Every week we will give away
four pairs of free movie tickets!
The movie tickets are valid to see
any movie of your choice at any
Cineplex, Galaxy or Landmark movie theatre!
Just write your own review about any
movie published on CinemaClock.com
and give it a value between 1 and 10.
The promotion is valid for Canadian residents only.
Courtroom dramas, or any examination of the mechanics of our legal systems are compelling. "Inherit the Wind", "The Verdict", "A Few Good Men", "Runaway Jury" and others greater and less so, have enthralled. Denial is a good film. Very well written, and put together. A dream cast led by Rachel Weisz. She's a versatile actor, on the money in the role. Even the diluted "Nu Yoak" patois is credible. Most drama of this type is sold by technique, and inflection. Timothy Spall is marvellous, as a cretin. Tom Wilkinson's dry "I have the key, just wait" crafting of his role is very fine. Andrew Scott's portrayal of a legal icon on the money too. Still, the UK offers work this good, in TV serials regularly," Judge John Deed"," Silks" and the like.Great film for the ages, maybe not, entertaining, engaging and intelligent, indeed. There is some grit and discomfort too, be forewarned. In this soft part of the year for film offerings, it's a mid 7, rounded up.
|8/10||asgilbert@ - 105 reviews|
26.10.2016 - age: 50+
A great 'buddy' movie. Some of the most inappropriate bits were the funniest. Definitely not a family movie, but great fun. Russell Crowe should do more comedy.
|8/10||jimble@ - 81 reviews|
23.10.2016 - age: 50+
This movie does have good action but not as good as the first two. The one thing I did liked was the tribute to the late Leonard Nimoy and the crew of the original Starship Enterprise.
|7/10||andy@ - 129 reviews|
19.10.2016 - age: 36-49
Stoner film. Keeping track of the subplots is like following a Dostoyevski novel. Affleck is good but Tim Roth would have been a better choice based on his miniseries character in Lie To Me now on Netflix.
|8/10||sylvia@ - first review|
14.10.2016 - age: 26-35
This movie deals with a trial that wound up in 2000. A Holocaust denier decides to sue a Professor for libel. She fights back. It is very well made movie with understated performances by the whole cast but Tom Wilkinson and Andrew Scott shine in their roles. Rachel Weisz plays the passionate Professor who must trust her conscience to these two men, who are part of her legal team. This is well worth a watch.
|7/10||impi@ - 135 reviews|
18.10.2016 - age: 36-49
Loved it! Really enjoyed this good old western movie with an amazing cast. Loved all the different characters. Was entertained the entire movie. No bad language, highly recommend this movie.
|10/10||sixgunns@ - 141 reviews|
16.10.2016 - age: 50+
The movie presented a very good picture of the events of this day and we know it was by far worse. Excellent cast. Lesson learned doesn't pay to cut corners.
|9/10||ckbgar@ - 74 reviews|
9.10.2016 - age: 50+
The government is out of control, this movie gives us a glimpse of the lawlessness.
|9/10||twinturbo@ - 22 reviews|
24.9.2016 - age: 50+
Excellent film. The film that relates true and dramatic events and give us a glimpse of how far multi national companies are willing to go to make money. 11 people paid with their lives to save a mere $125 000. When will we see another disaster because it seems that they don't learn from past experiences.
|8/10||casper999@ - 132 reviews|
11.10.2016 - age: 50+
When this event actually happened I was, like the rest of the world watching the news, in awe of Capt. Sullenberger. After watching this movie, I'm even more in awe of him, and his Co-Pilot, his wife and all the passengers. This is an awesome movie, told in flashbacks (as we all know what happened), but we learn now what went on before, immediately afterwards, and during the NTSB hearings. Edge of your seat and emotional at times, this movie, like the event itself, comes to a very satisfying ending. A must see.
|9/10||libertybelle@ - 53 reviews|
10.10.2016 - age: 50+
This was a fair remake. Some parts were excellent (cinematography, directing), some parts were flawed (character development, a couple of the actors, a couple of scenes), but overall, an interesting movie with a couple of unexpected chuckles and inspired casting. (PS. Ladies: if your fella wants to take you to this flick, but you don't dig westerns, go anyway. There's a little something something for everybody. Whenever the fighting started, I could always tune it out and focus on the always great scenery, if you get my drift. You're welcome.)
|6/10||heart@ - 52 reviews|
5.10.2016 - age: 50+
Acting and directing outstanding. Has an urgency to it that is a cautionary tale for our time. Also realistic heroics in the male and female leads. Great supporting actors as well. Well developed from previous films of series, good continuity, and also novelty.
|10/10||john.barna@ - 3 reviews|
24.9.2016 - age: 36-49
Surprised that they did such a good job remaking this classic movie. Usually they do a bad job, but this was just different enough that it does not take away from the original. The only negative I can say is I didn't like the swearing. A good western movie just like a good western book, does not need to have such modern profanity! I mean gol-dang-it if Clint Eastwood and John Wayne didn't need to do it in their greats, so dag-nabbit they shouldn't do it now either.
|9/10||cbg@ - 73 reviews|
3.10.2016 - age: 36-49
“The Day After Tomorrow” can be entertaining and enjoyable, but only when it displays its scenes of destruction and special effects. While on an expedition in Antarctica, paleoclimatologist Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid) discovers that it’s only a matter of days before a new ice age begins, but U. S. Vice President Raymond Becker (Kenneth Welsh) basically laughs at his “theories” and ignores his warnings. Meanwhile, Jack’s son, Sam (Jake Gyllenhaal) is over in New York for a school science competition with some friends and his crush, Laura (Emmy Rossum) Then, the amount of fresh water being dumped into our oceans finally takes its toll. Tornadoes wreck Hollywood, -150-degree superstorms freeze people instantly, tsunamis, hailstorms and tidal waves wreak havoc on our human civilization. Will Sam and his friends be able to make it? What about his father, who decides to trek all the way up to New York to rescue him? Will the little boy with cancer survive? Will ANYONE survive?! There’s way too much going on in this movie. Like most of Rolland Emmerich’s films, we’ve got a central story and loads of other, secondary stories on the side and those characters are largely unnecessary. The cancer patient Sam’s mom is taking care of brings nothing to the story except for an attempt to pull at your heartstrings. The same applies to a homeless man and his faithful dog who struggle to survive this cataclysm. I’d also eliminate the librarians with whom Sam takes refuge and the scientists in Scotland, whose sole purpose is to confirm that climate change is coming... fast! This streamlining would’ve helped the film greatly. The plot is constantly jumping from one group to another, meaning the principal characters don’t get very well developed. At the end of the film, we don’t know anything about Sam’s crush Laura except that she’s interested in him. Characters often act illogically. When Sam and his friends are inside an abandoned Russian ship and need to get inside a locked door, they don’t use the ax that’s handy to break in. Instead, Sam goes outside in the freezing cold, shimmies over to a window looking into the room and breaks into the window that way. There are many scenes where people take off their gloves outside (and if you’ve been outside in that kind of temperature, you know better than to touch a metal surface with a naked hand) and I scratched my head at the people in the library, who burned books in the fireplace instead of the wooden chairs. I’m pretty sure wood burns longer than paper and with the librarians nearby lamenting the loss of their precious tomes, you would think these geniuses would have thrown those in first. A lot of these plot points sound good on paper when you can imagine that there’s nothing else in the room but when you don’t inform your set decorator of what actions take place in the scene, you end up with big mistakes. You can tell this film was quickly written with a focus on the special effects instead of the plot. In one scene it’s so cold that gasoline freezes and anyone caught in the storm are dead. In the next, everyone is just fine as long as they’re in an enclosed space. It doesn’t matter if it’s a tent, a metal helicopter or a room; if the doors are closed, you’ll be ok. At one point, Sam and his friends have to escape from a pack of wolves, freshly escaped from the zoo. How did those wolves manage to survive outside in the cold when everyone else froze to death? This film didn’t need an action-y sequence or some villains to spice up the movie; Mother Earth is already gunning for our heroes! I wish “The Day After Tomorrow” had tried harder. When cities are getting torn up by twisters and flooded by giant tidal waves, it’s awesome. That’s what you want when you pop in one of these disaster movies. Not some lame plots about sick kids making it out alive or grouchy politicians being forced to eat their words; you want charismatic people that feel genuine fighting mother nature. I’m not asking for heavy dramatic and incredibly nuanced performances, but everyone working on this film knew they were going to nail those scenes of destruction. Couldn’t they spend a bit more time and money fleshing out the story? When the destruction is on display you won’t care too much about how ridiculous it gets (ok, maybe you will when the people in the library have to literally run away from the cold) At this time, “The Day After Tomorrow” is pretty unlikely to return to theaters so if you’re watching it, it’ll be at home. That means you can talk to your friends when it gets slow or go up and make yourself a snack whenever the useless secondary characters are on. When it gets to the special effects, sit down and marvel at it all. Maybe it’s just that it’s a bad movie that gets a lot of things right or it’s just so mediocre, while still having some cool moments that it’s not worthy of hatred. I didn’t have a bad time watching it, nor did I have a great time and if somebody asked me if they should rent it, I’d say: go ahead, it’s not great but you won’t be sorry to have seen it. (Fullscreen version on DVD, December 6, 2013)
|6/10||adamwatchesmovies@ - 695 reviews|
1.10.2016 - age: 26-35
Great movie, great performances by well known actors! This is I believe Samuel Jackson's second time being the villain. He nailed it! He always does. This movie is a definite must see. It's Tim Burton too, he always directs great movies!
|8/10||natethegreat@ - 73 reviews|
30.9.2016 - age: 26-35
Our entire family loved it, from kids to parents. Full of dreams, suspenses. It was so immersive and unusual. Zachary Quinto delivers a brilliant, sensible performance. Action and landscapes breathtaking. Very spectacular.
|8/10||sylviamorse@ - first review|
17.9.2016 - age: 36-49
There's no other musical group in the history of pop music that comes close to this Mania phenomena! Don't leave when it's over as there will be a 30 minute concert from Shea Stadium in its entirety!
|10/10||riverdale.kid@ - 203 reviews|
24.9.2016 - age: 50+
Th original had a better pace. Characters, in the original, were introduced fairly quickly. The new version was far too slow in developing. Some of these new actors were add-ons. The "Mexican" was rarely filmed nor did his character do anything other than do a "mexican" smile /laugh once in a while. He had no purpose in the movie. Similarly the pair that became part of the movie had little to do [[more than "die" tragically.]] The movie dragged on until the real action started, then it was visually overwhelming as the audience couldn't distinguish between who was killing whom. An seriously: a Gatling gun shooting from a mile away that could tear up an entire town? Come on guys. As for improvements from the original, there was certainly more comedic scenes than the original... Watch the original...
|6/10||psterl3384@ - 145 reviews|
24.9.2016 - age: 36-49
What a heartbreaking story. So beautiful yet so hopeless. If true love brings a person to compromise his or her values in such a way, it must be torture. What an inner battle to have to fight, I have no doubt that I'd rather not. I would probably have given it a higher rating were it not for some of the acting that I found to be lacking. To me great acting is when the actor appears to not be acting. In this movie, in a number of places you can almost hear the directing in the background.
|7/10||ilovemovies2@ - 75 reviews|
20.9.2016 - age: 50+
To me it's a 10. A movie directed by Clint Eastwood is always great... and this one is a Perfection! The attention to small details, the cinematography, the timing of events, and the story telling are absolutely phenomenal. Casting is on point, tom Hanks is very truthful to his character. I totally enjoyed the film from beginning to end and I know it will get nominated for the oscars.
|10/10||palomaarts@ - 74 reviews|
16.9.2016 - age: 36-49
While I'm not surprised at the bad word of mouth this movie is receiving, I found Blair Witch to be an effective and genuinely chilling horror flick. While the found footage genre that was made more mainstream by the original Blair Witch Project has been beaten into the ground over the past 17 years, director Adam Wingard knows how to take the medium and craft more than a few effective scares out of it. While I found the pacing of the first 30 minutes to be slow, and I found it difficult to really care about any of the characters, I was nonetheless on the edge of my seat during a good portion of the film. Blair Witch makes great use of the surround sound most theatres are equipped with, and it understands that sometimes what you don't see or understand can be all the more frightening. All in all, this is a very simple movie that will likely be forgotten in a few weeks time (or until Haloween season comes around every year), but it incorporates enough tension and suspense that I can say it deserves better than the 3.8/10 that it has received on this site so far.
|6/10||dajk@ - 85 reviews|
18.9.2016 - age: 13-17
A really solid movie. It doesn't matter that we think we know what happened. Tom Hanks was terrific and became Sully. This movie is about real people doing extraordinary things. A great change of pace and definitely worth seeing.
|8/10||big.movie.buff@ - 109 reviews|
17.9.2016 - age: 50+
Given that I have enjoyed many years of watching and enjoying movies made by Tarantino, it hurts to rate any of his movies less than good. I went into this movie expecting a good story with some fun twists. The story wasn't bad and the twists were okay, but the story dragged on too long with little to no action and the twists almost didn't matter because I was already bored by the time the action picked up. I typically enjoy Tarantino movies regardless of length, but there is usually excellent character development, plot twists and storyline to keep me involved. I was disenchanted by this offering.
|5/10||mr.leslie@ - 472 reviews|
13.9.2016 - age: 36-49
Great movie, love it... action from the beginning to the end. Some part are disgusting... but it is to be expected, for that type of movies. To be seen for sure.
|8/10||robert@ - 105 reviews|
12.9.2016 - age: 50+
NARCOS has an incredible story to tell and great human realism. There is a full character development throughout the plot. Pablo Escobar, he is the family man, the benefactor, the leader, the idol. On the other hand he is the trafficker, (a ferocious force to be reckoned with) the law breaker and the law maker, there is no prison in the world which can hold him for long, he was born to be free. He is the hero with no scruples, he kills and assassinates at will, whoever it is, if against him they are dead, if they betray him they die, he demand absolute control and total loyalty. He is like the weather, temperamental, explosive and quiet. He is the master of the storms that plague Medellin. He is like water, like fire, like wind, ungraspable. The whole movie is a war zone between Pablo and other traffickers, the government, the police, etc. But he is also a family man, dedicated and hard to tame. He lives a life of luxury, misery and in between. He is a man on edge branding a double edged sword. His life has a beginning, a middle and an end. Live like a prince, die like a street dog with nothing but his skin. This film will capture you and take you to new highs, twists, and turns, expected and unexpected occurrences. The movie is a great ride, amusing, interesting, suspenseful, thrilling and always unexpected, unpredictable. Pablo Escobar story and life is common knowledge, there is nothing we can say that would give away the plot, because historically all the facts have been summarized, noted, dated, and published, the story is more about how the actors play the characters but Werner Moura is at the top of his game, same as the two main actors who play DEA agents. There is a female presence and the feminine has power in this story, lots of it. The landscape is that of Colombia the country of 100 Years of Solitude, the end reflects just that, solitude. It is somehow the Autumn of the Patriarch. This movie made for TV has tension and drama, the photography reflects the age of the events, the camera work is superb and relentless, there is no respite in this film. A full blown action flick.
|10/10||luis.lama@ - 81 reviews|
8.9.2016 - age: 36-49
Excellent performances from the entire cast, especially Alicia Vikander, Michael Fassbender and Rachel Weisz who are responsible for carrying the story. Special mention to the children who played the part of the rescued baby as it was growing up; they almost stole the show. And finally, but certainly not least, absolutely stunning cinematography, especially the seascapes, from New Zealand and Tasmania, that supports the story beautifully.
|8/10||johna@ - 70 reviews|
5.9.2016 - age: 50+