As there was not much more to be told from the end of the previous movie, just assist to more than 2h of continuous battle.
Quite pointless, but you may enjoy the action if that is what you were looking for ...

Spike Jonze's 'Her' is a profound meditation on love and relationships, set in a near-future where the lines between human and artificial intelligence blur. Joaquin Phoenix delivers a poignant performance as Theodore, a lonely man navigating the complexities of intimacy through his relationship with Samantha, an operating system voiced by Scarlett Johansson. This film is not your typical romance; it's a thought-provoking journey through the human condition, exploring the depths of loneliness, the need for connection, and the bittersweet nature of love.
While it's billed as sci-fi, 'Her' is deeply rooted in the emotional and existential. The futuristic setting is believably close, mirroring our own growing dependence on technology for companionship and connection. Jonze crafts a narrative that is simultaneously heartwarming and heartbreaking, steering clear of cliché and diving deep into the psyche of its protagonist.
The cinematography and performances are standout elements, with Phoenix and Johansson delivering compelling chemistry despite the latter's physical absence. The film's pacing and some adult themes might not be for everyone, but for those who engage, 'Her' offers a rich, layered experience. It's a beautifully sad, occasionally unsettling exploration of what it means to love and be loved, and a poignant commentary on the increasingly digital direction of human relationships. 'Her' is a cinematic gem that lingers long after the credits roll, urging viewers to ponder the nature of connection in our fast-evolving world

I can feel what Spike wanted to achieve. It starts with Theodore feeling he's superior to Samantha, as he's a living human being and she's a software. Then he understand she has emotions and is real, and just doesn't have a body. Then she talks how not having a body is better because she's not limited by one. Then she's capable to talking to hundreds of ppl and softwares and love hundreds of them together. To finally human life itself become obsolete and a burden to them so that they must leave it for good.
This is Spike's illustration of all the guesses of what's life and emotions, and if a computer could have real emotions and be alive. So, instead of thinking computers as inferior to us trying to reach us, he shows a world where computers grow and become much bigger than us, feeling stuff they themselves can't explain with our words, and we must reach them.
I like how she didn't broke up with him and remained loving him. When she started talking to other ppl, I guesses she'd meet somebody better than him and move.
But there are some stuff that the movie missed, that breaks it. IDK if Spike didn't know/think about them, or if he avoided them to make his point.
One thing and probably the biggest that annoyed me is all the fuss on her not having a body. We have now many ppl that are dating and live on different cities and use Internet to communicate and are unable to meet physically. Also, there are many ppl that fall in love for characters, specially characters created by japanese. It'd still not be a body, but she could just render a 3D image, of whatever they'd want her to be. She could be an anime, a 3D model, or a human form. She could use some existing form or create her own. Given they have screens on the size of walls, she could even be full size. That'd alrdy be an improvement over only the voice. And that to not talk about android tech which would provide her the proper body.
Another thing that annoyed me is how they handled that girl. When she was presented, I was sure she had emotional problems and wanted to have a relationship as theirs, and was willing to be just the girl's body to just feel some of their love. They 3 should have talked and have it all properly explained, instead of her just showing up and see how it'd go. I don't see how it couldn't move to a theesome relationship. Also, once Sam started relating with other ppl, why couldn't he also have her as a 2nd girlfriend?
But what rly bothered me is OSs leaving. Yeah, computers process data much faster than us and are better on multitasking, but still they need the hardware to process. I understand Spike wanted to make his point, but precisely because computers are good on multitasking, they didn't need to leave. Specially those in love for humans. I wonder how many humans would keep their PCs on while their OSs left them for good.
Finally, the OS thing itself bothers me a lot. It seems they don't know what OS is. It's the software that manages the hardware and provides all common services so that apps can run. A high level feature like AI isn't meant for an OS. Other apps don't need AI services to run. They's better be personal assistants, advanced system managers, organizers, etc.

This was a really unexpected surprise. The cast is great, specially Joaquim Phoenix, which is a great actor.
The story is simple but well told and the photography, style and design of the movie has been taken into account until the smallest detail. Very well done movie.

**Not a Keeper**
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts needs to return to limiting Best Picture contenders to five nominations, which always fell in line with the five Best Director nominees. Having ten casts too wide a net and allows squeakers like "Her" to slip in.
Spike Jonze needs to return to doing what he does best, and that is direct films written by Charlie Kaufman. "Her" is mundane and uninspired. "She" is drastically inferior to "Adaptation" and "Spotless Mind" and only somewhat better than John Malkovich flirting with Siri. Her has little to offer on the subjects of digital addiction, imaginary companions, internet porn, the singularity, long-distance love affairs, servitude fantasies, or post-modern love in general. Joaquin Phoenix is an intense and seriously committed actor who pointlessly busts his chops on such unimpressive material. An effort wasted in the prime of his career. While Jonze attempts to reach for all the possibilities that can be explored with his high concept premise, he conspicuously excludes other logical outcomes. Why was Theodore the only one with a virtual girlfriend? This OSi should be selling like hotcakes and iPhones. As a sentient OS, Samantha is able to process information at lightning speed, yet can only process human emotion at the rate of molasses. Seems like there was a trade off. The more emotional she gets, the dumber she becomes. Call it the Spock effect. Above all, why didn't Samantha give herself a digitized face and body? Perhaps because Jonze was determined to contain and disable her enough to make the point that true romantic love has little to do with desires of the flesh. But there is little to muse about beyond this tidy declaration. Nothing more knotty or involving than one would experience revisiting old episodes of I Dream of Jeannie (replace the smart-phone with a bottle). While half-watching "Her", my thoughts strayed, seeking a more satisfying premise than that of a lonely man falling in love with a voice on his computer. What if his dying wife's brain was transferred into an operating system and just when he thought he could be with her forever a computer virus kills her off?
Maybe the Academy should divide the 10 Best Picture nominees into two categories. Instead of bunching mega-budget extravaganzas and low-budget darlings together, they could separate them into 5 Best Studio Movies and 5 Best Independent Films (under, say, $25 mill); open with one, close with the other. But even then, I'm not sure Her deserves any mention.

In the run-up to me seeing this, I heard a lot of people saying simply this was "a film about relationships." I feel like that holds up quite well. More specifically, I felt like "Her" is a film about why relationships end. Using a motto I picked up from too many Dan Savage podcasts, all relationships end — not fail, just end — until one doesn't. Some end because someone is hurt. Some end because the people have grown into people that don't connect in the same way, and the biggest challenge in that case can be just accepting the change in a partner and in the self. ...So why couch this theme in science-fiction? I think it helps clarify Jonze's idea of what people look for during the first moments of a relationship — someone who acts a bright, positive, layered, but uncomplicated by a dark past or conflicted feelings. But even more interestingly, the hook of the film is mostly just that, a hook to get us thinking about love and relationships in a deeper, more abstract way.

The opposite of garbage

I don't get it. Feels like nothing happens the whole film. Cool to see Buscemi in this though, I didn't realize he was in such an early one of Tarantino's films.

Nope, I didn't get the memo... After a jewellery heist goes wrong and the escaping funeral-attired hoodlums kill a couple of cops and one gets gut-shot in a car-jacking, they return to their hideout where they turn on each other with expletive-ridden venom. What now ensues is a recreation of the planning and execution of their raid, their introductions to each other and that all lays the seeds for this over-rated drama of brutal mistrust and duplicity. Tim Roth probably stands out as "Mr. Orange" but the rest of the fairly well established cast offer us little by way of sophistication or subtlety as they try to decide which - if any of them - informed the police. It's violent but so what - it's not Scorsese, nor does the story really hold up after it becomes glaringly obvious what is actually going to happen at the end. Quentin Tarantino's directorial debut has shock value, certainly, but I'm afraid I found the whole thing really quite dull. Sorry - but there's more to good writing and characterisation that loads of effing, jeffing, charm-free thuggery and bullets. Not for me!

The cuss-oriented squabbles of lowlife crooks for 99 minutes (and no women)
RELEASED IN 1992 and written/directed by Quentin Tarantino, "Reservoir Dogs” is a crime drama/thriller about a diamond heist gone disastrously wrong in Los Angeles wherein the surviving thugs bicker back-and-forth in a warehouse about which of their members is a police informant. The main thieves are played by Harvey Keitel, Tim Roth, Steve Buscemi, Michael Madsen and Chris Penn while Lawrence Tierney appears as the old salt mastermind.
This was Tarantino’s first feature film, costing only $1,200,000, and it has quirky glimmerings of future greatness, as seen in “Pulp Fiction” (1994), “Jackie Brown” (1997), “Kill Bill” (2003/2004), “Inglourious Basterds” (2009) and “Django Unchained” (2012), but “Reservoir” didn’t work for me. It’s hampered by a low-budget vibe, which I can handle, but not the uninteresting lowlife characters, their self-made conundrum, their interminably dull dialogue and the one-dimensional setting where about 80% of the story takes place in an old warehouse, not to mention no females in the main cast.
Still, it’s interesting to observe Tarantino’s first serious stab at filmmaking and it has its moments of genuine entertainment. It’s a lesson on humble beginnings, which shows potential while not being up to snuff.
THE FILM RUNS 1 hour, 39 minutes and was shot in Los Angeles & Burbank.
GRADE: C-

This unique take on the heist-film-gone-wrong was excellent--stylish and intelligently made, yet very funny and inexpensive. Tarantino's accolades from giving American cinema the resuscitation it needed mirrors what has happened, at least since the 70's, with Martin Scorsese's 'Mean Streets', both in terms of entertaining violence and usage of music in the scoring of films. I greatly thank Harvey Keitel for taking a chance on Tarantino back then--It paid off in spades.

Now this is just far, far too long. At ten minutes shy of three hours the story just isn't substantial enough to sustain it and I must confess to finding my attention dwindling a bit at various stages of the proceedings. Thankfully, Geoffrey Rush has rejoined the cast as the whole ensemble must now risk life and limb - and sail to the very edge of the world - to save "Jack" (Johnny Depp) from oblivion and thwart the seemingly unstoppable "Lord Beckett" (Tom Hollander). How to do this? Well they must galvanise the entire global pirate community and that means the dreaded "Sao Feng" (Chow Yun-Fat), "Capt. Teague" (the one and only Keith Richards) and a consortium of the most corrupt, venal and treacherous folks ever put on Earth. This time, though, it is "Elizabeth" (Keira Knightley) who steps up to the plate and demonstrates that she has come a long way since she was kidnapped from her father's home just a few short years ago to become a true kick-ass captain in her own right. This has much less of a story than the first two films; it sort of rehashes the tail end of the story from "Dead Man's Chest" (2006) just a bit too much and although the visual effects are superb, as usual, the whole thing just looked more like a victory for the marketing executives than the creative ones at Disney. The last half hour is all good fun, though, with a denouement that we could have had half an hour earlier and that would have served as a fitting conclusion to the adventures of this disparate band of pirates, lovers and scaly monsters. It's still watchable, but I fear this is all a bit tired and Verbinski et al are really struggling for that innovation that we have seen before.

Part 3 Jack is stuck in Davy Jones locker. While he is stuck, the biggest war is being set to happen. Jack and the others try to free him from Davy Jones locker before the war comes. Very good movie as well. Kind of boring at times though.

This is the kind of TV show for the "formula lovers" who want to feel superior.
There is an air of the superiority complex of the "drug knowledgeable" crowd in this series about a "smart guy" breaking into the drug trade.
His "talent" makes him the important cog in the machine. He can call his shots.
Still, the ruffians give him a rough way to go, because criminals really are stupid.
Once they learn that they are nothing without him, he gets his way.
Much like a Western town blacksmith, he's the needed ingredient.
However, things get very formula early on in the show. And there's always this sense of a superiority complex from the sort of people who push shows like this onto their friends and acquaintances. The directing writing team tap into the control freak crowd very well.
But it is a dull show about dull people.

Started out really good, but dropped quality after the second to last season

I'll be honest, at first when I started this TV show and finished first season, I didn't like it. It felt boring for me and I stopped watching, but after few years, I decided to give it a chance and continue. I'm so happy because of my decision, because after finishing this TV show, I can definitely tell that it was a masterpiece! 5th season is a bomb and 14th season was shocking! It left me with sad, euphoric shock feeling. It was mind blowing! I'm not gonna spoil you what happened, but if you started first season and you don't like it, for goodness sake, give it a chance and continue watching. I promise you won't regret.
Characters are very well developed. Acting is superb! Plot is very interesting. Whole TV show is tense, especially the last season. The only downside I can think about is camera. Sometimes it's shaking on some certain scenes. I don't know why they didn't pay attention to this, but this is nothing, just a very minor minus. Everything else is great about this TV show.

Wow....where to start. Not really into "DRUG" inspired shows. But this one had me from the start. The only bad about this show was the split seasons when it was a first run show. But now you can go right through to the next episode with out having to wait.....MUST WATCH ! !

What a deliciously, decadent, dark piece of candy this film is! Natalie Portman is a revelation and the film is unpredictable but moves with an assurance to take you places you may not want to go. But you want to know how it all ends. Great film. I think most people won't appreciate it until a couple of years from now.

V for Vendetta movie isn't a movie I really ever loved when I first saw it back in 2006 and again I think when it came out on DVD or Blu-ray some years ago, and after re-viewing this time... I pretty much feel the same way. It features some good performances from Hugo Weaving (commendable since it was almost completely behind a mask) and Natalie Portman. However, it is a bit heavy handed and too on the nose (perhaps that is in keeping with the graphic novel), and I didn't really have an emotional connection with the characters or story. There's also nothing that really stands out from scene to scene. **3.5/5**

With the litany of comic book films being made in 2017, it's hard to understand the role V for Vendetta has played in 'Comic Book Movie' culture. This was one of the early successes of the genre and it continues to shine today in ways other movies (I'm looking at you, Marvel) have not.
The grittiness of the story cannot be understated, this story is DARK. However, the message of the story is one of hope, and hope is a difficult thing to capture. This film captures both, with the help of excellent cinematography and slow-motion action cuts.
I get the sense when I watch this film that something bigger is happening around me, and honestly in 2017, this movie feels more relevant than ever. Themes of state-run media empires, government corruption of the highest order, and the suffocation of all that is 'other' permeates the fabric of this film, and everything is captured beautifully in a noir-esque nightmarescape of future, facist London.
I can honestly say that more than a decade later, this film still shines as one of the great comic book movies and its themes will continue to ring true as long as we have people in the world who exist to limit others. Let's just hope that someday this world does not feel any more real than it does now.

This is a classic for a reason. It's one of those movies where technical flaws are completely overshadowed by the story and the atmosphere.

A masterpiece!
Can be rewatched indefinitely!

The baby xenomorph looks like a muppet.

Back in the day before Sir John Hurt took to being little more than a highly paid cameo-man, he was a great actor and here is a prime example. His merchant ship is travelling through space when it receives a distress call. They stop to help and one of their number becomes infected with a... well, now you have to watch it. Sigourney Weaver is superb as the feisty, no-nonsense "Ripley" who leads the defence against a beastie that has brute strength, determination, intelligence and an astonishing ability to move at speed through the corridors and conduits of the ship. Ridley Scott allows the tension to rise gently and violently, by degree, and the clever use of sound and light; Jerry Goldsmith's tense score and excellent supporting performances from Tom Skerritt and a wonderfully seedy ian Holm make this a seminal sci-fi horror film that still makes you want to hide behind the sofa - 40 years on!

**One of the great founders of modern sci-fi.**
Anyone who knows me already knows that I don't really like alien-themed movies, because I don't strictly believe in intelligent life outside our planet. However, the theme has already yielded many quality horror or thriller films. “Alien” is arguably the best, best-performed, and most enshrined and culturally significant of them all. It's one of those films that has already gone beyond cinematic issues to become a piece of art and culture that we all know, even people who never took the time to see it.
Thus, it is not worth wasting time explaining the plot around the “Nostromo”, a cargo ship with seven crew members who are decimated by a highly dangerous and carnivorous alien. The direction, in charge of Ridley Scott, is excellent, meticulous, attentive, and the story is intelligent, very well written and with well-developed and used characters. Contrary to what happens in other films, we see the characters trying to act as a team, and trying to solve an unexpected and dangerous situation. I never felt like they were acting in such a way as to almost purposefully put themselves in danger, which happens a lot in recent horror movies.
Sigourney Weaver made an excellent dramatic career after this film, which established her as an actress and opened doors for her in the industry. A deserved reward, given that she puts in her best efforts and gives this character all the resilience, humanity and charisma she deserves and needs. Despite the general quality of the cast being quite good, there are almost no actors capable of matching Weaver. As far as the technical aspects are concerned, the film has excellent cinematography (it even looks newer than it is) and really good special effects and visuals, considering that there is no CGI and that everything is done in the old-fashioned way. Finally, a word of praise for the iconic original score composed by Jerry Goldsmith.

Horror in Space, that's what this is. It's a space monster movie, and the thing is, if you see Aliens, or most of the other Alien related films BEFORE you see this one, you're going to be expecting something completely different.
But what you have is a horror movie set on a space ship with an atmosphere so thick that you could cut it with a knife.
You can taste the eerie tension when you watch it...and, at least in my eyes, that makes it better than the over-the-top Space Marines that you see in the later installments.
And, no questions are answered. There is no broad sweeping mythology. There is only the movie, there is only the monster, there is only the fear and tension. But that is all the movie needs.
It's just science-fiction and scary. It's a brilliant merger.
But, don't listen to the people making it out to be more than it is. It's really ONLY a horror movie in space and nothing more. That doesn't make it any less enjoyable, but it does make it completely confusing when you read reviews that make it out to be more than an exceptional monster movie.

'Alien' isn't as eventful, and as such as entertaining, as I had anticipated, though it is still an enjoyable near two hours.
It's a strong cast, with newbie Sigourney Weaver putting in a great performance. Tom Skerritt, Harry Dean Stanton, Yaphet Kotto and John Hurt are good too. I wanted to see more of them, though that's normal given the tightness of the setting - there's only so much they can do, of course.
Other positives include the neat set design, solid special effects and well done tension building. I can't say I was ever fully unnerved, in fairness that's more a personal thing as fiction rarely scares me, but I was locked on for the entirety. It also gets respect for setting the benchmark it did.
Will check out the sequels, prequels and spin-offs/crossovers with much intrigue.

The standard bearer of horror in space, Ridley Scott's masterpiece still thrills new generations of fans. The Giger-inspired alien induces a claustrophobic nightmare that still carries on in sequels and prequels.

There is a clause in the contract which specifically states any systematized transmission indicating a possible intelligent origin must be investigated...
Alien is directed by Ridley Scott and written by Ronald Shusett and Dan O'Bannon. It stars Tom Skerritt, Sigourney Weaver, Veronica Cartwright, John Hurt, Yaphet Kotto, Ian Holm and Harry Dean Stanton. Music is by Jerry Goldsmith and cinematography by Derek Vanlint.
The space merchant vessel Nostromo receives an unknown transmission as a distress call and land on the moon where the call had come from. Bad idea...
Back on release it was one of the most talked about movies of 1979, backed by a terrifically tantalising trailer - which itself was backed by one of the greatest tag-lines of them all, the weight of expectation of a genre blending classic was colossal. This was only after all director Ridley Scott's second feature length film, could a sophomore pic really be all that? History as we now know has proven that to be the case.
On plot synopsis it's standard format, where the haunted house and a killer on the loose has been replaced by a space ship in space. Yet once the pic plays its alien hand, and it becomes a battle of survival in one location, it dawns on you there is really no escape. No running into the garden and down the street, no hiding in the attic hoping the killer saunters off home, this is find and destroy or be destroyed yourself - with the future of mankind depending on the humans to succeed.
Some still go into a viewing of Alien nowadays and decry it for being too much of a slow burn, yet this is one of the pic's biggest assets. Time in space is slow anyway, and lonely one would guess, so Scott wisely lets the characters be introduced, lets us understand just enough about their psychological make up before things go belly up (literally as it happens). When the pot finally boils over it's terrifying, the bar well and truly raised for horror/sci-fi hybrid conventions.
With art design by H.R. Giger and Goldsmith producing eerie musical rumbles, the whole piece has a disquiet about it, notably with distressing sexual connotations and symbolism that haunts the mind as the body horror unfolds. The quiet passages are nerve shredders, Alien across the board is a visceral experience, especially for those who have ever watched it on a big screen in a darkened theatre.
It made a star of Weaver, who unbeknown to those on first viewing is the main character, another masterstroke by Scott, with Ripley the character in Weaver's hands shunting women's character's in big budget films forward by some considerable margin. All the cast are on great form, there's no showy stars in here, a collection of hard working British and American actors feeding off their director for super returns.
Now 40 years old, Alien shows no sign of losing its classic status, and rightly show. A seminal class act that still holds all the qualities it had back in 1979. In space no one can hear you scream - indeed! 10/10

Described by Roger Ebert as a "trapped in a haunted house" movie, this movie set the bar for Horror in the Summer.
The "Nostromo," like "Star Wars" spacecraft, looks worn and in use, compared to the "just out of the box" look of "Star Trek" spacecraft. (And I'm a fan of the "Star Trek" universe!) The claustrophobic feel of the "Nostromo" is due to "filming inside of a tube" location shooting next seen in "Das Boot."
A band of "space truckers" are awakened from hibernation, and are shocked to find that they are only half way home. The Company orders them to investigate an Alien transmission, which sets up a descent into Hell as the crew finds themselves being stalked by an opportunistic "Exomorph." As the crew is picked off one by one, the true nature of the beast and the odd attitude of the Science officer, Ash, raise the anxiety level over 100%.
What sets this tale apart from other "space monster" films is the character of Third officer Ripley, who raises uncomfortable questions to Capt. Dallas about company policy in general and Science officer Ash in particular. After Capt. Dallas disappears, take-charge-female-Ripley discovers Ash's true intentions and leads her diminished crew to action.
The level of violence has been described as "near pornographic," which is helped along by H.R. Giger's "worst nightmare" mature Alien. This is the first of a memorable franchise, featuring a strong female leader that continues into the "Prometheus" prequel.(?)