I was scared to see this, mainly because most Biopics paint people in an absolutely horrible light and Queen was one of my favorite bands and Freddie one of my favorite rock vocalists. I was ready to rant and rave if it turned out to be a smear campaign of one of my rock heroes.
Fortunately it wasn't, it was actually a fair treatment of all of them. And, in fact, it was really generous towards May, but then he wasn't the focus of the film.
And the cast actually looked like Queen. So that is a plus. Everyone did a great job and props have to go out to Rami Malek, he would have been great if they gave him actual dialogue.
So why the single star? Honestly, it's because of the trailer. As in, if you saw the trailer you pretty much have already seen the movie. Not just the highlights, but the entire movie.
Queen was an epic band. Bohemian Rhapsody was an epic song. But Bohemian Rhapsody the movie has absolutely no meat on it.
You walk in with high hopes, and the cast is great, but the movie as a whole is a let down. It ends at Live Aid (as it probably should) but even then it doesn't seem anywhere near as epic a finale as it should have been for such a memorable and lauded performance.
Ultimately, there should have been more to it.

Rami was beyond superb at bringing the light that was Freddie to life again. I almost couldn't tell the difference. It was so well done. Perfection. I wish all real life bio-pics could be as heartwarming, heartbreaking, and fun as this. We miss and love you Freddie.

Bohemian Rhapsody is not a biography of Freddie Mercury, nor a biopic of Queen. It's a story based on a selection of key events occurring between the formation of the band and their appearance at Live Aid.
As a Queen fan I found this film utterly engrossing and enjoyable. The acting brilliantly invokes the characters in the band and the music provides a thumping rhythm to carry the story along.
Queen aficionados may be affronted by the out of sequence music performances and the highly selective approach to the story telling but if you can see past that, you'll enjoy a storming film with a spine-tingling conclusion as the Live Aid performance is brilliantly recreated.

If _Bohemian Rhapsody_ is so great, why was the best part of it Tom Hollander saying a single word? Don't get me wrong, Rami Malek deserves props for the role, that much is true (less perhaps than he's been getting, but still, props). But beyond that, _Bohemian Rhapsody_ is bland, choppy, arguably even offensive. There **might** be some value in one of those sing-along type deals if you can get enough Queen fans together for one, but I'll never know, because I have no interest in re-watching this.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

I have reviewed this film before but I thought that it deserved an extra special mention. Yesterday, this was the first film I saw in a cinema since we were all confined to barracks - and boy what a cracker. Where to start with the superlatives? It's fantastic - right from the opening bars of John Williams' score; on through the three mini-adventures rolled into one, we are treated to a marvellous feast of well-written, snappily directed, entertaining action packed adventure. Picking up from the first film, our rebels are holed up on a frozen planet being relentlessly pursued by Darth Vader. When one of his probes discovers their icebound base, they've got to get the hell out of there. Now sure, the CGI suffers a bit after 40 years; and can someone please tell me what the point of these lumbering Imperial Walkers is? They are like metal polar bears that constantly trip over their own shoelaces, but aside from those most minor of criticisms we have a great story; characters that we care about (personally, I'm an huge Vader fan) and who develop plausible, credible personalities; the detailed animations of "Yoda" are superb to see again on the big screen and it builds excellently to a sword fight the like of which has not been seen since "The Adventures of Robin Hood" (1938). It is, I think, better then the first film and for my money is the best sci-fi film ever made. Made for the big screen - and brilliantly made at that!

So, I was almost 1 when this movie dropped and, well, it started the opening night tradition.
OK, well, how to do this? I guess we will start with the hate. I like to address the hate in movies, especially ones that are well regarded and loved.
Now, I'll excuse it for the people that just don't like Star Wars. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
But then there are the people that really hate Empire because of...reasons. And those reasons are Revenge of the Sith.
I'm sorry, panning Empire because of loyalty to the prequels--misplaced as it is--doesn't make I-III any better. It just makes you petty.
Now, why its loved and, I'll admit, I am one of those fanboys that really do love this movie.
For starters, Empire went dark. It was the really the episode that the good guys lost and, that made it unique among, well, among just about every movie not made in the 1970s. I guess that is what made the 70s such a wonderful time for movies.
We could use a little more of that. We could use a lot more of that. We use a lot more gritty in cinema. And, we could use a lot more "lived in" Everything looks too clean.
Empire had that.
And then it had that big, legendary, reveal that made all those kisses between Luke and Leia utterly wrong once the second big reveal hit in 1983...which explained that look Han gave Leia when she told him in the next installment.
Moving on...
We have the Battle of Hoth, which, yeah, nerd awesomeness with kind of a WWI trench warfare v tanks feel and a WWII Evacuation of Dunkirk feel with the rebels on the run and the Empire forcing its way across the galaxy with brute strength.
And that prolonged time on the Falcon, well, that was just brilliant for character development and, incest blocking.
So, really, honestly, there was way too much to love not to put Empire on the throne.

Terrific, again.
'The Empire Strikes Back' follows up on the greatness of 'Star Wars' with a highly enjoyable sequel. This one feels like a big moment in the franchise, at least to someone who doesn't know what's upcoming, as we get sizeable moments alongside some cool character reveals.
Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher continue to impress in their respective roles, as does James Earl Jones. Elsewhere, Billy Dee Williams and Frank Oz make for strong additions. There are, once again, fun roles for Anthony Daniels, Peter Mayhew and Kenny Baker.
I'd say its predecessor has aged better - though that's not to say this film looks even the slightest bit bad, as it still looks fantastic throughout. The plot is as great as before, as is everything else really - namely the music, for one.
I think I prefer the 1977 film over this, but there's barely anything separating the two in my thoughts to be honest. Both are awesome!

_**Fun, imaginative, iconic space adventure with a kick-axx cast**_
"Star Wars V: The Empire Strikes Back" (1980) was the anticipated follow-up to the initial mega-hit blockbuster from 1977. It’s an epic, but simplistic space fantasy about an evil empire and the noble souls who dare to fight it. The main cast features Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker), Harrison Ford (Han Solo), Carrie Fisher (Princess Leia), Billy Dee Williams (Lando Calrissian), Alec Guinness (Obi-Wan Kenobi) and the voice work of James Earl Jones (Darth Vader), Frank Oz (Yoda) and Clive Revill (Emperor).
This is an amusing, inventive, iconic space adventure with a stellar cast. While I prefer the adult-oriented space science-fiction of Star Trek, I can’t deny that this space fantasy grants you an entertaining two hours with lots of sci-fi action, space ships, a snowy planet, asteroid caves and mysterious swamps. I also appreciate the mind-powers angle. It doesn’t hurt that Fisher is in her prime and easy on the eyes, not to mention Ford and Williams are at their charismatic best. Even the more obscure Hamill shines in his boyish youth. Then there’s RD-D2, C-3PO and Chewbacca.
The film runs 2 hours, 7 minutes.
GRADE: B

It's a dark time for the rebellion; and us the audience as well.
Luke, Leia and Han are fighting with the rebels in the hope of defeating the Imperial forces. But Luke gets a calling to the planet Dagobah, where under the tutelage of Jedi Master, Yoda, he hopes to become a Jedi himself, but that also brings him closer to his, and Leia's, destiny.
Lets tell it as it is, The Empire Strikes Back is a better film than Star Wars, not as impacting of course, but most definitely better. Technically, in story telling and in tone, it holds up well today and certainly warrants the amount of times it crops up in best sequels debates. That it's not actually a sequel is irrelevant, it is of course the filler in a wonderful sci-fi sandwich, because as second instalments go, Empire has few peers. With Empire Strikes Back we get all the whizz bang adventure strewn heart of Star Wars, but George Lucas (stepping aside for Irvin Kershner to direct) has also fleshed the story out with a serious dark tone that oddly becomes a bedfellow to the romantic fun on offer, where new and engaging characters (and creatures) add spice to this wonderful fantastical broth.
Aided by the considerable writing talent of Leigh Brackett (The Long Goodbye, Rio Bravo, The Big Sleep), Lucas took the bold and ingenious step of giving the bad guys the upper hand, in fact it could be argued that he was taking a considerable risk with his ending. Forcing his viewers to wait for the final chapter (three years later), after tantalisingly setting us up with a corker of plot twist (one which is still to this day as potent as it was back on release), Lucas pulled perhaps one of the cheekiest carrot dangles in cinema history.
Though more famed for its dark undertones, Empire is for sure still a very fun movie, C3PO goes into camp overdrive and Han Solo ups his quip quota by some margin. Then of course there is Yoda, in himself a comedic joy. The action sequences beg for repeat viewings, a battle on the ice laden planet Hoth is a marvel and the choreography for Skywalker's fight with Darth Vader is out of the top draw. But ultimately it's with the dark side that the picture excels. Complex and amazingly posing moral quandary's, The Empire Strikes Back is quite an experience, one that will forever hold up to repeat viewings for this particular viewer. 10/10

A masterpiece of cinema. The film transcends the franchise, seamlessly combining elements of myth, science fiction, fantasy, war film, romance, bildungsroman, epic and tragedy in a way that its sequels have been unable to replicate. It is a move without a moment of fluff. Cut anything and the film would suffer. Story, character, effects, cinematography, music, screenplay, acting, editing and action are all superb. One of the most artistically poignant films ever made. And because its style cannot be replicated, it will continue to appreciate with age.
This was a time when George Lucas still had integrity, as evidenced in this 1980 Rolling Stone interview (he has since contradicted much of what he espouses in both word and deed): https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/the-empire-strikes-back-and-so-does-george-lucas-19800612
Here's a blog article shows Empire's cinematic chiasmus, or narrative symmetry: https://dejareviewer.com/2014/05/20/cinematic-chiasmus-the-empire-strikes-back-is-a-perfectly-symmetrical-film/
My favorite version is the Team Negative1 Renegade Grindhouse Edition, an unrestored 35mm scan complete with damage and dust. The Despecialized version is okay too. All official releases are desecrations.
People may say that Star Wars is dead, but The Empire Strikes Back is deathless.

**Overrated **
An enjoyable film - just not as engaging as parts IV and VI. The argument that Jedi was ruined by little furry creatures is laughable as this instalment features a _little green muppet_. I was expecting Kermit and Miss Piggy to show up.
Once we get the impressive Hoth battle over with the film meanders and crawls along - padding out its running time with predictable romantic sparring and an extended and dull sequence on Degobah.
Things finally pick up again at Cloud City but not enough to justify the worship this film receives. I much prefer _Return of the Jedi_ to this one - at least Return of the Jedi gets the emotional juices flowing. This one leaves me as cold as the snow on Hoth.
- Ian Beale

Re-watching The Maze Runner was a pleasant experience, and I still enjoyed it as much as I did the first time. The film's directing stands out, with a well-paced first act that successfully introduces us to the characters, the maze, and their unsettling situation. This setup provides a strong foundation for an exciting second act and a finale that leaves the audience with lingering questions, perfectly setting the stage for the sequel.
The cinematography deserves praise as well. A standout moment is the opening sequence: the close-up shots immerse us in the disoriented perspective of the protagonist, only to transition smoothly to a zoom-out that reveals the towering, closed walls of the maze. This visual storytelling continues throughout the movie, maintaining a consistent sense of scale and tension.
The acting is another strong point. Most of the cast delivers solid performances, creating believable connections and helping viewers grow attached to each character. Their chemistry and emotional delivery effectively add weight to the story's stakes.
While the script is generally solid, it does feature a few clichéd jokes here and there, but these moments don't detract much from the overall experience.
The Maze Runner is a well-executed film that combines strong direction, engaging visuals, and compelling performances. It builds a suspenseful and immersive world while keeping the audience eager for what comes next. I thoroughly enjoyed revisiting it.

Amnesiac Dylan O'Brian emerges from a lift shaft in the ground to be found by a group of lads who've all been left to live a sort of subsistence existence inside a whopping great stone maze. A quick bout of wrestling with "Gally" (Will Poulter) reminds him that his name is "Thomas" but that still doesn't help him - or anyone else - with what he's doing here. Each day the great doors of the maze open up, but anyone who does try to make it out is never heard from again. The lads are completely clueless until a girl is sent amongst them, and she "Teresa" (Kaya Scodelario) might just have the answer as "Thomas" manages to galvanise a few of his pals to test the secrets of the maze. Can they escape, and if they do - what are they escaping too? Is it freedom or might it actually be worse? They do know that the maze is being patrolled by some menacing metal monsters so it's quite a dangerous leap of faith they must take - but it's either that or staying put. This is clearly part one of a franchise, so much of it is simply character establishment with some ground rules laid down for them and us. A reliable cast of associates help keep the film story and the characters develop well enough - though quite why Londoner Poulter had to have an American accent is anyone's guess. The Dashner novels upon which this is based follow a familiar line, but director Wes Ball tries to keep the film moving along quickly with plenty of moments of peril, acrobatics and using a star whom the camera likes and who energetically enters into the spirit of this adventure. It's enjoyable fayre - you'll never remember who was who afterwards, but these sort of franchises were all the rage in the mid-noughties, and this is perfectly watchable and occasionally exciting brain fodder.

It's one of my favorite movie series I've ever seen, but I can't deny that it's very different from the original book.

Much better than the marketing would have you assume.
_Final rating: ★★★ - I personally recommend you give it a go._

Don't bother.

One thing that I liked about this movie from the start was that it was, in my limited experience at least, somewhat original. Yes it was an apocalypse story but I have really not seen anything quite like it before. Yes moving mazes and all that have been done but the story as a whole was new to me. That was refreshingly enjoyable in this age of more or less boring Hollywood remakes.
On the whole I quite enjoyed the movie. I would label it a “young adult” movie. Not only because the lead characters as well as almost the entire cast are teenagers but the story itself is clearly at a level directed towards a younger audience. But then, who do not wish they were young again? I quite liked the story. It clearly had its usual collection of illogical moments and plot holes but nothing really really annoying as far as I am concerned.
In my opinion all of the cast did a decent enough job of their roles. Some roles mostly consisted of standing around in the background of course but the lead characters was not bad. Teresa was more of a plot element than a lead character in this movie though that has to be said.
I did indeed like the maze itself. It had a quite cool look and was well done from a cinematic point of view. The one thing that did not come out in the movie though was the reason for it all. I know that is supposed to be the mystery but it was rather frustrating nonetheless to not get any clues whatsoever. What on Earth could be the purpose of having a bunch of kids live through this experience in that way?
Sometimes the behavior of these kids where somewhat annoying of course. I especially disliked the plot element where that dumbass kid seemed to just want everything to stay the same forever. It is of course a classical element in stories like this but it still annoys the hell out of me every time.
Bottom line is still that I found this a rather enjoyable movie. I would definitely want to see the other two books made into movies as well. I have not read the books by the way so me thinking this was a new story experience is of course partly due to this fact.
SHARE THIS:

It was a good movie as far as it goes -- resourceful characters deprived of both freedom and their memories manage to build a society and think their way out of their bondage. The problem is that at the end, it simply stopped. No dramatic reason for ending where it does, no resolution of "why did the captors do this?" . Even in a series a movie ought to have a decent local climax -- for example, Kat and Peeta winning the Hunger Games.

Another forgettable Game of Ender/Hunger Games/Divergent clone.
In this case, to compensate that the main characters are often women, we just make the whole cast to be men.
Just forget about this.

Whilst I did enjoy this telling of the wartime efforts of the British code-breakers at Bletchley Park, I think I prefer Sir Derek Jacobi's 1996 interpretation of the achievements of Alan Turing, the brilliant mathematician who led a team of enigmatic individuals who broke the Nazi "Enigma" code. Benedict Cumberbatch is really just reprising his BBC "Sherlock" characterisation - even down to the pensive hand gestures. The story is told from quite an interesting retrospection after the pretty unlikeable Turing has been apprehended by the police for what I suppose we'd call "lewd behaviour" nowadays and is being questioned by Rory Kinnear ("Detective Nock"). Indeed, I found all the characterisations to be a bit shallow - Charles Dance, Keira Knightley and Matthew Goode just lacked oomph, I thought. Fascinating story , though - beautifully well presented.

Benedict Cumberbatch is fantastic in this movie. I really dug this. Love movies set during WWII and this one encapsulates it brilliantly. Felt they did the story justice while also having an underlying message on acceptance.
**Score:** _90%_
**Verdict:** _Excellent_

The first time I saw this movie, I loved it. It made me want to learn more about Alan Turing, but the more I learned, the more I realised how inaccurate this movie is. It is well acted, well produced, well cast, and I would still love it if not for the fact that it differs so much from what really happened that it would have been more appropriate to change all the names and portray it as purely historical fiction rather than pretending it has anything to do with the real Alan Turing.

Poor old ogre "Shrek" just want to be left alone, that's all - he's got a bit of the Greta Garbo's about him. Rather inconveniently, though, nasty Lord "Farquaad" who has a little of the Napoleon syndrome about him, banishes all the fairytale creatures from his lands and so they turn up on the doorstep of our green friend. How can he be rid of them all? Well together with his new (and frankly quite annoying friend) "Donkey" they head to the castle where they are given challenge: go and rescue the Princess "Fiona" from her dragon-guarded castle tower and bring her to marry the diminutive dictator. Off they go on a series of fun escapades that introduce us to all the creatures in the forest - including a decidedly French "Robin Hood , "Pinocchio", "Peter Pan" - indeed, just about everyone from the fables pantheon. Do they achieve their mission - we you will just have to watch and see; but along the way the jokes have plenty to amuse older audiences with a screenplay that pokes some gentle fun at some prevailing stereotypes on beauty, loyalty, bullying, sexuality - you name it. Murphy is still fearsomely annoying - sorry, but Messrs. Myers, Lithgow and Cassel along with Cameron Diaz add richness to the punchy script and to the excellent and enjoyably colourful animation to create a film that has stood the test of time well.

It was so fun and a new try. 하하

Eddie Murphy was actually funny in this. I mean he was 1980s Eddie Murphy style funny in this. It was like he was at the top of his game again.
It makes you miss Eddie. What we have today is not the glory that he once was.
But, beyond the great return of funny Eddie...there is a wonderful dark humor that goes great with an otherwise wholesome and moving moral.

Shrek is a masterpiece! It helped subvert the Disney Renaissance formula with great humor and heart. Myers, Murphy, Diaz and Lithgow did a great job voicing the characters. Now that this film is 20 years old, I am glad it existed.

Funny and moving for a difficult topic to talk about. François Cluzet and Omar Sy perform amazingly well although the rest of the cast is also very good.

The main villain was not that great but I don't think that destroyed the entire movie. There were still some great scenes and the storyline wasn’t all that bad.

Still not a bad film. I personally enjoyed it more than the first Thor movie, but still not comparable to other Marvel films.

Marvel flopped! Probably their worst film for 2013. It was annoying and everything was just all over the place!