Rating: 6.0
In this fully animated, all-new take on the Smurfs, a mysterious map sets Smurfette and her best friends Brainy, Clumsy and Hefty on an exciting and thrilling race through the Forbidden Forest filled with magical creatures to find a mysterious lost village before the evil wizard Gargamel does. Embarking on a roller-coaster journey full of action and danger, the Smurfs are on a course that leads to the discovery of the biggest secret in Smurf history! Written by Sony Pictures Entertainment

3 Replies to “(0)”

  1. The Smurfs The Lost Village is the latest offering from Sony Picture Animation, the team that brought you Goosebumps and Cloudy with a chance of meatballs. As a longtime smurf fan, it is without question that I would go to see this film. I was delighted with this latest film, its animation is beautiful, the look of the smurfs is faithfully recreated from the well loved cartoons of Peyo. The depiction of the smurf village is stunning and the detail of the characters is lovely, you can see every texture and this really adds to the movie. The new characters are a nice addition, finally Smurfette isn't the only girl in the village. The character voices are handled well and are in keeping with the feel of the film. I would recommend it wholeheartedly to everyone, children and adults alike. I hope to see more films and lots more merchandise. I would love to see more stories that include Johan & Peewit and Homnibus etc..well done Sony Pictures Animation on a glorious film

  2. If you have a son and you care about them, avoid this movie. The amount of sexism and gender politics in this movie is very disappointing. I never thought I would be so shocked in the inappropriateness in a kids movie.

    It may be time for people to turn their backs on Hollywood if this is what we are going to get. Sexism (especially this extreme) should not be tolerated.

    If you want to marginalise your son or want to instill sexist attitudes in your daughter, this is a must see movie.

  3. I went to see this film with my family today. It was beautifully made and had plenty of laughs involving Gargamel and his minions. I also liked the way that the plot from the Smurfs 2 sort of carried on a little, but only having ONE human in this film made it much better. No New York or Paris. Firmly in the Smurfs world where they all belong. My only gripe is that some of the pop songs were a bit annoying. I would recommend anyone to go and see this film. Forget about Smurfs 1 and 2 and even Hannah Barbara! This is TRUE Peyo!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

4 Replies to “(0)”

  1. My wife and I were pretty entertained with this movie. It was quite full of humor and fun all around. Watching the new Power Rangers suits were also pretty cool, especially if we compared against the suits from the original TV series back in the 1990s. Of course the special effects in this movie was pretty amazing. The CGI was done pretty nicely and neat. Loved the action sequence in the last part of the movie during the fight between the Rangers and Goldar. Sound effects were good, and maybe would be more amazing if you see in Dolby Atmos theaters. After watching it for full 2 hours, the movie duration seemed to be just nice. It was not too rushed in the process of characters introduction and the time spent for the training to become the Power Rangers felt sufficient. It did not take too long or too short, and still have enough time for the big finale. Overall, the pace of the movie felt just perfect. The movie had brief moments of jokes that felt more appropriate for teenagers and not suitable for children. So I feel that the movie seemed to be aimed more for teenagers rather than for children, although the original series were actually shown in kids TV. This is also the reason why a lot of adults also watched this movie to reminiscent the good fun time when they watched the series (my wife was a great example of this audience). In addition, the movie also had some cheesy moments and felt very light. There was no over-complication of plots, just a simple good old fashion pop corn movie to be enjoyed without over thinking. For this kind of movie, people should not expect a deep conversation and various twists. This is a movie that I feel would provide the fans of the original series satisfaction. Almost all the characters were there in the movie, with of course other characters that might join the sequels. This movie also had some brief interesting scene during the mid end- credit part. But there was nothing at the very end. So there is no need to wait till the very last scene if you are in a rush to the wash room. So if you are looking for a fun light team of superheroes movie based on the popular 1990s TV series, then you would not be disappointed and you would be entertained by this. But if you are looking for a heavier super hero movies from popular comic books like Marvel comics or DC comics kind, then this might not be your thing. Especially if you are expecting a heavy drama full of logics kind of movie. The choice is yours.

  2. I was one of the first people to be asked to watch power rangers in December of 2016. I went into the theater not expecting much from this movie but I was wrong, it was a good movie. Not great or OK it was simply good. It had great CGI and the acting was good for a young cast. I loved the first 2 acts of the movie they were really strong and had good story telling. But act 3 in my opinion seemed silly and sort of rushed. The first 2 acts were great because of 2 things. Great characters and a steady pace. The character development was great and I liked how the writers really stuck to making them interesting so that the audience would care about them, especially RJ Cylers character. Nothing was rushed and was going at a great pace and then all of a sudden act 3 came into play and it turned into a mediocre action film and wasn't very exciting and I believe that is due to the villain. I was not a fan. Her motives are too over used and simply a lame character. The actress was fine but the character it'self wasn't anything special and made the action scenes dull. Other than that the kids will love it and if you are a power ranger fan I think you will be pleased. It's fun for the whole family.

  3. Loved it! Great fun for family and kids. Contains quite a few references to the TV shows and comics. Really well executed for what it wants to be. RJ Cyler (Billy, the Blue Ranger) gives a great performance that steals the show for me. However its a movie that most of critics wont enjoy, because its not made for their demographic, unlike many others in the same category. Its a movie made for fans of the show and also to a younger audience, with details that maybe wont reach the older audience or non-fans.

    Overall, it is really worth checking it out for what it is!

  4. Don't go in expecting top notch acting, effects or writing. This movie was never meant to be an example of film making excellence. It's a great teen movie. It combines elements of the drama kids go through nowadays and of course heroism and supernatural fiction. It's like Breakfast Club, Chronicles, Pacific Rim and even a bit of Toy Story 3 all combined. I laughed, teared up, threw my hands in the air, and even though I acknowledge it has its issues I enjoyed the heck out of it. The kids have to work on their acting, tho. The comedy was cheesy here and there but it's Power Rangers so what you expect? Also they touch very relevant issues, like mental illness, peer pressure, bullying, etc. And the importance of friendship and unity. It gets pretty emotional here and there. And it doesn't really piggyback that much on the nostalgia element, but when it does it hits you square in the Yay! bone. Go watch it. It's silly entertainment and cheesy fun at its best. Like the first Transformers. I even like it more than the first Transformers actually.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

4 Replies to “(0)”

  1. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear: where should I start folks. I had low expectations already because I hated each and every single trailer so far, but boy did Disney make a blunder here. I'm sure the film will still make a billion dollars – hey: if Transformers 11 can do it, why not Belle? – but this film kills every subtle beautiful little thing that had made the original special, and it does so already in the very early stages. It's like the dinosaur stampede scene in Jackson's King Kong: only with even worse CGI (and, well, kitchen devices instead of dinos).

    The worst sin, though, is that everything (and I mean really EVERYTHING) looks fake. What's the point of making a live-action version of a beloved cartoon if you make every prop look like a prop? I know it's a fairy tale for kids, but even Belle's village looks like it had only recently been put there by a subpar production designer trying to copy the images from the cartoon. There is not a hint of authenticity here. Unlike in Jungle Book, where we got great looking CGI, this really is the by-the-numbers version and corporate filmmaking at its worst. Of course it's not really a "bad" film; those 200 million blockbusters rarely are (this isn't 'The Room' after all), but it's so infuriatingly generic and dull – and it didn't have to be. In the hands of a great director the potential for this film would have been huge.

    Oh and one more thing: bad CGI wolves (who actually look even worse than the ones in Twilight) is one thing, and the kids probably won't care. But making one of the two lead characters – Beast – look equally bad is simply unforgivably stupid. No wonder Emma Watson seems to phone it in: she apparently had to act against an guy with a green-screen in the place where his face should have been.

  2. Come on Disney: what were you thinking?! You've got one of the most beloved films in your entire catalogue; the first animated film ever that was nominated for a best picture Oscar – and you give the new version of that film to the director of 'Twilight' parts 3 and 4? Has anyone of your executives even seen Bill Condon's 'Twilight' films or did you just look at all the money they made during their opening weekend? Just so you know: those films are atrocious. There are porn films who look better and have better plots (seriously).

    Now the good news is, 'Beauty and the Beast' is nowhere near as bad as the Twilight films, but it DOES bear a striking visual resemblance to those teen shlock movies. And that's what I don't get: if you have the chance to make a film that will make 1.5 billion dollars (given the reviews are good) – wouldn't you want to make sure to make the best looking film possible? But over large stretches this film has the mediocre looking CGI of a cheap Lionsgate fantasy film and the nuanced color-grading of a bowl of M&Ms.

    Emma Watson isn't half bad as Belle, but her acting feels forced in a way you can practically read the directions she gets from her director on her face ("now act SURPRISED" – "now show us a sense of WONDER" – "now look SAD"). Great actors like Kevin Kline are simply wasted because they have nothing to do besides just being there and have a certain look. The one actor who makes something of his role is, naturally, the one who plays the baddie; Luke Evans at least looks like he's having fun.

    But all that is still not the worst. What sank the film for me was Beast. It's mind-boggling to me how a gigantic company like Disney lets a film open if the most important CGI effects obviously don't look convincing yet. Beast's face never looks real and that's just not acceptable. It's been almost 10 years since we got a completely convincing CGI "beast" face with Peter Jackson's King Kong, complete with alive looking eyes and natural facial expressions. Since then we got films like 'Dawn of the Planet of the Apes' and 'Jungle Book' that looked even better and more realistic. So what happened? What did they spend the 200 million budget on?

    I'm sorry to say it, but this film represents a huge missed opportunity for Disney.

  3. Sure, I'm a huge film snob who (on the surface) only likes artsy-fartsy foreign films from before the 60's, but that hasn't stopped me from loving Disney's Beauty & The Beast; in fact, it's probably my favorite American animated film and is easily Disney's finest work. It's beautiful, it's breathtaking, it's warm, it's hilarious, it's captivating, and, in Disney fashion, it's magical. When I learned that Disney would be remaking their classic films, B&TB was undeniably the best wrapped package. How could they go wrong?

    Oh man, they went wrong.

    First thing's first: this film is so flat. The directing was dull and uninteresting throughout the entire film and it honestly felt like one of the Twilight sequels…and then I looked it up and found out that, yes, director Bill Condon was the man behind Breaking Dawn parts 1 & 2. Every shot looks bored and uninterested, which contrasts heavily with the original animated film that was constantly popping with vibrancy. The script too is boring because it's almost a complete remake of the original, though I guess most people won't mind that.

    Next: the CGI is horrid. Although I didn't care for The Jungle Book from last year, I could at least admit that the CGI was breathtaking. The same cant be said for this film. Characters like Lumière, Cogsworth, Mrs Potts, and most of the cursed appliances have very strange, lifeless faces that are pretty off putting to be looking at for such a long time. All of the sets too look artificial and fake, especially the town towards the beginning. However, the biggest offender is easily and infuriatingly the character that mattered most: The Beast. The CGI on the Beast's face is so distracting that it completely takes you out of the film. His eyes are completely devoid of soul, and his mouth is a gaping video game black hole of fiction. Klaus Kinski looked much better in the Faerie Tale Theatre episode of Beauty & The Beast, and that was a 1984 TV show episode. But do you know why it looked better? Because it was an actual face with actual eyes, not some video game computerized synthetic monstrosity. When will studios learn that practical effects will always top CGI?

    Finally: wasted casting. Emma Watson is beautiful, but she's no Belle. She is completely devoid of the warmth and humanity that made the animated Belle so beloved. Instead, she is cold and heartless throughout most of the film. Kevin Kline is 100% wasted and does nothing except look old. Ian McKellan, Ewan McGregor, Emma Thompson, and even Dan Stevens as the Beast are very expendable and could've been played by anyone else. The only good characters are Gaston and LeFou, mostly because they are fun and played by actors who breathe new life into their original shapes. If anything, this film should've been about Gaston and LeFou, but that would never happen because that would mean Disney couldn't cater to blind nostalgic 90's kids.

    Overall, this film is a complete bore. It could've been better if even the special effects were good, but the CGI in particular is horrendous. I'm all for Disney remaking their nostalgia- catering 90's films, but they need to be interesting. This film, sadly, is not. Even the Christmas sequel is better than this film because it's at least something.

  4. Some good production design aside, this is a boring rendition of the classic fairy tale. Do yourself a favor and watch Jean Cocteau's 1946 French version.

    This is really a comment that I would normally post on the message boards, but somebody got rid of them 🙁

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

4 Replies to “(0)”

  1. After the crushing disappointment that was Godzilla, I have to say that Kong: Skull Island is a tremendous surprise. Not only a hugely entertaining monster movie, but a well-directed, well-written and well-acted film full of ideas from start to finish. Its action set- pieces are utterly spectacular, the CGI is fantastic, and there's even a story that's genuinely interesting throughout, something that I definitely didn't expect going in.

    But by far the greatest achievement of this film is the presence of Kong himself. As plain as most of the film was, the biggest issue with Godzilla was that there just wasn't enough Godzilla. Fortunately, Skull Island rectifies that exact problem, and makes Kong as big a character in the film as any of the humans, appearing on screen at regular intervals, and actually playing a genuine role in the story.

    And that story is probably the thing that surprised me most of all. Again, Godzilla was a slow, empty and formulaic monster movie that really bored me. Kong: Skull Island, on the other hand, is a fast- paced and absolutely jam-packed action movie that actually gets better and better as it moves along.

    Of course, there's a part of me that's a little sad that we're not getting the classic story of King Kong that made both the 1933 and 2005 films so beautiful. However, Skull Island does do a fantastic job at bringing the character to a different time period and making a new, riveting story.

    Above all, the film's ingenious parallels with the Vietnam War make for fascinating viewing. Bringing a different dynamic to the relationship between the humans and Kong, the way that Skull Island looks at the story through the lens of the anti-Vietnam War sentiment of the 1970s adds an impressive layer of depth to the story, keeping Kong an interesting and emotionally resonant character despite removing his love with Ann Darrow.

    What's more is that some of the film's characters have some very layered and interesting backstories. In particular, Samuel L. Jackson's character, a stubborn, war-mongering colonel taken from the Vietnam War he loved fighting in, is hugely interesting to watch. At times mimicking the role of film director Carl Denham from the original, at others adding a far darker and more serious edge to the story of the invasion of Skull Island, he's absolutely fascinating to follow from start to finish.

    There are a whole host of other characters that bring some impressive depth to the story, depth that I certainly didn't expect after the two-dimensional heroes of Godzilla, and make the film's large ensemble cast work amazingly well.

    One more positive from the film is undoubtedly the action. As I said, this is a very exciting monster movie that's full of action throughout. Above all, the opening and closing action sequences really stand out. Both because of the amazing visual parallels drawn with Vietnam War films like Apocalypse Now, Platoon and Full Metal Jacket, but also thanks to the stunning CGI that allows Kong to tower over the screen in comparison to the humans, but also puts a formidable and genuinely terrifying enemy on a very level playing field.

    As far as blockbusters go, Skull Island is top-quality, but it still isn't entirely perfect. For one, whilst it's brimmed with ideas and interesting characters throughout, that does lead the film to becoming a little crowded at times. The lack of a main character amidst the huge ensemble cast means it's definitely not as streamlined as I would have liked.

    Also, the parallels with Vietnam, whilst unique and great to see in a movie like this, are a little overbearing at times. Particularly in the first act, there comes a point where the film really hits you over the head with how similar it is to Apocalypse Now, and although that does die down to a better level later on, it's a little frustrating at times.

    Simply put, Skull Island is an impressively brainy and innovative blockbuster, but it goes a little too far with everything it does. That's far better than a completely empty film like Godzilla, but with an enormous main cast and a story that's so jam-packed, I felt like things could have been carried out a little smoother than the finished product.

    Still, I had a really good time with Kong: Skull Island. It's a massively entertaining monster movie that places its title character right in the thick of the action, surrounded by more interesting human characters, excellent visuals, stunning action sequences, and a genuinely engrossing and intelligent original story.

  2. Some people go to the movies to be wowed by the superb acting, heart wrenching and well written story, and overall solid production… THIS has good effects? The acting in this film isn't bad, but it definitely won't win any awards for it.

    The story has characters Bill Randa (John Goodman) and Houston Brooks (Corey Hawkins) piggybacking on an expedition to an uncharted island to test their "hollow earth" theory. Tom Hiddleston plays a tracker, Brie Larson plays a photographer, and John C. Reilly plays a surprisingly funny WW2 vet marooned on Skull Island.

    The film takes place in 1973 and loves to remind you with CCR and old technology as if it was a hundred years ago. Kong: Skull Island pays homage to Apocalypse Now quite frequently even though it seems a bit excessive at times.

    Kong looked good, almost all the creatures looked cool and all the fights between them looked really good, especially in IMAX 3D. Some of the green screen effects, like backgrounds behind characters, were distractingly bad. Ultimately, you get some great stuff out of all the effects if you're not looking too closely.

    The characters are more hollow than the earth (according to the film's characters themselves), the story is mediocre, but the effects reign king in this film adaptation.

    My suggestion: See it! it's a blockbuster meant to fill seats, not win awards. Take it for what it is.

    Seen at an advanced IMAX 3D screening in Minneapolis.

  3. No Spoilers here.

    Kong: Skull Island is the perfect monster movie. It's an epic display of what a popcorn movie should be. Great visuals, soundtrack, and a pleasant plot that is not bogged down by the melodrama that killed the Godzilla flick from 2014. It's a giant monster movie. Have fun.

  4. I had a free AMC preview of the movie on March 1st, 2017. My husband is not a fan of some of the actors in this film BUT he loves KONG! So, during the movie I felt he was enjoying it. I'm not going to give away anything because I hate when people do that; all I will say is the skull crawlers gave me a nightmare and the entire movie from start to finish was really really good.

    The plot was good, the acting was outstanding. I really felt I was in the 70's. The music in the movie was dead on perfect.

    Hope you go out and support this movie because I am sick of remakes and this is NOT one of them, This movie stands alone by itself! A MUST SEE…

    Stay to the very end…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

4 Replies to “(0)”

  1. Life tells the story of a crew of astronauts as they discover a new life form on Mars. As the crew begins to examine the new life form, it begins to take each crew member out, one by one. As the life form makes its way through the group, the space team begins to turn on themselves in hopes of survival. The film, directed by Daniel Espinosa, is a heart pounding sci-fi film much in the vein of Ridley Scott's Alien. While many sci-fi films since Alien have been rightly compared to it, Life is a sci-fi film that knows its inspirations and directly alters the perception of its viewers. When you think the film will take a right, it takes a hard, very surprising and very swift left. This keeps you on your toes and never lets you relax at all which is the best compliment I could give this film.

    Starring an all star cast of Jake Gyllenhaal, Ryan Reynolds, and Rebecca Ferguson, the film's cast adds to the surprising nature of the story. The moments that end up being the biggest in the film come from the surprising lengths these characters will go in order to survive. This makes for a very layered and very interesting take on something that could have easily been a CGI spectacle with no heart and very little brain. The decisions that these characters make are real decisions. The weight of someone's choice echoes and reverberates throughout the entire film. Espinosa has done a very good job at keeping his characters grounded in reality, much like the film. While this may turn some viewers off, especially those who are expecting something like Gravity or Interstellar, it really made the film something else for me. It was a sci-fi film that was completely unafraid of being real and ho-hum at times.

    Overall, Life is an excellent example of going against the typical sci-fi genre tropes and features some truly brilliant performances from the main cast. While many may be expecting something like the sci-fi films that Hollywood has been churning out over the past couple years, this film is far from the normative sci-fi film. This film feels more in line with films like Ridley Scott's Alien and Tarkovsky's Solaris which makes this rise above the rest of the films it will be compared to. Along with being Espinosa's best work, it also features a very human performance from Ryan Reynolds that was just as surprising as the film itself.

  2. Great start and I was riveted for the first 20 or so minutes…then the plot fell over from a lack of logic and slid further and further away from reality.

    If the whole story was crap from the start, just from the filming and acting, I might have given this a 3 or even 5…but for something so promising to turn bad from just before the half way mark was extremely disappointing and frustrating.

    As said…the beginning was nice and though there were some misplaced work ethics and contradictions, it was acceptable and we can put them down to human character flaws…

    Some examples of what killed it for me…spoiler ahead…

    The commander decided to not come back in to the station and instead leave the creature outside…why didn't she just push herself away…she should know that in space…a light push will keep her going forever…instead, she allowed the creature a chance to cling back onto the space station…heroic maybe, but not smart (a non-scientific-minded commander of a space station?).

    Miranda and David found out that they can track the creature's movement. At that same time, Sho is still hiding in the sleep pod and to them, he is still missing and without comms…wouldn't the immediate normal human (team)reaction is to find and bring back the third last surviving member of the group? They trapped the creature in one area. Shouldn't, wouldn't they try to 'kill' it when it is trapped? No…doing something would be more taxing than just chatting with each other.

    The part where Sho opened the door to the 'rescue' shuttle and air started rushing out…all three of them looked like they were hanging on for dear life not to be 'sucked' away…yet once they decide that Sho is dead and lost, the two of them can scramble away like normal zero gravity…huh?? Were they just acting out the struggle with rushing air? In the same scene…many people have died and their anger and repulsion for the creature is well known…yet, when the creature crawled from Sho to Miranda, she kept on holding him to allow it to crawl onto her…try that with a rat or a spider and we all know that it is not normal for a person repulsed by something to keep holding on like that… Instead, Sho must act the hero to rip the creature back onto himself to save her…if he had wanted to save her, he should have let go when he realised he couldn't shake the creature…

    The creature was floating around outside the space station for quite a long time…but they decide at the end that it needed oxygen to survive (like humans? can we float around outside a space station for more than 2 minutes- even assuming we can handle the decompression like the creature can???) and in fact would hug an oxygen producer is laughable…please…before filming start…decide if the creature needs oxygen!!! (or love oxygen in fact)

    David put the escape pod into manual mode so that he can fly himself and the creature out to deep space…and while I understand the creature is very smart and learns quickly…but so quickly that it can fly the escape pod back for a re-entry? Wow…a half degree off would either skip the pod back out to space or dive too steeply and incinerate the pod…but it did the improbable…perfect re-entry control without lessons or prior practise….frigging brilliant…

    There were many more like these but I lost interest not much later after the commander died and the rest preferred to cry instead of dealing a serious problem…so didn't register much of the less glaring…

    A possible Alien level movie failed by poor scripting and story…could have been a real classic…but sadly no…Hollywood's thinking that we must like space movies because the CGI is impressive needs to change…they should have a re-look at Alien, Sunshine, Moon and The Martian and understand that space can be a great movies backdrop but logic MUST still be strictly earth-bound if it involves humans…

    Not yet offensive to the intellect but just sad and unrealistic.

  3. Six people are studying soil samples on the international Space Station, they use an unmanned probe to gather said samples. However, when the probe comes back with a microscopic organism, they are ecstatic. As they might have made the biggest discovery in human history. The organism(Calvin) is immensely adaptable and severely aggressive. Calvin is growing and finding new ways of dispatching it's victims. The first half of this film is tangled with a web of mystery that unravels in it's second half. I don't know if you'll enjoy this as much as I did, I am a big fan of science fiction and with this cast, it would have been a crime not to see this.

    Director Espinosa delivers a thriller that keeps you at the edge of your seat. Wondering who will be next and will they survive. Sounds cliché if you think about it. I mean, a survival story in space, a concept that has been done over and over again. However, writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick, have a tendency to to add life(pardon the pun) to classic stories. Deadpool is a prime example of that. I'm sure critics will find pilot holes or mistakes in the film as I have, But I don't want to give too much away. So, I'll just say that the crew on the space station made mistakes professionals shouldn't. But that's to be expected. This is Science Fiction after all. But overall I found myself enraptured by the story and at the end of the day isn't that the purpose of a film?"Life" fulfills it's purpose and than some. Highly recommended.

  4. The Good:

    Believable, big budget special effects. Some decent jump scares and squirm-in-your-seat horror.

    The Bad:

    The characters were generic and boring. The acting was often spotty and not consistent with the situation (more poor direction than bad acting I think). The Martian creature came from the soil on Mars where it had to hibernate to survive, yet it could survive freezing cold, burning heat, no oxygen, space vacuum and everything else the crew could throw at it. And it pretty much ate everything (including cooling fluid). Lazy science to aid lazy plot sequences.

    The Ugly:

    Unrealistic behavior from professional astronauts and scientists. Every scene seemed to be a result of a poor decision putting the crew at risk. Everything seemed predictable and there was little-to-no tension.

    Unlike the brilliant Alien – where you felt the protagonist (Ripley) and crew did everything right, yet fell victim to a horrifyingly believable alien (except for Ripley and the cat of course) – the crew in Life pretty much seemed to randomly do things, forget things, then remember things, and generally make the worst of the situation, while terrorized by the "super-alien-jellyfish" thing. I spent most of the movie thinking "wait… what? why?". Mediocre film from a mediocre Director.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

4 Replies to “(0)”

  1. Logan is easily the best Marvel movie ever. I had a chance to see the premiere. The movie is just over 2 hours. The first 45 minutes and the last 30 minutes are the best part of this film. I have never seen a superhero movie like this. It's brutal to its core. I have a request to Marvel & Fox. Please retire Wolverine character because no one could portray it with this much perfection as Hugh Jackman. This is easily my second favorite movie of this genre. Congrats for Fox to reviving their X-men universe after the Apocalypse mess. X-23 actress is gonna be a big star in the future. Oh man, she's awesome. And this is Patrick Stewart's best performance till date. The surprise villain character was also great, unlike other Marvel movies. Hope MCU will learn from this movie. DCEU also have a lesson or two to learn from Logan about making a dark and gritty film. Overall, I would rate this movie as the second best movie ever in its genre with almost no negatives. The only difference between Logan and Dark Knight's quality is you can't get the epic feeling with Logan

  2. Logan is the 2017 movie everyone has been anticipating after two great trailers and a R rating it delivers a surprising amount of heart to characters we have grown to love and know and also balancing a surprising amount of action within the first and third act climax, its violent but not blood for blood sake every cut is with reason.

    Logan presents us with Logan (Wolverine), Professor X and Laura (X-23) and by definition its an escort mission involving X-23 but shes more capable than Logan and Professor X thinks and shes able to fend for herself. Logan is old and a grizzled shadow of what he once was and by going on this mission he unlocks some of the old wolverine inside of him and we see bursts of that throughout the movie, Logan also begins to realize things about himself through the vision of this little girl because they have striking similarities.

    Every scene in this film feels necessary from the character development to the humor and action nothing is forced everything comes off natural which is a breath of fresh air and I was very pleased with it, I believe that this movie will be very well received by fans as it treats its characters with such care and embarks on an emotional and satisfying conclusion to Hugh Jackmans Logan (Wolverine).

  3. I get to see a lot of movies early due to my employment at a media group, whether I like it or not, but I actually had to finagle my way into a screening of Logan.

    And thank god.

    Logan is a film which I consider it a privilege to have seen. When you see the film, you'll understand. This is a FILM, not a super hero movie.

    For years, fans have yearned for an honest to God Wolverine movie, and we got damn close with Mangold's The Wolverine, a few years prior. This time, after Deadpool paved the way for R Rated X-Men films, Fox have finally gotten out of the way.

    Logan is a gnarly, emotional and honest film about Wolverine. Hugh Jackman carries the movie in a minimalist, yet terrifying performance. This movie has everything, yes there is gore and f-bombs, but also a story. James Mangold has taken elements of the acclaimed "Old Man Logan", and had created a masterpiece. I'm not going to spoil anything here, but suffice it to say that Logan is now THE definitive comic book movie, in my mind, unseating Zack Snyder's Watchmen.

    This movie is exactly what I needed it to be and god bless it.

    Do yourself a favor and watch this film.

  4. "Logan" is directed by James Mangold and stars Hugh Jackman for one final go around as Wolverine. With an R Rating secured, something the previous two Wolverine films should have had, "Logan" was bound to be fantastic. It wasn't fantastic. It was phenomenal.

    If you are going into "Logan" expecting every scene to just be Wolverine tearing people to shreds you'll be thoroughly disappointed. This is definitely not an action film. There are action sequences in the film, but they are not the main focus of the movie like the previous 2 Wolverine movies tried to make them be. "Logan" is a grounded film, a film that really takes its time to tell its story and to develop its characters. It's a character-driven film, and it probably has the most characterization in an X-Men film to date. We get enough of Wolverine's backstory within the first few minutes to really become attached to him (if we already weren't). We learn more about Professor X and what he has been doing, and then there's this little girl, who probably should be annoying, but luckily isn't and that was a sigh of relief. This girl, Laura, is the star of the show. It is really "her" movie. All of the sequences with Laura were riveting. There was that sense of mystery to her character that you wouldn't really expect from a film like this. You don't ever really know what her next move is going to be. Her motivation to find a safe haven is so well felt in this film that it just brings you a sigh of relief that there is still a sense of good out there in the world of this film where everything seems dark, bleak, and hopeless.

    Hugh Jackman's performance. Yeah the dude gave it his all. This is by far Hugh Jackman's best performance as Wolverine. We've never seen Wolverine this vulnerable. He's old, he's broken down, he's beaten. He can't heal like he used to. The conviction from Hugh Jackman in this movie was just spot on and really captured the ways Wolverine felt at certain moments. It added layers to this film. When Wolverine gets into a fight, Hugh Jackman is so good in these scenes it's like he got into a fight with the filmmakers on set.

    This film does not hold back from a violence standpoint. From the get go, you know what type of movie you are in for. It is brutally violent, by far the most violent X-Men film w have gotten. Wolverine hacks, claws, and slashes his way through skirmishes with blood, guts, and gore flying. If this is what you had always wanted from a Wolverine movie and haven't gotten it up to this point, well this movie gives you all of that.

    From a violence standpoint, the violence is there when the film calls for it. It is not violent for the sake of being violent. This is a film that puts its characters and story first before anything else, with violence being a secondary element to help propel the story along and to create tension. It is in the scenes where it should be. If this were just an all-out 2 hour and 20 minute "hack-and-slash" fest this film would have no depth to it. It would look cool, but giving Hugh Jackman the proper sendoff was what was more important in a film like this.

    This film at times gets downright emotional. The final scene of the film makes you wanna cry. You care about these characters, you are invested in them. You don't want to see them put in harm's way. Even in the scenes where the film may feel a bit slow, the final act of the film is the payoff. This is where everything really meshes together with a force, creating a pulse-pounding, edge of your seat final sendoff for Hugh Jackman as he retires from the role.

    This is by far the best Wolverine movie and possibly the best X-Men movie to date. I haven't decided yet. It's up there, and it deserves to be. Everything payed off in this film. It is emotional. It is character driven. It has heart. It is emotional. This is everything anyone could have wanted in a Wolverine film.

    From me "Logan" gets a perfect 10/10.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *