**A very well done western, which replaces glorification with raw realism.**
I really enjoyed this film, which is very centered on the notable figures of Wyatt Earp, Virgil Earp, Morgan Earp and Doc Holiday during their time as law and order in the town of Tombstone. In popular culture, they became famous due to a short but intense exchange of fire with a group of gunmen from the city, called the Ok Corral Shooting. The incident, which took place in October 1881, was widely romanticized in the early 20th century and became a symbol of the Old West.
In fact, the shooting, which appears in this film, was just one violent incident within a long feud between the sheriffs and the gunmen. The causes are still shrouded in mists that historians are trying, with difficulty, to penetrate, and the feud continued and resulted in the murder of one of the Earp brothers and the pursuit and death of some of the assassins, in a veritable manhunt. I'm a historian, but I'm not an expert on the period or the Wild West, but I felt that the film managed to put everything in its context and respect, minimally, what really happened.
If there is something in this film that deserves to be highlighted, it is the work of the actors. We have a magnificent cast, full of very competent actors who committed themselves to their respective roles. The effort deserves our praise. Of course, Kurt Russel will have a special highlight when receiving the character of Wyatt Earp, but the actor made good use of that role and managed to be very charismatic and friendly to the public. Sam Elliott, one of those veterans with a lot of attitude and personality, couldn't be better and is incredibly good in this film. Maybe it's the actor's best film. Val Kilmer is not one of those actors that makes me want to see a movie, but the truth is that he was also very good at his job, and managed to harmonize his character's fragility and charisma well.
Directed by Kevin Jarre and George Cosmatos, the film is one of those westerns that went against the classics by dismantling the glorified figure of the cowboy, the bravery and coldness of the gunslinger and the villain, and giving a more realistic and historically credible flavor to films of this genre. The script is very good, it is very well written, and the technical work of the visual effects, make-up, costumes and set design teams was truly exquisite. The cinematography does not let us down either and makes very clever use of all this, and the sets and exterior footage, with magnificent lighting and a warm color palette that is simply delightful. The soundtrack, despite not being memorable or worthy of particular attention, does a good job.

Indeed, sir. The last charge of Wyatt Earp and his immortals.
Tombstone is written by Kevin Jarre and directed by its star Kurt Russell, with credited director George P. Cosmatos ghost-directing. It also features a large ensemble cast that includes Val Kilmer, Sam Elliott, Bill Paxton, Michael Biehn & Powers Boothe. The movie is loosely based on historic incidents occurring in 1881-1882. The plot follows newly retired peace officer Wyatt Earp (Russell) as he and his two brothers, Virgil (Elliott) & Morgan (Paxton), arrive in the Tuscon town of Tombstone. Here they plan to make their fortune and gain themselves a share in a farrow game at the local saloon. Wyatt's long time friend, Doc Holliday (Kilmer), also joins the Earp's in town and it's not long before they encounter trouble in the form of The Cowboys - a ruthless bunch of outlaws led by Curly Bill Brocious (Boothe).
The back story to Tombstone is rather interesting, so without waffling on and boring the spurs off of any readers I'll try & keep this paragraph short! Willem Dafoe was slated to star as Doc Holliday but Buena Vista (Disney company) said no way on account of his appearance in the frowned upon The Last Temptation Of Christ. Since Buena Vista were the only company willing to distribute Tombstone, on account of Kevin Costner pulling rank and influence due to his own Wyatt Earp movie being on the go, they had the big say in things. Then when the screenplay was turned in by Jarre it was shot down by both Russell and the now on board Kilmer because it was deemed excessively too long. Jarre was then fired as director for refusing to cut down the characterisations. Enter Cosmatos to ghost-direct for Russell. Then Robert Mitchum (who narrates in the film) had to drop out of playing Old Man Clanton (subsequently dropped from the story) due to a riding accident. While genre legend Glenn Ford bailed out of playing Marshall White to pave the way for Harry Carey Junior to fill those boots.
In spite of all the problems getting harmony and cohesion to the screen, Tombstone ends up being a thoroughly entertaining genre piece. A love letter to the genre and boasting one of the best ever portrayals of an (in)famous Western character (Kilmer's take on Holliday is sexy, dangerous and utterly beguiling). Comparing it to Costner's movie is folly, for that movie (and I'm a big fan of it) is a telling of Earp's life and doesn't Hollywoodise things, this is about a short period in Earp's life, with bells on. There's some inaccuracies, but in the main the makers do a good job of covering the events leading up to the famous gunfight that occurred at the O.K. Corall - and the aftermath of said confrontation. Pic manages to have its cake and to eat it for a modern age made Western. It does all in all what old fans of the genre expect whilst having enough savvy dialogue and rah rah sequences to engage the more youthful viewers. There's not much art to speak of (for instance you wont go searching out for the cinematographer's name) and the sheer volume of characters at times threatens to bulge the piece over the belt buckle. Yet it always manages to keep us entertained with a high energy action sequence or a sharp quip delivered by the irrepressible Kilmer. Even the standardised romantic angle involving the beautiful, but superfluous Dana Delaney as Josephine manages to have its engaging moments. Sure we ache for the next scene of Kilmer being cool or Biehn being a cocky bastard, but the love blossoming between Wyatt & Josephine, and the inner conflict that it causes Earp, really fleshes out where Earp was emotionally at a time when he was trying to settle down for peace in his world.
Ultimately it's probably with the story of Kilmer & Russell insisting on a trimming of the story that Tombstone makes the most telling point. Critically it was recognised as being too bloated and that wasn't what was needed. For crying out loud the Western fan had had Eastwood's sublime Unforgiven the previous year, so who in their right mind would try and follow that? Tombstone thankfully doesn't take itself too seriously, but still it has enough nous to keep the beans cooking on high and the splendid moustache's a twirling. All that Whilst simultaneously providing some of the most quotable lines delivered in the most splendid of film genres. Kilmer's Doc is our Huckleberry, and so is Tombstone the film. 8/10

Hollywood once again retells the story of the legendary lawman, this time in the guise of Kurt Russell. Add Val Kilmer, Sam Neill, and Bill Paxton into the mix and what you get doesn't exactly scream "A list" but what you do have is an ensemble cast that gels particularly well; this is one of those films that manages to be more than the sum of its parts. The bond of brotherhood and friendship between the Earps and Doc Holliday feels genuine and Kilmer clearly relishes the scene stealing part of sickly gentleman adrenaline junkie Holliday. Powers Booth and Michael Biehn also make charismatic villains, the scenes between Biehn and Kilmer being particularly sharp and the Peckinpah shoot outs extremely well staged. In fact the shoot out at the OK corral is one of the best versions yet filmed. It does occasionally slip into melodrama (Morgan's death being the prime example) and the climax is a little montage happy and feels a little rushed as a result, but it's a great slice of old school popular entertainment that's a lot more engaging than Kevin Costner's pompous yawn-fest released the same year.

"Vivarium" is one of those movies that pulls you in with an interesting concept but leaves you questioning everything, especially the choices the characters make. The story follows a couple who find themselves trapped in a seemingly endless suburban neighborhood, forced into a bizarre and unsettling routine. The mystery keeps you engaged, but the characters’ decisions often feel frustrating. Not in a "bad script" way, but in a way that makes you wonder if they were written to be this passive on purpose. The pacing leans toward slow-burn horror, relying more on psychological unease than traditional scares.
The directing does a solid job of maintaining tension, making the whole thing feel claustrophobic and surreal. The cinematography enhances this with sterile, repetitive visuals that emphasize the artificiality of their world. Acting-wise, Imogen Poots delivers a strong performance, while Jesse Eisenberg brings his usual style, which sometimes works but occasionally feels forced. The real standout is the child actor, his unsettling presence adds a lot to the film’s eerie atmosphere. There’s a lot of subtlety in how he moves and reacts, making you wonder whether his voice was altered or dubbed over in post.
The script keeps things cryptic, and while that works for the tone, it also leaves some moments feeling underdeveloped. The lack of clear explanations may frustrate some viewers, but it’s clear that the movie is more about the experience than the answers. The sound design plays a big role in the tension, using unsettling audio cues to make certain scenes even more uncomfortable. Overall, Vivarium is a strange, thought-provoking film that raises more questions than it answers. If you like psychological horror with a heavy dose of surrealism, it’s worth a watch. Just don’t expect everything to make sense.

A young couple go to an estate agent to seek out their dream home. They encounter the almost robotic "Martin" who offers to show them their ideal residence - and so off go Imogen Poots and Jesse Eisenberg to inspect. They discover a typical detached house in the suburbs, surrounded by identical homes that leave them a bit cold. When their guide disappears, they decide to go home - except; they are caught in a labyrinthine network of streets that always brings them back to "No. 9". Soon, a baby in a box arrives and their happiness ought to be complete - except they have no other human contact and so slowly, but surely, start to go a bid mad. The kid has an infuriating habit of screaming loudly when he doesn't get what he wants - and I felt much like screaming myself as the cyclical pointlessness of this really dreary film did start to get on my nerves. Perhaps Lorcan Finnegan intended the potency of the sterility of the whole thing to engender a feeling of irritation from his audience; if he did then top marks. Otherwise, this is a total waste of the talents of two actors who could have found better ways to help us pass 100 minutes.

Vivarium was eerie and creepy, and definitely a movie that will mess with your head, albeit probably in ways other than you anticipated. You'll be tricked in the beginning into believing this movie is actually a sociological observation of the slow and robotic death of suburban life: you and your nuclear family settle into middle class conformity in a large, seemingly endless design of mazes and hedges, condemned to repeat the endless cycle of home, school (or work), home, sleep, rinse and repeat. And it certainly gives one those unsettling vibes, especially when the creepy box with the build-a-baby arrives at their prison doorsteps.
Rather, this is something else entirely. While it does well maintaining that nearly subtle sense of wrongness, of something being terribly just _off_, in the end, you may find yourself somewhat disappointed, as it is at this precise moment the film becomes like every other movie of its kind out there. Quite possibly, it is the end that is the most disturbing, for it seems to insinuate that humanity is as disposable as livestock.

It's a movie whose premise had promise but was never thoroughly explored.
I read the generally high praise in the reviews for this movie and admittedly, I was fooled. I'm convinced that at least the individual here who likened part of its premise to the animated series, "Solar Opposites," while not being entirely off the mark, neglected to mention that unlike Solar Opposites, there is no payoff with Vivarium. Unlike Solar Opposites, we don't know why Vivarium exists. We don't know why people are expected to raise these mysterious hominids. We don't know what their purpose is, other than to entrap first home buyers, like some kind of otherworldly predatory lender. Is it a euphemism for unscrupulous property developers? Who knows?
Only thing I know is that by the end of it all, I felt totally ripped off. At around 90 minutes, it was 60 minutes too long. It's not even something that I can suggest is open to much interpretation.
If you just need something playing in the background while you're performing other work at home, even then it may be a stretch but it certainly doesn't deserve much better.

Sci-fi thriller, just not _"on the edge of sit"_ type. Lorcan Finnegan remakes his short film **Foxes** and adds a life message to it.

Amazing watch, will watch again, and can recommend.
Imogen Poots and Jesse Eisenberg (both from "The Art of Self Defense") are amazing in their roles as an abducted couple force to raise a child.
This is an amazing premise (see "Solar Opposites" for something similar), and one that is extremely hard to discuss without spoilers. This is a wonderful mix of tropes. There is a prisoner / abductee trope, there is "adoption of a strange child" trope, there is a "troubled couple" trope, there is even a mystery trope.
I'm fully of the opinion that the right thing to do in any abduction situation is to not reward the criminals with what they want because there is no reason that while they have all the power that they're going to do anything to benefit the victims. We get see an exploration of what people do in a dire situation and given a task, similar to a couple different "Twilight Zone" episodes.
The production value is clearly here, and while they appear to have saved some money on limited locations, it clearly put to good use as the movie delves deeper into its story.
I can't recommend this enough, please give it a shot all the way through.

> **_Review on Horror Focus_**
This indie sci-fi thriller Vivarium from Irish filmmaker Lorcan Finnegan is many things, one definitely being quite the head-scratcher. Not because of it being an intellectually challenging story, or one that is laced with twists and turns to create an unpredictable viewing, but a film that delivers a narratives so peculiar that it is like something you've never seen before. Take this with a pinch of salt, as there's certainly aspects which don't make the landing of such an ambitious plot, but let it also be known that Vivarium contains some impressions visual and narrative storytelling, enough to forgive some of the mid-act waffle that cripples the films momentum.
Finnegan gets the ball rolling with power, keeping the story taught enough that we are thrown straight into the mystery early doors. This works extremely well as the tension begins to bubble within the first ten minute mark. The performances here from our main cast member already begin to show their brilliance, especially Jonathon Aris who sets a chilling foreshadowing tone with his appropriately eerie character Martin. The small (yet effective) amount of screen time we have with Martin is enough to set the tone, and we, like Tom and Gemma are forced to endure something that is so ominously intense that it leaves a lingering sense of dread.
Unfortunately, this soon begins to simmer once Finnegan establishes the plot in its whole, and realisation settles on the simple fact that, after the 30 minute mark, there really isn't much else for the story to go. Yes the labyrinth maze of suburbia is strangely terrifying, and the strenuous repetition is effective, but after 15 minutes of having the child introduced, Vivarium begins to fall flat, and grow increasingly more stale up until after the sixty minutes in. The fantastic Poots and Eisenberg, and the deadpan humour do prevent this film from becoming a little too one-note, but this doesn't exuse more than a few scenes that will be a task to sit through, even in these current homebound world we are living in.
There is a glimmer of brilliance in Finnegan's choice of release here, as what our main couple are enduring is poetically reflective of the life we are living in this mad pandemic virus. I found myself identifying with the irritated attitude our characters develop, and sympathised with them when their child (the boy) was well deserving of a slap. Vivarium is intelligently relative right now, and can definitely be perceived as as Finnegan holding a mirror up to the idealistic yet treacherous concept of what makes the perfect home, and the urge to be the perfect family.
In fact, there's so much underlying aspects of Vivarium that are so incredibly reflective of the inevitable repetition that comes once a spunky couple are weighed down by family life, securing their "ideal" home and tolerating each others impurities under the same roof constantly. Finnegan exposes the dangers of the nuclear family here, and forces us to endure it too, warts and all. We even get those little moments in which Tom consistently chips away, digging a whole, not to be talked to, helped or interrupted by Gemma, who becomes a slave to ensuring nothing but contentment for their boy. This moment is humourous with a dark sting, and will be reflective of reality to many, but to those inside Vivarium is nothing but a nightmarish loop.
This distorted utopia Finnegan creates is what's most effective, orchestrated by a Burton-esque palette that is as gorgeous as it is hauntingly off-kilter. The early 80's, Romero's Day of the
Dead-like synth is undeniably effective, and carries the tension through to the final act, which although doesn't hit a payoff point that excuses the slow middle act, does add to the bankers reality Finnegan has crafted, and highlights the eeriness established from the beginning. While Vivarium does lose a tone of momentum when it hits the mid-way point, by the time it reaches its end, I can't shake the distinct feeling of unease I had to endure for over eighty minutes, and I can't deny that a film like this was an experience I have quite been exposed to before. I have been feeling really under the weather these past few days, and let's just say this only made me feel worse. Great job, I guess?
VERDICT
Vivarium is a simplistically disturbing suburban nightmare with a captivating story and little room for growth. Enduring its drab middle act may prove tricky, but once Finnegan blows the dust of the eerie intensity established from the beginning, you'll find there is much to be desired with this unsettling little indie-sci-fi thriller.

Pretty pointless movie. Signed up to review because I couldn't believe the rating this received. Yes, you get a weird realtor and a creepy kid but other than that you just watch the couple basically repeat each day hating being stuck. You're not going to learn anything more about the weird freaks or why they're doing what they're doing and will end up feeling like you just wasted your time. Yeah, I get it's supposed to be satire but pass.

‘Vivavirum’ slots in neatly next to Jocelyn DeBoer and Dawn Luebbe’s ‘Greener Grass’ and Richard Stanley’s ‘Color Out of Space’ to form a loose trilogy of deeply surrealist releases in 2019 that skewer our perceptions of suburbia and the family unit. Director Lorcan Finnegan has brought to life a disturbing, thoughtful and bleakly funny mutant of a movie.
- Jake Watt
Read Jake's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-vivarium-what-makes-a-house-a-horrific-home

OK, so at times this is a bit far-fetched, even for a horror movie, but I reckon it is still my favourite from the genre made in the 1970s. From a rather murky start in a Roman hospital, we see Gregory Peck and wife Lee Remmick head to London where he is to be US Ambassador - along with their new baby son "Damien" (cue the squeaking violins). Not long after their arrival, their nanny commits suicide - rather gruesomely, as it happens - facilitating the arrival of "Mrs. Baylock" (a rather menacing Billie Whitelaw). As the boy ages, and fuelled by some rather ghastly prophesies by Patrick Troughton's "Father Brennan", Peck slowly concludes that there is something a little dodgy about him. Thing is, can he thwart the evil contained within the youngster? Richard Donner does well to build and to sustain a sense of peril from pretty much the outset of this film - aided, ably, by a Jerry Goldsmith score that uses maniacal choral vocals and strings to keep you behind the sofa. Peck isn't at his best, and some of the scenes - especially in the graveyard with the Baskervillian hounds - do stretch the imagination, but for the most part it seizes your attention and keeps it. I have to admit to being disappointed by the ending - just why did the police have to give chase?

I just recently re-watched this and the remake...there's really no fair comparison.
Gregory Peck wins over Liev Schreiber, but then Peck is the better actor.
Lee Remick is far more believable than Julia Stiles who doesn't seem to convey the same earnest fear and suspicion.
David Thewlis is a good actor, but in bit parts he always seems to phone it in and David Warner was just the more believable photographer.
I mean, the 1976 The Omen is dated, but that's not a bad thing and in this case you get the sense that they were doing something fresh and really trying to frighten you...and they did.
By comparison the remake is paint by numbers and offers nothing new.
1976 is, hands down the more frightening, more dramatic, and more suspenseful film. Compared to 2006. 1976 is believable.

For whatever reason never saw The Omen before and while it has its moments, the last 10-15 minutes were particularly great, the middle part plodded along at a slow pace with little happening that was interesting outside a scene or two. All in all, it was okay but maybe a tad overrated. **3.25/5**

This is a wacky, weird and fun movie. The first hour is slow, but after that everything changes for the better.
If you liked Swiss Army Man, you're going to like this movie too.

**By: Louisa Moore / www.ScreenZealots.com**
Writer / director Ruben Östlund‘s wickedly sharp black comedy “Triangle of Sadness” offers a biting satire of everything from gender roles, capitalist society, corruption of power, modern masculinity, and the social hierarchies that result from a system that encourages class division. The film has a lot to say and does it well, wading through layers of stinging dialogue, sophisticated observations, and lots and lots of vomit.
The film is a lot more than its now-infamous fifteen minute puking scene, however. It’s an in-your-face story that doesn’t shy away from confronting everything from the rampant abuse of the less privileged to the primitive savagery of human nature.
Instagram influencers and celebrity model couple Carl (Harris Dickinson) and Yaya (Charlbi Dean) are invited on an all-expenses-paid vacation on a luxury cruise in exchange for expert promotion on social media. The ritzy yacht is frequented by ultra-rich passengers who demand the finest things in life (one of the early scenes features a helicopter air-dropping a couple of jars of Nutella in the ocean, which is hilarious because it’s so ridiculous).
As Carl and Yaya settle in, they begin to meet their very wealthy fellow guests, including a couple of British arms dealers, a Russian oligarch (Zlatko Buric), and an unhinged Marxist boat captain (Woody Harrelson) who spends the majority of the cruise drunk and locked in his cabin. If not a recipe for disaster, it certainly sets the stage for an interesting few days at sea. But after the ship encounters a vicious storm and capsizes, the handful of survivors are left stranded on a deserted island and fighting for survival.
The film has a lot to say about feminism, sexism, today’s social-media obsessed society, the gross exploitation of the working class, the conflicts between the haves and have-nots, the shallowness of the fashion industry, and lots more.
While it would’ve been the easier route to demonize the billionaires in his story, Östlund instead chooses to make them appropriately ostentatious yet still kind of likeable. They’re not entirely jackasses, they’re just mega-wealthy. Setting the film on a cruise ship is brilliant too, as they have a built-in class system between passengers and amongst the crew. The boat symbolizes the hierarchy of social classes, including the officers, the predominantly white “face time” staff, and the lower rungs that include the cooks, engineers, janitorial workers, and other people of color. It’s satisfying to watch the pecking order not only completely dissolve but get turned upside down after the yacht sinks. That’s when the working class takes over, because they’re the ones who know how to get stuff done.
The film offers shrewd observations and a critique of class and privilege, culminating in a third act that delivers a bountiful amount of schadenfreude. The best is the story of “toilet worker” Abigal (Dolly De Leon, who gives the film’s standout performance), a woman who quickly takes command on the deserted island because she is the only person with any sort of survival skills. After starting a fire, catching fish, and handling the distribution of the small amount of supplies left on the lifeboat, she demands that everyone refer to her as “Captain.” She even begins trading food for sexual favors with Carl.
Östlund’s film about a cruise from hell is an achievement in satire that effortlessly skewers many timely subjects. He sets his eyes squarely on deserved targets and dismantles them with wit and sophistication, making “Triangle of Sadness” one of the smartest and most interesting films of the year.

A social media and extremely influential power couple, Carl ( Harris Dickinson ) and Yaya ( Charlbi Dean Kriek ) are invited on board a private luxury super boat in a bid to promote the experience to their followers. The boat has a number of mega rich but morally bankrupt passengers and a large team of staff to pamper to their every whim. “Triangle of Sadness” develops characterisation as the audience get to know the guests, their status and their wealth. The Captain ( Woody Harrelson ) is fighting his own demons including alcohol to which he unfortunately succumbs during the Captains Meal. It is this particular evening, a rough night on the sea, that events take a sinister turn with most passengers violently ill due to the effects of sea sickness. There are a number of graphic scenes of vomiting and over spilling toilets that leads to a blackout and the passengers and crew being thrown around by the rough weather.
As if the mega rich hadn’t suffered enough, further disaster unfolds that leads to a number of passengers and crew being stranded on a deserted island and fighting for survival. The questions “Triangle of Sadness” asks is, who is actually necessary to society and why? This harsh assault on capitalism takes a further turn when self proclaimed leader of the survivors , Abigail ( Dolly De Leon ) becomes poisoned by power and love or lust. In a final act that turns the protagonist into antagonist Abigail becomes the sort of person she hated so much when working as a cleaner on board the super boat.
With solid all round performances and some extreme vomit and toilet humour, this social commentary satire directly hits all of its targets.

Not much character development or story really, BUT ... the Captain's dinner is classic.

sketched, never completed
Looks like the director/writer had some notes, and didn't get around to write a complete script. So the movie starts out very promising, but then gradually runs out of ideas, until the last half is just ticking off the boxes of expected items.
The quirky, funny look into modelling is followed by a well cast and (in some moments) acted part about relationship issues between inexperienced, clueless, and selfish people.
We learn that the naïve male model is actually in love, while his female model/influencer counterpart tells him he's nice entertainment until she finds a rich guy to be trophy wife for. This doesn't deter him... and that was the promising bit.
Next, they are on a luxury yacht for the decadents; and there is still potential for a really good story: the upstairs/downstairs angle is only implemented in a few scenes, most screen time of this part is spent on lavish dining with icky "haute cuisine" food in rough seas, and the consequences thereof.
That was when the really good part could've started: how to they meet or avoid gazes the next day, the day after? What has changed, how, what shouldn't and how do class barriers break?
Instead, we get a clownish intermezzo and next, the boring island section. This part is just tedious agitprop, reducing the (already shallow) characters to templates, and doing all the expected bits. Waste of time, talent, and a nice beach.
For some reason, people are so content with half-baked products these days, you can even win prizes this way. 5/10, there's better ways to waste time, but this isn't the worst either.

I did quite enjoy this, but it's far too long and I found that the funniest bits had all already been seen in the trails! Initially, it centres around the fairly tempestuous relationship between models "Carl" (Harris Dickinson) and "Yaya" (Charlbi Dean). The latter is an influencer who looks at their relationship as something more transient; he is much more besotted - and so vows to make her fall in enduring love with him. Off onto a luxury yacht they head for an holiday with a few millionaires run by the super-officious "Paula" (Vicki Berlin) and captained by the dipsomaniac Woody Harrelson. The two befriend the lively and charismatic Russian oligarch "Dimitry" (Zlatlo Buric) and his wife "Vera" (Sunnyi Melles) before a captain's dinner that the choppy seas ensure ends in a messy and entertaining disaster! The remainder of their adventure has something of the "Admirable Crichton" to it, as they must adapt to the command of their erstwhile toilet cleaner "Abigail" (Dolly De Leon) who exacts her own unique sort of fees from her erstwhile patrons in return for catching fish and lighting fires... It does take a ping at the vacuousness of the modelling industry and at the unscrupulousness of big business - best exemplified in one scene with Oliver Ford Davies and Amanda Walker as the demure Brits who made their fortune selling "the greatest single contribution to democracy" (hand grenades!). Sadly, though, the moments of humour are relatively short and sweet when put into the context of this lengthy and frequently rather dull enterprise. Dickinson looks great shirtless, but as an actor he has limitations and I didn't really feel much chemistry between him and, well, anyone else. The last half hour could have been better, funnier, had there been a slight sense of menace - but somehow I just knew that the ending was going to deliver they way it does. Buric adds value, as does Henrik Dorsin's gazillionaire "Jarmo" but by half way through the joke had worn too thin to sustain it and I was a little bored. Doesn't need a big screen, and co-produced by the BBC I expect it can wait for Christmas television for most of us.

It’s a very intense film.
Forest Whitaker’s performance as Idi Amin is absolutely incredible—no surprise there since he’s one of my favorite actors. He completely commands every scene he’s in, and you can see why he won the Oscar for it. His portrayal is terrifying but also human, which makes it all the more powerful.
The directing by Kevin Macdonald was solid. The movie is tightly packed with tension and drama, and it does a great job of immersing you in the chaotic world of Amin’s Uganda. The pacing can feel a bit heavy at times, but it works well for the story being told. I think the mix of real historical events with a fictional lens through the young doctor’s perspective was interesting, though it sometimes felt like the movie couldn’t decide whether it wanted to focus on Amin or the doctor.
It’s definitely a gripping and well-made film, the performances are top-notch, and it has moments that really stick with you.

According to Wikiquote, a “British official” once said that Idi Amin needed “things explained in words of one letter.” It is one of The Last King of Scotland’s few flaws that it assumes we need things seen through the eyes of a white Westerner.
Sure, James McAvoy has some very good scenes with Forest Whitaker, the best of which is arguably the first (though in retrospect it doesn’t quite hold up to scrutiny), which ends with Amin and Dr. Nicholas Garrigan exchanging shirts (so that Amin can give Garrigan’s to his non-existent son Campbell, brother to the epileptic, and most likely also imaginary, Mackenzie) as if they’d just been in opposing sides of a soccer match.
Other scenes are much less fortunate, especially the one wherein the good doctor assists the dictator in the forced release of a massive flatulence. Good or bad, though, it matters little because none of this happened, and Dr. Garrigan never existed – not that he’s the least bit believable, either; starting with how he decides to go to Uganda (literally spinning a globe, closing his eyes, and pointing), Nicholas invariably behaves more like a character in a movie than an actual human being.
He can grab Amin’s sidearm without being instantly gunned down by the sundry nearby soldiers; he can drive, through streets he presumably is unfamiliar with, Amin to safety after the latter has been ambushed; he’s fresh off medical school but has the poise of an expert physician; and he’s so irresistible that one of Amin’s wives is willing to risk life and limb (or rather limbs, as it turns out) to have sexual congress with him (and even if the character were real, we still wouldn't be interested in his sex life).
Wikipedia tells me “the film mixes fiction with real events to give an impression of Amin and Uganda under his rule.” Well, we certainly get an indelible impression of Amin thanks to Whitaker’s haunting performance; on the other hand, wouldn’t we get a clearer impression of Uganda under his rule if the film stuck to the facts?
What’s the point of shooting on location if we only get a perfunctory idea of the effect the dictatorship had on the country and its people? Even the captions before the closing credits are too little too late, especially considering they aren’t much more accurate than anything that has gone on before. Instead, everything is filtered through Garrigan, who cares mostly about saving his own skin and isn’t really all that concerned with the fate of the Ugandan nation.
It’s a shame because director Kevin Macdonald’s influences are impeccable; Amin’s “Nothing comes from nothing” echoes Lear’s “Nothing can come of nothing,” and the way he dismisses Garrigan at one point is reminiscent of Rolf Hoppe chewing out Klaus Maria Brandauer in Mephisto. Perhaps Macdonald should have leaned completely towards the fictional approach and made a film à clef (Zangaro, The Dogs of War’s faux African dictatorship, would have been a good template).

I am the father of Africa.
Based on Giles Foden's novel of the same name, this filmic version of a period of Idi Amin's presidency of Uganda is a class act - that is if you can accept it as a loose reworking of events in Amin's life? Thus those who filed in for a bona fide history lesson subsequently either got angry or plain disappointed.
Propelled by Forest Whitaker's barnstorming Oscar winning perf as Amin, Last King of Scotland is riveting and fascinating from first reel to last. The political upheaval at this time in Uganda's history is presented in delicate strokes of dark depressing realisations, and also that of uneasy humour.
The portrayal of Amin is most complex, part man child, part greenhorn political suitor and one heartbeat away from despotic lunacy, with Whitaker nailing every single tick. It's key to note that the film does shed some light on Amin, so as a character study it soars and holds you enthral throughout.
Director Kevin Macdonald films in kinetic style, which is perfect for the material to hand, and he also deserves a pat on the back for ensuring the characters around Amin (circle of family/advisors etc) are a constant intrigue as per Amin's agenda machinations. James McAvoy gives sterling support as the key "fish out of water" doctor who Amin takes to his bosom, while Kerry Washington as Amin's wife number 3 also strikes the right emotive notes.
The finale falters somewhat, where it encompasses the Entebbe Hostage Crisis but fails to do that incident justice - instead using it as a cypher to have us rooting for McAvoy's made up character to get out of harm's way. But this is just a misstep that's not film defining. For this is a fine film, if it's not jolting you with harrowing scenes, or tickling your brain for education purpose, then it's demanding your attention for historical noting. Job done. 8.5/10

Rarely can the Olympic mantra of Baron Pierre de Coubertin have been better exemplified than by this ski jumper. Now us Brits have a tough enough time at the Winter Olympic Games at the best of times, so the fact that this slightly geeky, bespectacled, young man alighted on ski jumping is even more bizarre. You'd have had to side with his somewhat sceptical dad (Keith Allen). He's not to be deterred, though, and so he heads somewhere snowy (Garmisch) and luckily befriends a local hotel owner who lets him work his passage, so to speak. By his own admission, he's pretty hopeless - barely managing to stay erect after a jump of little more than 30m, but a chance encounter with Bronson Peary (Hugh Jackman) provides the most unlikely of conduits to his improvement and eventual qualification for the Olympiad in Calgary in 1988. I remember the huge spike of interest in his death-defying efforts as the legendary Matti Nykänen (Edvin Endre) regularly and consistently jumped twice his distance but yet Eddie still persevered. It was very much a case of the taking part not the winning and Taron Egerton really does imbue his character with a determination, tempered with just a little eccentricity, that delivers a comedic drama that I think is peculiarly British. The unimpressed suits at the BOA are perfectly summed up by Mark Benton, there's the vaguest hint of romance and a scene in a sauna that could probably only be pulled off by Rune Temte. Like the man himself, it's a little slow off the mark, but once it gets going it's one enjoyably paced and humorously written tale of a man who did manage to capture the heart of a nation despite the fact that a medal was never, ever, on the cards.

> Keep dreaming brings nothing, need to go out and try to make it happen!
The posters, teasers did not impress me at all. The thought the film going to be a flop. Surprisingly the film was much better than I anticipation. This is a biographical-sport film and very inspiring. The story of a British boy in the early 70s who dreamt to be an Olympian, but the problem is he has not found his sports. By the time in his 20s, he finally finds his interest and gives his best to make his long pending wish to come true. The remaining narration reveals his journey to the world's one of the big events where he aims to soar like an eagle.
Hugh Jackman was not any terrific, he was awesome like usual, but in a supporting role. I think Taron Egerton will be the next British sensation. This film worth seeing for his phenomenal act. The real Eddie too appreciated that. The whole film revolved around these two characters and I think making it a comedy worked out so well. Nicely shot film in the beautiful places, especially those risky ski jump stunts were excellent and the direction was undoubtedly the best.
This film is not particularly about the sport, it is about one showing his passion towards his undertaking. Eddie can be seen as a role model, no matter what he achieved, his fighting spirit is motivating. I think the youngsters should watch it, especially those who are after their dreams. Not just sport persons, but any field persons. I don't know about the repeat viewing, but watching once is enough for the confidence uplift. One of the must see film of the 2016.
8/10

Countdown is another of Hollywood's recent attempts to generate a quick win with a small investment, yet another soulless film and product of a system that wastes premises with potential in generic films.
The film follows Quinn Harris, a girl who decides to download an application that can predict how long until our imminent death. However, everything gets complicated when Quinn discovers that she has just over two days until her death prediction and strange things start happening around her. Reading a short description of these, we cannot help but be intrigued by what the film may offer, as we live in a world dependent on technology and applications that make life easier for us on a daily basis.
But instead of observing on screen a premise with explored potential to the fullest, we are forced to visualize a generic amalgamation of Jump Scares every minute, without any kind of tension, without any kind of terror.
The film is really more of the same, more than we have seen millions of times, without offering anything new, without even trying to be original (since, in its execution, it resembles the saga of films The Last Destination, only without the elaborate bloody deaths that made the 5 films so famous), containing only a relatively decent cinematography and direction.
It's really a shame to see ideas like the one that gave rise to this film being wasted, turned into scripts full of unexplored, basic mythologies and monotonous and trivial dialogues. The characters we are presented with are superficial, without any kind of distinct characteristics (although the actors do a good job with the material provided to them), the situations they find themselves in are familiar, many of the scenes in the film are unintentionally hilarious (which is not supposed to happen when you want to scare the audience) and the tone of the film oscillates as much (sometimes it tries to be completely terror, others a kind of amalgam of comedy and terror) as the waves of the peaceful.
All in all, this is a film that is not at all worthwhile, a product of a studio looking for easy money, without really wanting to present the audience with something worthy of their attention. This is the worst kind of horror film: the one without artistic integrity.

As a fan of Final Destination (2000) I approached the film with an air of optimism hoping to discover a similar result. The premise was interesting, ideal for the mystery horror genre.
Unfortunately, 'Countdown' quickly descends into your standard cheese eg. jump scares, silly monsters that come and get you. Too much of the unknown malevolence is revealed too soon - and the mystery, suspense and most importantly scariness falls by the wayside. Fear lies in the unknown and what your own mind can conjure up. Unfortunately, not many filmmakers appear to realize this anymore... but that's not what killed this movie.
**SPOILERS!**
Just about every mainstream movie and TV show made nowadays is filled with political messaging; some more overt than others, but if you know what to look for you'll see it.
I was really hoping this one could just stick to telling a story, where I could sit back for 90 minutes and watch our protagonist "Quinn" race against the Countdown to avoid certain death, as opposed to having political messages shoved down my throat and endure yet more anti-White attacks, insults and repugnance. Shamefully, 'Countdown' joins that growing list of Cultural Marxist propaganda. That's what destroyed this movie for me.
Now not all of these instances alone I'm about to provide are proof of Cultural Marxism. It's the contrast of having a false representation forcibly repeated with agenda driven consistency and how they're programming us to believe that these representations are real-world norms.
Generally observable group behaviors, patterns and actions are no longer being characterized and instead misrepresented; even inverted in media. Stereotypes are "no longer politically correct," regardless whether they're accurate or fair. Alternatively, these real-life human traits and personas are being distorted not only in fiction but the real world for a political agenda.
The propaganda that's occurring throughout the majority of media now has a real-life impact and consequences. In other words; our understanding of real-world actions, events and moral standards are being corrupted and manipulated through media.
Some examples:
* "Evil White man" as doctor Sullivan the sociopath and sexual predator. [Whites with fair hair and blue eyes are increasingly portrayed as evil villains and wrongdoers; untrustworthy and treacherous. Often with English, German or Eastern European accents].
* "Good & heroic Black man." In contrast noble Matt is a perfect gentleman and sensitive boyfriend material. [Black and Brown performers are often now given the role of hero or good doer. Courageous and virtuous; trustworthy and loyal].
* White male bashing and anti-White remarks. The line by Matt: _"I just found out I'm gonna die and I don't mind taking a White man with me."_ Imagine if the roles were reversed?
* Miscegenation. Predictably a blue-eyed, blonde girl with a Black man. Race-mixing propaganda is everywhere you look now. Film, TV, Advertising etc. Diversity means: 'without Whites,' particularly straight, White males. The more diversity there is, the fewer White people they'll be.
* More White male bashing & conspiracy theorist attacks. A drunk at the bar becomes a test subject because he's talking about Antarctica and "Flat Earth." Matt wants to get him to download the app so they can read the Terms & Conditions and Quinn doesn't feel good about it.
Of course, once the drunk mentions the taboo subject you're not allowed to question, 'the Holocaust,' Quinn changes her mind and promptly tells Matt to go ahead. Bear in mind the protagonist, Quinn is supposed to be a caring, ethical nurse!
* Quinn and Matt share an interracial kiss in front of her teenage sister and she looks on approvingly. [The younger the age one can start receiving programming & conditioning, the better. This has been proven with declassified mind control experiment files].
* In a scene at the end credits 'Tech Nerd' Derek is on his Tinder date and acts like a complete ass and turn-off to his date. If only she'd chosen the "more desirable" non-White date instead?!
Now that I've pointed out some examples of Cultural Marxism and anti-White propaganda you'll begin to notice them everywhere - that's if you haven't already. Hope this review helps and you got to swallow a few Red Pills in the process! Thanks for reading.
**Verdict 1/10**
**'Countdown'** is more subversive Cultural Marxist anti-White propaganda with a story that could have been good if done right.

Not sure who thought this was a good idea, much less release this to theaters (this is the kind of film one would find for free on Amazon Prime). I like the lead actress thanks to that show YOU, but otherwise this was just a dumb movie. Perhaps the premise would've been fine as a segment for an episode of The Twilight Zone or, back in the day, Tales from the Crypt. Perhaps.
Unfortunately with only a $6.5 million budget and grossing $35 million worldwide, a sequel is inevitable, though wouldn't surprise me if it gets streaming release. **1.25/5**

Modern horror sequels are often failures. I thought that as the first film wasn't great that I wouldn't be as disappointed if this film turned out to be bad. I was wrong, Compared to this, the first instalment was a masterpiece and this made me realise how it was successful at achieving its goals sometimes.
'Sinister 2' was quite scary in places. No doubt, the cinema playing the film super loud helped elevate the jump scares though. The creepy depictions of murder in the first film were crazily overdone in this.
The screenplay was terrible. The main story was stale and predictable and the characters were unsympathetic and cold.
The performances were poor all over this film in particularly the ghost children seemed like they were performing a rubbish school pantomime.
Overall, I can't be too surprised with what I thought of this film but, sadly, I can see sequels for this being churned out more and more in the future.
★½