TomTalksFilms
oct 2020 se unió
Te damos la bienvenida a nuevo perfil
Nuestras actualizaciones aún están en desarrollo. Si bien la versión anterior de el perfil ya no está disponible, estamos trabajando activamente en mejoras, ¡y algunas de las funciones que faltan regresarán pronto! Mantente al tanto para su regreso. Mientras tanto, el análisis de calificaciones sigue disponible en nuestras aplicaciones para iOS y Android, en la página de perfil. Para ver la distribución de tus calificaciones por año y género, consulta nuestra nueva Guía de ayuda.
Distintivos3
Para saber cómo ganar distintivos, ve a página de ayuda de distintivos.
Reseñas107
Clasificación de TomTalksFilms
At this point you fall into one of two categories when it comes to Disney remakes. You're either done with them or the nostalgia's got you. I've been on the former side for a long time now and it's strange to suddenly find myself amongst the nostalgia crowd.
The original Lilo and Stitch is my second favourite Disney film (only surpassed by monsters inc, don't get any ideas mouse house). Seeing things from the other side can sometimes be enlightening but when it comes to nostalgia you're either going to simply love seeing your favourite characters again or it's going to kill your childhood. I have to say this is probably the first remake where I actually just enjoyed spending time with these characters again.
Firstly and mostly importantly they've absolutely nailed the character of stitch. He's a character that in both the original film and the remake teaches us that nobody is all bad. Sometimes people do bad things but often there's a reason behind their actions. This remake for me got that across just as well as the original did. The look of the character, the mannerisms and getting the original voice actor back (Chris Sanders) all help bring stitch expertly to life.
Narratively this remake does make some changes. Positively, we get more stitch chaos than the original and that's always appreciated and got the most laughs by far. Negatively, the film struggles to let the audience breathe at times. There's such a large cast of characters and some of them do just seem to be here because they were in the original. I also had a bit of an issue with the ending, there was a point where I had a lump in my throat but rather than the film ending once that incident was resolved there's then another additional scene. I get why it needed to have that extra scene but it took away from the emotional impact of what I felt should've been the films actual conclusion.
The relationship between Pleakley and Jumba also felt more childish than it did in the original. Rather than simply disguising themselves, this time they actual turn themselves into humans and the interactions between the two characters I found to be not just unfunny but annoying. This was definitely the biggest disappointment of this remake for me.
Overall however stitch himself is excellent and getting to spend more time with him is always a big plus. Whilst enjoyable the film isn't as good as the original and with that in mind does it really need to exist?
Much like a lot of these remakes, probably not.
The original Lilo and Stitch is my second favourite Disney film (only surpassed by monsters inc, don't get any ideas mouse house). Seeing things from the other side can sometimes be enlightening but when it comes to nostalgia you're either going to simply love seeing your favourite characters again or it's going to kill your childhood. I have to say this is probably the first remake where I actually just enjoyed spending time with these characters again.
Firstly and mostly importantly they've absolutely nailed the character of stitch. He's a character that in both the original film and the remake teaches us that nobody is all bad. Sometimes people do bad things but often there's a reason behind their actions. This remake for me got that across just as well as the original did. The look of the character, the mannerisms and getting the original voice actor back (Chris Sanders) all help bring stitch expertly to life.
Narratively this remake does make some changes. Positively, we get more stitch chaos than the original and that's always appreciated and got the most laughs by far. Negatively, the film struggles to let the audience breathe at times. There's such a large cast of characters and some of them do just seem to be here because they were in the original. I also had a bit of an issue with the ending, there was a point where I had a lump in my throat but rather than the film ending once that incident was resolved there's then another additional scene. I get why it needed to have that extra scene but it took away from the emotional impact of what I felt should've been the films actual conclusion.
The relationship between Pleakley and Jumba also felt more childish than it did in the original. Rather than simply disguising themselves, this time they actual turn themselves into humans and the interactions between the two characters I found to be not just unfunny but annoying. This was definitely the biggest disappointment of this remake for me.
Overall however stitch himself is excellent and getting to spend more time with him is always a big plus. Whilst enjoyable the film isn't as good as the original and with that in mind does it really need to exist?
Much like a lot of these remakes, probably not.
Rami Malek leads the cast in this low octane methodical revenge thriller.
When Charlie's (Malek) wife is killed while away on a business trip in London he decides to plot his revenge. There's just one issue, despite already working for the CIA, he's never held a gun, let alone actually killed anyone. He's therefore forced to use the one weapon he's familiar with, his mind.
If I had a penny for every time I've seen a revenge thriller that starts out with someone close to the main character being killed I'd have about twenty pence which in this economy doesn't even buy you a single Freddo. Despite The Amateurs over familiar narrative groundwork it is able to set itself apart from similar films. Most notably by having a main character who with the best will in the world isn't ever going to be able to pull the trigger or win a fist-fight or do any of the things we expect from the lead character in an action film. Initially I liked this idea, too many times in revenge thrillers characters with no experience of killing have their inciting incident happen and suddenly they turn into a navy seal.
As the film went on however it became clear that the film makers became restricted by this concept as they couldn't have Charlie come face to face with any danger as there's no chance he would win either a firefight or a fist-fight. Instead, what kills are in the film take place as a result of him planting traps and whilst it narratively makes sense it made the film feel lethargic for me at times. I never felt that edge of your seat intensity that you want from an action thriller as I simply never felt the main character was in any real kind of danger.
Malek himself is perfect for the roll of this quiet genius who is forced outside of his comfort zone. His character in this film is similar to Elliott from Mr Robot just that this time he's working for the 'good guys' if you can call the CIA that 😬.
Despite his limited screen time Laurence Fishburne was the stand out for me. His character wasn't all that important to the story in reality but even so he was far from phoning in a performance for a pay-check. I appreciate big name actors who understand that you still have to put the work in even if you aren't the lead in this particular project.
Ultimately the films biggest strength ends up becoming simultaneously its biggest weakness. It's pretty clear the screenplay was adapted from a book and perhaps it would be a better read. It's enjoyable enough for a Sunday afternoon but I wouldn't watch it again.
When Charlie's (Malek) wife is killed while away on a business trip in London he decides to plot his revenge. There's just one issue, despite already working for the CIA, he's never held a gun, let alone actually killed anyone. He's therefore forced to use the one weapon he's familiar with, his mind.
If I had a penny for every time I've seen a revenge thriller that starts out with someone close to the main character being killed I'd have about twenty pence which in this economy doesn't even buy you a single Freddo. Despite The Amateurs over familiar narrative groundwork it is able to set itself apart from similar films. Most notably by having a main character who with the best will in the world isn't ever going to be able to pull the trigger or win a fist-fight or do any of the things we expect from the lead character in an action film. Initially I liked this idea, too many times in revenge thrillers characters with no experience of killing have their inciting incident happen and suddenly they turn into a navy seal.
As the film went on however it became clear that the film makers became restricted by this concept as they couldn't have Charlie come face to face with any danger as there's no chance he would win either a firefight or a fist-fight. Instead, what kills are in the film take place as a result of him planting traps and whilst it narratively makes sense it made the film feel lethargic for me at times. I never felt that edge of your seat intensity that you want from an action thriller as I simply never felt the main character was in any real kind of danger.
Malek himself is perfect for the roll of this quiet genius who is forced outside of his comfort zone. His character in this film is similar to Elliott from Mr Robot just that this time he's working for the 'good guys' if you can call the CIA that 😬.
Despite his limited screen time Laurence Fishburne was the stand out for me. His character wasn't all that important to the story in reality but even so he was far from phoning in a performance for a pay-check. I appreciate big name actors who understand that you still have to put the work in even if you aren't the lead in this particular project.
Ultimately the films biggest strength ends up becoming simultaneously its biggest weakness. It's pretty clear the screenplay was adapted from a book and perhaps it would be a better read. It's enjoyable enough for a Sunday afternoon but I wouldn't watch it again.
In my opinion 2025 has been a slow one for new cinema releases so far. Then bam! Two epics come out in one weekend those being Ryan Cooglers new release Sinners and the Alex Garland directed Warfare.
I first became aware of Garlands work last year when his previous film Civil War was released and I enjoyed it so much it ended up as my favourite film of the year. Civil War broke down a massive national emergency and focused on seeing the situation from the perspective of one particular group of people (Reporters). Warfare is much the same, instead of trying to tackle the whole of the Iraq war or even focusing on some of its more well known events Garland chooses to focus on one American platoon in one very specific situation. By doing this it allows Garland to craft a more intimate story that therefore feels more impactful on the audience by showing us the impact this massive situation had on the lives of specific individuals.
One negative I will say of telling a story this way however is that the ending is perhaps not as gratifying to the casual cinema fan as it would be when you have clear winners and losers by the time the credits role. Whilst I think it's a negative that could turn some people away from seeing Warfare for me it added to the sense of realism to the point where at times it felt like I was watching a documentary. Nothing about it feels like a film, it feels like you're there watching these unimaginable situations take place first hand. The fact the film is written exclusively from first hand accounts of the actual soldiers that were involved in this particular skirmish no doubt helps with that feeling of realism.
Much like Civil War, Warfare is excellent!
It's a powerful, impactful warning of the horrors of war. Its edge of your seat tension throughout that makes you hope that neither you or any of the people you care about ever end up in such a situation.
I first became aware of Garlands work last year when his previous film Civil War was released and I enjoyed it so much it ended up as my favourite film of the year. Civil War broke down a massive national emergency and focused on seeing the situation from the perspective of one particular group of people (Reporters). Warfare is much the same, instead of trying to tackle the whole of the Iraq war or even focusing on some of its more well known events Garland chooses to focus on one American platoon in one very specific situation. By doing this it allows Garland to craft a more intimate story that therefore feels more impactful on the audience by showing us the impact this massive situation had on the lives of specific individuals.
One negative I will say of telling a story this way however is that the ending is perhaps not as gratifying to the casual cinema fan as it would be when you have clear winners and losers by the time the credits role. Whilst I think it's a negative that could turn some people away from seeing Warfare for me it added to the sense of realism to the point where at times it felt like I was watching a documentary. Nothing about it feels like a film, it feels like you're there watching these unimaginable situations take place first hand. The fact the film is written exclusively from first hand accounts of the actual soldiers that were involved in this particular skirmish no doubt helps with that feeling of realism.
Much like Civil War, Warfare is excellent!
It's a powerful, impactful warning of the horrors of war. Its edge of your seat tension throughout that makes you hope that neither you or any of the people you care about ever end up in such a situation.