Reviews

Joker (2019) tells a story about an unbalanced comedian named Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) being disregarded by society. He goes upon a path of self-discovery, in which his mental condition gets worse as the movie progresses.

On the same note, the movie's plot was inspired by both Martin Scorsese's Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy. That being said, the movie still manages to find its unique tone without completely copying one of the movie's narrative.

Joaquin Phoenix delivers a oscar-worthy performance. His performance was jaw-dropping - no joke! He went through an extraordinary transformation throughout the entire course of the movie. You really feel sympathy for this guy, and you want him to achieve his goal. That's how good Joaquin is.

This movie is, without a doubt, a piece of art. Whether it's the cinematography, the soundtrack or the cast themselves, they all deliver on it flawlessly.

That being said, this movie is absolutely not for the faint of heart. It contains graphic violence, language, and it can be sometimes pretty depressing. It touches upon various subjects that you don't usually see in a standard Hollywood movie nowadays. Such as: anxiety depression and society itself etc. To some, it can be a problem. Therefore, I wouldn't recommend it for those kinds of people.

Verdict: despite its controversy it gained in the past few weeks, Joker proves that there's so much more you can do with a standard comic book movie rather than watching it and forgetting about it afterwards. On the contrary, it approaches the viewers, and it makes them ask questions and think about the movie's existence, and what it has to say. I want to see more movies being made like this. Honestly, I was kind of sick of superhero movies, up until I saw this one. It gave me hope. It shows that there's more you can do with this medium.

It's a story about an astronaut (Brad Pitt) who was sent on a mission to find his father in outer space and.. I dunno, something that has to do with the fate of the Earth or whatever, I didn't pay that much of attention because it was so freaking boring!

No joke, throughout the entire course of the movie I was so bored. I tried to find something good in it, but there wasn't - except for the visual effects. Unfortunately, that is as good as it gets. As for the performances, they all were pretty vanilla, no energy was put into any of them at all. The movie itself was super slow paced, and all the time there countless of close ups each one of the actor's faces. That was so distracting.

Verdict: You can skip this movie if you want. Really, you're not missing anything here. It's just another dull sci-fi movie that doesn't bring anything new or engaging to the table.

It was good, but not as nearly good as its predecessor. It mostly suffered from pacing issues and characterization. Sometimes, there were scenes that were supposed to be scary but they turned out to be really ridiculous and outlandish. Unlike its predecessor, they didn't really know how to utilize the CGI in the movie, and as a result, it looked a bit fake at certain scenes. In addition to that, the movie was a bit too long.

Of course, there were some good things in it as well, such as Pennywise himself. Most of the adult cast gave solid performances. Bill Hader as old Richie Toizer was good. Sometimes there were unsettling scenes, though they weren't that scary.

Verdict: despite its mixed reviews, and some issues here and there. It Chapter 2 did a pretty solid closure to the franchise. It has some interesting ideas to bring the table, though it could have been executed a bit better. Final score: 7 out of 10

First off, the movie itself felt awfully rushed, and I think they could have cut it to two parts or at least three, so they could have made a trilogy out of it, in order for us to be more invested in the story/characters etc. Second, the characters themselves weren't fleshed out enough. I didn't care much about any of them. The first question was really stupid, I mean like c'mon! Nobody ever thought to go backwards or just even by an accident? - Sounds a little bit too convenient to me, wouldn't you agree? Though, Ben Mendelsohn who played the bad guy in the movie was pretty good, and I sorta liked it. As for the world building of the Oasis, it looked pretty cool. That being said, it didn't save the movie. Verdict: the movie itself is just eye candy, nothing really more than that. It's filled with lots of geeky easter eggs that will keep you invested in seeking them and less in the characters/story. It had a cool concept, but it didn't live to its full potential.

Leonardo DiCaprio plays a TV actor named Rick Dalton, who's having a hard time with his career and is trying to freshen it up by going to the cinema industry with his stunt double Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt). Both DiCaprio and Pitt delivered a pretty good damn performance - who would have guessed?

Despite the fact that not a lot is happening throughout the course of the movie, the flick still manages to keep you entertained and intrigued enough to care about whatever's going on in the movie. Good job with the cinematography, it really feels like It was shot back in the late 60s, whether it's the scenery, clothing etc.

Final verdict: Quentin Tarantino is yet to disappoint! Good performances, really funny yet clever. Though, it felt a little bit stretched, but to its credit, I was very pleased with how it turned out.

The Lion King (1994) is a mixed bag for me. While the first half of the feature was well- executed, the second half somewhat felt too rushed/convenient - which kinda made it less satisfying. That being said, the songs are as always energetic and colourful. The characters are likable, Timon & Pumbaa were amusing, but all the credit goes to Scar especially, he stole the show, both as an entertainer and as a complex villain. Final verdict: It is good but it does suffer from some flaws, but for some reason people keep praising it as if it was a masterpiece. In short, I think it's overrated.

Toy Story 4 sure is the funniest out of the bunch, but at the same time it is also the weakest. Don't get me wrong, there were some neat ideas with Bo Peep's character development, and they had the balls to put ventriloquist dolls into a kid's film - especially for Disney! As always, likable characters, great animation and for the most part I had a fun time watching it. That being said, it didn't win me entirely over like the others. I think the majority of us can agree that the third installment ended the franchise flawlessly. I was intrigued to see what the fourth installment had in store, but not entirely. Conclusion: it felt kinda redundant in a way - no offense. Final score: 7/ 10

The Disaster Artist, is directed by James Franco, who also plays the main character Tommy Wiseau - I'll talk about him in a second. The movie is based on a book written by Greg Sestero, which describes the production of the movie The Room - where he was a secondary character called "Mark". Tommy Wiseau is not well known, and somehow he had the resources to write, direct, produce and star in The Room as the main character - Johnny. The Room is considered to be one of the worst films ever made. Wiseau's intention was to make a dark romantic drama film, but at the end of it all, it wasn't really recieved that way. You know the phrase: "there are films that are so bad, that they are good". The Room quickly became a successful cult film, due to its bizarre and unconventional storytelling and bad acting. Now back to The Disaster Artist, I'll start with the good things: the film was really well directed, I was surprised that there were touching moments, good humor, good cast, I thought Dave Franco was good as Greg Sestero, but all the credits goes to James Franco. He nailed it as Tommy Wiseau which is a really hard thing to do. Come to think of it the only issue I had with the film is that it felt a little bit rushed. Beyond that, it's a really good movie especially if you're a fan of The Room. Final score: 9 out of 10