Reviews

A cupid documentary where natural beauty intermixes and is interlaced with extravagant creations, "poetic" rendering and 2.5-3D paintings combined with a horrible flow and below-average frozen entertainment.

The art is interesting, the creations and "paintings" so so and even artists would ineluctably have a hard time appreciating it.

Budget is wasted on this.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 2.5
• Production value/impact: 5
• Development: 6.5
• Realism: 5
• Entertainment: 2
• Acting: 4
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 7.5
• VFX: 7
• Music/score/sound: 5.5
• Depth: 5
• Logic: 2.5
• Flow: 1
• Documentary/drama: 5
• Ending: 2.

Again, a movie that is a disgrace to the whole entertainment industry. I sometimes think that the producers, writers and directors of such "sizzling rotten shrimps" do it on purpose. Having viewers on the edge of their seats while banging their heads on their cell phones.

I'm not surprised, that's not the first drivel of such that I've watched, won't be the last, but I'm still struggling to find the reason of such movies.

So far, I've found none other than these are being made on purpose. Maybe some very hidden message or evil hypnosis between frames. Who knows?!

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 2
• Production value/impact: 1
• Development: 4
• Realism: 2.5
• Entertainment: 2
• Acting: 4
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 6
• VFX: 4
• Music/score/sound: 4.5
• Depth: 3
• Logic: 1.5
• Flow: 1.5
• Thriller/drama: 2.5
• Ending: 2.

One of the very "best" and emotionally ground-breaking WWII war drama with "amazing" photography and visual effects, a little slow most of the time and too few airplane fight (possibly low budget and to develop the story more and push it forward).

Without any ratings field, it deserves a neat "8". Especially, the ending, real one, in memoriam of the "heroes" is well-done.

Hope Apple TV makes a big series on WWII eastern front.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 7
• Production value/impact: 7.5
• Development: 8
• Realism: 7.5
• Entertainment: 7.5
• Acting: 7.5
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 8
• VFX: 8.5
• Music/score/sound: 6.5
• Depth: 7
• Logic: 4.5
• Flow: 7
• Biography/drama/history: 7
• Ending: 7.

A nice and different adaptation thanks to the original 1934 novel with 80s exotic attention to details, but not having and lacking the atmosphere and timeline specific to 'Murder in Three Acts', Peter Ustinov is semi-serious Hercule Poirot in this one, playing a theatrical ego of the famous detective.

Still above-average, but more or less satisfying.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 6.5
• Production value/impact: 6.5
• Development: 7
• Realism: 5.5
• Entertainment: 6
• Acting: 6.5
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 7
• VFX: 7
• Music/score/sound: 5
• Depth: 6
• Logic: 4
• Flow: 6
• Mystery/crime/thriller/drama: 6
• Ending: 6.

A good adaptation all thanks to the original book with 80s attention to details, but not having and lacking the atmosphere and 50s timeline specific to 'Dead Man's Folly', Peter Ustinov is less Hercule Poirot in this one, playing an imaginary adaptation of the famous detective. Worth noting were the play and acting of the drunken man, George's mother and a young and talented Nicollette Sheridan.

Above-average, but still satisfying.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 7
• Production value/impact: 6.5
• Development: 7
• Realism: 6.5
• Entertainment: 6
• Acting: 6.5
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 7
• VFX: 7
• Music/score/sound: 4
• Depth: 6
• Logic: 4.5
• Flow: 6
• Mystery/crime/thriller/drama: 6
• Ending: 5.5.

One of the very best of Peter Ustinov's Hercule Poirot, it is very well made with Faye Dunaway who truly shines in a dual role. It stays more than 90 percent true to the novel, has more than acceptable flow and vibe and the weird presence of David Suchet as Inspector Japp is forgiven and forgotten after 40 years.

One talked and wrote too much, the other did too much with little carefulness. The result, both were destroyed.

I enjoyed 'Thirteen at Dinner' more than I expected.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 7
• Production value/impact: 7
• Development: 8
• Realism: 7.5
• Entertainment: 7.5
• Acting: 7.5
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 7.5
• VFX: 7
• Music/score/sound: 6
• Depth: 7
• Logic: 7
• Flow: 7
• Mystery/crime/thriller/drama: 7
• Ending: 7.

A well-made Canadian film, better watched with English subtitles, with convincing acting and above-average everything else. It is grim, it is sad and it is more or less "harrowingly" violent with lots of depressing clouds over.

Would have been better if it were made as a 4-5 parts mini-series with more developments, more background and more flashbacks-present time; then, it would have gathered another 1.5-2 ratings points.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 6
• Production value/impact: 5
• Development: 7
• Realism: 7
• Entertainment: 4.5
• Acting: 7
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 7
• VFX: 7.5
• Music/score/sound: 6.5
• Depth: 5
• Logic: 4
• Flow: 5
• Crime/drama: 6
• Ending: 6.

A failed production on all levels, missing the marks over the sky's million stars, not having the slightest touch of entertainment, lacking basic logic, action, drama and thrill. The few famous names that are in it must have undergone full hypnosis to even be there for 30 seconds.

One of the few movies that performs under the 30 percent mark.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 3
• Production value/impact: 1
• Development: 4
• Realism: 2
• Entertainment: 2
• Acting: 2
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 4
• VFX: 3.5
• Music/score/sound: 4.5
• Depth: 3
• Logic: 2
• Flow: 2.5
• Action/thriller/drama: 2
• Ending: 2.5.

A semi thrilling movie with unrealistic drama, many artificial "family" matters, not so much crime in it, not having a gripping flow and entertainment cause not having decisive leads and as much as Tom Berenger and Debra Winger endeavored and tried, they couldn't save the film all by themselves, though her relationship with Rachel was endearing and one of the forte of 'Betrayed'.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 5.5
• Production value/impact: 6
• Development: 6.5
• Realism: 6
• Entertainment: 6
• Acting: 6.5
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 7
• VFX: 6.5
• Music/score/sound: 6
• Depth: 5.5
• Logic: 2.5
• Flow: 6
• Crime/thriller/drama: 5.5
• Ending: 6.

Frankly, besides the trio "very" interesting "love" triangle romance and hard-sensation-romantic flick that sometimes made you wonder what tennis has to do with and in it; could have been any other sport, golf, skating, table tennis, gymnastic and even ballet! (ballet would have been the best and depicted much more naturally and flawlessly); Nevertheless, that's an eye-candy, sweetness for the senses movie that keeps you more or less interested and invested, had it not been almost ruined with those constant "50 horrible years" time jumps and back and forth.

Zendaya is the queen of the movie and deserves awards for her acting, believable tennis (playing) as well as making the fashion industry beauties drool and sweat with awe and jealousy.

For me, 'Challengers' was believable, entertaining and as a tennis lover sort of fantastically amazing (that's me with lots of pepper and condiments in praising it), though, toward the end and especially that abrupt ending, was a little head banging and unsatisfying both relating to its sport tale as well as its foggy romantic (hubby-wife-GF) conclusion.

Zendaya, I now believe in you more as an actress who sometimes looks like a very lean and distant cousin of Sofia Loren; you can act, you can show your emotions and maybe time for you to deservingly grow up and play more R productions for all your fans' pleasure.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 6.5
• Production value/impact: 7
• Development: 8
• Realism: 7.5
• Entertainment: 7
• Acting: 7
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 8
• VFX: 8
• Music/score/sound: 6
• Depth: 6
• Logic: 5.5
• Flow: 7
• Drama/romance/sport: 6.5
• Ending: 4.

A too slow-burn, snail-pace "crime drama mystery" where the lead actor is not suitable for it, too soft, too "shy", too indecisive in his overall actions and acting as if guilt-ridden.

Besides the last 15-20 minutes where all is revealed with gripping flow and the snail turning to a rabbit, the rest of the film is just a canned buildup for that.

Looking forward to "The Dry 2" !

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 5.5
• Production value/impact: 6
• Development: 7
• Realism: 6
• Entertainment: 2.5
• Acting: 6.5
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 7
• VFX: 7
• Music/score/sound: 6
• Depth: 5
• Logic: 3
• Flow: 2.5
• Crime/drama/mystery: 3.5
• Ending: 3.5.

An original horror "talk show" movie with better flow and entertainment than pure horror. Labeling it as a horror is misleading, it has some great 70s visual effects, semi-terrific acting by the whole cast, too few gut-wrenching real horror and all it basically does is play with your mind. All that would have been quite nice, pushing it towards a 6+1 ratings, had it had a more shocking and developed ending. Not just showing the "unbelievable" and then finishing.

What I would like in horror movies is special, long and detailed attention to horrific happenings and in that concept, the present movie is just "talk show-esque" semi-plus-entertaining.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 6.5
• Production value/impact: 6.5
• Development: 7.5
• Realism: 7
• Entertainment: 7
• Acting: 7
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 7.5
• VFX: 7.5
• Music/score/sound: 6.5
• Depth: 4.5
• Logic: 1.5
• Flow: 7
• Horror/drama: 5.5
• Ending: 3.5.

A below-average production where King Kong, Godzilla and Mothra just don't dance in it. Everything is just silly average and entertainingly bad with the humans doing nothing besides cashing paychecks.

My review is just too short, I know, thank you Entertainment Entity! The next similar movie in a potential 2027 (+0.5) screentime would have King Kong ride a newly tamed Godzilla with the humans in the background watching in fear and awe and clapping hard.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 2
• Production value/impact: 4.5
• Development: 5.5
• Realism: 4.5
• Entertainment: 4
• Acting: 4.5
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 5
• VFX: 9
• Music/score/sound: 5.5
• Depth: 3.5
• Logic: 1
• Flow: 4.5
• Action/adventure/fantasy/drama: 4.5
• Ending: 4.

When you start watching a series from a choice of 2-3 ones, not being sure which one is the one to swallow and 5 episodes in you totally forget about the other "candidates", that speaks lengths in favor of 'For All Mankind'.

Started with the first season and was already fully immersed into the drama, the superb sci-fi achievements and ground-breaking spatial plots.

I was never a special fan of space sci-fi from 'Star Trek' main and spinoffs to 'The Mandalorian', but in 'For All Mankind' I found a whole new interest in scientific science-fiction, Moon and Mars colonization deepened with believable drama around the ones involved in the show, some may call it soapish, but for me it complemented the space and scientific features of the series oh so well, passing important messages in-between.

Just finished the fourth season and while my eyes are wet with tiny tears droplets, I just wish that I already had the fifth season's episodes in my fist.

Again, a stellar show by Apple Original and a red gem that is not hidden anymore. Ultra highly recommended. It's the space sci-fi version of 'The Killing' and 'The Americans' combined.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 8
• Production value/impact: 9
• Development: 9.5
• Realism: 8.5
• Entertainment: 9
• Acting: 9
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 8.5
• VFX: 9
• Music/score/sound: 7.5
• Depth: 8.5
• Logic: 6.5
• Flow: 8.5
• Sci-fi/drama: 8
• Ending: 7.5.

Semi-interesting in its core as an improbable screenplay and plots, the first half is better and weaker at the same time, too much build-up and development, though nevertheless better than the second half.

The problem is it couldn't be taken seriously, there's no graphic visuals kills and gore, though the cocoons and infestation are well-made.

The ending very improbable and unsatisfying and just there for a "gateau" sequel.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 5
• Production value/impact: 6
• Development: 7
• Realism: 6.5
• Entertainment: 5.5
• Acting: 7
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 7
• VFX: 7.5
• Music/score/sound: 5.5
• Depth: 3.5
• Logic: 1.5
• Flow: 6
• Horror/drama: 6
• Ending: 2.

Some productions are true mumbo jumbo, this one is so entertainingly bad that it is not even mumbo jumbo lies, it's just sets of pictures with not-believable, discredited storyline plots that flow and pass before your eyes.

It's like watching an action adventure "comedy" series while somebody is tickling you for 40 minutes per episode. It is hilariously bad, but it is nevertheless hilariously zero-IQ entertaining.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 4.5
• Production value/impact: 5.5
• Development: 6.5
• Realism: 4.5
• Entertainment: 3
• Acting: 5.5
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 7.5
• VFX: 7.5
• Music/score/sound: 6
• Depth: 4
• Logic: 1
• Flow: 4
• Action/adventure/comedy: 5.5
• Ending: 3.5.

A musical mumbo jumbo that is not even half-comedy, only super teenagers will like this mess of a production. Everybody tried hard to be believable, cute, funny, nice, ugly and more or less to deliver, but they tried too hard. All of them.

It's hard to watch it at normal speed, some will even skip the musical parts, some will discard the un-funny parts, but a thing that all may agree is that the 2004 OG was better, smoother, stronger.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 4.5
• Production value/impact: 5.5
• Development: 6.5
• Realism: 6.5
• Entertainment: 2.5
• Acting: 5.5
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 7.5
• VFX: 7.5
• Music/score/sound: 5.5
• Depth: 3
• Logic: 2
• Flow: 4
• Comedy/musical: 4
• Ending: 3.5.

A not so bright movie and production by the big director, with just great weird acting by the main strange actress. It is not a horror per se, has some faulty logic throughout, is more of a sad drama than anything else, not even gripping and throat-clenching in a horrorful way.

I expected more of it and if it had a stronger ending, it would have been more satisfying, really.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 5
• Production value/impact: 5.5
• Development: 7
• Realism: 7
• Entertainment: 2
• Acting: 7.5
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 6.5
• VFX: 6
• Music/score/sound: 6.5
• Depth: 4.5
• Logic: 3.5
• Flow: 5
• Horror/thriller/drama: 5.5
• Ending: 4.

A marvelous, touching, emotional and funny movie with great acting by the writer, director and talented actress who embodied her character believably, touchingly and smoothly.

It has important messages, never gets you bored, never let you down and surely is not for everybody.

I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. Recommended to women who struggle emotionally in life.

• Screenplay/storyline/plots: 6.5
• Production value/impact: 6.5
• Development: 7.5
• Realism: 6.5
• Entertainment: 7
• Acting: 7.5
• Filming/photography/cinematography: 7
• VFX: 7
• Music/score/sound: 6.5
• Depth: 6.5
• Logic: 4
• Flow: 7
• Comedy: 7
• Ending: 6.