ian-47918
Iscritto in data apr 2021
Ti diamo il benvenuto nel nuovo profilo
I nostri aggiornamenti sono ancora in fase di sviluppo. Sebbene la versione precedente del profilo non sia più accessibile, stiamo lavorando attivamente ai miglioramenti e alcune delle funzionalità mancanti torneranno presto! Non perderti il loro ritorno. Nel frattempo, l’analisi delle valutazioni è ancora disponibile sulle nostre app iOS e Android, che si trovano nella pagina del profilo. Per visualizzare la tua distribuzione delle valutazioni per anno e genere, fai riferimento alla nostra nuova Guida di aiuto.
Distintivi3
Per sapere come ottenere i badge, vai a pagina di aiuto per i badge.
Recensioni38
Valutazione di ian-47918
By Ian Chandler - July 24, 2025
F1 marks the first critical success for Apple Studios, whose previous films ranged from forgettable to outright disasters (looking at you, Argylle). The film plays it safe, leaving little room for ambition. Despite that, it still delivers on thrills, emotion, pacing, and a decent story. It's best served as an adrenaline rush during the summer season. It is worth noting that I'll be analyzing F1 more as a film than a motorsport adaptation. Fans of the racing event should know-it's respectful, but it trades deep insight for cinematic polish.
If you've seen 2019's Ford v Ferrari or 2023's Gran Turismo, then most of F1's elements are going to be very familiar. At its core, it is simply an entertaining racing drama that focuses more on its characters than cars. As a movie, this is the smart play. As a celebration for F1's vast history, it might leave some fans craving more from its source material. Driving this film's dramatic weight are its two talented stars: Brad Pitt and Damson Idris. But what sets F1 apart from many motorsport dramas is its deeper investment in the ensemble. It isn't all about the racers; it is about the team-which includes the investors, pit crew, engineering team, and more.
Regarding the racing sequences, it's clear that several veterans from Top Gun: Maverick had a hand in the action. Cameras shift from closeups, the cars' side views, and the wheels. Far away shots aren't very common, which again gives its characters more priority than the vehicles. The action is more concerned with the strategies Apex must compose in order to outsmart their otherwise superior opponents. This is where the teamwork shines the most. Back-and-forth exchanges-and occasional bickering-between the drivers and crew were some of the film's most entertaining moments. Seeing the squad attempting to improvise when situations become hysterical is simply nail-biting!
Where F1's excitement runs low on fuel is its structure. It's competent, practically without major flaws, but it is a bit predictable. Since it's not based on a true story, it's puzzling why the filmmakers didn't take more creative risks. It doesn't need to reinvent the wheel, but even a shred of extra creativity would have made it miles better. With that said, what we have is a reasonably enjoyable movie that, if not the most imaginative, excels at what it sets out to do.
F1 may not finish in first place, but it's still a winner in terms of delivering a wildly entertaining (and sometimes funny) picture with a lovable cast and exciting races. It is further enhanced with impressive sound and steady direction. It may not hit the heights of Ford v Ferrari, but F1 still deserves to be celebrated for its attempt to bring energy into an increasingly tired genre. If you're looking for an exhilarating movie that isn't too demanding, F1 is a pit stop worth making.
Score: 77/100.
F1 marks the first critical success for Apple Studios, whose previous films ranged from forgettable to outright disasters (looking at you, Argylle). The film plays it safe, leaving little room for ambition. Despite that, it still delivers on thrills, emotion, pacing, and a decent story. It's best served as an adrenaline rush during the summer season. It is worth noting that I'll be analyzing F1 more as a film than a motorsport adaptation. Fans of the racing event should know-it's respectful, but it trades deep insight for cinematic polish.
If you've seen 2019's Ford v Ferrari or 2023's Gran Turismo, then most of F1's elements are going to be very familiar. At its core, it is simply an entertaining racing drama that focuses more on its characters than cars. As a movie, this is the smart play. As a celebration for F1's vast history, it might leave some fans craving more from its source material. Driving this film's dramatic weight are its two talented stars: Brad Pitt and Damson Idris. But what sets F1 apart from many motorsport dramas is its deeper investment in the ensemble. It isn't all about the racers; it is about the team-which includes the investors, pit crew, engineering team, and more.
Regarding the racing sequences, it's clear that several veterans from Top Gun: Maverick had a hand in the action. Cameras shift from closeups, the cars' side views, and the wheels. Far away shots aren't very common, which again gives its characters more priority than the vehicles. The action is more concerned with the strategies Apex must compose in order to outsmart their otherwise superior opponents. This is where the teamwork shines the most. Back-and-forth exchanges-and occasional bickering-between the drivers and crew were some of the film's most entertaining moments. Seeing the squad attempting to improvise when situations become hysterical is simply nail-biting!
Where F1's excitement runs low on fuel is its structure. It's competent, practically without major flaws, but it is a bit predictable. Since it's not based on a true story, it's puzzling why the filmmakers didn't take more creative risks. It doesn't need to reinvent the wheel, but even a shred of extra creativity would have made it miles better. With that said, what we have is a reasonably enjoyable movie that, if not the most imaginative, excels at what it sets out to do.
F1 may not finish in first place, but it's still a winner in terms of delivering a wildly entertaining (and sometimes funny) picture with a lovable cast and exciting races. It is further enhanced with impressive sound and steady direction. It may not hit the heights of Ford v Ferrari, but F1 still deserves to be celebrated for its attempt to bring energy into an increasingly tired genre. If you're looking for an exhilarating movie that isn't too demanding, F1 is a pit stop worth making.
Score: 77/100.
By Ian Chandler - July 16, 2025
Superman is yet another reboot of DC's iconic Man of Steel. Unlike more recent efforts, this film shies away from the dark, moody vibe and takes the Kryptonian in new directions-some of which are bound to bother DC veterans. If you like its director, James Gunn, or the structure of an MCU flick, you might find this one to soar quite high. However, if you prefer Superman to be gritty or an invulnerable god, Gunn's adaptation will be your Kryptonite. If you are indifferent or unsure, chances are that you'll see it as I do: it's a fun and fresh take-even if it doesn't leave a lasting mark.
The most notable talking point about this movie is how it portrays its titular character. Superman has been a hero for three years and he's finally facing threats that challenge him-not just physically, but intellectually. Rather than brute force, these foes push him to rely on strategy and teamwork, and it does so decently well. This dynamic shines in his battle of wits with Lex Luthor, who's brought to life with Nicholas Hout's scene stealing performance. This Luthor is cunning and has more tricks than just holding Kryptonite nearby. You might actually wonder how Superman can outsmart him, despite his incredible powers.
The supporting cast is a mixed bag. Green Lantern and Mr. Terrific, played by Nathan Fillion and Edi Gathegi respectively, are clear highlights. Others, like Hawkgirl, played by Isabela Merced, feel underused. The dog, Krypto, will appeal to certain audiences, especially children; but he does overstay his welcome. Lois Lane is, well, the usual Lois Lane. Even though they all have a good chunk of screentime, the movie, thankfully, never loses sight of its main star.
Though this reboot is far better than nearly every DC film over the last decade (with The Batman as a notable exception), it still doesn't entirely shake off the label of a generic superhero picture. Its third act is largely unimaginative. You have your usual "earthquake-like" disaster tearing the city apart, an overly long exchange of punches between the hero and their equally powerful foe, the villain's master plan monologue, etc. Though, to its credit, there is more emotional depth than usual during the final confrontation. Even so, it's not enough to avoid comparisons to other, perhaps stronger, entries in the genre.
Superman's biggest issue, which is also found in many recent superhero films, is its jarring tonal shifts. Now, it is possible (and sometimes necessary) to balance the film between being serious and silly. Another superhero flick, Thunderbolts*, while not perfect, managed that calibration more gracefully. The problem isn't that there are two tones, it's that it cycles between the two every five minutes. For example, there is a shockingly violent scene that is meant to disturb and upset the viewer, but the very next scene is a very whimsical action sequence with upbeat music. It's a little frustrating, as the film would benefit greatly if it just let its dramatic moments breathe.
Even with its problems, Superman is a major step in the right direction after the DCEU's long string of misfires. It's exciting, refreshing, and is best experienced in a theater-complete with superb sound mixing, a rarity among modern blockbusters. If they can just keep the momentum going, they might dominate the superhero genre since Marvel has been stumbling over the last five years. But that is to assume that they will act fast. With over five years between Batman films, it's unclear whether DC will strike while the iron's hot.
Score: 74/100.
Superman is yet another reboot of DC's iconic Man of Steel. Unlike more recent efforts, this film shies away from the dark, moody vibe and takes the Kryptonian in new directions-some of which are bound to bother DC veterans. If you like its director, James Gunn, or the structure of an MCU flick, you might find this one to soar quite high. However, if you prefer Superman to be gritty or an invulnerable god, Gunn's adaptation will be your Kryptonite. If you are indifferent or unsure, chances are that you'll see it as I do: it's a fun and fresh take-even if it doesn't leave a lasting mark.
The most notable talking point about this movie is how it portrays its titular character. Superman has been a hero for three years and he's finally facing threats that challenge him-not just physically, but intellectually. Rather than brute force, these foes push him to rely on strategy and teamwork, and it does so decently well. This dynamic shines in his battle of wits with Lex Luthor, who's brought to life with Nicholas Hout's scene stealing performance. This Luthor is cunning and has more tricks than just holding Kryptonite nearby. You might actually wonder how Superman can outsmart him, despite his incredible powers.
The supporting cast is a mixed bag. Green Lantern and Mr. Terrific, played by Nathan Fillion and Edi Gathegi respectively, are clear highlights. Others, like Hawkgirl, played by Isabela Merced, feel underused. The dog, Krypto, will appeal to certain audiences, especially children; but he does overstay his welcome. Lois Lane is, well, the usual Lois Lane. Even though they all have a good chunk of screentime, the movie, thankfully, never loses sight of its main star.
Though this reboot is far better than nearly every DC film over the last decade (with The Batman as a notable exception), it still doesn't entirely shake off the label of a generic superhero picture. Its third act is largely unimaginative. You have your usual "earthquake-like" disaster tearing the city apart, an overly long exchange of punches between the hero and their equally powerful foe, the villain's master plan monologue, etc. Though, to its credit, there is more emotional depth than usual during the final confrontation. Even so, it's not enough to avoid comparisons to other, perhaps stronger, entries in the genre.
Superman's biggest issue, which is also found in many recent superhero films, is its jarring tonal shifts. Now, it is possible (and sometimes necessary) to balance the film between being serious and silly. Another superhero flick, Thunderbolts*, while not perfect, managed that calibration more gracefully. The problem isn't that there are two tones, it's that it cycles between the two every five minutes. For example, there is a shockingly violent scene that is meant to disturb and upset the viewer, but the very next scene is a very whimsical action sequence with upbeat music. It's a little frustrating, as the film would benefit greatly if it just let its dramatic moments breathe.
Even with its problems, Superman is a major step in the right direction after the DCEU's long string of misfires. It's exciting, refreshing, and is best experienced in a theater-complete with superb sound mixing, a rarity among modern blockbusters. If they can just keep the momentum going, they might dominate the superhero genre since Marvel has been stumbling over the last five years. But that is to assume that they will act fast. With over five years between Batman films, it's unclear whether DC will strike while the iron's hot.
Score: 74/100.
By Ian Chandler - June 25, 2025
Materialists is the latest rom-com currently in theaters. So, is Celine Song's latest drama a good pick for date night? Well, it is for a specific audience. The film may be advertised as a generic rom-com reminiscent of those chick-flicks from the 2000s, but it favors thought-provoking discussion about what love is and where it comes from more so than a familiar feel-good story. Now, don't get me wrong, it still has the usual love triangle and a story you've seen a million times before, but they serve as a backdrop for Materialists' more fascinating ideas. The film leans more cerebral than sentimental, which could spark some thoughtful post-screening conversations about modern love.
The script is sharp and it respects your intelligence. Every other question asked by its three main characters invites the audience to think of an answer to them. It largely showcases the difference between authentic love and romance as a business deal. But, don't worry, this isn't some boring film about ambiguous questions from hopeless romantics. It still delivers good drama to keep you interested in its characters. Dakota Johnson's role as Lucy, a matchmaker with no match of her own, has more depth than the trailers show. Her choices as both a celebrated professional and a single woman raise questions about how her work influences her personal life. Her two love interests, in turn, reflect different facets of what she expects from love.
There are some decisions that may either enhance or hinder this film, depending on the viewer. For one, it covers some mature subject matter, particularly assault. It is worth mentioning that Materialists handles its more sensitive content with care, and uses it to better explain the difference between dating and love. However, its themes do take up a good portion of the film; so those expecting a lighthearted rom-com might find the tone heavier than anticipated. Another decision that might not stick the landing was casting Chris Evans as an average-looking, shabby man. He is supposed to be less attractive when compared to Pascal's character. But it's Chris Evans, one of the most handsome faces in Hollywood. Evans plays the role just fine, but I think that he wasn't the perfect match for the character Song wrote.
So, Materialists may not check all the boxes for everyone-reviews here have been pretty mixed. Even so, if you either enjoy a well-executed drama or are seeking to ignite some engagement with your partner after the film, Song's rom-com is one of the better picks in the theater as of now. And yes, it is a rom-com, even though its funny moments happen during the first forty minutes. If you're still on the fence, ask yourself whether you want to see more romantic movies in cinemas. If so, please support projects like this one. Hollywood leans heavily into action-heavy blockbusters because they see it as the only reliable genre. Prove them wrong, if you'd like to.
Materialists is the latest rom-com currently in theaters. So, is Celine Song's latest drama a good pick for date night? Well, it is for a specific audience. The film may be advertised as a generic rom-com reminiscent of those chick-flicks from the 2000s, but it favors thought-provoking discussion about what love is and where it comes from more so than a familiar feel-good story. Now, don't get me wrong, it still has the usual love triangle and a story you've seen a million times before, but they serve as a backdrop for Materialists' more fascinating ideas. The film leans more cerebral than sentimental, which could spark some thoughtful post-screening conversations about modern love.
The script is sharp and it respects your intelligence. Every other question asked by its three main characters invites the audience to think of an answer to them. It largely showcases the difference between authentic love and romance as a business deal. But, don't worry, this isn't some boring film about ambiguous questions from hopeless romantics. It still delivers good drama to keep you interested in its characters. Dakota Johnson's role as Lucy, a matchmaker with no match of her own, has more depth than the trailers show. Her choices as both a celebrated professional and a single woman raise questions about how her work influences her personal life. Her two love interests, in turn, reflect different facets of what she expects from love.
There are some decisions that may either enhance or hinder this film, depending on the viewer. For one, it covers some mature subject matter, particularly assault. It is worth mentioning that Materialists handles its more sensitive content with care, and uses it to better explain the difference between dating and love. However, its themes do take up a good portion of the film; so those expecting a lighthearted rom-com might find the tone heavier than anticipated. Another decision that might not stick the landing was casting Chris Evans as an average-looking, shabby man. He is supposed to be less attractive when compared to Pascal's character. But it's Chris Evans, one of the most handsome faces in Hollywood. Evans plays the role just fine, but I think that he wasn't the perfect match for the character Song wrote.
So, Materialists may not check all the boxes for everyone-reviews here have been pretty mixed. Even so, if you either enjoy a well-executed drama or are seeking to ignite some engagement with your partner after the film, Song's rom-com is one of the better picks in the theater as of now. And yes, it is a rom-com, even though its funny moments happen during the first forty minutes. If you're still on the fence, ask yourself whether you want to see more romantic movies in cinemas. If so, please support projects like this one. Hollywood leans heavily into action-heavy blockbusters because they see it as the only reliable genre. Prove them wrong, if you'd like to.