Reviews

Find more reviews @ https://www.manuelsbento.com/ Rating: B- Stepping into the theater for The Mandalorian and Grogu, my anticipation was fueled by the undeniable charm of its main duo, and on a purely sensory level, this leap to the big screen absolutely delivers a blockbuster experience worthy of the largest IMAX canvas. From the breathtaking opening set piece — boasting some of the most brutal, intricately choreographed hand-to-hand action in the modern Star Wars mythos — the film immediately sheds the constraints of its streaming origins. Jon Favreau (Iron Man) crafts a visually stunning flick where the production design feels tangible, dirty, and authentic. The tactile delight of practical creature effects blends seamlessly with CGI elements, creating a visually consistent galaxy that disproves any notion of this looking like a glorified TV episode. Elevating this scale is a...

Hot on the heels of the 14th century great plague that killed almost half of the English population, the young and troubled King Richard II (Woody Norman) is being governed by his greedy nobles and clergy. Their actions result in his people being left exposed to the cruelty of their taxation agents and often they are no longer left with enough to live on or to feed their families. One such farmer (Andrew Garfield) decides that enough is enough and violently rebels against the authority of the Chief Justice (Stanley Townsend). Pretty swiftly he discovers that he isn't alone. His Essex-men are sooned joined by many from Kent - led by Wat Tyler (Cosmo Jarvis) and John Ball (Jamie Bell) who determine to march to London to put their case before the King. That's quite a risky strategy as they have no idea if the King will manage to pull himself together enough to see and/or engage with them or...

Right. First things first. Understood that you erect a 2000ft television relay tower back in the day, but when that industry moves to satellite delivery, why on Earth would anyone just leave this gradually rusting structure standing - only for it to come crashing down one day when the metal fatigue has won out? Hmmm! Anyway, luckily for us the planner's ineptitude allowed for "Becky" (Grace Caroline Currey) and her friend "Hunter" (Virginia Gardner) to go climb it. It's quite a big deal for the former woman - she had been free-climbing almost one year earlier with her friend and her husband "Dan" (Mason Gooding) when disaster struck and she has spent much of the intervening period married to Jack Daniels. Scorning any sensible planning - food, gloves etc. up they go - there is a ladder - and are soon at the top surveying the immensity of the view. Time to go down, the ladder gives way....

Fall is a sweaty palms, nerve racking ride, that plays, with gleeful sadism, on one the most basic and widespread, of human fears. An Acrophobic's worst nightmare, Fall takes a very basic premise and uses it to good effect, building a primal, instinctively terrifying, anxiety soaked action flick, of quite literally, dizzying heights. This is, somewhat antithetically, both an easy and hard watch rolled into one. I frequently found myself holding my breath, tensing, jumping and having to take breaks to get over my own sense of fear, at what I was witnessing. I was heavily invested in the main characters, wanting to see them safely escape their horrible predicament, in spite of their reckless decision to climb an obviously rusted, dilapidated tower. In short, great edge of your seat stuff. Just goes to show how much can be achieved with a modest budget and a lot of inspiration.

Fall is 47 Meters Down but with heights instead of depths - 47 Meters Up. Fall keeps your stomach in your throat with its dizzying heights and anxiety-inducing peril. The movie’s plot is extremely thin, but that’s what you would expect from a film with this premise. Grace Curry and Virginia Gardner’s despair seemed authentic through their convincing performances. Panic and distress filled every shot as the camera soaked in the unbelievable heights and endless landscapes. Scott Mann once again directs an emotional suspense-laden film that feels incredibly similar to 47 Meters Down, even borrowing an identical plot twist. Fall stretched on a little longer than needed, but I appreciated the staggering suspense and character development that elevated a meager concept to vertigo-inducing heights.

Even if the story was kind of lackluster, the film itself was incredible. If you consider the tower as a kind of true main character of the movie. On first watching this I can instantly imagine the blustering cacophony of outrage about climbing technique from viewers. From the first, the film is rather jarring but honest about its juvenile depiction of "climbing". At the start I had to decide NOT to care about how realistic it was because it would be wrong to reduce a film abductio absurdum because it is a story after all. A creation. It isn't being judged on its ability to remind one of real life so much as to forget it. I do this 'forgetting' voluntarily and I seem to enjoy films more. I felt my body constricting away slightly and getting anxious during the gravity yawning scenes, 2000ft above the ground! The characters were reckless enough to believe they would die at...

Frances Haugen (Mikey Madison) has put together quite a concerning list of questions that are continually being sidelined by her Facebook bosses. Despite ostensibly working for the integrity unit of this corporation, it's all about loyalty to the business and to the cause and so they are specifically warned off pesky journalists trying to rock the boat like Jeff Horwitz (Jeremy Allen White). He's no geeky tech journo, but a political hatchet-man who is out for a story that will expose just how manipulative this organisation is with regard to it's users and their data. Of course there is ample speculation out there, but he needs proof - and when Frances (aka "Fred") realises some frankly startling statistics, she begins a sort of "Deep Throat" dialogue with this luddite reporter. What now ensues varies the timelines from the early 2020s as their work in progress assault on the innermost...

Films designed to evoke righteous indignation among audience members have one vital task to fulfill: make sure they produce content and yield feelings that live up to their intentions. Unfortunately, that’s where this latest offering from writer-director Aaron Sorkin routinely swings and misses. Often inaccurately billed as a sequel to the screenwriter’s 2010 sensation “The Social Network,” this standalone companion piece to that release once again takes viewers inside the world of Facebook to expose the cracks in the social media giant’s supposedly impenetrable armor. This fact-based offering, spanning the years 2018-2021, focuses on idealistic Facebook researcher Frances Haugen (Mikey Madison), a firm believer in the organization’s mission of bringing people closer together but who uncovers some troubling secrets that shake her faith in the company’s allegedly altruistic objectives....

Check out my full review @ https://movieswetextedabout.com/the-social-reckoning-movie-review-aaron-sorkin-turns-the-facebook-files-into-an-infuriating-essential-wake-up-call/ Rating: A THE SOCIAL RECKONING sits on the same pedestal as THE SOCIAL NETWORK for me, and here's an add-on to that already massively hot take: this one matters more! Aaron Sorkin turns the Facebook Files into an infuriating film about a company that knew exactly what it was doing. The free speech debate at its core refuses easy answers, and Sorkin's analogies hit hard. Some say it comes too late because all of this is public, but public isn't the same as known. Mikey Madison is excellent as a whistleblower driven by love, not spite. Jeremy Strong's Zuckerberg is a caricature I believed anyway. Sure, it looks like TV, but who cares when the story is this vital? I didn't know nearly enough going in, and I haven't...

Check out my full review @ https://movieswetextedabout.com/a-talent-for-murder-movie-review-alden-ehrenreich-steals-a-sharp-darkly-funny-highsmith-thriller/ Rating: B+ A TALENT FOR MURDER is a sharp, darkly funny, quick-moving thriller that I enjoyed quite a bit. Alden Ehrenreich is the big revelation, switching between the anxious Edward and the dangerously smooth Tom Ripley with little more than a change in his smile or his gaze. Helen Mirren is gleefully nasty as Patricia Highsmith, and their power-shifting verbal fights are the heart of the film, which makes her near-disappearance in the second half all the more frustrating. Olivia Cooke is easy to overlook, but she’s great, even with an underwritten Clementine. Anton Corbijn’s restrained direction and the clever novel-within-the-film structure turn a two-person play into something that feels like cinema without losing the tension,...

Mysteries have been a staple of the movie industry almost as long as the artform has been in existence. However, the point of these thrillers is to figure them out (or at least get a clear explanation of them), not leave audiences confused by what they just watched. But that drawback, unfortunately but accurately, justifies the opinions of many viewers and critics about this latest release from director Anton Corbijn. Fans of mystery novels have long loved the works of author Patricia Highsmith (Helen Mirren), especially the five books she wrote featuring the enigmatically notorious villain Tom Ripley. In 1995, as Highsmith’s career was winding down and not long before her death, she was living as a recluse in Switzerland. And, even though the quality of her writing was slipping, her publisher was still determined to get one last Ripley novel out of her, despite her lack of interest in...

As a movie this is a very good movie. The scenery, the acting, the colors etc. are of a very high technical standard. To me personally however, this movie is much too dark and depressing for my taste. I cannot say that I am surprised that the movie is dark. The first movie was a rather dark one after all and this one is a truly post-apocalyptic one. I quite liked the first movie despite its dark setting though. However this one takes the darkness and melancholy to an entirely new level. As I said before, technically the movie is great. The scenery is stunning whether it is a dirty little hut out in the badlands or the equally dirty vast cityscapes. The scenes of the abandoned city where Decker is (re)introduced is sad but beautiful. The acting is more or less great from all the main characters and the special effects are very well done and just right to fit with the rest of the...

Strikes a true balance between new and old. Denis Villeneuve has a perfect filmmaking record in my mind, and Blade Runner 2049 continues that trend with aplomb. Final rating:★★★★ - Very strong appeal. A personal favourite.

The film was actually rather disappointing. As a film it was OK, but as a sequel to Blade Runner, it was terrible. There were some nice in-jokes and references, but overall low-brow junk masquerading as high-brow gold (it was directed by Villeneuve, so I really shouldn't have expected better, the only thing he's good at is making stupid people think they are clever). Everything seemed forced and unnatural. The plot was trite and cliched, and everything was very predictable. Totally a wasted opportunity ;^<

In a wonderfully woeful world, a detective makes a sad attempt at a relationship, has the most inventive sex scene ever committed to screen, and grapples with an existential crisis as he does his work. This stuff, which could work as a standalone story, is so strong that this movie must be seen. Unfortunately, the movie doesn't realise that the protagonist's everyday life is the best part, and instead focuses on a larger-than-life, goofy premise meant to tie 2049 to the original and set up another sequel, thus undermining what would otherwise be a gripping, intimate story.

A simple action film starring muscleman Alan Ritchson, known from the DC series Titans and Reacher. A visibly aged Dennis Quaid also makes a cameo appearance. All in all, it's a straightforward and bloody film. The characters remain nameless, identified only by numbers. The film is entertaining but lacks depth, requiring careful attention.

War Machine (2026) is a standout for anyone who appreciates a straightforward, high-tension film that avoids the typical political traps of the military genre. It delivers a raw experience by focusing on the physical and mental endurance of the characters rather than pushing a specific agenda or narrative. Alan Ritchson brings a grounded intensity to the role of "81," making the transition from a grueling Ranger selection process to a sci-fi survival scenario feel surprisingly realistic. The film excels because it stays focused on the technical aspects of the situation—how the squad adapts to an unknown threat with limited resources and sheer willpower. The lack of propaganda is one of its strongest points; it doesn't try to lecture the audience or romanticize the conflict beyond the survival of the men on the ground. It is pure, high-stakes cinema that relies on atmosphere and pacing...

Just in time for the US's war of aggression in Iran comes "War Machine." A bravado ridden affair where the US military rules the world and its working class tough guys (and one girl) take on all aggressors, including giant 80's-style VCR-like UFOs with legs, missiles, and ray guns. Viewed as simplistic military action, entertainment its alright. Lots of people get killed in grisly style, and things go "ka-boom." In summary, given the current war mongering climate US military propaganda is unsurprisingly front and center in this basic sci-fi war film. A mediocre watch.

March 9, 2011 (Holy !@#$, I feel old.) > When once distant UFOs become a terrifying threat and an alien invasion force begins attacking Earths major costal and riverside cities, a U.S Marine staff sergeant and his team are sent into battle only to find they must take it upon themselves to defeat an unknown enemy and protect what remains of Los Angeles. Look, I enjoyed "Battle: Los Angeles (2011)" for what it was. It was a'ight. Likewise, this movie is also a'ight. I will say though, that the U.S. military propaganda feels more in your face here. Also, Alan's acting feels off sometimes, especially in his final speech. P.S. In case all of that went over your head, I'm saying "War Machine (2026)" is literally "Battle: Los Angeles (2011)". Go 'head. Watch the two movies back to back, side by side, then come back and tell me it ain't the same movie.

A long form review originally posted in 2015: I’ve just returned from two back-to-back viewings of Avengers: Age of Ultron, and I do not regret one bit going in for that second helping. I lost my steam on the Age of Ultron wagon at a very inopportune moment. About three days before it came out. I was so heavily anticipating it for such a long time, that I was actually much more excited to see this movie when it was still two months away than I was waiting in line to get into the cinema it was playing at. The combination of the market-saturation and the fact that the Ultron hype-train has been running for literally years, with a first trailer dropping seven months before the damn thing came out, meant I got weary of the thing just a fraction too soon. But I’m a sucker for the MCU, and there was no way I was missing the sequel to my favourite superhero movie of all time. I won’t harp on...