies.

Being God can be Hell.
Fans of Jim Carrey can't go wrong with this fun filled picture that's not without serious undertones as well.
The Premise is flimsy as such, Carrey plays Nolan, a harried and fed up TV reporter who feels that all of his problems are God's fault. Having enough of his whingeing, God (Morgan Freeman) summons Nolan to his "residence" and bestows all his powers to him. This is where the film hits its stride, the makers letting Carrey loose for a number of funny sequences as he plays God to further his own ends.
It goes where you expect it to, and nobody else gets a look in as Carrey does his stuff, but the journey is a most pleasant one. 7/10

It's curious that the main English language awards largely ignored this, yet it won both a David and a César in Europe and is definately one of Clint Eastwood's more characterful efforts. He is the curmudgeonly "Walt" who has recently lost his wife, has an arms-length relationship with his son and looks disapprovingly as his neighbourhood ceases to be the home of "Americans"! His prize possession is his Gran Tornino car and he doesn't take to kindly to Bee Vang's "Thao" (or "Toad") trying to pinch it. Quickly, though, he sees that this young man and his sister "Sue" (Ahney Her) are being bullied by their thuggish extended family - a gang of obnoxious would-be gangsters who drive the streets picking fights and taunting people. He decides to intervene and the rest of the story sees a bond develop between him and his new "family" based on a degree of mutual understanding, trust, and "Toad" becoming his slave for a fortnight by way of penance! We are given some clues along the way as to the grand designs of "Walt" as he sets up a denouement, after a brutal assault on "Sue", that will satisfy not just himself, but keep his neighbours safe too. It's not the most naturally written dialogue, indeed at times it's quite forced but the underlying premiss of bigotry and the attitudes of intolerance and bullying are well addressed. The characterisation of the distant and prejudiced "Walt" is delivered engagingly, and with some dark humour, by a star/director who has a point to make. There's also quite a gently potent effort from Christopher Carley as the local priest. He is trying to offer the perfunctory words of hope and comfort to this veteran and he perseveres despite the dog's abuse he receives from a man who no longer feels it necessary to commit to the niceties of society. Clearly, "Walt" cares little for what is left of his life nor for any of his sins to be forgiven. It's about grief, relevance, community and I think it works. Give it a go.