ian-47918
Se unió el abr 2021
Te damos la bienvenida a el nuevo perfil
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Guía de ayuda.
Distintivos3
Para obtener información sobre cómo conseguir distintivos, visita página de ayuda sobre distintivos.
Comentarios36
Calificación de ian-47918
By Ian Chandler - June 25, 2025
Materialists is the latest rom-com currently in theaters. So, is Celine Song's latest drama a good pick for date night? Well, it is for a specific audience. The film may be advertised as a generic rom-com reminiscent of those chick-flicks from the 2000s, but it favors thought-provoking discussion about what love is and where it comes from more so than a familiar feel-good story. Now, don't get me wrong, it still has the usual love triangle and a story you've seen a million times before, but they serve as a backdrop for Materialists' more fascinating ideas. The film leans more cerebral than sentimental, which could spark some thoughtful post-screening conversations about modern love.
The script is sharp and it respects your intelligence. Every other question asked by its three main characters invites the audience to think of an answer to them. It largely showcases the difference between authentic love and romance as a business deal. But, don't worry, this isn't some boring film about ambiguous questions from hopeless romantics. It still delivers good drama to keep you interested in its characters. Dakota Johnson's role as Lucy, a matchmaker with no match of her own, has more depth than the trailers show. Her choices as both a celebrated professional and a single woman raise questions about how her work influences her personal life. Her two love interests, in turn, reflect different facets of what she expects from love.
There are some decisions that may either enhance or hinder this film, depending on the viewer. For one, it covers some mature subject matter, particularly assault. It is worth mentioning that Materialists handles its more sensitive content with care, and uses it to better explain the difference between dating and love. However, its themes do take up a good portion of the film; so those expecting a lighthearted rom-com might find the tone heavier than anticipated. Another decision that might not stick the landing was casting Chris Evans as an average-looking, shabby man. He is supposed to be less attractive when compared to Pascal's character. But it's Chris Evans, one of the most handsome faces in Hollywood. Evans plays the role just fine, but I think that he wasn't the perfect match for the character Song wrote.
So, Materialists may not check all the boxes for everyone-reviews here have been pretty mixed. Even so, if you either enjoy a well-executed drama or are seeking to ignite some engagement with your partner after the film, Song's rom-com is one of the better picks in the theater as of now. And yes, it is a rom-com, even though its funny moments happen during the first forty minutes. If you're still on the fence, ask yourself whether you want to see more romantic movies in cinemas. If so, please support projects like this one. Hollywood leans heavily into action-heavy blockbusters because they see it as the only reliable genre. Prove them wrong, if you'd like to.
Materialists is the latest rom-com currently in theaters. So, is Celine Song's latest drama a good pick for date night? Well, it is for a specific audience. The film may be advertised as a generic rom-com reminiscent of those chick-flicks from the 2000s, but it favors thought-provoking discussion about what love is and where it comes from more so than a familiar feel-good story. Now, don't get me wrong, it still has the usual love triangle and a story you've seen a million times before, but they serve as a backdrop for Materialists' more fascinating ideas. The film leans more cerebral than sentimental, which could spark some thoughtful post-screening conversations about modern love.
The script is sharp and it respects your intelligence. Every other question asked by its three main characters invites the audience to think of an answer to them. It largely showcases the difference between authentic love and romance as a business deal. But, don't worry, this isn't some boring film about ambiguous questions from hopeless romantics. It still delivers good drama to keep you interested in its characters. Dakota Johnson's role as Lucy, a matchmaker with no match of her own, has more depth than the trailers show. Her choices as both a celebrated professional and a single woman raise questions about how her work influences her personal life. Her two love interests, in turn, reflect different facets of what she expects from love.
There are some decisions that may either enhance or hinder this film, depending on the viewer. For one, it covers some mature subject matter, particularly assault. It is worth mentioning that Materialists handles its more sensitive content with care, and uses it to better explain the difference between dating and love. However, its themes do take up a good portion of the film; so those expecting a lighthearted rom-com might find the tone heavier than anticipated. Another decision that might not stick the landing was casting Chris Evans as an average-looking, shabby man. He is supposed to be less attractive when compared to Pascal's character. But it's Chris Evans, one of the most handsome faces in Hollywood. Evans plays the role just fine, but I think that he wasn't the perfect match for the character Song wrote.
So, Materialists may not check all the boxes for everyone-reviews here have been pretty mixed. Even so, if you either enjoy a well-executed drama or are seeking to ignite some engagement with your partner after the film, Song's rom-com is one of the better picks in the theater as of now. And yes, it is a rom-com, even though its funny moments happen during the first forty minutes. If you're still on the fence, ask yourself whether you want to see more romantic movies in cinemas. If so, please support projects like this one. Hollywood leans heavily into action-heavy blockbusters because they see it as the only reliable genre. Prove them wrong, if you'd like to.
By Ian Chandler - June 20, 2025
"The Phoenician Scheme" is the latest film from writer and director Wes Anderson. It's a comedy and it takes place during the 1950s, just like 2023's "Asteroid City." However, this time, Anderson shifts from science fiction to espionage. Once again, he assembles an all-star cast to deliver dry humor, quirky scenarios, and his unique visual style. But, is it worth a ticket? Is it another entertaining Wes Anderson picture-or a misfire weighed down by embellishment?
For those who are increasingly getting weary of Anderson's modern style, rest assured that he has ignored you yet again. The cinematography, mood, and flow are identical to his two previous feature-length films, which admittedly makes it harder to distinguish them as individual movies. It also doesn't help that a lot of the supporting cast were in "Asteroid City" as well. So, "The Phoenician Scheme" appears as a third entry in an unofficial trilogy more than a standalone comedy. With that said, I do believe there are some aspects that make the film different enough to stand out. The most notable is that it features these two actors: Michael Cera and Richard Ayoade. Both of them, if you exclude "Henry Sugar", are newcomers to Anderson's lasso of legendary celebrities. They feel right at home and are the hilarious highlights of this wonderfully weird film.
The film's humor is similar to Anderson's other work, so if you did not find it funny then, this film won't change your mind. That also means that if his comedy is your cup of tea, then you'll find "The Phoenician Scheme" to be just as pleasant. It's also more family-friendly than usual. It's on par with "Asteroid City"-minus the brief, vulgar, graphic nudity-but includes some brief gory imagery. Even though it is not quite as edgy as most of his work, it's still made with an adult audience in mind, thanks to its lexical range and slower pace.
So, I'd say that "The Phoenician Scheme" will be enjoyed most by fans who love it when Anderson embraces his silly side. His signature rhythm and writing style are present with little innovation, but since it isn't necessarily broken, there's little reason to fix it. I personally enjoyed it and laughed out loud alongside four others at several moments. Cera, Ayoade, and Toro's characters are a delightful contrast to Threapleton's role as a grounded, serious nun. Anderson takes advantage of that contrast at every opportunity. It's certainly better written than a good portion of comedy films as of late. It never resorts to bottom-of-the-barrel bathroom humor or lazily written shock-value jokes. It takes the simple approach: throw a likable, bizarre cast of characters into equally bizarre (and sometimes explosive) situations!
Score: 77/100
Summary: "The Phoenician Scheme" might be the least innovative Anderson film in a while, but the formula that's still in place delivers an often-funny comedy that proves Cera and Ayoade are a perfect match for Anderson's quirky imagination.
"The Phoenician Scheme" is the latest film from writer and director Wes Anderson. It's a comedy and it takes place during the 1950s, just like 2023's "Asteroid City." However, this time, Anderson shifts from science fiction to espionage. Once again, he assembles an all-star cast to deliver dry humor, quirky scenarios, and his unique visual style. But, is it worth a ticket? Is it another entertaining Wes Anderson picture-or a misfire weighed down by embellishment?
For those who are increasingly getting weary of Anderson's modern style, rest assured that he has ignored you yet again. The cinematography, mood, and flow are identical to his two previous feature-length films, which admittedly makes it harder to distinguish them as individual movies. It also doesn't help that a lot of the supporting cast were in "Asteroid City" as well. So, "The Phoenician Scheme" appears as a third entry in an unofficial trilogy more than a standalone comedy. With that said, I do believe there are some aspects that make the film different enough to stand out. The most notable is that it features these two actors: Michael Cera and Richard Ayoade. Both of them, if you exclude "Henry Sugar", are newcomers to Anderson's lasso of legendary celebrities. They feel right at home and are the hilarious highlights of this wonderfully weird film.
The film's humor is similar to Anderson's other work, so if you did not find it funny then, this film won't change your mind. That also means that if his comedy is your cup of tea, then you'll find "The Phoenician Scheme" to be just as pleasant. It's also more family-friendly than usual. It's on par with "Asteroid City"-minus the brief, vulgar, graphic nudity-but includes some brief gory imagery. Even though it is not quite as edgy as most of his work, it's still made with an adult audience in mind, thanks to its lexical range and slower pace.
So, I'd say that "The Phoenician Scheme" will be enjoyed most by fans who love it when Anderson embraces his silly side. His signature rhythm and writing style are present with little innovation, but since it isn't necessarily broken, there's little reason to fix it. I personally enjoyed it and laughed out loud alongside four others at several moments. Cera, Ayoade, and Toro's characters are a delightful contrast to Threapleton's role as a grounded, serious nun. Anderson takes advantage of that contrast at every opportunity. It's certainly better written than a good portion of comedy films as of late. It never resorts to bottom-of-the-barrel bathroom humor or lazily written shock-value jokes. It takes the simple approach: throw a likable, bizarre cast of characters into equally bizarre (and sometimes explosive) situations!
Score: 77/100
Summary: "The Phoenician Scheme" might be the least innovative Anderson film in a while, but the formula that's still in place delivers an often-funny comedy that proves Cera and Ayoade are a perfect match for Anderson's quirky imagination.
By Ian Chandler - June 1, 2024
"Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part Two"-or "The Final Reckoning", as it's being called-is the supposed final chapter in this three-decade-old series. Ethan and the gang are back in a moodier adventure that isn't as good as "Fallout" or "Dead Reckoning". Even so, it still is a superb summer blockbuster. However, an above average blockbuster isn't saying much these days, is it? So, is this film worth seeing, especially since movie tickets are a little pricey now?
"The Final Reckoning" feels less like a franchise installment; it acts as a love letter to old-school action filmmaking. Tom Cruise, who is in his sixties, was mad enough to perform two major stunts: one being in a dark submarine and the other involving hanging on biplanes. Yes, they're real, and yes, they are probably the coolest scenes you'll see at the cinema this summer. The underwater scenes are extremely tense; you might forget to breathe during those sequences. However, it is worth noting that some parts jump the shark, even with franchise standards in mind. Despite a few eye-rolls, this kind of ambitious film-making will be sorely missed if CGI remains to be the norm.
The film improves over its predecessor when it comes to juggling its rather large list of characters. However, it still fails to add much depth to its villain: Gabriel. He is even weaker in this movie, as he shifts from a generic baddie to an absolute joke. He might be the least interesting villain in the entire franchise. My group challenged one to remember just ten moments with the character. He struggled quite a bit, if that says anything. The film's other antagonist, the Entity, isn't compelling either. It is, after all, just an evil AI.
Tom Cruise's latest blockbuster also contains more dialogue than usual. Some were mixed about this, as it is just exposition about a relatively basic plot. I, however, enjoy these kinds of exchanges, primarily because constant action is a little exhausting. Additionally, the quieter moments help the chaotic, stunt-heavy sequences stand out even more than they already do. Unfortunately, the dialogue, despite giving breathing room, was not great. It was chock full of those predictable endgame tropes, muting the impact of what should feel climactic. Did the Entity write half of the script? We may never know.
"The Final Reckoning" is pleasantly heartfelt, competing with Fallout and the third one in terms of emotional weight. You really do care about everyone on the mission and hope nothing perilous happens, even though you expect those heart-pumping moments anyway. The picture's heart is what ultimately files it under one of the good, maybe great entries of this thirty-year-old series. The acting, even when the script is lame, is fantastic. The high stakes are frequent, so the actors make sure that it's reflected on their faces, movements, and tone. You are invested quickly and, of course, curious how Hunt and crew will pull off their incredibly implausible mission.
If there is something to take away from this review, it is to see this film in cinemas. I have already seen it twice. It may not be as great as some of its predecessors, but it is a showcase that the formula they've used since 2011's "Ghost Protocol" still works remarkably well. It's another entry that's really about Cruise doing dangerous stunt work with a studio that loves film-making as much as he does. Is it a finale that feels satisfying and perfect? Not quite. It doesn't really feel like a conclusion at all. Heck, I think "Fallout" was a more fitting end. Even so, these missions were worth accepting over the years. And I hope some future film crew comes up with something just as impossibly exemplary.
Score: 78/100
Summary: Although it falls back on familiar tropes often seen in the final installment of a franchise, this mission is still worth accepting-preferably on the big screen.
"Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part Two"-or "The Final Reckoning", as it's being called-is the supposed final chapter in this three-decade-old series. Ethan and the gang are back in a moodier adventure that isn't as good as "Fallout" or "Dead Reckoning". Even so, it still is a superb summer blockbuster. However, an above average blockbuster isn't saying much these days, is it? So, is this film worth seeing, especially since movie tickets are a little pricey now?
"The Final Reckoning" feels less like a franchise installment; it acts as a love letter to old-school action filmmaking. Tom Cruise, who is in his sixties, was mad enough to perform two major stunts: one being in a dark submarine and the other involving hanging on biplanes. Yes, they're real, and yes, they are probably the coolest scenes you'll see at the cinema this summer. The underwater scenes are extremely tense; you might forget to breathe during those sequences. However, it is worth noting that some parts jump the shark, even with franchise standards in mind. Despite a few eye-rolls, this kind of ambitious film-making will be sorely missed if CGI remains to be the norm.
The film improves over its predecessor when it comes to juggling its rather large list of characters. However, it still fails to add much depth to its villain: Gabriel. He is even weaker in this movie, as he shifts from a generic baddie to an absolute joke. He might be the least interesting villain in the entire franchise. My group challenged one to remember just ten moments with the character. He struggled quite a bit, if that says anything. The film's other antagonist, the Entity, isn't compelling either. It is, after all, just an evil AI.
Tom Cruise's latest blockbuster also contains more dialogue than usual. Some were mixed about this, as it is just exposition about a relatively basic plot. I, however, enjoy these kinds of exchanges, primarily because constant action is a little exhausting. Additionally, the quieter moments help the chaotic, stunt-heavy sequences stand out even more than they already do. Unfortunately, the dialogue, despite giving breathing room, was not great. It was chock full of those predictable endgame tropes, muting the impact of what should feel climactic. Did the Entity write half of the script? We may never know.
"The Final Reckoning" is pleasantly heartfelt, competing with Fallout and the third one in terms of emotional weight. You really do care about everyone on the mission and hope nothing perilous happens, even though you expect those heart-pumping moments anyway. The picture's heart is what ultimately files it under one of the good, maybe great entries of this thirty-year-old series. The acting, even when the script is lame, is fantastic. The high stakes are frequent, so the actors make sure that it's reflected on their faces, movements, and tone. You are invested quickly and, of course, curious how Hunt and crew will pull off their incredibly implausible mission.
If there is something to take away from this review, it is to see this film in cinemas. I have already seen it twice. It may not be as great as some of its predecessors, but it is a showcase that the formula they've used since 2011's "Ghost Protocol" still works remarkably well. It's another entry that's really about Cruise doing dangerous stunt work with a studio that loves film-making as much as he does. Is it a finale that feels satisfying and perfect? Not quite. It doesn't really feel like a conclusion at all. Heck, I think "Fallout" was a more fitting end. Even so, these missions were worth accepting over the years. And I hope some future film crew comes up with something just as impossibly exemplary.
Score: 78/100
Summary: Although it falls back on familiar tropes often seen in the final installment of a franchise, this mission is still worth accepting-preferably on the big screen.