**This must be some kind of joke, right?**
Firstly, allow me to clarify: I am not a fan of “zombie” films, although I understand very well the interest that, in recent years, there has been for this material. I totally respect those who enjoy it. But let's be honest: a film has to have some aesthetic quality and some good taste to become “digestible”. And, well, I just finished watching this film, and I honestly can't understand how it has survived without ending up in the vault of oblivion. There are incredibly better films that have been forgotten as the years pass, but a certain type of crap, purely and simply because it's bad, lives on.
The plot is essentially based on a moment of chaos in which the USA (the rest of the world does not exist) is taken over by zombies and no one knows what to do or where to go. Everyone thinks of themselves, saves their own skin and that's it. In the meantime, the usual opportunists take advantage of the situation as they see fit, and a small group of “surviving heroes” look for somewhere to take shelter. It's the plot of this film and a dozen other disaster films (zombies, volcanoes, wars, earthquakes, alien invasions, you name it). The level of originality is below zero, and the situations are all predictable and highly cliché. We know who is going to die and who is going to be saved by a whisker, and the fact that the film starts without any kind of introduction is just confusing and a little stupid.
Directed by George A. Romero, a man who must have suffered from some bizarre sexual fetish with dead people and zombies (look at his filmography!), the film is absolutely trash and could compete in poor quality and bad taste with all of Ed's films Wood and with the historical rigor of Ridley Scott's period films. I lost count of the script problems, continuity errors and gross editing errors. The cinematography is ugly, there is a blatant exaggeration of the sets and the zombies' makeup is so obviously fake that they look like what we did at fifteen in school plays. And we'd better not even talk about the cast: I have doubts whether those people were actors.

Been a while since I last watched this one, but with the new 4K UHD out, decided to give it another watch going with the Extended Cut. Still very well made with some great zombie effects and really liked the characters, Peter (Ken Foree), especially. I'm not a big fan of the zombie horror genre but this is one of the exceptions. **4.0/5**

Romero’s imaginative and thrilling zombie sequel
A decade after the excellent “Night of the Living Dead” (1968), writer/director George Romero offers up this exceptional sequel. The plague of reanimated corpses with a hunger for warm flesh is now global and society is increasingly breaking down. A television exec (Gaylen Ross), her helicopter-reporter beau (David Emge) and two SWAT officers (Ken Foree and Scott Reiniger) take refuge in a suburban mall. Unfortunately for them, a veritable army of biker-raiders wants the mall for their own.
One of the main reasons this film is so iconic is because Romero seriously considered what it would be like after a ‘zombie apocalypse’ and came up with an inspired story. While the bleakness of the situation is addressed there’s also a sense of adventurous freedom; for instance, the protagonists having an entire mall to themselves.
The movie’s disturbing, ghastly and gory, but also action-packed and sometimes humorous. The zombies make for good bullet fodder while, at the same time, satirizing consumer society. The creative score is varied and I’m sure it was cutting edge at the time, but it’s very dated today, although you’ll probably find yourself acclimating to it. The no-name cast is convincing with the towering Foree standing out while Emge comes across as a poor man’s Donald Sutherland.
The movie runs 2 hours, 7 minutes with the longer version running 2 hours, 19 minutes (the one I watched). It was shot in Monroeville, Pennsylvania, and nearby Pittsburgh.
GRADE: A-

This is one of the finest sequels ever, in that it's both of comparable quality with the original, yet is fundamentally different from it at the same time. Marvelous stuff, with aspects copied thousands of times over the past two generations, with no end in sight.
This and 'Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom', from about the same time frame, would make one of the best double-bills ever on the evils of consumerism gone rampant...

**Another honorable addition to the Cohen Brothers' remarkable filmography.**
I've seen several films by the Cohen Brothers and this one, far from being one of the most quotable when talking about them, is full of qualities that deserve note. The two brothers are known and respected for the way they create and direct cinematographic projects, giving little room for interference that would disturb the overall vision they have outlined, and actively interfering in all aspects of production. It's their film, they define the characteristics and, whether you like them or not, they are undoubtedly a talented duo.
And being an author's work, this film follows several characteristics that are hallmarks of the two filmmakers. This is a work full of irreverence, where the narrative stands out for its bizarreness and sarcasm, intelligently constructed and crafted in a way that surprises the audience. The story is simple: a couple, who meet and fall in love under the most unorthodox conditions, discover that they cannot have children and, therefore, decide to kidnap a baby from a family that had quintuplets. There is an entire history of crime in the life of one of the couple's members that contributes to them being the target of a brutal chase by a wild bounty hunter. And there are many moments of acidic and difficult-to-digest humor. Added to this is the cinematography and soundtrack, where the Cohens are completely at ease. Personally, I must say, I didn't really like the soundtrack that was used in this film. I found it excessively intrusive and strident, but this is just my personal taste.
In addition to the artistic and author notes, the film also features a skilled cast where Nicholas Cage has plenty of space and material to shine. He is charismatic enough to give his character all the sympathy he needs to captivate us, and he makes a good romantic pair with Holly Hunter, who received a character tailored to her abilities and talent. The two actors have everything it takes to do an exceptional job, and there is no doubt that they won't leave us disappointed. Trey Wilson, Frances McDormand, John Goodman and Randall Tex Cobb join the project, with all their talent, to shine with very well-made secondary characters.

"H.I" (Nicolas Cage) is an habitual petty criminal who gradually falls in love with the police officer "Ed" (Holly Hunter) who has to take his mug shots every time he is apprehended. Finally determined to go straight, they marry and he takes a mundane job in a metal works. It's all going swimmingly, but try as they might they cannot conceive. This affects "Ed" badly, she loses her job and her motivation and they are soon in a rut. Serendipity takes a hand though, one night, when news of the local furniture kingpin "Nathan Arizona" and his wife having quintuplets after IVF is announced. They think that's a bit greedy, and alight on a plan to pinch one of the babies and... Keeping that a secret proves difficult as firstly his boss "Glen" (Sam McMurray) and then two of his erstwhile jailbirds who have escaped from prison - "Gale" (John Goodman) and his brother "Evelle" (William Forsythe) all come to visit and conclude that this miraculous conception and the news headlines are linked! Add to the mix, the motor cycle riding, grenade carrying "Hell Rider" bounty hunter "Smalls" (Randall Cobb) who wants to track down the bairn for the $25,000 reward and we have a perilous mix of comedy and menace that works well for the first hour or so. Cage is on good form for the most part as is Hunter for maybe the first 45 minutes, thereafter though the joke really does begin to wear a bit thin and the comedy a little too puerile. The fun car chases (don't forget the nappies) are entertaining and the script is quickly paced and entertaining, but that too turns to much farce as we head to an ending that I found really quite underwhelming. There's a fun scene with Frances McDormand and the deliberations of the parole board made me smile, and all in all it is still worth a watch.

The Negotiator is one of those classic thrillers that still holds up well today. The plot is engaging from the start, throwing you into a tense, high-stakes standoff where trust and deception play a big role. The pacing is solid, though it stretches a bit in parts, but the setup and execution make up for it.
F. Gary Gray's direction keeps the tension tight, balancing action and drama without overcomplicating things. The cinematography isn't flashy, but it works well in capturing the claustrophobic feel of the hostage situation, making you feel right there with the characters.
What really makes this movie stand out is the acting. Samuel L. Jackson delivers an intense, gripping performance that makes it easy to connect with his character and root for him. Kevin Spacey plays off him perfectly, creating a dynamic where their back-and-forth feels natural and engaging.
The supporting cast is strong too, though some characters feel a bit underdeveloped. The script does a good job keeping the dialogue sharp and the tension high, but at times, it leans into familiar tropes that might feel predictable.
The score and sound design do their job well, enhancing the mood without being too overpowering. While the soundtrack isn't particularly memorable, the way sound is used to heighten key moments is effective.
Overall, The Negotiator is a well-crafted thriller with strong performances and a gripping story. It might not be flawless, but it delivers where it counts, making it an easy movie to rewatch and appreciate.

Samuel L. Jackson is renowned hostage negotiator "Roman" who is shocked to learn of the murder of his partner. A little further investigation reveals that he had been looking into a multi-million dollar pension fraud. Next thing he knows, "Roman" is being charged with his friend's killing and decides to turn the tables. He goes to the office of the Internal Affairs department, seizes some hostages, barricades himself into the locked office and summons another negotiator "Sabian" (Kevin Spacey) to the scene. What now unfolds is a cleverly crafted detective mystery as the two must overcome their initial professional suspicions of the other, and gradually try to piece together what actually did happen to his pal and to ascertain just who did steal all the cash! It's a good, solid, story this and it's well told with Jackson and Spacey delivering a tale of corruption and mistrust that illustrates just how tough it is to fight back when the very people there to enforce the law are those abusing it. The supporting cast are a bit lacklustre - maybe a bit like an episode of "Hill Street Blues" but it flows well with a tricky denouement that though predictable enough, is quite well executed. It's maybe a bit on the long side, it does take a while to get up an head of steam - but once we get going, it is at the better end of the genre.

"Violent Night" exceeded expectations and proved to be an unexpectedly entertaining and thrilling theatrical experience. The film successfully blended action, comedy, and excitement to create a fun and engaging adventure that kept viewers on the edge of their seats.
One of the standout elements of the movie was its fresh take on Santa Claus, avoiding the pitfalls of being overly silly or ridiculous. Instead, the film presented a fun and exciting interpretation of the character, adding a new dimension to the holiday season and delivering an enjoyable viewing experience.
David Harbour's performance in the film showcased his talent as an actor, demonstrating his ability to bring depth and complexity to any character he portrays. His portrayal added a layer of intrigue and captivation to the storyline, keeping audiences engaged from start to finish.
I highly recommend watching "Violent Night" for its action-packed scenes, creative storytelling, and the stellar performance by David Harbour. Whether you view it as an action horror comedy or a unique Christmas film, the movie offers a versatile and enjoyable viewing experience that will leave you entertained and wanting more.

This shouldn't be my favorite film that I have ever watched. But it is. This film made me love Santa as a character. This film fills the very need for "What if Santa was a badass?"—the shots, the use of music, the actors, the backstory of Santa, the EVERYTHING. I've watched this film twice, and both times I had a smile on my face. Such a good film. If you, the reader, haven't watched this film, please do yourself a favor and watch it now.

Yeah I'm going to give this top marks, not because it is really that good, but because it came out in 2022 and was probably the best thing in the theater at the time (which was probably why the other Movie Data Base started deleting positive reviews of it).
But a lot of it is done right, it features an interracial family but doesn't make the race a key part of the story. In fact, it doesn't even mention it at all. Instead it follows the story of a little girl and Santa.
And the Santa is a bit weird, there is a lot of things that just don't fit with his character, but that doesn't matter because the story is just so fun that you willingly suspend most of your disbelief.
It is violent and does a great job of making the violence both exciting and at times comical. It drops Easter eggs in some of the best possible ways. Not all the men are evil and idiotic and not all the women are practically perfect in every way. They are just written as, well, as unique characters.
And you really have to appreciate it in 2022 when most movies drop characters for checked boxes.
It was probably the only movie that you could go into in 2022 and just be entertained by. That was the clear intent in making this and that was the end result.
Twenty years ago it would have been "Meh" but in 2022 it is the best thing in theaters.

Violent Night was exactly what I was looking for heading into this movie. It is laugh-out-loud funny with spectacular action and brutal gory kills, a perfect blend for a Christmas film!
When David Harbor is on screen this movie works wonderfully. I never knew I needed a David Harbor Santa Claus, but now that we got it, I want to see more. He portrays a charming grumpy Santa wonderfully. His lack of care and worldview had me laughing in so many instances. This performance carried the film and was the only reason I was there.
Unfortunately, the writers tried to do a little too much with all the secondary characters. There are subplots sprinkled throughout that take away from the action adding unnecessary minutes to this film. This creates an unbalanced pace that jumps from interesting action to boring side character development, really messing with the flow. This film is nearly 2 hours long, and that length is felt at times. If these side plots were to be eliminated and we streamlined the action the film would have been all the better for it.
All in all, Violent Night effectively achieves its main goal and provides a brutal Christmas movie that I will be revisiting every season.
Score: 68% |
Verdict: Good |
Theater Verdict: See It

It would seem psychotic Santa is coming to town this Xmas.
Putting aside the woke nonsense and shallow script, Violent Night is a moderately watchable, darkly comedic action flick, that draws inspiration from 80's style franchise's such as Die Hard and Lethal Weapon.
Its well paced, predictably violent but lacks a lot of the well crafted personality and charm, of its predecessors.
In short, an easy viewing action flick, offering a festive dose of mindless violence, wrapped up in Xmas tinsel.

_Violent Night_ overcomes its weak script and familiar concept with enough ooey gooey squelchy violence to appease bloodthirsty horror fans and action junkies alike. It still manages to be a bloody festive blast filled with head squashing Christmas carnage.
**Full review:** https://boundingintocomics.com/2022/12/09/violent-night-review-santa-delivers-an-ooey-gooey-squelchy-head-squashing/

**Violent Night is a savage Christmas action flick with Die Hard vibes and an awesome hardcore Santa hero!**
Violent Night was precisely what I expected and everything I hoped for - ridiculously delightful dumb fun filled with brutal action and violence! A new Christmas classic! This is a movie best seen with friends that can laugh and recoil at the gruesome kills and outrageous dialogue. Violent Night knows exactly how cheesy it is and embraces all the tropes in a way that is fun and entertaining without being cliche. It adds new twists to classic Santa lore and leaves me wanting to know more with hopes for a prequel! As with any 87North film, the fight sequences are top-notch. This movie isn’t for everyone, but fans of Bullet Train or Nobody will add Violent Night to their yearly holiday film watchlist.

"Santa" (David Harbour) is getting a bit disillusioned with the whole Christmas thing. He is tired of delivering gifts to modern day children who live in an unappreciative, throw-away, culture and so has taken to the bottle rather. Leaving Bristol one night, he rather drunkenly crash-lands thousands of miles away at the compound of the wealthy and therefore entirely dysfunctional "LIghtstone" family. Now here we have group of people ruled over by matriarch "Gertrude" (Beverly D'Angelo - who just reminded me of Goldie Hawn) who are dealing with their own issues of separation, avarice, precociousness and, yes, I too was already thinking - same old, same old... Wait, though, it seems that this family are the target of some seriously nasty robbers who are after the $300 million hidden in an impenetrable vault in the cellar. "Santa", unwittingly, becomes embroiled in these shenanigans and after being initially desperate to get out of the place, he spots the terrified young "Trudy" (Leah Brady) and, well, someone's goose is about to be cooked! It can't resists wallowing a bit in sentiment at times, and the familial discord stuff is all very old hat, but when the action scenes kick in we are offered a sort of "Home Alone" (1990) meets "Thor" (2011) experience peppered with some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments as, of course, the plot follows it's own, very obvious course. It's violent and gory, but the fact that much of that emanates from this epitome of kindness and avuncularity makes this just a bit different - and quite entertaining - with Harbour carrying it off quite engagingly. It is a bit long, and there are times when you want it to pedal faster, but it's a fun watch that is certainly not for the youngsters!

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/violent-night-spoiler-free-review
"Violent Night is one of the biggest surprises of the year, instantly becoming a contemporary Christmas classic! David Harbour expertly embodies a shockingly brutal, savage version of Santa Claus that somehow still delivers lovely messages.
Fighting sequences feature truly violent practical stunts, taking advantage of the R rating to provide unmeasurable amounts of gore. Creative use of Christmas songs will leave audiences crying with laughter.
A brilliant homage to the seasonal genre classics that should be seen in a packed theater!"
Rating: A-

The little brother of the character Stifler from the theatrical films goes to band camp, wreaking havoc and causing mayhem, because the film makers decided you're too stupid to require laughs from your comedy. This may be one of the worst "comedies" I have ever seen, and I sat through "Beer for My Horses." I hated all the characters, the story is predictable, and the lead character is a borderline sociopath who never should have had an entire film resting on his adventures. Repulsive and sad, your level of enjoyment might depend on how funny you find the word "stiff" and all its incarnations.
(Unrated)- Some physical violence, strong profanity, strong female nudity, male nudity, sexual content, very strong sexual references, strong adult situations, alcohol use.

I thought this would be dumb compared to the original. It's not as good still but really funny.

Way funnier than the 1st. My favorite of the 2. This movie cracks me up with all there partying. More moms should be like this lol.

Not as funny and so overly sentimental. A limp sequel.
'A Bad Moms Christmas' is basically 'Daddy's Home 2' - which, interestingly, was released less than a week after this. Mila Kunis (Amy) in the lead role isn't as strong, nor are Kristen Bell (Kiki) and Kathryn Hahn (Carla) unfortunately. They have a few bits, but not enough. Christine Baranski, Cheryl Hines and Susan Sarandon are meh newcomers.
The ending particularly dragged, with it going full on preach mode and is far too cutesy. It'd be fine if it also wasn't so predictable. I noted the music in 'Bad Moms' as being good, but even that drops a level in this follow-up film.
It could've been worse, I guess, but I just didn't find entertainment with this.

I haven’t seen the original bad moms movie. Oddly enough, I decided to watch this one because Christine Baranski is in it. I like her in The Good Fight and always look forward to when her character laughs.
There are a lot of funny moments here, and also some cringeworthy ones, such as one mother having absolutely no boundaries in shoehorning herself into her daughter’s life, or ribald scenes like the dreaded ball-waxing sequence. But if you have maxed out temporarily on the sappy feel-good, miracle ending Christmas movies, this might make for an antidote, as long as any kids are off in bed.

I'm not much for American comedies, and while the first _Bad Moms_ was a cut above the usual sort of thing on offering from that sector, I didn't love it, and _A Bad Moms Christmas_ is little more than a seasonal themed, watered down version of the first one, complete with the half-baked version of the main characters relearning their "lessons" from the original. I've suffered far worse than _A Bad Moms Christmas_, to be sure, but I think it would be better if they had just left it at one movie.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

I might be a man but let me tell you this was one of the funniest movies I have seen this year I laughed out loud more than once and got the Christmas spirit the rest of the time the 3 beautiful women were just a joy to watch and the whole celebration of family and hilarious comedy mixed is such a Christmas treat if your looking for some Christmas fun and full of lol moments I totally can recommend this one

**_A disgusting, morally reprehensible work of insane genius_**
>_LSD or mainly alcohol can bring you back to a more reptilian way of thinking, you are not human anymore. It is all about survival, about reproducing the species, about sex and domination. The moment we start losing control of the logical brain we go to a psychotic way of thinking._
- Gaspar Noé; "Gaspar Noé on why his orgiastic Cannes sensation Climax should be shown to kids: 'It's very educational'" (Kaleem Aftab); _The Telegraph_ (May 15, 2018)
_Climax_, the latest film from Argentinian-French provocateur Gaspar Noé, is a disturbing, depraved, disgusting, and debauched piece of absolute insane genius that I thoroughly adored from beginning to end, and which I never, ever, want to see again.
_Lord of the Flies_ (1954) by way of Heronimus Bosch or Zdzisław Beksiński, _Climax_ is what you might get if you mashed-up Pier Paolo Pasolini's _Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma_ (1975), Darren Aronofsky's _mother!_ (2017), and Anne Fletcher's _Step Up_ (2006); a dance movie that morphs into a horror film, which then attempts to show the audience a literal hell on Earth. In this sense, it's a perfect fit for Noé's oeuvre, focusing as it does on physical disintegration, psychological collapse, and what could be termed "scorched psyche(s)". However, considering he is such an infamous figure in world cinema, and considering how honed his overriding thematic preoccupations are, it's strange when you consider that in a career spanning twenty years, Noé has directed only four features prior to _Climax_; _Seul contre tous_ (1998), _Irréversible_ (2002), _Enter the Void_ (2009), and _Love_ (2015). If you've seen any of them, you'll know that his reputation for excess and pushing both his characters and his audiences to the extreme is well earned, and with _Climax_, he takes that audience and those characters further than ever before. Granted, there's nothing here to rival Le Boucher's sickening attack on his pregnant wife from _Seul contre tous_, or the near-unwatchable rape or fire extinguisher scenes from _Irréversible_. However, whereas those films feature sudden moments of barbaric violence punctuating (relatively) quotidian narratives, in _Climax_, the oppressive feeling of dread is unrelenting, affording the audience not even a moment to drop their guard, as not only is there a possibility that something horrific might be around the corner, chances are something definitely is; once everything kicks off, there is simply no reprieve. So even though the acts of violence are not, in themselves, as extreme as some of those in Noé's back-catalogue, the cumulative effect is far worse. Obviously, this makes the film something of an endurance test, even at only 96 minutes, but this is precisely the point – Noé _wants_ the audience to be utterly exhausted by the end, and he employs numerous confrontational and disorientating techniques to achieve such. Disney this most definitely is not.
Set in the winter of 1996, and allegedly based on a real incident in France that year, the film focuses on a dance troupe putting the finishing touches to a performance before embarking on a national tour, to be followed by a series of dates in the US. Apart from the opening shot, and a couple of quick shots towards the end, the entire film is set in the rehearsal space; an isolated and unoccupied hall. Upon finishing rehearsals, the troupe starts to party, with most pairing off to discuss who they've slept with, who they want to sleep with, and who they've unsuccessfully attempted to sleep with, as well as all manner of sexual, drug-related, and hedonistic topics (the conversation about the logistics of anal sex is particularly funny). Although we primarily follow Selva (Sofia Boutella), the group's choreographer, several of the others receive a decent amount of characterisation; the troupe's manager Emmanuelle (Claude Gajan Maull) who has brought her son, Tito (Vince Galliot Cumant), along to rehearsals; Selva's best friend, Lou (Souheila Yacoub), who is hiding a secret from the troupe; self-styled ladies' man and "_walking invitation to an STD_" David (Romain Guillermic), who is desperate to sleep with Selva; Daddy (Kiddy Smile), the troupe's DJ; unhappy lesbian couple Psyche (Thea Carla Schøtt) and Ivana (Sharleen Temple); and Gazelle (Giselle Palmer), of whom her brother, Taylor (Taylor Kastle), seems a little overprotective. As the night wears on, it becomes apparent that one of their members has spiked the sangria with powerful LSD. Briefly remaining lucid enough to begin pointing fingers at one another, they round on the one person who wasn't drinking, Omar (Adrien Sissoko), and throw him out into the snow. However, shortly thereafter, the drug kicks in, and each of the troupe descends into their own personal Hades of paranoia, aggression, and/or uninhibited sexuality.
In lieu of any kind of title card or opening credits, _Climax_ begins with an abstract and non-descript shot of pure white. So visually indeterminate is the image (it could literally be anything) that at the screening I attended, most people (myself included) didn't even realise the film had begun. Scored to the disconcerting and otherworldly sounds of Gary Numan's "Trois Gymnopedies (First Movement)" (1980), it is only as a girl staggers into shot from the top of the frame that it becomes apparent we are looking directly downwards onto a snowfield. The girl, dressed in a black dress, is in great distress, leaving a trail of blood in her wake. After a moment, she collapses onto the snow, her body convulsing, unable to go any further. The camera then revolves upwards along the vertical-axis through 360°, a shot anyone familiar with Noé's work will immediately recognise. Revealing the bare branches of a few nearby threadbare trees, the movement immediately establishes that we are in an isolated location in the dead of winter. By the time the frame returns to its starting position, the girl's struggles have fashioned a hideously disproportioned and asymmetrical red-tinted snow angel. She struggles for another moment, and then she is still. Theoretically, this could be the clichéd opening scene to any generic slasher movie (the innocent and already injured victim desperately trying to get away from the killer, but too exhausted to continue). However, the striking imagistic composition, the economy with which the shot conveys so much information, and the unusual musical choice, all serve to betray the fact that this is not the work of an anonymous journeyman for hire, but is instead the meticulously composed opening salvo of an auteur who knows precisely what he's doing.
A moment after the girl falls still, the film surprised me for the first (and certainly not the last) time, as the entire closing credits roll (upwards, obviously), right to the copyright information. Initially, I didn't fully understand the point of this. Obviously, the opening shot is, chronologically speaking, pretty late in the narrative, so I was thinking it was just Noé being cute, alerting us to the fact that we'd just seen the closing scene. However, it was only when the film ended that I realised the absolute genius of this aesthetic decision; with no closing credits at the end, the audience is allowed no transition from the film to reality, the buffer that we all take for granted is absent, and the effect is startlingly disorientating. As the film ended, the lights immediately popped on, with no music to play us out, no darkened theatre to recompose ourselves, we're just suddenly back in the garish real world, afforded no opportunity to decompress. Indeed, to enhance the sense of discombobulation for which Noé is obviously striving, the last 15 minutes or so of the film are literally upside-down, with the silhouetted dancers looking like bats hanging from the ceiling (this effect is even extended to an intertitle, which every single person in the theatre tilted their head to try to read). The audience is thus placed in the same position as the characters – the absence of closing credits, and the inverted image create a sense of confusion and discomfort, just as the film is depicting the surviving dancers coming out of their drug-induced mania and back to the real world. As he attempts to do throughout the film, Noé places the audience directly into the psychological reality of the characters. This is extraordinarily proficient filmmaking of the highest calibre.
After the opening scene, the film then cuts to a TV screen showing the dancers' audition interviews. Surrounding the TV are books and films which announce some of _Climax_'s influences, and speak to its genesis. The films include Luis Buñuel's free-associative surrealist masterpiece, _Un Chien Andalou_ (1929); Kenneth Anger's surrealist occult film dealing with the Thelema religion, _The Inauguration of the Pleasure Dome_ (1954), which, importantly for Climax, features footage from the hell sequence in Francesco Bertolini, Adolfo Padovan, and Giuseppe De Liguoro's _L'inferno_, a 1911 adaption of the _Inferno_ book from Dante Alighieri's _Divina Commedia_; Masaki Kobatashi's dark samurai film, _Harakiri_ (1962); Dario Argento's dance-hall-based horror film, _Suspiria_ (1977); Lucio Fulci's voodoo/zombie film _Zombi 2_ (1979); Andrzej Żuławski's domestic drama-cum-horror film, _Possession_ (1981); and Rainer Werner Fassbinder's serial killer/LGBT film, _Querelle_ (1982). The books include Franz Kafka's 1915 novella, _Die Verwandlung_, in which a man mysteriously begins to change into an insect; Georges Bataille's 1928 novella _L'histoire de l'oeil_, which charts the increasingly extreme sexual perversions of a young couple; and Pierre Petit's 1992 biography of the homosexual and transvestite painter and photographer Pierre Molinier, _Molinier, une vie d'enfer_. This in-your-face intertextuality at the outset of the film very much sets up the tone of the work to come, alerting the audience as to the style and intentions of the filmmakers. Aside from that, the interviews also do a terrific job of establishing yourself the differing characters, as do the dialogue scenes after the rehearsal but before the LSD has kicked in.
The next scene is the much-talked-about dance number, which is easily the best dance sequence I've ever seen on film. Scored to remixed versions of Cerrone's "Supernature" (1977), Patrick Hernandez's "Born to be Alive" (1978), and M|A|R|R|S's "Pump Up the Volume", the scene is simply breath-taking. Shot in a continuous 20 minute take, the dancers move at extraordinary speeds, with no single position held for more than a second or two. I know very little about dance, so I'm unable to really articulate just how extraordinary and original the scene is. I'm also not even sure as to the style of dancing. Krumping? Waacking? Voguing? An amalgamation of all three? The single-take grants the scene a sense of real-time immediacy and in-camera verisimilitude which one can usually only acquire from a live performance – this isn't something constructed by an editor from a series of individual takes, this is something literally happening before our eyes, no cheating, no effects, simply a group of insanely talented and utterly mesmerising performers. Put it this way, the dancing is so impressive, if I hadn't known it was being performed by professional dancers, I would be convinced some of it was CGI. Indeed, although it's shot in one take, the camera is anything but stationary, moving back and forth, and oftentimes directly above the dancers. In this sense, the viewer is not only watching the dance, they are, in effect, participants. Speaking to _The Telegraph_, Noé states,
> _I wanted the camera to feel like another dancer. We saw the joy of the dancers moving and I wanted to replicate that with the camera moves._
Again, he is working to transpose the audience into the world of the film – he doesn't simply show us a dance sequence, he tries to include us in it.
Thus ends the first section of the film. The second, and much shorter, section is the dancers engaged in conversation with one another (and, in contrast to the first section, is made up of a multitude of edits eschewing any sense of match-cutting). The third, and longest, section sees Selva realise the sangria is spiked, the troupe attempt to find out who did it, and the chaos that ensues when the drugs take hold. These three sections (dance, conversations, and drugs) roughly correspond to the three books of the _Divina Commedia_ - _Paradiso_, _Purgatorio_, and _Inferno_. However, in the poem, the order is _Inferno_, _Purgatorio_, and _Paradiso_, charting the ascension of the soul from the Inferno of Hades to the Paradiso of spiritual unification with God and Christ in heaven. In the film, the movement is in the opposite direction, as the Paradiso of the harmonious and unified perfection in the dance sequence gives way to the calm Purgatorio after the consumption of the LSD, but before it has taken over their reason. Finally, they descend to the Inferno – the dance-hall becomes a deadly battleground, a hell on Earth, bathed in deep reds and greens, as the entire troupe are overtaken by psychic torment, manifested as physical destruction, with the body itself both the implement of ruination and the primary victim.
In charting this allegorical journey, one of the most immediately interesting things is the obvious visual contrast to the dance sequence. Whilst the dance sees the group acting in unison, all of a single mind, the third section of the film shows them fragmented and in disarray, each individual driving towards their own purpose, whether it be paranoia, hedonism, or what they believe they need to do to survive. The harmony of the troupe has given way to the horror of individualised disintegration and psychological collapse. This reminded me a little of the fall of Lear, sinking from grandiose threats such as "_Come not between the dragon and his wrath_" (I.i.130) and "_The bow is bent and drawn, make from the shaft_" (I.i.152), to his pathetic "_I am a man more sinned against than sinning_" (III.ii.49) and "_I am a very foolish, fond old man_" (IV.vii.60) - in the context of the film, the fall from the height of the dance to the bestial nature of the third section is no less epic.
Something that bridges the two sections, however, is the music, which literally never stops once the film begins. Consisting of a mixture of '80s and '90s electronica and anachronistic early 21st century techno, as the film progresses, and in keeping with the descent into hell, the softer sounds of the dance sequence give way to more intense pieces such as Suburban Knights' "The Worlds" (1990), Dopplereffekt's "Superior Race" (1995), and Aphex Twin's "Windowlicker" (1999), whilst the film closes, bizarrely, with a remix of The Rolling Stones' "Angie" (1973).
Perhaps the most noticeable similarity between the dance sequence and the third section of the film is that both are shot in single-takes. The drug sequence lasts 42 minutes, and is presented as one continuous shot of the world collapsing in front of the characters' eyes - although in reality, it is several long takes where the edits have been disguised, à la _Birdman: or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)_. Following first one character before trading off to someone with whom they have interacted, director of photography Benoît Debie's (_The Runaways_; _Spring Breakers_; _Lost River_) camera moves almost ballet-like throughout the space, sweeping in and around the characters as they fall apart. The lack of any editing, as with the dance sequence, enhances the immediacy of the image, heightening the sense of paranoia from which the entire group are now suffering, and leaving the audience as exposed as the characters themselves.
As the rehearsal space turns into a nightmarish landscape comparable with Hans Memling's, "The Last Judgement" (1467-1471), Pieter Bruegel the Elder's "The Triumph of Death" (c.1562) and "Dull Gret" (1593), Peter Paul Rubens's "Massacre of the Innocents" (1636-1638), or Francisco Goya's "Saturn Devouring His Son" (1819-1823), the film treats us to a girl's head being set on fire, a pregnant girl being kicked repeatedly in the stomach, a girl slashing her own arm and face, a contortionist contorting to the point where he literally splinters his own bones, a child locked in a room full of cockroaches, a man scratching his chest to the point that it turns into four red bloody streaks, public urination, lesbian rape, incest, and suicide. The troupe descend into a kind of deeply twisted and barbaric gang-mentality, what we might expect if _Lord of the Flies_ had been written by the Marquis de Sade, urging one another on to acts of unimaginable and ever-increasing violence and degradation. As the veneer of civilisation is stripped away, the characters devolve before our eyes; some become concerned only with sex, others with violence, whilst a small few try to help their fellow sufferers, although even they ultimately give in to their basest instincts. Indeed, Noé tells _The Telegraph_,
> _it's like the start of 2001, we see the apes and then they evolve into humans, and in the case of my film it is like the humans go back to being apes. Humans are going back to their original forces […] LSD or mainly alcohol can bring you back to a more reptilian way of thinking, you are not human anymore. It is all about survival, about reproducing species, about sex and domination. The moment we start losing control of the logical brain we go to a psychotic way of thinking._
But what is it all about? Is there any kind of theme underpinning the whole thing, in the same way that _Salò_ isn't really about forcing young girls to eat faeces or cutting off boy's tongues, it is actually about (amongst other things) political corruption, the abuse of power, fascism, and economic inequality. It would certainly be easy to dismiss _Climax_ as thematically empty, arguing that the brilliant camerawork and pumping soundtrack serve only to cover up the vapidity at its core, to argue that the depravity and excess is not in the service of any grand universal point or allegorical thinking, but simply to show attractive young people tearing one another apart. Even if one buys into Noé's devolution argument, the idea that the film presents "man as beast", it still doesn't offer thematic relevance. So, in a nutshell, is _Climax_ shocking for the sake of being shocking?
Not exactly.
Yes, this is exhibitionist cinema through and through, the type of film that dares you to look at it intently until you can't look anymore, as if the filmmaker is standing behind you saying, "I knew you'd look away." But there is definitely more to it than that. For example, there is some kind of political point buried beneath the carnage and broken bodies; the dance sequence takes place in front of a massive French flag, whilst the credits declare, "_A French Film. And proud of it_." Perhaps related to this, the troupe is made up of a cross-section of Europeans – gay, straight, men, women, transsexual, black, white, eastern, western. In the explosion of excess hedonism and hysterical mayhem, does this cross-section of ethnicities, genders, and sexual orientations come to represent European multiculturalism tearing itself apart? Is Noé saying that if France continues to accommodate such a diversity of disparate cultures, chaos will ensue? Possibly. In this sense, the early parts of the film would represent the liberal ideal of perfect multicultural harmony, whilst the later section is a conservative's wet dream, showing what could happen in such a melting pot. The dance sequence thus represents a politically harmonious multicultural society composed of a barrage of norms and peoples, all working together for the greater good. In relation to this, perhaps tellingly, Omar, the person who is initially blamed for spiking the sangria, is Muslim (which is how everyone immediately knows he wasn't drinking). Is this merely a plot point, or is it part of the larger allegorical canvas?
To flip this argument, is Noé saying that in such a multicultural _milieu_, with fear of Islam at a high, it's very easy to blame everything on the Islamic "Other". Additionally, Noé depicts that dance scene with such reverence and awe that this kind of social critique, barely straddling the line between patriotism and xenophobia, doesn't seem to sit especially comfortably. Not to mention that Noé himself is an immigrant – he was born in Argentina, moving to France when he was 13. Maybe he's simply criticising the hedonistic youth of today, and their love of excess. However, whilst the political allegory might be reading too much into the film, suggesting the whole thing is simply so Noé can proclaim "kids today" is reducing it all to a far too simplistic degree. He is no Pier Paolo Pasolini, but neither is he a curmudgeonly old man!
The fact is, I don't have a clue what _Climax_ is about. Nor do I care. Nor is it important. I would argue instead that if you spend the duration of the film trying to figure out what it's all about, then you have missed what it's all about. You can only see the film for the first time once, and it's better to let it carry you into the nether-regions rather than trying to analyse it. With that in mind, I take it for what it appears on the surface; an incredibly technically proficient depiction of a contemporary Inferno, as aesthetically impressive as it is morally questionable, as enthralling as it is disturbing, and as evocative as it is shocking, a film of unparalleled barbarism, that also stands as one of the most extraordinary cinematic achievements in recent years.
It's a work of genius. Twisted, sick, deraved genius, but genius nonetheless. It disturbed me like no film in at least a decade, and I couldn't get it out of my head for days afterwards. I absolutely loved every single crazy minute of it. And I don't ever wish to see it again. For Noé, I can think of no higher compliment.

A french dance troupe, staying for a long weekend in some sort of school building, decide to party after rehearsal, while a wintry blizzard rages outside. Someone spikes the punch, and all hell breaks loose.
The dance scenes are engaging, the visuals hypnotic, the performances are somehow real and completely over the top, and the chaos and carnage intense and memorable. Long, drawn out tracking shots, one of which lasts for 40+ minutes, follow the dancers as the drugs take hold and any hint of humanity falls by the wayside.
Awful, intense, nightmarish film that I would never recommend to anyone, and would probably never watch again, but was so insanely good. Makes me want to take more acid, but also never take it again...
Be warned, not for the feint of heart, the most intense film I have seen in a long, long time.

Really fun, and funny, romantic-comedy that is to me akin to Ferris Bueller's Day Off style of humor from John Hughes (vs. something like The Breakfast Club and Pretty in Pink with a more serious tone or themes). Anyway, this was my first time seeing this and while I still place TBC and FBDO over this, still another great film from Hughes to come out of the 80s and, like those, still works so well today. **4.0/5**

I've never bagged a babe. I'm not a stud.
It's Samantha Baker's 16th birthday and her family are so wrapped up in her sisters impending wedding, they have completely forgotten Sam's big day. Not only that but she has the hots for school hunk Jake Ryan who, apparently doesn't know she even exists. Her existence, however, is noted by freshman Ted "The Geek" who lusts after her at every opportunity. Being 16 really isn't all it's cracked up to be, maybe?
John Hughes directs his first feature film and sets out his marker for the career that was to come for the astute observer of teen angst and coming of age drama.
Featuring Hughes faves Molly Ringwald (Sam0 & Anthony Michael Hall (Ted), Sixteen Candles is frothy on the outside but not without cunning substance on the inside. It's the sort of film that is easy to forgive its obviousness on account of its understanding of its characters, something that Hughes was a master of. Even as we run through the staple requirements of the teen comedy movie (dance, party, making out etc ) Hughes manages to avoid the cliché pitfalls of such sequences by fuelling them with believable patois.
His cast, with the exception of the dull Michael Schoeffling (Jake), are sparky and engaging throughout. With the Cusack siblings, John & Joan also showing up in the strong supporting cast. There's an Asian exchange student thread that some have tried to paint as stereotypically offencive, but that is nonsense! Gedde Watanabe ensures the role is the fun and harmless one it's meant to be.
The soundtrack is kicking and very at one with the story (another knack of Hughes), it features the likes of The Specials, The Revillos, Billy Idol, The Stray Cats and The Thompson Twins. And the Evanston, Illinois location work really fleshes out the feeling of the piece.
Not just a film for 80s nostalgists then, one for pretty much anyone who was 16 and had their emotions pulled all over the place. 7/10

'Coyote Ugly' is solid cheese and I'm here for it. There's nothing all that noteworthy to say about this, you'll either enjoy it or you won't; I doubt there's much middle ground. For me, it works. It's well paced and well acted, the music is well chosen too - s/o LeAnn Rimes.
I'm pretty sure I've seen this before when I was younger, so long ago that I hadn't had it logged on here. I can't say I totally remembered it whilst watching, though many of the scenes did feel familiar and I recalled the main cast. Speaking of which, Piper Perabo is good as lead. Maria Bello, John Goodman and Adam Garcia are also solid.
Just discovered that this has the same director as Kangaroo Jack. David McNally really made these two classics and ducked out of the industry, what a rockstar.

COYOTE UGLY IS AWESOME