Reviews

Not that it's not a good one...but not one of the better too.

The problem of that it's pretty full of clichés.

A young growing up girl, necessarily interested in boys, inevitably addicted to boys band, forced to lie to her strict mother and finally finishing bonding together again...

This story has been told a thousand times...and even already better adressed by other Pixar's.

Growing of age : Inside Out.

Difficult relationship with mother : Brave.

The characters's design is a bit simple.

So what's left : a cute story with some prety scenes...

...And cut!

I'm a bit "tangled" about this one.

It's not bad. It's not pretty good too.

So the director uses an incoming planet-killer meteor as a metaphor of the actual pandemic crisis and/or the blind fanatiscism to corrupted politicians.

With scientists not believed or turned ridiculous, a corrupted POTUS...lying to the people for the interests of a few "privileged" (just like the former resident of the White House), the power of lobbies, the corruption of fame, etc...

But it seems that the satire doesn't dare to go too far, to be too mean, the caricatures done by Meryl Streep or Jonah Hill excepted....(the satire over Trump, his administration and his fanatic followers (blinded by the lies till they can't deny the truth by seeing it with their own eyes) was really well written but maybe easier to place

One of the problems goes to the cast.

Leo and Jennifer have been better and unless for the last part, when they have to play "humanly", the rest is a bit overacted imo (on my sole opinion).

Actually, I found Meryl Streep (again) and Jonah Hill utterly good Or is it because you have so much "stars", you need to give them all interesting roles which is pretty difficult?

The other problem is that all of it is "USA-centered" for a worldwide problem.

We all know that a problem of this size would certainly require the help of the US "forces" in general but not as the only solution.

At some point, the corrputed potus, by the "steve jobs" metaphor, orders a bombing of the Russia/India/china attempt to destroy the meteor.

Let's imagine that this kind of lobbying could happen, do you really believe that a coalition of Russia/China/India (and probably other countries, even us allies) wouldn't reply or that on ly one other solution out ouf USA would exist?

I agree that this would have stop the plot. But a bombing and no reaction? Really?

And that's the problem of the film. At some point, it tells its storiy in a serious manner and then decide to stop being serious at other points.

And it's that "sitting between two chairs" postition that annoy me a bit. I understand why it had to be done but that doesn't serve the plot.

So, I gave it a 6 but rather a 6.5. Not a bad film but not a memorable one.

OMG, this one was really awful.

Ok to understand that this is not a sequel but a reboot with a female cast...but the Ghsotbusters francise deserves way better than that.

Badly written cliché characters.

Here you have the female "Peter Venkman" who cracks joke *wink* *wink*, There, the female" Egon Spengler" (but craziest for which reason? I don't know. Do the director/writers believe that a serious female scientist woluld be too much?).

Leslie Jones because you have to have a female "Winston Zedmore" who is also afro-american...

The jokes just fall flat and actually, the funniest character in the movie is the one played by Chris Hemsworth.

Then you have the story which is just a gage to some CGI action and/or cracking "funny" lines or situations.

For the example, the CGI scene the end where the gang of 4 confornts a army of ghosts was meant to be badass...It just feels ridiculous. This was no more Ghostbusters but Paracommandghostbusters.

The 1984 movie was meant to be a complete joke. And this reboot was meant to be too but at times, it gets too serious (mostly in the end).

So I'd give it a 4. The CGI are well done anyway and Chris Hemsworth's character is really funny. But can't find something to get more than that.

As a first introduction, I watched this now that it's included in the Diensye+ "standard" subscription. I don't agree with that "premium access" politics but that's another debate...

So, what could we say about Raya....

Disappointing is the first word.

The story falls flat and after 20 minutes, you could tell what'll hapen next, how the story will unfold... As for the story telling, this is more a succession of scenes rather than a story flowing from plot A to resolution Z.

The characters are merely defined thus, you feel no connexion wiith them...

Even the drawings and design are unequal.

At one point, you have beautiful landscape and then you have poorly characters design...

And the dragons...really pitiful.

In their dragon form, they should look majestuous, that's how we usually represent dragons (think of Smaug or Draco from Dragonheart or even Maleficent).

Here, the dragons are just a "My little pony" version. Just as ridiculous.

I gave it a 5 because the ending is a bit better than 3/4 of the film, with real tension and some pretty good scenes.

At first, this had to be shown in theaters but the COVID pandemy showed its nose and so Disney Co decided to put this on their Disney+ streaming service with a premium access.... But let's be honest, in othet times, this would have rather deserved a "direct-to-video" fate.

The teasers sell you better this one that what it finally gives.

This film always seems to balance between the teen sci-fi comedy and the creepy- lurking-horror-behin-the-door style.

...And falls flat in either style.

What is supposed to be funny is not that funny. Like your old uncle telling an unlaughable joke and you feel embarassed.

On the horror side, the dangers to be outside, implied by all the charachters is never really felt.

Instead, you follow.a boy on a kind of field trip. Nice landscape but somewhat boring.

Most of scenes are just cliches :

• Unskilled character becoming the jack of all trades : done
• The lost love that doesn"t love you anymore but in the end, yes indeed : check
• The mentor who ignroes you but finally teaches you how to survive : check
• The handsome guy who is finally a villain : check
• The monsters have to be gooey with lots of legs or tentacles : done

etc....etc...

Actually, I would say this is more an afetrnoon telefilm for 8-12 yeras old.

So, not a bad film but not a good one too.

That said, that doesn't mean that BB is a bad show. Actually, BB is among the great ones.

but 10 out of 10...let's be serious and honest guys.

Looking closely, the first season was ok but the show was still looking which direction to take. The season 2 is half good. The first half was a bit lengthy and the second half got a kick in the ass to throw the series in the right direction Season 3 is really pretty good. A season that seeds all the ingrredients for the last 2 seasons to be near perfection. And it worked. Season 4 and 5 were purely incredible. Splendidly written and told.

Same thing for the acting. Bryan Canston and Aaron Paul are the pillars of the series. Their brilliant acting is what makes you continue to watch the series. They are well sided by RJ Mitte, Bob Odenkirk, Giancarlo Esposito or Jonathan Banks.

On the other edge, Dean Norris only makes his role interesting by the end of season 3. Anna Gunn's play was unequal too. And Betsy Brandt wasn't convincing at all.

But to give credits for these last 3 actors, their characters were not so well written as Bryan Cranston's or Aaron Paul's one. Skyler White changes too often from one way of thinking to another. And only to act in opposition with Walter White evolution. As for Dean Norris who tends to overact at the beginning (and actually, as the last seasons are better written, Dean Norris acting is far far better as his character shows deeper feelings). And for Marie Shrader, the character is properly boring and annoying and a bit illogical (her last phone call to his sister who is indirectly incriminated in Hanl's death or the role she played in Hank's videotape trap...Not really sure that a sister could forgive that even if the sister/brotherwas under threat)

Again, BB is one of the best series of these last 20 years but not as perfect as some seems to rate it. I would actually rate it between 8,5 and 9. As far as series are comparable, I'd say that BB is just a slightly bit better than Sons of Anarchy (where the same remarks can be said. Unequal seasons, great ending seasons, pretty godd actors and some well written characters).

I 'm not really a fan of the "big screen" adaptation of King's novel. What really annoyed me in the first part was how Pennywise was replayed. Only with Georgie did we see that mix of seduction and terror. And though Skarsgaard made a lot of efforts he never really reached Tim Curry's performance.

In It:Chapter two though, Pennywise was better "written" and Skarsgaard was more convincing...sadly, Skarsgaard's performance is mainly cut by too much CGI.

It seems that this Chapter Two wanted to be "more" than the first part. Scarier, Gorier, more violent, more disgusting. Sometimes, it gives credit to the movie...but mostly, it fails to reach the objectives and makes the movie finally boring.

This fact is also due to unnecessary lengths like the "artefact's quests" of each character. Some says that it deepens the character's profile, their story arcs; the problem is that these arcs are unequal. Bill Denbrough's arc's probably the most interesting where the ones of Richie tozier, Ben Hanscom or Mike Hanlon are barely told. And most of all, these quests lead to nothing...Think of it, you could remove all these "artefact's quests" part and the "failed" ritual part using them and you won't lose a thing, the movie could still tell his story... As for the long long long ending. All these lengths to finish by "le'ts imagine him weakier than us and we'll beat him". Ok, The ritual of Chud is a battle of will but the way it is shown is really caricatural...Like the "mocking" of Apollon in Star Trek original series "Who mourns for Adonais" episode

As for the jump scares : use it too much and you lose the effect...After one or two jump scares, when the next one you're there, nearly saying to the director "Ok guy! Come on, do another one quick so we can go through the story".

So what remains : the actor's play... Well, Skarsgaard was much better in this one, Mac Avoy is convincing though sometimes exaggerating his stutt...stut...stuttering!. But not really enjoyed by the other's actor's play..well at least for the adult ones. Isaiah Mustafah and James Ransone are OK; Jessica Chastain is inexistant compared to Sophia Lillis "light" and nearly each apparition of Bill Hader are boring.

So I would be unfait to tell the movie was bad but cut one hour of It:Chapter Two and you have something better

This title doesn't mean that Captain Marvel is bad.

Just that other stories wee better told.

So yes, the CGI is once again really good, Brie Larson is really convincing, The jokes and the good humor of the movie (the marvel signature, compared to the darker atmosphere of the DC movies) are still present...

S what's annoying here? All the story is predictable ! Quite something already told dozens of time! The buddy movie...already seen! the treason of a mentor...already seen! The best friend always ther to help...etc...

So what's left when you're in the theater, right-gessing the scenes 15 minutes before they happen? Luckily, you have pop-corn or candies to occupy the mind in between!

And the worst thing is that, as a European, i'm not fond of the comics genre and never read a thing about Captain Marvel.

So what barely saves the movie : good CGI, some good use of pop songs, a real complicity between Brie Larson and Samuel L Jackson and a superb Stan Lee cameo

Watched this due to my nephews request...

And at first, I didn't find the series really good.

There were good jokes sometimes, interesting plots, but a bit annoyed by the way it was drawn.

So, after watching the 3 seasons for the first time, I thought "Ok, it's good but could be better!"

And then, later, I returned to them, watched them again...and saw what I stupidly missed the first time.

And actually, yes, this serie is really good and on the top five of its genre! You have some really strong themes in it (one of my favorite moment is the Mazzy star song "Look on down from the bridge" played during the shocked Morty stare in Rick Potion #9 (How would you react faced with your own death?).

And yes, the drawings may seem simple but there are lots of "tour de force" like the one in "Rickle in time"

And then, you have all the easter eggs and winks to the pop culture of the last 30 years.

And to top the cake, there is a back story line sparsely given here an there that makes you want to have more of it.

So what is really annoying here : well...the biggest threat is that the show has such a quality that you wonder how the showrunners can continue to deliver more episodes with that level of quality

I know some may think this movie is dull or lame. Actually, I think it does'nt deserve to be treated like that.

All of us has at one point during his/her life shared the same feelings than Kit.

As Tim Mnchin once said before singing "Not Perfect" : "When you think you're the smallest doll in the Babuscka dolls". The movie shows two ways to live that won't work : Live like everybody's expect you to live (and it won't work because you'll be "out of your life") or live as you dreamt it (and it won't work because the world can't accept it). And then, you have the other ways : just live as you are.

However, in some espects, the movie misses a bit its point(s). Sometimes, it seems like the story doens't know what it aims. And maybe was there too much matters : how to deal with your life as an adult, how to deal with your parents/famaily/friends, how to deal with your jobs when you're different...as everybody. Interesting plots occurs...and are forgotten nearly instantly, like, for example, the father who explains why they let the children tell false stories at the fire camp.

As a director, Brie Larson does its best to tell us the story. The acting is quite good. It's a pleasure to see Joan Cusack but Brie Larson,,Mamadou Athie and (as usual) Samuel L. Jackson are "stealing" the show.

To resume, for her directorial debut, Brie Larson has shown lots of talent that promises good things for the future

Being one of those who read the book then saw the TV movie of 1990 (which had some ups and downs too), my opinion is that IT could have been way better than what I saw.

Already in the trailers, what annoyed me the most was how Pennywise looked like. a real picture of killer clown. Far away from the Pennywise made by Tim Curry, where he continually mind played the children, the "new" Pennywise just tries to scare them.

So sad because the Georgie/Pennywise scene was really very good but they didn't keep that pace for too long.

And there are a lot of loopholes! For example, Pennywise killed Georgie nearly instantly, as with Patrick Hockstetter...but when IT faces one of the loser's club member, even isolated, he just let them live. And the kidnapping of Beverly is just completely inaccurate.

Then some characters are really badly written. Just like Henry Bowers. In the TV movie, Henry was a real menace. Here, he only appears when needed to add some kind of tension...And after his fall, no one ever talks of him.

Same conclusion with the kids. They've beaten Pennywise, found the victims and then what? Did they told the grown-ups or tried to give some clues? We won't know...

Even the bond between the kids doesn't seem so strong.

On the good side, Bill Skarsgaard really tries to do his best, Finn Wolfhard shows the same performance as in "Stranger Things" and Sophia Lillis's Beverly Marsh is excellent!

To resume, IT is just a decent film that tries to respect the book but fails loudly on trying to be as scary