> What's the most dangerous? The dark force or the evil father.
The first film was good, I enjoyed it, but not scary. So a sequel was expected and it failed to live up to the standards of the original. I would say, it was a decent horror film, with more story and drama than the creepy atmosphere. One character retained from the previous and the core theme remained, but tried a different method of narration. Something like 'Goodnight Mommy' with two brothers and mystery events surrounding them.
It definitely lacks what a horror film required the most, and predictable too. But the story wise, it was decent, because the actors did a good job. So it is an average film. I expected a better ending and it did not conclude at its best leaving me disappointing. The way it ended might have been the suitable for the story, but I wasn't impressed. Again, another sequel is most certain, so I think this tale is not over yet and chances are very high that the story would follow with the same cast.
It was not a bad flick, but not a follow-up you would have wanted. If you're looking for a genuine horror film, then you should skip it. There's nothing brilliance to appreciate at any level. Overall, I too felt it should have been better in some places. So my advise is if you forget its genre and try to enjoy that you're watching some movie that you don't know its category then surely would have a decent time with it.
4/10

In filmmaker Scott Derrickson’s original ‘Sinister’, this writer’s critical impressions toward the sub-par psychological yarn was rather blunt if not consistent with the steady diet of formulaic fightfests. The following passage pretty much sums up the cinematic sentiments from the movie’s critique:
'At best Sinister is a lukewarm twitchy tale that routinely teases the audience with the obligatory guessing game of whether or not the conjured up evil-minded spookiness is imagined…cheapened scare tactics, an ambiguous monstrous myth, transparent characterizations and a mixed bag of a supernatural storyline barely put any Sinister thoughts in our heads worth contemplating.‘
Well, say what you will about the first ‘Sinister’ outing but it at least had some slight star power in lead Ethan Hawke whose presence was one of the minor pluses in Derrickson’s shoddy shocker. In director Ciaran Foy’s (‘The Citadel’) tingling yet generic ‘Sinister II’, we hardly experience the essence of top-notch horror-induced hedonism. Feverishly flat, the creepily clichéd ‘Sinister II’ continues the tedious tradition of assembling sure-fire goose bump moments yet never really fortifying these mentioned moments with any heft of genuine suspense or titillating intelligence. At best, ‘Sinister II’ skillfully demonstrates its somber shell but horror movies in general, at least ones that strive for sophistication and coherence, should not continuously hide behind the sketchy synthetics of macabre mediocrity.
'Sinister II’ dutifully shares its symbolic connection with its predecessor. For starters, ‘Sinister’ alum James Ransone (the deputy from the first film) returns to the perverse playground while being blessed with a lead role in this frightful follow-up. After his dubious dealings with the Oswalt family in the first film’ where he was part of the police force’ the former law enforcer now works as a private investigator in his continued quest to combat that pesky spirit known as the demon Baghuul. Ransone’s ex-deputy is consumed with the shocking murders that took place previously, so it is his mission to eradicate the further Baghuul-instigated mayhem.
The newest family involved in the menacing mix consists of an Indiana farmhouse containing a mother named Courtney Collins (Shannyn Sossamon) and her two young sons (real-life brothers Dartanain Sloan and Robert Sloan). Unfortunately, Courtney is battling back and forth with her insufferable and indignant husband (Lea Coco) as her poor boys are caught up in the heated drama. The last thing that Courtney needs is a domestic distraction in the farmhouse that incorporates the spookiness of the Baghuul’s mischievousness. Thus, the hapless deputy-turned-PI must do what it takes to prevent the Baghuul from corrupting the psyches of this vulnerable family unit.
The film’s screenplay, written by Scott Derrickson and C. Robert Cargill, plays up to its predictable strengths as the audience is already steeped in the ‘Sinister’ mindset. Unfortunately, the element of mystery and intrigue is already compromised because ‘Sinister II’ does not really leave much second guessing for its titillating tension since it already displayed the same kind of copycat gloom-and-doom blueprint as evidenced in the first installment. In echoing the familiar patterns of eerie scare tactics, this sequel merely mirrors the shady shenanigans found in the first showing that was not that innovative the original time around. Sure, the unsettling imagery does have some warranted punch that leaves somewhat of a horrific impact. The grainy and gruesome home film angle showing a family’s hanging is undoubtedly quite affecting but the shock factor is brief and oddly forgettable. One is left wondering if there are enough tingly tricks up Foy’s desperate sleeve to arm ‘Sinister II’ with more than just drab shadows and twitchy innuendo.
Indeed, ‘Sinister II’ is atmospheric and bleak and does a sure fire job of creating a dank and disturbing universe where the percolating peril steadily brims. However, that is the problem with ‘Sinister II’ as it settles for the surface-base hedonistic haunting without committing to anything morbidly motivating sans the convoluted creepy conventions. Ransone’s bid to expose the imposing beast Baghuul while protecting the fragile welfare of the vulnerable Collins is genuinely a number-by-number plotline that feels stillborn. Even the dastardly Baghuul is stripped of anything particularly mysterious or diabolical for the audience to get on board and become mortified. Resembling a late gray-bluish sandpaper-faced rocker in The Doors’ frontman Jim Morrison with long stringy hair and mod attire, the Baghuul does nothing to really stimulate the gory imagination of ‘Sinister’s movie-making mythology
Little beauty and the rock n' roll attire Beast is something being presented as quite SINISTER.
Little beauty and the rock n’ roll attire Beast is something being presented as quite SINISTER.
In the long run, ‘Sinister II’ sings a spooky song in many ways but arms its tepid tune with the continued cheap thrills and false jump edits that are so annoyingly common in contemporary creepfests. ‘Sinister’s crime is not so much the calculating presence of a haunt hipster looking to stunt the growth of bewildered housing inhabitants as it is following the pedestrian path of boofests with banal bangs of exhilaration.
Sinister II (2015)
Focus Features
1 hr 30 mins.
Starring: James Ransone, Shannyn Sossamon, Dartanain Sloan, Robert Sloan and Lea Coco
Directed by: Ciaran Foy
MPAA Rating: R
Genre: Horror/Psychological Thriller/Supernatural & Suspense
Critic’s rating: * * stars (out of 4 stars)

Everytime I hear Iris by Goo Goo Dolls I'll always think of Nic Cage!

_**What goes on "behind the scenes"?**_
Released in 1998, "City of Angels" is a drama/fantasy/romance starring Nicolas Cage as a literal angel in Los Angeles named Seth who's assigned to bring the dead to God and other duties. During one of his assignments he meets and becomes intrigued by a surgeon (Meg Ryan) and wonders what it would be like to be human. Andre Braugher is on hand as Seth's angel friend while Dennis Franz plays a human in whom Seth seems to have an affinity. Will Seth "fall to the earth"?
I saw this when I was younger and it didn't have much of an impact, although I liked it. Viewing it at an older age definitely heightened my appreciation and shows that this is a movie for mature people (regardless of age). It skillfully touches on heavy issues of which younger people don't particularly dwell.
Based on the 1987 Euro film "Wings of Desire," everything depends on if the film can convince the viewer that the angels are real and believable in the context of the story. It does so convincingly with a tone similar to "Meet Joe Black," which was released the same year as "City of Angels" (later); and maybe 1990's "Ghost." If you like these two movies you will definitely appreciate "City."
I don't want to say anything more because it's better that you watch the movie and discover its potential riches for yourself. The script is well thought out, although they didn't milk the ending for all its potential, plus it seemed rather rushed, not to mention there are some glaring theological holes. Regardless, this is a nigh spiritual masterpeace. (No, I didn't misspell that).
The film runs 114 minutes and was shot in Los Angeles, Malibu, Big Bear Lake, Lake Tahoe and the San Francisco Public Library, California.
GRADE: A-/B+

**She’s Out of My League is edgier than need be with language and some of the humor, but in the end, it’s a solid rom-com that isn’t fun for the whole family but definitely fun for some.**
I’m not typically a fan of rated-R comedies because of the over-the-top sensuality, inappropriateness, and frequent nudity. While She’s Out of My League definitely has inappropriate jokes and suggestive moments, the movie plays more towards the awkwardness of dating rather than the sexuality of the movie’s stars and avoids nudity altogether. The focus on the embarrassing, awkward normalness of the main character leads to hilarious situations and laugh-out-loud moments. She’s Out of My League could have been one of my all-time favorites if it had toned down the raunchiness a little further, but the spotlight on goofiness and an ending with some heart and sincerity make it my favorite R-rated rom-com.

I enjoyed She’s Out of My League; let me get that out there at the outset. It is witty, mostly intelligent, and downright hilarious in places. Mind you, there were a few places that made me shake my head. There was some old fashioned gross-out humor, the sort I thought stopped being used in romantic comedies years ago. I particularly didn’t like the semen stain interlude, though I admit that Kirk’s friend’s advice later on how to explain it to Molly nearly saved it completely for me.
I also thought that having every male within twenty yards of Molly being paralyzed and struck dumb by her beauty was a bit overdone, but I am willing to overlook small issues if the movie is intelligent enough otherwise.
I liked most of the characters, especially Marnie, who says the stuff everybody wants to say. Even Cam is made into a nice guy rather than a jerk, as most movies would make the handsome rival of the dweeb for the lady fair. All in all a fair entry into the crowded romantic comedy genre.

***A really good romcom marred by profane crudeness***
A TSA worker at the Pittsburgh Airport (Jay Baruchel) starts a relationship with a woman many consider to be a perfect 10 (Alice Eve), which surprises his friends and family. Can the relationship survive their pestering?
"She’s Out of My League" (2010) is a surprisingly well-written, well-casted romcom that’s entertaining throughout, but it’s ruined for me by a little too much gross or profane (non)humor and I can’t in good conscience give it a higher grade. This is unfortunate because the flick didn’t need to stoop to that low-level.
But if you can stomach the needlessly gross bodily fluid & raunchy ‘humor’ of “There’s Something about Mary” (1998), “The Girl Next Door” (2004) and “Forgetting Sarah Marshal” (2008) you might like it more than me.
The film runs 1 hour, 44 minutes, and was shot in the Pittsburgh area.
GRADE: C

I know "Dorian Gray" was supposed to be beautiful, but I doubt if Oscar Wilde would have wanted something this insipidly pretty or seedy! It's Ben Barnes who tries to step up to the plate in the title role and he falls pretty flat. "Gray" is a young man who mixes with all and aims high after inheriting a modest house in London. Quickly he falls prey to the more debauched elements of society, led by "Lord Wotton" (Colin Firth) and begins to leave behind his moderating friends like painter "Hallward" (Ben Chaplin). It's a portrait done by that man that seems to be acting as a sponge for the increasingly selfish and odious "Gray". No matter how odious his behaviour, he seems to have the gift of eternal youth and immortality. He treats everyone around him with disdain and earns the enmity of just about everyone. Things take a bit of an unexpected turn, though, when he falls for "Emily" (the unremarkable Rebecca Hall) - the daughter of his duplicitous mentor. "Wotton" is quite happy to observe his charge use and abuse, but not in his own back yard - and that's when things start to come to an head for the over-confident libertine. Is there still time for some form of redemption? Well maybe for "Dorian" but not really for this plodding drama that relies too much on our own imagination rather than present us with a strong visualisation of the epitome of evil that I was expecting. Barnes is simply too nice, Chapin too - and though Firth fares a little better it is still lacking the subtly, mischief and punch of the original book. To be fair, this is quite a difficult story to dramatise. There isn't really enough to sustain almost two hours and maybe it would have been better shortened with a more focused direction from Oliver Parker. It does look good, is worth a watch but is really rather disappointing.

It's a shame that such a theoretically perfect Dorian Gray as Stuart Townsend was wasted on The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Sure, at 31, Townsend was arguably too old for the role in 2003, and even more so in 2009, the year this Dorian Gray was released; he was also too expressive, and based on both this film and The Picture of Dorian Gray (1945), it seems that the ideal Dorian Gray is a blank page — an unpainted canvas, so to speak, and while this makes a degree of sense, it does leave us wondering what exactly everyone sees in the titular character.
This is especially true of Ben Barnes, who’s so irresistible that he strips a young debutante of her virtue and, when her mother tries protests, he sleeps with her too, winning a bet in the process; this is a development that even Oscar Wilde would find vulgar (but, worse than vulgar, screenwriter Toby Finlay is trite, making Dorian say, when asked by Lord Henry (Colin Firth) what his secret is, the line "If I told you, I'd have to kill you." ”; I shudder to think that someone watching this film might believe that Wilde is responsible for this cliché, even if in 1890 it was not yet a one), and that we find it incredible because Dorian is nowhere near as fascinating as director Oliver Parker would like us to believe (but he is rich, though, so there’s that).
Now, Dorian is a Faustian character, and as such, he has little choice but to be a thankless role — yes, in theory he has a lot of fun (fun that the 1945 film, unlike this one, wisely left offscreen; Dorian’s vices are unspeakable, and trying to flesh them out is useless and counterproductive), but in practice he discovers, like Marcello Mastroianni, that the Dolce Vita is actually very bitter. The movie even manages to screw up the really juicy role of Lord Henry; Firth is a good actor, but wrong (especially when compared to George Sanders in the 1945 version) for this role for the same reasons that made him a poor choice for Valmont.

Handballs it in on just about every important (and engaging) aspect of the actual _Portrait of Dorian Gray_ story.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

How Ominous!
Another adaptation of the Oscar Wilde story. Film is about Dorian Gray (Ben Barnes), a man taken by the hedonism bug shown to him by Lord Wotton (Colin Firth). Upon having his portrait painted, Dorian comes to never age, but at what cost?
Clearly not faithful to the literary source, Oliver Parker's film is an interesting misfire. As a sexy chiller it kinda works, having more in common with Hammer Films of the 70s than with Wilde's prose. Yet it often feels like style over substance, blood or nudity for blood and nudity's sake. While strong performances by Firth and late in the play by Rebecca Hall hold the attention, Barnes is bland and apart from being pretty, is unconvincing. Also irritating is Charlie Mole's musical score, it's good, it's just not in the right movie!
The makers try to make a Gothic horror film from a Gothic horror novel, but never quite get to grips with the undercurrents of the story. Shame. 5/10

Jean-Pierre Léaud is super in this story of a troubled young lad who goes from having troubles at school to petty crime, all under the not so very watchful gazes of his adulteress mother (Claire Maurier) and happy-go-lucky father (Albert Rémy) who spend most of their time squabbling with each other. When his antics finally attract the attention of the police, they decide that maybe some time in juvenile detention might not do him any harm so off he goes - but he is not there for long! It's an episodic story that raises laughs and heckles in equal measure. You cannot help but like this tearaway. It's not so much that he wants attention (though he certainly does), it is that he is has initiative. He is bored; bored of his constantly rowing parents, of the teachers who don't really care about him. He is mischievous, he likes having fun - especially with his pal "René" (Patrick Auffay) with whom he has a few escapades and even lives for a short time. Theft is a serious matter but somehow when he pinches a typewriter from his dad's office - one that doesn't work, by the way, it has to make you smile. The ending features one of these scenes from a film that you will never forget. It is simple, and it's that simplicity coupled with this young boy's charming and enthusiastic performance that makes this film memorable, enjoyable and probably my favourite from François Truffaut.

This is my second viewing and didn't enjoy it as much the first go around, which was back in '16. While it has a stacked cast giving mostly good performances, though never bought Kate Winslet as anyone to be dangerous or to be feared, but the biggest letdown was with the screenplay which could've been tighter and had better focus. This seemed to be a cross between Heat and Dark Blue but lacked the suspense, crime or drama of either one. I think in the hands of Michael Mann or Ridley Scott might've made some of the style compensate for what the script but instead it was watchable but forgettable. **3.0/5**

An okay movie with some very impressive visual flourishes, but a narrative mess, and not up to par with Director Joh Hillcoat's prior work.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

> Combination of wrong path and untrustworthy troop.
This should have been the Holywood's bad boys film. I mean the big cast names are expected like the earlier films of QT, or especially like 'The Departed'. There were many who dropped out of it for various reasons prior to the production commence, although this cast did a great job. In my finding I blame for the screenplay. It was a good story, but the first half was not very interesting compared to the next half, which was so brilliant, especially towards the end, mind blowing.
It was a multi starrer film, only that's much I know, but I kind lazy to count how many were there because I thought it was a modernised and an improvised cop version of the 'Ten Little Indians' theme. There's no evidence to prove that, it is just my theory. But seeing all the deaths and the conclusion, I felt the inspiration to the writer might have been possible.
From the director of 'Lawless' who aimed for another success, but received backfire from critically and commercially. Mixed response from the audience though. Definitely it will find its own fans in the days and years to come. The ladies had scopeless roles, so they're completely forgettable their existence the narration, except very often just appear to show the faces. But well made crucial parts, in all the action sequences which kind what back the films along with Casey and Harrelson's parts.
Like there is a saying, 'slow start, but ended strong', this film belongs to the same category. If you hold your patience for nearly 2 hours long, in the end you might feel after all it was not a bad flick. So not recommended to everybody, at a same time not suggested to skip it without properly knowing about it. P.S, the closing credit song, the remix version of 'Pigs' by Cypress Hill was awesome considering the theme of the film, I mean the corrupted cops, but felt the words were strong.
6/10

This is one of my favourite Bergman films that darkly and potently showcases the skills of two women at the top of their game. "Elisabeth" (Liv Ullmann) is an acclaimed stage actress who, mid-performance, is struck dumb. Nobody is quite sure what has caused this, but a nurse is duly hired to take care of her. "Alma" (Bibi Andersson) arrives and soon comes to believe that the silence of her charge is her choice. She simply doesn't want to talk! Devoid of visitors, "Alma" constantly chatters to "Elisabeth" and a bond starts to develop between the two, outwardly profoundly different, women that challenges both of their preconceived ideas of the other. The latter is keen to emulate the former, the former is ultimately keen to prevent her new friend from doing precisely that. Why? What might have caused "Elisabeth" to take such an impenetrable refuge? Essentially this two hander is a monologue; there is precious little by way of contribution from anyone else as the characterisations intensify and the story becomes one of attrition, to an extent, but of cruelty - and of evaluating the sources and causes of cruelty, as well as providing us with a poignantly sensitive look at intimacy and maybe even optimism. I'm certain that there are other depths and allegorical aspects to this that I didn't necessarily appreciate, but unlike with many of this director's films, I found the personas represented here to have more relevance and humanity that in many of his previous works. Coupled with the condensed nature of the storytelling, a strongly complementary score and some effective outdoor cinematography this makes for a compelling film to watch.

**_Field of Dreams, but with God_**
After a tragedy, a disillusioned husband & father (Sam Worthington) ventures out to a remote cabin in Oregon to have it out with the Creator. Radha Mitchell is on hand as the wife while Graham Greene shows up in the last act.
Based on the novel from ten years earlier, "The Shack" (2017) is a drama/fantasy in the mold of the heralded “Field of Dreams,” just focused on struggling with the LORD (which is what ‘Israel’ means in the Hebrew). As I was watching, it struck me that this ain’t no cheap indie. I discovered later it cost $20 million to make, which is a lot for this kind of flick (the excellent “War Room,” for instance, only cost $3 million). Like “War Room,” it was a surprise hit at the box office.
I thought it did a good job of tackling some of the most difficult questions of life, like how can a good God allow evil and suffering? The script is full of meaty material on which to reflect, but the movie needed tightened up since it seemed to drag. Still, the locations are great (listed below) and the main actors rise to the challenge (although the scenes involving Kate at the end could’ve been done more effectively, which is just a quibble since they just flash by).
A critic complained that it “changed the biblical narrative,” but it’s not based upon any biblical account and takes place in the modern day. As such, there’s some leeway in depicting the Almighty and the corresponding tri-unity. Some might criticize the character of Sarayu, but isn’t the Holy Spirit represented by a dove in the Bible? Is that a masculine comparison or feminine? Also, the Lord said “Spirit gives BIRTH to spirit” in John 3:6. Is giving birth (physically or spiritually) a masculine trait or a feminine one?
As far as doctrine goes, the movie plays down the wrath of God without totally omitting it. Unfortunately, it confuses casting cares on God with forgiveness, which is typical in Christian circles. I’m talking about the idea that believers are obligated to forgive everyone for everything all of the time, no conditions whatsoever, which is completely unbiblical and a widespread myth. People who teach this are really talking about casting one’s cares on the LORD, which should be done across the board, absolutely, whatever the burden or offense (see Psalm 55:22).
Concerning forgiveness, to ‘forgive’ literally means to dismiss the charge or offense. Believers are only obligated to forgive the penitent. For instance, in the Lord’s hypothetical scenario in Matthew 18:15-17, he plainly said that the impenitent offender was to be disfellowshipped from the assembly and treated like a tax collector, which means he was NOT forgiven. Also see Luke 17:3-4. If he eventually apologizes then, sure, forgive and wholeheartedly so.
As far as heinous crimes go, it’s utter folly to forgive in such cases because, if you dismiss the charge (that is, forgive), you naturally won’t press charges and the offender will get away with his horrible crime, which promotes lawlessness. Keep in mind the Bible makes it clear that the LORD loves justice and hates crime (Isaiah 61:8). Rather, believers are to submit to the governing authorities (and the moral laws thereof) because they are “agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer,” aka the criminal (Romans 13:1-6). Once the thug is in prison paying for his gross crime, you can forgive him IF he wisely turns from his sin.
So, by all means, cast your cares on the LORD in all situations because “he cares for you” (1 Peter 5:7); this is healthy. But forgiveness of serious offenses is reserved for the repentant. Keep in mind that God only forgives the penitent (1 John 1:9) and we are called to “forgive AS the Lord forgave you” (Colossians 3:13). When did God forgive you? Only when you humbly ’fessed up.
It runs 2 hours, 12 minutes, and was shot in British Columbia (Mission, Cultus Lake and Stawamus Chief Park), as well as Oregon (Multnomah Falls and Wallowa Lake State Park).
GRADE: B/B-

As a person who doesn't believe in any sort of gods, somehow, I watched this movie.
And I have to say that I almost regretted immediately the wasted time. But not fully, and here is why.
Disclaimer: I haven't read the novel; whatever I say pertains only to the movie.
Please, do not refer to the book. This is not a review of the novel.
From the perspective of artistic value, the movie is pointless for a non-religious person.
The main point of the whole movie can be described as:
"You must forgive, no matter what happens. There is the god's plan for everything and everybody. You must believe"
And my first and last question, "Why?" remained without an answer.
And perhaps, for some people, this sounds like a relief — a consolation to keep moving forward
and live without regret for their actions and the things that happened to them and their loved ones,
no matter how bad those things were.
But I refuse to accept this kind of life stance.
I refuse to believe that our lives are already planned by someone or something else, and we cannot change anything.
I refuse to believe that we don't choose and take responsibility for our actions.
This conception deprives us of freedom because someone has already decided for us.
And it is always so easy to say that something happened because of "God works in mysterious ways" and unfortunately, many people choose this way.
But I also have to admit that this movie gave me a really good understanding of how religion works in the world.
How churches and other religious structures try to exploit people's weaknesses.
Thanks for that.
If you already agree with my position and find nothing new here,
I recommend not watching this movie and pass by

**If forgiving is that easily convincible, then welcome to the crime world!**
A novel based film. A religious themed film. It has a message, BUT could be a bad message for today's world. Because how the event was dealt with the story only encourages the crime, in reality. Wise people can say philosophically, morally, but not means every words practically applicable. The common people would get affected more. Other than that, I have no grudge on anything. If it has been just a fantasy and an entertaining film, excluding that Christian thing, I would have liked it better.
It was more like another 'What Dreams May Come', but less visual spectacular. On the other hand, there was an uneasiness in the development of what happened in the early stage of the story. They did not go for the detail, from the crime perspective, hence that mysterious event holds the key which we don't know exactly what happened to judge anything out of the film. So that part reminds 'The Lovely Bones'.
The story of a father whose little girl mysteriously disappeared on a camping trip. Now the struggling father to cope with the incident gets an invitation to meet the creators. His journey to the other side of the world, where he goes through a series of unexpected tests, and at the end, how his character changes are told in those remaining parts.
Worthington, Spencer, everybody was good. But the story is what I did not like. Like it was aimed for Christians only. But I believe not every Christian would agree with this story. I felt it was an unnecessary film. If it was fun like 'Bruce Almighty', the whole world would have enjoyed it. Too serious and very not acceptable message led this film to fall. No, it is not worth a watch for people with the open mind, unless this is what you were looking for.
_3/10_

This movie was beautiful. I laughed, I cried. For all of you out there who either believe in God or question his existence please watch this movie. It will definitely renew your faith

A bit too cheesy for me to overly enjoy, but 'The Bridges of Madison County' is a sweet romantic drama.
Clint Eastwood and Meryl Streep are a strong pairing and produce very good performances, with Streep particularly standing out... even if her acting Italian doesn't always feel convincing, to me anyway. The parts of the story told via Annie Corley and Victor Slezak aren't the best, though the eventual pay-off with their characters is worthwhile.

_**Real-life questions about love and infidelity**_
RELEASED IN 1995 and directed by Clint Eastwood, “The Bridges of Madison County” details what happens in 1965 when a world-traveling photographer for National Geographic (Eastwood) inadvertently meets an Iowa Farm wife (Meryl Streep).
This is a drama about the nature of eros love and potential infidelity that will only be appreciated by mature viewers. It consists of two people meeting, getting acquainted, discovering something profound and then forced to make decisions that’ll determine the rest of their lives, as well as the consequences for those linked to them.
Some questions addressed include: What if you’re married and you meet someone you genuinely romantically love? What if you’re single and you meet a married person you profoundly love? How far do you (or can you) wisely take the relationship? What about others who would be negatively affected by pursuing the relationship?
These are all honest questions that most people have to consider at one time or another in their lives. The movie’s not corrupt for asking them or featuring a certain questionable act any more than the story of David & Bathsheba makes the Bible corrupt (or, arguably worse, the story of Judah & Tamar).
One character is too loose with morals, which he justifies by criticizing all the “borders” in life. But there are boundaries everywhere: National, state, county, city, school, government, business, social and… marital. The bottom line is: You’re either married or you’re not. If you’re married that means you have a committed lifelong covenant with your spouse. That’s what taking vows is all about. The movie tries to have its cake and eat it too by supporting such loyalty while flirting with the temptation to discard it in the name of true love. Regardless, the picture smacks of real life, real people, real (hard) decisions and is very well done, which is to be expected with Eastwood at the helm.
THE FILM RUNS 2 hours, 15 minutes, and was shot in Winterset & Adel, Iowa.
GRADE: A-

When "Clara" (Mackenzie Foy) follows a mysterious golden thread she finds herself in a magical kingdom that it turns out - from her new "Nutcracker" friend "Capt. Philip" (Jayden Fowora-Knight) - is ruled by her mother! This is confirmed by the great and the good at her castle, whereupon she must announce that her mother is no more. Does that make her queen? Well there are certainly a few flies in that particular ointment and it falls to the young girl and her brave military friend to thwart a plan to usurp the kingdom and restore peace and tranquility. This has had the full Disney treatment: it looks stunning, costumes and sets and visual effects all complemented well by a James Newton Howard score that draws occasionally on Tchaikovsky's original themes. Thing is, though, the rest of the narrative is all over the shop. The characterisations are muddled and derivative with Keira Knightley's seriously hammed-up "Sugar Plum" straight of the "Hunger Games" and Dame Helen Mirren's "Mother Ginger" featuring all too sparingly to rescue this rambling and disappointing story. The eagle-eyed amongst us might spot Richard E. Grant and about half way through, there is quite a charming ballet sequence but sadly the gist of this film is really lacking. Unfortunately, lots of style but little of substance here. Looks good, though.

Not necessarily bad, just pretty lame.
'The Nutcracker and the Four Realms' is a harmless and simple film, fine I guess for the festive period. As a whole, though, it isn't good - despite neat effects and a couple of big names.
Keira Knightley (Sugar Plum), Helen Mirren (Mother Ginger) and Morgan Freeman (Drosselmeyer) are familiar faces and are enjoyable on a base level, but their characters are rather forgettable. Mackenzie Foy (Clara) and Jayden Fowora-Knight (Philip) are decent together, while Jack Whitehall (Harlequin) and Omid Djalili (Cavalier) are smart casts - if underused.
It's the plot that lets this down, it just all makes for underwhelming viewing - I, personally, never got into it. The beats of the story are quite predictable, especially the main twist. As noted though, the special effects are pleasant enough - as is the Xmas vibe it sets throughout.
Very meh. You could watch worse, mind.

Okay so this was not my first choice to see this movie but I admit I did it and I wasn't actually too pissed off I did It made me smile and feel all christmasy like I totally recommend you don't count this out yet it's a great trip
To the cinema

big on names - short on laughs

In a dysfunctional New York City, the charismatic leader "Cyrus" (Roger Hill) assembles all the gangs and declares that it is time for them to overwhelm the police and to take control of their city. Amidst cheering crowds he is promptly gunned down - and the "Warriors" are held responsible. Led by "Swan" (Michael Beck) they must run a gauntlet of other avenging gangs and try to establish just who pulled the trigger. What now ensues is a really well paced, gritty, series of escapades that pit them against a whole range of thugs and hoodlums - of varying degrees of efficiency - whilst trying to evade the cops. Along the way back to Coney Island, they encounter serial hooker "Mercy" (Deborah Van Valkenburgh) and despite their initial hostility, she and "Swan" start to respect each other as their perilous journey comes to head. The whole look of this film is effective. There is not a great deal of dialogue - but what there is is frequently quite pithy. The story gathers pace with some well staged combat scenes, and some intense urban cinematography that lends well to the underlying purpose of the story of a lawless and dystopian society the is still the home for valour and courage, honesty and comradeship. On the downside, though they do their jobs well enough here, none of the acting is especially memorable, but maybe that is what helps this whole thing hit home. Next time you eat an ice lolly...!

Can you dig it? Well actually yes Mr Hill, I bloody can!
During my schooling as a teenager there were a handful of films that it was deemed cool to love, The Wanderers, Scum, Quadrophenia and The Warriors, and it's perhaps a weird thing to say... but I still feel here in my middle age that these are still cool films to be adored and cherished.
I have just sat through The Warriors again for about the hundredth time in my life, and it still entertains me as much now as it did back then, sure it's dated, sure I see more cheese than I thought it had back then, but I also see a visually tight movie that actually delves interestingly into the lives and psyche of young gangers.
The plot is simple, all the gangs of New York City are called to a meeting where they are called to unite to take over the city, the leader of the gang known as The Riffs is a guy called Cyrus who is the one calling for the unity. He is shot and killed during the rally and The Warriors are wrongly framed for his murder. The Warriors then have to make their way back home to Coney Island with every gang in the city out to kill them, and also with the police hot on their tail as well. This journey is excellent as we are introduced to a number of gangs trying to get the better of The Warriors, the fights are well choreographed, the clothes are wonderful, and some of the dialogue is now teenage folklore.
The film was criticised on release for glamorising gangs, but I fail to see how this opinion was formed, if anything, when analysing the main characters, the film has a sad streak running through it. Be that as it may, the films triumph is getting the will of the viewer to hopefully see the unfairly tarnished Warriors make it home to Coney Island, which builds to the climax of the film that is both poignant and punch the air greatness. 8/10

How do you review a movie like _The Warriors_? I've got a real short way for ya: _The Warriors_ is **the best** movie of the 1970s.
_Final rating:★★★★½ - Ridiculously strong appeal. I can’t stop thinking about it._

**More style than content.**
This was my first contact with the cinematographic work of Andrei Tarkovsky, a Soviet filmmaker who would end his career outside his native country when he fell into disgrace for allegedly spending too much money on films that were not worthy of the expense. A regrettable attitude, but typical of countries that prefer to spend money on missiles than on support for culture and education, especially after considering how dangerous and insubmissive can be a cultured population capable of thinking without anyone from a party saying what It's the right thing.
This is not, however, an ordinary Soviet film, loaded with subliminal messages, more or less direct, demonizing the rich and praising the effort and dignity of workers. On the contrary. Tarkovsky takes us to a desolate world, apparently hostage to repressive authority. There is nothing beautiful there. And there is a space where no one can go, called the Zone, in which there is, supposedly, a room that makes the dreams of those who arrive there come true. However, the difficulty is immense.
Being a Russian film, it is obviously a huge, dull, heavy film. Let's face it, it's to be expected: Russians like big things. Big countries, big armies, gigantic cannons and missiles. Russia cultivates that taste for gigantism, of which the Tsar-Pushka is a prominent symbol. It's difficult to see everything, the way the film develops, in deliberate slowness, is exhausting and dark. The cinematography is partly in sepia (color comes later, and the colors are directly associated with entering the prohibited area) and has been well crafted, as have the sets and filming locations. The rest simply doesn't matter: it's a film that is almost silent, and that puts style above substance.