2021de izlediim filmler - IMDb

Watched on: Netflix
07/01/2020
Imdb
Synopsis: A card dealer on a gambling boat plans the robbery of his boss with a disgruntled co-worker after being denied a loan to save his ailing daughter's life.
I put this on as a background to pass the time not expecting much and got sucked right in. Unexpectedly good. Jeffrey Dean Morgan's Vaughn pulls the heartstrings early with a good story that is, albeit, not original but compelling just the same and it caught my attention immediately. Dave Bautista plays a disgruntled security worker and puts in a fine performance but, with little backstory for his actions, may leave the viewer wishing for a little more exposition. However, where that effort is squandered on Bautista, it is paid back in spades for Morgan. His dilemma is the driving force for the story.
With a daughter at death's door and money for her care running dry, Vaughn asks his boss and long-time associate for a 300K loan. Francis "The Pope" Silva, played by De Niro, is a through-and-through business man though and cannot be swayed. His subsequent rough treatment and firing of Vaughn prove the catalyst to ignite in his former employee the capacity for felonious behaviors.
Kate Bosworth portrays Pope's daughter, though her involvement is criminally limited to one appearance and basically serves as character development for Silva. Several other great supporting performances including Mark Paul Gosselaar, Gina Carano and Morris Chestnut.
Take Speed and mix in a little bit of Casino, add some heart and you get a solid action flick with more fuel in the tank than you gambled on. JDM makes this film on his own but everyone does a bang-up job. Is some of the plot contrived? Sure. Are some of the motives questionable? Yes. But still this film was a pleasant surprise and it does a familiar trope exceedingly well. Recommended.
8/10

I've been wanting to watch it for a while now because I heard amazing things and just googling it reinforced that idea (8.3 on IMDB, 96% on RT and 94% on Metacritic) but now that I acutely did watch it, all I could say is wooow, was I disappointed. It may have very well been the worst Martian Scorsese movie I have ever seen and it's being treated the like his next great master piece, which is absolutely mindboggeling to me. It was long, tedious, over drawn...frankly, it was just boring!
I have no idea how this was made by the same man who gave us absolute classic mob/crime/character study movies like Goodfellas, Casino, Wolf of Wallstreet, Raging Bull, King of Comedy and Shutter Island yet here it is, being praised like it's anywhere near those movies. The run time was 3 and half hours long, an hour longer then Goodfellas and boy did you feel almost every second of it. I swear if you cut out about an hour out of the movie, not only would it not make a difference to the story, but it would actively make the movie better and easier to sit threw with wanting to fall asleep directly afterwards. The acting was solid for the most but nothing to write home about, the main charactenarrator wasn't interesting and Robert De Niro seemed like he was just phoning in most of his performance except for a few scenes, which I can't even blame him for because the script he was given was chalked full of scene's that didn't matter and it which actively seem to call him to show as little emotion as possible. Same goes with Joe Pesci's characteperformance. Most of the other characters are forgettable, the dialog between the characters was bland as all hell except, again, for a few key scenes, there was almost no emotion shown threw out most of the movie in general (the kid actors were especially bad), the music choice/sound design was nothing special and even the cinematography didn't look good with it having almost no "style". This is absolutely amazing t me because the movie reportedly cost 140 MILLION DOLLARS yet looks like it cost 30 million. Casino only cost about a third of this movie and Goodfellas cost about a fifth, yet they some how managed to look way better, more interesting and with a distinctive style behind them well coming out decades ago! All of this just adds to the over all "boringness" of this thing.
There were a couple of good to great parts in this movie with Jimmy Hoffa, played by Al Pacino, being one of the best, as he stole the entire show whenever he was on screen. But he doesn't even show up until an HOUR in and doesn't have nearly enough scenes and he's who most of the movie is built around! I also really liked what they did with his daughter Peggy. The idea of seeing a mob man grow old just realize he lived his life filled with regret, yet still not be able to tell any one about what he thinks he had to do in fear retaliation from an organization long gone,is also a really cool, but the execution was waaay off. I think Netflix just threw a bunch of money at Martian Scorses, Robert De Niro, Joe Pasci and Al Pacino in hopes of getting another classic mob movie that they could call there own and that people would watch over and over again, just to get a 3 and half hour, geriatric, boring shell of Goodfellas.
My over all rating for the movie is a 4/10 and it's something that I would never willingly sit threw again, unless I wanted some background noise well doing work. If the move was was a half an hour to an hour shorter maybe it would have been a different story but as is, it's just not really that good of a movie and is by faaaaar Martian Scorses worst movie. Again, all of this is just my opinion but I don't I've ever been so disappointed in a movie.

3/31/19-12/4/19
IMDB synopsis: “A mob hitman recalls his possible involvement with the slaying of Jimmy Hoffa.”
I’m a pretty big fan of mob movies, and I’m an even bigger fan of Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino, so I wasn’t going to wait too long to see The Irishman. Having said that, I deliberately kept my expectations reasonable, since the trailer fell a little bit flat, and the enormous runtime (3 hours, 29 minutes) likely foreshadowed a self-indulgent director. So what’s the bottom line?
If you like mob movies, and if you keep your expectations reasonable (like I did), this is a fine film. Pacino is really the glue that makes it watchable; he is fantastic as Jimmy Hoffa and he should definitely get an Oscar nomination. DeNiro (playing the hitman) and Joe Pesci (playing the mob boss) are also very good. In that sense, “The Irishman” is really an actor’s showcase – allowing 3 of the best living actors to shine in their twilight years. The plot itself is good enough – engrossing, albeit predictable and with a shortage of real action. In terms of the runtime, yes, Scorsese could unquestionably have cut at least 30-40 minutes, and probably should have. Having said that, I have to admit, I was never really bored (I looked at my phone just twice, and very, very briefly - a real accomplishment for me!).
A few other notes: I was OK with the “de-aging” special effects; I thought it would be distracting, but I got used to it pretty quick. BillSimmons said it was like “really bad botox,” and I think that’s a good way to look at it. Also, please don’t think this is the definitive story of what happened to Jimmy Hoffa; according to what I’ve read online, the real “Irishman” was almost certainly full of shit. So treat this as fiction, or at least, mostly fiction.
So, overall, I think this is a film that’s somewhere between good and very good, but falls short of greatness. I’m actually not sure what the case for calling this a “great movie” would be. The 3 main actors are playing roles they are way too old for (check out DeNiro’s curbstomp scene; it’s ridiculous), the plot is very dialogue-heavy, and it’s way too long. I don’t even think it’s as good as “Casino,” nevermind “Goodfellas.” Still, I do recommend it. I think most people will like it, but not love it, and that’s good enough for a (tentative) recommendation.
Rating: 6.4 / 10

Imdb
Synopsis: A hitman recalls his introduction into the world of organized crime and his involvement with key figures of the mafia as well as his relationship with Jimmy Hoffa.
With a 3 1/2 hour run time, a star studded cast, a living legend of a director and subject matter as time tested tough as "gangster flick", one can only imagine this film is going to be a masterpiece. And I really wanted it to be. But if you're expecting solid story telling ala Casino or a thrill ride of action and explosive exposition the likes of Goodfellas you may have come to the wrong place.
The Irishman is more of a swan song for the most popular quartet in Hollywood history. And it's not the acting that detracts because these beautiful bastards could reenact a Chipmunk cartoon and get an Oscar nod. They're all spot on. The narrative expertise you'd expect of De Niro. That Pacino charisma. And if Joe Pesci has ever been in a film where he didn't steal every scene he's in I've yet to see it.
Lots of underused talent though. Anna Paquin says 7 words the whole movie. Harvey Keitel is backdrop decoration. Ray Romano got some good screen time in though so that was cool.
The films biggest flaw is the length. Completely unnecessary bits throughout. One example being having De Niro's character being told by Pesci to relay a message to Pacino. Next scene: De Niro relays exact message to Pacino only to receive a retort. The next scene then shows the retort being restated by De Niro back to Pesci. Jesus Christ...
The de-aging wasn't as jarring as expected and worked well for 2 of the 3 but it's a bit disconcerting to see what is supposed to be 40-year-old De Niro still moving like he's 80. He couldn't even lift his arms to throw a pistol in the river. Not sure why they didn't just put a younger fellow in. It's not as though there wasnt enough screen time left for De Niro if they had chosen that path. And for all the god damn work they put into making Frank Sheeran you'd think they could have gone a little farther to make Pacino look like Hoffa beside giving him a fucking haircut.
This film itself is more about these powerful figures reflecting back on their lives and choices as they wind down the final chapters of their storied existence. It's a powerful message gleaned through muddied waters. And thats not to say the story isnt a good one, I was pretty involved the whole time. But to say I didnt check the clock would be a lie.
Overall, I'd say everyone should watch this once but it'll never stop a channel surfing run like its predecessors. Maybe my hopes were just too high.
As much as it pains me to type...
7.5/10

For any viewer with doubts, Martin Scorsese's cinematic format still works 30 years later. The 30 is evident from the obvious comparison of "The Irishmas" with his other mafia films, 1990's "Goodfellas" and 1995's "Casino", whose "Irishman" could very well be a sequel, thus forming a informal organized crime film trilogy. As IMDb put it, Scorsese has made his MCU, the Mobster Cinematic Universe.
Here at CineVibesGreece we find it funny that Martin Scorsese had to beg various production companies to finance this film, even collecting many nos, most notably from Paramount Pictures. Finally, and fortunately, it was Netflix who did not hesitate to invest in the highly successful recipe of Scorsese + De Niro + Pesci = great mafia movie.
Let's first say that the movie is not an original script influenced simply by real events. It is a fairly faithful rendition of former Detective Charles Brandt's book "I Heard You Paint Houses".
And at this point let's get a little into the context. As in Q. Tarantino's recent "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood", in which the whole film leads and ends on a specific day of the real, past, world (the murders in Polanski's estate in 1969), here also the underlying fact that is the highlight of the film is the shadowy events of Jimmy Hoffa's disappearance. The latter is one of the most famous faces in the US who have disappeared, and to this day the scenarios give and take about what may have gone down. Although nothing has been officially proven since his disappearance on July 30, 1975, it is widely accepted that he was murdered by the Mafia. The fact that his body is nowhere to be found, and now all hope of finding it has been virtually extinguished, has left the field open to various writers to support their theory but also to various hitmen to claim responsibility.
BUT WHO'S THE "IRISHMAN"?
Frank Sheeran (Robert De Niro), aka the "Irishman", from a young truck driver in the 1950s became involved, at first somewhat reluctantly, but later with all his might, at the actions of the Italian mafia in Pennsylvania. His mentor was the notorious Russell Bufalino (Joe Pesci), for whom and his associates Frank became their johnny on the spot. But because we are talking about mafia business, most of these businesses are about destroying a current or potential opponent. So Sheeran comes into contact with the president of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino), a person who holds excessive political and economic power while at the same time being extremely fond of drivers, forging a friendly relationship with him. He becomes a bodyguard and a trusted advisor. So when Hoffa tries to regain his old influence after a period of recession, the gap between him and the Mafia has become so big that Bufalino makes Sheeran "an offer he can't refuse", forcing him to get rid of Hoffa. Recall that Hofa's assassination by Sheeran, as depicted in the film, is based solely on the claims of the author Ch. Brandt, based on a claimed Sheeran confession.
THE HITMAN LIFE AND ITS REPERCUSSIONS
Although we were more impressed by Pesci's performance (who perfectly conveys Buffalino's calm and measured power), the film is wholly owned by De Niro. The values ​​of Frank Sheeran's almost unchanging character are given to us in several clever ways in the film. He is a war veteran with no hesitation for committing war crimes. Seeing him coldly killing war prisoners makes speaks for his lack of emotion in the rest of the film. Sheeran's only remorseful moment is the phone call to Hoffa's wife, telling her not to lose hope in finding her husband, who he himself shot shortly before. Not even the critical look of his daughter, especially close to Hoffa, who seems to know, doesn't affect him. Sheeran manages to survive, because he keeps his friends close, but his enemies and his friends' enemies even closer.
Scorsese, not in directing but in storytelling, could be described as a babbler, and anyone who supports it is probably right. Still, the claims that 45 minutes to 1 hour could have been left in the editing room are certainly grounded. But let's hear the but. Unlike "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" that ends right after escalating, Scorsese pulls and pulls and pulls the film to the end of Sheeran's life to show us the impact of this life on crime. Impact not so much on the man himself but on those around him. Sheeran seems to set the last goal of his life to build his relationship with his daughter Peggy, who has stopped talking to him. Even so, he does not try to do it for moral reasons, as the film is not moving on this axis, but based on his own peculiar code of redemption, something that is imbued with a strange view on burial instead of cremation. But as mentioned above, the film simply scraps the issues of morality, which Sheeran has lost in his youth, and his relationship with his Irish-Catholic faith.
In the end, with one of the many ways to pay tribute to "Godfather I" and other gangster classics, the film closes with the door leaving Sheeran alone, away from friends, coworkers, family and faith. Is the "Irishman", mainly because of the vast, epic (in Homeric terms) narrative and all-star cast Scorsese's magnum opus or just an overloaded and boring movie filled with cinematic dinosaurs? Or something in between?

The Departed has a pretty incredible cast, but it’s fascinating to consider how many actors were almost part of the movie before they had to leave (At least according to iMDB trivia).
The character Costigan, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, was originally meant to be played by Tom Cruise.
The character Sullivan, played by Matt Damon, was originally meant to be played by Brad Pitt.
The character Costello, played by Jack Nicholson, was originally meant to be played by Al Pacino.
The character Dignam, played by Mark Wahlberg, was originally meant to be played by Ray Liotta.
The character Queenan, played by Michael Sheen, was originally meant to be played by Robert De Niro.
The character Ellerby, played by Alec Baldwin, was originally meant to be played by Mel Gibson.
Again, all of this information comes from iMDB trivia. I can’t remember why Cruise and Pitt dropped out, though Pitt continued as a producer on the movie. Pacino turned down the role of Costello, even though he was Scorsese’s first choice. I believe Liotta had some sort of scheduling conflict, De Niro dropped out to work on The Good Shepherd, and Gibson dropped out to work on Apocalypto.
I truly can’t decide if it would have been better or worse with that cast. I feel like DiCaprio and Damon both did such excellent work, and I certainly don’t know if I can see Cruise as the strung-out, anxiety-ridden Costigan. However, I think Pitt may have been equally as strong as Damon, if not even better. I love Nicholson so much in this role, and I truly don’t believe Pacino, despite his legendary status, could have done as well in the role. Nicholson improvised quite a bit and added a lot to the movie, highlighting his character’s unpredictability and showing some of his truly bizarre habits. The movie would be missing some of it’s best scenes without him, so despite how much I admire Pacino, I have to say I think Nicholson was the right choice. I can’t even imagine Pacino delivering the opening monologue, or being half as creepy and intimidating as Nicholson.
Wahlberg’s performance in the movie is pretty legendary, and he was even nominated for an Oscar, so I don’t know if I feel that Liotta should have replaced him. I think Liotta would have done a great job, though, and I would have loved seeing Scorsese work again with him. I can say for sure that I absolutely would prefer De Niro to Sheen. Sheen is a fine actor, and he does well in this movie, but De Niro and Scorsese is always a recipe for success. If he was in The Departed, it might have made the distance between Casino and The Irishman seem much less prominent. Finally, I’m pretty sure Gibson would have done a better job than Baldwin, but Baldwin was phenomenal.
What do you guys think? I love The Departed, so I was wondering how you all felt. Let me know!

3/31/19-9/1/19
IMDB synopsis: “A tale of greed, deception, money, power, and murder occur between two best friends: a mafia enforcer and a casino executive, compete against each other over a gambling empire, and over a fast living and fast loving socialite.”
I’ve seen pretty much ALL the big-name gangster movies, with the exception of Casino and maybe one or two others. I’m not sure why it’s taken me so long to see Casino, but I’m in good company, because it didn’t do too well at the box office. And even though it was highly-praised by critics, it was almost totally ignored at the Oscars.
Watching this over the weekend, I can confidently say this is a very good (but not great) movie.
What I liked it: Robert DeNiro, Joe Pesci, and Sharon Stone in their primes playing tailor-made roles; great cinematography and set design (Scorsese specialties); and a reasonably coherent and compelling plot.
What I didn’t like: The pacing is off (the first 45 minutes are slow), Stone’s character motivation was weird (it was never explained why she hated her husband so much), and the ending probably needed a little more explanation too (in terms of why some characters did OK, while others…well…didn’t).
What makes Casino shine above everything else is its acting. I’m a big fan of DeNiro and Pesci, and they were superb (especially in the second half). The plot was slightly formulaic, but it was different enough from other gangster films that I felt invested. Ultimately, I can’t call this a great movie because the plot wasn’t quite fresh enough, but it’s definitely a hidden-gem if you like gangster films and R-rated dramas.
Rating: 7.0 / 10
Oh, and since I’m at the halfway mark of The Challenge, I’ve pasted a list of all 50 movies below. The mean rating is 6.2.
(Very Good Movies)
7.4 - Pokemon Detective Pikachu
7.4 - Missing 411: The Hunted [Documentary]
7.3 - Black Hawk Down
7.2 - Bully
7.1 - Hellboy [2019 Version]
7.0 - Casino
6.9 - The Red Pill [Documentary]
6.7 - The Boy in the Plastic Bubble
6.7 - John Wick: Chapter 3: Parabellum
6.7 - Meeting Gorbachev [Documentary]
6.6 - Godzilla: King of the Monsters
6.6 - Bohemian Rhapsody
6.6 - The Pianist
6.6 - March of the Penguins [Documentary]
6.6 - The Belko Experiment
6.5 - Hotel Rwanda
6.5 - Another Day in Paradise
(Good Movies)
6.5 - Pet Semetary [2019 Version]
6.5 - May
6.4 - The Little Bear Movie
6.4 - 47 Meters Down
6.3 - The Green Inferno
6.3 - Brightburn
6.3 - I Am Mother
6.2 - The Blue Lagoon
6.2 - A Time to Kill
6.1 - Dr. Strangelove
6.1 - Freddy vs. Jason
6.0 - The Secret Life of Walter Mitty
6.0 - The Perfection
(OK Movies)
5.9 - Enemy
5.9 - The Void
5.8 - Captive State
5.7 - Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star
5.7 - Avengers: Endgame
5.6 - Escape Room
5.6 - Creep
5.6 - I Saw the Devil
5.5 - Devil
5.3 - Short Term 12
5.0 - A Star is Born [2018 Version]
(Blah Movies)
4.9 - Us
4.9 - Annabelle Comes Home
4.4 - Krampus
4.0 - Dragged Across Concrete
4.0 - House of the Devil
(Bad Movies)
3.9 - Glass
3.9 - Paddleton
3.2 - Wassup Rockers
(Terrible Movies)
2.3 - Get Out

The only rule is that it has to be one of the director's favorite films and it has to be a film that would be considered unorthodox for that director to like. With your permission (and name credit), I would also like to add this to a poll I am building. Your synopsis doesn't have to be serious - the idea is for the list to be humorous. .
Here are a couple I have already done.
Zoolander
Director: Terrence Malick
Alternate Title: Man by the Tree
Plot: We open with a 10 minute continuous shot of a man's silhouette leaning against an oak tree, with the sunrise as the backdrop. The gentle wind playfully moves its way through the long, uncut grass. Naturally the unshaven grass represent's Man's limited time on Earth, and the breeze (representing the elements), calm in it's transparent appearance and yet deceitful in its nature, threatens to snip the grass just as nature often chooses to part a man's soul from his body at any given time.
Because of this, we are gifted with a close up of the naive and unsuspecting grass. By this time, half an hour of the movie's run-time has gone by.
Meanwhile, the man by the tree ponders. He thinks. He contemplates on his existence. He dwells on his legacy. What legacy(?), he asks himself. Does a man truly have a legacy? How can a man be sure of his legacy?
That's when it hits him. As the music swells, the sunrise strips the shadow of its power and the man is revealed to be Derek Zoolander. There is only one way to achieve a legacy, he realizes...
...to kill the Prime Minister of Malaysia
Psycho II
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Alternate Title: The Hateful Bates
Plot: Imprisoned in a mental institution for 20 years, Norman Bates has spent his time watching B movie exploitation flicks from the 60's and 70's, which fuel his thirst for revenge. He eventually makes his escape by striking fear in the guards hearts through an Ezekiel speech. On the run from the authorities, Bates tasks himself with tracking down those who wronged him in the first movie. Shot in 70mm, expect bloody showdowns, Ennio Morricone soundtracks, and homages galore.
(Tarantino cameos as Bates' mother in a flashback scene)
The Exorcist II
Director: Martin Scorsese
Alternate Title: Exorcisms of New York
Plot: In New York city, a mob boss (played by Joe Pesci) hires a Vietnam-war-veteran-turned-former-gangster-turned-priest (played by Robert De Niro) to investigate the bizarre spasms and fits that his daughter (played by Margot Robbie) constantly suffers from.
Little does Pesci know that De Niro only accepts the offer to get close to him and settle a score, as Pesci was previously responsible for a number of deaths of people that were close to De Niro, including legendary union figure Jimmy Hoofa, crime boss Frank Costello and Robert's own father.
De Niro hires Jordan Belford (played by Leonardo DiCaprio) to swindle Pesci out of his cash before the priest chooses to kill the mob boss. Meanwhile, he ends up falling for Pesci's daughter, whose fits were revealed to be a side effect of a drug called Quaalude which she bought from a Casino in Las Vegas whilst in a relationship with a violent boxer.
After murdering Pesci with a baseball bat in the middle of a desert, De Niro runs off with his daughter. Together, they become aviators and travel the world as a musical duo naming themselves 'New York, New York'.
Unfortunately however, in a twist ending, it is revealed that the entire film is a role play set up by a mental asylum doctor (played by Harvey Keitel) and Margot Robbie is in fact a patient on Shutter Island. She eventually turns to her faith for comfort, and spends the rest of her life in silence.
Men in Black III
Director: Paul Thomas Anderson
Alternate Title: There will be Men in Black
Plot: Despite being partners for some considerable time, Tommy Lee Jones has become even more grouchy and unkind to Will Smith in his old age, being consumed by greed and hate for aliens and humans alike. Despite his desperate for Jones' affection, Smith's attempts hit a brick wall as Tommy's younger brother (played by Josh Brolin) arrives.
However, has Smith just stumbled on evidence that Brolin may not be who he says he is? All we know is, there will be men in black...
Here is the original list:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls067503216/

Today is June 1, 2018
Started on May 31, 2018
Absolutely fantastic mobster movie. Really, that's all you need to know about Casino. It was stylish, acting from everyone was top-notch, and the story was engaging from beginning to end. Soundtrack was great, dialogue was great, and even though it was a bit lengthy, you don't really feel the running time. It's one of my favorite mobster movies and my personal favorite Martin Scorsese movie (keep in mind, I haven't seen Goodfellas or Taxi Driver yet. I'll get to them someday).
Speaking of performances, I want to highlight Sharon Stone for acting her ass off. I mean, she absolutely stole the movie for me. She really made you believe that she was this trainwreck ruining De Niro and Pesci's lives throughout the whole movie and the crazier she got, the better her performance was. Sure, Joe Pesci's Nicky is the actual main antagonist and he was phenomenal as well, but I absolutely loathed Stone's Ginger, which is a good sign for your villain.
Now, to balance the praise, I do have one minor nitpick. I love the voice-over narration but there were parts where I felt the narration took me out of the movie. When the voice-overs were used to convey an emotion or to illustrate a character's mindset, they elevate the movie. But sometimes, they just explain what's happening onscreen. You're already showing us what's happening, no need to tell all the time.
So overall...4.5 out of 5 stars. Loses half a star for the "show, don't tell" nitpick but still, it's an outstanding movie. Highly recommend! Imdb: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112641/?ref_=ttfc_fc_tt

Rio 2 (2014)
It's a jungle out there for Blu, Jewel and their three kids after they're hurtled from Rio de Janeiro to the wilds of the Amazon. As Blu tries to fit in, he goes beak-to-beak with the vengeful Nigel, and meets his father-in-law.
Not a bad film as far as kids movies go. Unfortunately, this sequel decided to go with the whole family scene which meant introducing a bunch of child/teenage characters which i hated. I hate all young roles in movies, nine times out of ten, they just suck. This actually meant that despite this being a pretty decent sequel, my annoyance at the characters lowered my enjoyment. Also, I couldn't help but think of Blu's wife as a bad guy.
Apart from that, the story was fine, if a little in your face preachy. The side story with the return of Nigel was brilliant, if anything the film should have been more about them. The animation was similar to the previous movie, most of the old characters were just as good, and for the most part, the new characters were varied and enjoyable, despite being a little simplistic.
In conclusion, i'd advise that you give it a watch if you enjoyed the first film. If you didn't then you won't find anything new here.
My Rating: 6/10
Goodfellas (1990)
Henry Hill and his friends work their way up through the mob hierarchy.
Here we have another Scorsese masterpiece. I always hear amazing things about this film, but only got around to giving it a watch today. I don't think I've ever seen a Scorsese movie that I haven't enjoyed, and this definitely doesn't break that pattern.
While i knew from Casino that De Niro and Pesci would be amazing, i wasn't sure how i'd find Liotta. Truth be told i thought he was perfect in the role. The entire cast played their parts amazingly. The story was fantastic, the effects were amazing as always, everything was just right.
In conclusion, I would advise that you watch this film right now. It's like the modern day Godfather.
My Rating: 8/10
Oculus (2013)
A woman tries to exonerate her brother, who was convicted of murder, by proving that the crime was committed by a supernatural phenomenon.
This film was pretty good. It started off amazingly. Personally, I think it got a little bit stale when they changed the plot from "This could all be your imagination" to "this is definitely legit supernatural". That brought the movie down a lot, but did allow for a few cool scenes.
The film wasn't that scary, there were a couple of cringe inducing scenes and one or two slightly creepy scenes, but for the most part the movie was more of a thriller than a horror, yet enjoyable nonetheless.
The cast were pretty decent. Karen Gillan proved that she can act pretty well without being typecast as "that doctor who girl". I never really cared too much for the characters, but it was still an enjoyable watch.
My Rating: 8/10
Argo (2012)
Acting under the cover of a Hollywood producer scouting a location for a science fiction film, a CIA agent launches a dangerous operation to rescue six Americans in Tehran during the U.S. hostage crisis in Iran in 1980.
I had absolutely no intention of watching this film. It didn't really interest me and it looked pretty dull. However, I had it on Blu ray and so figured I should give it a chance. I am so glad that i did because this film was really good.
The fact that it's based upon a true story of course makes the whole thing better, despite their being a lot of creative licensing to make the film more exciting for modern audiences. The way everything is put together made me feel like i was watching an episode of Hustle.
The actors all did fantastically, it was nice to see Brian Cranston in something other than Breaking Bad. Also, there were a lot of good lesser known actors that i enjoy present as well.
In all, the movie was very entertaining. I got a lot more attached to the pot and the characters than I originally thought i would and i'm glad that i gave the film a chance.
My Rating: 8/10
Starship Troopers (1997)
Humans in a fascistic, militaristic future do battle with giant alien bugs in a fight for survival.
This film was surprisingly enjoyable. At first glance it appears to be nothing more than another generic war film, however, when watching it you'll realise that it's actually a satirical look into military propaganda.
The movie has a little bit of everything really. There are a lot of laughs, a lot of action, a lot of violence and gory scenes, a few scenes of a sexual nature, a love triangle, pretty much everything you want from a good movie all thrown into one action packed film.
The best things about this film were by far the satirical look at the military as an institution, and also the no holds barred violence. Both were done incredibly well. The comedic elements made me laugh where i should, and the bloody effects made a nice change from all the PG-13 movies around at the moment.
My Rating: 9/10
Anatomy of a Murder (1959)
In a murder trial, the defendant says he suffered temporary insanity after the victim raped his wife. What is the truth, and will he win his case?
I expected this film to be a lot like 12 Angry Men. I was incorrect, but not disappointed. The movie itself had quite a long runtime which i started to feel halfway through, but as soon as the court scenes began i was completely pulled into the story once again and the runtime didn't feel as long anymore.
The film was fantastic. Yet again it proved that you don't need lots of action, excitement and explosions to enjoy a movie. Good plot, a well developed script with interesting characters that you care about are all you need.
Although by the end of the movie, i was actually hoping that the prosecution would win the case which i don't think i was supposed to. However, that didn't make me enjoy the film any less, it just meant that i was so engrossed in the story that i actually held my own opinions and didn't just blindly agree with the given story.
I wouldn't say it was as good as 12 Angry Men was, however it was still a good court thriller and it's stayed with me long after watching.
My Rating: 8/10
Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation (2004)
In the sequel to Paul Verhoeven's loved/reviled sci-fi film, a group of troopers taking refuge in an abandoned outpost after fighting alien bugs, failing to realize that more danger lays in wait.
This movie kept much of what made the original so good. But it also left a lot to be desired. The comedic aspects didn't seem quite as good. The violence didn't have the same effect. The plot wasn't as good, nor were the characters.
That's not to say that the movie wasn't good. It expanded on the original story, didn't feel like a repeat of the original plot, and still had a lot going for it. Honestly near the end i really started to love this film, unfortunately it takes a long time to get really good.
It's just not the same as the original. But still worth a watch.
My Rating: 7/10
Starship Troopers 3: Marauder (2008)
Johnny Rico is called back into action to defeat the bugs.
These movies seem to get slightly worse with each sequel. Again, this film was alright. It brought back the star of the first movie, which got my hopes up, but unfortunately everything just seemed to fall a bit flat.
Everything that made the original good was present, the satire, the comedy, the violence, the nudity, it's all there. It just doesn't have the same effect. The charm of the original is lost and i'm glad they stopped making these movies because while they're still alright, nothing can meet the original.
My Rating: 6/10
Calvary (2014)
After he is threatened during a confession, a good-natured priest must battle the dark forces closing in around him.
I remember the feeling of excitement after watching this trailer back when it was first released, however, by the time i got around to watching the film, i had forgotten what the movie was even about.
No matter, the film starts off nicely. It gets straight into the main plot and brought my excitement back. The first scene alone brings a lot of comedy and interest to the film. The only thing that i didn't like was that although they try and keep the second person's identity a secret, i knew instantly who it was due to the voice. Luckily the movie doesn't focus too much on the mystery behind the main plot, however, I'm sure it would have been more enjoyable to try and figure it out as you go along.
Unfortunately, after this promising opening, the film falls into stale ground. While some scenes sparked my interest, i soon felt myself losing interest. I was never truly bored or enticed to stop watching, yet the middle part of the film was quite forgettable. Fortunately the movie had a good handful of decent actors attached to it which made the process of watching slightly more enjoyable.
Luckily, this movie pulled things back at the end. At the climax, everything happens fairly fast. It managed to be slightly emotive with its content, bringing a feeling of anxiety and sadness to myself as a viewer. The movie definitely didn't end exactly as i expected it to and it was better for it. Everything also wrapped up well, despite feeling slightly rushed to completion, it also felt kind of perfect.
This movie was mostly carried by the humour. Even in the middle of the movie, where the main plot seemed to be forgotten for a time, the humour kept me interested and had me chuckling along a fair few times.
In conclusion, i would advise that if you can appreciate slightly dark British humour and an interesting story then watch this film. However, it's not something you should actively seek out because it wasn't fantastic.
My Rating: 6/10
Locke (2013)
Ivan Locke, a dedicated family man and successful construction manager, receives a phone call on the eve of the biggest challenge of his career that sets in motion a series of events that threaten his careful cultivated existence.
This film was amazing. Movies such as this one, with most or all of the movie taking place in one place and with a very minimal cast are very hit or miss with me. They can be amazing like Phonebooth or terrible like Grand Piano. Luckily, this fits with the former.
I was honestly surprised to realise how much I cared about the characters and their lives by the end of the film. The ending itself is kind of abrupt in a way, so all of the plot points that have built up throughout the film never get fully resolved. This i both hated and loved, however, it really effectively shows how much you care, because I really want to know more.
The cast were all brilliant. Even though everybody apart from Tom Hardy were just voices on a phone, they conveyed emotion and portrayed a real person extremely well. And Tom himself stole everything. He was amazing all the way throughout the film. Even when his character remained calm through emotional scenes, you could see that he was trying to hold himself together and he wasn't just acting calm. It's difficult to be the star of a feature length movie where the camera is focused on just you the whole time but Tom does it amazingly well.
I have to mention how well the cinematography was done. It wasn't overly amazing, but i noticed it due to the fact that you would think there are only so many different shots of the inside of a car that one can show before it gets monotonous, however this film manages to go a full hour and a half without it feeling dull.
In conclusion, this film was pretty amazing. If you don't need action, excitement, nudity or gore to enjoy a movie, then you'll probably enjoy this film.
My Rating: 8/10

Las Vegas Hotel - New York-New York Hotel & Casino newyorknewyork.co... New York‑New York Hotel and Casino Make reservations at New York - New York Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas. Come enjoy the restaurants, spa, gaming, and more in the center of the Las Vegas ... ‎Rooms - ‎Hotel - ‎Restaurants - ‎The Big Apple Coaster & Arcade In the news Image for the news result San Bernardino Suspects Left Trail of Clues, but No Clear Motive New York Times‎ - 15 hours ago SAN BERNARDINO, Calif. — The couple who the police say killed 14 people and left 21 ... Uber is on a collision course with New York City again The Verge‎ - 6 hours ago During recruiting trip, Mets show Ben Zobrist grass is green in New York, too ESPN‎ - 6 hours ago More news for New York New York New York, New York - Places | Facebook facebook.com/.../New-York-New-York/108424279189115 New York, New York. 13383611 likes · 698592 talking about this · 22101219 were here. New York—often called New York City or the City of New York to... New York, New York (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewYork,_New_York(film) Wikipedia New York, New York is a 1977 American musical drama film directed by Martin Scorsese. It is a musical tribute, featuring new songs by John Kander and Fred ... Music by‎: ‎John Kander; Fred Ebb Starring‎: ‎Liza Minnelli; Robert De Niro Story by‎: ‎Earl Mac Rauch Release dates‎: ‎June 21, 1977 Theme from New York, New York - Wikipedia, the free ... //en.wikipedia.org/.../Theme_from_New_York,_New_Y... Wikipedia "Theme from New York, New York" (or "New York, New York") is the theme song from the Martin Scorsese film New York, New York (1977), composed by John ... Released‎: ‎June 21, 1977 Genre‎: ‎Traditional pop Writer‎: ‎Fred Ebb, John Kander Length‎: ‎3:16 NEW YORK,NEW YORK- FRANK SINATRA - YouTube Video for New York New York▶ 4:19 youtube.com/watch?v=btFfXgUdIzY Sep 17, 2011 - Uploaded by Zdenek Gazda New York,Frank Sinatra Taxi Broadway, Yonkers Central park, new york city manhattan queens brooklyn ... Frank Sinatra - New York New York Song Lyrics [HD ... Video for New York New York▶ 3:26 youtube.com/watch?v=9KJQNMqVIug Oct 5, 2012 - Uploaded by LiveMusicInHD Lyrics: Start spreading the news I am leaving today I want to be a part of it New York, New York These ... Images for New York New YorkReport images

Image result for New York New York Image result for New York New York Image result for New York New York Image result for New York New York 

More images for New York New York New York, New York (1977) - IMDb .imdb.com/title/tt0076451/ Internet Movie Database Rating: 6.7/10 - ‎12,832 votes Still of Robert De Niro and Liza Minnelli in New York, New York (1977 Still of Robert De Niro in New York, New York (1977) Still of Robert De Niro and Liza ... New York, NY - Forbes .forbes.com/places/ny/new-york/

Forbes New York City exerts a significant impact upon global commerce, finance, media, art, fashion, technology and entertainment, and is often referred to as the “City ... 

Searches related to New York New York
new york new york song
new york new york lyrics
new york new york roller coaster
new york new york frank sinatra
new york new york movie
new york new york clothing
new york and company
new york new york youtube

February 1, 2014
March 29, 2014
Mean Streets
‘Mean Streets’ laid the groundwork for Martin Scorsese’s style that was perfected in his films that followed, not to mention it was his first of his many gangster flicks. Scorsese is by far my favourite director, his films, ‘Mean Streets’ included, are all highly stylized, they utilise music in their score (he’s particularly fond of The Rolling Stones), are very energetic in their pacing and tell rich stories with dynamic and interesting characters, a lot of his films explore the themes of women, violence and murder. If you’re yet to see a Scorsese film or aren't familiar with his films, he’s been responsible for ‘Goodfellas’, ‘Casino’, ‘Taxi Driver’, ‘The Departed’, the recent controversial ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ and many more great titles, I've seen over 10 of his films and have loved every single one of them and am still barely a third of the way through his filmography.
Robert De Niro stars in ‘Mean Streets’ as an irresponsible young hoodlum gangster, Johnny boy, alongside Harvey Keitel as the level headed Charlie, who takes it on himself to watch over Johnny Boy. The film’s depiction of urban life is startling and frighteningly realistic. The film is a must watch for anyone that enjoys a good crime drama or if you’d like to see the beginnings of the the style that Martin Scorsese would adapt and tweak to perfection over the following decades.
★★★★/4
Director: Martin Scorsese
Stars: Robert De Niro, Harvey Keitel, David Proval