Reviews

Mind-tripping psychological-thriller from Martin Scorsese, a bit of a change-up for him, with great performances all around of course including DiCaprio and Kingsley. This was my first viewing as I had procrastinated watching this for whatever reason, but found it highly entertaining with amazing, foreboding atmosphere. 4.5/5

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :) With Doctor Sleep, an almost 40-year sequel to The Shining, being released this week, now it’s the perfect time to revisit one of the greatest horror movies of all-time, as well as one of the most influential directors ever, Stanley Kubrick. I know, I know… Spoiler-free? For a movie released in 1980? Well, first of all, there’s always someone who still didn’t watch it. Secondly, as deeper we get into the 21st century, the more the 60s/70s/80s/90s movies are forgotten. And finally, if there’s a movie which I don’t need spoilers to explain how outstanding it is, it’s The Shining. With that said … It has always been one of my favorite horror films ever. It’s not perfect (no film is) and some aspects don’t work as well now as they did 5/10/20 years ago. When it came out, Kubrick’s adaptation of Stephen King’s novel was...

Probably my favorite of the Stephen King adaptations (though not much for many of the others save for a one or two) but not amongst Stanley Kubrick's, watched this one for the first time in many years (maybe a decade) and while I did immensely enjoyed it, and really liked Nicholson towards the end, I never really bought into him early on. Still, atmospherically it was amazing and at times creepy. But can't place this as some sort of classic in my book, anyway. 4.0/5

This rum is red, man! In spite of author Stephen King not being happy with Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of his novel, The Shining (1980) has proved to be a critical and commercial darling. It may not be in the spirit that King wanted, but it's undeniably a skillful piece of film making, a mixture of beauty and terror, of bravura techniques and simple but effective scares. With quality acting performances to match as well. The story unfolds at a deliberately slow pace, claustrophobia oozes from practically every frame, while the narrative smarts brings to bear the ghosts of the human and supernatural kind, all bone chillingly rendered for great effect by the vast spaces - the cold winter grounds outside - of the Overlook Hotel. It's not all perfect, the screenplay is very average, which makes Kubrick's work even more impressive, but with that comes the wave of feeling about style over...

A masterpiece. Kubrick chose a perfect cast and uses the timing and music to create a greatly opressing atmosphere. Nicholson is superb, but Duval and the kid are not less good.

I love the Harry Potter movie series. Watched them all again and the first 4 were brilliant but really felt the last few were not up to standard. The Deathly Hallows was definately too long and should not have been a two part movie, they tried to captilize on the last film for financial reasons and that spoilt the movie. But it was great to see all the characters again, and the visual effects were amazing and the story was solid. Not surprising as some of the previous ones but good.

Since their inception with the "Philisopher's Stone" (2001) I have really enjoyed the series that depicts the trials and tribulations of the "boy wizard" and his two best pals, and this last, but one, episode in their adventures is super. It's no longer a cheesy, children's franchise - but a dark, gritty and thoughtful piece of work from David Yates that really does convey some of the sinister and malevolent aspects of JK Rowling's book. Harry, Ron and Hermione are all but grown up - whether they are old enough, or not - and with their friends and allies must now prepare for the final battle with "Voldemort". This involves the seeking out and destruction of the crucial horcruxes that each contain a part of the life-force of their evil foe. The writing is taut, as is the direction - the personalities of the three characters we have followed for the last 9 years have developed into...

This second book in JK Rowling's "Harry Potter" series sees our trio of wizarding weans start to develop a much closer relationship with each other; and we begin to realise the challenges young "Harry" (Daniel Radcliffe) is to face as he grows up. This is much more sinister than the opener; Alan Rickman's "Prof. Snape" starts to come into his own as his evil nemesis v Maggie Smith as his professional proponent and "Dumbledore" (Richard Harris) starts to develop more as a character too. I could possibly have done without "Moaning Myrtle" but the story is well adapted and moves along quickly, with a little more humour than the original too. Again, the score and effects are hugely complementary to what is simply a cracking fantasy adventure story.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is a worthy sequel that improves upon the first and expands the lore in a grand way. The quality in this film is vastly superior to the first in terms of CGI and acting, which is par for the course as the main trio grows into their roles and as actors. It is evident that the CGI team had adequate time before this film's release because for 2002 the effects are spectacular. From Dobby the Elf to the Basilisk in the Chamber of Secrets, this movie nails creature models and creates very believable interactions between the models and the actors. Despite this film not having the impact in terms of discovering the magical world of Hogwarts for the first time, the story is able to improve upon its predecessor delivering an all-around stronger plot. There is a real sense of mystery surrounding the Chamber of Secrets and the suspense and hysteria it...

0/10 stars review ratings, too bad TMYB wont let me rate as ZEERO !! A total waste of time. Its a total dumpster. Cant even finish watching like more than 8 minutes through and through. Right form the start the movie feels dry as a Sahara desert and not a single refreshing water on sight. Poor acting and you. feel like they are reading the script for one of a better word Trying so hard to fish for emotions of a wrong father from his family but it is so far from convincing.

This is truly not a good movie. There are multiple reasons why I think this. The first is that this is part two or three or maybe four in an ongoing saga that you are dropped into with the short exposition and then you're supposed to care about any of the characters or any of the things that are going on. The characters have very poorly established relationships but they act as if you're supposed to know who they are or why they are or what their stories are. The movie is trying to force recognition as a way to build the tension for a narrative that ultimately you as the audience member do not care about. The spectacle is not great either. The effect budget is relatively high so this could have looked good but since you have no stake and no understanding in what is actually going on on screen it's all empty visual noise. The next problem is that the actors are not very good and with a...

*Legend of the White Dragon* is like *The Crow* of *Power Rangers* films, and you can feel it was trying to build toward a sequel or six if this proved successful. It is worth seeing as a sendoff for Jason David Frank, as his on-screen presence is still mesmerizing. Honestly, the best part of the film is the behind-the-scenes footage shown after the credits because you see Jason David Frank interacting with peers and being himself. You can understand why he’s so missed as an actor, a family man, and a person. https://bit.ly/JDFDragon

Masterpiece. Best DC film yet

Paul Dano and Colin Farrell are extraordinary, but The Batman is a three hour slog through Gotham that culminates with an over exaggerated riddle that isn’t worth solving. Having Batman and Jim Gordon both speak in raspy, whispery grunts feels excessive as does Gordon’s insistence on calling Batman, “Chief,” every time that they’re together. The film deserves credit for prominently shining the spotlight on the underbelly of crime in Gotham, but the storytelling in The Batman is a lot like Bugs Bunny meaning to have taken that left turn at Albuquerque; a meandering foray down a dark rabbit hole that isn’t entirely necessary. Full review: https://hubpages.com/entertainment/The-Batman-2022-Review-When-is-a-Bat-Not-Quite-a-Bat

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/the-batman-spoiler-free-review "The Batman deserves all the hype it generated and then some. Matt Reeves delivers a distinctly darker, more intense, frighteningly realistic noir thriller than past adaptations, with an aggressively vengeful Bruce Wayne / Batman and a fear-inducing, mysterious, lunatic Riddler. Greig Fraser's cinematography - bone-chilling "ins-and-outs" of Batman and stunning footage of Gotham - and Michael Giacchino's score - genuinely addictive, elevates the entire film - make this adaptation the best-looking and best-scored cinematic version of the Batman ever. Even with the narrative focus on the detective work, the action sequences are exhilarating and beautifully shot. The entire cast is extraordinary, especially Paul Dano and Robert Pattinson - the latter destroys all skepticism around his...

The reviews and hype for this movie were massive! Comparisons to The Dark Knight got my expectations high... probably a little too high. I was expecting to be blown away and was not but even with that being said The Batman is an exceptional film. The cinematography and visuals are stunning. Matt Reeves made some genius creative choices among which were the more reclusive rockstar grungy Bruce Wayne and the Riddler being heavily influenced by the Zodiac. The acting was fantastic as well with Zoe Kravitz and Paul Dano offering some standout performances. The Batman is driven with psychological and mystery focus as compared to the action comedy style of most superhero movies. My only complaint is that the mystery felt fairly predictable. I wasn't surprised by any of the twists and turns. Ultimately, this was a wonderful addition to the Batman franchise and I can't wait to see where...

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...

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.