91 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The Irishman (2019)
Another classic from Martin Scorsese.
8 March 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Back in the 1970s there were five filmmakers that gained so much attention not only by the critics, but also by the audience as well and all five of them received huge critical praises that even today are considered some of the greatest in film history and of course those five names are Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, George Lucas and Brian De Palma. Those names changed films forever and even the way we tell stories in general, but sadly nowadays out the five filmmakers only Martin Scorsese has retained the most vitality in his filmography, he rarely had a misstep and he still retains the voice and energy in his films that he's never lost, while the other four somehow just lost the magic of what made them fantastic in the first place and one of them is clearly trying so bad to bring back his old self, but doesn't succeed all that much (i'm looking at you, Steven Spielberg).

The film is very long and it is something that will definitely be criticized so much by many people for it's runtime. To be honest - i didn't had any problem with the runtime at all, since some of my favorite films of all time are super long, so i'm very used to it and i don't have complaints here. If a director wants to take his time to tell the story the right way, then they have my full support. I still find it weird that today not many directors make long films and people complain about a film being too long, since back in the twentieth century we had films that lasted over four to five hours. After watching the film, it didn't felt like it was three and half hours long thanks to the fantastic editing by Thelma Schoonmaker. For me it felted like it was an hour shorter. If you're still not convinced about the runtime, then my only suggestion is this: if you have a day that you're not studying at school, university or you've taken a day off from working, then the best option is to watch the film in the morning (this is exactly what i chose to do today) and by the time you finish the film or any film that is three hours long or more, then you have a long day ahead of you. Yes - the night time is always the best time to experience any film, but it does exist a moment, where you realize when the film is over - it's already the time that you have to go to bed.

What Martin Scorsese was able to bring to the big screen is truly incredible and with his masterful direction and Steven Zaillian's screenwriting talent ("Schindler's List", "Gangs of New York", "Moneyball" and David Fincher's "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo") were able to bring this story to life. Originally i didn't know what to think about this story that Martin Scorsese chose to adapt and tell, since i'm not all that familiar with Frank Sheeran, Jimmy Hoffa and the Bufalino crime family, but i did find it very interesting and after seeing the film - i really want to do a research to know more, because not all films that are based on true events cover everything in full detail and sometimes they do change things on purpose. Probably some things don't translate very well, when you adapt true events into a film.

I'm so happy to see Robert De Niro, Al Pacino and Joe Pesci in a great film again, because De Niro and Pacino have been in some shockingly terrible trash nowadays and Pesci is basically retired, so it's wonderful to see them give their best as actors once again. It's the case of when you have the right person behind the scenes showing how passionate he (the director) is, when he makes the films that he wants and motivates the actors to make something truly amazing, so that they can give their best as professional actors. The way they deliver their lines of dialogue and how all of it comes out from their mouths - it doesn't feels like it's scripted and it flows so naturally. It's so amazing the way these fantastic actors disappear and in their place the characters that they play came alive.

Alongside with it's amazing camera work, fantastic music (which perfectly reflects the time periods that the film is told), great sound, mind-blowing visual effects (i don't have the best eye for CGI, since i'm one of those people, who can't really notice bad CGI, unless it's very terrible or very noticeable (there are still times that i can tell, but when they are done so well - it's very hard to notice), but i was still surprised of how incredible all of it looked, even thought there was one moment where the physical performance of Robert De Niro wasn't all that convincing) - all of those aspects come together to make this film.

The only complaints that i have with "The Irishman" is that some of the side characters were very underutilized, especially Anna Paquin's character (Frank Sheeran's daughter, when she's older). When Peggy was young she had more screen time, but when she got older we don't see her enough. I understand why, since we're experiencing all of the events through Frank Sheeran's point of view. She looked up to Jimmy Hoffa and when she realizes that her father killed him - she doesn't want to have nothing to do with him and her father wasn't involved all that much in her childhood along with her sisters, which is very understandable, but i think it would have been better if we had the chance of knowing her more, but we don't and because of that - it doesn't have a huge impact to Frank Sheeran's arc. The other complaint that have is very small: scene where Frank Sheeran goes with his daughter to beat up a store owner of a supermarket, because he shoved her. He goes inside the supermarket and starts beating him up and the beat up continues outside. The punches and the kicking didn't look convincing at all and i wanted to point that out. Even though i did praised the CGI - i do have a small problem with that aspect. I did notice that they used CGI blood and those moments are the only time where the CGI was noticeable.

In short - it's fantastic that Martin Scorsese is still doing great work at the age of 77 (by the time i'm writing the review) and has this energy of continuing to make films that he's still passionate. If the film was directed by a different person, then the whole thing would probably not have worked in the way that Netflix was expecting. "The Irishman" will definitely be considered by many as a classic like the previous films by Martin Scorsese and each generation will have the chance to experience the tale of Frank Sheeran. I'm giving "The Irishman" a 9.4/10.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The bad definitely outweighs the good here.
21 February 2020
Seeing Freddy and Jason fight is definitely entertaining to watch. The movie gave exactly what was promised and it delivered. It's sad that the viewer has to get through the bad stuff first, so that they can get to those good moments. I'll say that the movie is insane and over the top and it shows, when the fights start.

The only positives that i can give are the cinematography (70% of it was very good, but the rest was too OK for me and sometimes they were some blurry slow motion that looked very bad), Robert Englund's performance, sound (i didn't like the blood spraying sound effects. They sounded too goofy), Freddy Krueger and Jason Voorhees being the only interesting characters and some of the practical effects looked good, but everything else feels out of place or just poorly done, especially the uninspired story that makes only as much sense as you wanted to.

The characters are very unlikable and i felt absolutely nothing, when someone dies, which is not a good thing to begin with, but it's also a huge disappointment, since not all of the slasher movies have characters that we've grown to like throughout the whole movie and most of them don't have any moments of shock, when a character gets killed. "Freddy vs. Jason" takes example from the bad ones by having characters that are badly written and the writers knew that they can't write any interesting characters or give some character development for all of them (aside from Freddy and Jason, who are already established in the previous movies, so you could say that they don't count), so that's why the put sex and nudity most of the time, so that they can distract you from the bad writing. Most of them are here just to get killed. That's it. From the first glance you can easily tell who the characters are and what role they will play. There was a moment in the beginning of the movie (the introduction of the characters) that reveals who the character Lori is and how her friend tells her to hook up with some guy and immediately i was like "OK. That's the virgin character". There was even a scene later in the movie (the surviving group talk about Freddy's plan that are gathered around a round table) where Lori has a dream and the writers had to remind us that she is a virgin.

The acting was really bad. Kelly Rowland, who played Kia (Lori's friend) gave the worst performance in the entire movie. No one was convincing at all, while playing their roles and already it has become a tradition for almost all of the slasher movies to have terrible acting. I'll just say this: terrible casting. The dialogue was also very bad, even when the actors deliver the lines - they sounds laughable and cringeworthy and it feels like the writers spend probably 30 minutes writing the screenplay.

The music was very bad. You can tell by that aspect the movie was made in the early 2000s, because it does feature some rock music, so that it can be very edgy. It felt out of place, because the previous movies didn't had that type of music at all. The rest of the music was just Friday the 13th / A Nightmare on Elm Street music and everything else was forgettable.

The CGI is horrendous and very noticeable. There is a scene where the stoner character Bill Freeburg smokes marijuana and then Freddy shows up like a caterpillar (it may be implied that Bill Freeburg passed out for smoking too much) and minutes later Freddy, while still in the form of a caterpillar jumps to his mouth and possesses him. There are also moments that they use CGI in the Freddy / Jason fight and it looks terrible.

As a whole: "Freddy vs. Jason" may not be the worst entry in the Friday the 13th / A Nightmare on Elm Street series, but it is one of the weakest. I wished that it could have been more horror than action, but i still somehow find enjoyment, while watching it and when Freddy and Jason are onscreen - it really does get entertaining, but personally i don't recommend it, because of negatives like the story, characters, dialogue, acting, music and the CGI. It's better if you watch the fight sequences between Freddy and Jason on YouTube, because the bad definitely outweighs the good here. I'm giving "Freddy vs. Jason" a 3.2/10.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Playing with Fire (I) (2019)
Another terrible slapstick family comedy.
5 February 2020
"Playing with Fire" has to be one of the worst comedy movies out there. You can tell by watching the trailer that the movie will be a piece of garbage and of course the movie was a piece of garbage. I don't think everyone is surprised that the movie is a failure, since it's directed by Andy Fickman. The man, who directed "The Game Plan", "Race to Witch Mountain", "Who's Your Daddy?" and "Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2" and that should be a warning sign, when you see this guy's filmography. It's just a slapstick family comedy, where people get thrown into walls and has poop jokes. They used to make movies like this, but not anymore and thank god for that, because all of those types of movies are just absurd and they are very dumb not only for adults, but children as well.

Just like Dwayne Johnson - Hollywood is very desperate to help John Cena to reach a wider demographic as possible and to appeal to everyone, including children and that's why he's in this movie, since this is how you can bring many people in the movie theater and make huge amount of money. It worked for Dwayne Johnson, who played in movies like "The Game Plan" and "Tooth Fairy" and how he kept setting the bar lower and lower (in my opinion) and how he plays the same role again and again (except for "Moana") and he will keep doing that, since he is not a good actor and John Cena is unfortunately following his steps and will have the same faith.

Do yourself a favor and watch something else, because this movie is not worth your time. I'm giving "Playing with Fire" a 2/10.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Kim Possible (2019 TV Movie)
Why does this movie exist?
16 January 2020
"Kim Possible (2019)" proves once again why those types of stories that Disney has told already work so well in animated form and why adapting it into live-action doesn't work in the way they wanted. From it's dumb story; characters that don't act like normal people in this universe; dialogue, which is so bad that i don't even know who looked at this script and thought it was good; awful acting from everyone, except the actor Sean Giambrone, who fits in the role of the character Ron very nicely; boring cinematography; bland music and terrible visual effects, which you can tell that most of the budget for the VFX went to recreate Rufus and everything else had to be done with no money. It's a cheap and poorly made movie that has no heart and it's obvious that nobody really cared when they were making it. It's weird to think that the animated series does take itself more seriously than the live-action movie. I'm giving "Kim Possible (2019)" a 2.3/10.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The first movie was better.
16 January 2020
"The Angry Birds Movie 2" is a sequel that was completely unnecessary from the start. It's a movie that is way worse and irritating than it's predecessor and that's saying something, because i enjoyed the first movie a lot, but that doesn't mean it's a masterpiece or something, since it did had problems that are very hard to ignore. The sequel embraces it's ridiculousness and goes to a another level with it's craziness.

It's surprising that like it's predecessor - the sequel also has mature jokes and some swear words that the writers added in and had to replace a few words here and there for the children. You can tell that they put them in the movie for the parents. Probably to entertain them if they get bored. Gross-out or rude humor doesn't bother me, but it did surprise me how much mature content there is in both movies. I'm sure that all of the animated movies that are advertised for children have adult jokes. There are a few movies that comes to my mind that are from Disney and Pixar, but they do those jokes in a very clever way by hiding them. The kids will not understand them at first, but when they grow up - they will and not just them as well. Even adults need a while to understand them. That's a smart way of doing it. With "The Angry Birds Movie 2", they don't do that and make them very obvious just like the first movie, where Chuck tells all of the ladies to get busy and lay a lot of eggs. OK. I get it. It's a sex joke. Was it necessary to make it obvious? The sequel does the same things as well.

It's very clear that it didn't need to happen, but it's Sony - what were you expecting from them, when one of their movies is a financial success, which means only one thing - building a franchise or a cinematic universe, which also means a lot of money. I want to put a warning: get prepared to hear many existing songs / music that Sony really loves to put in their movies, because there are a lot of them, which can get very annoying the more and more you continue watching the movie. I really wanted to like it, but sadly i didn't liked it or enjoyed it and made me appreciate the first movie more. I'm giving "The Angry Birds Movie 2" a 3.4/10.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Dumb and irritating to watch.
13 January 2020
"The Adventures of Jurassic Pet" is one of those types of movies, where you can find in a video store for a very cheap price and if you are one of those people, who already watched the movie - your immediate reaction is to hide it somewhere, so that nobody can buy it or rent it, because of how bad it truly is and you can tell what the experience would be by looking at the cover of the DVD. There's nothing else that i need to add and for that it completely deserves the rating that it's going to get from me and it's a 2.1/10.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Gemini Man (2019)
I think everyone knew it wasn't going to be a good movie.
7 January 2020
Cool concept, but sadly the execution is very poor. It's weird to think that it was originally meant to be released by Walt Disney Pictures. Ang Lee tried his best to make the movie good, but the mediocre screenplay overthrown him super quickly. The only redeeming qualities of the movie are the sound, Will Smith's performance, the visual effects (particularly the de-aging effects, however there are moments that doesn't look all that convincing) and the action sequences do have some good cinematography here and there, while everything else like the story, characters, dialogue, music, 70% of the cinematography, the acting from the rest of the cast and the rest of the visual effects that didn't involve the de-aging effects wasn't good to begin with, but i still somehow enjoyed it and i wasn't bored throughout the whole movie, even though it was 1 hour and 57 minutes long. I'm giving "Gemini Man" a 3.4/10.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Lighthouse (I) (2019)
It's a terrifying, bizarre, uncomfortable and a shocking experience that it's hard to forget.
3 January 2020
Wow. I knew it would be great, but not that great. It's a stunning achievement of filmmaking right here with it's jaw-dropping cinematography, fantastic screenplay, amazing and creepy sound design, outstanding performances from both Willem Dafoe and Robert Pattinson, striking editing, fascinating characters and magnificent direction. It's a haunting and engaging film that will stay with me forever, despite the fact that it's just a story about two people, who are trapped on a island going insane and experiencing some weird stuff.

The cinematography is probably the biggest highlight of the film, since it's shot in 35 mm film, 1.19:1 aspect ratio and being black and white, which is amazing to look at and the lighting really helped to create the atmosphere, which also helps a lot to not make the whole film stale, since it's set in only one location, which is the island. This and alongside with it's costume design and production design really gives the feeling that the film was made in the early 1900s, which is fantastic.

The music was also one of the aspects that was the highlight of the film. It was fantastic in the way it builds the atmosphere and was used in the right moments and it's definitely the best score of 2019.

The only complain that i have with the music may not be a huge problem for many, since it can be easily forgiven, but there are a few occasions where the music sounded a bit generic (i had the chance of listening to the soundtrack after i saw the film for the first time. There are over 13 tracks and there are only four that i didn't liked. Those tracks are "Mermaid Lust / Stabbing the Charm", "Why'd Ya Spill Yer Beans?", "Filthy Dog" and "The Light Belongs to Me". You can tell from the names of the tracks what moments they play them in the film) and unfortunately the soundtrack doesn't work on it's own if you decide to buy it and listen to it.

"The Lighthouse" is excellent. It's unfortunate that it didn't managed to get the perfect 10/10 from me, because of the problem that i have with it, but the experience was something that i haven't had before and it will be very hard to forget. It completely deserves all of the praises that it's getting. For now it's my favorite film of 2019 and it's definitely one of the best film of the decade and one of my favorite film of all time. I'm giving "The Lighthouse" a 9.6/10.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
One of the best movies of 2019.
31 December 2019
It's hard to find words to describe why "Marriage Story" is amazing. Everybody already said everything the needed to be said. It was a truly powerful and emotional journey that deserves to be revisited again and again. The strongest aspects of the movie are the writing and the performances and you can say that the story has been done many times before, but it goes so deep in the way it explores the characters that i found it fascinating to watch. You understand the two main characters, since their motivations are very clear and if you going to side with one character over the other - this does not mean that the other character doesn't give some valid points.

The scene where Nicole (Scarlett Johansson) and Charlie (Adam Driver) are arguing with each other was fantastic. That alone was the best scene that i saw the whole year. It was truly heartbreaking and hard to watch. If it was directed by a different person, then the scene would not work and it would have come out very cheesy and it could have been very hard to take it seriously.

The only problems that i had with the movie is the performance of Julie Hagerty (Nicole's mother), which i wasn't a huge fan, but i don't think that everyone will have that problem; Nicole's sister didn't play a huge role in the story and the movie had to remind us that she's still here and the score by Randy Newman was 40% great, while the other 60% was repeating the same track over and over.

Even with it's flaws, it's still one of the best movies of 2019 and i cannot wait to see it again. I'm giving "Marriage Story" a 9/10.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I wasn't surprised that it's a gigantic failure.
31 December 2019
What is there to say about "Jacob's Ladder (2019)"? It's a pointless remake to one of the best and influential psychological horror movies out there alongside with Stanley Kubrick's "The Shinning" or Roman Polanski's "Rosemary's Baby". It wasn't surprising that it's a gigantic failure and i knew that from the very start when i heard about it's existence and saw all of the ratings from the audiences, but i still decided to see it. Why? I don't know... probably to see how bad it is. I don't even know who even asked for "Jacob's Ladder" remake at all. I never asked for this.

Everything that made "Jacob's Ladder (1990)" great and original at that time is gone and what is left is a soulless husk of a movie and it clearly shows how cynical and lifeless the decision making is behind the curtain and how they completely disregard everything that made the movie from the 1990 special. It's a movie that i'll immediately forget it even existed - just like the other horrible remakes that Hollywood loves to release every year. I'm giving "Jacob's Ladder (2019)" a 2/10.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Enjoyable to watch, but it doesn't offer all that much.
28 December 2019
Olaf: "So you chop down a tree and dress its corpse with candles? I... love it!"

Unfortunately i didn't had the chance of seeing this short or even "Coco" in the movie theater back in 2017, but i wished that i had that chance, so i can see and hear the audience's reaction, who were expecting to watch "Coco", but instead they had to see this first and not the actual movie that they paid for.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Klaus (2019)
A heartwarming, charming and gorgeous animated movie.
28 December 2019
A heartwarming, charming and gorgeous animated movie that retells Santa Clause's origin story in a new and interesting way, although it does stumble in some places, especially with it's familiar story that we've experienced before and hitting most of the same beats (but that doesn't mean that it didn't had great moments); some of the characters needed more development (like the schoolteacher Alva, who unfortunately comes out as a generic love interest, while still shines in some moments throughout the story), while others (the villains) can be considered average at best; music, which was 30% great, while the other 70% didn't stand out all that much or the composer is repeating the same music a couple of times and the dialogue was great and in some moments OK at best, which included jokes that weren't all that funny.

There is one thing that i want to mention: before i saw the movie, i read some reviews and saying that the main character Jesper has the same characteristics with a another existing character in a animated movie and that character was Kuzco from the movie "The Emperor's New Groove" and how they were too similar to each other. There is truth to that discussion, since Jesper starts out the same way and act the same way throughout the movie, but for me - he did grow on me the more and more i continue watching the movie and i started to separate him and Kuzco from one another and Jesper did stand on its own as a character.

I'll just say it, since it's the most noticeable thing in the movie: i ADORE the animation. It's so gorgeous to look at. All of the designs of the characters, the environments, the movements of the characters and the lighting are just masterfully made and the cinematography accompanies it and making it jaw-dropping to look at. If that movie doesn't inspire you to become a animator, then i don't know what can.

I'm so happy that people from around the world are still keeping the spirit of the traditional animation alive and proving to the huge corporate studios, who abandoned that technique of animation (i'm looking at you Disney), which existed for far long than we can remember is not dead and it doesn't give up on a fight. That doesn't mean that i don't adore the 3D / CGI animation that Pixar created (which i'm so grateful for that), which also creating a new way to tell stories, but it's sad that we only get 3D / CGI animated movies in the movie theater and the only way to see new traditional animated movies is on streaming services like Netflix or in festivals. Movies like "Klaus" still give me hope and that's a good thing. I'm giving "Klaus" a 7.4/10.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Although it may still be unnecessary - i somehow found enjoyment watching it.
19 December 2019
I really don't know why they even made this short, since it doesn't offer all that much. All of the characters are just goofing around, while waiting for the mutton soup to be ready. It feels more like something that was made specifically to be played during the end credits of a movie (if the end credits lasted around 28 minutes) and even though i did somehow enjoyed the experience (i saw it two times before writing the review) - i seriously doubt that everyone else will enjoy it the same way like me.

The best things about this short is the animation, sound, acting (it's still nice that the actors agreed to be in this short) and the fantastic music (which is the biggest reason of why i would recommend it to everyone, but there were still some occasions of repeating the same track), but the rest of the aspects like the story, characters (all of them are already established from the previous movies, but they could have at least added something new about them, since it's that long, but they didn't), dialogue (which was very minimal) and cinematography - all of those negatives makes it average at best.

If you decide to skip it (which is something that is fully understandable, if you do that), then i wouldn't blame you for that and for me - i do prefer "How to Train Your Dragon: Homecoming" more than this short movie, since it's way better and more rewatchable. With all of the positives and negatives, i'm giving "How to Train Your Dragon: Snoggletog Log" a 5.3/10.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
It's a OK direct-to-video animated movie.
18 December 2019
Although Troy Baker and the rest of the cast are giving their best to deliver great performances - it's not enough to save the movie from it's terrible writing, which includes the story, characters and dialogue as well as the mediocre and forgettable music.

While the animation is not as appealing as the theatrically released LEGO movies in "The Lego Movie" franchise - it's still very impressive to look at, even if people complaint that it looks more like a low-budget movie or a video game quality cutscene that the LEGO games have today. The sound is great, but it does include some stock sound effects that can be found in many terrible animated movie (also in comedy movies) and the cinematography is also great, however there was a moment where Batgirl falls from a great high in her hallucination, which was caused by The Scarecrow and for some reason they cut to six different shots of the same falling and it looks very bad.

Overall it was a enjoyable movie, but contains flaws, which can really ruin the experience for a lot of people and i don't think that many would want to watch it again after the first viewing, but even with it's problems - i'll still revisit the movie again in the future and "LEGO DC: Batman - Family Matters" gets a 4.6/10.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Another generic horror movie.
11 December 2019
The filmmakers are just filling out a checklist that says "How to make a generic horror movie" that was given to them by the studio and telling them to do all of the steps that are in the list, which are laid out in order and if they don't follow them all of the time: they will get fired.

If Guillermo del Toro was the director and the the leading writer, then the movie could have been way better made and way better written. The only redeeming qualities that saves it from a very low score are the sound, 30% of the cinematography and that they've put so much love and care to the monsters, so that they can be very faithful to the illustrations by Stephen Gammell that were in the book with some impressive makeup, but everything else from the story, characters, dialogue, acting, a lot of the cinematography, music and the visual effects (or CGI) wasn't all that good. It could have been so much more, but they wasted all of the potential. I'm giving "Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark" a 2.9/10.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
After (2019)
A miserable experience.
5 December 2019
It's a another young adult movie adaptation, which everyone will forget that it ever existed when the next one comes out. I tried to avoid this movie, because i knew what i was going to get, what the experience will be and (of course) there were other movies that i preferred to watch instead of this, so those are the reasons of why i delayed it so many times and why i made so many excuses of not seeing it, but i knew that i can't escape it that easily, so after seeing it - i regret the decision that i made after watching this garbage.

The only redeeming aspect for me was the sound, since you can hear everything perfectly and it's not low quality at all. The sound department did a great job, but the rest of the aspects were done very poorly and as a whole - it was a miserable experience and i don't recommend it to anyone at all. I'm giving "After" a 2.2/10.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
It (I) (2017)
Even with all of the problems that the movie has - it's still one of the best Stephen King adaptations out there.
3 December 2019
Everybody thinks that kids are immortal and in every story that involves children very rarely something disturbing and horrifying things happens to them and yet Stephen King wanted to do something new and interesting by breaking (or subverting) the tradition, while writing the book "It" and chose to start the story with the death of a kid and using that to introduce the most scariest antagonist in all fiction, so seeing that moment confirms and reinforces our anxiety moving forward and also breaking the illusion that the main characters are safe.

I have not read the book "It", so i don't know how accurate the 2017 movie "It" is, but after seeing the movie adaptation - i immediately want to get my hands on the books. It's a awesome coming-of-age story about kinds trying to overcome their fears and a unstoppable threat without the help of adults and also without knowledge of defending themselves.

To be honest - originally i didn't know what to expect from the movie. Some of Stephen King's adaptations are great, but there are also some that are far from great. "It" did receive positive reviews, but there were also some that didn't liked it all that much. It didn't got my attention at first, when it was showing at the cinema, since there were also other movies that i was more interested in and watching a horror movie with my mother is never a good idea. I saw the movie on digital in the beginning of 2018 and after seeing it for the first time: i thought it was great, but after seeing it again - i did notice flaws that i missed in my first viewing or didn't got my attention at that time and others that i do remember, but that doesn't mean that i didn't enjoy the experience.

There are many things that everyone can appreciate and relate to the movie and there are also things that it's hard to take very seriously. The story is the strongest aspect and seeing how the events play out is interesting. The first scene really does capture your attention and it does this successfully. The characters are very relatable, the dialogue is good (sometimes it can be bad, but i'll mention it later); the cinematography is great, the sound was very good, the acting is shockingly good (which is surprising, since nowadays we only see bad child performances, but there are two performances that i didn't like and i'll mention it later) with Bill Skarsgård being the one that stands out the most, who was fantastic and he was definitely the best part of the movie, but sadly this is where the praising ends and there are many flaws that keeps it from being a great movie.

Even though i praised the story - the first act of the movie is very weak. The way it starts (when they introduce Billy and Georgie) is great, but after that it does get uninteresting and when the second act starts - it gets you hooked to the events that play out and continues strongly to the end of the third act. The first act is the introduction of the characters and this is where i have problems. Many of them are introduced in a cliché way and i'm like "Okay. I've seen this before.", so there's nothing new here for me. I don't know how it is in the book, but it's probably way better. I understand that it's important to do it like that, since the group that they created is called "The Losers" and they have to show that they are outsiders and they are bullied by Henry Bowers, but i still wanted to point that out.

Like i mentioned - the characters are relatable, but some of them are not. The movie focuses on some of the group and have way more development, unlike the other part of the group that are average at best. The characters that i mean are Richie Tozier, Stanley Uris and Mike Hanlon. I'm not saying that are badly written, but they could have been way better presented or they could have develop them more.

The movie does have strong dialogue, but it also had some weak dialogue as well and it wasn't all that convincing, especially Finn Wolfhard' dialogue (who plays Richie Tozier). Most of his lines of dialogue is just cursing and because of that Richie feels more like a kid that is from 2017 (or should i say the 2010s), instead of a kid that is from the 1980s. I think they did that on purpose, so that they can make the movie more edgy (or something, so i don't know) and they didn't even thought of just writing good and normal dialogue.

The visual effects were very fake and they do look very poor at times. There are some instances of good effects, but most of them are very average. The production value is here and you can tell - it's just the effects didn't show all that much of it.

The music is the aspect that i thought it was awful and I couldn't find any positive things that I can mention. It's very forgettable and just like all bad horror movies that we have today - the filmmakers were trying so hard to make it more horror, so what they did was they added jump scare sound or loud noise, because they thought it would make it more scary (aka jump scares) like the scene with Georgie and the introduction of "It" (aka Pennywise) in the sewer. That is a visually fantastic scene, but they ruined it with the loud noise that they put. When will Hollywood learn to stop using that trick? There are many scenes in the movie that could have been scary and worked on their own without the loud noise, but they add them and now they are not scary at all and makes the scares very predictable.

Overall i liked it. There are hints of a great horror movie and ideas that can make "It" very distinct from all horror movies that came before and the ones that we have today and can be also very unique, but sadly it missed the mark in some areas in some aspects. It does have huge potential where the rules of logic don't necessarily apply, when the main antagonist operates from a fantasy nightmare approach, so there are many possibilities of that concept and that's why A Nightmare on Elm Street works so well and "It" does have those ideas, but not fully embracing its potential. With all that said - i'm glad that the audience love the movie and giving it high scores, so like everyone else - i highly recommend it and i'll definitely see it again. For all of the positives and negatives that i listed - i'm giving "It" (2017) a 6.4/10.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Hereditary (2018)
One of the best horror movies of the decade.
30 November 2019
It's no secret that making your first feature-length movie is not a easy task and everything can go very badly all of the time. There are many reasons of why your first movie may not good at all and the biggest reason (which is very common) is when you don't have any experience with directing and even screenwriting and for that not only you will suffer, but also everyone, who was involved in the making of the movie as well.

Making your first movie good (or even great) happens very rarely, so i'm not going to hide my surprise when i was "Hereditary" for the first time back in March (unfortunately not in the cinema) and after seeing it - i fell in love with the movie. Ari Aster created something that is so unique and fascinating from the beginning to the end. It was the first horror movie in years that affected me so much and i'll also point out that it's rare for me to get goosebumps, while watching a horror movie. The only horror movies that affected me the most are "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" (the original, not the remake), "Psycho" (i should also count the remake, even remembering that a terrible remake or even a remake in general of a classic by Alfred Hitchcock exists is terrifying) and "Alien".

The story was very engaging from the beginning and the dynamic between the family was great. The way the story was building up for the events that will happen in the ending was overall great, seeing how the family goes insane throughout the movie and having moments that i can still recall, which i loved and shocked me in my first viewing.

The acting (for the most part) was great. Toni Collette was the one, who stands out the most. She was fantastic and gave one of the best performance of 2018. I don't hide the fact that i was shocked that she didn't got a Academy Awards nomination, but they chose to give that nomination to Melissa McCarthy. I know that the Academy are terrible of picking the winner for every category in every year, but for the nominations - that was a horrible choice from their side.

The characters are very compelling and the way Toni Collette's character was written - it felted more like a character study, which is a great thing, since it wasn't a normal horror movie that has jump scares and i do consider it more as a drama with horror elements. The scene where the characters have dinner is no doubt the best scene in the movie. I do have a problem with one of the characters, but i'll save it for later.

The dialogue was fantastic and the interactions between all of the characters were very believable and it does deliver moments of emotion throughout it's dialogue.

The cinematography was great and there are many shots that are just visually appealing, especially the beginning shot that was fantastic.

The editing was also great. The editor knew when to cut from one shot to another and how much time the shot will stay before he did a cut.

The music was very atmospheric and it really did make the movie great for me.

With the positives also comes the negatives. Like i mentioned: I loved all of the characters, but i didn't like that the husband / father still doesn't believe everything that his wife is telling him, even with the proof that she has - he still thinks that his wife is crazy. This only happens in the end of the movie and it can be viewed as a small complaint, but i still wanted to mention it. The actor Alex Wolff, who portrays the son Peter wasn't all that convincing in some moments and his crying was very weird. He does a great job when he is scared, but overall he doesn't do a good job.

Even though i praised the music - i do have problems with that aspect. After re-watching the movie and listening to the soundtrack there are some tracks that are not all that memorable and the composer did reuse some of the music in some moments. I'm not a huge fan, when composers do reuse the same track over and over again and "Hereditary" is not the first movie that does this. It may not be a problem for many, but for me it was and i wanted to point out the flaws that i have with the music.

Overall i loved the movie. It's a movie that left an impression on me after i saw it for the first time and i wanted to see it again, but i had to be careful, because if i see a movie multiple times every year - i'll get sick of it very easily and probably never going to watch it ever again. After re-watching it i did spot some things that i didn't in my first viewing, which was very cool. It was a fantastic experience from beginning to the end and i'll even say that it's not only one of the best movies of 2018, but also one of the best horror movies of the decade and i'm giving "Hereditary" a 9.2/10.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Silence (II) (2019)
I wasn't all that surprised by the results.
28 November 2019
Warning: Spoilers
"The Silence" may not be as bad as everyone is making it out to be, but my god - it is a very flawed movie, which it may not be surprising for many, since it's directed by John R. Leonetti. The man, who is responsible for movies like Mortal Kombat: Annihilation, The Butterfly Effect 2, Annabelle, Wolves at the Door and Wish Upon.

The story goes as follows: "The world is under attack from terrifying creatures, who hunt by sound. A teenage girl named Ally Andrews that lost her hearing in a car accident tries to seek refuge alongside with her family, while the only way of communicating with each other is sign language, with some moments of whispering". If that sounds very familiar, then you might have heard that "The Silence" does share almost the same premise with a movie that came out last year and it's called "A Quiet Place", but here's the weirdest thing - "The Silence" is based on a book that was released back in 2015, so... at least there is something that distinct them from each other, but it will still be compared to "A Quiet Place", since it's impossible not to compare it. In my opinion - "A Quiet Place" is better, even though i wasn't a huge fan of that movie and at least it did some things that were good, unlike this movie.

"The Silence" is not very well made. It has a story that wasn't all that good in the first place, very average characters, bland dialogue, weak music, awful visual effects, OK cinematography and weak acting. The only things that i liked were the sound, Stanley Tucci's performance, 20% of the shot composition and a scene in the store, where the two main characters have to get antibiotics and that's it. Everything is either poorly made or hilariously bad.

The story is where i have many problems. They set up the fact that Ally (the daughter) lost her hearing, so everyone in the family knows sign language, since it's the only way they can communicate with her, but there are some moments that can be very inconsistent. There are moments, where Hugh (Stanley Tucci) is speaking to Ally (Kiernan Shipka) without sign language. He is speaking to her very normally and Ally can still understand him for some reason, even though there are a few moments that the movie did focus in her point of view to prove that she can't hear anything (only loud noise), but she can still hear him in some moments?

The movie started off OK (the scene with the bullies is one of the worst moments in the movie) and continues the same way and to be honest - i was starting to get invested into the movie little by little (shocking, right?), but then they introduce "The Reverend" and this is where everything went downhill and at that point the movie has become insufferable to watch, even after re-watching it - i wanted to skip everything after that moment, but i didn't and i choose to continue anyway.

"The Reverend" tries to recruit the two main characters in his cult, but unsuccessfully and then in 1 hour and 7 minutes the cult come to the house that the family is now staying and tries again to recruit them and he reveals that he has a interest in Ally's "fertility". This is where i was like "Are you serious? Do they really want to go in that direction?". From that point there are two ways it can go with that awful idea: 1. The cult will try to kidnap her, while all of the family are at the house and try to protect her. 2. They will successfully kidnap her and the father will go to hunt the cult members, kill the leader in a fight and saving his daughter. They went with the first way, but with a difference from my prediction. The movie ends in 1 hour and 24 minutes, which means that all of those things happens within the amount of 17 minutes and i'm like "How can they do all of that stuff in this short amount of time?"

Even the idea of how to kidnap Ally is ridiculous. They send a little girl to the front door that has phones strapped to her to be used as a distraction and they place more phones to the house, including upstairs (where Ally is sleeping) on the window outside, so that they can attract the vesps and to attack the family. I have one question: How did they put a phone outside the window upstairs? One of them has to climb to the roof to put a phone with a tape on the window, but he would make so much noise and in that way the vesps will hear him very easily. They do all of those things, so that they wait in the basement, if someone happens to go down there. That plan is stupid, because it would easily kill everyone, including the girl that they send and Ally, who they want to take away. All of this would not have happened, if the family locked the gate of the high fence when they returned with the antibiotics. Before i forget to mention: when "The Reverend" shows us that he has no tongue - it's so hilarious. He does that two times and that way he does it is very funny. He even snarls at the main characters and for me that was the cherry on top.

So yeah. Those are the complaints that i have with the movie. There are still things that don't work that i didn't mention, but it's better if you see it instead. For me - it barely managed to get a 3/10. It's like it was fighting very hard to get a good rating, but it would start losing and fall on the ground in every minute in a match and trying to get up, but even when he gives his best - he will accept his defeat very early. I'm giving "The Silence" a 2.6/10.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Crawl (I) (2019)
It did not work for me.
26 November 2019
I don't think that everyone was expecting it to be good at all. The idea alone about a daughter and her father, who are hunted by alligators after they got trapped in their home during a hurricane already sounds completely absurd and it's hard to take it very seriously at times. I didn't felt any tension or suspense and at certain point in the end i got bored, even though the film is 87 minutes long - it felt far too long than it needed to be.

The film introduces some side characters that make some really stupid decisions and the only reason of why they are in the film is just to get killed. They show up in different points in the story, so that it can have a death count. They didn't know how to write good characters and for that reason it was very difficult to care, when someone dies. That doesn't mean that the two main characters don't do some dumb things as well. Even they fall on the same trap in a few moments in the film.

The performances of Kaya Scodelario and Barry Pepper, the sound and the cinematography were the aspects that hold the film together, but everything would eventually fall apart with it's other aspects in many moments like the story, characters, dialogue, the acting from the rest of the cast, visual effects and music.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
It's easily the weakest movie in Phase Three of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
25 November 2019
Warning: Spoilers
The way it's structured, executed and how the events play out - it feels too much like it belongs in Phase One, than a movie that is part of a bigger story in Phase Three.

Before it came out, some people were boycotting the movie, because Brie Larson said things that were not very nice to the people, who gave the movie very low scores. To be honest - i didn't pay all that much attention to all of the things that were happening outside my interest of the movie, so i'm going to leave all of the controversy behind and judge "Captain Marvel" as a movie. Unfortunately "Captain Marvel" is not good and it's easily the weakest movie in Phase Three.

I'll go first with the negatives, because there are so many that i have to write them down as a list, but i'll write them in a normal way as i know: The biggest and the most obvious problem is the main female character: Captain Marvel / Carol Danvers. The way she was written and presented is a very uninteresting and unlikable character and i had a very hard time trying to connect to her throughout the whole movie. I don't know how she is presented in the comics, since i didn't even know that she existed (aside from sharing the same name as Shazam), but based on what was shown in the movie and my first impressions when i saw the movie back in March - i didn't like her at all. The worst aspect is the main character and that's not really a good thing, since it's hard to care about everything that is happening in the story, but unfortunately it doesn't end there with the characters.

The main villain was very bland. It's one of those movies that tries to make you believe that he is the villain, but was very misunderstood and it's revealed that this character was the main villain the whole time. For some it may be predictable, but for me - i couldn't predict it at all, but that doesn't mean that i'll give points for that reason alone. Dr. Wendy Lawson / Supreme Intelligence is so forgettable, so i'm not going to go in full detail about her. Maria Rambeau (the friend of Carol Danvers) is nothing special at all. The character was so bland - it's hard to tell something memorable that the character did in the story. Monica Rambeau (the child) was also very bland.

Some characters appear, so that we can have fan service or that they want to remind us that they do exist in the MCU. The best example of a terrible fan service is Phil Coulson. After re-watching the movie: i still don't understand why they include him in the movie, since he was the most uninteresting character in the MCU and he is definitely the most pointless inclusion in the movie. It's very weird that they used the same de-aging effects on the character like Nick Fury, since it's set years before the first MCU movie "Iron Man" and for some reason he looks the exact same way as he was in his introduction in "Iron Man". Yon-Rogg (played by Jude Law) is OK and he works fine in the context of the story, but after it was revealed that he was the main villain, he is not threatening at all. The best character is definitely Nick Fury, who is the heart and soul of the movie and he did make the experience at least enjoyable.

The story was very bland. As i mention in the start of the review: it doesn't feel like a Phase Three movie.

The acting was very average. The only ones that were trying were Samuel L. Jackson, Ben Mendelsohn and Jude Law. Brie Larson's performance wasn't all that convincing as Captain Marvel and i don't know who is to blame: Brie Larson, the direction or both. By the way: the child performance wasn't all that good.

The music is the same standard MCU soundtrack as always. There's no need to add more, since there are people, who went in full detail on why the music of all MCU movies is very forgettable and bland.

There are moments that the visual effects can look very fake and in some occasions it's very obvious and distracting like for a example the cat Goose that for some reason they replace him with CGI. It didn't happen most of the time, but it was noticeable, when they did replace him. There is a scene in the end of the movie where Captain Marvel is flying and destroying ships of Ronan in space and you can tell that they use CGI to recreate her for that scene.

The dialogue can be very bland or very bad. Many of the jokes don't work and there are some lines of dialogue that were very stupid. Immediately after i saw the movie for the second time - i forgot all of the dialogue and it didn't had any that can be quotable or memorable.

In some moments the cinematography can be good, but most of the time it's very OK. The only times the camera work is creative or very good is when they use visual effects.

Now that we've taken care of the negatives, let's get to the positives, but i'll describe them in a very short way. Like i mentioned before: Samuel L. Jackson, Ben Mendelsohn and Jude Law were the only three that made the movie for me, especially Samuel L. Jackson, who is always entertaining and you can tell that he really cared when he was brought back to play a younger version of his character. Nick Fury was the only character that was at least likable thanks to the performance of Jackson and the way he functions in the story can be a bit of the comedic side, but at least he wasn't bland or something else.

The cinematography can be good, when the CGI is involved, but in some occasions i did find some nice shot composition that didn't had CGI involved, but it's a very small percent, which is not enough. The sound is great as always in the MCU movies and they don't disappoint with that aspect. The de-aging effects on Samuel L. Jackson look fantastic, even thought there were some moments of his physical performance that wasn't all that convincing.

Overall "Captain Marvel" is unfortunately not very good. If it had a good origin story, better written characters, good dialogue, better effects, better acting, good music and more creative cinematography, then it could have been something great, but it didn't came out in that way. Sadly after seeing "Avengers: Endgame" it makes the movie feel like a pointless addition, since in the post-credits scene of "Avengers: Infinity War" they made a huge deal that Captain Marvel will be very important and now - i'm wondering why did they even include her at the first place and sadly you're not going to miss all that much, if you decide to skip it.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Missing Link (2019)
Average and very forgettable experience.
21 November 2019
"Missing Link" is the fifth movie by the studio Laika and still proving to this day that they are the best animation studio that creates the most gorgeous stop-motion animated movies ever that are feast for the eyes. Even at the first glance - you can't take your eyes from it and you want to continue watching it all the way to the end. You can still tell that they used CGI, but it's very minimal and it's in places that it would be impossible to do in stop-motion (or probably it's still possible), so of course they did a fantastic job as always.

The cinematography is amazing. Animated movies always been successful with their shot composition (not all of the time, but most of them succeed) and they clearly know where to put the camera, so that they can create some beautiful shots and keeps you glued to the screen.

The acting was great. Everyone, including Hugh Jackman, Zach Galifianakis and Zoe Saldana did a great job with the material they are given to them and you can tell that all of them were having fun voicing the characters that they play.

The sound is perfect. Everything sounds very accurate to the things that you see on the screen.

That being said with the positives - also comes the negatives. The biggest negative for me was the story. To be honest - i'm not a fan of the stories that Laika tell in their movies and it looks like i'm not alone, which is a very common complaint that many people have. It felt very uninspired and i wasn't all that much invested in the journey that the characters were experiencing. The actual event that took place weren't all that interesting.

The characters are very average and too simplistic in my opinion. I liked the character designs, but i didn't liked the way they were written. They felt very stereotypical and instead of having a way better character development or do something different with them - they didn't do all that much and they are not very memorable.

The dialogue was also very average. It didn't had any memorable lines and all of the jokes were not funny. It just felted very OK and wasn't very creative with anything in the script that i would remember.

The music was also the aspect that i had problems with. Most of the time i didn't even notice it and it felt like it was trying to stay in the background most of the time.

As a whole it was enjoyable to watch, but a very average experience. The animation, sound, acting and the cinematography were the strongest aspects and i view them as the most valid reasons that i would recommend it to everyone, but sadly it's one of those movies that i'll probably forget within a few days after i saw it and unfortunately it doesn't stand out as something special.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Airplane Mode (II) (2019)
For now it's the worst movie I've ever seen this year.
16 November 2019
"Airplane Mode" may not be the worst YouTube movie that i've seen, since i did find some enjoyment, while watching it, but that doesn't mean that it's good and for me it's still the worst comedy that i've seen this year (for now) and it's weird that someone looked at this and thought: "Yeah, that's OK. Put that out".

The major selling point was that the movie has the largest cast of social media influencers ever assembled and yet i don't even know anyone at all and they spend so much time with people who are very unknown to me. It tries to go with shock value than something clever and at some point it went too much with it in the movie, which it got exhausting to watch. Everything in the movie like the story, characters, dialogue, acting, cinematography, music, editing and sound is either very OK or very bad.

There is no denying that movies that are made by famous YouTubers are very bad (Nostalgia Critic being the best example that i can give), but with "Airplane Mode" it did had couple of things that i kind of liked, if i have to be fair. It did make me chuckle in some moments, so at least that has to count for something, but unfortunately the bad definitely outweighs the good here.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Unfortunately "Terminator: Dark Fate" is not the movie that redeems the franchise.
12 November 2019
Warning: Spoilers
It tries to capture the magic of "Terminator 2: Judgment Day", but just like the previous movies in the franchise - "Terminator: Dark Fate" does it unsuccessfully. The first two movies are fantastic, but after that - everything else is a giant waste and everyone is trying to forget that they existed and i don't blame them. "Terminator: Dark Fate" tells the same story as "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" with some small things that are new, so that it can feel different, but it's still the same story. I don't know why the people that make these movies can't tell a story that doesn't involve a Terminator protecting someone from a another Terminator.

When the movie begins we have a de-aged John Connor and Sarah Connor, who are now living their lives in peace, until a Terminator shows up and kills John Connor and Sarah hopelessly watching this moment happening right in front of her and this is where i couldn't believe it what i just saw. We got attached to John Connor so much in "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" and all of the sacrifices that were made to protect him, so that he can destroy Skynet, when he grows up - now it doesn't matter at all, because we know that he will die in this movie and it's a disservice to the character and after that they replace him with the main protagonist Dani. This is where everything feels pointless from now on.

The main protagonist Dani is not very interesting as John Connor was and the line that Sarah Connor says "She's John. You're John." is so obvious and was very bad. The actress, who is playing the character Dani does not help at all and gives the weakest performances in the movie. It wasn't terrible, but was weak. Linda Hamilton, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mackenzie Davis and Gabriel Luna were trying in the movie and you can tell. Gabriel Luna plays this movie's T-1000 and Arnold Schwarzenegger plays the same character, but was taken in a different direction in the story, which i wasn't a huge fan and he does a ultimate sacrifice in the end again. The only characters that i liked were Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) and Grace (Mackenzie Davis) and they are the only ones that are very well written.

The de-aging effects that they used look very impressive and unfortunately - that's the only time the CGI effects look good. The rest of CGI looks super fake and at moments they were very bad. The cinematography was the thing that i didn't like, but that doesn't mean there weren't any good shot composition, but most of it was very OK and the other problem is that there are shots that lasted only a few seconds, but that was the editing's fault. The editing was very average in the action sequences, especially when the characters have a fist fight. The way it cuts from one shot to another was so fast and for that i couldn't even enjoy the action.

The music was the aspect that i totally disliked, even after exiting the movie theater i immediately forgot it. It was the one of the most forgettable and generic soundtracks that i've listened this year. I wasn't surprised when i read that Tom Holkenborg (aka Junkie XL) composed it, since he has never composed a good or memorable soundtrack in his entire career. The dialogue for the most part was weak with some lines here and there that i liked. The biggest positive for me was the sound, so the people, who worked in the sound department did a fantastic job with it.

As a whole i was very disappointed by the movie. I was hoping that this movie will redeem the franchise, but sadly i was wrong. This is the sixth installment of a franchise that was doing downhill from "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines" and now no one cares about it anymore. The Terminator franchise has the most screwed up timeline in film history. It's hard to know which movie is canon and which isn't, since with each new installment they destroy the established timeline.
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Zero Hour (2019)
Very entertaining to watch, but it's not the strongest animated short of Overwatch.
11 November 2019
If i have to judge it as a standalone short - it doesn't work. The story (or lack thereof) is non existent and it feels more like a scene that was taken out from a movie or a episode from a TV series and someone upload it on YouTube and unfortunately for that reason it doesn't stand on it's own.

At least some of the previous animated shorts of Overwatch can still work on their own, because they are origin stories, that are used to introduce the famous characters, while the other animated shorts are the same as "Zero Hour" like "Infiltration", "Alive" and "The Exhibit" (or "Announcement" as it's known in the "The Art of Overwatch" art book) that don't work as standalone shorts.

The less can be said about the music, which ranges from average or melodramatic the first half of the short, but when the rest of the team arrives: it does get better (i do mean the music that they play on their arrival, which is great). The dialogue is passable at first, but just like the music - when the rest of the "Overwatch" characters arrive: the dialogue gets better, alongside with the interactions.

Now that we've taken care of the negatives, let's get to the positives:
  • the whole cast that voices the characters in the game and the previous shorts are back for this one and they are still fantastic.
  • the cinematography is great. I don't know why, but i always find it weird that the shot composition is great in animated movies and shorts (there are still some that don't have appealing cinematography, but many of them have).
  • the sound is great. I don't have any complaints there and i don't need to go in depth with the praising for the sound.
  • the characters are also great. They had their build-up in the previous shorts and the interactions between each other is fun to watch.
  • the animation is fantastic and Blizzard always have been great with their animation (just look at the World of Warcraft trailers).

Overall it's still a good animated short that is entertaining, but it's not the strongest that i've watched. Like i said - the story is missing here and that is the biggest flaw that i have with it.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed