I know saying this puts me in the minority, but the first _Terminator_ movie is actually my favourite of the franchise. That's not a knock on the second movie, _Judgment Day_ is **awesome**. But I really dig the lower down, dark, sci-fi horror vibe of the original (it **is** a knock on every movie in the series that came after _T2_ though).
Schwarzenegger as the titular Terminator is inspired casting. Firstly, any restrictions he had in acting ability back in the 80s are brushed aside by the fact that he's playing a cold, unfeeling machine. And can you imagine someone who looks like that coming after you? Forget the fact he's got an arsenal in his back pocket, forget the fact that he's got a near unstoppable metal exoskeleton, Arnie is already a machine! Being hunted by that man would be terrifying, and you feel that in the performance of the leads.
_The Terminator_ is one of the best movies I've ever seen, and I have seen - a lot.
_Final rating:★★★★½ - Ridiculously strong appeal. I can’t stop thinking about it._

Writing a review for a movie this old does indeed seem pointless, but since this is one of my favorite films I thought I would review it anyway.
In my opinion The Terminator is a beautiful, yet tragic love story set in the back drop of the future and the past. A soldier from the future is sent to the 80's to save the leader of the resistance (John Connor) mother from a High Tech Cybernetic Killing Machine. We all know that. What I loved was that this soldier, Kyle Reese volunteers for this suicide mission. He volunteers for one reason because, he had fallen in love with this woman, Sarah Connor. Though they were separated by several decades of time and Judgement Day, her son tells him these tales of his mother Sarah and gives him a single picture of her, purposefully pushing Reese to fall for his mother and this is the reason for him traveling through time to do the nearly impossible. Save and protect Sarah Connor to save the human race in the future and kill a super bad ass T-800 with low tech weaponry and a reluctant Damsel.
Bullets flying and bombs booming make this movie highly entertaining. The storyline, ridiculous as it is, is fantastic and had everyone in the 80's and 90's quoting this SciFi film. It's always a good watch. It holds up nicely overtime.

I can't. Nobody goes home. Nobody else comes through. It's just him - and me.
It's funny really, writing a review for The Terminator these days just feels a little pointless, I mean anyone who wanted to see it would have done so already. In truth the effects work is a little creaky now but that doesn't matter, they were awesome in 1984. It's a ripper of a story awash with high energy action, rip-snorting characterisations and tech-noir atmospherics. It's place in the pantheon of science fiction films is assured, its influence on the genre undoubted, while the lead cast members cemented themselves in the sci-fi hall of fame.
No more needs to be said really, The Terminator is a kinetic live action comic book of a movie, classy movie making, paced to precision and featuring a story that's brilliantly complex and utterly compelling. 9/10

The first half of the screenplay is better than the second and in particular the weak ending which is very commercial Oscar material. However, there is Benigni, who is an old school visual comedian, and some of his antics are a delight. The period setting details are also well done.

My rating: 4 out of 10 stars
A young man who survives a disaster at sea is hurtled into an epic journey of adventure and discovery. While cast away, he forms an unexpected connection with another survivor: a fearsome Bengal tiger.
I did not have huge expectations on this movie since it is not exactly my style of movie but nevertheless I have to say that I was disappointed. The movie is certainly quite beautiful to watch, at least part of it. However it is also a movie with a strong theistic agenda. Even though it is, luckily, not really religious/political extremism it is thick and intruding nonetheless. I was expecting Pi to actually learn something during the course of his adventure but he does not. He starts the movie gullible and foolish looking for meaning in life (religion) and the movie ends pretty much in the same way with him claiming that he had faith and therefore he survived. Yet none of the decisions he made was based on faith but simply pragmatical decisions of survival. If anything the movie proved that faith or religion had nothing to do with it.
As I said the movie was, partly, quite beautiful to watch and this is entirely what rendered it the stars that I gave it. For the rest it was a very boring movie. The only mildly entertaining part was the scenes on the boat with Gérard Depardieu playing the very unpleasant cook. As beautiful to watch as they were many of the scenes were quite unrealistic though and had an artificial look to them even when, I believe, it was not intended. We bought the movie because my youngest daughter loves movies about animals but not even she was overly entertained by this movie.

Perfectly written, amazingly filmed, and surprisingly ended. Definitely, going in my amnisa list.

Visually, this movie traps yourself from the beginning to the end.
The story is really deep and moving and the performances are plainly good.
A must to be seen.

I'm afraid I still really struggled with the lightweight casting here, but once I'd convinced myself to get over that, I found this to be a far more characterful and entertaining adventure. With the dragon "Smaug" now safely in possession of the gold, it falls to "Thorin" (Richard Armitage) and his band of dwarves to make their way - via the misty mountains and the realm of the elves - to the human settlement of "Laketown" where the nimble-fingered "Bilbo" (Martin Freeman) must find and use a secret way into the lair so he can try to repossess the "Arkenstone". Meantime, the mischievous "Gandalf" (Sir Ian McKellen) is off having escapades of his own in the South? Will they rendezvous in time to thwart the increasingly narked fire-breather. What is clear here is that some of the philosophising from the book is very much on the back burner. This is an out-and-out action movie with loads of combat scenes, some very clever visual effects that almost rendered me a bit sea-sick at times - all built around a solid story of companionship and determination. Characters are playing to their strengths and weaknesses; relationships are being forged and challenged; courage is being found - and lost and it's all enjoyable and engaging to watch on the big screen. Maybe I could have been doing without the romantic interludes (yuk!) but for the most part this is a great looking and visionary interpretation that just happens to have a cast that really should have been so much better. A good, not a great, watch that tees us up nicely for the finale.

Still very good, but I found 'The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug' to be a step below the preceding 2012 release.
The conclusion is what affects it the most, in my opinion. It isn't anything bad, but it goes on for too long - yet the ending itself comes out of nowhere a little. It's iffily crafted, with the entertainment value not enough to cover it up. Again, nothing anywhere near terrible... just not as great as I wanted/expected.
I also kinda wanted more scenes with Martin Freeman (Bilbo) across the midway point. I like the focus on Richard Armitage (Thorin) & Co. but I felt there needed to be more with the lead - and with Ian McKellen (Gandalf), for that matter.
I've led with my negatives first, but I have many positives too. I enjoyed the scenes in Esgaroth with Luke Evans (Bard), all of the stuff there looks awesome. The character of Tauriel, played by Evangeline Lilly, is cool. Orlando Bloom (Legolas) remains fun to watch. Everything else, including the score, is very nicely done - as anticipated.
Love the end credits song ("I See Fire") by Ed Sheeran, by the way. Not quite as grand and great as "May It Be" from LOTR, but it's pretty close!

I'm happy to be back in this world, but _Empire_ this ain't.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

Jackson turned a great story into just another Prates of the Caribbean. Jumping, sliding, gags, etc. All the thinking parts are gone.

7 out of 10 stars would normally be considered quite okay and I guess you could say that this movie is quite okay. However, it has a reputation to live up to. As a movie in the Tolkien universe and with LOTR and The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey this movie have a lot to live up to and, as far as I am concerned, it does not.
As an action/adventure/fantasy movie it is a quite okay movie. It has a lot of action of course, a lot of adventure and a lot of special effects. Of course everything plays out with the Tolkien universe as a back-drop. I guess it is rather superfluous to mention that the movie is based on the book The Hobbit by Tolkien. However it is here the problems start.
In my review of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey the first thing that I mentioned was that you should be aware of the fact that the movie did not follow the book in any great detail and that this was quite okay since the extensions were well made. Well, it should be no surprise that the first part of this statement is valid for this movie as well. Unfortunately, whereas the first movie felt like a fluid extension of the book this one feels like it is just full of fillers.
There are a lot of cool scenes and a lot of action but it really feels like it was just put in there as fillers to showcase the special effects. Speaking of special effects, quite a few of them where rather unimpressive I have to say. The scenes where the dwarfs went down the rapids in barrels frequently looked plastic and artificial. The scenes with Smaug was not too bad even though he was quite overused but the parts around the forges was just plain ridiculous. I know it is fantasy but come one, getting them started and producing tons and tons of molten gold in a few minutes not to mention riding on molten metal without getting burned was just silly.
On the whole I found it an enjoyable movie but I was expecting more.

The second part amends the fiasco of the first one.
Spectacular and, again, with several moments of the already classic "platform-like" fights on the run from these series of movies that could be enhanced if some sense would be given to them. Still, the staging of every location and, remarkably, Smaug, is worth seeing.

Perrault's "Sleeping Beauty" is easily my favourite Walt Disney adaptation and this film takes up on by far the best character from that delightful animation - the wicked witch "Maleficent". It tells us how this true epitome of wickedness was actually quite a good-natured elf until an evil king duped her and stole her wings. Now that had to hurt - not to mention get her a touch irked, so she set out on a vengeful existence culminating in a curse on the young Princess "Aurora". As per the novel, the three good fairies take the princess to hide in the forest but the crafty witch tracks them down almost immediately and has some fun manipulating them all as the baby grows to womanhood, at which point this story takes an unexpected turn (from the book too!). The cast are really good in this: Angelina Jolie - in the title role - could have been a bit more menacing, but she is still on good form, as is Sam Riley as her rather kindly sidekick "Diaval" whom she changes into whatever she needs to do her bidding. Elle Fanning is just a little bit too "nice" (for me, anyway) as "Aurora" and Sharlto Copley as the rapidly losing the plot "King Stefan" just a bit too hammy but cutie Brenton Thwaites does a half decent English accent as Prince "Philip" and the three fairies inject some light-hearted comedy into the proceedings too. The whole thing, though just a wee bit cheesy, is still a really well produced watch with some superb visual effects. Though it looks great, I didn't like the ending, much - but then I always wanted "Darth Vader" to win, too...

Good movie seeing how maleficent became maleficent. Pretty bogus what they did to her. Now she fights to get her wings back.

_TL:DR
An enchanting retelling of a classic story which really holds it's own with the changes in it's story-line. If you love magical worlds, definitely give this one a watch! (7/10 on the Dragon-Scale for including two very badass dragons!)_
I truly appreciate the modern trend of humanizing the "villains" in a story, real life is rarely as simple as: 'This person is just evil.' and it allows for so much more depth and emotional investment in both protagonists and antagonists.
Hats off to the visual effects team for making the Moors feel truly enchanted, with many magical critters and beautifully strange fauna all pining for your attention. Everything feels like it has it's own personality through their movement and design, making the whole movie a feast for the eyes. (And I of-course cannot forget the raven-like aspects in all of Diaval's forms. Raven dragon? Yes please!)
As for the story, it takes great inspiration from the original but brings it's own charms to the table. Opting to take the 'Parental Love' definition of true love, rather than Romantic Love. Which is a decision I personally can get behind. (Even _if_ Maleficent is not Aurora's birth-mother, she has certainly been more of a mother to her than her biological mother. Which is another great message to send!)
Lastly, what did I get out of the story? When we're young, we tend to be young, naïve and have an optimistic colorful view of the world. And something will inevitably happen to change our views and jade us. (Making our outlook darker and thornier. _Wink wink nudge nudge._)
This new outlook will usually stay for years, if not for life, but sometimes we find something or someone who revives (part of) the child we all have inside of us that we wish dearly to protect. (The Moors going from colorful to dark and back to colorful again.) And I can certainly find myself in that.

Not as dark or deep as I was expecting/wanting, but it is cool to see a different telling of 'Sleeping Beauty'.
Angelina Jolie fits as the titular character, bringing with her a good performance. Elle Fanning (Aurora), Sharlto Copley (Stefan) and Sam Riley (Diaval) play their respective roles well enough, but neither come close to matching Jolie - as you'd probably expect.
I found the special effects a bit iffy. It's not that it looks anything close to bad, I just thought it could've looked better. The score isn't all that memorable, either. I did enjoy how the plot unfolds though, mainly thanks to the lead admittedly.
Intrigued to see what the sequel to 'Maleficent' has to offer.

Good watch, would watch again, and can recommend.
I'm not a big Angelina Jolie ("Lara Croft: Tomb Raider") fan, but she definitely nailed the part, and I felt for her when those things happened, so I'm definitely not going to say she's not a good actor.
Elle Fanning ("The Great") is great, mostly an annoyingly happy little thing while she's awake, alongside wonderful supporting cast and gorgeous (and sometimes goofy) CG animated creatures.
Disney definitely poured money into this to make it look great. They also spent quite the effort to revitalize the story. After rewatching "Sleeping Beauty" and some other variations (I did fail to reread the original story), I am definitely a fan of the direction they took. The original story was just so weak and empty, and this does one of my favorite things and humanizes a villain into an adversery into of an evil monster.
I'm not a fan of how or why the 3 faeries get involved, but it makes some sense. And I'm very happy with how they handled the resolution of the curse.
They created this awesome world which adds to the movie in a very special way.

Today, June 4, I went to see Maleficent on the birthday of its star, Angelina Jolie. In itself, nothing more than a funny coincidence, although when you think about it, it is customary for someone who is celebrating their birthday, to hand out treats. And boy, this was the best treat ever.
Three reasons why I was completely stoked to see Maleficent after hearing about it for the first time about a year and a half ago: 1) I love Angelina. 2) I love Sleeping Beauty. 3) Maleficent is my favourite fairy tale villain of all time. On the other hand, I was also a little wary of the way they had apparently altered the story. See, if there is one thing I hate in films, it's when they explain and justify the motives and reasons why a certain character is "bad". I for one believe that some people are just plain evil and that's the way it is. And going into this persons' childhood and explaining how bad everything was (or something to that effect) only works to weaken that characters' force. Now, I don't know why a somewhat clichéd story about the love and betrayal of a young Maleficent (who apparently used to be good and pure-hearted), worked here, but somehow it just did. It completely surprised me, to be honest. I'm usually allergic to this kind of fluff, but it worked! Maleficents' back-story actually intrigued me, moved me even. And it succeeded at what it was supposed to do in the first place: it made Maleficent human.
In the end though, they could have written any kind of story about what is undoubtedly Disney's most beloved villainess, it never would have been raised to an above-par level without its most crucial element: Angelina Jolie. I might sound biased because I'm such a fan, but I am perfectly able to look at her performances in a critical way, and I can only say this about her performance as Maleficent: she was in one word, perfect. I honestly can't imagine any other actress who could have approached this role with the same flawless combination of properties (short of maybe Charlize Theron): she is beautiful and very charismatic, yet at the same time undeniably cruel and cold. She was everything I had hoped this real life characterization of Maleficent would be, and then some.
Compliments also go out to the three other main actors in this film. First to Elle Fanning, for being very convincing as the young princess Aurora. She is sweet, lovely and kind and she has the right personality to play this famous princess just the way she should be. Second, to Sam Riley, who was a pleasant surprise as Maleficents' pet raven Diaval in human form. I was thus far unfamiliar with his work, but he was very well suited to his role and I enjoyed watching him. Last, but certainly not least, Sharlto Copley, who has already thrilled me with his performances in District 9 and Elysium, and who has now definitely made a fan out of me. His range is awesome and he was totally terrifying as Stefan.
OK, there are some things you have to look past. My first, and most blatant, issue with this film is: if young Maleficent was a good, pure- hearted girl, then why did she, as an innocent 10-year-old, already have evil-looking horns, devilish wings and is she called "Maleficent"? Right… Secondly, I found the three pixies to be very unconvincing and even somewhat annoying CGI-wise. Overall the special effects are well done but the pixies were definitely an eyesore. The dragon in the end also looked a bit unreal.
That being said, Maleficents' costumes and make-up were absolutely stunning. I just couldn't get enough of gazing at her intricate headdresses and beautiful gowns. The costume and styling department really deserve top credit and I truly hope there will be some awards for them in the near future. The music was also great, with flawless scoring by James Newton Howard and a terrific rendition of "Once upon a dream" by Lana Del Rey over the end credits. Also, awesome battle scenes and action sequences galore!
Going into this film, I thought it would be nothing more than a so-so, kind of fun summer flick. A 6.5/7 maybe. Sometimes, I love it when I'm wrong. Out of the three films that I've seen at the cinema over the last week (the other two being X-Men and Godzilla, both disappointments…) I can tell you, Maleficent was by far the most gratifying. Perhaps because I had relatively low expectations, perhaps because it was simply that good.
One serious warning for the rough, rugged men out there: this film features pixies, fairies, sparkly thingies and magical fluff out the wazoo. If you're going to see this, do it for Angelina. If not, treat this film like kryptonite. You will thank me later.
To everyone else: go see this film. It will rock your socks off. Maleficent is magnificent.
_(June 2014)_

When I first read about this movie I was not entirely sure whether I liked the idea or not. After having watched it I have to say that I really liked it. It is a nice fairy tale based on the Sleeping Beauty but from the perspective of the evil fairy (who is not really that evil actually) instead. As far as I am concerned the concept worked surprisingly well.
Obviously the story is highly rewritten compared to the original Sleeping Beauty story. Whether that is good or bad is probably a matter of personal opinion. I think it is good since it allowed to story in the movie to have its own merits and not be too dependent on the original. It works for me since the original story is not very present except and thus you do not get any annoyed every so often because the deviate from the “original” since the movie clearly demonstrated that it intended to be quite different from the start.
The movie is quite beautiful with a typical fairy-tale air to it and at the same time dark and ominous during the scenes that required it. There are plenty of CGI of course and, to me, it was all quite well done. Angeline Jolie did a good job as Maleficent. I was actually less impressed by the three fairies that were supposed to take care of the princess though. They tried to be funny but it never really became very funny.
On the whole I found this to be a very enjoyable movie. So did the kids by the way. When I watched it (with the kids) the kids had already watched it twice.

Nice re-interpretation of the sleeping beauty children's tale. Angelina Jolie has some really good moments in which a simple smile from her can make you shit your pants, although the interpretation is, in some parts, irregular. Elle Fanning is not a good option as "the Beauty" in the same way Kristen Stewart wasn't for Snow White. Angelina eats completely her role as Charlize Theron eat Stewart's. Sharito Copley has a great performance, as always, and the FX are really decent.

I think maybe some of the lustre from Andrew Garfield's first outing as "Spider-Man" had already worn off for this really rather mediocre sequel. This time he has to don his red and blue lycra and save the city - and "Gwen" (Emma Stone) - from the marauding "Green Goblin". There is quite a degree of on-screen chemistry between Garfield and Stone, and as an action-romance, this is at the more entertaining end of the scale. It's the plot and the tech elements that let it down. The visual effects upon which it relies so heavily are really nothing special. Nor, it has to be said, are the baddies. The "Green Goblin" just isn't menacing enough. That might be, perhaps, because Dane DeHaan is one of those actors (a bit like Michael Pitt) whom I never really understood why he made it at all. The make up artists do work wonders in demonstrating his decline into moral turpitude, but as an actor he is just, well, insipid as the poor, misguided and bitter "Harry Osborne". Jamie Foxx has a bit more fun as the sparky "Electro", though that character is largely undeveloped and Sally Field can be relied upon to add a little maternal instinct as "Aunt May", but somehow the whole thing is just one beat off. The first film had a much stronger story and a cast that were still bedding down; this reverses that with much more assured performances from the two at the top of the bill, but with a much less meaty story to back them up. I did like Andrew Garfield in this role - he has charisma as an actor, but this is all just a bit flat and though impressive to watch on a big screen with big sound, is not a film that will make anyone's top ten - even Marc Webb's, I think.

Had high hopes for this one because of the first film. Was not disappointed!

Spider-Man stuffed once again.
Marc Webb returns to direct what Sony had hoped was the second instalment of a longer running reboot of the Spider-Man franchise. Writing this now, I'm armed with the knowledge that once again the web slinger will get another reboot in 2017, which after viewing this sequel comes as no surprise.
It's not so much that it's a bad film, or a bad Spider-Man film at that, it's just that it feels all very familiar, whilst simultaneously hugging the same pitfalls as Sam Raimi's Spiderman 3. Webb tries to juggle a screenplay with 3 villains (well two and a half really), a tricky romance between Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) and Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), and of course there's school, a best friend and affairs of the home heart to deal with.
The introduction of Electro (Jamie Foxx) is a good move, inputting a new villain into the spidey world is most welcome. Yet in spite of Foxx earning some level of sympathy with the characterisation, it never really works and unfortunately draws comparisons with a certain Mr. Freeze from another franchise. Dane DeHaan comes in as Harry Osborn, soon to be Green Goblin, again the tortured soul act is well performed, but come Goblin time the make up and effects work is laughable. While Paul Giamati as Aleksei Sytsevich - cum - Rhino, is having fun but is barely in the picture.
Stone is the best thing in it by far, while Garfield works hard, but there is no getting away from the fact that they both are - and look - too old for their parts. The action is fun and pulse raising, but there's not enough of it to sustain a running time of 2 hours and 20 minutes. Though on the plus side Webb and his team are to be applauded for choosing a story line that is ultimately bold and contains a great emotional whack. All told it's a shaky entry to the spidey world, one that once again forced Sony into another rethink. Lets hope the next journey spidey goes on has some clarity and streamlined sense. 6/10

The story is predictable and with zero neurons on it but Garfield and Stone connection is good and the comedy moments sort of enjoyable.
Probably you could remove the super-hero mess and you would had a much better romantic comedy.

It seems that Spider Man is doomed to receive mediocre to abysmal implementations on the big screen. Well, at least in my opinion. The Amazing Spider Man 2 currently have a rating of 7.1 which quite surprises me. This was not the worst Spider Man movie. The 2nd instalment, Spider-Man 2, in the first series with Tobey Maquire still holds that title firmly.
There are some nice special effect fireworks going on and there are some funny parts when Peter Parker puts on the mask and goes to action but apart from that I found the movie uninspired, with a mediocre plot and sometimes downright boring. The plot is perhaps suitable for a comics magazine with its standard set of unlikely events, backstabbing big-corporate employees and disgruntled scientists becoming super villains but on the big-screen one would expect a wee bit more effort going into the plot.
The main villain, Electro, was … well not really giving much of an impression. He never lifted above the pretty silly scientist letting everyone walk all over him and doing really, really stupid things like trying to put two high voltage cables together without turning off the power. Sure he tried to give a menacing appearance towards the end but to me he never really managed to elevate himself to a real super-villain. I almost got the impression that the director actually realized that Electra was not good enough and so decided to come up with some convoluted scheme to throw in The Green Goblin at the end. None of these villains are really bad, just mediocre.
Then of course there is the obligatory Peter Parker wallowing in self-pity that every director seems to just have to put in these movies. It is not funny and downright boring. And for the ending cliffhanger they throw in the Rhino…as some jerk in a monster mechanical suit :-( . What the f…? The Rhino is supposed to have a polymer bonded to his skin and augmented strength and speed. Not be running around in some silly mechanical Rhino toy!
The entertainment factor of this movie comes almost entirely from the SFX action and a few select scenes. Otherwise the movie was fairly (yawn) mediocre as far as I am concerned. Having said that, being the sci-fi and super-hero fan that I am, I will probably buy the next instalment anyway if one comes out.

The second movie in the new Spider-man movie series that directed by Marc Webb. I doubt his potential after seeing this movie. I feel someone should take his position before it become too late. In the history of the Spider-man movies, from all the 6 this one is the worst. Commercially it has done a great business that grabbed around $800 million all over the world, but failed to deliver another quality movie for the fans. The movie engaged with the too much character and subplots. The subplots were not placed in the right spots, kind of random appearance brings the chaos in understanding the story. I had a high hope on this movie and it did not supply well. Frankly, I kind of lost interest in Spider-man. Maybe because it was too soon to reboot, I guess.
> **‘‘You want to be the hero.
> And now you gotta pay the price.’’**
The first movie gave a decent re-start for the refreshed Spider-man movie series. And what happened here in this second installment was a disaster. The first thing is it was nearly a 2 and half an hour movie that brought me lightly a headache to carry on thus far. Actually, it was 10 minutes shorter than what it is now, but in the end they have developed a bit longer to show the opening scene of the third movie. When a movie got a powerful hero, it should have equally matched antagonist. If they are matched, then the fight between them are the next thing to bring the best out of it. I think the Electro man did not click as they have expected, at least not to me. The strength he had was something beyond spider-man, but did not unleash him in a perfect manner. Though Jamie Foxx was not bad in that avatar, the filmmakers kind of wasted his presence for not so good scenes.
Remember the original Spider-man was the modern superhero movies, I mean it was done using computer graphics. Afterwards 'Batman', 'Iron Man', 'Thor' and all were followed. I like the version with Tobey Maguire in it, though my rating declined by movie after another in the trilogy. This reboot series had a good opening, but failed to get the momentum going. Especially all the emotions were looked fakes that do not appeal like the original movie series did. Yes, it had a wonderful box office and that does not mean the movie is good, either worst. But expected a little better, especially in the negative characters. Andrew Garfield was good, not awesome, because most of his masked parts were CGI. Emma stone was another let down and could not help comparing her with Kristen Dunst, because she was no way near, at all. The Dane DeHaan role had the same issue and I don't know why people did not get better space in the movie that ran 140 minutes long. Like I said subplot spoiled everything I think. The digital 3D and stunts were poor. Yeah, there are many things to complain about it than to praise, but all the answer should come in the next sequel. If that makes bigger, not commercially, I mean with a good story, graphics and performances then there will be no problem. But if it fails, I had to say 'bring back the fourth installment of the original movie series'. Definitely not worth a watch, but anyway most of the guys going to watch it or already watched it.

Romance really does know how to suck the fizz out of an adventure film! Here, with the complicit contribution of John Williams' string accompaniment we have to endure the nauseating love story between Hayden Christensen ("Anakin") and Natalie Portman ("Padmé"). Couldn't they just have got a room? "Palpatine" has seen to it that Ewan McGregor ("Obi Wan") has now been charged with guiding his young pupil to fulfil his potential with the "Force" but without being elevated to the status of Jedi master, so he is naturally a tad narked about that. Luckily for us, though, he discovers that there is a secret army of clones ("Jango Fett" lookalikes dressed a lot like Stormtroopers and just as useless in a gun fight) and so with the help of "Yoda" et al, he rallies the Jedi order against the evil "Count Dooku" (Christopher Lee). Away from the slush, it's a good action fantasy and the last half hour redeems it somewhat. Worth watching if you like the series, but a very poor relation of it's older cousins.

MORE REVIEWS @ https://www.msbreviews.com/
Rewatching before OBI-WAN KENOBI.
I don't know if I dislike THE PHANTOM MENACE more or ATTACK OF THE CLONES less, but I didn't feel the (endless) problems of episode II as much as I - Jar Jar being left aside helps tremendously, thank God. Still, the issues are so many that I can't fit them in a single paragraph.
The dialogue is even worse in this one, mostly due to the cringeworthy romantic storyline between Anakin and Padmé. Some of the worst writing the big screen has ever witnessed. I'm usually quite defensive of acting performances, but Christensen is truly, deeply terrible here.
There are more lightsaber fights, but none come even close to Maul's sequence in TPM. Once again, the overreliance on CGI elements/characters doesn't help the action set pieces, despite the visuals overall improvement. The score makes most scenes "look" better than they are.
The screenplay is packed with logical inconsistencies, but it's the poor treatment of the all-powerful, wise Jedi that disappoints me. From their lack of awareness to the made-up, nonsensical rules about their ideology, I really don't know what Lucas had on his mind.
Finally, the editing yet again. ATTACK OF THE CLONES is longer than it should. Captivating, important sequences are cut too short, while dull, exposition-heavy scenes are carried on for too long. There's a good movie in here somewhere. I just can't find it. However...
Its positives somehow land better this time around. I find most of the action pretty solid. Anakin rescuing his mother is arguably one of the best scenes of the prequels. And again, less Jar Jar. I genuinely think it switches with THE PHANTOM MENACE ... at the bottom of my ranking, though.
Rating: D+

Better than 'Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace', though 'Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones' is again rather underwhelming - if still good on its own merits.
Liam Neeson is missed, with the likes of Ewan McGregor, Natalie Portman, Hayden Christensen and Christopher Lee failing to set the world alight. McGregor does give the best performance of that quartet; Christensen possibly the weakest, though his character's story is probably the most interesting - or its overall arc, at least.
Those onscreen aren't helped by the dialogue, which is very basic and run-of-the-mill. I found the score a little forgettable, even if it's still fun to hear the key pieces of it. The plot is watchable, but I did expect greater storytelling from these two follow-up releases to the original trilogy. The CGI is, marginally, an improvement on this film's predecessor.