streaming movies comedy free

Directed by : John Papsidera, K.C. Hodenfield, Rhett Reese, Rhett Reese, Rhett Reese, Christine Wada, Jeong Jeong-hun, Gavin Polone, Martin Whist, David Sardy

Produced by : John Papsidera, K.C. Hodenfield, Rhett Reese, Rhett Reese, Rhett Reese, Christine Wada, Jeong Jeong-hun, Gavin Polone, Martin Whist, David Sardy

Starring : Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Abigail Breslin, Emma Stone, Zoey Deutch, Avan Jogia, Rosario Dawson, Luke Wilson, Thomas Middleditch, Ronny Mathew

Company : Pariah, Columbia Pictures, Sony Pictures

Release date(s) : 2019-10-09

Running time :99 Minutes

Country  : United States

Language :English

Budget :  $42,000,000

Storyline : Even with its flaws, ‘Zombieland: Double Tap’ doesn’t overstay its welcome with its 99-minute run time, and remains a solid piece of popcorn entertainment. Although it doesn’t push any boundaries, it’s harmless fun (the Homer zombie of horror films, if you will... that’ll make more sense after you’ve seen it). So stumble into a cinema and join these friends on a reunion - sure, one filled with endless blood, guts and brains, but that’s half the fun of a zombie comedy, right?
- Charlie David Page

Read Charlie's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-zombieland-double-tap-the-gangs-back-for-a-brainless-zombie-comedy-sequel
If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)

As you probably know by now, since I posted the original film's review a few hours ago, I loved the first Zombieland. I defend that it's a zombie cult classic, and I was genuinely pumped for its sequel. It didn't go through any external controversy (something quite rare nowadays), the cast didn't say anything wrong in the interviews (haters didn't have enough words to twist this time around), Ruben Fleischer returns as the director, as well as Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick (plus a new member, Dave Callaham) as the screenwriters. If a studio wants to do a 10-year sequel, it might as well get the creators and original cast back together, right?!

That's what I love the most about Double Tap. It didn't lose the original's essence, and it didn't forget what made it so successful. The cast's chemistry can be felt thousands of miles away, but the new additions also fit in seamlessly. Zoey Deutch portrays Madison, a purposefully stereotypical "dumb blonde girl" who has some of the funniest scenes as well as some of the most cringe-worthy (Deutch gives an excellent performance, though). And Rosario Dawson plays Nevada, basically a women version of Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), which means she has a bunch of badass action sequences. As for the old gang, well…

Everyone delivers great performances, but this time, Harrelson really elevated his character. Not only does he have the expected awesome kickass moments, but he also offers some emotionally compelling displays. Emma Stone (Wichita) and Abigail Breslin (Little Rock) keep being amazing as their characters, and Jesse Eisenberg (Columbus) does get a bit too … Jesse Eisenberg, but it never stops feeling natural, having in mind how his character acts. These four are the heart of the whole show. Hence, getting the original cast back together is halfway through success, even more than in the first movie. Story-wise is where I do have some complaints, unfortunately.

Maybe it's due to the fact that I watched 2009's Zombieland just a couple of hours before Double Tap's screening, but I wish that Fleischer and his team were more creative. Sure, the original was 10 years ago, and not everyone is going to rewatch the original (especially not right before), so it's expected that a lot of classic moments are recreated in some shape or form. However, for an extended period, I felt that I was watching the exact same film, just with older characters. I know I'm going to hear some of Columbus' original famous rules, but there's a surprising lack of new ones. I know Tal is going to repeat some of his catchphrases, but he's an imaginative guy, he can think of fresh ones (which he does say in the last minutes, but still).

To move the plot forward or actually make the story happen, a lot of questionable things occur, and not in the sense of them not being rational (it's not like Zombieland is a groundbreaking piece of storytelling). It's the apparent lack of character development through all of the years that have passed, and I'm not addressing their personalities being the same (it's pretty normal). To create this movie, characters make decisions that don't feel right, having in mind they spent so much time together. It's impossible for love, trust, and emotional attachment not to be developed throughout such a long time. So, while Little Rock's arc is understandable and relatable, Wichita and Columbus' lacks convincing arguments, in my opinion. Both make decisions too dumb for such intelligent characters, but I guess "that's love".

Once again, the technical features that defined the original so clearly are seamlessly employed in its sequel. Beautiful production design, cool soundtrack, fantastic application of practical effects and real sets, which nowadays are getting rarer. The slightly longer runtime still manages to carry a fast pace, which is always a good attribute, and it's packed with thrilling, hilarious, bloody action sequences. Amusing pop culture references, and the most significant moment of all: Double Tap has one of the best, if not THE best, mid-credits scene of the year! Don't you dare leave the theater, it's right at the beginning of the credits, so stay in your seat!

All in all, Zombieland: Double Tap pays a decent homage to the original zombie cult classic by getting everyone (cast and crew) back together, and delivering yet another entertaining flick. By maintaining the essence of the first film, Ruben Fleischer is able to capture the outstanding cast's chemistry, as well as present those amazingly entertaining action sequences. Even though the central narrative isn't as straightforward and interesting as in the original, it's still captivating enough for the audience to care about. There is an excessive amount of callbacks to classic catchphrases, rules, or moments, which shows a bit of a lack of imagination to create new material. While it's not as funny or entertaining as the 2009's movie, it's still a good time. If you're a fan of Zombieland, definitely watch it! If not, well… Nut up and watch it or shut up and let others enjoy it.

Rating: B
_**Just as funny and irreverent as the original, even if it hits all the same beats**_

> _I'd rather die while I'm living than live while I'm dead._

- Jimmy Buffett; "Growing Older But Not Up" (1981)

The original _Zombieland_ (2009) was something of a sleeper hit, earning over $100 million against a $24 million budget, becoming the most financially successful zombie movie ever made, until it was surpassed by Marc Forster's asinine _World War Z_ (2013). Smart, funny, and self-aware, it didn't take itself too seriously, and it had bucket-loads of heart, but it was hardly a film crying out for a sequel. And as time passed, it seemed more and more unlikely such a sequel would happen. However, after a decade in development hell, _Zombieland: Double Tap_ has arrived, and boy is it one of the most unnecessary sequels I've seen in quite some time. However, as unnecessary as it is, it's also extremely enjoyable. It doesn't do a whole lot that wasn't in the original, but the irreverent sense of humour, fourth wall breaks, sharp character interactions, and, most importantly, shedloads of charm are all present and accounted for. Directed by Ruben Fleischer (who helmed the original) and written by Rhett Rees and Paul Wernick (who wrote the original), along with Dave Callaham, _Double Tap_ may not take too many risks, but it's a fine companion piece.

10 years after the events in the first film, the quartet is still together and still getting on one another's nerves – there's the neurotic but sweet Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg doing his Jessie Eisenberg thing), the crass but caring Tallahassee (a wonderfully acerbic Woody Harrelson), the sarcastic Wichita (a dead-pan Emma Stone) and the laidback Little Rock (Abigail Breslin doing a lot with the little she's given). As we meet them, they're in the process of taking up residence in the White House – Columbus and Wichita are still a couple, but recently, she's started to wonder if perhaps their relationship is more important to him than it is to her; Little Rock is now a young woman who resents the fact that Tallahassee still treats her like she's 11; and Tallahassee, for his part, hasn't changed an iota. After Columbus proposes to Wichita (using the Hope Diamond), she and Little Rock skip town, but she returns a month later, telling the others that Little Rock ditched her and headed to a supposed zombie-free commune. And so the trio reluctantly set out to find her. Along the way, we're introduced to Madison (Zoey Deutch, who completely steals the film), a millennial bimbo who's been holed up in walk-in freezer; Berkeley (Avan Jogia), a peace-loving hippie; Nevada (Rosario Dawson), a tough-as-nails Elvis aficionado; and Albuquerque (Luke Wilson) and Flagstaff (Thomas Middleditch), who are eerily similar to Tallahassee and Columbus (the reveal of which was spoiled by the trailer). There's also a new breed of zombie, which is faster, stronger, and more intelligent than the regular kind, and which can only be killed with multiple head-shots.

And that's about it as far as the plot goes. The original film came at a time when the zombie genre was just starting to be taken more seriously – Danny Boyle's _28 Days Later_ and Juan Carlos Fresnadillo's _28 Weeks Later_ were released in 2002 and 2007, respectively, introducing all manner of innovations and turning many of the genre tropes on their head; Jaume Balagueró and Paco Plaza's _[•REC]_ films were released in 2007 and 2009, setting a new standard for found footage films; _The Walking Dead_ debuted in 2010, and for the first few seasons it was as well-reviewed a show as you could find (until it turned into repetitive self-parody). Zombies also featured heavily in video game franchises of the era, such as _Siren_ (2003), _Dead Rising_ (2006), _Dead Space_ (2008), and _Dead Island_ (2011). _Zombieland_ cared about none of that – it was, in fact, the inverse of such titles, a film that didn't take anything seriously, least of all itself.

With this in mind, although 10 years have passed and the landscape is very different, one of the sequel's most successful elements is that next to nothing has changed; in essence, it acknowledges the gap precisely by ignoring it. So, Columbus's opening voiceover specifically refers to the long break as he thanks us for choosing _Double Tap_ when there is such "_a wide choice of zombie entertainment_" and Madison tells Tallahassee his catchphrase is "_very 2009_", but the film as a whole feels as if it was shot immediately after the original. Of course, this is important insofar as in the universe of the franchise, the last decade has been very different to the last decade of our reality, so the filmmakers can't layer in too many contemporary references – although Columbus does mention how "_unrealistic_" _The Walking Dead_ comics are, there's a hilarious deconstruction of the concept of Uber, and there's a subtle allusion to Trump when Wichita sarcastically tells Tallassee he'd have brought "a real dignity" to the office of the presidency.

This factors into the performances as well, insofar as Columbus, Tallahassee, and Wichita are all broadly similar to how they were 10 years ago. Little Rock has changed significantly, but that's as much to do with the fact that she was a child in the original and is now a young woman. This lack of character development may sound like a bad thing, but really, the familiarity of the characters and their group dynamic has its own inherent charm, we welcome it because it's familiar, with the cast essentially doing the same things they did in the original. Speaking of performances, Zoey Deutch completely owns every scene she's in. Sure, the character is clichéd as all hell and, on paper, she should be all kinds of annoying, but that she isn't, is a testament to Deutch's warm performance, finding genuine pathos amidst the perpetually peppy and cheerful high-energy ditz. She also has great chemistry with the original cast, especially Harrelson. In fact, all of the new actors have terrific chemistry, which is nice to see insofar as effortless chemistry was one of the hallmarks of the original.

In terms of problems, as mentioned, the film doesn't do a whole lot that wasn't in the original – the characters are the same, the narrative beats are the same, the group dynamic is the same, the sense of humour is the same – and for some, this will certainly be an issue. Indeed, as much as I enjoyed the film, I would have liked to see it take more risks (there's certainly nothing here to rival the inspired Bill Murray cameo). Because of this blanket similarity, there is a sense in which the sequel isn't really its own thing, it's defined primarily by what the original did rather than forging its own path, and a lot of the meta-humour only works if you know the original. Another problem is that it fails to do much with an interesting set-up, which sees women chaffing against traditional gender roles and the identities conferred on them by men. Once the gang end up on the road, this theme is pretty much forgotten (even with the introduction of Nevada, who seems more like a man's idea of what a tough woman should be than her own person). There are also more than a few clichés, primarily in relation to Madison (as blond a character as you'll ever meet) and the one-note Berkeley (a weed-smoking gun-hating hippie, who is literally introduced by way of a sitar on the soundtrack).

_Zombieland: Double Tap_ is undemanding and doesn't completely justify its existence, but it also does justice to the original, and never for one second does it take itself seriously. The effortlessness with which it slots into the original's groove is either funny in its own right or poor writing, depending on your perspective, but the film is smart enough to know and acknowledge that it feels slightly out of place in 2019, in a way the 2009 original did not. And if a little of the spark has been lost, the warmth, the characters, the jokes, and the playfulness more than make up for it.

Directed by : Art Linson, Matthew F. Leonetti, Marilyn Vance, C.O. Erickson, C.O. Erickson, James Troutman, Cameron Crowe, Cameron Crowe, Daniel A. Lomino, Don Phillips

Produced by : Art Linson, Matthew F. Leonetti, Marilyn Vance, C.O. Erickson, C.O. Erickson, James Troutman, Cameron Crowe, Cameron Crowe, Daniel A. Lomino, Don Phillips

Starring : Sean Penn, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Judge Reinhold, Phoebe Cates, Brian Backer, Robert Romanus, Ray Walston, Scott Thomson, Vincent Schiavelli, Amanda Wyss

Company : Refugee Films, Universal Pictures

Release date(s) : 1982-08-13

Running time :90 Minutes

Country  : United States

Language :English

Budget :  $4,500,000

Storyline :

Directed by : Alejandro González Iñárritu, Alejandro González Iñárritu, Alejandro González Iñárritu, Rodrigo Prieto, Arnon Milchan, Francine Maisler, Stephen Mirrione, Emmanuel Lubezki, James W. Skotchdopole, Skip Lievsay

Produced by : Alejandro González Iñárritu, Alejandro González Iñárritu, Alejandro González Iñárritu, Rodrigo Prieto, Arnon Milchan, Francine Maisler, Stephen Mirrione, Emmanuel Lubezki, James W. Skotchdopole, Skip Lievsay

Starring : Michael Keaton, Emma Stone, Edward Norton, Naomi Watts, Kenny Chin, Andrea Riseborough, Amy Ryan, Bill Camp, Zach Galifianakis, Damian Young

Company : TSG Entertainment, Worldview Entertainment, New Regency Pictures, M Productions, Le Grisbi Productions

Release date(s) : 2014-08-27

Running time :120 Minutes

Country  : United States

Language :English

Budget :  $18,000,000

Storyline : **mounting spontaneity** or (dumb luck)

It's not fair.

I love Raymond Carver, long takes, theatre, Batman, NYC rooftops and alleyways, the blending layers of self-referential fiction, delirious fantasy, the creative process, the insane logistics of run-on cinematography, the seamless assembly of shifting environments, stepping into unresolved mental spaces, demonstrations of solitary madness and the unbearable anticipation of being, being judged, being booed, un-being, unhinging, delusional uppers, existential downers, magic surrealism, telekinetic fury, dreams of flying, throwing tantrums, the fragile yet invincible ego, immaculately constructed chaos, the recurring climax of ending it all -- where the blazes is that blasted improvisational drumming coming from? -- oh there, and there, so absurd, don't stop, the shot must go on, the show must go on, "You are not important, get used to it," she said, but so much angst overwhelms him, tethered to a feathered fantasy, a nagging reminder of what once was, or could have been, refusing to believe it's too late to soar to former heights, yet grounded by time and gravity, trapped in a narrative, caged in a fabrication, "You're an actress, honey," says another, "you have no self-respect" and all actors are game, Keaton and Stone zoned-in, knowing the pain, pretending to not care or pretending to matter, failing to be authentic, acting over acting, meta-acting meta-fiction meta-filmed with a meta-critical message: yeah, we're all messed-up and meta-fµcked, but after shooting your nose to spite the ruse, by unmasking the unexpected virtue of ignorance, peeling off layers of pretense and self-importance, you just might find a momentary strain of pure, uncomplicated innocence.

It's not fair. I love this sh*t!
First of all, let me say, I like most of movies where Naomi Watts plays & thought this one would be good too, after all it has high ratings, but don't be fooled by famous actors which play in this movie. Don't be fooled & think that movie is good. No, not at all. This movie is complete junk. It supposed to be a comedy, but I didn't even find it funny. It's just like a big mess. I started watching it & I couldn't last longer than 30 minutes, it was so boring & uninteresting that I fell asleep. I can't believe people rate this movie so high & even worse - this movie won an Oscar. This again proves, that ratings & Oscar ain't always accurate.
This film tells the story of an over-the-hill actor called Riggan Thomson (brilliantly portrayed by Michael Keaton) who was once the star of a superhero blockbuster franchise known as 'Birdman'. We are shown his journey into making a Broadway production starting with the initial rehearsals and read-throughs. What follows is a brilliant exploration of celebrity culture in an intriguing and satirical way.

'Birdman' could essentially be looked at as one continuous long shot. The camera constantly weaves around the actors and action and so the audience are completely immersed into the perspectives of the various characters (mostly Riggan's). The opening shot plays like a scene in Paul Thomas Anderson's 'Boogie Nights' as it delightfully establishes the narrative in a fluid and polished style whilst introducing the cast and their entertaining interchanges during a rehearsal with hilarious consequences.

The editing throughout the picture is almost flawless when moving from scene to scene and has a dizzying effect much like Gasper Noé's 'Irreversible'. 'Birdman' also boasts some marvellous special effects throughout such as when Riggan (Keaton) is alone and being taunted by his egotistical alter-ego. The film shows up typical blockbuster action movies by asking the audience what they want and giving it to them in a manner which embraces the excitement and epic-ness of the genre whilst also poking fun of the conventions.

The music that accompanies the film is very scarce in a lot of places adding emphasis to the dialogue and situations arising but, in some cases, an erratic and improvisational drum riff can be heard (occasionally accompanied with the drummer on the set) which completely adds to the eccentricity and spontaneity of the movie.

The screenplay is very intricately written and contains many profound philosophical speeches about art, celebrity and criticism. There are monologues and debates by characters in which they discuss the core beliefs of the film such as Riggan's speech during his performance of his Raymond Carver play "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love".

The whole narrative of the film is very intriguing and interesting. There is a perfect blend of comedy and poignancy. There are a lot of twists and ambiguity throughout the film which could be analysed and interpreted for a long time.

Michael Keaton is fantastic as the protagonist and gives a performance that would have given his career a huge revival (his squeal is my highlight of the film). The parallels with the character's career and that of Keaton's could not have been a mistake and gives the performance that much more edge. Edward Norton plays the method actor from hell (Mike Shiner). He is annoying, snobbish and smug and played brilliantly by Norton who excels in the vileness and pomposity of the character.

The film is very much about actors. The self obsessive nature of acting is definitely highlighted by the two central performances but there is also a cast that really help to deliver the film's meaning such as Emma Stone, Zach Galifianakis, Andrea Riseborough and Naomi Watts.

Overall, 'Birdman' is a fantastic film. It is filled with pathos and profound imagery whilst keeping the viewer thoroughly entertained throughout.

★★★★½
"I'm nothing. I'm not even here."

The story to Birdman is about an wash up actor (Michael Keaton) - famous for portraying an iconic superhero - as he struggles to mount a Broadway play. In the days leading up to opening night, he battles his ego and attempts to recover his family, his career, and himself.

Okay in my review of Whiplash I bought this movie up mid way through the review just to give a heads up of when I'm going to watch it, because Birdman was my most anticipated film of 2014. But just like every time I really wanted to see a film so baldy I have to wait for a while until I finally get a chance to watch it, story of my life really. But anywhere, I was really looking forward to this movie ever since September, and now finally seeing the film I can safely say that Birdman is one of the best movie of 2014.

I always know that Micheal Keaton was the kind of movie star that will pick any random movie role just because... well he what's to be important and still show to everyone that he still got it, I guess. Early last year he was in two movies that were pretty blah, and that was The Robocop (remake) and Need for Speed, and those films just made Keaton look like he was just cashing it in just for the sake of it. Until I watched this movie and seeing Micheal Keaton's performance and thinking to myself "Wait is Keaton giving probably his best performance I've ever seen in my life? I think he is", because Keaton in this movie pretty much pulls of the best performance I've seen him in his all career. His character in this movie is like a washed up actor who had everything like: the love from the critics and he's fans. Yeah he still dose have that Keaton thing that he always dose in his previous movies, but the scenes where he plays his character (Which is himself if you really look at his character in this movie) but anywhere he still gives a strong and believable performance that at times give me flashbacks of the good old days when he still had roots and felt like he isn't just cashing it in. I hear a lot of Oscar buzz about his performance in this movie, and I wouldn't be surprise if he wins because he totally deserves it. Excellent work Keaton.

Edward Norton is also in this movie and played a familiar character to himself has the hard to work with actor that at times doesn't follow the lines that he was given or even the direction he was told. We already know that Norton is a fantastic actor in his previous work, but in this movie his performance could be descried has stellar and insanely good.

Emma Stone is this movie and of course like most of the actors I named off so far who were outstanding in this movie and well you can already guess what I'm going to say next. Emma Stone acting in this movie was just terrific and marvellous to watch. It's good to see a real break out performance from her more than the lay back ones in her other movies. Nice one Emma. The other cast in the movie like Naomi Watts, Zach Galifianakis both did good as well.

The whole movie is shot to look like it's all in one shot and my mind was just blown away by that fact. There were scenes in way I said to myself "Oh my god is it one shot?", well I can already imagine the stress, hard work and how many takes they had to do to get it, and boy did it pay off nicely, because I couldn't take my eyes off the screen. I dared myself to look away from the beautiful cinematography and the impressive editing used in the film.

The movie has a brilliant message about film critics today that doesn't feel like it's in your face message that you normally get in movies. There's a scene in this movie and by the way it's not a spoiler, but I really need to get this out the way first. Micheal Keaton character starts having a rant over this theater critic who is going to give a bad review to he's play when she hasn't even seen it or any of the premieres. He talks about how she only users big words that nobody will say in person and shes to lazy to come up what she really thinks about it so she users big words just to fill in the sentence. This movie probably has the best rant in movie history and Keaton in that scene shows how good of a actor that he is.

For problems in the movie: I really don't have any to be honest.

I loved this movie and yes I'm coming out be saying that. This isn't just the best movie of the year and such, no this is just flawless film making right here. Birdman and Whiplash are the two films I will highly recommend to people, because those two films are my favorite films of 2014.

Directed by : Michael Andrews, Robert Elswit, David Rubin, Barry Mendel, Jay Cassidy, Gayle Keller, Kevin Thompson, Judd Apatow, Judd Apatow, Judd Apatow

Produced by : Michael Andrews, Robert Elswit, David Rubin, Barry Mendel, Jay Cassidy, Gayle Keller, Kevin Thompson, Judd Apatow, Judd Apatow, Judd Apatow

Starring : Pete Davidson, Marisa Tomei, Bill Burr, Bel Powley, Maude Apatow, Steve Buscemi, Pamela Adlon, Action Bronson, Kevin Corrigan, Ricky Velez

Company : Universal Pictures, Apatow Productions, Perfect World Pictures

Release date(s) : 2020-07-22

Running time :137 Minutes

Country  : United States

Language :English

Budget : 

Storyline : Pete Davidson has had a rough career and is viewed in a somewhat bad light, mainly due to terrible “cancel culture“ trends. If you go in wanting hate him, you will, but that defeats the heart of the film. 'The King of Staten Island' shines as both as semi-autobiographical film and another fantastic entry in Judd Apatow's ever-growing filmography.
- Chris dos Santos

Read Chris' full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-the-king-of-staten-island-judd-apatow-and-pete-davidson-team-up-is-a-match-made-in-heaven
If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com

Judd Apatow has directed/produced some hilarious pieces of cinema: Trainwreck, Bridesmaids, Superbad, Knocked Up, The 40 Year Old Virgin... He's got quite the filmography, there's no way of denying it. Therefore, his name alone is enough to grab my attention when a comedy co-written and directed by him comes along. Add Pete Davidson as a co-writer and the main star, plus a really fascinating cast with Marisa Tomei and Bill Burr, and I'm definitely interested. The King of Staten Island holds a formulaic premise (the whole "dead parent entails a bad kid who needs to learn how to be a better person" has been done to exhaustion), but is it able to elevate it in some way?

First of all, the dark humor really works for me. For anyone who doesn't appreciate this type of comedy, Apatow's film might be too excessive. Tons of unrestrained jokes about the most sensitive subjects, and characters with no limits to where they can go with their wicked sense of humor. So, if you're not a fan of dark comedy, this movie might turn out to be a very unpleasant experience. However, if you have no issues with laughing at a "bad joke", this comedy might just work well enough for you to have a good time. I had really good laughs.

Scott takes the "bad kid who does bad stuff" to a quite terrible (and sometimes illegal) level. He possesses all kinds of psychological issues that you can think of plus some more. He says the most depressing, sad, offensive things to anyone that crosses his path. Pete Davidson absolutely shines in this role, it really feels like he's having an outstanding amount of fun. However, his character goes through such an overlong and exaggerated route that I could neither relate to nor feel sorry for him. This will make or break the film for any viewer: your emotional connection with the protagonist.

As I said in the beginning, the narrative follows a pretty cliche story that people have seen thousands of times. So, from the get-go, it's fairly easy to understand where the movie is going, what's going to change within the characters, and how it's going to end. Screenplay surprises don't come often in this genre, and even when they do, very rarely, they're able to impact the audience in a way that completely changes our perspective on the film or its characters. The King of Staten Island is a movie that tells its viewers everything they need to know in the first ten to fifteen minutes, and then there's nothing remotely new throughout.

It's just way too long. A bit over two hours seeing someone trying to figure out what he's going to do with his life is not exactly the best entertainment ever. There's more than one way to try to relate to Pete Davidson's character, but I really needed to dig deep to find one. As people probably know, Davidson's father was also a firefighter who died in the 9/11 attacks, and this film clearly takes inspiration from Davidson's life. It's not his biography, but he definitely puts a lot of his own personal issues into Scott's personality. Some people even state that he's just portraying himself, and that's not that far from the truth.

In my opinion, the best aspect of the movie is undoubtedly the incredibly realistic dialogues. It genuinely feels like the characters are having real conversations. The editing is so impeccable that I forgot I was watching a film for a couple of moments. The chemistry between every member of the cast is so vibrant that every single dialogue between any two characters always feels extremely lifelike. Marisa Tomei and Bill Burr are astonishing, they truly are. I wish more time was given to develop a bit more of Bel Powley's personal subplot, but I understand that she's far from being one of the most relevant characters.

In the end, The King of Staten Island employs a very well-known (and a bit overused) formula that goes on for way too long, but Judd Apatow balances it with a hilariously dark sense of humor, with the help of his co-writers, Pete Davidson and Dave Sirus. Most of the comedy really works, which helped to get through the least entertaining (and predictable) portions of the narrative. Davidson shines in a role that many addressed as "he's just playing himself", but I find him incredibly engaging and captivating to watch, even though I can't quite relate to his character. The emotional attachment to the protagonist is the major component that's either going to make you love this flick or spend a couple of hours just watching someone trying to figure out what to do with his life. The realistic dialogues (elevated by perfect editing) and the cast's phenomenal chemistry just tip the scale to the positive side. I definitely recommend it, but with the small warning that if you're not a fan of dark comedy, then it's better to skip this one.

Rating: B-

Directed by : Chris Bender, Richard LeGrand Jr., Priscilla Nedd-Friendly, Joseph Middleton, Michelle Morris, Chris Weitz, Chris Weitz, Paul Weitz, David Boulton, Walter Spencer

Produced by : Chris Bender, Richard LeGrand Jr., Priscilla Nedd-Friendly, Joseph Middleton, Michelle Morris, Chris Weitz, Chris Weitz, Paul Weitz, David Boulton, Walter Spencer

Starring : Jason Biggs, Chris Klein, Thomas Ian Nicholas, Alyson Hannigan, Shannon Elizabeth, Tara Reid, Eddie Kaye Thomas, Seann William Scott, Eugene Levy, Natasha Lyonne

Company : Summit Entertainment, Universal Pictures, Newmarket Capital Group, Zide-Perry Productions

Release date(s) : 1999-07-09

Running time :95 Minutes

Country  : United States

Language :English

Budget :  $11,000,000

Storyline :

Directed by : Arthur Coburn, Michael De Luca, Kyle Balda, Mike Werb, Craig Stearns, Rick Barker, Deborah Moore, Deborah Moore, Joe Fineman, Lisa Van Cott

Produced by : Arthur Coburn, Michael De Luca, Kyle Balda, Mike Werb, Craig Stearns, Rick Barker, Deborah Moore, Deborah Moore, Joe Fineman, Lisa Van Cott

Starring : Jim Carrey, Cameron Diaz, Nancy Fish, Tim Bagley, Peter Greene, Johnny Williams, Peter Riegert, Amy Yasbeck, Richard Jeni, Orestes Matacena

Company : Dark Horse Entertainment, New Line Cinema

Release date(s) : 1994-07-29

Running time :101 Minutes

Country  : United States

Language :svenska, English

Budget :  $23,000,000

Storyline : Fun fantasy-comedy that utilizes Jim Carrey's physicality, and comedic timing, to the extreme and while some of the jokes didn't land and the mask himself (both Stanley and Dorian) was a bit ridiculous, even within the confines of this universe, still found it to be entertaining enough, plus it is Cameron Diaz's feature debut... **3.5/5**

Directed by : Zoë Bell, Zoë Bell, Javier Aguirresarobe, Dan Hennah, David Farmer, Sarah Halley Finn, Mark Mothersbaugh, Stan Lee, Stan Lee, Kevin Feige

Produced by : Zoë Bell, Zoë Bell, Javier Aguirresarobe, Dan Hennah, David Farmer, Sarah Halley Finn, Mark Mothersbaugh, Stan Lee, Stan Lee, Kevin Feige

Starring : Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Cate Blanchett, Tessa Thompson, Jeff Goldblum, Idris Elba, Karl Urban, Mark Ruffalo, Anthony Hopkins, Benedict Cumberbatch

Company : Marvel Studios, Walt Disney Pictures

Release date(s) : 2017-10-25

Running time :131 Minutes

Country  : United States

Language :English

Budget :  $180,000,000

Storyline : _Ragnarok_ is a tough one to review completely without spoiler, so I'll keep this brief:

* I was bothered by a small number of things that happened in this movie.
* I was in love with a large number of things that happened in this movie.
* _Thor: Ragnarok_ is not the MCU's best movie.
* _Thor: Ragnarok_ is the MCU's most fun movie.
* Can we **please** have a worldwide ban on putting anything that happens in the third act of your movie, in said movie's trailers?
Thank you for your time. 4 stars.


_Final rating:★★★★ - Very strong appeal. A personal favourite._
The Best CBM movie of 2017

The film is one of the most entertaining of the MCU films so far and a HUGE improvement over Thor: The Dark World. Cate Blanchett as the villainess Hela, the Goddess of Death, is a far better villain that TDW's lame Malekith. Kat Dennings' annoying Darcy and Natalie Portman's bland Jane are not missed at all. Instead, we get Tessa Thompson's badass Valkyrie, who can hold her own in a fight and isn't just there just as a love interest for Thor (Chris Hemsworth). Jeff Goldblum is hilarious as Grandmaster, who runs the gladiator fights on the planet Sakaar. But the real pleasure of the movie is watching the love-hate brother relationship between Thor and his adoptive brother, Loki (Tom Hiddleston). The relationship between the two men was the only redeeming feature of TDW, and it's great to see it expanded in this movie. Also great is seeing Thor buddy up with Bruce Banner/ Hulk (Mark Ruffalo). The only thing I didn't like about the movie was the fate of The Warriors Three. They deserved better than that. But otherwise, it's a great comic book movie.
From minute one, Thor Ragnarok bursts onto the screen with a new found energy, style, Jeff Goldblum, beautiful use of colours and shot compositions, an amazing 80s inspired music score, and comedy that's actually funny. Somehow, Thor Ragnarok is both the darkest film in the entire MCU given that it deals with the destruction of an entire world, and the most lighthearted.

Thor Ragnarok is very much a Taika Waititi film that uses Marvel lore and characters. It has many shocking twists, turns, witty comedy, and pleasant re-introductions (and introductions) to some of the MCU's best characters that I can't wait to see more of. Oh, and did I mention this movie has Jeff Goldblum?!
This movie sets a new bar for the MCU. It's funny, entertaining and VERY fun. It takes a completely different yet good turn from the past 2 movies and is a colourful blast.
Too bad. I loved the first two Thor movies and was expecting that the third one will hold up to the quality of the first two. But I guess today it's really hard to pull off a trilogy that'll ring throughout the years like how the Wachowskis did with the Matrix.
Marvel films are known for sneaking humor in between action sequences, but I don't know what they did with this one. The choreography was lame and I don't understand why Thor felt like he was trying too hard to be funny.
Despite all the hate surrounding this movie, I actually enjoyed it. If you're as big of a fan of "Thor" like me, then you pretty much just like everything that comes out with him on it.
Thor's character is great with the other Avengers, but he just doesn't do that well as a stand-alone character with his own storyline. It's sad because he had so much potential too.
Story could've been great but it seemed to me that the writers got lazy with the script and just opted to feed Thor some cheesy humor that made him seem like this kid who was trying too hard to be funny instead of the GOD of Thunder the first two films built him up to be.
I'm a big fan of Thor but I just couldn't bring myself to like what they did to him in this film. I get that he's going through tough times but turning him from being a thundering, huge god to a man-child who shoots lightning is such an insult to Thor.
I know not a lot of people found the humor to be funny but my family and I actually loved it!
As a big fan of stand-up comedy, I can say this one really delivered. Most of the jokes had perfect timing and executed in perfect deadpan. Would want another movie like this!
I really don't understand why everyone's hating this movie. I remember myself and everyone else in the cinema, laughing our asses off all throughout the movie.
Childish humor, the same fight scenes and although I gotta say that the plot was creative, it still didn't do it for me.
This wasn't the Thor movie I expected. Seeing as Marvel did so well with the first two Thor films, I'm surprised this turned out to be a big joke.
If you enjoy 8 year old humor and cheesy one-liners, then go ahead and watch this movie. Otherwise, go pick another film.
Meh it passed the time. I honestly didn't hate the film but didn't find it to be as entertaining as the other films Marvel has already put out.
This does it for me. I expected more from Thor as he is the God of Thunder and you could do so much with him but they weren't able to do that in this film.
Thor's soundtrack was always cool, but not on this film.
The two earlier Thor films had a more "godlike" tone to them. Why not keep that and use it with the third one? This is a huge downgrade for Thor.