Search Results

Reviews by: @the_owlseyes Cultural appropriation has always been an issue. It has always been here and it affects almost every aspect of our society. Recently it has been used by our "politically correct" media to underline how it's a form of discrmination. The latest movie which has criticized it is Parasite, by having Korean people wearing Native American clothes without knowing their meaning and attributing them to the American culture. Even though this is a sharp banter toward the American culture, sometimes this cultural appropriation is dumb. There're people who acts and dress like Afro-american for no reason. There's one thing which goes beyond the simple dressing and acting: the music's culture. You could think that's all about rap and R&B but it actually goes back to the births of Soul and Jazz. This story, a true story, is about that. PLOT "Tensions rise when trailblazing blues singer Ma Rainey and her band gather at a recording studio in Chicago in 1927" or "White producers are dicks with afro-american artists". SCRIPT It's a simple script which revolves around Ma Rainey's band and her producers. There're ten characters but it focuses around two of them, Ma Rainey and her trumpeter Levee Green. The movie starts in medias res, when the band is already formed and performing. From the first scenes you'll get hints about Green's personality and desires and his tricky relationship with Ma. The story unfold as a climax, escalating to something unexpected in the last act, but it drags a bit during the central act, because it's characterized by a lot of exposition from the characters to define their personalities and history. The movie does it only with the band but it lacks it for the other players, especially the producers, who are portrayed as an opposing force, to underline the intended social commentary of the movie. There're no story archs because it's about a concept which has never changed. Nonetheless the characters are given a certain depth which hard to craft in less than two hours and I appreciated a lot how they managed Green. The ending gets you unexpectedly. It happens quietly and it shocks you quietly, leaving you with a sense of bitterness. This is when you'll understand the movie's central theme. Script: 8/10 ACTING Chadwick Boseman and Viola Davis give a stellar performance. Especially Boseman, who shows his multiple talents. He sings, dance and play the part with depth and passion. He's able to make you feel for him, even though is character does despicable things and usually is haughty. The supporting cast shines but it's eclipsed by the main stars. In the end is a small cast, like a theater's one, and in a certain sense gives you more closure to the performances of every member. Acting: 9/10 PHOTOGRAPHY Light has a relevant role here. It symbolizes freedom and the lack of it is usually used in the room where the players reharse and talk. The producers doesn't get this kind of symbolism and are shot always the same way. Shades are used well but sometimes the light is too flat. Colors aren't used a lot and, in fact there're a lot of black, grey and yellow shades, probably to stick with the period style. Overall it's decent but it isn't interesting. Photography: 6/10 EDITING The first introductory shot is pretty effective but it's the only one which caught my attention. The others are mediocre and get better only when the band plays something or someone sings a song. The last shot, which is a sharp transition from Levee's frame to a white soul band, it's well done and adds weight to the scene. It's sad that only the first and last shot are interesting. Editing: 5/10 SPECIAL EFFECTS It's a practical set, like a theater's play. There's no cgi but it seems like Viola Davis is wearing a suit to fit her character body conformation. It's a bit visible sometimes but it doesn't hurt the experience. Special Effects: 6/10 SOUNDTRACK The music takes a central role here and it's just beautiful. Viola Davis is clearly dubbed but Chadwick Boseman sings his lyrics and it's marvellous. The sondtrack fits the movie's style and it's strongly linked to the songs performed by the band. Sometimes isn't effective but overall it's good and pleasant. Not by chance Ma Rainey is regarded as the "Mother of Blues" because she bridged early vaudeville and southern blues. Soundtrack: 8/10 COSTUMES These're coherent with the period in which is set the movie. I liked the color's choices and Ma Rainey's dress, because it sticks to the original look of the singer. These have a relevant fole for the plot because the last act is determined by a shoe, which is teased in the first minutes. Costumes: 6/10 CONCLUSION Script: 8/10 Acting: 9/10 Photography: 6/10 Editing: 5/10 Special Effects: 6/10 Soundtrack: 8/10 Costumes: 6/10 AVERAGE: 6,85 It's a good movie but it isn't paced very well, which could make it boring after a while. The music and the actors performances are what elevates this motion picture. The social commentary is on point and well executed but it doesn't take a lot of time to explain the point of view of the "villains". You could like it if you're a music fan, especially of blues and jazz, or you could it anyway because of the amount of talent which is on display here. This is the last movie of Chadwick Boseman and I think that he gives the performance of his life here. He did while being ill, colon cancer, and it isn't the only movie which he did with this illness. He died prematurely cause of that. I think that he deserved an Oscar for this movie, even though the Oscars aren't relevant today as in the past, but the Academy has its agenda, unfortunately. Life isn't fair, not even if you're a movie star. By @the_owlseyes Director: George C. Wolfe Screenplay: Ruben Santiago-Hudson Cast: Viola Davis, Chadwick Boseman, Glynn Turman, Colman Domingo, Michael Potts Soundtrack: Branford Marsalis Cinematography: Tobias A. Schliessler Running Time: 94 minutes Budget: $21 million

Reviews by: @the_owlseyes @vreviews We thought that Amazon was done after The Boys. The company's first dip in the superhero craze has showed that an R rated series about smudgy icons could find a place in a world dominated by Marvel and DC. They wanted to offer us an alternative to the hopeful narrative we are used: heroes and villains are poles which have to be counterposed. An idea which could become old after a while. The producers Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg cracked the powerful image of the MCU, now they're doing the same with the superhero coming of age and the fatherly issue tropes which appears in characters like Spider-Man. After Superman they've decided to deconstruct another popular hero. This is super exciting for the genre's future. PLOT "An adult animated series based on the Skybound/Image comic about a teenager whose father is the most powerful superhero on the planet" or "A superpowered abusive father with narcissistic tendencies screws badly his family and the world". SCRIPT This story isn't just about superpowers and their price, it's also about the troubled relationship between a son and a father who isn't an earthling. The series underlines from the first episode what could happen between them and the crude reality of this universe. No one is safe and death hangs on everyone's head. It defies superhero tropes like the first day of a teenage hero on the battlefield, the foreign saviour and the love interests. The last point is badly executed, because the main love interest acts in an unbelievable way, disrupting, for a moment, the credibility of the plot. Apart from that, everything seems to have a purpose, even the moments which seem like fillers. The series plot twist is pretty effective, even though there're a lot of red herrings, because it tears down Superman's core ideology. There's a subplot which seems inconsequential, the Robot's one, and I think that it would've been better to cut it out, because the plot twist isn't satisfactory. There's been set the basis of a good universe with a lot of good ideas and I hope that most of the unrisolved questions will get an answer in second season, because the end left everyone hanging. Overall is a pretty good script and the main characters get a satisfying arch, especially Mark, which is able to mantain a good momentum and deliver something new and unexpected every episode. Script: 8/10 ACTING There're a lot of talented actors here. To mention some of them: J.K. Simmons, Steven Yeun, Sandra Oh, Ezra Miller, Walton Goggins, Mark Hamill, Jon Hamm and Mahershala Ali. If they don't get you hooked enough consider that every performance is top notch and every voice fits perfectly its character. Steven Yeun is very good at portraying this naive, optimistic and shy superhero who tries to take the best choice every time. And J.K. Simmons is the best thing which ever happened to the superhero's genre. Acting: 8/10 PHOTOGRAPHY It's a very bright show which has moment of over the top gore. It's very graphic, which makes it special but could be hard to watch if you don't have guts. Nothing really imaginative is done with color and the style remains consistent for all the series. Space's scenes are good but they stick to realism so don't expect something exceptional. Photography: 6/10 EDITING Nothing original to say about it. You can find transitions which are common in the animation's medium but they don't experiment with it. Freeze frame and slow motion are use gingerly to improve the drama of certain scenes or to expose the high levels of gore. It tries to stick to the comics style but it doesn't want to do its own thing. Editing: 5/10 SPECIAL EFFECTS It's an animated show which knows how to dose and where to use the cgi. Sometimes the animation is a bit clunky but overall it's an harmless ride(if you don't consider the blood). Maybe you'll notice that the animation style is similar to other Marvel animated series like Avengers Assemble and Ultimate Spider-Man, that's because the director has worked on them before Invincible. Special Effects: 6/10 SOUNDTRACK It's not remarkable but it isn't bad. It's clear that it tries to appeal to a young generation by using catchy songs which fit the series tone. In some ways it's similar to Spider-Man: Into the Spiderverse but music isn't used in an organic way and it doesn't affect the plot. It's more like a background sound which, sometimes, has good ideas. Soundtrack: 5/10 COSTUMES They're ok but there's nothing interesting about them. As a superhero series this section is pretty stale and sufficent as it is. It's hard to say that the Invincible's suit is iconic, because for me it's the usual leotard. That's a letdown but it doesn't ruin the show. Costumes: 6/10 CONCLUSION Script: 8/10 Acting: 8/10 Photography: 6/10 Editing: 5/10 Special Effects: 6/10 Soundtrack: 5/10 Costumes: 6/10 AVERAGE: 6,28 It's entertaining series which addresses important isssues about family and power, while deconstructing familiar superhero tropes in an edgy and gory way. The main concept is pretty interesting and I hope that it'll build on it with care. Sometimes the series falls in the genre's cliches but it's able to redeem itself by presenting something unexpected in the next scene. This is a good show to get something different from the usual superhero's contents. It's not as shocking as The Boys but it amps up the gore and it could be satisfying if you like a bloodier approach to the genre. One thing is certain, we need more of this kind of shows. By @the_owlseyes 9/10 ★ Amazon Prime's new addition seems to be an interesting journey regarding animated shows. Plot: Mark Grayson is a teenager who struggles with an uncommon problem: he's the son of the Earth's greatest superhero. Suddenly, he develops superpowers but Nolan, his father, doesn't seem too pleased about it. Soon, Mark'll discover the true about his father and his intentions. Overall Opinion: I must admit that I'm not precisely a fan of animated TV Shows, but this is one of the few exceptions. And guys... it's an amazing show! It's highly different to what we're used to see and it's definitely not for children. It's no news that superhero stories are lacking originality, since they always follow the same story patterns. However, "Invincible" adds other elements which made the story far more interesting. Mark has to face some serious traumas and ask himself if all these risks are worthy in order to protect people. I think there are some ideological and philosophical issues hidden in the story, especially regarding what does it really mean to be a hero. There's a lot violence and pretty graphic scenes. Overall, I think the future of superhero genre should follow a more "adult approach". Thus, it would be focused on telling more realistic stories, in terms of how human relationships work. We know that not everything is happiness and love. By the end of the day, there's always something bothering us. What if the hero can't save every person in the falling building? What if one of the team members betrays the others? What if you kill a bunch of people trying to save others? What if your own family betrays you? Those kind of questions make interesting and more relatable stories and I think it would be amazing to apply this concept to superheroes. Characters and Performances: The main characters here are developed amazingly. Firstly, as I've already mentioned, Mark/Invincible (voiced by Steven Yeun) is a young guy who has to deal with a bunch of issues: He gets superpowers at a relatively "late" age; then, he struggles with a romantic relationship; most importantly, he discovers that his father is a f*cking liar and a murderer who stands against everything he believes in. Then, we have my personal favorite: Omni Man/Nolan Grayson, voiced by the genius J.K. Simmons. Nolan comes from a planet called Viltrum, in which every habitant has super-human powers, such as super-strength, speed, flight and super-hearing. He knows exactly what he has to do and he won't let anything or anyone get in his way, even if that someone is his own son. Finally, Debbie Grayson is Nolan's human wife and Mark's mom. She's such a sweet woman, a devoted wife and very careful mother. She's the first one who starts to suspect on Nolan's bad intentions, since he behaves weirdly. When the truth finally sees the light, she breaks down in pain and tears, but she never forgets she has a son and no matter how powerful he can be, she will always be there to protect him. Year: 2021 Director: Robert Kirkman Genre: Action, Animation, Drama Cast: Steven Yeun, J.K. Simmons, Sandra Oh, Zazie Beetz, Grey Griffin, Kevin Michael Richardson, Zachary Quinto, Clancy Brown, Walton Goggins, Gillian Jacobs, Jason Mantzoukas, Mark Hamill, Khary Payton, Mahershala Ali, Seth Rogen, Jon Hamm, Lauren Cohan, Michael Cudlitz, Djimon Hounsou, Ezra Miller, Andrew Rannells Runtime: 2h 12 min Qualification: 8/10 By @vreviews Director: Jeff Allen Screenplay: Robert Kirkman Cast: Steven Yeun, Sandra Oh, J. K. Simmons Soundtrack: John Paesano Cinematography: T.A.P. Running Time: 45 minutes

Reviews by: @the_owlseyes Some decades are destined to come back. In these years there's one which has been resurrected to create new stylish movies and series. It's style, colourful and vibrant, is the best antidote against the contemporary cynicism of entertainment, which is focused on gritty realism and a poorness of color. It's the 80's obviously and so far we have had Guardians of the Galaxy, Stranger Things and other contents which capitalized a lot by using the trend in fresh and imaginative ways. One of them flew under the radar, creating a cult around it and prompting a sequel with a cast composed by Arnold Schwarzenegger and Michael Fassbender. It's Kung Fury, a short made in Sweden, which stormed YouTube way back in 2015. PLOT "In 1985, Kung Fury, the toughest martial artist cop in Miami, goes back in time to kill the worst criminal of all time - Kung Führer, a.k.a. Adolf Hitler" or "80's hints from start to end". SCRIPT This is bonkers. This has all the cliches of action movies and a multitude of tributes to the action stars who defined it like Van Damme, Schwarzenegger, Stallone and Hasselhoff. It isn't just about the movies because it readapts the style of cult series like Supercar, G.I. Joe, Miami Vice and Mask. Yes, the plot is nonsensical but it knows that and double down the madness. Yes, the characters have no story arch and yes, there's no resolution whatsoever but this is not the point. This flick wanted to pay homage to an era when most of the movie were dumb and fun, when the toxic masculinity was celebrated and technology wasn't understood by movie's producers. This either the best script ever realized or the worst. Sometimes geniality is disguised by insanity. Script: 7/10 ACTING It's bad, like really bad. It seems intended to be like that, especially the protagonist, but it's clear that there's a lack of talent (which is focused on the script). There's David Hasselhoff here but he has a minor role and he doesn't bring up the acting quality of the short. I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to this one...but it's still pretty bad. Acting: 3/10 PHOTOGRAPHY The creators crafted a movie with original aesthetics and ever changing style. Everything which happens on the screen is made to keep you hooked: the sudden movie's interruptions and ads which pop out of nowhere, the flashing bright lights which bring you back to the "best period" of human civilization....this is a gold mine for everyone who looks at the 80's with admiration. Photography: 8/10 EDITING It's original and differs from scene to scene, to tell the story with hints to different series and videogames. You'll notice the nods to Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter and other vintage videogames. Maybe you know about them, maybe not, but people of a certain age will get them easily. So be receptive and catch'em all. Editing: 8/10 SPECIAL EFFECTS They're bad and cheesy but they work in this movie. The issue is that all of it is cgi and looks so fake. Some good scenes are well done and homage G.I. Joe and Dragon Ball Z, which are rigorously hand drawn, others look mediocre because it's hard to pull it off with a budget which is under a million. It's a mixed bag which annihilates the eyes and pleases them with original sceneries. Special Effects: 6/10 SOUNDTRACK It's syntwave and retro electric, a staple of 80's movies. You'll recognise some nods to other themes like Miami Vice's one. This is what makes this movie a rare gem and it's present from start to end. If you liked the theme, Hasselhoff has made a song which in itself deserves to be praised. It's hard to find a soundtrack which fits to perfection the movie. This is one of the few which does it perfectly. Soundtrack: 9/10 COSTUMES I like them because they're consistent with the movie's tone and the characters. Clearly they wanted to spoof Rambo, Conan the Barbarian and every cop movie, even the one with a T-Rex. Kung Fury's clothes are iconic in a certain way and are integral to the plot. Hackerman is largely stereotyped, spoofing every movie which didn't understand who is or what does an Hacker. There's an attention to details which is satisfactory because no one wears clothes out of place and time. Costumes: 7/10 CONCLUSION Script: 7/10 Acting: 3/10 Photography: 8/10 Editing: 8/10 Special Effects: 6/10 Soundtrack: 9/10 Costumes: 7/10 AVERAGE: 6,85 This is a masterpiece made by the fans and brought to the mainstream. It's flawed but it shines with his witty script, majestic soundtrack and fantastic editing. I think that a review isn't enough to describe it because there's so much to talk about, even though it's a short. See it with your friends, see it with you girl but see it now, before the sequel comes out. Experience the mastery of Kung Fury and get back in time, to revive the best years of our history. The legend began with these words: "I'm a cop, and damn good at my job. It all began years ago, in the line of duty. Me and my partner were chasing down a mysterious kung-fu master" By @the_owlseyes Director: David Sandberg Screenplay: David Sandberg Cast: David Sandberg, Jorma Taccone, Leopold Nilsson, Eleni Young, Helene Ahlson, Andreas Cahling, Per-Henrik Arvidius, Steven Chew, Magnus Betnér, Björn Gustafsson,David Hasselhoff Soundtrack: Mitch Murder, Lost Years Cinematography: Matias Andersson, Jonas Ernhill Running Time: 31 minutes Budget: $630'019

Reviews by: @the_owlseyes In 2015 a gruesome fact striked Romania but the world didn't talk about it, a lot of people didn't know about it until someone decided to expose it. For four years the victims, who has been wounded beyond physical damages, has fought against a corrupt government, trying to make things right. Something was accomplished but the idea to show this horror to the world was the necessary step to avenge the 64 deaths and 143 injured. It was held by an independent director and financed by local and foreign producers. The movie was released in 2019 but in 2021 was nominated in two categories of the Oscars and received a backup from actor of Romanian origins like Sebastian Stan, who recently starred in Falcon and the Winter Soldier. It's hard to review a movie which has an emotional value for a people and is structured as a documentary, because you'll feel the weight of your choices. I hope that I'll be up for the task. Stick with me till the end. PLOT "Director Alexander Nanau follows a crack team of investigators at the Romanian newspaper Gazeta Sporturilor as they try to uncover a vast health-care fraud that enriched moguls and politicians and led to the deaths of innocent citizens" or "Good people try to get justice for a lot people killed by government's laxity". SCRIPT As a documentary, it meticulously analyses the events the way they unfolded, without leaving out the victims point of view. It focuses a lot on the process which was used by the journalists to get the truth, by showing their struggle against politicians who wanted to disavow themselves from the responsability of what happened that night. The movie puts front and center the experience of the journalists at the expense of the victims. The movie results less powerful than it was intended because it approached events without delving in the emotions of the people involved. After a while the story tends to drag because it decides to show the aftermath from a political standpoint, which seems biased and hard to uderstand for a foreign audience who doesn't know how Romanian politics works. Overall it's weel written because it gives you all the infromation to understand what happened and to empathyze for the people who found themselves into that kind of situation. Script: 8/10 ACTING The actors aren't professional ones but the people who took part to the events which occured in the tragedy's aftermath. They try to do their best but it's clear that this isn't their main occupation. That doesn't hurt the movie but, sometimes, it seems out of place and create a sense of uneasiness. Acting: 5/10 PHOTOGRAPHY It's the usual documentary's style. There's nothing to be added here because the movie wasn't intended to be artistic. It serves its purpose. Some scenes will stuck in your mind because of their gruesome aspect. You'll understand what fire could do to your body. Photography: 7/10 EDITING Usual stuff you can get from a documentary. As for the photography, it does what is needed without experimenting that much. Only the reconstructed fire scenes of the night club stand out. It tries to uniform to the style of crime's documentaries but the shots are, sometimes, too shaky. Editing: 6/10 SPECIAL EFFECTS Cgi wasn't necessary here. Fortunately they tried to stay as simple as their emotions, without trying to be something else. As a documentary should be. Something practical was used to reproduce the Colectiv's fire and the damages to the club but it seems pretty executed and it shocks you to the bone. Special Effects: 6/10 SOUNDTRACK There isn't a determined soundtrack. This is why I'll share the song which was performed moments before the tragedy. Members fo the band have died after it and I think that this is the best way to remember them. The mark I've given is about the movie's quality, not the band's. Soundtrack: 5/10 COSTUMES It's a section superfluous for this movie. They achieved belivability easily, because the costumes are ordinary ones. Costumes: 6/10 CONCLUSION Script: 8/10 Acting: 5/10 Photography: 7/10 Editing: 6/10 Special Effects: 6/10 Soundtrack: 5/10 Costumes: 6/10 AVERAGE: 6,14 It's a good documentary but it could've been better if it focused more on the emotions rather than the events and the political side. It's able to make you understand how much corruption is present in Romania and how it affects the people. I liked the detailed representation of the detectives and their struggles and some gruesome scenes intended to shock the viewer. Some facts has to be told and entertainment could help us spread knowledge in a world which seems interested more in politics and its gossip rather than human tragedies. Something which you can't get from the television news of your country. Every people still think for itself. We have to be a unite world. By @the_owlseyes Director: Alexander Nanau Screenplay: Alexander Nanau Soundtrack: Kyan Bayani Cinematography: Alexander Nanau Running Time: 109 minutes

Reviews by: @the_owlseyes A destination. A purpose. We seek it. We want to reach it. We think that's all about the ending. We think that what we're doing now will make us reach our goal. Each one of use is a tramp of life, torned by the notion of achievement and wealth's thrall, looking for a meaning in the mess we found ourselves in. This movie is about the people who, for misfortune or choice, pursue a life devoted to community, neatness and continuous discovery of life's treasures. PLOT "A woman in her sixties who, after losing everything in the Great Recession, embarks on a journey through the American West, living as a van-dwelling modern-day nomad" or "An ode to the wanderer's life". SCRIPT It's a character driven movie but its thin plot isn't out of place. Fern, the protagonist, is deeply analysed by showing us every aspect of his life, past and present, through visual and verbal nods. There's an iper-realistic sense in this picture, something which you can feel through the other minor characters who interact with her. You're able to understand their motivations and to be with them when they're struck by reality. There's a profound humanity and empathy on display here, something so rare in movies today which makes Nomadland an emotional and tender story. The main protagonist doesn't have an arch of growth, which could make the movie pointless, but as an arch of self-discovery and acceptance. There's no resolution for her because a nomad doesn't seek it. She won't return to society because it was the one which rejected her during the Great Recession, she won't reintegrate in an lackadaisical civilization. The subtle social commentary about capitalism(there's a gentle jibe toward Amazon and how it acts toward its employers) emerges through the words and experiences of the people who dominate the movie's tableau. The frigid and aloof morality of the corporate state is condemned without a loud and direct satire but through the sincere and true suffering and joy of people who got rid of it. There's a lot to learn and think about here. Script: 9/10 ACTING Francis McDormand offers a fine performance, something which is starting to be a standard lately. She makes you empathize for her character, portraying her with truthfulness and candor. She enhances the performances of the other actors, pulling out of them every emotion in its purity. The other actors, most of them are elders, personate their characters with a remarkable naturalness, which makes the movie seem like a documentary at times. Acting: 8/10 PHOTOGRAPHY Every frame is work of art. It makes you appreciate sunrise and sunset, day and night, moments of loneliness and crowded gatherings, the desert's warmth and the snow's coldness. When it shows the worksplaces, it does it by extolling the stiffness of machines and the job's hollowness, brighten up a bit by human relations. Colour is not used with a symbolic mean and nothing interesting is done with it, to maintain the realism of the picture. Nonetheless it's a pleasure for the eyes. Photography: 8/10 EDITING The director prefers wide angles and a particolar style of close-ups. The characters faces are framed with medium close up shots which amplifies the emotions and expressions. Other shots are dynamic, where the camera slowly move toward the actor or over the set, to give a sort of movement to the story, to avoid making it slack and boring. You'll find this movie lovely and restful, thanks to the editing. Editing: 8/10 SPECIAL EFFECTS The lack of it grounds the movie in reality. It's a cure-all for all the cgi shindy we are used to in movies. Special Effects: 6/10 SOUNDTRACK It's tender and gentle, it exudes peace by putting you at ease. Maybe you'll recognise the composer for some arpeggios, maybe not, but you'll get it after a while if you've watched The Intouchables before. It's really beautiful and dreamy and fits perfectly the movie's tone. Even though it's perfect for the movie, it isn't original because it was used in another movie which has a similar style. Soundtrack: 8/10 COSTUMES They fits the characters and their ideology but there's nothing original about them. As I said before, this movie is rooted in reality so it doesn't need to be flamboyant and colourful. Costumes: 5/10 CONCLUSION Script: 9/10 Acting: 8/10 Photography: 8/10 Editing: 8/10 Special Effects: 6/10 Soundtrack: 8/10 Costumes: 5/10 AVERAGE: 7,42 That's a gorgeous movie wich touches deep feelings and shows a way of life which could bring to happiness and get you through society's severity. It could be a cathartic experience which could set you on a journey of self-improvement or just relax your mind with great visuals and a kind soundtrack. This movie deserves to be praised because it's a heartfelt masterpiece sprouted by the passion of all the people involved in it, from the director to the actors. By @the_owlseyes Director: Chloé Zhao Screenplay: Chloé Zhao Cast: Frances McDormand, David Strathairn, Linda May, Swankie Soundtrack: Ludovico Einaudi Cinematography: Joshua James Richards Running Time: 108 minutes Budget: $5 million

Reviews by: @the_owlseyes Let's adress the huge whale in the room. The last Star Wars Trilogy has been a weak ride. The Last Jedi was a movie which left the fandom rived and confused. Star Wars was going in a direction never chartered before. For the first time since A New Hope the franchise was at a crossroad: pursue a new way or repeat the same formula again. Rian Johnson cornered Disney by killing the main antagonist and setting the protagonist on a arch of possible corruption. Theories came from all over the grid: Rey turning to the dark side and Kylo Ren redeeming himself, a greater presence of force ghosts, Rey being a clone, the Skywalker of the title not being a person but maybe a group of them and the balance being finally brought to the force. The fact was that there was a lot of pressure on LucasFilm and Disney to deliver a satisfying ending could have been what doomed this chapter and the faith of a multitude of fans. I don't know, it's hard to defend something so rotten, flawed and dumbily constructed. PLOT "The surviving members of the Resistance face the First Order once again, and the legendary conflict between the Jedi and the Sith reaches its peak, bringing the Skywalker saga to its end" or "It's like The Return of the Jedi ugly copy with worse characters and nonsensical sequence of events". SCRIPT Where do I start? The characters development is down the drain. Poe Dameron is there as a supposed Rebels Leader but he doesn't seems able to fill the void left by Leia Organa, caused by the actress premature death. He's given a "love interest" by introducing a forgettable character, who is trifling for the plot. Finn has disappeared in the background since the second outing. Here he's even more useless. He's a broken record who says with tedious redundance the frase "Rey, I have to tell you something..." or "Rey, you have to know something...". Overall he runs around shouting the name of other characters in a comedic way. He's also given "someone to love" after five minutes of interaction in a former female stormtrooper who rides horned horses. Her character is a blatant gender swap of Finn. I was forgetting, she is necessary to defeat the First Order by destroying a freaking battleship on horseback. Lando Calrissian is there for fan service and to be the deus ex machina in the climax(which is a copycat of Avengers: Endgame). Palpatine appears out of nowhere without the proper introduction and is used as a nostalgia's bait. He's supposed to be a clone but no one ever teased it. He's overpowered and his connection to Rey make you ask yourself a lot of dirty questions. He isn't the same as the previous trilogies or Clone Wars, but he seems a strong dumb down of a sharp character because he doesn't have a clear plan and prefer to change it as he likes. He also has a multitude of, like, followers who aren't explained and hides an army of Star Destroyer armed with Death Star technology. The last point is bonkers because it makes the movie seems more like a kid playing with action figures and models, rather than a fully grown man trying to conquest the galaxy. Rey could have been the second best character but she's wasted. She's overpowered and has Jedi powers which came out of the blue, something that makes Luke and Kenobi seems like Force's newbies. Kylo Ren, who is the best character in this crap, is screwed badly by the writers. At first he seems embracing his new role as Supreme Leader but he gave it up in the first minutes to Palpatine, who's supposed to kill. He becomes good in the end but his turn is too swift. Oh, yeah, in the last act he kisses Rey, to satisfy the fan fictioners and give a middle finger to who thought that he was going the main villain in the next trilogy. There're also the Knights of Ren, the dreadful order of Kylo Ren, who are easily defeated, reducing them to a joke. There's too much to write about here. A multitude of plot holes, characters who used to be relevant that now are sidelined, story archs unresolved, a Macguffin which is pretty convenient,....Too much to handle for a review. Script: 1/10 ACTING The cast does a good job with what it's given. Adam Driver is the usual star which shines over the others. It's hard to find something bad about it, even though the actors seems bored by the script. There isn't the same passion as The Force Awakens and all seems extremely forced. Acting: 7/10 PHOTOGRAPHY It's good but there's nothing interesting about it. Some scenes are well shot but the symbolism, although is lightly used, doesn't have a purpose. I find boring and redundant the fact that the villain has to be shot with a flash light or in darkness. You'll think that Palpatine is a DJ in a night club. The Lat Jedi was flawed but it was original, not like this one which seems a clear corporate product. Photography: 5/10 EDITING It's enough to say that technically is a decent movie. Fortunately the director didn't create a Star Wars: Holiday Special' s level work. As the photography, this is acceptable but he's boring. Usual slow motion, zoom ins and thing like that which are characteristic of the director's like. Editing: 6/10 SPECIAL EFFECTS The cgi is top notch but it's easy with that budget. Nothing really juicy is done with them so it's just a sufficient section. They could've done much better but risk isn't a thing of this movie. Special Effects: 7/10 SOUNDTRACK John Williams is a Star Wars staple and deliver a remarkable job. Even though he isn't tasked with doing something new with the theme, this is the strongest section of the movie. It's kinda sad that this was the last movie of Williams because his talent has been wasted for such a bad movie. Soundtrack: 8/10 COSTUMES Usual high quality. There're some good looking designs which aren't used as much, like the Knights of Ren and others creatures. They're good but it's a Star Wars staple and it's hard to say that's unexpected or ground-breaking. Costumes: 7/10 CONCLUSION Script: 1/10 Acting: 7/10 Photography: 5/10 Editing: 6/10 Special Effects: 7/10 Soundtrack: 8/10 Costumes: 7/10 AVERAGE: 5,85 Avoid it if you've been a Star Wars fan since the first movie. Even though is good looking by a technical standpoint, it presents a crappy script which collapses the movie and ruin the fandom. As a movie without context is below mediocre and it doesn't reward its audience while trying to be like other successful movies. I advise you to see it with a liter of alcohol on your side and friends because you can have a good time watching a "so bad it's good movie". This is the worst Star Wars movie if you don't consider the Holiday Special. This is Disney and LucasFilm barrel's bottom. Someone will save them, fortunately. By @the_owlseyes Director: J. J. Abrams Screenplay: J. J. Abrams, Chris Terrio Cast: Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill, Adam Driver, Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Oscar Isaac, Anthony Daniels, Naomi Ackie, Domhnall Gleeson, Richard E. Grant, Lupita Nyong'o, Keri Russell, Joonas Suotamo, Kelly Marie Tran, Ian McDiarmid, Billy Dee Williams Soundtrack: John Williams Cinematography: Dan Mindel Running Time: 142 minutes Budget: $275 million

Reviews by: @lorenzo_massari_ I’m gonna tell you something that will make you want to see this movie: It’s iconic. Gloomy, dramatic, sometimes gory scenes masterfully put together in an independent film that turned out to get a 15 minutes standing ovation at its premiere at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival before winning the Best Director Award. It has become a cult since then, immortalized through fan-art and memes in pop-culture, which the movie itself embodies through references to Cobra and Taxi Driver (I let the reader spot them). Besides the original script, virtuous photography and acting, one jewel in the crown of Drive is the soundtrack. Let's dive in and find out what it's all about. PLOT "What do you do?" "I drive." The Driver lives a double life: on daylight as a stunt driver, mechanic and nice guy, at night as a cold blooded getaway driver. One day he meets Irene and her son Benicio, creating an emotional bound with them and gradually taking the place of Standard, the husband and father who was thrown in prison. But once released he brings back home his troubled past and the two worlds and identities of the Driver start to collide tragically... SCRIPT Like many other movies, it was adapted for the screen from the novel Drive, which has many flashbacks and time jumps. Therefore, as stated by its screenwriter Hossein Amini, it was a tricky job. But it's widely successful in my opinion, I didn't feel like there were excessive bumps or gaps in the pace, it just felt like a steadily growing suspense up to a plot resolution at the end as you would expect from any thriller, although suspense is not actually the most notable feature of this movie as it was relatively slow paced for the genre. On the other hand I think that Nino (Ron Perlman) was not actually well integrated in the main flow of events, being somewhat more like an outsider or a puppet master if you like. Script: 8/10 ACTING One thing to know is that the actors were left quite a lot of autonomy in acting. For example Ryan Gosling and Carey Mulligan decided to trim down their original script's dialogues to the bare minimum to make room for emotional glances and long, meaningful silences which may appear somewhat awkward but it gives the sense of tunefulness between them. Bryan Cranston (Shannon) later said that he improvised much of his lines of his loquacious character to compensate that choice. Gosling does deliver highly emotional scenes although they're isles in the mostly stoic and introverted acting he became famous for in movies like Blade Runner 2049 (where his role was again the hero, but not a real human being) or The Believer, a movie about double identity and redemption, all themes you can find in Drive. I really appreciated Albert Brooks' acting as well suited for that particular villain. Acting: 8/10 PHOTOGRAPHY The abundance of scenes set at night with minimal light are clearly some of the main contributors to the aesthetics of this neo-noir film, while the daylight ones cleverly exploit natural light. Hand held camera was avoided, while the film is also made more authentic by the lack of CGI. The colors and light just look natural and close to reality. Photography: 8/10 EDITING Editing progressed continuously throughout the shooting as a parallel process, so much that Refn required the editing suite to be placed in his home. And it paid off, I did not really notice editing faults, it just works and scenes progress like a flow alternating day and night, the two identities of the Driver, until the mid-film climax. The action focused parts enhances the special effects and they aren't confused at all. Editing is quite minimalist and not fancy. Editing: 7/10 SPECIAL EFFECTS A movie about a stunt deserves nice special effects. They did a good job in this department too, from car accidents to gory bloody scenes. It becomes more impressive if you think that the director avoided the use of CGI because of budget restrictions. Car scenes were shot using a "biscuit ring" (developed for Seabiscuit), a device allowing the car to be steered by a stunt driver, making Gosling free to focus on acting. Special Effects: 7/10 SOUNDTRACK The soundtrack follows the events and the feelings of the Driver in order to help the watcher see the events from the main character point of view. It's more like an external showcase of the internal world of the Driver, like his scorpion jacket. The lyrics of A Real Hero perfectly fit with the themes and leitmotivs. The choice of the songs is as good as their placement along the film. Soundtrack: 8/10 COSTUMES The Scorpion jacket is like a super hero cape, but at the same time an exterior symbol of curse. The Driver has a double nature and wears the jacket whenever night comes, when he stops being a next door nice guy and becomes dangerous. I find interesting that Ryan Gosling just happens to be... a Scorpio. God does not really play dices. The rest of the clothing? What you can expect from the average Los Angeles inhabitant. Costumes: 8/10 CONCLUSION Script: 8/10 Acting: 8/10 Photography: 8/10 Editing: 7/10 Special Effects: 7/10 Soundtrack: 8/10 Costumes: 8/10 AVERAGE: 7.71 Despite a limited budget the people involved really proved that skill is more important than resources, unleashing something outstanding and most importantly really special. It is quite a balanced, a bit slow paced but not too much and not very action-packed, but that was not the point of the film as artistic expression. So successful that the director explicitly said that there will never be a sequel, because it's not necessary. There will never be a film like this one. By @lorenzo_massari_ Director: Nicolas Winding Refn Screenplay: Hossein Amini Cast: Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Bryan Cranston, Christina Hendricks, Ron Perlman, Oscar Isaac, Albert Brooks Soundtrack: Cliff Martinez Cinematography: Newton Thomas Sigel Running Time: 100 minutes Budget: $15 million

Reviews by: @the_owlseyes @no_budget_movie_remake Cinema and Series like to romanticize love, loading it with grand acts, cheesy comedy and a questionable message. Sure, some of them have an original take on the rom-com trope but most of them are stale. This is why the genre is stale and it seems so distant from our cynical and nihilistic society. That's why a show like Normal People has been praised a lot, because it goes against the genre's tropes and tries to ground the story in reality. That's why I wanted to cover it, because it's a story which needs to be told. PLOT "Follows Marianne and Connell, from different backgrounds but the same small town in Ireland, as they weave in and out of each other's romantic lives" or "It's the will they won't they amped to the maximum". SCRIPT This is a deep character study of two kids who grow up, through hardship and joy, doing a back and forth with their complicate relation. They are heavily characterized and you'll find easy to consider them real people. We understand their interests, their fears, their desires and their goals. They present a strong, defined story arch which is left pending in the last episode. A choice which is good, because life isn't made of easy resolutions, but bad from a storytelling point because makes it inconclusive. The people around them aren't explored as much as them because they're here just to change and propell the characters journey. A lot of contemporary themes are on display here, like bullying, women objectification, depression, loneliness, the trouble's in finding a job, perversions and how family affects our lives. The story's pace is slow and quiet and it takes a lot of time to make you care about the characters and their struggles. Empathy is the main idea and tenet which is set as the basis of the series. Empathy, a word so simple but so hard to understand. Empathy is a strong message in a society which is losing touch with emotions. Script: 9/10 ACTING Even though the main actors are newcomers, their acting is good and the script allows them to show a large set of emotions. They're also able to act as people younger or older their age to give their characters an organic growth, which is visible through their manners and appearances. You'll be moved by their portrayal of young adults, you'll feel for them and be with them in their pain. This is marvellous, especially for a show that has been under the radar for a long time. There's so little about the others that it isn't enough to say if they're good or bad. Acting: 9/10 PHOTOGRAPHY There're some beautiful shots here, which allows you to appreciate the Irish landscape and its moors. Shades and lights are used mildly to create a more dramatic feeling and counter oppose the joyous and sad sensations. It's just that because it doesn't take a lot of visual risks, and it doesn't have to. I could say that the pictures fit perfectly the show's tone. Photography: 6/10 EDITING This is the weakest section. Well, there're some slow motions scenes, just a few, but it's shot in a scholastic way, without inventiveness. It doesn't hurt the series but it lowers its originality. Editing: 5/10 SPECIAL EFFECTS None. This makes the series as genuine and realistic as possible. You could feel the heat of the sun, the gentle breeze of tender rain and the sweet song of ocean's waves. It's beautiful in its neatlessness. Special Effects: 7/10 SOUNDTRACK It easily passes under the radar most of the time. It's peaceful and dim with occasional spikes during moments of higher pathos and drama or moments where the characters find themselves on louds party and such. Soundtrack: 6/10 COSTUMES Nothing exceptional about them. These are used to shows the character's growth from teens to adulthood. There's nothing symbolic or deep about it but they fit the universe they're set in and are consistent with the series setting. Costumes: 5/10 CONCLUSION Script: 9/10 Acting: 9/10 Photography: 6/10 Editing: 5/10 Special Effects: 7/10 Soundtrack: 6/10 Costumes: 5/10 AVERAGE: 6,71 It's a beautiful show with a mature script and high levels of acting. It manages to do a good social commentary while representing a genuine relationship between two characters. The pacing could be a little off sometimes, making it seems like the show's dragging, but you could appreciate it after a while. It's extremely tender and handles beautifully human emotions. After all this show is about human love and emotions. This series could change your perspective about a lot of things and let you embrace empathy, something that we're losing day after day to avoid being sad about what's happening in our life. Be your emotions. By @the_owlseyes 9/10. I loved Sally Rooney’s book, but i was skeptical about this series. You’d actually have to cast the central characters to perfection to succeed. And they did. Daisy Edgar-Jones and Paul Mescal are perfect playing two outsiders falling love. Their journey of doubt, intimacy, struggle is portrayed with such care, it makes the eventual outcome all the more impactful. Literary adaptation are always tricky, but they really nail the tone of the book making it almost flawless. It drags a bit and the overall tempo is a bit slow. But that does give the characters time to develop. Hollywood, this is how you do a convincing love story. By @no_budget_movie_remake Director: Lenny Abrahamson, Hettie Macdonald Screenplay: Sally Rooney, Alice Birch Cast: Daisy Edgar-Jones, Paul Mescal Soundtrack: Stephen Rennicks Cinematography: Suzie Lavelle, Kate McCullough Running Time: 25 minutes

Reviews by: @the_owlseyes @augustkellerwrites Crafting a good movie is hard. Crafting an exceptional movie is even harder. Crafting a crappy nonsensical bog of utter hebetude which tries to be serious is an epic feat. This movie has been in deep oblivion for ages since its release. It was such a delightful shame that even the people involved disawoved its existence by hiding it in a freaking castle. After its unfortunate discover the movie has resurfaced through Youtube and a scene, which got the movie into the "so bad it's good" prestigious category. All happened after the mega cult of The Room, because the world wanted more feeble-minded gems to talk about. The point is that Tommy Wiseau's movie seems an Oscar nominated movie when compared to this one. Get ready to lose your sanity. PLOT "Joe Marshall and Frank Washington are two tenacious police detectives who seek at all costs to stop the Katana, a renegade Yakuza gang composed of violent and sadistic killers who want to lead the drug trade in Los Angeles" or "A guy fails miserably at his job but he gets so laid". SCRIPT There are two central characters, two cops which aren't well defined. The caucasian is a cop who trained in japan but he's not able to speak japanese and he knows only the meaning of "katana". He's a ladiesman but also a stalker and I don't know how to sympathize for him. He's a macho of another era, without the charm and charisma of other 80's actors like Stallone or Schwarzenegger. Most of his scene involves sex or sexual innuendo. Every female character is objectified, they're just there to get another man laid or to make you horny. So cringy. There're scene where the dialogues are double meanings about dicks. Sometimes it seems like the first minute of a dated porn movie. The other cop, an afro-american man, it's the comic relief and it's more capable than the main hero. And he's a walking meme. The villains are....there. They have a dumb motivation and a comic execution. They're able to find overconvoluted ways to kill someone or to execute a plan, which makes them unthreatening. Character archs and development are non existent and the plot becomes puzzling after only five minutes in the movie. I don't know how the director has been able to screw up such an easy and forgettable plot. Script: 2/10 ACTING You've never seen something that awful. Every actor is bad at his job. The fact that the actors take themselves too seriously make everything even stooper. Maybe one actor, the one who plays the cops chief, seems to understand the mess he's in and he tries to have fun with hsi character. The main actor is painful to watch in every scene but the minor ones offer the best laughs. The action scenes are worse, because there're actors who aren't able to fake death or being shot. It fails at the basics of acting. How?! How is it possible?! How?! Acting: 1/10 PHOTOGRAPHY Usual quality of 80's movies. It's neither creative nor deep. It's boring in its uncreativity. Some scenes are unwatchable but it's...somehow bearable. Photography: 4/10 EDITING This is so painful and random. Action scenes are incredibly bad cause of too many cuts and a dumb way to insert them in the frame. Some cuts are so sudden and out of nowhere: you could shift from an action scene to a sex scene which is unrelated. The close-ups are too close, too centered and there's always a gap between the head and the top. There isn't consistency from a scene to another: characters who changes ethnicity during cuts, sets which changes without reason. There's also the facts that some scenes drag behind the threshold of bearability. You'll you your death because it's beyond the understandable. Editing: 1/10 SPECIAL EFFECTS These are outstanding. Not. The blood is fake, the props are fake and the green screen is worse. People shot with guns, which don't fire anything, and who's hit doesn't bleed, sometimes a tomato's stain appear on the breast but it's not enough. The acting enhance all this crap. It's unbelievable the fact that there isn't a professional effect, not even what is considered an action movie's staples. Special Effects: 1/10 SOUNDTRACK At first I thought that it was a SuperMario theme. It's the only track used in this movie. Alright, there're two but the other one is used only in sex loaded scene. The music itself is misplaced and lugs without any reason. There're quiet scenes with an action theme out of nowhere. Soundtrack: 1/10 COSTUMES Unfortunately this movie is not even able to ace the costumes. The protagonist has a woman's whig with a cap to conceal its nature. In other scene it's clear that he doesn't have it and what's on his head are his real hair. There's no continuity whatsoever. The other characters have normal clothes but most of the time they're unclothed. The whig is cringy, I still bear it in my head. God, this is usually an easy section. Costumes: 1/10 CONCLUSION Script: 2/10 Acting: 1/10 Photography: 4/10 Editing: 1/10 Special Effects: 1/10 Soundtrack: 1/10 Costumes: 1/10 AVERAGE: 1,57 See it. Right now. You have to see it to understand. This is not just bad, this is beyond awful, this is the Hollywood's antichrist. It fails at everything, every single thing. Do I have to say more? By @the_owlseyes Samurai Cop is an interesting failure. While its intention is a buddy cop knock-off, its popularity comes from its misguided nature. Everything about Samurai Cop is blatantly terrible, but so much so that it's actually hilarious. First, the dialogue is completely bizarre. Illogical plot points are bluntly delivered, character banter is downright weird, and entire conversations are pointless. The acting doesn't help since most of the cast is uncomfortable with their alien characters, struggling to make sense of their roles. Furthermore, scenes aren't sufficiently edited, showing actors out of character because they assumed the scene concluded. Meanwhile, Samurai Cop is plagued with further technical issues. Dialogue blares out due to faulty mics. Each camera has a different color temperature, so shots in the same scene look unrelated. Action effects are comically unconvincing, and the protagonist often wears a hysterical wig. Plus, the locations are random homes with distracting decors, clearly not set for filming. Lastly, successive shots of characters from different angles just don't match. They were obviously done in different locations. Ultimately, Samurai Cop has so many fundamental flaws, it becomes quite funny. It's a fascinating watch for anyone who is into filmmaking. Writing: 1/10 Direction: 0/10 Cinematography: 1/10 Acting: 2/10 Editing: 1/10 Sound: 0/10 Score/Soundtrack: 2/10 Production Design: 0/10 Casting: 1/10 Effects: 1/10 Overall Score: 0.9/10 For more of my work: https://guskeller.wixsite.com/moviefilmreviews By @augustkellerwrites Director: Amir Shervan Screenplay: Amir Shervan Cast: Robert Z'Dar, Matt Hannon, Mark Frazer, Gerald Okamura Soundtrack: Alan DerMarderosian Cinematography: Peter Palian Running Time: 96 minutes

Reviews by: @the_owlseyes Japanese cinema is a manifold lanscape and it's always a delight to delve into it. You can find everything you want and everything you thought you didn't look for. It's a culture so polarising and intriguing, that's hard to ignore. The japanese cinematography ranges from the gentle and tender style of Miyazaki's animation to the gritty realism of Akira Kurosawa, from the superb escapism of Dragon Ball to the grey ethics and morals of Death Note. There's always a certain wisdom and message in what this country produces. There's a movie which has acquired a prestigious spot in pop culture, by defining a generation and kicking off a substantial interest from the world toward japanese media. Akira. PLOT "A secret military project endangers Neo-Tokyo when it turns a biker gang member into a rampaging psychic psychopath who can only be stopped by two teenagers and a group of psychics" or "A guy gets powers and becomes the villain". SCRIPT At first sight it seems just another cyberpunk movie like Blade Runner but it's more than that. As Blade Runner, it isn't interested in technology as a tool but technology as a character and how it changes the whole society. It makes a strong and direct social commentary toward politcs, economy, religion and progress, the aspects which are mutated by human advancement. The opposition between religion and science, the poor's misery opposed to the rich's careless lifestyle, the improper use of scientific mind for military purposes and the dangers of an hybrid society, made of a vile combination of human and synthetic organs. Them, anyway, are what get you hooked. What keep you watching is how it approaches the human perspective. The main characters are victims of their environment, one of them is pushed to the limit, losing his humanity. It's a criticism of power and its corruptive nature. It's a stricture of knowledge and its blinding effects. It's a write-up of violence and its consequences. It's about us. The characters are nothing more than proxies, installed here to make us feel something, to make us understand where we're going. The villain gets a tragic and sympathetic arch, the protagonist doesn't get something like it, which could be a bit unsettling. The script us about the protagonist and the villain, two opposed forces which clashes. Maybe it isn't a good script, because it delas with too many characters and it's only able to define the main ones, but it makes some very good points. I think that, after all the Mayhem which will occurr on you screen, who's watched it will start to ask himself the right questions about our situation and our fate. Script: 8/10 ACTING It's standard voice acting. Nothing special about it. It's mediocre at best. It's harder to value this section for an animated movie but it's also kinda hard to fail at it. Obviously not all the characters get an optimal dubbing but it's ok, in the end it doesn't hurt the movie as much. Acting: 6/10 PHOTOGRAPHY A lot of scenes are memorable cause of it. There's a lot of style and imagination here. The city, with its cyberpunk vibes, the bikes, the gore, the great use of lights and shadows, the colors,....most of the movie is iconic. The design still holds today and there's a maniacal attention to details. A lot of people think that hand drawn animation isn't impactful as computer animation but classic animation has a warmth and depth which is hard to reproduce with a cgi model. This opera push the limits of what you could do with a pencil, to the point that it's unrepeatable. It's a work of art. Photography: 8/10 EDITING There're some nice shots of the city from above but some transitions fracture the movie's flow. Overall it's acceptable but it doesn't take a lot of risks. I liked how they represented the bikes speed with a tailing light and the shots from different perspective of the city and its meanders. Editing: 6/10 SPECIAL EFFECTS The animation is outstanding. As I said before, it's imaginative and it doesn't flinch when it has to be violent, gory and sexually loaded. The technology, from the bikes to the lab's equipment is designed meticulously. There'are also scene where the character psychological vulnerability is represented in such a fanciful way. Obviously it isn't always smooth and fluid but it's still strong after almost fifthy years since its debut. Special Effects: 8/10 SOUNDTRACK It's good but it isn't memorable. Sure, it achieves to give a cyberpunk tone to the motion picture but most of the time is just there. Sometimes, like in the first minutes when it uses a mix of music and panting noises, it's original and other, like in the end when it goes all in with loud voices to enhance the scenes drama, it's over the top. It's noticable also the fact that the composer has been inspired by ecclesiastical music. I don't see a strict link between the story and its music, I hoped there was because a lot could've been done with a movie like that. Yes, they used music to represent Tetsuo's mind activity but it didn't affect the plot, so it isn't enough to say that it'll stick with you. It's original but it doesn't want to take the risk to seems refreshing. Soundtrack: 6/10 COSTUMES Kaneda and Tetsuo's outfits are iconic but I don't consider them special. It's the usual cyberpunk wardrobe on display here. What makes the costumes memorable are the characters not the clothes itself. I expected more because usually the japanese have a lot of creativity for the character's appearance. Costumes: 5/10 CONCLUSION Script: 8/10 Acting: 6/10 Photography: 8/10 Editing: 6/10 Special Effects: 8/10 Soundtrack: 6/10 Costumes: 5/10 AVERAGE: 6,71 It's a good looking movie with fanciful imagery and strong messages. It lacks a bit of originality in some aspects but overall it's a beautiful experience. This movie has been so influential and endearing after its release that a lot of movies and series referenced it, without any kind of introduction. To see that you could watch Ready Play One and enjoy Kameda's bike again or find it in Teen Titans, Ghost in the Shell and Rick and Morty. It's a classic you should absolutely watch. By @the_owlseyes Director: Katsuhiro Otomo Screenplay: Katsuhiro Otomo, Izo Hashimoto Cast: Mitsuo Iwata, Nozomu Sasaki, Mami Koyama, Taro Ishida, Mizuho Suzuki,Tetsusho Genda Soundtrack: Shōji Yamashiro Cinematography: Katsuji Misawa Running Time: 124 minutes Budget: $5,5 million

Reviews by: @the_owlseyes @reviews_by_morg The MCU has always delivered well written stories about his main heroes, this is why Marvel gets a lot of credit for the creation of it, the "first" shared universe. Probably when you think about the MCU the names of Iron Man, Captain America and Thor are the first to pop upin your brain, even though the Marvel Universe has a huge rooster of characters and most of them are frequently sidelined. Wanda and Vision has been treated like that for years. Not only their powers got nerfed to avoid the Superman's Dilemma but also their relations has been mistreated a bit. The Russos gave us a glimpse of what is its potential in Infinity War but it was never fully realized. Fortunately Kevin Feige has been able to give them another chance to shine in a Disney+ miniseries fully developed around them. This isn't a Marvel series, this the first miniseries branded Marvel which ushered an infinite number of other series. PLOT "Blends the style of classic sitcoms with the MCU, in which Wanda Maximoff and Vision - two super-powered beings living their ideal suburban lives - begin to suspect that everything is not as it seems" or "Wanda is pissed of and screws an entire town". SCRIPT The series original premise of showing a couple evolving their relationship through sitcoms of different era is pretty executed. From the opening theme to the occasional ads, it follows the same structure as the sitcom's it refers to. The characters, as the audience, don't really knows what is happening and why but glimpses of a crumbling reality are scattered with increased quantity as the series proceeds. Wanda and Vision are handled almost perfectly. Both have their growth and conflicts intertwined with the episode Sitcom's era and mannerism. It's dynamic and unpredictable till it's introduce a point of view which lies outside Wanda and Vision own world. In fact there's a strong contrast between the more Marvely scenes and the Wanda-ish ones. It creates a dycotomy which is gradually reduced, without being eliminated, and hurt the finale's quality. Meanwhile the series manages to deal with hard themes like grief and identity, which make the series more grounded, even though is a mix a sci-fi and fantasy. Besides the two lovers, the side characters are just there to serve the plot. The villains, they're always two, are a mixed bag. The secondary is weak, irrilevant and forgettable, with just one purpose: worldbuilding. The primary its good even though the twist about him isn't something unexpected. Nevertheless it has a decent motivation and a half made characterization. There are two big issues which aren't acceptable: the fact that some characters are there as a teaser of an upcoming movie, without being particularly useful for the plot and the ending. The last one is particularly formulaic and boring. It's saved only by a scene where the conflict is resolved through dialectic and another one which is one big middle finger to every theorist in the fandom. I think that a lot of people could consider it infuriating. One last minor issue is the fact that there're no repurcessions for what Wanda did during the series and it seems off by a long shot. The post credit scenes are the usual Marvel teasers. In the end is an original script with a few flaws and a faint ending. Script: 8/10 ACTING Elizabeth Olsen and Paul Bettany give their best performance as Wanda and Vision. They're able to adapt themselves to the sitcoms styles and manners. They display a wide range of emotions which make them more relatable. Bettany is a bright spot because its able to be comedic and dramatic with ease, as Olsen. Kathryn Hahn seems to have a lot of fun as Agnes, instilling in her the intrusiveness and maniacality of his character. The other actors are fine. I think that the best one of the side characters is Randall Park's one, who gets into something which is far from the usual comedic part the actor is used to play. Acting: 8/10 PHOTOGRAPHY Colors are so relevant here, especially in the second episode. There's a lot of attention to details, from the camera's filter to the rooms chromatic cornucopia. Is a multicoloured show which becomes visually chaotic, voluntarily, episode after episode but lose part of its charm along the way, becoming too Marvely. Most of the clues are presented with colours which rams with the environment and it's impossible not to notice them. Colors are also used as a tool to differentiate the antagonist from the protagonist and to represent one of the infinity stone. Photography: 8/10 EDITING It's original only during the opening credits, for the rest of the show is sufficient. There could've been a lot to do but the director prefered to stick to the basics to avoid any risk. Slow motion isn't used a lot and for the most part the editing tries to imitate the series it has taken inspiration from. Editing: 6/10 SPECIAL EFFECTS Usual top tier VFX of Marvel which are used marvellously. They become interesting when everything start to crumble but you'll notice it. The set, most of it, it's practical. Outside is a little bit different. The climax is a little bit overloaded with cgi but it's acceptable to a point. As I said before, I woul've prefered for the show to stick to the main plot without wandering in worldbuilding and cgi's mayhem. Special Effects: 7/10 SOUNDTRACK The opening credit, as said before, has always the best stuff. Each of them has a different style, which mimics other series like Friends, Modern Family, Malcolm in the Middle and Bewitched. The other tracks are just background noise, maybe because the two heroes don't have a proper theme. I found it intriguing but boring after a while. Soundtrack: 6/10 COSTUMES Surprisingly, I am astonished. There seems to be a lot of care about them. Every costume fits the relative sitcom's age. Every iteration of the central characters has clothes which are in line with Wandavision personality and quirks. The superhero's costumes are good, really good, especially Wanda's one, which is teased a lot of times during the show. Usually I give a low score for the costumes but this series has moved toward a higher mark. And it deserves all of it. Costumes: 7/10 CONCLUSION Script: 8/10 Acting: 8/10 Photography:8/10 Editing: 6/10 Special Effects: 7/10 Soundtrack: 6/10 Costumes: 7/10 AVERAGE: 7,14 It's an original show which is good at developing two characters to the point that it's impossible not to care for their relationship. It has good visuals, a mildly likable villain and it falls short in the finale. Marvel tries too hard to worldbuild here and it hurts the series overall quality but, in the end, is easily rewatchable and it deals with pretty heavy stuff. You'll want more of Wanda after this outing, I'm sure about it. By @the_owlseyes 7/10 Coming back to this show and watching it all in one sitting has helped me gather my thoughts on it a lot better, and even though I don't think it's as good as I did, I do still think it's a solid addition to the MCU. The show sees Wanda and Vision living idealized suburban lives, only for them to begin to suspect that everything is not as it seems. The first third of this show is really great, and the one thing I do love as it goes on is homages to each era of sitcoms. Unfortunately though, the second third of the show drops the ball a bit, and, especially nearing the end, it begins to feel much less unique compared to how it started. I don't nearly dislike the ending as much as some others do, but I do think that it should have been adventurous enough to do something different, rather than doing what has become expected of the MCU, but it's serviceable I guess, even if some of the CGI is less than perfect. I also think that a lot of the stuff that happens outside the 'Hex' is just kinda boring, which is a shame considering how interested I find myself in the happenings within. Aside from these points though, I do like the story that the show roles with, and I think it does still manage to set itself aside from the rest of the MCU just enough for it to feel pretty fresh, especially with it being in the format of a series instead of a film. Serving to elevate the show is the performances, all of which are really strong. I think that Elizabeth Olsen's easily has to be the strongest with Paul Bettany being a very close second. But we also see formidable performances given by the liked of Randall Park, Kat Dennings, and Kathryn Hahn, which again only increased my enjoyment. Overall, I'm not really too surprised that my opinion on this show has gone down a bit, as the more I thought about it after finishing it, the more I realized that I actually didn't love it as much as I thought I did. I would definitely consider it something I would recommend though, as, despite a few shortcomings, I still think it's pretty enjoyable with a lot to offer to set it aside from the usual outings that the MCU takes us on. By @reviews_by_morg Director: Matt Shakman Screenplay: Peter Cameron Cast: Elizabeth Olsen, Paul Bettany, Debra Jo Rupp, Fred Melamed, Kathryn Hahn, Teyonah Parris, Randall Park, Kat Dennings. Evan Peters Soundtrack: Kristen Anderson-Lopez, Robert Lopez Cinematography: Jess Hall Running Time: 30 minutes

Reviews by: @the_owlseyes @jii_nius_11 Everyone likes a murder mystery story. It's one of the oldest genre in cinema but it has been the same for a long period. The latest Murder on the Orient Express was received with mixed review lamenting the formulaic structure of the plot, which reduced the movie to an imitation of its ancestors. Seven, The Silence of the Lamb and Psycho are considered the frontrunners but they don't try to have fun with the genre's tropes. It's risky to do it but as someone said sometime ago "You could write a story about clever people only if you're too". I think that Knives Out is that kind of movie: the witty rebel. PLOT "A detective investigates the death of a patriarch of an eccentric, combative family" or "It's like Clue with a lot of unexpected surprises". SCRIPT It's all about details and subtleties. This movie is made to challenge your brain from start to end and, when you think that you've been able to untangle the mystery, it gets you with a brilliantly built plot twist. Since the first scene you get the necessary informations to understand it. Usually there's the usual structure, murder-discovering of the murdered-suspects interrogation-discovering of a determinant clue-murderer's confession, but here it's flipped like a coin. The movie allows yoiu to understand the personalities, which are well differentiate, realistic and quirky, and the motives of every single character. The clues aren't just in the words but also in the visuals. In fact the house, which resemble a Clue's board, is the perfect set for the story and its architecture is functional to the story. The concept of Checkov's gun, when you introduce a concept, through exposition or in a scene,which is pivotal for the story, is used almost perfectly. The issues I have with it are regarding the villain's name, which is dumb and could've been harmful for the final twist, the fact that the victim prefers to die even though he coul've saved himself and all this trouble, the running joke about the nurse's weird disease and the fact that only one character, the nurse, get an arch. These are minor problems, especially the last one, because this movie is also intended to be a social commentary about wealth and kindness. The second seems a little bit forced because i think that greed isn't in every son of wealthy parents. Overall it's well made with a few flaws but it's appreciable and intriguing. Script: 8/10 ACTING With the amount which is on display here you won't be disappointed. Maybe a minor character isn't able to mantain the standard set by the rest but overall is outstanding. The whole family is played delightfully, as the two detectives and the nurse. Every actor gives a defined behaviour to his character and you're in for something which goes against typecasting. Daniel Craig, who we're used to see as James Bond, here plays a smooth and charismatic detective from Kentucky. And he handles well the southern accent, giving it an elegant and composed shade. This is one the movie's strenght. Acting: 8/10 PHOTOGRAPHY This movie is built around the mansion and its scenery. The house is the embodiment of the murdered and his family. Outside is imposing, inside is full of different colourful object. The opening credits indulge on them to set the movie's tone. Other than that not a lot is done with colours. Photography: 6/10 EDITING Another good section. Slow motion is used gently as the cuts. The camera is dynamic, which makes the story more enjoyable. We experience left-right movement as a comedic tool and slow or fast zoom ins and out to infuse the frame with more drama. There's a pretty good sequence of shots in the end which works well from a visual perspective. The opening credits, where are the establishing shots, is beautiful because it cuts following the music pace and rythm, showing shots from different standpoints. I like the way Craig's character is introduced, with a bottom-up shot, to establish is grand presence and differentiate him from the family's members who are shot with a hal body shot. The same logic is applied to the nurse who is introduced with a close-up to evidence the fact that she has a different mindset from his employer's family. Editing: 9/10 SPECIAL EFFECTS They're imperceptible and they aren't enough. It's all practical because there's no need for flamboyant special effects. This isn't a Star Wars movie. Special Effects: 6/10 SOUNDTRACK Only in the opening credits it does something interesting. The rest is just classical music and tones which remember the old mystery murder movies. It's there and it's harmless. Soundtrack: 5/10 . COSTUMES They fits the characters but there's nothing interesting about them. They don't play a relevant role, except for a nurse's shoe which is necessary to solve the case. Which is not enough ti say that this section is sufficient. Costumes: 5/10 CONCLUSION Script: 8/10 Acting: 8/10 Photography: 6/10 Editing: 9/10 Special Effects: 6/10 Soundtrack: 5/10 Costumes: 5/10 AVERAGE: 5,85 An enjoyable movie which is strongly plot driven and is a severance and a tribute to the genre's past. The strong cast carries it till the end in an astonishing way and the editing is the movie's main strength. A weak soundtrack and a meager use of photography are the notable flaws. I advise you to rewatch it while you'll be waiting for the next installment beause more surprises and plot twists will be on their way. By @the_owlseyes 𝙆𝙣𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙨 𝙊𝙪𝙩 (2019) 나이브스 아웃 미스터리 / 미국 / 130분 Rian Johnson 라이언 존슨 감독 🌙_아무 정보도, 기대도 없이 봤지만 시간가는 줄 모르고 봤던 작품. 주제는 뻔하지만 뻔하지 않은 이야기. 어느 순간 이 영화만의 특별한 분위기에 흠뻑 취해있었다. 22년 가을즈음 2편 제작이 확정되어 기대중. 💬 고전인듯 현대인듯 _ 영화의 첫 시작, 배경이 현대인지 과거시대인지 헷갈릴정도로 고전의 느낌이 많이 섞여있었다. 아이폰을 사용하는 걸 보니 우리가 살고있는 21세기. 말그대로 미스터리, 추리 영화에 걸맞는 배경과 음악이 기억에 남는다. 💬 거짓말을 못 한다? _ 누가 범인이여도 전혀 이상하지 않은 상황. 그 중 아주 특별한 설정 하나가 추가된다. 바로 '마르타'가 거짓말을 못한다 라는 설정. 용의자 중 가족이 아닌 유일한 인물이고 가뜩이나 가장 의심받기 쉬운 인물이 핸디캡을 갖고 시작하는 느낌이라 전개가 매우 궁금해질 수 밖에 없었다. 💬 가족 _ 그들은 모두가 서로에게 비밀이 가득했고, 영화의 처음부터 끝까지 '가족'이라는 이름 안에서 각자 자기만을 생각하는 모습을 보인다. 그들의 모습은 정말 추하고, 안타깝고, 심지어 잔인해 보이기까지 했다. 💬 특별한 추리영화 _ 추리물이라는 장르에 흔히들 갖는 기대보다는 잔잔한 느낌에 가까운 이 영화. 다른 영화에서의 화려하고 멋진 사건 해결 보다도, 긴장감 가득한 장면이 이어지곤 한다. 작품 특유의 독보적인 분위기를 130분 내내 풍기고있다. 반복해서 여러번 보면 더 많은 것이 보일 것 같은 영화 중 하나. 🎭 "Just the thought of lying makes me puke." 거짓말을 하면 토할 것 같아요. "My mind's made up." 마음은 이미 정했네. "Playing life like a game without consequence, until you can't tell the difference between a stage prop and a real knife." 뒤는 생각도 안 하고 인생을 게임처럼 살면 무엇이 소품 칼인지 진짜인지 모르게 되지. "You know, this is an interesting and efficient method of murder. I need to write this down." 이것도 재미있고 효과적인 살인 수법이군. 적어놔야지. "Close the book with a flourish." 내 인생의 책을 멋지게 마무리해야지. "I think this could be the best thing to happen to all of you!" 댁들 모두에게 인생 최고의 사건 같은데! 👀더 많은 & 상세한 리뷰는 프로필 상단👀 By @jii_nius_11 Director: Rian Johnson Screenplay: Rian Johnson Cast: Daniel Craig, Chris Evans, Ana de Armas, Jamie Lee Curtis, Michael Shannon, Don Johnson, Toni Collette, Lakeith Stanfield, Katherine Langford, Jaeden Martell, Christopher Plummer Soundtrack: Nathan Johnson Cinematography: Steve Yedlin Running Time: 130 minutes Budget: $40 million

Reviews by: @the_owlseyes Some movies are meant to be hermetic and unearth, seemingly far from our understanding. Or is it just our mind which tricks us into finding a meaning in everything, to torture us in our sleep with complex ideas, to push our brain to the limit. Sometimes the message is simple but we have to overthink it, to convince ourselves that we're not dumb. This is paradoxical because we don't like convoluted plots, we prefer something more streamlined and outright. This movie is part of the category I've explained here. Don't get lost in its meanders. PLOT "After narrowly escaping a bizarre accident, a troubled teenager is plagued by visions of a man in a large rabbit suit who manipulates him to commit a series of crimes" or "Being a Teenager in a troubled society is hard". SCRIPT The movie's script is particurarly sharp because it's able to represent different ideas which intertwine to form an interesting story. The prominent concept, the one which helped becoming this movie a cult, is about time travel. It's not about going back and forth in time bu it concerns the idea of parallel universes. The movie explain it thorugh a bit of exposition done through a professor and a book. It's simplier than it looks, you just have to amp up your attention during the climax and you'll be able to understand it. My opinion is that it's more about The Mandela Effect rather than parallel universes. Anyway the time travel trope is just a plot device to grant a conflict to the main character, Donnie Darko. In fact the story turns around his teens life and his relationship with his town's people. He's an angry and cunning teenager who is a bit nihilistic. A strong and direct social commentary is done through him who serves as the audience's proxy. The social problem pointed out by the movie are more relevant now than in the 2000's: the anti-meritocratic school system which is against free speech, free thinking and new teaching's ways; the moral ambiguity of the people which exceeds in the politically correct and its deep flaws; the idol's untouchability and theirs vices behind the curtains; the apathy of our civilization; the marriage's feebleness; the excessive adoration of sport's players; the utter violence of this world. One could say that no one has an arch but that's the point. In our society is hard to change, its hard to be themselves, because it doesn't want to evolve. We're waiting for a crisis to really change ourselves. This is what's happening right now, thanks to the Covid-19 crisis. And here's the joke. Like every person in the movie, we'll think that what we've experienced is just an afterthought and we'll do the same error, again and again, waiting for someone else to change our perspective. Script: 8/10 ACTING Jake Gyllenhall has created an icon. He's exceptional at convey the different traits of Donnie's personality. He's able to be disquieting yet charming, quick witted yet arrogant, sweet and shy yet confident and unkind. This movie, I think, is the reason he was chosen to play a more disturbing character in Nightcrawler, which shoots him to stardom. The other actors are fine. I think that you'll hate to the bone the actress who portrays Beth Grant after this movie because he has done an exceptional job at portraying a dull minded woman with a hero complex. There're also a lot of actors in smaller roles who are relevant today like Seth Rogen, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Drew Barrymore. Acting: 8/10 PHOTOGRAPHY It's simple and scholastic at first but it becomes more inventive on the way. There's a sequence which is beatifully shot and it seems a paint, another frame where different images follow each other and overlap creating a discomforting sensation...it bemuses you. The light is different when the weird bunny is there, creating a strong sense of uneasiness and mistery. The colours are not used as symbols but it doesn't affect the movie because it prefers to be a shocking work rather than a work of art. Photography: 7/1 EDITING Here we have a careful use of slow motion, which is employed to have a better understanding of the people and situations and their mood and goals, almost as glamourising them in their simpleness. The first shot, which is useful to introduce into the story's set, moves following the music's pace. There're some sudden cuts but they're intentional, to make you feel unease. Some fading is employed during the book's exposition scene but i think it's well fit because it add weights to what's on the screen. We could say that time is strongly linked to the movie's editing. There's only one scene where's used a shaky cam and it's correctly used to generate dizziness and to show the protagonist's point of view. Editing: 8/10 SPECIAL EFFECTS Considering the movie budget, the relevance for the plot and the period's technology we can nearly forgive the producers. They works because they're not the point and they're not front and center. There're just two special effects in fact and they're harmless after all. It's a semi-grounded movie so you could expect that. Nonetheless they're appreciable in their simpleness. Special Effects: 5/10 SOUNDTRACK It's unnerving and unsettling when it's just instrumental, because it's characterized by whirring sounds and low timbre notes. The movie hosts also some pop music like "The Killing Moon" by Echo & the Bunnymen, "Mad World" by Tears for Fears singed by Gary Jules and other tracks. These songs are not used just to give the movie a tune to get along but they're interwoven with the narration because the lyrics match the scene's theme. The composer doesn't limit himself at just playing them but sometimes warps and distort them. This is pretty ingenious because it creates quandary thorugh a mix of uplifted tones and tense ones. Without the soundtrack would've been strongly different. Soundtrack: 8/10 COSTUMES Simply put, it's all about that chilling Bunnyman costume and the mask. There's nothing else because the characters wear ordinary clothes. Without that costume the movie we would be talking about another movie. It's as iconic as Guy Fawkes's V for Vendetta, Darth Vader's Star Wars hood and Batman's cowl. You'll remember it in your dreams. Costumes: 7/10 CONCLUSION Script: 8/10 Acting: 8/10 Photography: 7/10 Editing: 8/10 Special Effects: 8/10 Soundtrack: 8/10 Costumes: 7/10 AVERAGE: 7,71 It's an intriguing movie which raises interesting questions about our society and the time's meaning. Jake Gyllenhall carries it on his shoulder with a chilling performance and a wide range of emotions. Music, editing and photography are used to give an original and distincitive tone which culminates in its mascot, the Bunnyman. It's a rewatchable cult which address issues which are still relevant today and it gets even better after the first watch. Why are you wearing that stupid man-suit? By @the_owlseyes Director: Richard Kelly Screenplay: Richard Kelly Cast: Jake Gyllenhaal, Jena Malone, Maggie Gyllenhaal, James Duval, Drew Barrymore, Mary McDonnell, Katharine Ross, Patrick Swayze, Noah Wyle Soundtrack: Michael Andrews Cinematography: Steven Poster Running Time: 113 minutes Budget: $4,5 million

Reviews by: @the_owlseyes @augustkellerwrites When it was said that a new Mortal Kombat movie was being developed by WarnerBros. the world awaked. After Mortal Kombat: Annhilation the videogame's saga seemed doomed to oblivion. None wanted to risk for an IP which was considered hard to adapt. Twenthyfour year has passed since then and now we got the long desired final, decent form of the brawlers game. Some big name has been attached to it, to elevate the quality of the movie, and a few rising stars of eastern origin gathered together to work on it. Did it work or this is just another underwhelming movie of the series? PLOT "MMA fighter Cole Young seeks out Earth's greatest champions in order to stand against the enemies of Outworld in a high stakes battle for the universe" or "The same story as '95 spiced with more fantastic things of the Mortal Kombat's lore". SCRIPT If are a fan fo the game you'll love it but, if you're watching it as a movie which has to be approached seriously it'll disappoint you. Here has been used the same plot as Mortal Kombat(1995) and it's kinda boring to see it again and again. They tried to flesh out every character but after the movie you'll remember only Scorpio and, maybe, the protagonist. Scorpio is the only one character which has an autoconclusive arch even though it's there for a short time. I think that the rooster should have been streamlined to five or six character, because there're too many heroes and villains. I didn't like the "Chosen One" and "Prophecy" tropes because are overused and deprive the characters of agency and the protagonist doesn't earn the audience respect because he's already in possess of the powers necessary to prevail. The dialogues are enriched by cliches and textbook aforism. The movie's logic implies that if you kill someone with a mark, another boring tropes, you'll get superpowers but it's not clear why and since when this rule has existed. Some events and characters turns are easily predictable to the point of boredom. And its full of exposition. I give it credit for being a faithful adaptation of the videogame, its characters and trademarks but I can't overlook the fact that he doesn't approach new ideas and storylines, something that is different from the same usual tournament of champions. I think that the Mortal Kombat Universe could work better if it would receive the Marvel treatment, like it's being done with the Monster Universe and Star Wars. Script: 6/10 ACTING Sometimes it's acceptable, sometimes is good and sometimes is cringy. Some actors seems to enjoying themselves like Kano's Josh Lawson. Others seems like they're not able to maintain a straight face cause of a cheesy script. Ludi Lin' Lyu Kang is the worst. It's supposed to be the serious one but it came out as a joke due to a weird line delivery. Fortunately a bunch of A-listers, like Tadanobu Asano and Hiroyuki Sanada, lift the quality a bit. I think that's due to a poor direction. In fact the director has only one other movie credited on IMdB and its still in production, which means that this is the first movie in his career, which seems a huge gamble. Acting: 5/10 PHOTOGRAPHY The movie is poorly illuminated in some scenes to cover the imperfect cgi. There're a few shots which are good, like the ones in the prologue. The best frames are the one without cgi. Nothing exceptional in the use of colors, only Scorpio and Sub-Zero colors are used for a reason which exceed the visual effects. Photography: 5/10 EDITING Slow Motion is used during fight scenes but it would've worked without it. I consider it out of place sometimes. Fight scenes has a few cuts but they're ok, even though some of them are poorly edited. There're no sudden cuts or strange transictions and the movie is smooth and almost fluid. Editing: 6/10 SPECIAL EFFECTS The cgi is overused and sometimes it isn't believable. They tried to conceal it through poorly ligthed shots. It's hard to avoid using the VFX in a movie like that but it could've better to start the first movie of the saga with something more grounded. It's sufficient but it's not exceptional. Special Effects: 6/10 SOUNDTRACK It isn't original but its a tribute to the game and the '95 movie. Like most movies is more background noise than an actual symphony. Soundtrack: 5/10 COSTUMES This is where the movie shines. Every costume is accurate and well crafted. I liked Scorpio and Kabal's one. This is were the producers infused their passion for the game. Costumes: 8/10 CONCLUSION Script: 6/10 Acting:5 /10 Photography: 5/10 Editing: 6/10 Special Effects: 6/10 Soundtrack: 5/10 Costumes: 8/10 AVERAGE: 5,85 It's a faithful adaption with a lot of flaws. It could've been better if the story focused on less characters and the story has been more grounded. If you're a game's fan you'll like it a lot, if you're not I advise to skip to avoid almost two hours of shallowness and boredom. I hope that they are going to make a better sequel because I consider it a bit of a let down. By @the_owlseyes Mortal Kombat is messy. It aims to be mediocre entertainment but mostly misfires. On the positive, Mortal Kombat has fine action. Battles are choreographed, paced, and shot well enough. Next, the cinematography is sporadically interesting. Much of the movie is ugly but occasional images counterbalance that. Then there is the sound design, which is the best part of Mortal Kombat. The sound heightens magical elements, intense fights, and dramatic moments with realistic and abstract designs. Lastly, the special effects are significant. Some effects are terrible, but the abundance of visual enhancements spices up an otherwise forgettable experience. On the flipside, the most glaring flaw of Mortal Kombat is its writing. The plot is clunky, the dialogue is cringey, and the characters are generic. Next, the acting is bad. Believable emotions and natural charisma are rare sights here. Lastly, the direction fails to produce a cohesive style or tone. Mortal Kombat clashes with itself, attempting to marry unrealistic visuals with gritty fights and cartoonish production designs with melodramatic beats. In the end, Mortal Kombat is a jumbled patchwork of dull ingredients that don't synergize. It might entertain some viewers, but most will find the production lacking. Writing: 2/10 Direction: 3/10 Cinematography: 6/10 Acting: 3/10 Editing: 6/10 Sound: 7/10 Score/Soundtrack: 5/10 Production Design: 5/10 Casting: 3/10 Effects: 6/10 Overall Score: 4.6/10 For more of my work: https://guskeller.wixsite.com/moviefilmreviews By @augustkellerwrites Director: Simon McQuoid Screenplay: Greg Russo Cast: Lewis Tan, Jessica McNamee, Josh Lawson, Tadanobu Asano, Mehcad Brooks, Ludi Lin, Chin Han, Joe Taslim, Hiroyuki Sanada Soundtrack: Benjamin Wallfisch Cinematography: Germain McMicking Running Time: 110 minutes Budget: $55 million

Reviews by @the_owlseyes @icanwatchthisallday Avengers: Endgame was the conclusive chapter of a huge saga. Everyone could say that after that Marvel wouldn't be able to topple it, to craft something new. A lot of people lamented, and it still doing it right now, the fact that the genre is wheezing. At the Zenith starts the fall, after all. Marvel has been quiet for a while, postoponing movies and contents. Meanwhile the DC Comics tried to exploit this moment of weakness. WW84 flop seemed to imply a real threat for the cinecomics universe but the Snyder Cut went against it. The MCU picked up speed in the 2021 with Wandavision, the first Marvel's miniseries, which was praised by critics and fans. The MCU was back in the game. What came after that is this little gem. None knew what to expect from Bucky and Falcon, Cap's sidekicks with a mediocre characterization and lower appeal. Sometimes fiction transcends reality and here it's so evident. And sometimes succession it's harder than it looks. PLOT "Following the events of 'Avengers: Endgame,' Sam Wilson/Falcon and Bucky Barnes/Winter Soldier team up in a global adventure that tests their abilities -- and their patience" or "It's hard to be Captain America". SCRIPT It's good until it's meh. It's clear that it's about grief and inheritance but it goes beyond that. The story approaches social problems of the past and the future. Like the fact that a black superhero wasn't liked by the government, which is almost the same motivation that sets the story in motion. Or the fact that after the Blip, this is how they call the moment everyone returned from the death caused by Thanos's Snap, a lot of people are misplaced and the governments don't know how to deal with it, prompting terrorism. I think that the best theme is Steve's incorruptibility, which makes him an impossible hero to emulate. Falcon gives up the shield at first, because he doesn't consider himself worthy of it. John Walker, the Corporate America Cap, is destroyed by what was pushed to do. This story isn't just about the main characters but revolves also around other minor characters, like Sharon Carter and Zemo. The first is profoundly changed by the Blip and you won't expect her transformation. The second seems improved. I'll talk about the central characters story arches but first, I wanna say something about the series progression. It's a build up toward a climax which is delivered poorly but the build up is pretty good. I think that the story should've wrapped up with the fifth episode, which is an emotional peak in terms of storytelling and character growth. The last one seems forced, because it degenerates in the usual Marvel action and it tries to finalise every story arch in on episode while teasing spin-offs and new characters. Anyway, it's time to analyze the main players because the story is about them and the overall plot is just there to propell the MCU storyline. Sam Wilson could be considered a reluctant hero but one that knows how to honor his past. We have a moderate dive into his family and there's a link between his parent's boat and the shield. He's also used to make a social commentary about the relevance of afro-american figures in american history. It's not forced , at least to me, because it's connected to the main plot and it's not affected as much by a political agenda. His resolution is well deserved and I think that the character has earned the fan's respect and consideration after this outing. The Winter Soldier shines in all its complexity. We're able to see his issues and his attempts in trying to be a better person. The association with Falcon is what stimulates a good character growth, which culminates with his acceptance of the past and the pardon of his enemy, Zemo. His reintegration into society looks like Cap's one but it's torned by a past of wrongs. It's also interesting how his relation with Wakanda is studied in deep. The fact that he prefers to be called White Wolf underlines a slight departure from what he was. I think that he's not destined to be an eternal sidekick but sometime, in the future, he'll take the shield. It's teased here and it has been teased a lot before. What started as a meme has become a fan favourite after the last episode. He represents the dark side of legacy and how it could corrupt you. This character reminds me of Homelander of The Boys. He, at first, defies everything which was Steve, while struggling to be a good heir. And this is enjoyable to watch because you hate him so much that you'll love him. He's a sympathetic character which falls of grace corrupted by the shields and the desire of power. I don't know what they'll do with him but I'm looking forward to it. Flagsmasher is the main villain and he has a point. A pretty good one. It's not as sympathetic as John Walker but he raises questions which are pretty relevant today. The misplaced of the Blip could be considered a metaphor for war refugees. The social commentary about them is sharp and it goes beyond that, I think. The politicians are the real problem, as the last episode point out, because they don't care about people lives but just about politics. I think that it's a jibe toward how Trump and the other governments has managed the pandemic. Zemo is the best character here. A humanized villain so suave, elegant and clever. I'm glad that he has been reused here because it's so entertaining to watch. The fact that he's a baron create a minor plot hole in Civil War but he works smoothly in his limited screen. This is also the first time we're able to see him in his comic accurate suit. Script: 7/10 ACTING Anthony Mackie injects charisma, fun and depth into Falcon, making him a well rounded character. Sebastian Stan and Erin Kellyman are good too but I wanto to praise the best actors, not the good ones. Wyatt Russel is very well casted as John Walker and it's so good at representing his declivity into madness. There's a pretty wide set of emotion in display and he conveys them at it's best. When it was cast i was skeptical because I remember him as the Everybody Wants Some's stoner. I'm glad that he was able to exceed my expectations. Who's the best actor in my opinion? Obviosuly Daniel Brühl. He's having the time of his life with his character and I think that everyone wants to see more of the eclectic villain. Acting: 8/10 PHOTOGRAPHY Nothing exceptional is done with colour but the usual brightness is there, a Marvel trademark. Nothing so imaginative and scenical like Endgame. I expected it because the show is similar to Captain America: The Winter Soldier in terms of style, as promised by Kevin Feige. Even though I expected more from Kari Skogland. Photography: 6/10 EDITING It's good but there's nothing really original about it. Slow Motion is used well to enhance the importance of some scenes and it's not used during battles, which is appreciable. Some shots are done finely but they're just a few, not enough to say that editing is the best thing about the series. Editing: 6/10 SPECIAL EFFECTS Marvel wanted to create a believable universe since Iron Man and has succeded in it through a combination of practical and almost imperceptible cgi. Bucky's arm, the shield, Falcon's suit and actions scene are believable cause of that. It's not on a Thanos level but its good. Considering that VFX have to be top notch with consistency in this genre, we would've been disappointed if we had had less. Special Effects: 7/10 SOUNDTRACK Marvel is finally understanding how to create a decent soundtrack. Henry Jackman, who composed the soundtrack of CA: The Winter Soldier returns here to give us a new take on the Captain America's theme and it works. Every character has his defined theme, which is pretty good, and for some it evolves a bit during the series. It's a mix of nostalgia, novel and respect for the characters identity. Even though it's not stunning as other productions, it fits the narrative and the tone of the final product. Soundtrack: 7/10 COSTUMES Finally we've got a comic accurate costume of Falcon. And it's not the only one. Zemo and John Walker receive one too. I appreciated them but I disliked the ones of Sharon Carter, Bucky and Batrock. The flashmashers were ok. Considering the grounded reality the series its set in I didn't expect something flamboyant but I would've liked something more original. Costumes: 7/10 CONCLUSION Script: 7/10 Acting: 8/10 Photography: 6/10 Editing: 6/10 Special Effects: 7/10 Soundtrack: 7/10 Costumes: 7/10 AVERAGE: 6,85 It's an enjoyable series which issues interesting questions about social justice, politics and what does it mean to be a hero. Nonetheless it's also a bit flawed and formulaic in its execution, with some arguable choice, especially in the last episode. Overall I reccomend it to every superhero fan and the ones who haven't a particular bond with the genre. The Marvel's miniseries are improving the experience and deepening the characters of his rooster, and we surely want more of them. By @the_owlseyes WARNING: WILL CONTAIN SPOILERS!!!! I’m very excited to see where the MCU takes us with Phase 4. It’s already been off to a great start with “WandaVision,” and it’s still going strong with “The Falcon and The Winter Soldier.” What this show definitely had going for it from the get-go was exploring and spotlighting these two characters in a world where Steve Rogers has hanged up the shield and things have changed following the events of the Snap/Blip. The best part about this show was spending time with these characters and their daily lives. Whether it be Sam helping his sister with her financial troubles or Bucky making amends for his deeds as the Winter Soldier, this was the kind of character work that I feel the MCU hasn’t capitalized on in recent years and should be the foundation going forward. This stuff was so good that I feel the six episode length would’ve been better spent watching Sam and Bucky go about their lives as opposed to everything involving the Flag Smashers. I feel that because the show ran for six episodes, there wasn’t much time spent to flesh everything out, and compared to everything else, their subplot was the least interesting. This issue also extends to John Walker. While Wyatt Russell delivers an intense, nuanced performance that succeeds in humanizing this character, the writing for his characterization seemed all over the place to me. I felt the showrunners couldn’t decide whether they wanted to make him a tragic anti-hero or the ultimate hate sink, and in trying to balance the best of the both worlds, the resolution to his story arc fell a little flat to me. Hopefully we get to see more of him because I’m certain he has the potential for more. Another character that falls along similar lines is Sharon Carter, particularly now that she’s been established as the Power Broker and I’m incredibly torn on this development. On the one hand, it feels a little jarring and like the MCU’s throwing in the towel about what they want to do with her. On the other hand, it’ll be interesting to see where this direction takes her now that she’ll no doubt have a large part to play going forward. One other character I must talk about is Isaiah Bradley. Outside of Sam and Bucky, his story is the most powerful and poignant, particularly in how it connected to Sam’s arc and especially in how it concluded. Overall, there’s a lot more I could say about this show. While I feel more episodes could’ve benefited it in the long run, the characters of Sam and Bucky have come into their own and I can’t wait to see where they go from. By @icanwatchthisallday Director: Kari Skogland Screenplay: Malcolm Spellman Cast: Sebastian Stan, Anthony Mackie, Wyatt Russell, Erin Kellyman, Danny Ramirez, Georges St-Pierre, Adepero Oduye, Don Cheadle, Daniel Brühl, Emily VanCamp, Florence Kasumba, Julia Louis-Dreyfus Soundtrack: Henry Jackman Cinematography: P.J. Dillon Running Time: minutes Budget: $150 million

Reviews by: @the_owlseyes Utopia is Dystopia. It's about perspective. Both represent what the world could be if we keep on with certain ideals or behaviour. Most of them are determined by technology, to see how it could change our life for better or for worse, and by universe's knowledge, to show how it could be an encounter with another civilization and the cruelty and beauty of the obscure universe. If you're interested in this kind of utopia,series like Black Mirror, The Expanse, Westworld, The Twilight Zone and Doctor Who could satisfy your inquisitiveness. Even though they're the majority, there's a few series which are about another kind of dystorted future. The ones about society and how a change in its dogmas could distort our life to the point of dehumanization, which are like The Man in the High Castle, Mr. Robot and the one I'm gonna talk about today. The Handmaid's tale ask the question: what if our politician would ascribe the problem of sterility to the women and how would they solve it? At first it seems like a future we'll never find ourself in but the pieces are in place, we don't know when they'll be moved. PLOT "Set in a dystopian future, a woman is forced to live as a concubine under a fundamentalist theocratic dictatorship" or "A lot of women struggle under a regime which rapes them and denies them the possibility to interact with their children to satisfy the needs of a few infertile couples". SCRIPT It's very well written. The first season adapt the book, which is short, and set the world the characters are in, while representing everyone of them in an excellent way. The second one it's about worldbuilding and it's interesting because they are able to brilliantly continue the format without an original source, unlike Game of Thrones. There's a sequel to the book, The Testament, which tells a story where June/OfFred doesn't appear at all.The third one is the turning point in which the central characters, June, Serena and Fred Waterford, undergo an organic growth and shift. And, as the series keep on, you watch how the women get closer to the much wanted freedom and reconciliation with theirs partners and sons. The series is able to shake you to the bone with some wicked scenes, which will make you uncomfortable but this is its best asset. It isn't afraid to amp up the tragedy of this women, reduced to sex objects and slaves without a name. And, at the same time, it makes the villains as sympathetic as possible, like the sterile Serena Waterford who struggles to have a son. You'll feel for her, even though you'll hate her at first. You'll think that maybe Gilead hasn't a bad goal after all, and you'll see it thorugh Aunt Lydia's eyes. Misogyny isn't the only social problem treated here. It also approaches homophobia with Moira and Ofglen's characters. After a while you'll understand that these problems are integrated in our society and that what you're watching is a cautionary tale, a Memento Mori of what we could become. You can get used to it and after a while choose to be a carnefice, to save yourself from the pittance, or raise up against it, to change it. A cruel person could destroy the world but a rightful people could make it right. Script: 9/10 ACTING Elisabeth Moss is what makes it great. She has able to convey a vast range of emotions and to move from a feeble and powerless character toward a ruthless, sharp and powrful one with great ease. She was obviously typecasted after her role in Mad Men, where she represents the emancipation of the women in 1960's New York. Yvonne Starhovsky and Joseph Fiennes are good at playing the cruel but sympathetic couple who's trying to have a baby. The rest of the cast is good, with some notable cameos like Marisa Tomei, Christopher Meloni and Bradley Whitford. Acting: 8/10 PHOTOGRAPHY There're a lot of beautiful shots here. The scene are characterized by some defined colors, Blue, Red, Grey and White, which refers to the biblical symbology. You could also notice a different filter between the falsh backs and the present, the first have bright colours and the second a grey pallet with a reduced contrast, to simbolize the present's misery. Photography: 8/10 EDITING Slow motion is carefully used, practiced only when there's the need to represent a meaninful transition for a character. The other shots doesn't use fast cuts to let the scene sink in your mind. There's a large use of close ups to show the character's emotions and wide shots to show the scale of Gilead. Nothing particurlarly inventive in my opinion but it's done competently. Editing: 7/10 SPECIAL EFFECTS Not much to say about it. The set is cgied to make Gilead more believable but there's nothing groundbreaking. In fact there isn't a need for it because it's a grounded story in a grounded reality. Special Effects: 6/10 SOUNDTRACK It's a blend of pop music and instrumental. The instrumental part is composed to be eerie and dreadful. Sometimes it reprises the same theme and adapt it for a more hopeful or joyful scene. Pop music is usually used at the end of an episode or during an episode to be integral to the narration, like Heaven Is a Place on Earth by Belinda Carlisle. Soundtrack: 7/10 COSTUMES The costumes are used to represent the status of a person in this universe and some of them are taken from the bible, as the colour's symbolism. It's noticeable the fact that in Gilead everyone has a defined uniform and outside, in this case Canada, or before everyone wears different clothes. This is a staple of autocratic regimes to bereaves it's citizens personalities. It's also a way to distance its members from the other countries and cultures. June's clothes go through an evolution through all the series, representing the slow and steady riddance she goes through. I think also that you'll be shocked by the extreme depravation of some of them. Gilead detroys the image of a person to a point of alienation. Costumes: 9/10 CONCLUSION Script: 9/10 Acting: 8/10 Photography: 8/10 Editing: 7/10 Special Effects: 6/10 Soundtrack: 7/10 Costumes: 9/10 AVERAGE: 7,71 I strongly reccomend to check it out because it's a strong series with a strong cast and an interesting concept. You'll have to set aside a lot of your ideas and be ready to be stirred by it. This series could age very well because the matter in question is an immortal one and will always matter. Our society needs more content like that to change it, because we are already living in a dystopian present. Look around you and decide: are you going to change it or make it worse with your choices? By @the_owlseyes Director: Mike Barker, Kari Skogland Screenplay: Bruce Miller, Lynn Renee Maxcy Based on: The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood Cast: Elisabeth Moss, Joseph Fiennes, Yvonne Strahovski, Alexis Bledel, Madeline Brewer, Ann Dowd, O. T. Fagbenle, Max Minghella, Samira Wiley, Amanda Brugel, Bradley Whitford Soundtrack: Adam Taylor Running Time: 60 minutes

Reviews by: @the_owlseyes The 90's were a weird period. It seems that, after the Berlin Wall's Fall, the society get into a time of high uncertainty, which is not over, that affected culture and people. A lot of bad music, movies and series were developed and today, by looking at them, we laugh to tears. Mortal Kombat is one of them. I don't know how they accomplished the task to make it so bad. Maybe the director Paul W. Anderson, not to be confused with the more talented Wes Anderson, wasn't fit for feat, like most of his works, or it was just about the script. This what I'm going to do today. I'll try to understand how someone could fail so badly at adapting a videogame praised by everyone. PLOT "Three unknowing martial artists are summoned to a mysterious island to compete in a tournament whose outcome will decide the fate of the world" or "Some weirdos kick each other in the ass". SCRIPT It doesn't make sense. First, the characters stink and are there just to remind who's watching that they're in the game. Their introduction is so clunky and unfinished that I don't remember much of them. Just some cheesy lines. The battles are similar to the game but they don't work here. Sometimes it seems like a bucket list: every change of background means that someone will brawl. The villain plan is weak and convoluted to the point that he seems lost in his own narrative. The protagonist has just one poorly executed motivation: avenging his brother. The protagonist doesn't talk about it to his supposed allies, because of plot. None of the other characters has a real motivation to be at the tournament, maybe they thought that it was a resort to relax, I don't know. There's also a dead character who comes back after being killed, without any reasonanble reason. If you want to enjoy you have to take your brain and toss it in a bin. After that you'll be able to be charmed by this trashcan. Script: 2/10 ACTING Everyone seems to know exactly the kind of movie they're in, especially Christopher Lambert, the one who plays Raiden. It's an over the top acting which falls in the realm of cheesyness. This is what makes this movie so good it's bad. Acting: 4/10 PHOTOGRAPHY A colourful movie which is faithful to the game's feels. Some shoots are legit but overall it's nothing incredible. Nonetheless you are able to understand that's a 1990's movie, because all the mediocre movies of the period were shot this way. Photography: 5/10 EDITING This is off the chart. Sudden cuts which bring you from a place to another with no explanation. Slow Motion is meager, fortunately. Usually this movies pander the slow motioner's desire to the limit of comedy. The cuts are made with a dynamic turn, the kind of thing you could find in a 90's series like Malcolm in the Middle. Here is tedious. I want to give zero but there's nothing belowe one here. Sub zero is impossible. Editing: 1/10 SPECIAL EFFECTS The cgi is crappy and it didn't hold up. But I've seen worst. The animatronic character of Goro is a diamond in the rough. Considering the budget, it's a mixed production. I hoped that they would spend more in practical effects rather than vfx. I've seen worse, anyway, and I think that it should be appreciated for it's merits. Special Effects: 4/10 SOUNDTRACK Perfect for the movie, so nostalgic. The kind of soundtrack you can expect from a movie about a street brawl's videogame. The game used to have the same tune, which makes it special. A bit obnoxious and out of context sometimes but it's good. The point is that is there're only a few tracks in the soundtrack, due to a low budget. I say that because, except the main theme, the other tracks are just specks, irrilevant. Soundtrack: 5/10 COSTUMES AMost of them are faitful to the game but some doesn't compare. I liked Scorpio, Sub-Zero and Goro's costumes, they're good looking in their simpleness. It's weird, I'm praising it more than I thought I would've done. Costumes: 6/10 CONCLUSION Script: 2/10 Acting: 4/10 Photography: 5/10 Editing: 1/10 Special Effects: 4/10 Soundtrack: 5/10 Costumes: 6/10 AVERAGE: 3,85 It's an entertaining movie to turn off the brain, but it's not perfect. It has some memorable scene and a memorable theme. Just get in it knowning the dynamics of the game and you'll appreciate it. Videogame's movies are resurging recently and this flick is the reason why we have them, because it paved the way for movies like Resident Evil, Doom, Detective Pikachù and Street Fighter. By @the_owlseyes Director: Paul Anderson Screenplay: Kevin Droney Cast: Linden Ashby, Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa, Robin Shou, Bridgette Wilson, Talisa Soto, Christopher Lambert Soundtrack: George S. Clinton Cinematography: John R. Leonetti Running Time: 101 minutes Budget: $18 million

Reviews by: @the_owlseyes @_flasheandocine_ @hk_movieaddict It's hard to make a movie which explore a new concept, introduce unfamiliar characters and be relatable. Especially with Spider-Man, the most popular superhero. Considering that the previous iterations have had mixed reception, it seems like a gargantuan task. The Amazing Spider-Man saga was a moderate flop and the second movie tanked hard due to an overabundance of villains and an overcrowded plot. On the other hand Spider-Man: Homecoming has been welcomed by the critics well and Tom Holland's work was praised because of his Peter Parker, who is considered the best one. And there is the huge legacy of Raimi's Spider-Man, which has a large cultural following even after the third one. Sony was in a difficult situation. The partnership with the Marvel Studios helped them in retaining Spidey's rights but they wanted a Cinematic Universe too. In what seems to be a risky choice, they decided to let Lord & Miller deal with it, the same guys who made 21 and 22 Jump Street and The Lego Movie. PLOT "Teen Miles Morales becomes the Spider-Man of his universe, and must join with five spider-powered individuals from other dimensions to stop a threat for all realities" or "Let's anticipate the MCU with a movie about the multiverse". SCRIPT It's well made but it's not just about being good. The movie does a good job at showing Miles Morales growth from a shy and insecure kid to a fully formed superhero. It's a coming of age story and I think that it's a representation of puberty and the development which happens during the teens. The fact that he's helped by Spider-Men from other universes makes it more interesting. Something that is in the comics but a crossover of this scale wasn't there. I think that what makes it special is the fact that it kills of the original Spider-Man in the first minutes. A very bold move which is ensued by a character who struggles to fill a huge void and fullfill a legacy. It's represented in the evolution of his suit. As Stan Lee says in the movie "Eventually it fits". It's also expressed in a visual way: through the glass his body is smaller than he original but after the second act he's able to stand perfectly into it. It's kinda poetic. I've also appreciated the supporting characters of Spideys, who were all defined by grief. It's also about it and how to deal with it. Peter B. Parker is the funniest and saddest character but it's a grow up approach to a character who has always been seen as a kid. The realistic fact that a life as Spider-Man is unstastainable after a long time is a superhero's aspect which wasn't tackled as much in superhero movies. Only Logan did something similar. I think that this movie is the most mature of the Underoos movies. And I've also liked how theu played with the spider's bite, doing something unexpected. Even the villains are good, but not as compelling as Doc Ock, in Spider-Man 2, or Vulture, in SM: Homecoming. Kingpin has a good motivation but I think that Marvel's Daredevil series of Netflix does a better job with him. In his own rights is good nonetheless, because he shows another way to deal with loss: negation and depression. The Prowler is pretty underdeveloped till Uncle Aaron's twist. I think that the prowler represents the opposite of Miles Morales: someone who has powers to do good but acts badly to sustain his life. It's a shock but after a second view is not that sudden. His uncle has a murales of a prowler with purple shades, like his costumes, in his house. And I don't understand how he's not able to recognise him, during the tunnel's chase, when he's looking back. Olivia Octavius is there but she's not memorable. And...there're a lot of references to Raimi's trilogy which are impossible to unspot. Which reminds me of the setup in the Lego Batman Movie. Script: 9/10 ACTING The best voice actor here is Jake Johnson in my opinion. He conveys goofness and sadness with charm and comedy. The others are ok. Mahershala Ali is here but I think that's it felt less than in his live action movies, where he usually is one of the most charismatic. And there's also Nicolas Cage as Spider-Man Noir. His voice and acting fits well the character aesthetic and behaviour. Acting: 7/10 PHOTOGRAPHY There're a lot of stunning shots here, like the one above. It's a color's flurry. Even though the color is not used to express some kind of meaning, the scenes works. I just think that the finale is too much of it and it seems like a saturation. Photography: 7/10 EDITING In this section it delivers a lot. A lot of scenes and how they're constructed seems taken by a comic book. Which reminds me of Edgar Wright's Scott Pilgrim vs The World. It's fast paced but it knows when to slow down and let the scene breathes in. Editing: 8/10 SPECIAL EFFECTS The blend of cgi and comic book's style is flawless. Lat time I've seen something like that was in a episode of Love, Death and Robots. Maybe this is what makes this movie the most comic booky of it all, with all respect to Avengers: Endgame. And it doesn't limit itself to that. Every Spider-Man has a different unique design and the movie acknowledges it through some jokes throughout the movie. This movie shows that Disney and Pixar don't have a animation's monopoly. In fact, it won an Oscar unexpectadly, by overshadowing Onward. Special Effects: 9/10 SOUNDTRACK It's composed of a blend of pop and instrumental music and the first one is what makes the movie sounds better. The tracks are a genre which fits with Brooklyn, where the movie is set. Lil Wayne, Post Malone and Jaden Smith songs are good and one of them, is necessary for the development of Miles Morales. The instrumental music by Daniel Pemberton, on the other hand, is ok but nothing exceptional. I think that the Prowler theme is the best one because it's techy and dreadful. Soundtrack: 7/10 COSTUMES There's a myriad of them and everyone fits the character personality and quirks. Spider-Man with sweatpants is the best. Miles Morales has a costume growth which culminates with what you see above. There's even a scene in Spidey's crib where there are sll the suits which appear in the comics. The villain costumes are ok. Costumes: 7/10 CONCLUSION Script: 9/10 Acting: 7/10 Photography: 7/10 Editing: 8/10 Special Effects: 9/10 Soundtrack: 7/10 Costumes: 7/10 AVERAGE: 7,71 This could be the best Spider-Man movie so far. It has a beautiful aesthetic, a compelling story and a new concept. It could be the start of another succesfull universe because it's setting up a lot of things in the best possible way. I liked it's messages and I think that it represents wonderfully what does it mean to be a superhero and what we could do to be one. The post credit scene is a witty touch in a clever movie, which makes the movie worth of a Oscar and critical praise. By @the_owlseyes Luego de ser mordido por una araña radioactiva, el joven Miles Morales desarrolla misteriosos poderes que lo transforman en el Hombre Araña. Ahora deberá usar sus nuevas habilidades ante el malvado Kingpin, un loco descomunal que puede abrir portales a otros universos y arrastrar diferentes versiones de Spider-Man a nuestro mundo. Opinión: Esta película creo que no es simplemente una más del género de superhéroes o en especial, del mundo de Spider-Man. Si no que es la mejor película de este superhéroe, sin contar la película del 2004, ya que esta película esta a otro nivel. Pero, volviendo a esta película, acá se nos presenta un joven entusiasta, Miles Morales, que es un chico muy inteligente, extrovertido, que tiene como referente a su tu tío y que se siente presionado por su padre, ya que este lo exige demasiado en seguir el buen camino y ser un buen estudiante. Teniendo en claro las bases de esta película, hay que hablar de su apartado estético el cual, claramente es sumamente referencial a los comics (por eso la película es animada) y toma claras referencias a la primera trilogía del arácnido. Volviendo a lo artístico, es impresionante el nivel de detalle y animación que lograron en este film, no hay cuadros de esta película que no quieras sacarle una foto o apreciar con detenimiento lo bien logrado que está todo. Esa estética Pop Art que lograron es increíble. ¿Ahora, por qué creo que es la mejor de todas? En mi opinión, es con la que más me sentí reflejado con su personaje principal en el momento de su estreno. Siento que, de la manera en que pudieron profundizar a Miles, siendo una animación, es simplemente increíble. No solo con él, sino también con Peter B. Parker (la versión de otro universo), que es un Spider-Man con bastante experiencia, algo cansado de su trabajo, y un hombre el cual esta pasando por una crisis con su pareja y lidiando con el fallecimiento de la Tía May. Creo que, si bien siempre se le pueden encontrar fallos a las películas, la forma en que fueron construyendo a estos personajes es maravilloso. En Miles, ese Coming-of-age que consiguiieron es muy bueno. Paso de ser un chico abrumado por sus nuevos poderes, cargando al principio con la presión de su padre, él cuál luego de la muerte de su hermano entiende que la vida es muy corta como para ir presionando a la gente y más dejarse de hablar como su caso con su hermano. Volviendo a Miles, esa realización de personaje que consiguen al final de la película es increíble, ya que él, es quien también le recuerda al Parker de la otra dimensión que: ¨Es solo un salto de fe¨ demostrándole que, por más que haya momentos malos, siempre hay que levantarse y salir adelante. Bueno, para darle un cierre, creo que queda en claro porque es mi película favorita del hombre araña, y creo que si no la viste deberías darle una oportunidad, tal vez prestando atención a estos puntos de los que hable, te puedas identificar un poco con algunos de sus personajes como yo lo hice, y quizás entiendas que no solo es una película de animación más, si no una película que puede llegar a ser más profunda de lo que aparenta. . Puntuaciones: IMDB: 8.4/10 SensaCine: 4.5/ 5 Rotten Tomatoes: 93% . Lugares para ver la película: Cuevana2es, PelisPlus. By @_flasheandocine_ “𝚆𝚑𝚎𝚗 𝚠𝚒𝚕𝚕 𝙸 𝚔𝚗𝚘𝚠 𝙸’𝚖 𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚍𝚢?” “𝚈𝚘𝚞 𝚠𝚘𝚗’𝚝. 𝙸𝚝’𝚜 𝚊 𝚕𝚎𝚊𝚙 𝚘𝚏 𝚏𝚊𝚒𝚝𝚑. 𝚃𝚑𝚊𝚝’𝚜 𝚊𝚕𝚕 𝚒𝚝 𝚒𝚜.” With much hesitation before stepping inside the cinema, I came out 2 hours later, awed and excited to have just watched a new classic. At the same time I banged my head in hindsight for not taking a leap of faith or having an open mind for it. Just when one thought Spidey is getting repetitive, this film pumps in much energy and dimension that makes the universe exciting and meaningful. There’s a lot of new information and characters to feed, but it’s done so with good humor and in a very organized & well-timed manner. It never felt rushed or messy. Towards the end, the six “Spider-people” already felt like friends whom I’d love to meet again asap. #milesmorales and #gwenstacy were perfectly portrayed. Curious to see how their friendship / relationship would expand in the sequel(s). Spider-Gwen had such a beautiful entrance I don’t know how to top. Many had discussed the meanings and significance of the famed “What’s Up Danger” scene so I won’t go through them here. Just wish to add that when the camera casts Miles’ reflection over the Spider-Man suit, matching its height for the first time, it gives me chills and adrenaline rush everytime. What a poignant touch. P.S. From the “Sunflower” intro, to “Scared of the Dark” and the eventual “What’s Up Danger”, audience are treated with an awesome range of music that fits the story perfectly. 𝕯𝖎𝖗𝖊𝖈𝖙𝖊𝖉 𝖇𝖞: 𝐁𝐨𝐛 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐢, 𝐏𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐑𝐚𝐦𝐬𝐞𝐲, 𝐑𝐨𝐝𝐧𝐞𝐲 𝐑𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝖂𝖗𝖎𝖙𝖙𝖊𝖓 𝖇𝖞: 𝐏𝐡𝐢𝐥 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝, 𝐑𝐨𝐝𝐧𝐞𝐲 𝐑𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝕻𝖑𝖆𝖈𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖔𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖎𝖓: 𝐔𝐒𝐀 𝕽𝖚𝖓𝖙𝖎𝖒𝖊: 𝟏 𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝟓𝟕 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝕭𝖊𝖘𝖙 𝖘𝖈𝖊𝖓𝖊: (~𝟖𝟑 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐬) 𝐓𝐡𝐞 “𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐔𝐩 𝐃𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫” 𝐬𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐲 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐚 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐜 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐥-𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝕸𝖞 𝕽𝖆𝖙𝖎𝖓𝖌: 𝟗𝟓/𝟏𝟎𝟎 By @hk_movieaddict Director: Bob Persichetti, Peter Ramsey Screenplay: Phil Lord, Rodney Rothman Cast: Shameik Moore, Jake Johnson, Hailee Steinfeld, Mahershala Ali, Brian Tyree Henry, Lily Tomlin Soundtrack: Daniel Pemberton Cinematography: Robert Fisher Jr. Running Time: 117 minutes Budget: $90 million

Reviews by: @the_owlseyes @augustkellerwrites @silverscreencritiques This is the end. Love it or hate, his movies will be tied to you, like this one. Here his qualities, good and bad, are extolled to their peak. I think that Nolan is not a perfect director and writer but one of our generation's best. It lives up to the expectations and impress with a cunning concept, breathless action and a throbbing soundtrack. It gets better and better with every revision. AVERAGE: 7,28 Costumes: 6/10 Soundtrack: 8/10 Special Effects: 8/10 Editing: 9/10 Photography: 8/10 Acting: 9/10 Script: 9/10 CONCLUSION Costumes: 6/10 There's the pretty deatail of colors which is subtle here but prominent in the climax. It's hard to fail this section. Well, it doesn't. Nothing exceptional but it works. COSTUMES And here there's also the reversed one for the sake of logic. Soundtrack: 8/10 The same could be seen in Interstellar, where is applied for the same reason. Usually a director do it because the dialogues of a scene are not essential and this seems the case, even though the dialogues are pretty relevant in a Nolan's movie. It's a fair criticism but seems, again, so intentional. Nonetheless the principal criticism about it is the strange loudness, which dims the dialogues. It's a remarkable job, considering that the composer had to work from home due to the pandemic. Pounding and bewitching tones align beautifully with the movie, enhancing action scenes and quiet ones. Ludwig Göransson do an excellent job with the soundtrack. SOUNDTRACK Special Effects: 8/10 Don't you think? This is more than enough. As I said before there's so little that they seems absent. SPECIAL EFFECTS Editing: 9/10 I want to praise Nolan's ability to shot an action scenes without an excess of shaky cameras and fast cuts. You will think about it for a while, because reversed scenes are out of this world. This is very good. Editing, acting and a little dose of cgi helped achieving some memorable scenes. EDITING Photography: 8/10 Visual storytelling has always been a Nolan's staple, Interstellar is where it's amped to the maximum, and here it shines. Red and Blue are there to represent the timelines, sometimes it's highly evident, sometimes is sharply subtle. Marvellous scenes, shots like a paint and clever use of color. PHOTOGRAPHY Acting: 9/10 The acting wasn't limited to just being good but the actors had to learn how to talk backwards, Branagh did it with a Russian accent, and to play a scene backwards. Mind blowing. This movie has also an excellent supporting cast made of Michael Caine, a Nolan's regular, Himesh Patel, Aaron Taylor Johnson and Fiona Dourif. Kenneth Branagh's Sator is intimidating his russian accent is believable, even though is playing a Bond villain. Elizabeth Debicky is the emotional core of the movie and she's able to have a good range. Now he's building a better image of himself, to make Twilight seem lik a distant memory, and it's noticeable in other movies like The Lighthouse and Good Time. I'm loooking forward to see his Batman's portrayal. Pattinson impressed me a lot. That's strange because is the shortest in the cast. Washington is a very charismatic actor who commands the scene with his physicality. It's top notch and there's a lot of talent here. ACTING Script: 9/10 I don't know if you ever thought about it but time has always been a key component of Nolan's movie and this work seems the culmination of all his previous experiences. Almost everyone of them is memorable and some will remind you of his previous works like The Dark Knight, Memento and The Prestige. Maybe the concept will be hard to get but you can still enjoy the typical action scenes of a Nolan's movie. The throng of breathless information you experience might overwhelm you the first you, this is why it lends to multiple revisals. Yes, sometimes the main character indulges in exposition, but not to the point of boredom. It achieves perfection through neatness. The story is perfectly paced and every scene is necessary to the plot, to the point that seems maniacal. This is why the movie doesn't suffer the lack of characterization but it builds on it an explosive narrative. And I'm not joking, John David Washington character doesn't have a name and he's credited like that. Nonetheless he tries to give an emotional motivation to The Protagonist, a name which is self-aware and an audience's troll. In fact Nolan admitted that all the characters were inspired by the 007 saga, and we to admit that James Bond, his villains and lovers have never been full rounded character till more recent outings like Casino Royale and Skyfall. We are talking about the same guy who made Inception and Interstellar, two character driven pieces, and it's not a sin. There's been a consistent volume of criticism toward them and it's almost understandable if you're not aware that it was intentional. The other players seems more like voyagers. In fact, concept is the main character. The choice to make a concept driven movie is a bold one. SCRIPT "Armed with only one word, Tenet, and fighting for the survival of the entire world, a Protagonist journeys through a twilight world of international espionage on a mission that will unfold in something beyond real time" or "Don't understand it. Feel it" PLOT What he came up with is what you're experiencing now. It seemed logical after the slew of movies concerning the argument which were released in the same time frame, like Spider-Man: Into the Spiderverse and Avengers: Endgame. Nolan is known for being a genial storyteller and visionary director and wanted to challenge the concept. Sci-fi movies has approached in different ways but I would say that Primer, an indie hard sci-fi movie, almost reached perfection. Time Travel movies are tricky and are a bit of a cliche. It's hard to create an original and cohesive story because we don't know how moving through time really works. By @the_owlseyes To say the least, Tenet is complex. Some say it's too elaborate for its own good. However, despite turning off certain viewers, the film's tangled plot deserves applause for its detail and fearlessness. Few contemporary films bring genuine originality, surprise, and genre-blending to wide audiences. Christopher Nolan has proven that he can still hit that neglected target. And this is all just on a written level. Yes, Tenet is occasionally dry, lacks characterization, and could have been more streamlined. But those forgivable flaws are greatly outweighed by a riveting story that is both familiar and fresh. Meanwhile, Tenet is a well-rounded film. The sound design has gotten backlash for its quiet dialogue, but that front also provides complex sound effects and abstract moments. The editing is elegant but energized, the acting is strong, and the imagery is grand. The production design is a graceful balance of chic espionage and tasteful sci-fi. The music is sophisticated, ambient, and relevant. The special effects are expertly unique and minimally computerized, deepening their impact and timelessness. Collectively, this creates a distinct atmosphere that is a dream come true. Conclusively, Nolan is a master of making his visions into realities. Writing: 9/10 Direction: 10/10 Cinematography: 8/10 Acting: 8/10 Editing: 8/10 Sound: 8/10 Score/Soundtrack: 9/10 Production Design: 9/10 Casting: 8/10 Effects: 10/10 Overall Score: 8.7/10 For more of my work: https://guskeller.wixsite.com/moviefilmreviews By @augustkellerwrites If this is a favorite of yours, then I'm glad! I wish I liked it, but I don't. Of course, you can like what you like, that has nothing to do with me. This is just my take on the film. If anyone thinks or says that I "Just didn't get/understand it" I do understand what's going on. It wasn't hard for me to follow it. Out of all his films, this is the Nolan-iest of all. I can't help but see this film as Nolan high on his own power and influence. He tries so hard in the film to be as confusing as possible, if you don't understand what's going, don't feel bad. That's what Nolan was trying to do. It's almost as if he was trying to make himself look smarter. For one conversation, there's like 20 different shots and cuts. There's only so much an actor/actress can do when it comes to his scripts and shooting techniques. Shooting conversations was never his strong suit, but this is probably the worst he's captured it. You don't have to be as good as Richard Linklater or David Fincher to capture dialogue, but an attempt to be better would be appreciated. Many of Nolan's weaknesses as a film maker are very apparent here. There's a huge issue with the sound design which makes it even more confusing if you can't hear them. The characters are his blandest yet, but he made them that way on purpose. The main character's name is "The Protagonist" but that doesn't add any interesting commentary or make the film more complex, it just comes across as self-aware laziness. Unfortunately, the visual style here is also bland, which Nolan's other films do have a nice visual style. This one just looks like any other generic action movie out there, an action movie with big set pieces. I find it very unfortunate that this is the movie he made after Dunkirk. Dunkirk is one of his best, if not the best, in his filmography. I go back and forth between Dunkirk and The Prestige as my #1. Nolan went from one of his best films to his worst film, in my opinion. There are things to like about Tenet, the set designs, of course, the score is effective sometimes, and the action scenes are fine. But overall, I was massively disappointed in this. It's so self serious and arrogant. I've been tempted to revisit it to see if I can see anything else in the film or to see if I'll change my mind on it, but I haven't. By @silverscreencritiques Budget: $200 million Running Time: 150 minutes Cinematography: Hoyte van Hoytema Soundtrack: Ludwig Göransson Cast: John David Washington, Robert Pattinson, Elizabeth Debicki, Dimple Kapadia, Michael Caine, Kenneth Branagh Screenplay: Christopher Nolan Director: Christopher Nolan

Reviews by: @the_owlseyes @augustkellerwrites Oh hi reader, I didn't know was you! This is bad, but another level of bad. I don't know how they pulled it off with $6 million. Just think about it, Moonlight, the 2017 Oscar Winning Movie, was made with $4 million, and Rocky, with a million. But this is the twist: it's cosidered "the Citizen Kane of bad movies", which is another way of saying that it overpowers every major Hollywood stinker, like Shyamalan's The Last Airbender, Schumacher's Batman & Robin and Kevin Costner's Waterworld. The premise of this movie is so simple but the execution is what makes it a gem. When you're going to watch, because I think that is a moral duty, don't overthink it, because I'll do it for you now. PLOT "Johnny is a successful bank executive who lives quietly in a San Francisco townhouse with his fiancée, Lisa. One day, putting aside any scruple, she seduces Johnny's best friend, Mark. From there, nothing will be the same again" or "A drama which goes to the dogs". SCRIPT It's awful. There isn't any kind of character development because there're too many players and none of them receive a correct representation. A lot of them appear randomly in Johnny's flat, like it's always open. There're storylines which are thrown at you and then abandoned. The people in this movie act without any consistency, which will make you think that everyone is a villain. It's all so random that explaining it with a straight face seems impossible. Some scenes seems to imply that there's an hidden idea but you don't understand if it's intentional. Like: women are attracted only by rich guys, women corrupt friendships, men are gullible beings who prefer to have sex with their best friend's wife rather than honouring their relationship, drugs are bad but they're not if someone will pay your debt, being a psychologist doesn't allow you to pychoanalize other people,.... And now it's time to overthink. This are the theories about the movie: Johnny and Mark murdered Chris-R, Mark was Undercover, Johnny is really a vampire, the movie was intentionally bad. I hope that it's the vampire's one, to have a shitty crossover with Twilight Script: 2/10 ACTING Everyone tries so hard to be good but it's clear that none cared about it. It's cringy and cheesy. It's strange that a 2000's movie seems more like a 80's movie. Tommy Wiseau is what makes this movie awesome. His acting is of the weirdest kind. And it's not just about that. It's accent is off putting because it's hard to understand the origin of it. He says that he is from New Orleans but no one really knows who he is and how old is he. He's like Gatsby but bad, beautifully bad. Acting: 1/10 PHOTOGRAPHY The light is off the chart in a lot of scenes but the shots are adequate enough, considering the budget. Casual water stream during awkward sex scenes and shots made just to see Tommy's butt. There seems to be the basics but it's not enough to say that it's good. Photography: 4/10 EDITING A lot of cuts happens suddenly. There're random cuts of johnny walking around Los Angeles or the Vincent Thomas Bridge, back and forth. There's nothing interesting or innovative, which makes it boring. The nosense is not at the level of Who Killed Captai Alex? but it's there. Editing: 4/10 SPECIAL EFFECTS The movie required one special effect, which was unnecessary, and it failed miserably at it: the roof is an obvious green screen. You'll notice it. Special Effects: 1/1 SOUNDTRACK It's cheesy and the sex scene's songs seems more fit for a 90's porno movie. Soundtrack: 1/10 COSTUMES Apart from Tommy style choices, everything seems normal. Lisa is the only girl who wears a little scanty clothes but not that much to say that he's done to objectify her. Costumes: 5/10 CONCLUSION Script: 2/10 Acting: 1/10 Photography: 4/10 Editing: 4/10 Special Effects: 1/10 Soundtrack: 1/10 Costumes: 5/10 AVERAGE: 2,57 This movie will change your life. I just advise you to see it with friends and beer to appreciate it more. It's a blessing for mankind and everyone has to know about it. Spread the word and perpetuate Wiseau's legacy for ages. "Because he's the hero the world deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll joke about him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a weird man, a genial mind. A Tommy Wiseau" By @the_owlseyes The Room is famously terrible. First, it’s amazing how the dialogue nonsensically bounces around topics yet also repeats earlier conversations, going everywhere and nowhere at once. Meanwhile, entire scenes are unrelated to the narrative while other scenes are copies of previous moments. Plot points are introduced and instantly abandoned. Characters' actions are inconsistent and illogical. This is amplified by the fascinatingly bad acting, particularly Tommy Wiseau's. His energy level is often inappropriate and his transitions between emotional beats are comically unnatural. From a technical standpoint, The Room has slight merit but only in a relative sense. The sound design is okay, but audio effects are overused and Tommy's dubbing is hilariously unconvincing. The camera framing mostly captures its subjects, but sometimes action is outside the shot. The musical mood is usually in the correct ballpark, but the end credits song is an R&B ballad that doesn't match. Lastly, the production design looks like actual sets, but they’re cheap and poorly dressed. Ultimately, The Room is a symphony of disasters that is quite fun to laugh at. It's not for everyone and it’s certainly not conventionally good, but The Room is a glorious wreck. Writing: 0/10 Direction: 0/10 Cinematography: 1/10 Acting: 0/10 Editing: 1/10 Sound: 1/10 Score/Soundtrack: 2/10 Production Design: 1/10 Casting: 0/10 Effects: 0/10 Overall Score: 0.6/10 For more of my work: https://guskeller.wixsite.com/moviefilmreviews By @augustkellerwrites Director: Tommy Wiseau Screenplay: Tommy Wiseau Cast: Tommy Wiseau, Juliette Danielle, Greg Sestero, Philip Haldiman, Carolyn Minnott Soundtrack: Mladen Milicevic Cinematography: Todd Barron Running Time: 99 minutes Budget: $6 million

Reviews by: @the_owlseyes @_lights_cameron_action @movie_oddity This movie has defined an era but it's still there, remembering us that things didn't change that much. At the time it wasn't the first movie about drug addictions and junkies, in fact it came after Easy Rider and Scarface, an Al Pacino's movies, and the last one is a cult which has been spoofed to death. But this, this the one which kickstarted a trend and a new approach to the problem of narcotism. After Trainspotting came Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas, Requiem for a Dream, Blow, City of God and Maria Full of Grace. The junkie started to being represented as a complex sympathetic character with a believable arch. And it still resonates with the younger generations, now more than ever. PLOT "Renton, deeply immersed in the Edinburgh drug scene, tries to clean up and get out, despite the allure of the drugs and influence of friends" or "Renton's come of age journey". SCRIPT It's pretty simple but pretty effective and it doesn't waste time in self indulging scenes. The characters receive a detailed introduction by Renton, the protagonist, and an explanation, from his point of view, of their sharply defined behaviour. Renton isn't just the protagonist, it's the audience's proxy in a world of poverty and drugs. The script doesn't want to glamourize them, in fact it reminds time and time again that we're watching despicable people. Something similar to A Clockwork Orange and Alex DeLarge, on which is based Renton's character. Only Renton has a conclusive story arch, but this is the point because most of the junkies are recidivist and their environment, Edinburgh, create a static, sluggish life without a possiblity to get out, which is what Renton does and that gives us a sense of hope. In it there are also hints at a changing society, one that's approaching the surge of sexual awakening. The movie, as you understood it, is character driven and I think that the bunch needs to shine here. Tommy is the one with less screen time but with the saddest arch. He is introduced like the best, the one who is fully integrated into sthe society. He has everything at first: a girl, a job, a house and he isn't deep into heroin addiction. But everything is blown to smithereens after a spiteful choice of Renton. An, after having lost everything, he is slowly killed by AIDS. To me he represent the lamb who set Renton on a journey of growth and the fact that good people don't survive in a toxic environment. Spud is the bunch's fool but is the kindest. The addiction makes him fail at job interviews and with his girlfriend. He's arrested for shoplifting and drugs consumption but he doesn't grow after it. The character is redeemed by the fact that he lets Renton run away with the money, acquired after a deal with drug dealers, knowing that only him could be really free. He represents the gullibility of who gets into drugs without understanding his choice and the fact that friendship is what matters when you have nothing else to rejoice for. Begbie is addicitions are sex, beer, competition and violence. He is grumpy, rugged and tactless. There's no redemption for him. He represents toxic masculinity at its peak with the included homophobia. He hates himself when he almost had an intercourse with a transexual, trying to convince himself and Renton that he's not an homosexual. His character represents the past and its generations, boomer and baby boomers, who failed or is failing to adapt to a changing world. Sick Boy is the well mannered and cultured one. In the movie exposes ideas to the protagonist, to wander with him. He's also the one who prompts the group to do bad things. He's still, like the others above, but he's punished harshly. He shows that culture doesn't make you a better person if you're heavily flawed but deepens your shallowness. Something that emerge from the fact that he cares a lot about what he wears. Renton is the story's pivot. He's nihilistic and shy with an underlining rage. He represents the motivation which pushes people into drug: society's uncertainty and hollowness. I think that one of his quotes will allow you to understand him well, without a lot of words: “Choose a life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television. Choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers... Choose DSY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit crushing game shows, stucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away in the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself, choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that?” Script: 8/10 ACTING It's top notch from the leads and supporting cast. Everyone grants a good range of emotions and there's a lot of credibility in dope's scene, especially the effects and consequences of it. The scene where Renton experience the aftereffects of withdrawal is amazing and you're able to feel with him the pain and distress. Acting: 8/10 PHOTOGRAPHY Clear color but not too brilliant set the stage of the Edinburgh's underworld. For the look of the film, Boyle was influenced by the colours of Francis Bacon's paintings, which represented "a sort of in-between land – part reality, part fantasy". The scene where Renton dives in a toilet is a reference to Thomas Pynchon's 1973 novel Gravity's Rainbow.Most of the times the doping' s shots are filmed without a clear light but here they shines, creating an unsettling and beautiful dissonance. The lack of light is used only when Tommy, after having contracted HIV, interacts with the other characters as a simbol of death's incoming. Photography: 6/10 EDITING It's hallucinating and inventive. It's a stunning mix of "a handheld, hurtling camera", jump cuts, zoom shots, freeze frames and wide angles. This results in a movie well and fast paced. There're a lot of memorable but the one that I think will be stuck into your mind is the toilet scene. Editing: 8/10 SPECIAL EFFECTS There's little cgi and that's awesome. It feels more grounded and veritable. You could see it in the toilet scene and the heroine's withdrawal one but there's another one that strucked me: the scene where Renton overdose. You'll find it here because I want you to appreciate the craft of this movie. Special Effects: 8/10 SOUNDTRACK It's a BritPop symphony. Every song is well contestualized and the lyrics are intertwined with the narration. The Trainspotting soundtracks were two best-selling albums of music. The first is a collection of songs featured in the film, while the second includes those left out from the first soundtrack and extra songs that inspired the filmmakers during production. We could say that the music is in itself a character. Soundtrack: 9/10 COSTUMES Nothing exceptional here. They work in their neatness. Costumes: 6/10 CONCLUSION Script: 8/10 Acting: 8/10 Photography: 6/10 Editing: 8/10 Special Effects: 8/10 Soundtrack: 9/10 Costumes: 6/10 AVERAGE: 7,57 A classic evergreen that entertain and inform about a dark world. The social commentary and themes still matter, a lot, in a vague ad dim society which is not able to save the youth from addiction because it pushes them to it. Have we ever chose life? By @the_owlseyes Trainspotting (1996) is a film based on Trainspotting (1993) a novel written by Irvine Welsh. The film is centred on a group of friends Renton, Spud, Sick Boy, Tommy and Begbie dealing with heroin abuse, with the characters constantly in an aggressive cycle of addiction, cessation and rehabilitation. Two of the characters don’t touch drugs including Begbie (who’s addiction is “doing people”) and Tommy the only character with a stable life (well initially). Renton starts the events that lead to Tommy’s death by stealing a private sex tape which causes his girlfriend to leave him, steering him towards depression and a heroin addiction. While not being pro drug the film points towards the fact that some characters have been abusing for years and others not showing that it’s essentially a lottery with life as the odds don’t always add up. It’s easy to think the film is solely focused on drug abuse, it’s also about a group of friends dealing with poverty and unemployment in Edinburgh, deciding exactly where there life will go next. This film has everything, humour, it has tragic scenes that cross into disturbing and weird at times, has an incredible soundtrack including some classic British music, the Ewen Mcgregor narration throughout the film and the ambiguity of the ending makes this one of the best British films I’ve ever seen! #dannyboyle#ewanmcgregor#robertcarlyle#chooselife#irvinewelsh By @_lights_cameron_action 【呢部異戲講乜？】 自從老娘上班後，喜歡聽搖滾，覺得有種相逢恨晚的感覺。每天拖著沉重軀殼，聽着Beatles、Radiohead、Oasis、Nirvana、The Killer……我寄望自己逃離生活的種種虛無，於是嘗試在曲子中找到自信的叛逆。搖滾有樣十分迷人的地方，很多曲子都提醒着人生苦短，理應尋找自己的生活，但處處都流露出無力及反抗的矛盾感。村上春村在《1973彈珠玩具》中提及「我」在上班後忘記自己曾經購買Beatles的〈Rubber Soul〉，老娘我有時都害怕忘記進入社會體制前的自己，所以不斷在聽搖滾的曲子。 隨着老娘慢慢喜歡搖滾，發現《猜火車》這部好片子，導演在這部片子的開首配著Iggy Pop的〈Lust For Life〉，一語中的般交代這部片子的中心主題： 「選擇生活，選擇工作，選擇事業，選擇家庭，選他媽的大電視機，選洗衣機、車子、CD、電動開罐器，選擇健康、低膽固醇和牙醫保險、定息低率貸款，選擇房子，選擇朋友，選擇休閒服跟搭配的行李箱，選擇各種布料的西裝，選DIY，懷疑自己是啥？看心智麻痺的電視，嘴裡塞滿垃圾食物，最後整個人腐爛到底，在悲慘的家裡生一堆自私的混蛋小孩煩死自己，不過是難堪罷了，選擇未來，選擇生活，......我幹嘛做這些事？」 《#猜火車 》（#trainspotting ），又稱《#迷幻列車》，是一部1996年#英國電影。電影講述五個有毒癮的主角Mark、Sick Boy、Spud、Begbie、Diane生活放浪頹廢，不斷吸食毒品、性愛、暴力和犯罪。片中多次刻劃男主角Mark及其他人物毒癮發作的畫面，Mark 有次不得不伸手到滿是自己和別人屎尿的馬桶裏，摸索剛排出來的毒品，後來鏡頭一轉，導演便以超現實的手法來表現他跌入馬桶後，在藍海裏尋索毒品，呈現出Mark毒癮帶來的執迷及幻想。 後來Mark下決心戒毒，取得了暫時的成功，但好景不常，不久之後他就開始再次吸食海洛因。Mark在Diane的鼓勵下，他遠離了一堆狐朋狗友，他遠走倫敦，並謀得一份房地產中介的職位，但他的好友Begbie和Sick boy迫使他參與到一場海洛因交易之中...... By @movie_oddity Director: Danny Boyle Screenplay: John Hodge Based on: Trainspotting by Irvine Welsh Cast: Ewan McGregor, Ewen Bremner, Jonny Lee Miller, Kevin McKidd, Robert Carlyle, Kelly Macdonald Soundtrack: Iggy Pop, Brian Eno, Primal Scream, Sleeper, New Order, Blur, Lou Reed, Pulp, Bedrock, Elastica, Leftfield, Underworld, Damon Albarn Cinematography: Brian Tufano Running Time: 93 min. Budget: £1,5 million

Reviews by: @the_owlseyes Tell me at least one african movie. One which is directed, produced and played by African people on African soil and African Language. It's hard, isn't it? Well, in Africa there're two emerging movie industries: Nollywood, set in Nigeria, and Wakaliwood, set in Uganda. So, I could make this introduction serious by talking about the origin of Wakaliwood and stuff like that but I don't think I will. PLOT "Uganda's president gives Captain Alex the mission to defeat the Tiger Maffia, but Alex gets killed in the process. Upon hearing the tragic news, his brother investigates to avenge Alex"...I think, I'm not sure. The fact is that it's a clear till, out of the blue, it isn't. SCRIPT This movie is insane, bonkers, wild and insane. There're a lot of stereotypes like the gangster, the soldier, the floozy, the shaolin master of kung fu(?) and the reporter. None of them, not even the main character, Captain Alex, get a decent development, in fact there's no development whatsoever. The events are somehow logical but sometimes it loses it. Technicalities are down the drain here but there seems to be an idea, a genuine story to be told. First we have to consider that there are multiple tributes to action movies like Commando, Game of Death and Enter the Dragon. Sometimes it goes beyond a simple tribute and it shows the genre's cliches, which could be cringeworthy. The other thing that make the movie interesting is the, voluntary or involuntary, references to real events which happened in Uganda, like the clash between local army and organized crime. There're also some scene where the movie seems to endorse women objectification and abuse but...I think that I'm overthinking it. Script: 2/10 ACTING Another painful aspect. It's so bad, like really bad, that after a while it seems inoffensive. One thing saves the movie from being a boring trainwreck: VJ Emmie. His narration is bombastic, spry, sarcastic and over the top. His laugh will be stuck in your brain, I assure you. It's strange at first but, if you're open minded, you could appreciate it. Otherwise it'll be hard to get through 60 minutes of it. Acting: 2/10 PHOTOGRAPHY It's understandably bad. At least it's clear what's happening on screen because it's all shot during daytime. Photography: 2/10 EDITING Casual long slow motion, sudden cuts and a shaky camera. Sometimes it seems intentional, sometimes seems bad, sometimes seems comical. Some shots are "ok" but they're lost in an ocean of awful. I've almost lost myself in it. Editing: 2/10 SPECIAL EFFECTS Look above. This is an 85$ movie "cgi". What did you expect? Special Effects: 1/10 SOUNDTRACK Mamma Mia! by ABBA and Kiss From A Rose by Seal pop up out of nowhere. I think that the soundtrack has a comedic role in this movie. Obviously I don't know if it was intentional. Maybe this movie was a musical and I didn't know about it. The transitions between every track are not smooth and some tracks, like all of them, are being reiterated. Soundtrack: 1/10 COSTUMES This is unexpected. They are decent and coherent with the character's role. Naturally they aren't what you would expect by an Hollywood's production but considering the budget they make sense. Costumes: 5/10 CONCLUSION Script: 2/10 Acting: 2/10 Photography: 2/10 Editing: 2/10 Special Effects: 1/10 Soundtrack: 1/10 Costumes: 5/10 AVERAGE: 2,14 The "best action packed Ugandan movie" is a trashy masterpiece but it's beautiful in its ugliness. Despite all its flaws is a passionate work by an humble and proud people. It deserves to be appreciated, because beauty is hidden under the surface, like a gem waiting to be discovered. By @the_owlseyes Director: Nabwana I.G.G. Screenplay: Nabwana I.G.G. Cast: Kakule William, Sseruyna Ernest, Bukenya Charlse, Nakyambadde Prossy Soundtrack: Kizito Vicent Cinematography: Nabwana I.G.G. Running Time: 68 minutes Budget: $85-$200

Reviews by: @the_owlseyes What happens when South Park's creators have the will to produce a movie, the world is still shooked by 9/11 and the budget is restrained? A miracle. And they didn't do it by using animation, which is familiar to them, but with puppets. The idea came to them after watching Thunderbirds, the 60's series not the 2004 abomination, which involved actual puppets. If you think that the idea was bonkers, you still have to understand the genial mind of Trey Parker. Because the original title would have been The Day After the Day After Tomorrow, which would have made it a spoof of The Day After Tomorrow, a Roland Emmerich's disaster movie which had received mixed reviews, where the main theme was global warming. A zany premise and a zanier execution....the analysis is going to be seriously unserious. PLOT "Popular Broadway actor Gary Johnston is recruited by the elite counter-terrorism organization Team America: World Police. As the world begins to crumble around him, he must battle with terrorists, celebrities and falling in love" or...."American foreign policy stinks". SCRIPT To be fair...it's good because it's bad. Only the protagonist as a "story arch" and the other characters are just there to help him. This is a clear critics toward action movies, in the movie the targets are the 70's and 80's, but it's still valid today. Middle Eastern terrorism stereotyping is through the roof to mock the media's approach to it. The real actors portrayed are there to take a stand against the fact that the tabloid used to give a lot of relevance to theirs political opinions. One could say that the movie didn't age well and it's effective only on an American audience, which crippled the movie's at the time(doing a modest profit nonetheless) but today it would be a meme's gold mine. I think that the best way to summarize the script is with this scene. Script: 8/10 ACTING The voice acting is good. The voices are pretty recognizable if you've ever seen South Park. I don't think that's valuing the puppets physical acting would be fair, considering the fact that they have a limited number of expressions to convey. The fact that they're puppets could be off putting, in some scenes, but the comedic effect is granted. The funny thing is the R rating, cause of "gore and sex", which in itself is a banter toward the censorship. Acting: 6/10 PHOTOGRAPHY Flat lighting and bright colours exude 80's vibes but they're just there, without symbolism or a deep meaning. Photography: 6/10 EDITING It seems like they had a lot of fun. The movie has the usual tropes of action flicks like slow motions and fast cuts. Some shots are done in an way which reminds of toy commercials for G.I. Joe and such. Other kinds of editing, which are hard to miss bring again at Matrix. But the best scene for the producers was the sex scene, as Trey Parker pointed out in an interview: "It's a back-and-forth with the board. They said it can't be as many positions, so we cut out a couple of them. We love the golden shower, but I guess they said no to that. But I just love that they have to watch it. Seriously, can you imagine getting a videotape with just a close-up of a puppet asshole, and you have to watch it?" Editing: 7/10 SPECIAL EFFECTS It's all practical and there's a light use of green screen. Crafting this movie with puppets was the berst and worst decision of Parker. It paid off but the production has been troubled by the start and the employers were obliged to work overtime to finish it in time. Welcome to Marwen, a Steve Carell's movie, has used a similar concept but it was all cgi and didn't resonate with the audience. Just for that I think it deserves a high score. Special Effects: 8/10 SOUNDTRACK The movie have a good soundtrack, characterized by 80's music and the squad theme is inspired by toy's jingles and patriotic lyrics. The last one is a bit tedious after a while but it isn't bad. Expect the usual keys for actions and tragic scenes. Soundtrack: 5/10 COSTUMES The costumes are simple and stereotypical. The bunch uniform is like the Thunderbirds one. There's an underliyng sexism in it because men wear blu and women are in pink. This aspect winks at the fact that the 70's and 80's were the macho man's era. Social commentary through the lines is pretty on the nose and it's mostly conveyed with visual cues. Costumes: 6/10 CONCLUSION Script: 8/10 Acting: 6/10 Photography: 6/10 Editing: 7/10 Special Effects: 8/10 Soundtrack: 5/10 Costumes: 6/10 AVERAGE: 6,57 An enjoyable movie but it's not for everyone. If you like Trey Parker and his style you'll love it, otherwise you'll despise it. The political and social commentary is a bit outdated, except for Hollywood work ethics, racism, sexism and terrorism, but it's a nostalgic movie and could be considered a soft cult. In conclusion... "Team America has once again pissed off the entire world by blowing up half of Cairo" By @the_owlseyes Director: Trey Parker Screenplay: Trey Parker Cast: Trey Parker, Matt Stone, Kristen Miller, Masasa Soundtrack: Harry Gregson-Williams Cinematography: Bill Pope Running Time: 98 min. Budget: $32 million

English Reviews by: @the_owlseyes After three years the fans have won: Warner Bros. has released the Snyder's Cut. It's not the first time that a director's cut is released to the public but now it's more interesting. Before the 2021 every extended version used to see the light only in home video editions like Lord of the Rings, Blade Runner, Watchmen, Alien and Apocalypse Now but last year a pandemic happened, the Covid-19 happened. It delayed productions and smothered the industry. The world was changing and the film industry had to change too. The streaming landscape grew so fast that prompted the Streaming Wars between every major contender in this sector: Netflix, the well respected vet, Amazon Prime, Disney+, the surging behemoth, and a bunch of newcomers like AppleTV, Peacock, Hulu and HBO Max. It was there, on the HBO platform, that this movie has found a new life. Everything was slowly falling in place after the acquisition of the Warner Bros. Studios by AT & T. The #releasethesnydercut resurfaced and AT & T started to spread rumours about a possible materialization of it, based on the fact that maybe it was worth investing on it. On June 23, 2020, Sandra Dewey, president of productions and business operations for WarnerMedia, stated in an interview that they are aiming for an early to mid-2021 release. In January 2021, Snyder confirmed that work on the cut had been completed. Finally on March 18, 2021, Snyder let its creature loose. Did it deliver? PLOT "Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Cyborg and Acquaman gather together to protect the world from an intergalactic threat which wants to annhilate the earth and all it's inhabitants"....or "The DC's desperate attempt to catch up with the Marvel Studios by boiling down The Avengers, Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame and six origin movies in a 4 hours movie which was intendend to be a miniseries". SCRIPT It's hard to flesh out six characters in a full length movie, even considering the fact that two of them have had a proper solo movie which is mediocre and only Wonder Woman is a good movie(until Wonder Woman 1984 came out and the character lost it's credibility). Nonetheless Snyder has been able to accomplish it in an acceptable way, considering the running time. Batman is a psychologically wounded hero who wants to redeem himself after Superman's death in Batman v Superman and Affleck is able to deliver it in a pretty good way. Its relationship with Alfred(Jeremy Irons) is made of banters and witty lines alterned to serious one which makes him an interesting character, although it's not on the same level of Michael Caine in the Nolan's trilogy. In a way it helps the public to appreciate more Bruce Wayne and it's humanity. An aspect that underlines it's development since BvS, where he was a bruting killer(an aspect that contradicts with the comics) who branded criminals and challenged aliens. In the movie he takes part in good looking scenes which involves is vehicles, a detail which almost reduced him to a carrier, sidelining him for operations that keep him away from the villain. This reduced him to a guy with gadgets in a team of gods. It's evident in the climax where he did one thing, tearing down the defense field created by the antagonist, and then he diseappeared for a while, popping up sometimes to underline the fact that he's an integral member of the gang. In the last minutes he dreams about an alternative future and have an interaction with the almost useless Martian Manhunter, which are sequences intendend to tease a sequel but they do't represent something meaningful for the character. Wonder Woman is defined by her figthing skills and the fact that is used for a ton of exposition about Darkseid and Steppenwolf, the villains. Sometimes she does illogical things like blowing up a bank to protect the people in it from a thug who wanted to blow it up(like what????) or easily sneaking in the Parthenon's Crypts which is not guarded(so convenient). In the movie she has, as it seems, a sweet relationship with Bruce Wayne, something teased in BvS, but it's just about sexual tension and it doesn't affect the plot. She had better interactions with Alfred and it was unexpected. Not the best story arch but she's essential to defeat Steppenwolf and propel the story. Acquaman has a similar story arch to his solo movie, which makes him a bit redundant. Snyder wanted him to be cool and grumpy, to differentiate him from his comic's counterpart, and the result has been good enough. Jason Momoa bring a lot of physicality, charisma and humour to the Ocean's King who is used as a frenenemy for Barry Allen. His superpowers are a bit inconsistent and the fact that he has to turn is top to shreds every time he dives make his characterization a joke at time. Ezra Miller's Flash is one of the best aspect of the Snyder's Cut. He has a role similar to Spider-Man in the MCU but a less likeable character. Sometimes it's superpowers are inconsistent but it works, as long as you don't think about it. He's quirky, weird and gabby but also emotional and brave. The set up of his arch with his father it's good and he has the funniest and most beautiful scenes in the movie. His character's growth happens with the aid of Bruce Wayne, who is a sort of mentor to him, Acquaman and Cyborg. He's the one who becomes a hero without knowing how to be one. He's fundamental for the plot because, in the end, is the one who saves the day with a trick which no one would expect. Cyborg is Snyder's pupil. The one which has the best journey. His story is a tale of loss, desperation, self-hatred, resurgence and self-acceptance. It's satisfying to see how a character which strives to find a place in the world, is able to find it and become who he wants to be. It's the character which has the strongest link with the plot cause of its genesis and his role in the final battle. He's not stainless due to some arguable choice like: bury one the motherboxes, the plot's MacGuffin, in a cemetery where it would be easily detectable, he is not able to control himself when confronted by Superman and he can solve poverty but he's not interested in doing it on a large scale. Superman has little screen time and his arch is simple and forgettable: he's resurrected through a convenient plot point, fight the squad and than, thanks to the usual boring Lois Lane, becomes good again. He disappears for a long time before reappering during the climax to end the job and help cyborg to sunder the motherboxes. Steppenwolf is a villain. Darkseid is a villain. Not a lot to say about them. They are a lazy attempt at Thanos. Steppenwolf has the desire to return home and make his master proud. It's a powerful alien with an interesting suit and human eyes but nothing more. He's there to create conflict but nothing more. At least he has a lot of determination. Besides the character and the villains, which are weak, the script is decent despite the huge plot hole about Darkseid forgetting the fact that the Anti-Life Equation(a lame name for something so dreadful) is on Earth after he fought there and a lot of side character(Commisioner Gordon, Lois Lane, Martha Kent, Eugene Choi,...) who are there as a sequel bait. Script: 7/10 ACTING Most of the cast delivers a good performance with Affleck and Fisher being the best performers. Unfortunately Miller's represent a character which sometimes feels forced in its weirdness and Gadot's dictions goes totally off the rail in a pivotal scene, disrupting the movie's flow. You can expect it because of her inexperience and beginnings, in fact she beginned as a model without any acting education. Nonetheless she is well casted in her role and she could shine when the director understands her strength. Acting: 7/10 PHOTOGRAPHY The movie has some interesting and good looking shots but nothing exceptional. Snyder's favoured a grey filter which helps to set the tone of his Snyderverse, as we already seen in Man of Steel and Batman v Superman. It's intended to give a more grounded feeling to the film and differentiate it from the more colourful and bright Marvel. Some scenes concerning the climax are characterized by a saturation of red and yellow shades, making them more flashy and attention grabber. The only thing that seems odd is the choice to have a cut aspect ratio of 4:3, which isn't used a lot today. Probably this choice was made to enhance the character and make them look like demigods and legends but it falls flat sometimes and it could be pesky if you expected something in full screen. The result is a original and good looking enough movie. Photography: 7/10 EDITING It has the Snyder's trademarks and it could be pleasing or annoying. A lot of slow motion, sometimes it's cool, sometimes it's just there to convince you that what's happening is relevant and sometimes you just want to skip it. Some scenes are too long, like the Icelandic song of goodbye to Acquaman, the exciting scene where the gang is going up the stairs to reach Steppenwolf,...they are being dragged for far too long. I understand that it's an uncut movie but it doesn't mean that you have to stretch the time to make it seems more interesting. A good movie is characterized by the fact that every scene has a meaning and a relevance not by it's runtime. I liked the decision to divide it in parts, to make it more digestible, even though it breaks the flow sometimes. Releasing it as a miniseries would have been more interesting, in the vein of It, and it would have increased the revenue for the streaming channel. Editing: 6/10 SPECIAL EFFECTS Considering the fact that the reshoots costed $70 million and the original ones $300 million, I would've expected more from it. Just consider the fact that Avengers: Infinity War costed around $350 million and the VFX for Thanos were praised by everyone for it's attention to details. Steppenwolf looks like a videogame character, as all the other villains. I would say that all the movie is overstuffed with special effects. I consider it an issue because it alienates the audience in favor of bland spectacle and poor stakes. The Marvel has a similar problem, mostly Black Panther, but it's tackled in a more efficient way, by using a combination of VFX and practical effects(SFX). I understand that there's the need to represent something that doesn't exist and that it could look terrible if it's practical but too much of it takes down the movie's stakes. Special Effects: 5/10 SOUNDTRACK Tom Holkenborg aka Junkie XL do a very good job and thanks to it the movie is improved. In its possible to hear the theme of every single hero when they work together and enjoying some familiar themes, like the one of Superman and Wonder Woman. The last one is enhanced by a female voice, which recalls 300, and brings out the essence of the Amazon. There are some times when it doesn't match the rest and indulges in a theme which resemble a Black Sabbath song. After a while you get used to it but at first it seems out of place.The best part of the soundtrack is the Flash's theme At the Speed of Force, which is used masterfully in the climax to elevate Barry Allen's heroic action. Soundtrack: 8/10 COSTUMES Well, that's a mixed section. Cyborg's cgi skeleton is almost as bad as the one in Green Lantern. Wonder Woman's suit it's good and consistent with the rest of the franchise. The Flash's armor is weird, which is in line with the character, but not as good and accurate as the CW show. Acquaman's scaled panoply is the best looking but it seems a bit unpractical. I could say the same about Mera's one, something that was pointed out by the actress Amber Heard, and Vulko's. Superman's drak suit is the best iteration of the superman costume since Christopher Reeve and it serves its purpose. Batman's suit is a let down. The only thing that's original about that is the fact that there are googles, which make him seems like NightOwl, a member of the Watchmen(another Snyder's movie), and distort the character a bit. Costumes: 5/10 CONCLUSION Script: 7/10 Acting: 7/10 Photography: 7/10 Editing: 6/10 Special Effects: 5/10 Soundtrack: 8/10 Costumes: 5/10 AVERAGE: 6,42 Zack Snyder's Justice League is an enjoyable superhero flick with a lot of flaws. It's Snyder's vision and it permeates the whole experience. If you're able to get past the director's cliches and 4 hours of movies, you could have a good time with your favourite superheroes and enjoy some mindless action, great visuals and music. I recommend to check it out just to understand what it meant for the director and his private life, to understand his flawed and intriguing work of art, beautiful in its flaws and memorable in its execution. By @the_owlseyes Director: Zack Snyder Screenplay: Chris Terrio Cast: Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Gal Gadot, Ray Fisher, Jason Momoa, Ezra Miller Soundtrack: Tom Holkenborg Cinematography: Fabian Wagner Running Time: 242 min. Budget: $70 million