Reviews

George Miller is established as one of my favorite directors of this century, despite the fact that there are still little details that bother me about his recent filmography. With his most recent feature film, Furiosa, Miller continues an impeccable Fury Road that, by the way, remains unsurpassed.

Impeccable action and chase scenes, which is the highlight of this film and the saga in general. I was surprised by Chris Hemsworth's acting level. Good villain, good development, good image. Anya was good, too.

On a technical level, I want to watch all the material available on internet regarding the making of this film as soon as possible. Photography and direction are at a much higher level. The shots have a very interesting level of focus, I dare say that they are compositions of several shots at the same time, for the same shots. I don't want to go in there too much until I discover the magic, but I was amazed.

The production design also stands out. Vehicles, locations. Makeup and wardrobe. There are many very good points here.

As for the story itself, it's an entertaining origin film, but it doesn't shine much.

Furiosa is definitely one of the must-see stops at the movies in 2024 for any movie buff.

I honestly didn't expect to have a good time with this movie, considering the disaster that was Bad Boys For Life in 2020 and its well-deserved 4/10.

But this film is indeed entertaining, fast-paced, dizzying and always favoring the overall spectacle. Adil & Bilall bring out their best skills in their action sequences, because the best facet of Ride or Die is simply the action. They manage to entertain and amaze the audience with drone shots, fast camera movements and angles that help idealize the protagonists, despite their bad makeup and bad hair. The performances are decent for an action comedy. The story is not exactly original, but it works to continue the plot thread of the previous film.

The comedy part unfortunately remains lacking. It's still absurd in the bad sense of the word. Boring jokes, situations with a weak punchline and dialogues too cliché to be funny.

Recommended for those looking for action and comedy, bullets and blood, crocodiles and donkeys in a movie.

Sometimes I watch horror movies to remind myself why I don't usually watch horror movies. Just like Immaculate, the vast majority of movies in this genre lack plausibility, realism, substance and depth. Immaculate doesn't scare anyone! It doesn't have the means to do so. It lacks a background story that is at least disturbing or worrying. It doesn't convince for a moment. Everything looks very orchestrated and it seems like they are playing at making a serious movie.

With all this, you will already realize that the worst thing is the script. However, not everything is a black hole of sorrow. There are aspects of this film that are worth mentioning and highlighting. Without further ado, the production design is the best element of the latest film starring Sydney Sweeney. Beautiful locations, sets and sets.

Having mentioned her in the last lines, there are those who say that this is the best performance of the actress. I do not agree. I've seen better scenes from her in Euphoria, although here she plays her role decently.

Returning to the technical aspects, in general it's a well-made film, but I insist, with very little to tell and say. If the rating I gave this film depended only on the script, I would have given it a 3 out of 10. The technical aspects once again save a boring and unconvincing story.

Challengers is a master class in how to transform a boring sport and a soap opera story into impeccable storytelling. So much so that this movie is not about tennis. It's an exciting narrative about three tennis players and the evolutions of the relationships between them.

There is an interesting and self-explanatory back and forth in the timeline of the plot that if you are not paying attention, it runs over you like a train, but if you are glued to the edge of your seat, as I was, you'll see that it's a very well-used resource.

Now, it's worth mentioning that the star of the film is not Zendaya or any other actor. It's without a doubt Luca Guadagnino who, like a snake, coils and wraps around the game and the dynamics of tennis. The close-ups of the opening seconds already tell you that this is a directionally daring film and fortunately, it's very well done.

The low points are the strange color saturation of a few scenes that seem out of place with the rest of the footage and some minor imperfections in the editing. But leaving all that aside, Challengers emerges as one of the most outstanding films of 2024.

Entertaining sort of requel (a mix between a sequel and a reboot), where we can see dizzying tornado sequences in all the acts of the film, making the whole trip quite adrenaline-filled. I dare to say that this film is completely on par with its counterpart from the 90's, and even, if I am asked for a quick answer without much analysis, I could also say that it's even better.

What I highlight most in the technical aspects is the sound editing. It's an excellent complement to the images that Lee Isaac Chung shows us, and one more component that adds stress and suspense in each sequence where we see the inclement weather in Oklahoma. The visual effects are good and fully meet the expectations of a disaster movie.

Glen Powell plays the male protagonist of the story decently, but Daisy Edgar-Jones is a step below. Her performance is not convincing when it matters most: in the dramatic scenes (those that come without tornadoes).

Finally, it's appreciated that the conveniences are not at the level of a Roland Emmerich film, but there are still a couple that transform the script into a more fluid and dynamic story.

One of the most entertaining blockbusters of this year.

I have never seen a super frivolous subject presented in such an unnecessarily melodramatic way. The scandal itself that is analyzed in this film is already quite gruesome and gives a lot of material to squeeze out for a film, but in May December it's done, at first glance, in a quite interesting way, only to then unfortunately fall into an exaggerated and soporific story.

The soundtrack that accompanies the plot is quite irritating and uncomfortable, being another disastrous point within the film. The editing is not very helpful either, having long scenes that end up being tedious and boring. The acting is good, it must be recognized. The Direction has a good performance, especially in its work that goes hand in hand with the photography, but when we link it with the script there are questionable decisions and unclear intentions.

The best displayed aspect in my opinion is the production design. Good locations, good scenery, good general atmosphere.

It's a shame not to have been able to enter into the dynamics of this story, because I had great expectations that were not even close to being fulfilled.

In a broad summary, May December is very well made, but its script and editing make it one of the most boring movies I have seen in recent times.

I really don't know where to start or where to hold this film. Before analyzing everything, you must unsderstand that the movie doesn't take itself very seriously, so neither will we. Let's agree that it's an entertaining film, with a fairly strong sense of adventure, with a few pinches of suspense within the adventure itself and a huge splash of idealized romance. All of this may sound good, and it actually is when looking at the bigger picture. But if we focus our eyes more and look for the components that make up this film, we'll see that it's full of wobbly pieces that together find an almost impossible balance to be able to deliver a rather questionable product.

The script is very basic, full of clichés in its characters, in its locations and in its lines. There are many false stereotypes that were not questioned much in the 80's, but that today are a matter of dubious morals and ethics. The editing is too sloppy. There is no greater care for a logical continuity in the actions or for disguising the stunt doubles, who do a wonderful job here. Now without a doubt, the worst thing about the film is the sound editing. I doubt if there was anyone in charge of this topic when making this film.

In the positive points, the acting, photography and direction are good. Part of the best are, as I mentioned before, the risky maneuvers done by the stuntmen, who are famous for making 80's cinema their playground.

In a brief summary, the film is entertaining, but it isn't well made, to the point of being noticeable even to audiences who don't usually pay attention to the technical aspects of cinema.

A dream debut for any actor who is a fan of the action film genre. Monkey Man is definitely one of the great films of the genre of this decade. Vibrant, dizzying, violent, raw, bloody. It's a film that draws heavily from The Raid and John Wick, which is even briefly mentioned. Great and innovative shots in the action sequences, which is part of what one looks for when watching a film like this. Long takes, first-person shots, hand-held cameras glued to the action itself.

As for the plot, it's an immersive story of revenge, but at the same time it's a fight against class differences, against the abuse of power and against corruption. All framed in nighttime street shots, where the photography comes out, being dark, but taking very good advantage of the environment. The editing is very good although sometimes the number of shots in the same sequence is abused. The performances are good, but if there is one to highlight, it is undoubtedly that of the protagonist himself. Dev Patel, doing whatever he wants, shows all his potential both as an actor and physically in direct confrontations full of brutal choreography and risky maneuvers.

Monkey Man is a must-see for 2024 and a film that will find its place in the highlights of the final annual countdown.

One of Tim Burton's first major productions turns out to be a huge success that introduces him to the world. Everything here has the Burton stamp, from the plot that talks about ghosts and spooky things to the production design that follows the rubric of what the director would continue to do through the years.

Beetlejuice is a hilarious film with a protagonist so crazy that he doesn't even care about being politically correct.

On the technical aspects, the film is well done, but it is sloppy. The photography plays with light and color, but when it needs to be properly lit, it fails on several occasions. The editing also has a couple of stumbles that are justified by the condensation of the feature length film to last only 90 minutes.

If we go to the highlights, in my opinion they are Keaton's performance and the soundtrack. Two important pillars, among some others, for Beetlejuice to be what it is.

Recommended for an adult audience, as it contains certain gestures and mannerisms of the protagonist that are not suitable for the little ones.

F you watch the original film from 1984 before this sequel from 1989, you'll see that it's pretty much the same thing. Obviously the story is different, but everything else is the same. Performances, visuals, sound and even the level of boredom. But let's be fair. Yes, there are differences between both films, both good and bad. The positives are better technical management in terms of photography. That. Did you expect more? ...the negative aspects are the amount of filler, unnecessary shots and lame jokes, which by the way, some are quite inappropriate considering the type of audience the film is aimed at. I don't understand how they managed to pass the filter of the last script.

In the final balance, I think that this sequel is slightly superior to the original film, because I think it was a little more defined in terms of its plot. It wasn't so adrift or had inexplicable time jumps, typical errors in editing in the 80's.

Anyway, knowing that the next installment of the saga is the worst, there is nothing left but to hope for the best in the last two. We'll see.

Ghostbusters is a clear example of the good work of marketing that surrounds cinema. All the popularity that formed the reputation of this film is clearly due to publicity work since the movie itself is quite mediocre.

It contains a high amount of humor that doesn't really go down well, it's quite cheesy in the comedy it has. The script is at least strange because things happen without explanation or that should not happen, for example that the ghostbusters run their own business while being financially bankrupt, and so on with a lot of conveniences that only happen for the good of the show that doesn't end up being something that surprising either. The characters are flat, no arcs, nothing. They don't understand between each other and neither the audience.

Visual effects are a mix of many techniques. Unfortunately they don't look good. The production design fails in this sense because the creatures are quite unconvincingly ugly and their movements are not consistent with the physics of the real world. Even the visual effects of lightning, fire and explosions seemed to be hastily done without achieving a realistic but rather cartoonish aesthetic.

The acting is mediocre, the editing is bad, the photography is decent, the direction is austere.

I don't understand how such a mediocre film could become so popular to the point of having another sequel 40 years later.

When I finish watching Love Lies Bleeding, the most marked and latent feeling I have is that this film wants to be much more complex and profound than it actually is.

This film has a clear and well-established base from which its characters and stories emerge. It certainly contains a good first act, setting the stage for the debacle that unfolds later. However, from the second act itself, things become a whirlwind of irrational vendettas, justified and validated by the same emotional outbursts that caused them. The dark tone helps the film not to take it as a comedy, which it could perfectly have been.

The production design is minimalist and austere, shouting to the audience that this is a small, independent film. The performances are good, although no one stands out. Kristen Stewart may be above average in her filmography, but well below her performance in Spencer. What does stand out is the photography, with static, aerial shots, and a couple other very interesting ones. The hairstyles could have been better if they weren't so exaggerated. The visual and practical effects meet what the script demands, with an impressive display of brutality in the few seconds it is displayed.

In short, Love Lies Bleeding shows us an unconventional romance that unleashes with great power. Maybe too much.

Fun, entertaining, hilarious, dizzying, bloody, violent. The movie meets Deadpool's checklist to arrive with great fanfare where he always should have been. A great success of the MCU by external hands that come to save a boat that was already almost sunk. Deadpool is really, as he says, Marvel's Messiah, because even though the third installment of the mercenary with the big mouth is an average movie in terms of action and the superhero subgenre itself, it's full of fanservices, cameos and surprises. The MCU needed a gory, foul-mouthed, adult movie with plenty of fast-paced action to lift its sails, now that the Guardians of the Galaxy ended their saga. This same film is responsible for giving several blows to Marvel Studios regarding its old and already failed recipes (such as the ultra-thumbed multiverse).

Touching on the negative points, the general level of CGI (which has become quite controversial in the production company) was good except for one great and very important detail in the entire film: Wolverine's suit. I won't go into details so as not to unintentionally leak any spoilers, so I'll just say that it refers to Logan's suit in the third act.

I'm looking forward to the inclusion of Deadpool and the X-Men in the MCU, even more so than the Fantastic Four.

This sequel is a very well put together and thought out film, just as its origin film was. I like to think, despite not being certain, that the settings, the functions and everything related to the characters that represent the emotions were made in the image and likeness of the real physiological processes that a person goes through when experiencing such emotions in particular. If I'm right, this proves me right in saying that it's a well put together film. It's even possible to apply psychology to establish the dynamics between the same emotions.

Now, speaking clearly of the story that the film presents to us, it's a bit weak, basic, simple and without much development. That being said, don't get confused, I understand why this is so. At the end of the day, this is an animated film for the whole family and it's not worth making a plot so complex with brain processes if in the end the purpose is to entertain. And yes, after 100 minutes, the film entertains, astonishes, excites and it's enough to fill a pleasant family afternoon.

Good for Pixar, as it maintains the trend of making animated films within a complex framework that invites us to reflect, instead of just being pigeonholed into the well-worn plot of the princess who needs to be rescued or the hero on duty who saves the day. I hope there will be Pixar for many more years.

Part two of this epic trilogy continues to expand its outer layers of multiversal and cosmic plot to unimaginable levels. The story is so big, complex and vast that it becomes a little confusing for those who have not read the original story in the comics, however it is not impossible to follow, in a thread that even reveals the always welcome plot twists in a certain key part from the second half of the film. It's totally justifiable that the story is shown in three films, as it is a giant event.

Having made that clear, if you ask me, does it entertain? My answer is yes, as long as you have your eyes, ears, and mind glued to the screen at all times.

There are key characters, there are characters who do a good job of just supporting, there are characters who serve only to argue the magnitude of the plot. There are so many characters that some look like cardboard cutouts and others have so much development that you feel empathy for them. There are revelations that answer questions raised in the first film, but there are also others that will surely be answered in the third. The film itself is dark, mature, but perhaps lacks more emotion. It seems very good to me that as a viewer you feel that we are on the verge of an outcome that we have never seen before in these dozens of DC animated films. It is impossible not to have so many expectations for the last part that promises and compromises even its own existence.

Just as Mark Wahlberg starred in the drama based on true events Deepwater Horizon, this time he brings us the incredible story of a canine hero who accompanies a group of athletes in the Dominican Republic. The cast was well put together, since it's clear that the group at the head of the plot withstands the inclemencies of the script well, at least on screen. Yes, we know that everything is lightened with the magic of cinema, but that doesn't mean that there are roles that are more physically demanding than others.

The most sporting part of the story is quite attractive and entertaining for the general audience, as there are elements of adventure, suspense and drama very well executed by the aforementioned cast. The locations are perfect, and the rest of the technical elements decently support an almost round film. And I say almost, because when we reach the third act is where, in my opinion, the problems in the script arise.

I think there is an excessive use of drama, almost reaching levels of emotional blackmail for an audience that didn't need it at all. Yes, the film perhaps narrates the real events that occurred, but it definitely had the drama quota that was exceeded for a story and a group of actors that do not measure up.

Now, putting that aside, Arthur the King is entertaining and a pleasant cinematic surprise to watch with the family.

Ok, just a few words to justify my rating for this movie (not that I should justify every one of my ratings, but here we go anyway).

I love Zack Snyder's vision for superhero movies when he dedicates himself only to directing and not writing his films. BvS is a great action piece, ideal for those who like superheroes, but not necessarily for those who read comics.

3 more things:

• Batman here is brutal.

• Cavill is a great Superman.

• This Lex Luthor is the worst interpretation of the character in the history of film and television.

Finally, it seems to me that at this point it is no longer necessary to remind everyone of the subjectivity with which we write our reviews.

Ferrari is one of those films with very dissimilar qualities among the factors that make it up. Let's initially look at the best, which was undoubtedly its production design. A period film, very well set in the 50's, taking care of every detail, both in interior scenery and costumes, as well as exteriors and vehicle designs.

The photography and sound editing are good. The editing, soundtrack and direction are at decent and correct levels, but not outstanding.

Among the performances, Penelope Cruz was the one who stole the dramatic lines, with her intensity typical of her Spanish roots.

Now, speaking of the bad things and taking advantage of the fact that we are in the field of performances, the choice of Adam Driver for the leading role was a mistake. Not because he's a bad actor, but because he's very far from the Italian essence. I've never seen a performance further from the Italian idiosyncrasy. Nothing was in his favor, not his rigidity, not his severity, not his commitment to his cause, not his passion for engines, nothing.

At the same poor level as Driver's performance, there is also the application of visual effects. Towards the third act, there is a tragic scene that is poorly done. It's really disappointing for the level of film that Michael Mann showed us up to that point, despite Driver.

Now, I can't help but comment that it would have been better if the script focused more on the creation, development and use of Ferrari cars instead of so much family dramatic mess. If you watch a movie named after one of the most important automotive teams in the world, you don't expect to see so much drama. This is why my rating was about to drop to a 6, but in the end I kept it at a 7 due to the technical aspects, clearly excepting the VFX.

Ferrari is still a good film, with ups and downs, showing more of the story of the man behind the name rather than the company itself.

Recommended for motorsport lovers, knowing that they will find a biopic that is more dramatic than adrenaline-filled.

This is the perfect mix between a Roland Emmerich disaster movie and Guillermo del Toro's Pacific Rim, although clearly maintaining the proportions. Forget logic, physics, the normal, the established and let yourself be carried away by fantasy, spectacularity, bombastic action sequences and, for it to be accepted as a film, a pinch of drama. Although not much, so as not to overshadow the hundreds of millions of dollars in CGI, which despite all the marketing, is still deplorable before the third act.

A summer film like this will never be able to surpass the rating I have given it, since acts full of conveniences (a word widely used lately in my reviews) are in full bloom.

Since I mentioned it before, the third act is the most notable and where it's clear that they took the majority of the film's budget. There are a lot of shots to leave as wallpaper on the computer, but that's all this new GxK movie has to offer.

Let's agree that if you've seen some of the King of Monsters before, this story might be borderline boring, but if you're relatively new to this monsterverse, you'll be amazed like you've almost never been.

Having said all that, it could be a perfect movie for a family viewing, with not-so-young children and a bucket full of popcorn.

A whodunit based on true events will always be something attractive to watch. A police movie full of mysteries, dramas and even better if it's set in another era, like The Boston Strangler.

In this film, to begin with, it's very rare to see and hear Keira Knightley with an American accent. She does it very well and her performance is a high point in the story.

The pace of the film is slow and tiring. You have to incorporate this into your brain to get into the movie without becoming drowsy. At times the atmosphere reminds you a lot of works made by David Lynch or Nolan's first films. However, it remains there, like minor reminiscences of something that could have been.

The film entertains to a certain point, it astonishes to a certain point and you don't expect the ending, although it makes all the sense in the world.

Recommended for an adult audience, despite not containing explicit material.

I am a regular follower of DC animated films and I can say that this installment is one of the most epic movies involving the most characters. The story is big, much bigger than any of the individual characters, even bigger than the large vigilante groups. It goes on such a large scale that it involves even more realities. But... does the movie really work? Let's see.

For a story as magnanimous as this one, it unfortunately lacked clarity. We know from the name that it's the first part of a story that isn't yet finished, but even so, it could have been a narratively self-sufficient first part. Some things happen and decisions that are made that are never explained.

In the bright side, there is action, heroism, and everything that these animated superhero movies always offer us. The big scale works if you look for an action animated film full of known faces. So, yes, it's a movie that entertains.

As a side note, my favorite character: Amazo. I never highlight a particular character, but this time, Amazo deserves it.

Recommended for fans of DC comics, animations and movies and superheroes in general.

I like when films dare to talk about things that are rarely discussed in the cinema. Someone trying to figure out their sexual inclination and having their first brushes with the consequences of their decisions is quite interesting to watch. All of this elevated Am I Ok? To a promising film. And I say elevated, in the past tense, because then the script turns towards a lighter path, stained by the comedy and drama that we can normally see on every sidewalk, on every corner. It was a good start, for a lukewarm ending.

The performances could have been better. Dakota Johnson has never been a great exponent of her type of work. I celebrate the edition, but I object to the poor choices regarding the soundtrack and costumes.

Final thoughts, good movie if you're looking for something quiet that will provoke some conversations to reflect on, but it's not anthropological philosophy either. Decent movie.

Why are cheesy and cliché movies still being made? Why do people consume these types of products? Where do those $220 million at the box office come from? This is probably the most obnoxiously cheesy movie I've seen in the last five years. Superficial, superfluous, vain, full of boxes, labels, prototypes, prospectuses, false, unnatural, unrealistic, irritating.

The performances are horrible. The script is indescribable. The rating is unfairly inflated by the locations and editing (luckily it's a relatively short film). The rest of the aspects meet the minimum standards.

Without any exaggeration, I'm not too fond of romantic comedies because of movies like these.

Watch it at your own risk.

Let's see. When the ideas are good, but they are poorly executed, for whatever reason, the final product will never be of quality. I'm sure there was a very promising initial script draft behind all this. Still, unfortunately we were left with what we have seen on screen: sub-par performances, a rushed plot, little or no effort in production design and a pretty generic sound.

We all know what Robert Rodíguez is capable of doing. In fact, the direction and photography are part of the best of the film, maintaining the proportions of the real quality of the complete movie, but unfortunately it isn't able to give good guidelines to its cast. The performances feel cheesy, artificial, unnatural.

The worst thing about this project is, without a doubt, the production design, including sets, locations, costumes, etc. Deplorable.

Watch it to create your own opinion, but knowing it is not the best of either its director or protagonist.

Several movies run through my mind at various points in this footage. Train to Busan, Deep Impact, Moonfall, among others. Roland Emmerich probably really enjoyed Concrete Utopia and may have gotten a couple of solid notes out of it.

This new Korean natural disaster film contains much of what the general audience needs to get hooked. Shots of destruction, disputes between sides, action and drama. Yes, the Korean passion for drama cannot be left out.

Now, let's agree that there are many moments where logic is sacrificed in pursuit of an attractive plot. That is undeniable. And it works. But at the end of the day this is the representation of an incipient micro society in a brutal, discouraging and agonizing context. That's the real attraction.

But, the movie is flawed. The cast's performances are uneven. The soundtrack is quite generic. VFX lacks realistic details. By tightening and loosening some pegs, the film would have been much more solid.

In short, recommended, although not for all audiences.