Reviews

I have the habit of bying DVD'S or Blu-rays of films that i consider ''diamonds'' and leave them for a special screening,usually on weekends or when i have a day off. So that was the case with ''The day the Earth caught fire'',i expected a diamond like for instance the "Journey to the other side of the sun'' which i saw a few months ago and was excellent. But sadly that was not the case at all. First of all you supposedly have a sci fi film,so you expect that you will see some scenes with good(for then)visual effects. Basically what you get here is somekind of a theatrical film because the largest part of the movie has to do with what's going on in the newspaper Edward Judd works. They are all acting like they saw that coming(the destruction),try to use some irony but the final result is laughable in the dialogues. Edward Judd acts like he's p***** off with everything,from his personal life,professional,name it. Also i understand the erotism in a sci-fi film,but the scene where we watch for a second Janet Munroe's boobies while she is taking a bath,i don't understand it,it doesn't fit with the nature of the film. As i have said the effects are poor and in the end you get up from the sofa, thinking you watched somekind of a ''Lou Grant'' special episode if you remember the series. I don't want to put off anybody from watching it because sci fi fans who haven' t seen it will give it a go,but i believe when it finishes you will end up just like me,annoyed.

You always are hesitant when you come to watch thrillers,cause you don't know what to expect,especially about the scenario and how the movie will ''build'' and develop, and above all, if all this is enough to keep you interesting. Well the answer considering the Watcher is a big yes. The movie definitely keeps you interesting till the last second and they are basically two reasons for that ,firstly the very good direction by Chloe Okuno and secondly the excellent performance of Maika Monroe. Okuno directs taking elements in the first part of the movie from Rear Window(you can watch all your neighbours from your window) and then by making us guess if the supposed watcher is a psycopath or an innocent man. She later ''turns'' the hunted Julia(Monroe) into a hunter, by stalking her supposedly stalker. The scenes around Bucharest are also well taken and overall it's a very good effort from her. Also a pleasant surpise is the performance of Maika Monroe,not your classic blonde beautiful woman,but a very likeable and warm persona. She starts by not wanting to admit that she is targeted by a stranger,but minute by minute she gets convinced that actually this is what is happening. She doesn't exaggerate and she definitely gives an excellent performance. Overall Watcer is a solid,believable and enjoyable thriller that you won't pass as many other films of the same origin.

I don't want to spoil it but you wonder watching the film,could have happened in reality? That's the thought that will live with you after the end. The movie is excellent and with a very good direction from Peter Hyams. Enjoy yourshelves!

To tell you the truth i started watching it not expecting too much and that's because of the countless horror movies and thrillers i have watched and in which the trailer is basically far better than the movie. BUT this is different,this is a movie that you will not forget(easily at least).The quality in the film is, that if you read the plot( that 3 people enter a blind man's house to steal money ) you can surely think ''Come on,how can that be a problem?''. But that's where the film wins over you. It all feels credible and that's thanks to a very clever direction by Fede Alvarez. Stephen Lang who plays the blind man is very very good and so are Jane Levy and Dylan Minnette who play the robbers. Overall a breath of fresh air in the genre,an original in my opinion.Enjoy it.

I have to start by saying that it's a shame this film hasn't got the acclaim that it deserves.Why?Because it is a film that it has to do with the Christian religion and generally in today's society these kind of films aren't politically correct, if you know what i mean. I am a Christian Orthodox myself and i have to say that this movie ''touched'' me and moved me. It covers the period from the Crucifixion of Christ till his Ascension,but not through the eyes of a disciple or a follower of his.It's how a Roman tribune witnesses it, trying to find the body of Christ after his Resurrection. Tribune Clavius played superbly by Joseph Fiennes is ordered by Pilate to find the body of Christ because the Romans believed it was stolen. I don't want to say anymore because i don't want to spoil it,but through his quest for the truth he will experience things that he wouldn't believe if he hadn't seen them with his own eyes.The scenery is excellent and there is no exaggeration in the story. There is also an evident respect by trying to tell the story in a very honest way and not to add any unnecessary visual effects, just to make it extremely dramatic. Again Joseph Fiennes is excellent and he should be very proud of his performance. That is an Oscar winning performance in any other film, but as i have said because it is a religious film it hasn't got him the praise that he should got. Overall an excellent film, that for those who have read and know the facts, will in my opinion be a classic.

Didn't have any intention of writing a review, but is anger that makes me spend a few minutes of my time for this rubbish i have just watched.The ending of the film is so ludicrous, that i have just appreciated the ending of Lost(and i didn't like it at all).When you want to make your audience open their mouths from surpise by the twist in the story that you have just gave them,well the twist must be credible and it has to relate with previous scenes of the film(the ending of the Sixth Sense is a perfect example).But here the twist in the story is so ridiculous that you actually wonder if the director believes that he's adressing 3 year-olds.Anyway when a film ends and you catch yourself asking which scenes were true and which were fantasies of the leading actress(Marine Vacht), well you come to realize that something went very wrong.The film also has a lot of sex scenes but after watching it i fully understand why,when the story is so weak the oldest trick in the book is to serve a lot of nudity to viewers.I will stop here,i hope that if you watched it, you didn't pay any of your money like me.

I was always a fan of Tom Cruise.Back from "Risky business" as a 17 year old, το "Τοp gun" which made him a big star and then to nearly all his films, i always got the feeling that Cruise selected very carefully his roles and always respected the fans who paid their hard earned money. When i was hearing that he is starring in a new film,i didn't bother reading reviews or asking friends about the movie.I always thought that entertainment was guaranteed with him.Films that could easily have flopped like Minority report,Oblivion,Edge of tomorrow(especially the last two)because of their script, he was the main reason that made them very good films,you felt the detail to attention and the respect he had for the movie goer,the fan.And i have the theory that if Tom Cruise is playing, the film is good, no matter what genre it is, no matter who's directing it etc. So last night out of respect for the actor i paid an extra fee to my cable company and sit to watch the Mummy, without any doubt that it would continue the trend(Tom Cruise stars=good film).IT DIDN'T.First of all the Mummy falls to the category of films that you feel sorry for,not because they were that bad,no,but because without some silly stuff they could have been excellent films.The story is not bad at all,somewhere in Mesopotamia(Middle east)they find the tomb of a buried (and cursed) Egyptian princess, who thousands years ago murdered her father and her little brother to be the queen of Egypt.But they caught her and buried her alive,the idea (for me not to tell you more) was that if she was found, evil would be unleashed.And the script is not bad, but there are some major mistakes which had been made, that destroy all the film.First of all the identity of the film.It could have been a fantastic action thriller movie(even horror)but there are moments in it,they are trying to make it look like a comedy.What on earth kind of role is Jake Johnson playing and what it serves to the movie?Upsolutely nothing.Don't want to spoil it,but you will understand when you watch it.Secondly you have Russell Crowe in the cast and his character is very weak in the film and don't let me tell you about some ridiculous stuff which happens to him during the movie.There are moments that you get the feeling that the film is making fun of itself,can't put it more correctly.Sofia Boutella is captivating as the princess and it's one of the few good things about the movie.Don't want to make you tired,overall it could have been an excellent film,but unfortunately it is just mediocre and maybe below.As for me ,no i didn' t regret paying for it.Cruise has made me happy and has entertained me all these years,so one "missed shot" he can take.And when his new film opens, believe me, i will go to watch it,i still trust him.

Passengers falls in the category of movies,that you expected to see something else,BUT still like very much what you actually watched.The trailer is misleading,in the sense that you go watch the film,and it's totally different from what the trailer suggests the film is. 5000 people(sleeping in hibernation chambers) are in a spaceship heading for a distant colony.The trip will last 120 years but a malfunction in one of the chambers has Jim Preston(Chris Pratt)waking up after 30 years.He soon realizes what's going on and after a year living alone in the spaceship, decides deliberately to wake up Aurora Lane(Jennifer Lawrence),because he can't live alone anymore.Of course he doesn't tell her the truth, but pretends that she woke up because of a similar malfunction in her chamber. Won't tell you anymore, but the film is about the relationship that develops between those two.Pratt and Lawrence have a fine chemistry between them,and in the end they will probably be one of your favorite cinema couples(for me at least).The special effects are fine and the swimming pool scene where there is no gravity,is quite spectacular,but the film isn't about adventure or effects or action.It's a love story that you will like very much and that will make you want to watch the film again and again(I will definitely buy the Blu Ray). Overall Passengers is not an action movie,is not a sci-fi movie(at least in the usual version),it's a movie about a man and a woman who basically are alone in the universe,it's a movie about love.You will like it!!

First of all let me say ,that i regard 24 as a legendary show,in the top-3 TV series ever made for television and the character of Jack Bauer,probably the best ever character in a TV show.Kiefer Sutherland has acted so well,that you actually think that he has a double life,one as an actor and one as a CTU agent,that's how well he has played his role.

So when you put the logo of 24 on a new show with no one of the previous cast present(at least till now),but keep the same form of direction and play(events occur in real time)you make your first and fatal mistake.You can't help but compare, everything you see to the original 24 series. The answer from the producers of the new show to this,was action, action,action.I saw the first two episodes and in the first 2 hours there were so many things that have happened,that it came to the point to be a little funny.It's the only ''weapon'' that they have in making you watch the show,don't let the rhythm fall and make you bored.But it feels from the first minute that they overdoing it.

Also the magic of 24 was that even if it was an all action packed show,the characters were very well ''builded'' and the dialogues between them very well written,giving to 24 many times a sense of a political thriller. Here you get the feeling that Eric Carter,the leading character is traveling in time to be able to do all the things he needs to do.And it's unfair to Corey Hawkins who plays Eric Carter because he acts well, but he has to live with the burden of being compared to his predecessor.

Overall it would have been much better if the producers had made a show without the logo of 24 and with just the real time event format, the only common thing between the 2 shows.I will watch it out of respect for the effort and because of curiosity, but it already feels like a poor relative.

I don't know if anyone has used that word(should claim legal rights if no one has not)but that's the first thing that came to my mind after watching it.It was like watching the last season of "Lost" where you had got to the point, that you prayed that all this mess ,could be explained someway and without treating you like a 5 year old.Well , take a wild guess what happened with this movie.The new trend ,that fortunately a few film makers use, is to throw in your face a thousand scenes ,all types of information and make you fall, in the -now so well known - trap, of trying to explain ,trying to connect the dots.The normal thing that happens is that you will get several different answers from viewers and that is the same here ,on how the 6 different stories connected to each other.I was reading spoilers reviews from people who gave 10 out of 10 and the weakest thing in their reviews , was the point where they tried to tell us what happened(10-15 lines at best, the explanation of a 3-hour film).So Wachowski brothers ,Kevin Nolan(Inception) ,Jeffrey Lieber ,J.J Abrams(Lost) and other members of the same tribe, i have to tell you that the thing has come to the point that we smell it from miles away.The hamburger-scenario that you put all kind of things inside and in the end when you taste it ,you just want to vomit, is by now very very well known,so please no more.Finally i have to give my congratulations that they took my money ,so i have to admit defeat at that part. PS:Ι thought that the last scene would be ,that all the characters from all different eras would unite at the same place at the same time and i bet you ,that there would have been thousands of IMDb users willing to explain that also.Amen.

Unrestrained.That is the first thought that comes to my mind when i think of Interstellar.The film begins showing us that the days on our planet are numbered(only corn grows in the fields and that soon will stop too).So there is a starvation problem ,that by the days, will get bigger and bigger.NASA has already sent 12 scientists on 12 different planets beyond our solar system, to find out if there is a chance that any of these planets can be inhabited.3 of them have sent data ,that humans can survive on their planets.So a spaceship starts the journey to find out , which planet is the best for mankind to survive.Well that's the start but i can't tell you anymore and there are so many yet. The effects,yes, are unbelievable ,BUT they don't "overtake" the film.You won't go out of the theater thinking firstly about the effects. You will be thinking going out of the cinema, about the incredible effort that was made from the characters of the film,you will be thinking about true love ,not only from a man to a woman ,but from a human to any other human ,you will be thinking about life ,about progress and about emotions.The music score is magnificent ,it bonds so well with the movie(the scenes that alternate between the father and the daughter are unbelievable).Congratulations to all the stuff and crew of the movie.What else can i say?

Interstellar is definitely a movie you will never forget.

I don't know where to begin ,to describe Hobbit.Was it a good movie?Well you won't get bored ,that's for sure.Was the story carefully detailed?Upsolutely.Stunning visual effects?10 out of 10.Editing?Direction?Sound?All excellent.But in the end why do i feel that all the storyline that was covered in over 2&1/2 hours ,could have lasted only 40-50 minutes?And that is when the "m" word (yes ,money) comes into the equation.It was the same with Matrix ,when if it have stopped at just the first film ,it would had become legendary ,the same with Lost and so many others.The general idea in the industry is no longer to make a good film that can be a classic.The idea is to make a product that can "last" as long as it can and of course making rich people even richer.So if we are certain that people will fill the theaters to watch Hobbit 2 and 3 ,we will give them part 2 and 3 .If we are certain that movie fans will go to see Hunger games 2 and 3 ,we will satisfy their desire.The same goes with TV shows,they will stop when they won't make a profit.Logical?You bet.Common sense?Yes sir.But forgive me ,that's not cinema.Cinema is that you make a movie ,transforming all your ideas as a director or producer or whatever to a work of art.Not adjusting your work ,cut it to little pieces and see which way will you give you the biggest profit.Cinema isn't about making the biggest profit ,but it's about making a good film.But i guess that isn't cinema anymore.

There are strange things when it comes to cinema.And by that i mean , that after watching thousands of films and especially films of the past decades,you wonder how on earth, some very good films have "passed" so quietly and others not so special, are considered masterpieces or whatever. That's the case with the Burbs.For me in the top-3 comedies of all time, alongside "airplane" and "the party". But what makes such an underrated film like the Burbs so good? CHEMISTRY.For me the casting is unbelievable. Tom Hanks plays Ray Peterson, the logic guy who doesn't want to accept ,that there is a possibility ,the neighbors next door, might be killers. Rick Ducommun plays Art Weingartner, the suspicious guy who is certain that the Klopeks(the neighbors) are serial killers,murdering people and burning bodies in their basement. Bruce Dern is Lt Mark Rumsfield, the Vietnam veteran ,the patriot, who wants some straight answers about the Klopeks.("what's in the basement Klopek?" his line was on T-shirts selling on various websites).But for me his best line was "in SouthEast Asia we call this type of thing bad karma" after a swarm of bees have attacked Hanks and Docummun. The three of them make an unbelievable team, who goes to find answers about what's happened to their neighbor, Walter, who is missing. And the three of them play so well. You just can't stand in there and not associate with what they are doing. No coincidence of course, that behind the cameras, there is Joe Dante, an excellent director who takes the film to an extra level. You will enjoy it and you will want to watch it again and again. EXCELLENT!

The real fascinating thing about cinema,is that no matter how many movies you might have seen,there are always going to be films that you have missed and are great ,to say the least.This is the case with the "Out of Towners". I saw a few years ago the remake with Steve Martin and as a big fan of Steve's i liked the film.Actually i didn't know back then ,that there was an original with Jack Lemmon.Anyway i have bought the DVD and just put it in a box to watch it sometime. I never thought, that this was an absolutely hilarious comedy ,with Jack Lemmon, for me ,being even better than "the odd couple". His character is similar to the one he played alongside Matthau ,but we are talking about an amazing performance here.I'm really surprised that he wasn't even nominated for an Oscar(he was nominated though for a Golden Globe). A couple (Sandy Dennis plays the wife)starts a journey to N.Y ,because Lemmon has planned an interview for his new job.He has a strict schedule that includes dinner at the "4 Seasons" restaurant and spending the night with his wife at his luxury hotel. I really can't describe what's happening after the boarding on the plane.EVERYTHING THAT COULD GO WRONG WENT WRONG. But the real magic of the film is that at no point in the film ,you can accuse the writers that they overdid it with the story.And Lemmon has a big part to do with that, because he plays amazingly. Sandy Dennis also plays her part extremely well and has a fine chemistry with Lemmon. A classic in my collection ,with out a doubt in the top-5 of all the comedies i have ever watched. Watch it and enjoy yourselves.

Inception rated 12 of all films,above for instance of ALL OF HITCHCOCK'S FILMS.The problem and it isn't about rating movies only ,but let's say ,discussing who is the best footballer of all time ,or which is the best musician etc,IS that young people ,who are the majority of those who are familiar to the internet and go and write reviews ,haven't seen great people in their lifetime and can't comprehend what their real value was.It's different to listen from other people about Pele or Maradona than actually watch them ,when they were in their prime.It's different to listen from other people about the Beatles ,than actually understand what was going on, when they performed in the 60's.So OK,i won't be surprised if Justin Bieber on an online survey is higher than the Beatles ,because the teenagers are 70-90% of all internet users.So that leads to unbelievable PERVERSED results,like this above.In 10 years time the DVD version of this "masterpiece" might be selling 20-30 copies all over the world(not thousands).I think it's the only film ,that IMDb shouldn't care about spoilers,because you can't spoil a storyline that doesn't exist. Ridiculous ,shockingly bad,laughable but clever(clever in that they succeeded, in taking money from my pocket, for watching it).When i have watched over maybe 5000 films ,i used to gloat that i can smell from kilometers away the "potatoes"(a phrase that means really really bad films).Not any more.Maybe when i reach 10000 films, i will have the power to save my self from the next Inception.

I have long ago stop relying on critics reviews about films.Most of them are naming their selves critics and these people have the nerve to tell us ,that they are capable of understanding art and "good cinema" and we don't.But enough about them ,no one anyway takes them seriously today. But what really baffled me ,was reading user reviews here in IMDb(which generally i take into account) totally burying the film ,with arguments like "it didn't deliver" ,"with such good cast the movie wasn't that good", "DVD material" and stuff like that. I never understood the phrase "it didn't deliver" because by saying that ,you are admitting that you don't see all films the same way.I don't care if it's a b-movie ,or a 200m $ budget film ,my judgement will be made only of what i see on the screen.There isn't any logic in saying "you know what ,i expected this film to be 4/10 and it actually is 7/10 so it's a masterclass and i expected this film to be 10/10 ,but it proved to be 7/10 so it's rubbish".This is totally crazy. With all that i'm also referring to "the good cast" argument ,like that if you have 6 superstars they must all have the same contribution to the plot ,or their characters should be equally "strong". I also understand that if you are going to see a comedy ,you expect to laugh ,if you are going to see a horror film you expect the opposite and if you are going to see an action film you expect not to get bored.So can anyone explain to me how could you get bored with "Armored",when actually the film in its biggest part is like "24"(all happens in real time)and there is such fierce battle against time and between characters them shelves.It's a very good action film ,you don't want to go to sleep because you want to see who prevails and it's as simple as that. I think when you go to a movie ,you don't have the movie already played in your head and if the movie itself doesn't match "your's" is rubbish .Or if it does then it's great.It's wrong. And to end all that , i have to add that we must stop checking every single detail of a film like detectives.(There was a user in his review that didn't like ,that the contact between the tracks and the track company was one time every hour!!!!!!)

Vantage Point reminds me of matrix part1 when some people left the cinema in the first 20 minutes because they did not understand the plot and said what a load of rubbish. Well if you think that a plot of a film should be something like Tom has a gun, he shoots,people die,the police is chasing him,they catch him, the end,don't bother go to watch the film.I had a couple in front of me at the cinema that was getting nervous because they didn't understand what was going on.I don't know, flashbacks for some people seem to be difficult to understand.

I'm also grateful for watching this movie because once again it reminded me one of the most basic things in cinema.DO NOT TAKE SERIOUSLY critics reviews.When i saw the trailer on the internet i thought it must be good.Then i read some reviews that buried the film(fortunately not all of them) and i started to have second thoughts about watching it.Thank God i decided to go and watch it and once again i realise how much film critics are so out of touch.I wonder how many good movies i have missed relying on film reviews.It's an action film with a very good cast and a excellent direction. There isn't a second you will feel bored.Simple as that.Go watch it!! Stavros Lamia city Greece