Previous 2 parts were much better story wise, however effects are good in this part.

A mesmerizing visual style to this movie. An epic adventure everyone should watch. A Greek myth on the big screen. Yes thankyou!

Only the third time seeing this one, first time was in the theaters and then I think on DVD. Didn't care a whole lot in either viewing. So with the 4K being released, decided enough time had passed to give it another shot and... it was okay, a bit too stylized for my taste (and yes I know that's Snyder's thing) and lacks the emotional impact Snyder was going for, but there are some bad ass moments, including just Gerard Butler's overall performance, but didn't really do much for me otherwise.
Probably my least favorite of Snyder's movies, though haven't watched Sucker Punch in a long time. 3.0/5

Leather underwear and a cape is honestly such a Look™.
_300_ cops a lot of flak for being all style and no substance, and I'm not gonna stand here and lie to you by refuting that. What I will say however, is that style over substance does not inherently make a movie bad. _300_ is a lot of fun, you get what's going on, and there's some genuine rewatch value.
Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time.

300, the 2007 story of the three hundred Spartans who held off a massive Persian offensive in Ancient Greece, proved a disappointing film. In spite of my Classics degree, I won't complain about the divergences from recorded fact. The film is clearly meant to be a fantasy on historical themes instead of a faithful account of the event. Rather, what irked me was the hammy dialogue. There were the tropes of recent Hollywood battle scenes: warriors on the good guys' side defending themselves with little exertion as they trade silly quips about how they've got each other's backs. A queen gives an address to a council that is all melodrama -- are we back in George Lucas' "Star Wars" prequels?
Having enjoyed Sin City, a film with a similar green screen approach, I thought that 300 would be enjoyable on the basis of its special effects, but alas it wasn't. For one, the cinematography is claustrophobic. All outdoor scenes but one were filmed with a green screen, and the digital backdrops add no depth. Even when supposedly standing on the Greek coast under a big sky, everyone seems like they are just standing around in a fairly small room. Also, the fight scenes seem more primitive than considering that this film followed years after The Matrix Reloaded.
The little I can recommend 300 for is the variety of demonic monsters and exotic costumed assassins that fill the Persian army. As I said, this is a fantasy on historical themes, and the additions are often interesting. Still, I had a hard time sitting through the whole film.

I don't want to say that I dislike Mel Gibson as an actor, I mean he's been in plenty of movies that I love... but like Clint Eastwood, he makes a FAR better director than he ever made an actor.
Hacksaw Ridge is just one of those films where he does a great job... unfortunately it is Mel Gibson, so it's over-the-top carnage that is not at all underplayed. But you can't fault Gibson for making a Gibson film, you should really know as much coming in.
And he actually got Andre Garfield to act, which might not win him a reward, but it certainly should, that is a something that could get a man canonized... and it was his involvement that made me mistakenly put off viewing it for a few years. He seems like a real actor in this, accent and all.
And then, of course, it's the story of a pacifist who went to war to save lives... and in the end that's pretty noble by the strictest definition and you feel it though out, which is probably the point... despite the over-the-top carnage.

**A really good movie, which only lacks in some details.**
This was not the first war film directed by Mel Gibson. He had previously made at least one military-themed film, “We Were Soldiers”, set in Vietnam. However, it is a film that addresses much more human and intimate themes, in my opinion, by following the Doss family, a family from rural Virginia, and the trajectory of one of their children, Desmond.
Son of an extraordinarily devout mother, raised an Adventist, Desmond learns as a child to deny violence (the film shows a fight between brothers that could have ended very badly, but in real life it was a fight between Desmond's father and his brother-in-law) and to strictly follow his faith and religion. When the US joins the Allies in World War II, the brothers decide to enlist, but Desmond insists on doing so on his own terms, that is, as a combat rescuer, exempt from the use and carrying of any weapon. Of course, the US military isn't going to take this in the best light.
The film exposes itself in a somewhat lengthy way and captures our sympathy very well, but despite many people complaining that the first part of the film is slow and tiring, I felt this more in the prolonged combat scenes, despite understanding what led Gibson to detail them so exhaustively. Still, it is necessary to be frank: they are excellent battle scenes, with rich details and a very accentuated degree of rawness. Unfortunately, the dialogues aren't very good, they sound a bit cliché, and it's annoying to see that in a movie with so many qualities. The film also makes efforts to create a romantic subplot around Desmond's first wife, but things don't go well, and the material is frankly poor.
In general, Gibson does a good job of directing, although that won't come as a surprise to the most attentive observer. He already has a number of hits in his filmography and, together with Clint Eastwood and Bradley Cooper, is one of the actors I most like to see in the director's chair. Until now, I never really considered the value of the actors involved in this project. Some I just don't know very well. Andrew Garfield is an example: I've seen him in other works, but the actor never completely convinced me, so I was very impressed with his work here. Sam Worthington also impressed me very well, although he's an actor I recognize more easily, and I've seen him work well in other films. Hugo Weaving is excellent, and Vince Vaughn also deserves praise. Only Teresa Palmer seems to have more difficulty to disentangling herself from the work at hand, perhaps due to the weak material received.
Technically, the film has a lot of good things to look at, starting with the reasonably rigorous way in which Gibson seeks to re-enact the combat and war environment, from the recruiting camp to the field. Unlike many films from his past, where the director trampled on historical truth, he seems to make sincere efforts to respect it here. The visual and special effects are really very good, and the CGI used is truly excellent and gives the film a remarkable realism, especially in the combat scenes. The sets are interesting and the costumes too. I especially liked the old uniform that Weaving wears in a brief scene, given the difference with the uniforms in use at the time. The cinematography takes advantage of all this and more, and the camera moves intelligently, putting us in the fight, making us suffer with those soldiers, and feel what they felt, what Gregson's soundtrack -Williams accentuates even more.

***Tribute to a real-life WW2 “conscientious collaborator”***
After Pearl Harbor, Desmond Doss of Lynchburg, Virginia, joins the US Army to become a medic and serves at the Battle of Okinawa. As a Seventh Day Adventist and conscientious objector, his goal was to save lives, not kill, which naturally causes problems with his fellow soldiers; until they observe his bravery in combat. Teresa Palmer is on hand as Doss’ potential babe while Vince Vaughn plays the drill sergeant.
Based on a true story and directed by Mel Gibson, "Hacksaw Ridge" (2016) is a reverent and compelling WW2 flick that includes the usual training sequences in the first half balanced by intense combat sequences in the second. The unique factor here is that the brave protagonist refuses to use a weapon and is determined to only save lives in the midst of the insanity of war. This is an interesting real-life tale that needs to be told and “Hacksaw Ridge” is a good war movie only marred by laying on the heroics too thick as well as the lack of depth in the peripheral characters, which makes them uninteresting. The latter is in contrast to the outstanding “Platoon” (1986) which featured several well-defined characters.
The movie’s about an individual who believes in ABSOLUTE pacifism, which is a peaceable attitude that refuses to ever turn to violence, even in response to evil or for the purpose of national defense. He thinks this is supported by the Bible and, specifically, the New Testament, but it isn’t. The Scriptures support LIMITED pacifism, which is a peaceable attitude that only resorts to violence when justified. Christ' instructions to "turn the cheek" related to responding to a backhanded slap to the face, which was an insult in that culture. In other words, we could all save ourselves a lot of trouble in life if we learn to ignore the antagonism of various morons who would like to divert our focus and ruin our day. The Old Testament teaches this as well: "A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult" (Proverbs 12:16). So Christ was talking about giving an antagonist a break for the sake of peace in situations of personal offense; he wasn't referring to cases of severe criminal acts or defense of one’s nation.
For proof, Jesus' ministry team had a treasury box and some of his workers carried swords for protection from thieves/murderers in their travels. You see, Christ & his disciples weren’t absolute pacifists. On two occasions, the Messiah got a whip out and chased all the fools out of the Temple – throwing over tables, swinging the whip and yelling. He was a Holy Terror, pure & simple, and this caused the legalistic religious leaders to fear him and plot murder (Mark 11:15-18). Harmless pacifists don't inspire fear and provoke murder plots. Moreover, Romans 13 clearly states that the righteous laws of human governments are ordained of God for the purpose of punishing criminals, domestic & foreign, who threaten the lives of citizens. This includes the right to execute when appropriate. The majority of sane Christians realize this, but there are a few extremists, like Doss in the movie, who refuse to be balanced with the Scriptures on this matter and insist that violent conflict is never appropriate. They’re wrong. Sometimes it’s necessary, like after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, unprovoked, murdering over 2300 innocents and wounding 1100.
The film runs 2 hour, 19 minutes, and was shot in New South Wales, Australia.
GRADE: B-

Most of these men don't believe the same way you do, but they believe so much in how much you believe.
Hacksaw Ridge is directed by Mel Gibson and written by Robert Schenkkan and Andrew Knight. It is based on the 2004 documentary The Conscientious Objector. It stars Andrew Garfield, Sam Worthington, Vince Vaughn, Luke Bracey, Teresa Palmer, Ryan Corr, Hugo Weaving and Rachel Griffiths. Music is by Rupert Gregson-Williams and cinematography by Simon Duggan.
Film is a depiction of the real life heroics of Desmond Doss, an American pacifist combat medic in WWII during The Battle of Okinawa.
How great to have Gibson back directing, more so when he's tackling the brutalities of war and the critical human interest stories within. The story of Desmond Doss is inspirational stuff and Gibson and his team have done his story proud.
First half of the picture details Doss' upbringing, getting to know his family background, his beliefs and the forming of his loving relationship with Dorothy Schutte. Then after Pearl Harbour he enlists in service and we are then witness to boot camp, which comes with the horrors of bullying and ostracization due to Doss refusing to even touch a rifle - let alone use one! After the military based political thunder has exhausted its armoury, Doss and the rest of the 77th Infantry Division are sent to Okinawa to try and capture the Maeda Escarpment (Hacksaw Ridge). From where a true legend is born.
As is a Gibson trademark, the battle scenes are terrifyingly real and bloody as can be, the horrors of war laid bare for dramatic impact. Amongst the carnage, which is magnificently framed in smoky hazes and a landscape obliterated by weaponry, Doss (brilliantly brought to life by Garfield) comes to the fore. From within the madness comes humanity in its purest and most genuine form, and it makes for edge of the seat viewing whilst stirring the blood of those invested fully in this remarkable story. 9/10

**On the battlefront, his intention was to save the lives.**
The film was awesome, mainly because of the good message it carried out. That's not it, the film was well made with the wonderful cast and their great performances. The special effects were top notch, as well as the location where the majority of the second half takes place. This is a US-Australian co-production. Mel Gibson returned to the director's chair with a bang after exactly a decade. It got six Oscars nominees, so let's wait and see how many awards it grabs.
It was the World War II theme, based on a real person and events. It tells the story of an American youngster named Desmond Doss, who joins the army to contribute to his nation. But for his religious point of view, he struggles during the training. After managing to make through, the remaining film focused to reveal his bravery on the battlefield against the Japanese armed forces at Okinawa in a place called Hacsaw Ridge.
The story was based on one of the ten commandments. Doss, who strongly believes in that carries the same ideology to the combat zone. But all the initial part of the film reflects why he is very on to it. Especially after a fight with his brother in his childhood, followed by saving a severely injured man in a road accident just before deciding to join the army. So it is like both, a war film, as well as an anti-war theme. Most importantly, it tells us the bravery of a man, like of something Gandhi in the battlefield.
He did it in what he had believed, but my perspective differs. I liked the film, as a biopic and the message it delivered. Very entertaining too, but when it comes to Doss' belief, I think it was flawed. In the first place he would have not joined the army if he's true to the commandment. That's the basic rule of the commandment if one wants to adopt it.
He was just one of the unique person with such idea and luckily succeeded following it in a hostile situation. Only if you think all his episodes from an atheist perspective, that's how you would feel. One of the major reasons for that is, when he saves his men by letting his enemy die. But appreciable effort, at least from the Americans perspective. A true hero for his nation. One of the best war films ever. Instead of saying a must see film, I would say don't miss it.
_7.5/10_

I first saw Hacksaw Ridge, back in November when it first came out.. Went to an afternoon screening and it was packed. From the very first scene to the last , I was in awe. This is the best movie I have seen in a long time. The last 30 minutes of the film, I had tears rolling down my cheeks. After it ended, it got a 5 minute standing ovation. Braveheart is my all time favourite movie and have seen it over 200 times., but this might just be my new favourite movie. I have seen it 6 times now, and cried every time. It is such an emotional film. The story of the HERO Desmond Doss is truly inspiring.Thank you Mel Gibson and Desmond Doss Jr. for letting us know more about this remarkable man. Hugo Weaving was robbed of an Oscar nomination. Andrew Garfield blew my away with his performance and it is Vince Vaughn's best performance as well. It is the best film of 2016.

Out of all the films nominated for best picture, there is one that isn’t getting much attention at all. In Hacksaw Ridge, the narrative surrounding the film doesn’t have much to do the film at all because it’s identity seems to be centered on Mel Gibson’s comeback.
Read More: https://reviews.boxofficebuz.com/review/hacksaw-ridge

At last we get some semblance of the original trilogy with this action adventure iteration that is much darker and character-driven. Hayden Christensen's "Anakin" is coming to realise what really will turn him into the ultimate evil "Darth Vader" under the guise of his new mentor "Palpatine" (a magnificently, if theatrical, Ian McDiarmid). It's end to end action; the cast have thrown off their romantic notions from "Attack of the Clones" and we are setting the scene, properly, for "A New Hope" at the same time ridding ourselves of the baggage that weighed down the first two in this triplet. Curiously enough, the effects don't work so well in this, but George Lucas, David Tattersall and John Williams deliver a much, much better fantasy drama with some great galactic swashbuckling at the end...

MORE REVIEWS @ https://www.msbreviews.com/
Rewatching before OBI-WAN KENOBI.
When it comes to film sagas with massive fandoms, you'll find fans of literally all installments. STAR WARS has 11 movies and surely all are someone's #1. That said, REVENGE OF THE SITH proves to be an improvement in pretty much every single aspect compared to the first two prequels.
The narrative and its character arcs receive a much more interesting treatment - we finally get to witness Anakin's turn to the dark side and the rise of the Galactic Empire. Lightsaber fights are more captivating, visuals still hold up rather well, and even the performances are more convincing - dialogue remains pretty bad, especially within the love relationship between Anakin and Padmé, but Christensen surpasses his previous performance. The score continues to be as memorable as ever.
It may be far from my personal favorites, but it's, without a doubt, a film that deserves the positive evolution it has received as well as its fans. Clearly, the prequel that George Lucas always wanted to make, with no shifts in focus, irrelevant characters, or low-impact subplots.
Rating: B-

I had lost hope in the Prequels when they first came out - disappointing isnt a strong enough word to explain it, but its the best I can do. So I came into this film with low expectations... I knew it wouldnt be great and I knew what it had to do to link up with the original Star Wars.
And then, this one surprised me (and still does).
The plot is taut, because it has to be (it has a lot of ground to cover). The universe that was made in Ep 1 has to change dramatically to become Ep 4. And the dialogue is mildly better (but still has its moments).
The opening action scene wowed at the time (and still does). And some of the duels are excellent - ObiWan vs Grievous was fun and (of course) ObiWan vs Anakin was superb - they had weight and impact and the swings actually "landed" (which is more than can be said for the other ones which just seemed to be dances).
And the acting is actually improved a bit - for a moment Christensen actually showed some talent (and he has shown this in other movies, just not in these). He lets himself have an instant of regret after one of his killing sprees before refocusing back to his "angry state." It makes me wonder about how much emotion could have been put into this movie with a different director.
McGregor is the best actor here. Portman shines, but is underused. Jackson is wooden in this. And McDiarmid over acts and loses his sinisterness - he is better in the shadows in this role, either sitting or standing still. When he does something more (even walking starts to get too much), he loses all believability (which is a shame as he is a fine actor in other roles).
The score still remains typically 'Star Wars' - great. The costumes have evolved again (it has been great watching the costumes change through these movies). And the CGI is great in this - every background has something moving in it.
There are flaws with this film - many of them that I have not already touched on, but others have so I wont.
But, overall this movie is fun, and a good way to spend over 2 hours. And by the time the helmet comes on at the end, you are there in the moment, holding your breath, waiting for that epic scuba sound to start.

Still not perfect, but 'Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith' is such a more enjoyable entry in the prequel trilogy - which ends strongly.
I had a fun time with this. I do have a couple of (relatively minor) complaints, but first the positives. I'd say this is the best that this cast produced during this run of films. Hayden Christensen is excellent in his role, it's the most I've liked him in 'Star Wars' for sure. Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman give more than solid performances as well.
The special effects look nice throughout, while the score is pleasant. I also found the pacing to be practically ideal, which is a marked improvement on its predecessors. The humour and dialogue still isn't great, yet is also bettered. Crucially, the plot is very good.
With all that noted, I do have two things I didn't love. The first being the event that includes Samuel L. Jackson's character. I completely get the intention and reasoning of what occurs, but how it is shown did feel kinda forced and poorly written.
Another is the end, which overruns ever so slightly. I know it's setting up the original trilogy, but there are a few too many scenes; could've/should've ended on you know who's first breath.
However, all in all, I got a positive amount of entertainment and would class this as a step above the preceding two films. I'm glad about that, as it makes the prequel productions way more meaningful and memorable than they were looking to be based on the 1999 & 2002 releases.

Truly the best of the bad _Star Wars_ movies, _Revenge of the Sith_ doesn't make a whole lot of sense, both when viewed as self-contained, and when seen as a part of the _Star Wars_ whole, but at least Lucas bothered to put a whole movie in here.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

Having seen the first movie when it reached France as I was about 10, it left a vivid mark on my imagination, and I kind of treasured the little bit of fantasy it brought to me among probably millions of other people.
I think the reason why episodes IV to VI became timeless classics is that they were simply fairy tales in sci-fi clothing. You had heroes and princesses actually doing their heroes and princesses things on the screen, but most of the coolest bits happened somewhere in the recesses of your own imagination.
Struggle of good against evil. Quest for the father. Passage from childhood to adulthood through a series of trials and challenges. All the stuff chivalry stories are made off, presented in a minimalist way that stuck to the essential elements of the plot. All the rest, including top notch SFXs and the excellent Solo-R2D2-C3PO trio was just cleverly fleshing out this very strong backbone.
Just a few lines from a dreamy-eyed Sir Alec Guinness about the clone wars while young and clumsy Luke had his pants burn by a floating tennis ball were enough to flare your imagination in depicting an epic struggle between dark empire forces and a few heroic Jedi knights overwhelmed by sheer force and treachery. A few words about Leia and Luke's past were enough to evoke the moving fate of orphans afraid to uncover the hidden truth about a father shrouded in menacing mystery. Stuff dreams are made of, really.
Sadly oh so sadly, it looks like nowadays a blockbuster will never get the green light until some kind of quality insurance comity makes sure even the slowest 10% of your average audience will never be left wondering about anything that goes on for more than 2.5 seconds. I guess some marketing genius managed to convince the producers that leaving anything to the imagination of the customer seriously threatened the return on investment or something.
The last 3 episodes were unfortunately born in this disastrous context and proceeded methodically with the extermination of the slightest bit of magic that populated the 3 previous movies. Everything is laid bare in front of our eyes like some specimens on a dissection table. No, not even that. More like pieces of hardware broken down into component parts on a sterilized workbench.
So the Force is just something you catch like a flu. The mythical clone war is just 15 minutes of a ridiculous "plan 66". The mighty Vader is just a poor boy with an over-sized ego and an IQ reduced to 2 digits figures by an excess of testosterone (or midichlorians or whatnot for that matter). The mighty conflict that flares through the galaxy is just the outcome of desperately trivial political plots. The Jedi council a bunch of pathetically weak over-aged muppets. Yoda a preposterous 10 inches tall kung-fu master.
The epic spirit of the first trilogy has been judged guilty of sales-threatening capital crime, quietly dragged behind the marketing barracks at dawn and shot in the back of the head.
As if to make good for this assassination, the last 3 movies drown us into a squirming pool of special effect and fan service that go light years over the top. Hysterical scenes flashing past before you really could decide where to focus your gaze just make the cheesy plot-advancing ones look miserable. Here again I feel the invisible hand of the marketing staff, managing to cram about every single second or third rate characters from the previous trilogy into an already bloated plot, stretching even further the already badly mauled consistency of the scenario in the process.
Frankly, what could this stupid "average viewer wants facts" assumption bring but bitter disappointment? The result is not only boring, but really, really sad.

George Lucas comes full circle in more ways than one in "Star Wars: Episode III -- Revenge of the Sith," which is the sixth -- and allegedly but not necessarily the last -- of the "Star Wars" movies. After "Episode II" got so bogged down in politics that it played like the Republic covered by C-Span, "Episode III" is a return to the classic space opera style that launched the series. Because the story leads up to where the original "Star Wars" began, we get to use the immemorial movie phrase, "This is where we came in."
That Anakin Skywalker abandoned the Jedi and went over to the dark side is known to all students of "Star Wars." That his twins Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia would redeem the family name is also known. What we discover in "Episode III" is how and why Anakin lost his way -- how a pleasant and brave young man was transformed into a dark, cloaked figure with a fearsome black metal face. As Yoda sadly puts it in his inimitable word order: "The boy you trained, gone he is, consumed by Darth Vader."
As "Episode III" opens, Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) and his friend Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) are piloting fighter craft, staging a daring two-man raid to rescue Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid). He has been captured by the rebel Gen. Grievous (whose voice, by Matthew Woods, sounds curiously wheezy considering the general seems to use replacement parts). In the spirit of all the "Star Wars" movies, this rescue sequence flies in the face of logic, since the two pilots are able to board Grievous' command ship and proceed without much trouble to the ship's observation tower, where the chancellor is being held. There is a close call in an elevator shaft, but where are the guards and the security systems? And why, for that matter, does a deep space cruiser need an observation tower, when every porthole opens on to the universe? But never mind.
Back within the sphere of the Jedi Council, Anakin finds that despite his heroism, he will not yet be named a Jedi Master. The council distrusts Palpatine and wants Anakin to spy on him; Palpatine wants Anakin to spy on the council. Who to choose? McDiarmid has the most complex role in the movie as he plays on Anakin's wounded ego. Anakin is tempted to go over to what is not yet clearly the dark side; in a movie not distinguished for its dialogue, Palpatine is insidiously snaky in his persuasiveness.
The way Anakin approaches his choice, however, has a certain poignancy. Anakin has a rendezvous with Padme (Natalie Portman); they were secretly married in the previous film, and now she reveals she is pregnant. His reaction is that of a nice kid in a teenage comedy, trying to seem pleased while wondering how this will affect the other neat stuff he gets to do. To say that George Lucas cannot write a love scene is an understatement; greeting cards have expressed more passion.
The dialogue throughout the movie is once again its weakest point: The characters talk in what sounds like Basic English, without color, wit or verbal delight, as if they were channeling Berlitz. The exceptions are Palpatine and of course Yoda, whose speech (voiced by Frank Oz) reminds me of Wolcott Gibbs' famous line about the early style of Time magazine: "Backward ran sentences until reeled the mind."
In many cases the actors are being filmed in front of blue screens, with effects to be added later, and sometimes their readings are so flat, they don't seem to believe they're really in the middle of amazing events. How can you stand in front of exploding star fleets and sound as if you're talking on a cell phone at Starbucks?
"He's worried about you," Anakin is told at one point. "You've been under a lot of stress." Sometimes the emphasis in sentences is misplaced. During the elevator adventure in the opening rescue, we hear "Did I miss something?" when it should be "Did I miss something?"
The dialogue is not the point, however; Lucas' characters engage in sturdy oratorical pronunciamentos and then leap into adventure. "Episode III" has more action per square minute, I'd guess, than any of the previous five movies, and it is spectacular. The special effects are more sophisticated than in the earlier movies, of course, but not necessarily more effective.
The dogfight between fighters in the original "Star Wars" and the dogfight that opens this one differ in their complexity (many more ships this time, more planes of action, more detailed backgrounds) but not in their excitement. And although Lucas has his characters attend a futuristic opera that looks like a cross between Cirque de Soleil and an ultrasound scan of an unborn baby, if you regard the opera hall simply as a place, it's not as engaging as the saloon on Tatooine in the first movie.
The lesson, I think, is that special effects should be judged not by their complexity but by the degree that they stimulate the imagination, and "Episode III" is distinguished not by how well the effects are done, but by how amazingly they are imagined. A climactic duel on a blazing volcanic planet is as impressive, in its line, as anything in "Lord of the Rings." And Yoda, who began life as a Muppet but is now completely animated (like about 70 percent of what we see onscreen), was to begin with and still is the most lifelike of the non-humanoid "Star Wars" characters.
A word, however, about the duels fought with lightsabers. When they flashed into life with a mighty whizzing thunk in the first "Star Wars" and whooshed through their deadly parabolas, that was exciting. But the thrill is gone.
The duelists are so well-matched that saber fights go on forever before anyone is wounded, and I am still not sure how the sabers seem able to shield their bearers from attack. When it comes to great movie sword fights, Liam Neeson and Tim Roth took home the gold medal in "Rob Roy" (1995), and the lightsaber battles in "Episode III" are more like isometrics.
These are all, however, more observations than criticisms. George Lucas has achieved what few artists do; he has created and populated a world of his own. His "Star Wars" movies are among the most influential, both technically and commercially, ever made. And they are fun. If he got bogged down in solemnity and theory in "Episode II: Attack of the Clones," the Force is in a jollier mood this time, and "Revenge of the Sith" is a great entertainment.
Note: I said this is not necessarily the last of the "Star Wars" movies. Although Lucas has absolutely said he is finished with the series, it is inconceivable to me that 20th Century-Fox will willingly abandon the franchise, especially as Lucas has hinted that parts VII, VIII and IX exist at least in his mind. There will be enormous pressure for them to be made, if not by him, then by his deputies.
4.5/5
- Rodger Ebert

Visually stunning and completely immersive.
Great performances by Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer, Sean Young, Daryl Hannah, Edward James Olmos etc.
Ridley Scott does some impressive visuals, camera work, lighting etc.
Love the completely immersive dark, gritty, rainy dystopia portrayed. I love that the camera sometimes lingers on details or zooms out to show you more of the world. Fantastic atmosphere.
Excellent unique soundtrack by Vangelis.
I felt a great range of emotions watching this movie including melancholy, sentimental, in awe, in wonder etc.
Roy Batty stands out to me as a wonderfully complex, strange, interesting, confused, troubled character. Total pleasure to watch. So is Deckard, Rachel, Pris, Sebastian etc.

"Blade Runner," Ridley Scott's iconic 1982 sci-fi masterpiece, is a film that transcends time with its **thematic depth** and **stunning visual design**. Having immersed myself in all the various cuts of the movie, I can confidently say that each version provides a unique experience worth exploring.
From the original U.S. Theatrical Cut with its voice-over narration to the more enigmatic Director's Cut, each rendition adds different textures to the story of Rick Deckard, a Blade Runner tracking down synthetic beings known as replicants. But it is **the Final Cut**, hailed by many, that stands as the **most cohesive and definitive vision of the film**. Scott's meticulous craftsmanship reaches its peak here, harmonizing all the elements that make "Blade Runner" an enduring classic.
Visually, "Blade Runner" is a triumph. Yes, by today's standards, some shots—such as those flying over the dystopian cityscape—may seem dated. But what remains impressive is the film's ability to create a **believable and immersive world without relying on CGI**. Utilizing miniatures, matte paintings, and carefully designed sets, the film's visual aesthetics hold up remarkably well, echoing a time when practical effects were the vanguard of filmmaking.
Whether you're a newcomer to the world of "Blade Runner" or revisiting it, there's value in exploring each cut of the film. Yet, if you were to choose one version to encapsulate the entire essence of this groundbreaking work, the Final Cut would be the ideal choice. Its blend of story, character depth, and visual artistry illustrates why "Blade Runner" continues to be a beacon of cinematic excellence."

Experienced on the big screen in the Everyman Cinema was just about the best way to loose myself in this spectacular SCI FI masterpiece. Without Doubt “Blade Runner” has been extremely influential since its original release over 40 years ago and it’s technical wonder and effects are still as inspiring today. Doug Trumble’s effects, Larry Paull’s production design and the downtown L.A. location shots all work so well in creating a retro- fitted future.
Obviously a different cut to the original release , “Blade Runner: The Final cut “ removes the voiceover and original ending so criticised by audiences and critics during its theatrical run in 1982. This newer ( 2007 ) ending elevates the movie to something more spectacular and wonderful. A group of rebel replicants , feared dangerous to humans, have escaped and landed on earth. Earth is a cyber, neon, futuristic , overpopulated, uncaring environment, with a population that has little time for anything other than existence. Unlike these humans of the future, the replicants show far more empathy and humanity towards each other. It is in the the dying moments of a replicant that we come to learn of the true nature of the rebel groups attempt to escape to earth. It is simply a quest that most humans try and attain, the desire to extend life. The beauty and wonder experienced by replicant leader Roy Batty ( Rutger Hauer ) in his short existence is sympathetically relayed as he saves his would be assassin. The power of “ Blade Runner : The final cut’” is highlighted during the end scenes when Roy reflects his existence. As he “dies” it is clear he is gazing into a future already lost to the past.

**A magnificent work, if we consider the time when it was released and the technical resources that existed.**
Honestly, I didn't expect much from this movie. It was a film that was not successful in theaters and that only took off when it went to VHS, acquiring admirers since then and becoming one of the most respected films of all time. Set in a profoundly dystopian Los Angeles, it raises many philosophical and sociological questions around human nature, the course of humanity, our relationship with technology and our morality in general.
Watching this film in 2022 was funny because the action of the film, released in 1982, takes place in the year 2019. That is, it was set in a future that, now, is past for me and never materialized (and I'm glad). The film's plot is not easy: humanity colonized other planets while destroying Earth, and created very realistic human androids while destroying itself. However, the androids, called replicants, got out of control, and are now hunted and killed, or used for the most vile purposes. The metaphors are clear, there is a lot of philosophical material, and it leaves us thinking for a long time.
Ridley Scott gives us, with this film, one of his masterpieces. The film is magnificent in every way, and it is worth giving it the time it needs to surprise us. It creates a neo-noir plot where nobody is innocent or angelic, and where danger is everywhere. The lighting, the shutters on the windows, the indispensable “femme fatale”, all the classic components of noir are here, in a frankly colorful film with sets and landscapes that combine the most grandiose futurism with the decadence and dirt of the world we destroy. The dialogues are memorable and full of deeply symbolic moments. The characters are rich, dense and complex, and it's extraordinary to think that we still don't really understand, after several decades, whether the main character is human or not.
In fact, it seems that time has not passed for this film: if we think that it is from the early 80s, it is incredible that it is so visually powerful and that it has such good cinematography. It looks like a movie made ten years ago. The sets and costumes couldn't be better, and the special effects are stunning. The soundtrack, composed by Vangelis, is smooth and hypnotic.
Adding to all this, we have Harrison Ford, in one of the most underrated works of his career. He does a really good job, and he deserved more recognition for that. Sean Young also deserves a round of applause for the way he brought his character to life, a replicant who really thinks she's human. There are other very good actors, and we can highlight Rutger Hauer in particular, but they do not match this duo of artists.

This time, it is Ridley Scott's turn to offer us his prognostication of a future wherein corporate America has, ostensibly benignly, introduced the ultimate in labour saving devices - androids called "replicants" - which have a look and feel of people about them. These "Nexus" creations can turn their hands to just about anything, but when the latest off-world models rebel, all of their cousins become outlawed and it falls to the "Blade Runners" to track them down and destroy them. "Deckard" (Harrison Ford) is one such operator who is called back out of his retirement to identify four of these highly adaptable and intelligent robots and this perilous task takes him to the heart of their manufacturer run by the fiendishly clever but unscrupulous "Tyrell" (Joe Turkel), and into a web of duplicity surrounding their controlling protocols and maybe even a fifth, almost impossible to recognise "replicant", whom - unlike it's contemporaries - has no idea that it isn't human. Ford is on cracking form here, as is Rutger Hauer - the android leader "Batty" and the dark, frequently rainy imagery contributes wonderfully to this seedily presented story of greed and manipulation set amongst a grittily dank and hostile environment that offers little, visually anyway, by way of hope or relief. It has a film-noir look and feel to it, and Scott keeps it moving well, keeps the dialogue sparse - though impactful, and the whole thing develops cinematographically some of the pretty profound questions brought up in the original Philip Dick novel about just what constitutes humanity. Just shy of two hours - it flies by, especially on a big screen where the visuals and audio still work wonders.

I have only viewed the Final Cut, and judging by reviews elsewhere this is possibly the most complete and satisfying version of them all.
I cannot truthfully say I am in awe with this film as I found it quite plodding at times. But having said that the visionary aspects, the bleak surrounds, and the air of hopelessness that permeates throughout most of the film is exceptionally well done.
I would hazard a guess it wasn't a big success at the box office back in 82/83 chiefly because of the likes of ET, and Raiders of the Lost Ark, Return of the Jedi and quite a few other adventure/SF films of the time pushing this film into a dark corner. Another reason could be because it was too slow for those brought up on Star Wars; or just too unengaging for those looking at it from a murder-mystery perspective (I recall reading that the original version had Ford do a Marlowesque voice over).
An impressive film for all that, with some delightful special effects, and a decent performance from Ford. But of course for me the true delight was Roy's "Time to Die" speech at the end. If there was an Oscar for best speech in a film, he would have won it with ease!

Some people will say this classic sci-fi "has nothing to offer other than overrated cult-status". To that, I would respond, "it has Rutger Hauer on a rooftop, and that's enough for me".
_Final rating:★★★★ - Very strong appeal. A personal favourite._
(3.5 for the Theatrical Cut, 4.0 for the Final Cut)

The movie's story didn't do much for me, however I did find parts of it confusing. After watching it I found out that I watched the "Final Cut" which has a completely different ending and different implications from the theatrical release. I didn't understand those implications...I needed to look up the ending online. Whether that's because the movie is confusing or I'm dumb, I can't say. But my friend I watched it with didn't understand it either.
After looking up the end's meaning, I did find it a bit more satisfying. But the main reason this movie is worth watching is the visuals. Not sure I'd watch it again any time soon though.

Retirement - Replicants - Resplendent.
Blade Runner is one of those glorious films that has gained in popularity the older it has gotten. Ridley Scott's follow up to the critical and commercial darling that was Alien, was by and large considered a flop and damned for not being a science fiction action blockbuster. There was of course some fans who recognised its many many strengths during the initial weeks of its 1982 release, but many who now claim to have loved it back then are surely looking sheepishly in the mirror these days, for the hard-core minority of 82 fans remember it very differently.
Remember the spider that lived outside your window? Orange body, green legs. Watched her build a web all summer, then one day there's a big egg in it. The egg hatched...
Anyway, that's by the by, the point being that a film can sometimes be ahead of its time, misunderstood or miss-marketed, Scott's masterpiece is one such case. Story, adapted in fashion from Philip K. Dick's story, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Is pretty simple. It's a dystopian Los Angeles, 2019, and there are four genetically engineered Replicants - human in appearance - in the city, which is illegal. They were designed to work on off-world colonies, any Replicant who defies the rules will be retired by special police assassins known as Blade Runners, and Blade Runner Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is on this case. A case that will prove to have many layers...
A new life awaits you in the Off-world colonies! A chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!
Ridley Scott gets to have all his cakes to eat here, managing to blend intriguing science fiction with film noir. That the visuals are outstanding is a given, even the film's most hardest critics grudgingly acknowledge this to be an eye popping piece of visual class - the mention of eyes is on purpose since it's forms a key narrative thread. That it is awash with eye orgasms has led to critics calling a charge of beauty over substance, but the deep themes at work here tickle the brain and gnaw away at the senses.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Mood is set at perpetually bleak, a classic film noir trait, and paced accordingly. Scott isn't here to perk anyone up, he's here to ask questions whilst filtering his main characters through a prism of techno decay, of humanity questioned to the max, for a film so stunning in visuals, it's surprisingly nightmarish at its core. The emotional spine is ever present, troubled when violence shows its hand, but it's there posing an intriguing question as the Replicants kill because they want to live. And this as our antagonist, Deckard (Ford a brilliantly miserable Marlowe clone), starts to fall for Rachael (a sensually effective femme fatale portrayal), one of his retirement targets.
Tears in the Rain.
As Rutger Hauer (never better) saunters more prominently into the story as head Replicant Roy Batty, the pic evolves still more. Haunting lyricism starts pulsing away in conjunction with Vangelis' rib shaking techno score, while Jordan Cronenweth's cinematography brings Scott's masterful visions to life, key characters one and all. Visuals, aural splendour and dark thematics - so just what does it mean to be human? - Indeed, curl as one in a magnificent cinematic achievement. A number of cuts of the film are out there, and all of them have fans, but Scott's Final Cut is the one where he had total artistic control, and the scrub up job across the board is quite literally breath taking. 10/10

**Planet Noir**
I declare _Blade Runner_ the best sci-fi movie of all time. Arguments? No? Okay. So long. Please upvote the guest book on your way out.
WAIT! There's more. At the risk of whistling conspiracies and setting off inappropriate vibrations in your slacks, you see, this Ridley K. Dick concoction is going on right now. While we're all transfixed by the endlessly goofy droppings from the web, forever staring down and swiping things on our smarty-pants phones, retweeting selfies of infinitely mirrored selfies; proliferating at light speed, every aspect of humanity is being replicated, perfected, mechanized, optimized, upgraded, fortified, robofied, Googlized, quantumized, DNA'd and NSA'd and will soon converge to fall upon and supplant us, and Harrison Ford, despite looking trim for his years, will be too old to stop it! And the irony to end all ironies is that we, as the irresponsibly arrogant, over-infested and narcissistic caretakers and consumers, and the colossal defecators of this broken-down, flea-bag of a planet, are entirely fundamentally responsible. No, the irony of all ironies is that a world exclusively dominated by self-correcting technocratic cyborgs with zettabytes of artificial intelligence will be a vast improvement. The androids are saving the planet! AHHH, run for your life! Blade Runner is both an expired cautionary tale and emerging utopian fantasy.
Oh, you knew this already? Very well. Carry on. Enjoy your self-driving cars and virtual nature tours.

"Men in Black" taps into my lifelong fascination with aliens. This sci-fi comedy is a delightful journey with Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones, offering a perfect mix of humor and action. It's a childhood favorite that keeps the charm alive with its stellar blend of comedy and extraterrestrial intrigue. It may showcase some dated CGI and prosthetics by today's standards, they remain acceptable, adding a nostalgic charm to the film without detracting from its overall enjoyment. The practical effects still hold up surprisingly well, adding to the movie's unique appeal. By today's standards, it is very rewatchable with a rating of 8/10.