Don't bother. Just rewatch the original again and be thankful.

My favorite out of the series. I like this one better, because your rewatching the 1st one as the 2nd one is helping the 1st one at the same time. So you get to enjoy the 1st one again with new twists added from the 2nd one. But you can't see yourself watching the 1st one while watching the 2nd one, because the 1st one is not suppose to see the 2nd one watching it, and vice versa. Otherwise something bad will happen if the 1st and 2nd one see each other. Lol you get what I'm saying!

This was one I think I was slightly disappointed in when I first saw it in theaters back in '89 and even with subsequent viewings on VHS and DVD, however I've come to appreciate it more over the years post-2000s. Lots of fun though feels disjointed at times going back and forth in time from 1985 to 2015 to alternate 1985 and back to 1955. But I did like the technical aspects re-creating the events of the first movie. **4.0/5**
PS: Still remember back in the day seeing a TV special and believing the hoverboard was real, lol.

You gotta go forward to save the past and back to alter the future.
Yikes!
Back to the Future Part II sees Marty & Jennifer coerced by Doc into travelling forward in time to correct the future. But Biff is still around and spies an opportunity for untold riches; which he takes. Meaning our three time travelling wonders have to find a way back to the past to stop Biff from changing the course of history.
The gargantuan, and deserved, success of Back To The Future ensured {demanded} that a sequel would follow. So taking the bull by the horns, Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gray crafted not only a sequel, but a trilogy, of which part two is ultimately a sort of interim plot filler for the finale to come a year later. There's no doubt about it, part two is at first a puzzle box of a picture, one that had this particular viewer back in the day venturing in for multiple viewings to unravel the deft, daft, but intricate plot.
I have grown to love part two very much as I have got older, with each viewing tending to reward me just a little bit more. Directed with absolute keenness by Zemeckis, the film moves at such a pace there is barely time to catch breath, something that hardly helps one to follow exactly what is going on. But it does make sense under scrutiny, and as we lurch from one magnificent set piece to another, we find a dark undercurrent of bleakness in amongst the froth.
The makers offer up two visions of the future, one is all colourful and swamped in glorious 80s nostalgia, yet it's knowingly enveloped in consumerism and hi-tech reliability. The other is bitten by greed and almost under despotic control, it's food for thought and rather wry in its telling. Not content with that, the makers whisk us back to 1955 just to remind us that a time of innocence and hope did exist; and simultaneously with skill they repeat the ending of part one with the additional story of part two! Clever eh? The returning cast are again uniformly strong {Michael J. Fox, Thomas F. Wilson & Christopher Lloyd} while Elisabeth Shue confidently steps into Jennifer's shoes after Claudia Wells {Jennifer in part one} fell ill and was unable to continue the role. Alan Silvestri's score still packs a cross dimension's punch and the effects crew again come up trumps {it's ace in HD}. It now can be seen as the bridge between two better movies, that's for sure, but I liken it to Spielberg's Temple Of Doom-more darker than the more favourable films in a series; but one that is crucially still having fun. It may be a high-tempo ball of funny confusion at times, but this one, courtesy of it's ream of homages and sly observations, is one of the best trilogy sandwich fillers going.
Munch it. 8/10

This movie is in my top 10 movie list in life. It is a cinema achievement that may never be outdone by 'anyone'. Considering that this masterpiece was shot digitally in 2007, it is miles above any CG effort since.
For those of you that haven't seen it: "SEE IT". Besides a great story (with one flaw), this film makes illusion and simulation become reality.
The one flaw: I have great respect for David Fincher, and I am going to go out on a limb and say that he must have been aware of this discrepancy, but went ahead with the story-line as written anyway. ( I hope that's the case).
Benjamin Button was born "old", and regressed backwards to die an infant. The flaw in the story-line (and it's a big one), is that as he regresses to youth, he begins to have dementia (Alzheimer's symptoms), along with all of the arthritic pains and problems an old man gets as he ages. At the end, before he dies he loses his memory completely.
Logically, since he was born an old man, those illnesses should have evolved from birth, and improved as he regressed in age. Strangely in the film, he is born with severe arthritis, and can't even walk until he is 7. Why then would he again experience these same symptoms as a child on the way to his death bed (or crib)? He should be in perfect health as a child, and regress to a "fetus", and then disappear.
Other than that major flaw, this movie is a 10. Unfortunately because of the illogical way he dies, I had to give it a 9 out of 10 stars.
One other issue with the plot: If we were to take this movie scenario and try to place it in the real world, Benjamin would have to have been born a "full sized", old man, and then after 70 or 80 years, he would have begun to shrink. Since the idea of a woman giving birth to a full sized man is physically impossible, our Benjamin had to be born old and "tiny". This of course is another contradiction in the plot, since Benjamin is small "twice in his life". We can't dwell on this flaw at all, because if we did we would never get passed it. To enjoy this movie, we must put all the facts and logistics of this scenario aside, and when we do, this movie takes us on a journey unlike any other ever filmed.

One of Fincher's masterworks--though I like others better. He's definitely one of the only people alive who could have succeeded with this very intriguing story.
There are moments--when Benjamin's coming into his own, both with Tilda Swinton's character and with Cate Blanchett's--that are amongst the finest and most invigorating I have ever seen in cinema. I'm curious how I'll find it when I rewatch it in a few years. I have the impression that as I come to terms with age and gather more wisdom in my own skin, this story will only grow in my heart and appreciation--for both the highs and the lows. That is a spectacular magic trick for a movie to do--and Fincher's downright full of them.

"_I need your clothes, your boots and your motorcycle._"
Just when you think the first one was great, this masterpiece shows up. Everything gets amped up in a good way. I will never forget watching this for the first time and thinking "how does it all look so damn cool?!" The first one is terrfiying where this is just awesome. Cameron's lighting and color grading is so sweet to look at. It's an infinite rewatchable classic.

I'm never really a fan of kids in movies, but Edward Furlong turns in some attitude here with his performance as the ten year old "John Connor". Turns out that he is the target of the the latest "Skynet" plot to destroy the resistance to their impending world domination (in a worryingly close 2029!). They have sent a new, improved, "T1000" (Robert Patrick) back in time to throttle him. Luckily, his future self has had the presence of mind to send one of the original models (Arnold Schwarzenegger) back on protection detail. As the devastation mounts and the bodies pile up, the young man convinces his protector to get his mother out of her secure institution - the authorities weren't convinced about her stories of futuristic "terminator" robots after last time - and also, to stop routinely killing people! It took James Cameron quite a while to put this sequel together, and it is almost as good as the original. Loads of action, some great visual and pyrotechnic effects as well as some quite engaging comedy moments that allow the story to deliver a surprising amount of characterisation for an action movie. You do feel just the tiniest bit invested in them, and though I did find the denouement dragged out just a little, it's a solidly entertaining piece of big screen cinema that allows a man who really cannot act to own the screen. Great fun.

Behold what we like to call the Greatest Action Movie Ever Made, and for good reason. For me this sits without a doubt as one of the best movies (and movie sequels) I've ever seen. The action scenes, action set pieces, practical (and visual) effects are truly incredible for their time and still hold up today. Solid 10/10, highly recommend the full 2h 33m extended cut.

So, it is time to review the last good Terminator movie.
When T3 came out, I swear that people forgot it was even released... but at least it felt like it belonged in the Terminator franchise.
When Salvation dropped, it felt like it fit as well, but it was an MCG film, so it also felt like Terminator meets Mickey Mouse.
And when Terminator Typo was released, it kind of did it's best to completely alienate all the fans that the franchise had developed over the years.
But this one, well, this one actually was great. The Robert Patrick T-1000 liquid metal thing looked amazing, Patrick acted ominous and frightening, and seemed like a legit threat despite the size difference between he and Arnold.
And in the process the T-1000 managed to produce some truly creepy visuals.
And this John Connor, Edward Furlong, was absolutely amazing. You really got the sense from him that he could be the man that leads the rebellion in the future.
And, Sarah Connor was buff, and upped her game as the heroine that could do, well, actually do the action she was required to preform. And not only that she was creepy and obsessed as well. She looked and acted like the kind of survivalist that would train the future savior of the world.
It all came together as a brilliant move with old Arnold playing the good guy this time, and, though it was an obvious bank on his star power, they pulled it off so no one would care. Right down to the first meeting where John didn't know if he could be trusted or not.
It was a fantastic story with fantastic visuals, and it all made of a stellar and entertaining watch.

Great watch, will watch again, and can recommend.
This is everything the original was turned up one notch. Now Arnold is a caring unfeeling robot, and we missed a whole movie where Sarah Connor went hard into training.
This has twists, escapes, a liquid terminator, better special and practical effects, some big explosions, active discussion of how to change the future, and some really iconic moments.
The movie isn't chatty in the traditional sense, once Arnold gets involved, all the dialogue outside the asylum is very much to mechanically move the plot forward. The terminators don't voluntary "chat", they more vomit exposition dialogue.
While I'll always remember this as a great movie, it isn't without its flaws. Hearing John's pre-pubescent voice cracking almost made me turn it off, and I know I found a couple of (small) problems while I was watching, but I couldn't remember them by the end of the movie, so they're clearly not that important. I may have been a bad foley sound on a weapon, and probably something that the T-800 that didn't seem robo-talk enough.
I honestly don't know who isn't going to like this movie: it even has a low kill count.

While I am in that minority which believes it is actually the first _Terminator_ movie which is the best of the franchise, don't let that for one minute convince you I don't absolutely love _Judgement Day_. It's honestly pretty crazy to me how just bonkers good these first two _Terminator_ movies are. Especially when you consider how completely every single sequel managed to miss the mark.
I like to imagine that in the Good Timeline, where everything isn't Terrible™, this movie is exactly the same, but the trailer doesn't spoil the twist about Robert Patrick being a Terminator and Arnie being a good guy. I know that they also spoil the twist about who's a Terminator and who's not and who's a bad guy and who's not in the trailers for the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th too, but I'm pretty sure that in the Good Timeline those never got made, so whatever.
_Final rating:★★★★½ - Ridiculously strong appeal. I can’t stop thinking about it._

Terminator 2 is basically one of the greatest films of all time, its an absolute must watch if you like Science Fiction, Action, or even Comedy films. It could have been so bad, but the film somehow pulls it off with crazy stunts, an amazing cast and a great story.
The film really tackles the fate of humanity straight on which gets you thinking about our path as a species but also what we can do today to change things. The story takes you on a journey which is one of the most believable time travel movies of all time.
The action scenes are fantastic, with wall to wall fighting, car chases and military maneuvers that will keep you on the edge of your seat. That's mixed with a great cast and brilliant story telling from the directory. I would say its even better than the first movie which is also a classic.
Overall I have probably seen this movie 20 or 30 times over the last 25 years(go is it that long!!) and still don't get bored. Its a timeless classic that I urge everyone to watch.

Ever since I saw him in a UK television drama entitled "Bedlam" (2011) I thought that Theo James ("Number Four") was a man to watch. He was certainly the hook that got me to start watching these adaptations of Veronica Roth's futuristic novels. Well, beauty can only take you so far; the rest has to be down to acting; dialogue etc. and this falls pretty flat on all counts. The premiss is unique - society is divided into five factions based on a perception of virtue. At 16, teenagers have to decide which they have and then they spend their lives living up to the ideals - involving strenuous mental and physical trials. "Tris Prior" (Shailene Woodley") is an exception, however - she doesn't fit into any one category - and so the system has no idea how to cope with this renegade. When she reveals her confused status to James - her trainer - we embark on a tale of cat and mouse as she and a rag-bag gang of misfits set out to save a world that deems them all as a serious threat. It certainly looks good - budget clearly was not an huge issue, and it is broadly faithful to the book but therein lies the problem - it is a preposterous proposition from the outset - it has not even the weakest of anchors from the society we know today (i.e. how the hell could we ever have gotten ourselves into this kind of dystopian mess in the first place?). When romance begins to rear it's head too, then I started to forget how sexy Theo actually is and wonder what else I could watch... There are clearly some parallels with "The Hunger Games" series, but this one definitely comes off a very poor second.

A new world order type of movie. With 5 different factions. It was an ok movie but we only really learn about 2 of the factions really in this movie. What about the other 3. It would have been nice if we could see all 5 factions and how they lived and came about but instead you only know 2. So what's the point of even having the other ones in the movie pointless.

I decided since this was my mother's 75th birthday to check out the first of the 'Divergent' series, since I love Kate Winslet and Ashley Judd, and Neil Burger's earlier 'Limitless' was intriguing and decent for recent sci-fi. Unfortunately the actors playing the main protagonists and the special effects were atrocious, the paper-thin plot was resoundingly predictable and I couldn't wait till it ended.
Definitely one Burger that was way overdone.
Of course Hollywood garbage like this produces a ton of sequels, while much better and original projects get kicked to the gutter.

Well, it seems we needed a clone of The Hunger Games because, you know, they give too much money to ignore.
Stupid and foreseeable story with the typical action, romance and WTFs moments.
Just ignore the whole saga.

Remedial Dystopia
I'm not a big fan of YA lit. Nothing like it when I was young. I grew up with Kesey, Huxley, Salinger, Dickens and The Who. I probably would have liked a steady diet of teen vampires and young dystopians. I would have loved my comic book heroes on the big screen in 3D. And video games and smart phones and search engines. Oh to be a millenial!
I was introduced to a truckload of Young Adult Lit during English Ed studies and found myself wanting to read _Catcher in the Rye_ all over again. There was just something really amateurish and disposable about these novellas. Like the authors weren't fully-developed writers. Nor am I all that interested in movies adapted from these novels, unless they are packed with talent (_The Hunger Games_), or star someone I just can't get enough of. That someone at the moment is Shailene Woodley. A young woman who is just oozing talent. She has that authentic, subdued strain of self-consciousness, it makes you forget she's in a movie. In fact, her focus seems to come so unassumingly natural I wonder if she even knows she's in a movie.
I watched _The Fault in Our Stars_, The Spectacular Now and _Divergent_ in succession. _Divergent_ is getting short-changed by the same critics who praise _The Hunger Games_. Yes, it's simplistic, essentially a shallow allegory. Factions representing classes, institutions and vocations. The coercion of the Dauntless by the Erudite as a military coup. And rebellious adolescents as heroic Divergents. But if this gets kids even remotely interested in politics and the social sciences, I'm all for it. I'd prefer this to bare-chested werewolves and forest warfare. Then again, there's no defending _Divergent_ if it weren't for Woodley's splendid presence. Her inner strength mixing in with her vulnerability. She provides the suspense, as we are always awaiting her next reaction. Makes me wonder how she'll develop in the years to come? As well as Kate Winslow has I'm sure.

I should probably mention right away that I have not read the book-trilogy that this movie is based on. Given the content matter I might actually have liked the books. The movie? Well to me the movie was a rather mediocre one. As the blurb states the story is set in a dystopian future but we do not really get to know how they got there except the standard explanation that “there was a war”. The world is a bizarre mixture of primitive post-apocalypse living and modern, futuristic tech. The division of people into factions…well to me it felt pretty dumb to begin with and the idea that some people could not possibly fit into more than one faction was absolutely ludicrous to me. How the hell was it supposed to keep peace by deliberately factioning people against each other?
Okay, trying to get over these gripes, what about the rest of the movie. Well it was okayish I guess. It did give me the same feeling as when reading a young-adult book and I would say that this movie is most suitable for a younger audience. The story is rather predictable. There is the initial training part where Tris of course gets a few friends and in particular befriends one of her tutors. Not surprisingly there is also the obligatory jerk. The one thing that makes the movie a bit out of the ordinary are the induced dream sequences which are not too bad.
Later in the movie Tris starts to discover the plot of the bad guys and of course goes off to save the day. Again these part are simple and predictable. The ease by which Tris and a few of her friends manages to infiltrate the lab/headquarters of the baddies is rather unbelievable. It of course helps that it seems like it is only the good guys who can shoot straight or fight worth a damned with a few occasional exceptions when the script calls for it.
The movie is, as far as I understand it, based only on the first book in the trilogy so it is perhaps not very surprising that it ends with a lot of loose ends but, for Christ sake, they fight their way to stop the plot, taking down a lot of people on their way, and then they leave the chief mastermind of this despicable plot lying unconscious but alive on the floor just taking off. That just felt dumb!
It is not a bad bad movie but I do not understand the high ratings some people seem to give it.

I was drawn to watch this film for a couple of reasons. One, basically, was Michael Keaton. Overall I find movies are worth a look when he is in it. Also there is the play within a play, the stage production his character is doing, based on an actual short story by Raymond a carver. When I first started writing short stories and novels decades ago, I was influenced by Carver’s spare writing style and his realistic dialogue. I guess this particular short story has been used in a few short films also.
I don’t believe this movie is in any way considered an Independent Film, but it has that feel to me, the way it clings to gritty realism and comic book fantasy all at once, the philosophical musings of most of the characters, the total lack of a defined ending, all speak to me of an independent film.
I didn’t come away from watching it thinking it was a great movie, merely interesting in places and well acted. Unfortunately, I disliked most of the characters, with a few exceptions such as the discarded ex-wife/girlfriend or whatever she was. However skilled the production standards and acting might be, this movie proved to me that empathy for the characters and the quality of the writing still counts for a lot. And as a writer (of lower quality admittedly) I was relieved to realize it.

"I'm nothing. I'm not even here."
The story to Birdman is about an wash up actor (Michael Keaton) - famous for portraying an iconic superhero - as he struggles to mount a Broadway play. In the days leading up to opening night, he battles his ego and attempts to recover his family, his career, and himself.
Okay in my review of Whiplash I bought this movie up mid way through the review just to give a heads up of when I'm going to watch it, because Birdman was my most anticipated film of 2014. But just like every time I really wanted to see a film so baldy I have to wait for a while until I finally get a chance to watch it, story of my life really. But anywhere, I was really looking forward to this movie ever since September, and now finally seeing the film I can safely say that Birdman is one of the best movie of 2014.
I always know that Micheal Keaton was the kind of movie star that will pick any random movie role just because... well he what's to be important and still show to everyone that he still got it, I guess. Early last year he was in two movies that were pretty blah, and that was The Robocop (remake) and Need for Speed, and those films just made Keaton look like he was just cashing it in just for the sake of it. Until I watched this movie and seeing Micheal Keaton's performance and thinking to myself "Wait is Keaton giving probably his best performance I've ever seen in my life? I think he is", because Keaton in this movie pretty much pulls of the best performance I've seen him in his all career. His character in this movie is like a washed up actor who had everything like: the love from the critics and he's fans. Yeah he still dose have that Keaton thing that he always dose in his previous movies, but the scenes where he plays his character (Which is himself if you really look at his character in this movie) but anywhere he still gives a strong and believable performance that at times give me flashbacks of the good old days when he still had roots and felt like he isn't just cashing it in. I hear a lot of Oscar buzz about his performance in this movie, and I wouldn't be surprise if he wins because he totally deserves it. Excellent work Keaton.
Edward Norton is also in this movie and played a familiar character to himself has the hard to work with actor that at times doesn't follow the lines that he was given or even the direction he was told. We already know that Norton is a fantastic actor in his previous work, but in this movie his performance could be descried has stellar and insanely good.
Emma Stone is this movie and of course like most of the actors I named off so far who were outstanding in this movie and well you can already guess what I'm going to say next. Emma Stone acting in this movie was just terrific and marvellous to watch. It's good to see a real break out performance from her more than the lay back ones in her other movies. Nice one Emma. The other cast in the movie like Naomi Watts, Zach Galifianakis both did good as well.
The whole movie is shot to look like it's all in one shot and my mind was just blown away by that fact. There were scenes in way I said to myself "Oh my god is it one shot?", well I can already imagine the stress, hard work and how many takes they had to do to get it, and boy did it pay off nicely, because I couldn't take my eyes off the screen. I dared myself to look away from the beautiful cinematography and the impressive editing used in the film.
The movie has a brilliant message about film critics today that doesn't feel like it's in your face message that you normally get in movies. There's a scene in this movie and by the way it's not a spoiler, but I really need to get this out the way first. Micheal Keaton character starts having a rant over this theater critic who is going to give a bad review to he's play when she hasn't even seen it or any of the premieres. He talks about how she only users big words that nobody will say in person and shes to lazy to come up what she really thinks about it so she users big words just to fill in the sentence. This movie probably has the best rant in movie history and Keaton in that scene shows how good of a actor that he is.
For problems in the movie: I really don't have any to be honest.
I loved this movie and yes I'm coming out be saying that. This isn't just the best movie of the year and such, no this is just flawless film making right here. Birdman and Whiplash are the two films I will highly recommend to people, because those two films are my favorite films of 2014.

This film tells the story of an over-the-hill actor called Riggan Thomson (brilliantly portrayed by Michael Keaton) who was once the star of a superhero blockbuster franchise known as 'Birdman'. We are shown his journey into making a Broadway production starting with the initial rehearsals and read-throughs. What follows is a brilliant exploration of celebrity culture in an intriguing and satirical way.
'Birdman' could essentially be looked at as one continuous long shot. The camera constantly weaves around the actors and action and so the audience are completely immersed into the perspectives of the various characters (mostly Riggan's). The opening shot plays like a scene in Paul Thomas Anderson's 'Boogie Nights' as it delightfully establishes the narrative in a fluid and polished style whilst introducing the cast and their entertaining interchanges during a rehearsal with hilarious consequences.
The editing throughout the picture is almost flawless when moving from scene to scene and has a dizzying effect much like Gasper Noé's 'Irreversible'. 'Birdman' also boasts some marvellous special effects throughout such as when Riggan (Keaton) is alone and being taunted by his egotistical alter-ego. The film shows up typical blockbuster action movies by asking the audience what they want and giving it to them in a manner which embraces the excitement and epic-ness of the genre whilst also poking fun of the conventions.
The music that accompanies the film is very scarce in a lot of places adding emphasis to the dialogue and situations arising but, in some cases, an erratic and improvisational drum riff can be heard (occasionally accompanied with the drummer on the set) which completely adds to the eccentricity and spontaneity of the movie.
The screenplay is very intricately written and contains many profound philosophical speeches about art, celebrity and criticism. There are monologues and debates by characters in which they discuss the core beliefs of the film such as Riggan's speech during his performance of his Raymond Carver play "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love".
The whole narrative of the film is very intriguing and interesting. There is a perfect blend of comedy and poignancy. There are a lot of twists and ambiguity throughout the film which could be analysed and interpreted for a long time.
Michael Keaton is fantastic as the protagonist and gives a performance that would have given his career a huge revival (his squeal is my highlight of the film). The parallels with the character's career and that of Keaton's could not have been a mistake and gives the performance that much more edge. Edward Norton plays the method actor from hell (Mike Shiner). He is annoying, snobbish and smug and played brilliantly by Norton who excels in the vileness and pomposity of the character.
The film is very much about actors. The self obsessive nature of acting is definitely highlighted by the two central performances but there is also a cast that really help to deliver the film's meaning such as Emma Stone, Zach Galifianakis, Andrea Riseborough and Naomi Watts.
Overall, 'Birdman' is a fantastic film. It is filled with pathos and profound imagery whilst keeping the viewer thoroughly entertained throughout.
★★★★½

First of all, let me say, I like most of movies where Naomi Watts plays & thought this one would be good too, after all it has high ratings, but don't be fooled by famous actors which play in this movie. Don't be fooled & think that movie is good. No, not at all. This movie is complete junk. It supposed to be a comedy, but I didn't even find it funny. It's just like a big mess. I started watching it & I couldn't last longer than 30 minutes, it was so boring & uninteresting that I fell asleep. I can't believe people rate this movie so high & even worse - this movie won an Oscar. This again proves, that ratings & Oscar ain't always accurate.

**mounting spontaneity** or (dumb luck)
It's not fair.
I love Raymond Carver, long takes, theatre, Batman, NYC rooftops and alleyways, the blending layers of self-referential fiction, delirious fantasy, the creative process, the insane logistics of run-on cinematography, the seamless assembly of shifting environments, stepping into unresolved mental spaces, demonstrations of solitary madness and the unbearable anticipation of being, being judged, being booed, un-being, unhinging, delusional uppers, existential downers, magic surrealism, telekinetic fury, dreams of flying, throwing tantrums, the fragile yet invincible ego, immaculately constructed chaos, the recurring climax of ending it all -- where the blazes is that blasted improvisational drumming coming from? -- oh there, and there, so absurd, don't stop, the shot must go on, the show must go on, "You are not important, get used to it," she said, but so much angst overwhelms him, tethered to a feathered fantasy, a nagging reminder of what once was, or could have been, refusing to believe it's too late to soar to former heights, yet grounded by time and gravity, trapped in a narrative, caged in a fabrication, "You're an actress, honey," says another, "you have no self-respect" and all actors are game, Keaton and Stone zoned-in, knowing the pain, pretending to not care or pretending to matter, failing to be authentic, acting over acting, meta-acting meta-fiction meta-filmed with a meta-critical message: yeah, we're all messed-up and meta-fµcked, but after shooting your nose to spite the ruse, by unmasking the unexpected virtue of ignorance, peeling off layers of pretense and self-importance, you just might find a momentary strain of pure, uncomplicated innocence.
It's not fair. I love this sh*t!

The Goodfellas is an absolute masterpiece in every sense. Martin Scorsese delivers a raw, unflinching look into the world of organized crime that’s as captivating as it is brutal. Ray Liotta, Robert De Niro, and Joe Pesci shine, each bringing unforgettable depth and intensity to their roles—especially Pesci, whose portrayal of Tommy DeVito is both terrifying and fascinating. The storytelling is flawless, pulling you in with a mix of dark humor, sharp dialogue, and iconic scenes that stay with you long after the credits roll. Add in the perfect soundtrack, and it’s no wonder this film is considered a classic. The Goodfellas isn’t just a movie; it’s an experience that I can watch over and over again.

A really good film. i loved it!

Ray Liotta is superb here as "Henry Hill", a man whom ever since he was young has been captivated by the mob. He starts off as a runner and before too long has ingratiated himself with the local fraternity lead by "Paulie" (Paul Sorvino) and is best mates with fellow hoods, the enigmatic and devious "Jimmy" (Robert De Niro) and the excellently vile "Tommy" (Joe Pesci). They put together an audacious robbery at JFK and are soon the talk of the town, but the latter in the trio is a bit of a live-wire and when he goes just a bit too far one night, the three of them find that their really quite idyllic lives of extortion and larceny start to go awry - and it's their own who are on their tracks. Scorsese takes him time with this story: the development of the characters - their personalities, trust, inter-reliance, sometimes divided, fractured, loyalties and ruthlessness and are built up in a thoroughly convincing fashion. We can, ourselves, see the obvious attractions for the young "Henry" of a life so very far removed from his working class Irish-Italian background - the wine, the women, the thrills; it's tantalising! If anything let's it down it's the last half hour; it's just a little too predictable and having spent so long building up the characters, we seem to be in just a bit too much of a rush; but that is a nit-pick. It's not the "Godfather" but it is not far short.

Martin Scorsese (director) always loves details in crime films, but he is not primarily interested in the crime itself. That is why his films are always produced with details that you may see as unimportant to you, especially if you want to see the movie for the purpose of seeing scenes of theft, murder, and so on, but you see the opposite. Somewhat other details are visible on the scene mostly
The film talks about liberation, stereotypes, and entering a new world for humanity. It was Ray Liotta (Henry). He wanted, as I said, to break free from stereotypes and enter the world of gangs.
Martin Scorsese (the director) filmed this unfamiliar life and directed it in the form of a film similar to documentaries because he filmed it as if it were a real, realistic life. That is why the presence of Voice Over was important in order to give you the feeling that there is a person sitting next to you telling you the story while whispering in your ear as it happens in the movies documentaries.

In a world that's powered by violence, on the streets where the violent have power, a new generation carries on an old tradition.
Martin Scorsese’s Goodfellas is without question one of the finest gangster movies ever made, a benchmark even. It’s that rare occasion for a genre film of this type where everything artistically comes together as one. Direction, script, editing, photography, driving soundtrack and crucially an ensemble cast firing on all cylinders. It’s grade “A” film making that marked a return to form for Scorsese whilst simultaneously showing the director at the summit of his directing abilities.
The story itself, based on Nicholas Pileggi’s non-fiction book Wiseguy, pulls absolutely no punches in its stark realisation of the Mafia lifestyle. It’s often brutal, yet funny, unflinching yet stylish, but ultimately from first frame to last it holds the attention, toying with all the human emotions during the journey, tingling the senses of those who were by 1990 fed up of popcorn movie fodder.
It’s not romanticism here, if anything it’s a debunking of the Mafia myth, but even as the blood flows and the dialogue crackles with electricity, it always remains icy cool, brought to us by a man who had is eyes and ears open while growing up in Queens, New York in the 40s and 50s. Eccellente! 9/10

The film is based on Anthony Burgess‘ novel about young Alex Delarge and his droogs who go around tolchocking people and partaking of the ultraviolence and the old in-out-in-out.
Yes, the language is a futuristic mix of Russian, slang and made-up words that Burgess employed so that the futuristic language employed would never sound dated. He called it Nadsat. By the end of the film, for better or worse, you will understand the language.
**Note: This may be too detailed for those who have not seen the film, so I advise reading it after a viewing.**
Alex likes violence, sex, and Beethoven. He is the leader of a gang (droogs) and in the first part of the film we witness a typical evening: beating up an old veck (derelict, tramp); breaking into the house of a writer and beating him up and forcing him to witness the rape of his wife (in the book it is this writer who coins the term “A Clockwork Orange”), then heading back to the Korova Milkbar.
We are shown Alex’s home: his parents are a rather dull and passive pair. Alex’s bedroom has all the mod-cons, including a pet snake! He also has a state-of-the-art hi-fi on which he listens to his favourite piece of music – Beethoven’s Ninth.
There is dissent in his group’s ranks, to which Alex reacts with violence. However, having asserted his leadership Alex and his droogs go on another evening’s rampage. Alex kills a woman in her house, but is locked in by his vindictive droogs. He is caught and sentenced to 14 years. Two years later, the current Government has promised to do something about the gross prison overcrowding so they employ a new technique that makes the offender feel ill when confronted with violent feelings (the Ludivico Technique). Alex volunteers for the treatment because he will get released after two weeks.
After the two weeks of receiving the treatment we witness a debasing example of its efficacy conducted in front of his old prison warders and chaplain – who is opposed to the treatment on the grounds that it removes people’s free will. Alex is released.
Going home he finds his belongings have been reclaimed by the state, his snake is dead, and his room has been let to a lodger on two-year’s contract. Homeless and with no belongings he meets two of his old droogs who effect their revenge on him. Bloodied, he stumbles across a house and is taken in by the very writer whose wife he raped – and who has since died, attributed by the writer to the rape. Not recognising Alex at first (because they wore masks) he eventually realises who he has taken in and conspires to exact his revenge and at the same time, with the help of his friends, provide ammunition for those who oppose the Government’s scientific methods of rehabilitating prisoners.
Stripped of his ability to defend himself, Alex now has become a victim.
That Alex survives this is no surprise to viewers, considering he is narrating the story; having been nearly killed by his previous victim, the Government has to take action to enforce damage limitation – Alex’s treatment must be reversed. His ability to enjoy violence must be restored.
It’s difficult to view this film in the present day and understand what caused such furore on its original release. There is brutality and rape, but I have seen far worse in mainstream films and by modern standards these scenes are quite tame – and when looked at in the cold light of day there is more suggestion than depiction. I suppose the fact this film is now available on DVD indicates a shift in what is regarded as “acceptable”.
As with all of Stanley Kubrick‘s films, it is a carefully engineered story, the music a mixture of “futuristic” synthesiser courtesy of Walter Carlos (now Wendy Carlos, yes, he had a sex-change) and classical music and “Singin’ in the Rain” – the song Alex sings while the writer’s wife is raped.
It is a well-made film, full of satire and messages about the free-will of people versus the rights of others to be protected; about how far the state should go to rehabilitate, questions about is it even rehabilitation, and the religious arguments stirred up concerning the removal of one’s free will.
There is satire on political machinations and expediency and the love-hate relationship between the press and those in power, how the press can be a weapon against the Government, and its ally. There is a swipe at the fervent belief that God will always provide the answers provided we are patient and wait.
Finally, there is a sideswipe at man’s insistence that Science offers the answer to all things, perhaps the main thrust of the book, and that which gives it its title: “ – The attempt to impose upon man, a creature of growth and capable of sweetness, to ooze juicily at the last round the bearded lips of God, to attempt to impose, I say, laws and conditions appropriate to a mechanical creation, against this I raise my sword-pen —.“
I recommend the film.