Wreck-It Ralph is the 9-foot-tall, 643-pound villain of an arcade video game named Fix-It Felix Jr., in which the game's titular hero fixes buildings that Ralph destroys. Wanting to prove he can be a good guy and not just a villain, Ralph escapes his game and lands in Hero's Duty, a first-person shooter where he helps the game's hero battle against alien invaders. He later enters Sugar Rush, a kart racing game set on tracks made of candies, cookies and other sweets. There, Ralph meets Vanellope von Schweetz who has learned that her game is faced with a dire threat that could affect the entire arcade, and one that Ralph may have inadvertently started.
Writer:Rich Moore (story by), Phil Johnston (story by), Jim Reardon (story by), Phil Johnston (screenplay), Jennifer Lee (screenplay), John C. Reilly (additi
Wreck-It Ralph longs to be as beloved as his game's perfect Good Guy, Fix-It Felix. Problem is, nobody loves a Bad Guy. But they do love heroes... so when a modern, first-person shooter game arrives featuring tough-as-nails Sergeant Calhoun, Ralph sees it as his ticket to heroism and happiness. He sneaks into the game with a simple plan -- win a medal -- but soon wrecks everything, and accidentally unleashes a deadly enemy that threatens every game in the arcade. Ralph's only hope? Vanellope von Schweetz, a young troublemaking "glitch" from a candy-coated cart racing game who might just be the one to teach Ralph what it means to be a Good Guy. But will he realize he is good enough to become a hero before it's "Game Over" for the entire arcade? . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Geoff J (au) wrote: It's Groundhog Day meets The Matrix in an enjoyable low budget thriller...
Steve Z (mx) wrote: Watchable. Classic psychology drama.
Pablo R (br) wrote: Not as good as the other two, but it wasn't awful and didn't try to add new creative things that ended up really failing. But the conclusion isn't quite as frighting or stable as the other two.
RC K (jp) wrote: Zhang Yimou is far better known for films like House of Flying Daggers and Curse of the Golden Flower (or Raise the Red Lantern, if you run in more artsy circles) than for films like this one, which was kind of a surprise to me. Despite the focal point of the cover--which may or may not be the theatrical poster--this film is not really about the relationship of the two people who appear on it, being lonely bachelor Zhao (Zhao Benshan) and his fiancee, the nameless "Stepmother" (Dong Lifan).In truth, this film seems to be about Zhao and the "stepmother," but soon we meet the blind girl Wu Ying (Dong Jie), who is the blind stepdaughter that gives Dong Lifan's character her "title" of stepmother. She is neglected and just shy of abused (by which I mean only that she is not physically assaulted--she is treated much like Cinderella, which really constitutes abuse) by her stepmother, which Zhao does not realize in his desperation to marry. He has taken on his new girlfriend simply because she has agreed to marry him, complimenting her on her large size simply because he feels that anyone skinnier will reject him, based on his experience. Leng Qibin (also unnamed as a character) plays Wu's stepbrother, and is the image of the spoiled biological child, also taking up a large amount of space and first seen complaining that his video gaming system is currently on the fritz. Eventually Zhao begins to see the loneliness and despair in Wu, even though he never sees what her stepmother does, still trying consistently to appease her and guarantee his marriage. He lies endlessly to both of them about his job, claiming to be a hotel manager--instead he has taken on rentals of time in an abandoned bus in a park, named the "Happy Times Hut" with his friend, of a circle of retired former co-workers--and attempting to get a "job" for Wu.Eventually the plot shifts firmly to Zhao's misguided attempts to make and keep Wu happy and feeling loved, using deception to do this. Creatively, this is not shown or seen as a bad or negative thing; their deception is so purely motivated and well-intended that even Wu takes no issue with it when she finds out. She understands the meaning behind their actions and takes no insult from it. And this is absolutely one of the most touching things in the world--to see that even through the deceit and the previously selfish interests (and some continued ones, too) these two characters find love--not romantic love, but perhaps all the stronger for it. They both bring some meaning to each other's lives, renewing their interest in other people. It manages to have this warm, caring element without sacrificing any of the cynical realism that inhabits and creates the world as we know it. Expertly crafted in the tension of these two contrasting extremes, it only further enhances the darkness for some--who find the rather ambiguous ending heartbreaking, and the light for others, like myself, who see a kind of hope in it.A fantastic movie, but I've come to expect that from Zhang Yimou.
Dave A (gb) wrote: Interesting story, but its a made for tv movie, so doesn't have the production value of a theatrical release. Still, i'm a boxing fan, so i enjoyed it. Favreau, Hirsch, Miller, and Scott are good.
Thomas H (fr) wrote: It's fun and has heaps of imagination but sadly the story is inconsistent and the pacing is all over the place.
Shounak B (au) wrote: A film on neo-nazism takes place in the recent days of Australia where racism is becoming more significant day by day,hence can be called it an innovative approach but fails at the end when everything ends happy and leaves thousand questions. Crowe shines though!
Alex D (us) wrote: Joe was first released in the US in the summer of 1970. Despite respectable notices, reasonable box office and an Oscar nom, it vanished shortly afterwards and remained forgotten about throughout the 1980's, before being enthusiastically reappraised, somewhat unjustly, in the US in the late 90's. Thanks to this lengthy unavailability, its reputation has gone on to see it placed (inexplicably) alongside the likes of Michael Winner's original Death Wish. Although revenge is a theme, a film about vigilantism this most definitely is not.The plot isn't worth synopsizing. Its a flabby, hammy and bizarrely stagey ramble about an accidental murder and the unlikely relationship that blossoms out of it. That relationship and the largely class-based quirks of its two leads are exaggerated into ridiculous caricature; these two, and their situation, bear absolutely no relation to reality.Almost everything about the film is cantankerous and begrudgingly antiquated, which makes the whole thing completely fascinating. Hippies are depicted as snide and exclusive misanthropes, hard drugs either make you sleep or dance around maniacally with lipstick on your face, and most young women are prepared to have sex with strangers in exchange for marijuana at the drop of a fly. Its very much a film of the 60's rather than the 70's, so why some industry luminaries have begun to include it in retrospective conversations about the beginnings of the Hollywood New Wave is a complete mystery. Martin Scorcese of all people even got involved, though probably only to give a nod to the dank, lavatorial hues of the grim urban cinematography, which almost certainly influenced Taxi Driver four years later. But Joe seems very much like a furious tirade against the likes of Easy Rider and Bonnie And Clyde, rather than a continuation of that same insurgent cinematic ethos.It isn't a film of any real artistic significance - despite Joe's incontinent fury at everything in his world, it remains a story about absolutely nothing - but its value as a cultural museum piece is unprecedented. Shot on and around the streets of New York City during the darkest hours of the Vietnam war, and at a time when America (and, significantly, its cinema) was being revolutionized to the horror of the old guard, the film ends up, in its own completely oblivious and accidental way, saying more about that period of history than numerous infinitely superior movies that directly endeavored to capture it.But as a film? Despite a really surprising and effective shock ending, this is basically a Michael Winner film, but not as well made. How does that tickle your fancy? ** Incidentally, if you are, like me, a fan of spotting arbitrary background lookalikes, then check out Harold Steptoe at 1:22:11 in the hippy art gallery.
Miriam K (ru) wrote: the seen where Jerry Lewis dresses in drag and sings "it's easier to say..." was so funny I couldn't even laugh!
Wes S (de) wrote: Slow at spots and overall dull, the action takes longer to come than one would have expected and the characters are way too forced. Many sequences with the worms are pretty campy. The film ends pretty flatly as well.
Autumn Z (de) wrote: Aw inspiring movie of faith! And as a mom, get the tissues ready!