1982 was a good year for alien movies. The people were not really ready for it, but it was. Not only did Spielberg’s friendly and warm-hearted E.T. - The Extraterrestrial debut at Cannes, and went on to become the world’s highest grossing film, but Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan made justice with a really good motion picture to the Star Trek TV series, and Liquid Sky shook up the indie cinema scene. And, of course, the release of John Carpenter’s gruesome, thrilling and tense take on John W. Campbell Jr.’s novella Who Goes There: The Thing, probably named because of the other adaptation of Campbell Jr.’s story, The Thing from Another World (1951). But not only did Carpenter’s The Thing do poorly at the box office, it was also heavily criticized for the raw material (some level of gore and on-screen autopsies of the creature). Almost four decades later, and the movie has gone through one of the biggest re-evaluations in cinema history, becoming a standard bearer for the horror “monster movie” subgenre, and a mandatory stop for cinephiles all over the world. How does a day make a difference.
One thing is certain: Nowadays, loved or hated, The Thing is still a topic of discussion. As far as this reviewer goes, I stand with the most recent evaluation. The Thing is an example of tension-building through dialogue, while also being a visually striking, fear-provoking monster flick. And, in the category of alien Sci-fi movies, it is up there with Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977), Alien (1979) and Predator (1987) in the race for the top spot.
The premise of the film, being synthesized, is that a group of norwegian scientists in Antarctica found a 100,000 year old UFO buried in the snow. They find a frozen creature next to it, and thaw it out. The norwegian team proceeds to be almost entirely slaughtered by the unknown beast, that is able to shapeshift into other life forms. A dog, that in reality is the creature, escapes, and is chased all the way to an american base. There, it is unknowingly welcomed, until the Americans investigate the norwegian base. They find about the powers of the Thing, and from there on, the film assumes a “who-do-I-trust” suspenseful setting. The pace is never slow, because the viewer is always on the edge of its seat.
The protagonist, R. J. MacReady, is brilliantly portrayed by Kurt Russell, in what would be his third collaboration with John Carpenter. The partnership started with the 1979 TV movie Elvis, and continued with Escape From New York (1981), The Thing (1982), Big Trouble in Little China (1986) and Escape From L.A. (1996). As always, the chemistry between actor and director is important to build up a good result in the form of the film. Here, Russell brings in powerful voice tones, and his characteristic sheer physicality to give his best portrayal of a helicopter pilot who must assume a leading position with his colleagues in order to fight an unknown threat. Amongst the supporting cast, noticeable names are Keith David (They Live), Wilford Brimley (Country) and Donald Moffat (Rachel, Rachel).
John Carpenter is almost guaranteed to knock it out of the park when it comes to horror, having The Fog (1980), Halloween (1978), and so many others under his direction. The Thing wouldn’t put him in critic’s graces in 1982, but in the long run, it would define his directorial style, and find its appreciation, being one of the career-defining works that cemented him as one of the authorities on the genre.
The soundtrack is beautiful, and that is not for no reason. John Carpenter himself and his long-time collaborator Alan Howarth composed some of the tracks together. The fact that the director himself composes the pieces ensures an extraordinary blend between scene and music. But not only that: for select parts of the score, Carpenter had the compositions of cinematic-music icon, Ennio Morricone. The legendary italian composer made the iconic soundtrack to Sergio Leone’s The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, apart from other big movies like The Untouchables and Death Rides a Horse. And to The Thing, he brought an electronic vibe, in order to approach Carpenter’s own style of music, while also incorporating european elements. The main theme for the film has its own deep meaning, representing the absorption process by the Thing, the main instrument being… An organ.
The visual effects were ahead of their time. So ahead of their time, that critics and casual cinemagoers alike bashed them for being “too gruesome” or “too gross”. There are ways and ways to create fear. One of them is properly scaring people - using jumpscares, or tense and uncomfortable situations -, the other is to gross them out. And The Thing, even though it does scare in the first way really well, relishes in this second one, utilizing the advantage of working with the anatomy of a fictional creature, especially a shapeshifting one, to create horrific settings and on-screen situations. Examples of it are an autopsy of what seems to be a burned human being by the beginning, and the Thing absorbing a few alaskan malamute dogs.
The thing about… Uh, The Thing, is that it is one of the early 80s monster flicks that would set the bar high for many others to come. Despite not being well received at its time, it would find deserved recognition after a re-evaluation. It has great attributes such as strong acting, directing, visual effects and a killer soundtrack. In its setting of Antarctica, The Thing delivers proper ice cold chills. For a movie about a shapeshifting creature, this one finds itself being inimitable. Oh, the irony.

Stuck on a remote station in Antarctica with… The Thing
RELEASED IN 1982 and directed by John Carter, “The Thing” stars Kurt Russell as the helicopter pilot of an eleven-man crew at a research station in Antarctica who encounter a ghastly shape-shifting alien that perfectly replicates the appearance of its victims.
This is basically a sequel to the 1956 film and even includes footage from that classic sci-fi/horror. The creature is unconventional to say the least and this adds an eerie component to an already otherworldly and confined Antarctic setting.
There are no females and therefore no romantic complications. The characters are thin so the story focuses on the thing and how the crew tries to track it down and eliminate it, if they can. The nature of the gruesome entity, how it functions and how it can or cannot be killed leaves you with a lot of questions. The ending is haunting.
“The Thing” may not be as great as gushing devotees insist, but it’s solid sci-fi/horror with some pretty horrific scenes, although only one really creeped me out (the blood scene) while another made me bust out laughing (the torso jaws).
THE FILM RUNS 1 hour, 48 minutes and was shot in Alaska & British Columbia. WRITER: Bill Lancaster. MISC. CAST: Keith David (Childs), Wilford Brimley (Blair), T.K. Carter (Nauls), Richard Masur (Clark), Thomas G. Waites (Windows), Donald Moffat (Garry), etc.
GRADE: B

It was a good and original movie but some parts were still too boring, am i the only one who thinks like this?

Flips the scenario round from the original to great effect.
John Carpenter shows how much he loves the 1951 original by giving it the utmost respect that he possibly could, the only difference here is that Carpenter chooses to stick to the paranoiac core of John W Campbell Jr's short story.
The secret to this version's success is the unbearable tension that builds up as the group of men become suspicious of each other, the strain of literally waiting to be taken over takes a fearful hold. Carpenter then manages to deliver the shocks as well as the mystery that's needed to keep the film heading in the right direction.
Be it an horrific scene or a "what is in the shadow" sequence, the film is the perfect fusion of horror and sci-fi. The dialogue is laced with potency and viability for a group of men trying to keep it together under such duress, while Ennio Morricone's score is a wonderful eerie pulse beat that further racks up the sense of doom and paranoia seaming throughout the film.
The cast are superb, a solid assembly line of actors led by Carpenter favourite Kurt Russell, whilst the effects used around the characters get the right amount of impact needed. But most of all it's the ending that is the crowning glory, an ending that doesn't pander to the norm and is incredibly fitting for what has gone on before it. Lets wait and see what happens indeed. 10/10

"The Platform" is one of those movies that sticks with you long after the credits roll. It's not your typical horror flick, though it definitely has some gruesome moments. This isn't about jump scares, it's about a terrifying concept that's surprisingly relevant to our world.
The directing is brilliant. They keep the tension high throughout, and the way they use the limited space of "the pit" is incredibly claustrophobic. The cinematography is equally impressive, with some truly unsettling visuals. The acting is solid across the board, with each character adding a unique layer to the story.
The script is sharp and thought-provoking. It doesn't spoon-feed you the message, forcing you to grapple with the ethical dilemmas at the heart of this dystopian society. And let's not forget the score, which is both eerie and unsettling, perfectly complementing the film's atmosphere. "The Platform" is a disturbing and unforgettable cinematic experience.

**The Platform is a unique story that asks some deep questions but ultimately left me disappointed.**
The Platform has such an intriguing concept that raises a variety of potent philosophical and moral questions and dilemmas. The film begs the question, “What if?” How would I respond in such dire and impossible circumstances? What would I do? As characters grapple with their desperate circumstances, a hero attempts to find hope by devising a plan to send a message to their captors and possibly save lives. Unfortunately, the movie doesn’t really provide any answers or assure any resolution or salvation. It just kind of ends after an hour and forty minutes of disturbing hopelessness. It probably has some deeper meaning that I missed but definitely not my kind of movie.

An extremely cruel and disturbing psychological dystopian thriller.
7/10

Rate: zero
This is what happens when we build a house for a door (instead of building a house and then put doors in it); An exotic, dirty and cluttered movie. Dirty but not necessarily in the visual meaning but in the cinematic meant. The director does not know what he wants to do at all, the camera angles, the frames, the compositions and everything are completely in the air, he just knows he wants to beat capitalism but he does not know how and for this purpose, which is what He does not do well, he comes to the great art of cinema and insults it with this film. A film must first become a cinematic work and then speak, first a house must be built and then several doors must be left for it, it is not possible to throw an ideology in the middle and make a film around it, of course, if it is possible to call this film, a film! Symbolism and the use of symbols are correct when the director does not shout with every dialogue and every scene that this object is a symbol! The symbol should not be completely revealed to be a symbol. If he is going to make a symbolic film, he must first know how, then put signs in his symbols, not to turn the whole film into a bunch of ridiculous symbols. From one place, the director does not even remember what his goal was and enters another phase, which he thinks is a revolution. Not only he does not understand and show the revolution, but he forces his two main characters, who are not characters at all, to beat everyone so that they can only get food to the final stage! you are kidding! How do these movements represent revolution, leftism, and helping others? They go downstairs and beat everyone, and finally they feed their ridiculous symbol (the dessert) to the child and send him down to, for example, when she returns to the top floor, the tyrants become surprised! So what? what will happen! Did the film become a leftist film? Did it promote revolution and resistance? Did it help everyone and save them? Never. In general, it can be said that "Platform" is a disgusting, ridiculous and shameless film that insults both the cinema and its audience, and there is no cinematic or ideal value in it, and in the humblest case, even a slogan.

A fantastic watch, will watch again, and can recommend.
This is a survivalist movie, heavy with philosophy of morality. A lot of the time when I get to say anything close to that, I get to say, "but there is humor too", there is not: not traditional humor anyways.
This is a dark movie filled with metaphor and cruel reality. Now while I am usually offended by reality encroaching on my escapism, that is normally when I'm trying to watch dirt humor. When to take a concept like this, the relation to reality only strengthens the movie.
"Those above, and those below" is something to think about, and if that intrigues you or you're already onboard for a philosophical discussion of anti-hierarchical class society structure, or intrigue by the idea that it doesn't matter who or when someone is in the class structure: it defeats the society just by being.
The production value is minimal but sufficient, and I think that is by design. It does live in the land of bad dubs, but not enough for me to fault it.
Give this a shot: you might be surprised at yourself or your company.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
Netflix has been supporting small, independent filmmaking for a while now. In 2018, Roma (re)opened a Best Picture nomination path to foreign films. Last year, Martin Scorsese's epic The Irishman could only come to life via streaming since no major studio wanted a three-and-a-half-hour runtime for a theater release. Between these two, dozens of other indie flicks got Netflix's (or other streaming networks) support. 2020 brings us a Spanish horror-thriller from a first-time director (Galder Gaztelu-Urrutia): The Platform (or El Hoyo).
Since its showing at TIFF, this movie has been receiving overwhelmingly positive feedback. So, obviously, I needed to add it to my list. I watched it a couple of days ago, and I wanted to take time to think about it because it's definitely going to become a divisive film, especially among general audiences. The Platform carries an extremely abstract narrative, filled with symbolism, metaphors, analogies, and allegories to our political-social-economic situation. It's not a straightforward thriller at all.
It's a tremendously intriguing concept, developed through captivating storytelling and a very dark tone. It's a prison that resembles our society of today. Filled with hypocrisy and selfishness. One month, you're the king of the world on a level where food comes in excess, but you still want it all for yourself, ignoring desperate requests from down below. As soon as in the next day, you're a miserable human being, fighting for scraps with your "cellmate", and on the exact same position those desperate people were before... And now you want their help?!
That last narrative analogy to the real world is undoubtedly my favorite. I was never a fan of politics (who is?), so analogies and symbolism regarding that part of our life don't really impact me. However, it's clear that the screenwriters put a lot of effort into making such a meaningful story. If the ambiguousness is removed from the screenplay, there's still plenty to enjoy. Goreng's arc goes from just trying to get a diploma to actually save the people from lower levels. His story takes the viewer through tons of violence, blood, gore, and genuinely disgusting sequences.
Therefore, people who want straight-up popcorn-action instead of a more philosophical take as the filmmakers intended, there's a lot to be entertained by. The Platform is also another proof that you don't need a massive budget to build an immersive atmosphere. The set and production design are as simple as they could be, but it's especially due to that simplicity that the claustrophobic prison works so well. For a directorial debut, Galder Gaztelu-Urrutia does an excellent job of controlling the pacing and applying the right shots to each situation.
Unfortunately, my main issue is the same as most people: the ending. I will restrain myself from giving away any minor spoilers, so I'll just write that it doesn't work at all levels, at least not for me. As expected, it's as ambiguous as the rest of the movie. As soon as I finished the film, I was frustrated by so many unanswered (logical) questions, and after a couple of days of thinking about it, these questions still exist. You'll never find an answer to everything, but that was never the main goal. There has to be a balance between reality and fiction. Between what's real and what's just a metaphoric symbol. No one can justify *everything* with "oh, it's just a representation of something else".
For me, there are two ways of interpreting the ending: I could either take everything literally, which would raise tons of questions without an answer, or I could try and solely look at the story through Goreng's perspective. I do believe the latter approach is the best one, even if it still carries other issues regarding secondary characters. It doesn't answer everything, but it's the perspective I find to make more sense with the movie. It makes the screenplay more cohesive and congruent.
Nevertheless, the problem I can't seem to avoid is the abrupt break in tone. For such a brutal, raw, bloody display of human behavior in a situation of survival (the way colors are used is very clever), the climax feels detached from everything that comes before. The underlying themes are there from the get-go, but these are precisely what they are: secondary messages lying under a pretty real story. Going from horrible murders, sacrifices, and God knows what else, to such a philosophical, soulful ending in the way the film does... it's far from a seamless transition.
Basically, if you go in expecting definite answers about whatever this prison is, who controls it, and how it truly works, you'll probably leave disappointed and frustrated. It's one of those movies that heavily relies on how people perceive its ending and how much impact does it cause on an overall opinion. Looking at the conclusion solely from Goreng's perspective works the best for me, even if some unanswered (logical) questions still exist. The abrupt break in tone transitioning to the film's climax is my main problem, but The Platform has plenty of positives. An extremely intriguing premise is developed through remarkably captivating storytelling, and an exceptional cast elevates the well-written screenplay. First-time director Galder Gaztelu-Urrutia and his team do an excellent job. Set and production design prove how a small budget can still create an immersive, claustrophobic atmosphere. Even if the ending only works partially, the symbolism and allegories of our world's politics and social-economic situation are a brilliant, thought-provoking piece of a screenplay. I like more it the more I think about it.
Rating: B+

A violent form of demonstration of the problems of capitalist society. Despite the fact that the level of violence is too much for me, I understand purpose of it for narration. Actually I find this film quite spiritual. The parallel between Jesus and Christian values is quite obvious.

*don't waste your time*. Most of the movie happens in a sort of multi-floor prison where the top levels can control the food that goes to the bottom floors. This created a sort of class structure where top-levelers had pleasure on denying food to the bottom levels, although the floors were sorted periodically. The protagonist started to question this structure and tried to change it. Although starting well, the movie lost its track trying to be too much symbolic and enigmatic. The ending was very disappointing leaving too many loose ends that should have been closed.

Pretty far removed from my wheelhouse, but Emma Stone makes for such a great lead, the banter-y dialogue given to the adult roles (most masterfully spoken by Stanley Tucci) is so hilarious, and the story flows so naturally from A to B to C that you can't stop for long enough to question the flaws while you're watching it, that there was no way I couldn't at least give Easy A a passing grade (no pun intended).
_Final rating:★★★ - I personally recommend you give it a go._

When I first saw the trailer of Easy A, I wasn't particularly intrigued. It looked like just another high school teenage comedy. But then I decided to watch it anyway (mostly because I wanted to know what all the fuss was about), and it turned out to be a very pleasant surprise! Coincidentally, I had just seen Emma Stone for the first time two days ago, when I watched Zombieland, and I thought to myself, "Hey this girl seems kind of cool". But that still wasn't an answer as to why right now I can't read a single magazine without seeing her face somewhere. After seeing Easy A, I finally know. This girl is FUN. She has a great talent for comedy of the driest, most sarcastic kind and a perfect sense of timing. And you've got to love that husky voice.
Easy A is about a girl, Olive, who's a straight A-student with a flawless reputation, until she tells a little white lie to her best friend about how she supposedly lost her virginity to a guy that doesn't even exist. However, things go awry when this little anecdote spreads like wildfire and all of a sudden she has a reputation of being a hussy. (This plot line demands some suspension of disbelief, because it's obviously very hard to believe that any group of high school students would be shocked at the thought of one of their peers _*having sex*_, but whatever.) Of course, like with any rumour, it changes constantly depending on who you talk to. So before Olive knows what hit her, everybody in school thinks she slept with every guy around. Now here's the twist: once it becomes clear that she can use this newfound reputation to her advantage, she does so to the fullest. Simply put: unpopular guys pay her to PRETEND she had sex with them. Obviously, at some point things get out of hand and she has to find a way to fix it all again.
This concept could have been really stupid, if it wasn't for the great screenplay. It is a tribute to classic 80's teenage films including, of course, John Hughes, and it also features some great references to The Scarlet Letter and Sylvia Plath. The dialogue is quick and witty, and the characters are all really typical people without being cliché stereotypes. Stanley Tucci is a delight as Olive's dad, bringing the same kind of dry-as-a-bone humour to the table as his on-screen daughter. Patricia Clarkson is a wonderful actress, and as it turns out, a really funny one as well. All the actors are perfectly cast.
One of the funniest elements in Easy A is a group of Christian students, the 'Jesus freaks'. The leader of this little group is a girl called Marianne, played by Amanda Bynes. She just can't stop preaching to Olive about her 'indecent behaviour' and the dialogue between the two provides some of the funniest moments throughout the film. Here's a small foretaste; Marianne: "There's a higher power that will judge you for your indecency." Olive: "Tom Cruise?"
Overall, this is mostly a 'chuckle' comedy rather than a 'rolling over the floor laughing' comedy, though it has some really good LOL moments. And the 'chuckles' are widespread.
I would definitely recommend watching Easy A if you're in the mood for a witty, intelligent comedy about a smart, sassy girl who takes control of her own life and everybody who thinks they have a right to think badly about her.
_(September 2011)_

Fresh comedy. Sometimes funny, but not too much. The cast is good and I like Emma Stone a lot, but she cannot pass as a high school student any more.
It could have been much better if the story would have worked better, in spite of the sometimes brilliant dialogues.

This movie while extremely entertaining is actually also very educational. You might discover a whole bunch of new words for your vocabulary and even learn a little bit about englisch literature. Makes me smile every time I watch it.

Tom Hanks works particularly well in this gripping story of a real life pirate! Muse (Barkhad Abdi) is leading two small skiffs on an attack on the eponymous officer's freighter as it sails off the coat of Somalia. A certain degree of bravado and legerdemain sees the bigger ship thwart their first attempt, but next day they are back again and the powerful hoses prove poor defence against machine guns. Most of the crew now take refuge in the gunnels leaving the captain to face their captors and for the next two hours these two men play an increasingly perilous cat and mouse game that sees them ultimately taking refuge in a lifeboat soon in the sights of an unforgiving US Navy. It works on quite a few levels, this film. The Somalis themselves are not religious zealots, and from what we see of their home lives are living a fairly subsistence existence where their acts on the high seas are to make money to escape poverty rather than t make political or religious points. As the drama plays out, both men begin to understand a little more about what makes each tick and drives them - and the intimate camerawork delivers well the claustrophobic nature of the denouement in a darkened and confined space with tension high, fear and panic never far away and a political agenda from the military that nobody watching is quite clear of. Hanks may take top billing, but it's the effort from Abdi and his boat crew that really steal the plaudits here as their efforts work on both dramatically and on the thought-provoking front, too. Certanly one of Paul Greengrass's better efforts making sure we use just about all of our senses to share their experience and maybe also to understand it all a bit better.

Captain Phillips was fantastic, from start to finish. The performances were great featuring one of Tom Hanks' best. His calmness under extreme pressure was captivating but the ability to have that all crumble down once it is over was just, perfect. His raw portrayal of trauma was one of the most impressive feats of acting I've ever seen. For a nearly two and a half hour runtime, this movie was paced very well, filled with tension throughout. I was holding my breath in so many scenes as the pirates were within a foot of catching a crew mate or as they were creeping closer and closer in their small boarding boat. This constant tension mixed with a fantastic script and story left me glued to my screen for its entirety.
Score: 89%
Verdict: Excellent

**Tension and chaos flood from incredible performances, making Captain Phillip’s powerful story riveting and compelling.**
Captain Phillips is a tense fast-paced movie about a heroic captain saving lives and battling for his survival from pirates in the waters off the Horn of Africa. Hanks’ performance elevates the film from good to fantastic, making the fear, suspense, and quick decisions more frantic and pivotal. Paul Greengrass’ directing matched the story well, delivering a gritty, realistic thriller grounded in this courageous true story. Even with a long runtime, the plot was gripping and engaging. The quality and tension remind me of Deepwater Horizon or Patriots Day. Captain Phillips is an excellent film with a great cast and a powerful story.

Let me begin by saying that Captain Phillips, as an action film, turned out to be much more than I had initially anticipated. I was expecting half drama / half moderate action film with likely a good dash of political hopscotch. It's probably a good thing then, that I knew next to nothing about the actual story, because I love a good surprise. Captain Phillips is two hours of absolutely intense and absolutely uncompromising physical and psychological anxiety. At the end of it, I literally had to sit for a minute and just breathe, because this story gripped me by the throat like few films in recent memory have.
For those still unfamiliar with the story – this is a retelling of a historical event; the first US cargo ship in 200 years to be hijacked by pirates. During which, its captain Richard Phillips is taken hostage by the pirates, on his own lifeboat no less.
I got the sense that, somewhere in between the lines it was the director's intention to perhaps create an opening for a different story to be told: that of the Somali pirates, and why they do what they do. We are told that they are fishermen, and sheer poverty has driven them to these desperate acts. However, I don't know for sure if I'm supposed to feel any sympathy for these men, if I was supposed to 'understand' their motives – if this was Paul Greengrass' intention, it didn't work. Because no matter which way you swing it, these pirates are the bad guys and that's as clear as day. No degree of poverty or despair should be held as an excuse for such gruesome acts. Then again, if this was at all the point, I'm glad it wasn't hammered down in any way. It was merely a thought, and one conveyed subtly enough for anyone to make up their own mind about this issue.
What is clear here, is that these men (only four of them, surprisingly) committed a terrible crime. Not even so much the piracy itself, but the kidnapping and abuse of one individual. This individual is played by Tom Hanks, and he delivers one of his most eloquent and restrained performances to date. Here is a man, a captain of a large cargo ship, who is usually very much in control of his life and a clearheaded leader of his crew – but who, in the heat of reality, is just as human as any of us and simply does the best he can, even when (in spite of overwhelming protocol) one simply doesn't know what to do. Because protocol doesn't apply to the emotions that take control of both the captain and his captors, when they face a situation none of them anticipated. This is immediately one if my favourite performances by Tom Hanks, whose strength here lies mostly in the quiet moments in between all the chaos surrounding him. You can tell that he never stops thinking, never stops analyzing his situation, no matter what the pirates do to intimidate him. He conveys it all in the eyes – all the fear and anxiety, while constantly staying calm and collected, trying to talk to his captors, never losing his head. Even when fighting for his life, there is an assertive calmness that comes across so strongly that you can do nothing but admire this man. Hanks' performance is so convincing, it almost doesn't look like acting anymore... and that's a huge compliment.
The same goes for the other actors, especially the men playing the Somali pirates. Before being cast for this film, none of them had any acting experience, which makes their performances all the more impressive. Then, it also makes one wonder how much of a compliment it actually is when a director literally picks you off the street because apparently he thinks that you're perfectly fit for the part of a menacing pirate, but that's food for another discussion, another time... In any case, he was right about them. These men ARE absolutely convincing and authentic. Especially the leader of the gang, played by Barkhad Abdi, is right on the money. He needs nothing more than the look in his eyes to convince you that you're right to feel absolutely terrified of him.
From a technical standpoint, Captain Phillips is very well made. My only grievance is Greengrass' typical trademark: the shaky handy-cam. Here and there it's almost enough to make you seasick, and I really wish he would ease up on this gimmick, because although it adds to the feeling of suspense and chaos, that doesn't weigh up to the headache it causes. Steady-cam was invented for a reason, mister director. Use it. Still, the other qualities of the film are easily strong enough to make up for this one point of critique. The pacing is excellent, it grips you like a pitbull and never lets go until the credits roll in. Colouring and lighting effects are perfectly used for an incredibly realistic feel and claustrophobic atmosphere. Everything feels very real and absolutely no sentimental plot devices are exploited here. Top-notch screen writing.
I can do nothing other than strongly recommend this film. It is very intense and at times very violent, and definitely one of the best films in its genre. And if this doesn't convince you, see it for one of Tom Hanks' best performances of his career.
_(December 2014)_

Well done movie, good script and exceptional performances. Specially by Hanks and Abdi but also the rest of the pirates crew.
Hanks could have won the Oscar for this one.

Allow me to start with what you likely have already read — this film is well-crafted and tense procedural about a true story. The fact that I still found it tense and exciting, even when I already knew the ending (including the oft-mentioned Captain Phillips ending scene) is a high compliment.
So why tell this story? I took it as a meditation on powerlessness, a film that didn't deal with heroes or villains, only victims. There's a shipping crew that is easily sought out by pirates, and there are the pirates that ultimately fail. In either case, it's not as if either side feels in control of their destiny. They're just playing to some largely unseen authority. After the crew deflects the first attempted piracy in the film, one character says that as a union member, he didn't sign up for this kind of danger. The reaction? He chose to work on a ship that went around the horn of Africa. "What did you expect?" he's asked. Later, when one of the pirates steps on broken glass and injures he foot, he's asked the very same question by his leaders. Even the two competing captains — the pirate and the title character — ultimately are swayed (or saved) by the power of the state. What did they expect? To be the one in control?

Very well acted and bittersweet for sure, this is a movie that didn't really touch me deeply, mainly because didn't grow up in a split family or ever been married or have kids, so this I'm sure speaks to those with those kind of experiences. Still, can appreciate the performances from both Scarlet Johansson and Adam Driver, proving once more how great actors they are and more than their respective blockbuster franchises. **4.0/5**

“I never really came alive for myself; I was only feeding his aliveness.”
I’ve said some harsh things about Netflix movies in the past, but recently I’m starting to warm up to them.
‘Marriage Story’ was absolutely excellent. A devastating portrayal of divorce that can bring out the ugly in people, especially with child custody. But it’s not all doom and gloom. It’s incredibly heartfelt with plenty of humorous moments. I guess you have to find the comedy during the difficulties in life. Lets just say my cheeks wasn’t dry afterwards.
And yes, I wept.
Adam Driver and Scarlett Johansson both gave masterclass performances. And I do mean some power house acting. Driver plays Charlie, a competitive and undaunted theater director that he is very clear about what he wants. Johansson plays Nicole, a mother who’s a delightful presence and loves to play, but is also a dedicated actor. This is the best I’ve seen from Johnasson. Her character delivers a monologue where she’s explains the issues in her life that’s all shot in one take, which brilliantly displays her acting chops where she naturally shifts from emotion to emotion - it was impeccable.
The supporting cast were all fantastic. Lauren Dern, Ray Liotta, Merritt Wever, Julie Hagerty, and Alan Alda were all brilliant and really bounce off the energy from Driver and Johansson. Even the child actor held his own between these juggernauts of actors.
Not only are the performances the strongest element of the movie, but so is the writing. Every character is so uniquely fleshed out that the conflict feels so incredibly raw. It’s one of the reasons why I was so glued to the movie from start to finish. One of the best screenplays of the year.
This is the first Noah Baumbach movie I’ve seen from him and I am aware of his other work, just haven’t got around to watching them. However, I feel like this was the best introduction to him as a director, because he crafted such a sympathetic look on marriage dissolving away. We don’t see the full relationship, but we do get to hear Nicole and Charlie individually describe what their love about each other, while there’s a montage that flash’s through their routine life together with their son. Nothing visually striking in the presentation, but not once did it feel stale.
The score from Randy Newman was terrific and fitted wonderfully with the movie. I loved the aspect ratio as it added a lot to the overall mood of the movie. When the two go head to head in the custody battle - that doesn't mean they’re enemies. They still talk to each other as if they are still a thing. It’s also hard to pick aside, because you understand where each of them are coming from, and even if you do choose, you still feel bad for either one.
Overall rating: Any other relationship movie ain't sh*t compared to this.

I don't have a kid. I've never been divorced. Or even married. Though I guess I was once a kid myself, I'm not the product of a divorced couple. I'm not even the product of a married one. Everyone I know who has gotten married or had kids did it before I met them, or stopped hanging out with me almost immediately afterward. Everyone I've ever met who got divorced either did it before I met them, or is someone I stopped hanging out with beforehand. So I don't come to the subject of _Marriage Story_ with a wealth of experience, which means it doesn't exactly scream "relatable content" to me.
Let me start where it's easiest and everyone seems to agree: The performances. Everyone in _Marriage Story_ is pretty great, none of the characterisations changed my life, but I get it. As a chance to display what these actors are capable of in a mundane setting where all that matters is their performance, yes, absolutely, _Marriage Story_ has buckets of success.
Outside of this though... I'm not even going to say that it "fails" elsewhere, just that it didn't win me. I like bleak movies, I like movies that make me feel something, even if it's sad. But _Marriage Story_ isn't really that. It poses you the question of whether both Charlie and Nicole are good or bad people, and shows you each from their own and other's perspective. The ending seems to imply that they're good, or at the very least both good and bad (and aren't we all?) but that really doesn't matter very much when we just spent all this time watching both of them be horrible. I know that's life, that's real, that's people, and blah bl-blah bl-blah, but that's little consolation when I've just spent two-plus hours of my life being not at all compelled by a bunch of people being awful. Being awful convincingly, to the actors' respective credits, but in this setting that is not my idea of a good time at the movies.
46%
-Gimly

This movie is a thoroughly humane and sensitive portrayal of the painful process that is "divorce". Noah Baumbach, who himself had a divorce with actress Jennifer Jason Leigh, seems to have drawn from his own life experiences for this film. The characters are all balanced and multilayered; the acting of the leads, specially Johansson and Driver, lend a particular personality to their characters. Everyone plays their role to the perfection, even the supporting cast including Laura Dern, Alan Alda, and the criminally underused Merritt Wever. This movie shows how a process as messy as divorce turns two people who love and respect each other into one wishing death on the other. No, they are not bad people , they are just people under "bad" circumstances, and Marriage story drives that point home. Overall: a brilliant movie, and a great way to end the year.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
I don't even know how to start this review… Marriage Story is one of those movies that stays with me long after I've finished it. I've been thinking about it a lot, and it's undoubtedly one of the most realistic dramas I've ever seen. That's due to the award-worthy performances of Adam Driver (Charlie Barber) and Scarlett Johansson (Nicole Barber), but also because of Noah Baumbach's incredibly layered screenplay. In addition to this, Baumbach is undeniably one of the best directors of the year. With the help of his DP, Robbie Ryan, he sets the platform for Driver and Johansson to shine as the astonishing actors that they are.
Some people watch films to forget their daily issues. Some just want to have fun. Some want to learn more about a particular true story. However, there's not a single person alive who wants to watch a movie and not be able to leave the theater (or, in this case, their couch) entertained. Marriage Story has such an emotionally complicated premise that it's tough to convince people to sit and watch. I mean, who wants to watch a divorce develop throughout more than two hours? Who wants to watch two people who were once in love with each other become the worst of themselves? Yelling, fighting, court, custody, lawyers… It's not exactly an attention-grabber.
I imagine people who went through the same situation getting triggered and remember a phase of their lives that was probably one of their worst. I'm writing this because I've seen some negativity towards people who simply don't want to watch Baumbach's depiction of a depressing event. It's perfectly understandable if anyone decides to skip this one, especially if it hits too close to home. In my case, I've never gone through a divorce (hopefully, I'll never will), and usually I can "enjoy" this type of sad, frustrating, bittersweet films (Manchester by the Sea, A Ghost Story) for what they are, no matter how tragic.
If I had to choose one-word praise: realistic. There's no way around it. The palpable emotions are the main reason why this story works so well. Only people who have never been in a relationship of any kind can't understand the moment when a fight starts to escalate, and the couple begins to say terrible stuff at each other that they don't exactly mean. The exaggeration and over-the-top arguments are part of every couple's life. They can occur due to a hundred reasons related to stress, work, accumulation of little things, or simply because it's just not a good day.
Marriage Story doesn’t deliver a hopeful message or a sweet story because that’s not what divorces are. It’s not difficult to imagine how hard it is to separate yourself from the person you love(d) for years without end, even more when there’s a kid involved in the process. Baumbach could have followed the genre cliches and provide moments of pure happiness, but that’s not something that happens during a situation like this. It’s a heart-wrenching phase to live through, and I believe that this movie is going to be thoroughly analyzed in film school in the next decade or so.
THE scene with Driver and Johansson going at each other exponentially harder and heavier criticism-wise is one of the most emotionally powerful dialogues of the millennium. The raw emotion and the physical movements that both actors can bring into the fight are absurdly impressive. Their chemistry is so inexplicably real. I never, not even for a single second, thought that I was watching fictional characters. Nicole and Charlie can very well be our neighbors or part of our family. Baumbach's use of long takes really elevate every single sequence, allowing the protagonists to move around the set and actually act.
Technically, there's no better acting this year than what Driver and Johansson deliver. Both are always moving and doing a lot of things while giving their lines. Making dinner, drinking tea, going to the bathroom, chopping a carrot, blowing their nose, standing up, sitting down, walking around the room, crying, smiling, laughing… All of this in a single take! Several times!! Scarlett shows more emotion throughout the runtime than her counterpart, but Adam proves why he's the frontrunner at the 2019's Oscars. His restraint when Charlie is trying to be polite even though he's mad, or his explosive behavior when his character decides to finally let go (excellent build-up), are some of the attributes that make his performance my favorite of the year.
Not trying to diminish Johansson's display. Both deliver career-best performances, in my opinion. Both deserve every award that exists. The supporting cast is also impeccable, and I know that Laura Dern (Nora Fanshaw) is probably going to be nominated. Still, the two leads are so engaging and captivating that I couldn't be impressed with anyone else. The only person to rise to the main actors' level is Noah Baumbach himself. With the best screenplay of 2019, he offers the audience an incredibly complex story, filled with subtle details and exceptional dialogue.
He controls the movie's pacing beautifully, and he knows the right moments to insert a little joke to lighten up the dark, depressing mood. My only issue with the film has to do with its replay value. We all have been through this situation: watching a fantastic movie, only once, and never again. Marriage Story is going to be one of those films for me. I love everything about it, but I know the chances of a rewatch are very, very small. It's a profoundly unsettling story, super uncomfortable at times, and I really don't want to go through the sadness and frustration all over again.
All in all, Noah Baumbach delivers what I believe to be its career-best flick, Marriage Story. With the best screenplay of 2019, as well as one the best directions, this is the closest the world is ever going to get to a realistic depiction of a divorce. Scarlett Johansson and Adam Driver also give the best performances of their lives, elevating every single scene, dialogue, argument, or joke. The long takes allow them to shine and actually work as actors, moving around the set and doing domestic/job tasks, while delivering their lines. Technically, both Baumbach and the entire cast are absolutely perfect. It's an extremely emotional narrative, very depressing, sad, and even uncomfortable at times, which might scare some people off, especially if they've been through this. Despite its replay value being affected (a rewatch is very unlikely), it's a phenomenal lesson in storytelling that stays with us long after it's finished. Easily, one of the best movies of 2019. Don't miss it, and try not to cry.
Rating: A

I wish so badly I could separate the art from the artist, and this is the only reason I cannot give ‘Marriage Story’ the five stars it actually deserves. My own issues with Baumbach aside, however, and it’s shocking to me that a film so simple can be so nearly flawless (I mean this technically too; the film is shot, edited, paced and scored beautifully). Despite how much I cried, it finds beauty and comedy in the tiniest of moments. It’s an ugly portrait of two flawed people and therefore never easy to watch, but it is one of the most rewarding experiences I have had with a film in years. I just hope I never have to experience it myself.
- Ashley Teresa
Read Ashley's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-marriage-story-simply-extraordinary

Vikings is somewhat based on History, but either way, it's an excellent show with awesome Characters & I love the Actors in it. The locations & sets are perfect, the action outstanding, even if you don't like this kind of show, I would suggest it to anyone to give it a try. Once you get to know the people in it & get into the story, & it takes a few episodes, but once it gets rolling it's an overall awesome experience.
10/10 Rating for me.

Whilst Vikings may be based as much on myth, as fact, its core understanding of the world they lived in, makes it inherently watchable.
Vikings were conquerors, traders, settlers, and politicians. All elements, that can be found blended in intricate and intriguing ways, in this series.
Its helped too be decent acting, direction, fantastic sets and rich visuals.
I do feel that said this series needs to come to an end soon as its really reached its potential and much more, will simply start to feel a little repetitive.
A great watch. 9/10.