This really is the cinematic equivalent of "be careful for you wish for". Two characters - a teacher and a professor, seek out a "stalker" who can lead them through the maze of challenges that culminates in an heavily restricted area know as the zone. Why? Rumour has it, that when in that zone you may make wishes that will immediately come true. What is this place? Is it real, imaginary, alien, all of these - or it is all just a cerebral hallucination of a place that, like El Dorado, we imagine to be where all of our problems can go away, be solved, eradicated. It is loosely based on the Strugatsky brothers early seventies sci-fi novel "Roadside Picnic" but it's fair to say that Andrei Tarkovsky opens up the more linear aspects of their story leaving us with a much less defined and more intangible series of threads as these men undergo significant travails to get to a place - that frequently resembles what I imagine Chernobyl to have look like after it exploded. As with so many aspects of human aspiration, the narrative is all about what I would call the chase - the journey or the means - without the characters ever really knowing what it is they will truly want if they do actually achieve their goal. Again, the director provides us with lots of bits of this mischievous, sometimes perilous and thought-provoking Rubik's cube - but it is incomplete. We know it is always going to be. We, the audience, have to bring a bit of ourselves to this particular party. There is a denouement - three men in a room. One (Nikolai Grinko) with a hefty nuclear bomb that he believes may offer a solution; another (Anatoly Solonitsyn) who's darkest id well outmanoeuvres his ostensibly well meaning reasons for being there and of course the stalker himself (Alexander Kaidanovsky). This production is deliberately, and effectively slowly paced. The dialogue can be intense, their frustrations and dreams well encapsulated; but it can also be sparing - there are plenty of periods of protracted silences from them all. Accompanied by an eerily complimentary score from Eduard Artemyev, we are left with an experience rather than just a film. I saw it on a big screen, and if you can I'd recommend that. It helps you to stay focused on the complex and quirky plot whilst bringing out the finely crafted bleakness, and hope, of the photography.

This movie is like an onion, has multiple layers. To understand it, you have to be very careful and pacient. You have to focus on movie and not doing anything else while you watch it, because if you don't, you won't understand it.
http://cinematol.ro/pareri-filme-stalker-calauza-1979/

Kirk Douglas had the vision to back the previously black-listed Dalton Trumbo with his excellent screenplay for this epic tale of slavery and the struggle for freedom. He also led a cast with some of the best actors to ever grace the silver screen. Olivier, Laughton, Ustinov, Curtis and a wonderfully tender Jean Simmons who all lift this tale of a slave who rebelled against the tyrannical rule of his Roman masters and inspired thousands to follow him as they strove to escape, then defeat the armies of Rome. The cinematography, colour, costumes are all the stuff of artists and Alex North creates a score that carries the intimate and the grand scenes in equal measure. The principles of struggle against oppression and of brotherly loyalty ring true even now, and this film is so much more than a sword-and-sandals melodrama.

This historical/epic drama was one of those 50-60's movies that lasted for 3 and a half hours. It isn't perfect despite the production have being great in some points.
The main issue is that it isn't historical based (and who knows the history to the full extend?), but it was based on a Roward Fast novel of 1951 with lots of romanticized and non historical events.
Some things are history: like the basis of the dispute of the senate member involved in the rebellion, like Crassus (the main opositor), Grassus (the roman senator that was more a patrician than a warrior) and young Julius Cesar.
Played by Kirk Douglas, Spartacus was a Thracian man enslaved to work on the sulfur mines of Etna (that seems to be the same place that Barravas was filmed). Due to his rough and tempestuous humor, the is set to die by starvation - but his fierceness attracts a roman busniness man that trains gladiators. He start and training, getting better and better at this.
Eventually he is introduced to the Britannia woman Varinia that the slavemaster gives to his gladiators' and starts to fell in love with her. After a visit of Crassus his wife (that just vanish from the movie after that) wants a dispute between 4 gladiators, just for entertainments - at the time they weren't cheap. They took years of training and investment, and historically they seldom fighted to the death, they usually were just killing machines for spectacles at the areas or killing of prisoners.
While his friend wins a fight and kills the opponent, spartacus fights bravely but loses to an Ethiopian gladiator named Draba that doesn't tries to kill after winning and jump for the spectators. This changes Spartacus views for everything.
He plans a scape with other slaves and just using kitchen tools they made a escape overriding the romans soldiers at the place and stealing their weapons, starting a slave revolt that rise moree and more though the villages and cities they pass by, till they camp at the side of the Vesuvius.
At this point the situation is a vexation to Rome's senate, that have a lesser guarnition of soldiers, with the majority in campaign on the east (india) and west (Iberia). Evry try to contain the rebellion fails.
Spartacus doesn't plan to take Rome or anything he just want freedom for him and his companions - so he bribe a circician pirate (Circicia was a place in modern day anatolian peninsula, at Turkey) to bring 5 ships to all be left from a port in the south of Italy.
Learing of this plans Grassus that was a fierce opponent of Crassus at the senate bribe the pirate to undone the deal, and tries to convince young senator Julius Cesar to attack Spartacus. He by his turn doesn't like this sort of low move and tells Crassus about the plans.
By this time the Iberian regiment is back and Spartacus doesnt much what to do other than fight to his life and try to do a rebellion at the capital, so a major battle is set to occur.
The movie has several weak points - instead of basing of what history told us and try to do an alternative historic end, in the romance of Roward Fast of 1951 he puts inconsistences of time, and characters that doesn't exists. The book was transformed in a screenplay by Dalton Trumbo (blacklisted by Hollywood by be part of the communist party in the Cold War Era).
The direction of the movie was to be by Anthony Mann that quitted seeing the scope and difficulty of the movie, thn it handled down to the young Kubrick that already filmed "Paths of Glory". Kubrick talent was recognized as well as his excenties and ways of working especially on the takes. This time he had budget of $12 million (equivalent to about $120 million in today's funds - and a return of 17 million) and a cast of 10,500 extras to work with.
For instance the had troubles with the veteran cinematographer Russell Metty, because Kubrick wanted the use of a 35-mm Super 70 Technirama format blown up to 70 mm film, since Kubrick preferred using the standard spherical format, that allowed him to achieve ultra-high definition and to capture large panoramic scenes.
Kubrick also had wanted to shoot the picture in Rome with cheap extras and resources, but Edward Muhl, president of Universal Pictures, wanted to make an example of the film and prove that a successful epic could be made in Hollywood itself - this made the scenes at Rome and other to look cheap with the painted background.
But the open scenes was another thing: just no short of espetacular due to the vastness of scenarios and number of extras. For example the battle used around Madrid 9,000 Spain infantry men to make the roman empire legions at move, filmed though a tower. The cries of "Hail, Crassus!" and " I'm Spartacus!" were recorded at a Stadium in a game with 76,000 expectators. No doubt this influenced "I'm Sparta!" from "300" on the 90´s.
The final battle scene is notoriously the best part of the movie that had for the most tedious parts and dialogues, not helped with the stylish 50-60´s orchestral Hollywood leitmotif technique by Alex North that even used ancient instruments o make the musics. At least for me the music were common place among all others of the era.
On the final battle (there were three battles in this revolt), most of the scenes had to be cut due to a negative reaction on a test screening due to the violence - scenes like the disremembering of an arm with gushing blood shows what we may had missed.
In the end, the movie tries to reach epic proportions hard to be reachable with the weak screenplay and producers (Edward Lewis). With the right producer and a better screenplay and music it could have been an true epic (as he just glimpsed what Kubrick could do if he had the command of the project).
To this day I still a true rendition of Spartacus and not a series for TV. At least the movie inspired Ridley Scott to make one of my favorite movies on the genre to this day, "Gladiator". But one scene that is maked in my mind on this one is before the fatidical last battle Spartacus walking thought the slaves camp seeing couples, families fiends and a old couple braced together, knowing of their fate and feeling the weight of his task ahead (juts a not: nobody knows the whereabouts of the real Spartacus he was never identified on the battlefield and nobody know what happened to him).
In the end the film won four Academy Awards (Best Supporting Actor for Ustinov, Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction and Best Costume Design) from six nominations, and was a success (the standards for revenue return were different at that time)
I gave half an extra star and a favorite for Kubrick's courage on this movie, that would be way better. My score for it is 7,0 out of 10,0 a B.
Version watched: Criterion 2015 4K restoration based on 91s restauration of the original movie.

The sword and sandal epic that has everything.
Spartacus is the Thracian slave who refused to be a Roman plaything, breaking out of their clutches he led the slave revolt that panicked the Roman Rebublic in circa BC 73, this film is based on that period in history.
Spartacus got off to a troubled start, original director Anthony Mann was fired by leading man Kirk Douglas (Spartacus) after a falling out, some of Mann's work does remain in the final picture, though, notably some of the early scenes in the desert are thought to be at Mann's direction. In came then director for hire Stanley Kubrick, who along with Douglas crafted arguably the greatest sword and sandal epic to have ever been made. One that holds up today as the one any prospective new viewers to the genre should seek out. Adapted by Dalton Trumbo from Howard Fast's novel (whilst also tapping from Arthur Koestler's novel, The Gladiators), Spartacus is a stirring experience highlighting the power of unity when faced in opposition to a tyrannical force. It's also boasting a number of intelligent and firmly engaging strands that are a credit to the excellent writing from the once blacklisted Trumbo. Politics figure prominently, whilst the story has a pulsing romantic heart beating amongst the blood and power struggles that are unfolding. Brotherhood bonds within the slave army are firmly established, and the love story axis between Spartacus and Varinia is very fully formed. We are in short set up perfectly for when the film shifts the emphasis in the second half.
So many great sequences are in this picture, the gladiator training school as Spartacus and his fellow slaves find that they have dignity within themselves - forced through a tough regime designed to set them up for blood sport entertainment to the watching republic hierarchy. The break out itself is tremendous for its potency, but even that is playing second fiddle to the main battle sequence that Kubrick excellently puts together. The Roman legions forming in military precision is memorable in the extreme (this before CGI, with Kubrick's directing of all those extras being worthy of extra praise from us). Then with the battle itself raging one can only say it's breath taking and definitely a genre high point. Then of course there is the sentimental aspects of Spartacus. Kubrick of course was never known for his warmness, but with the aid of Douglas they get it right and manage to pull the heart strings whilst simultaneously stirring the blood via the action, right up to the incredibly poignant and classical ending that stands the test of time as being cinematic gold. The cast are wonderfully put together, Douglas is fabulous as Spartacus, big, lean and brooding with emotion, very much a career highlight as far as I'm concerned. Laurence Olivier takes up chief bad guy villainy duties as Marcus Crassus, just about the right amount of sneering camp required for such a dislikable character. Peter Ustinov (Best Supporting Actor Winner) is in his pomp as Batiatus, Jean Simmons (perfectly bone structured face) plays off Douglas expertly as Varinia, with Tony Curtis (Antoninus), John Gavin (Julius Caesar) and Charles Laughton (Graccus) adding impetus to this wonderful picture.
Spartacus also won Academy Awards for Best Colour Cinematography, Best Art and Set Direction and Best Costume Design, with nominations rightly going to Alex North for his score and Robert Lawrence for his editing. It's a special film is Spartacus, excellently put together and thematically dynamite. Which while also being technically adroit, it's ultimately with the story itself that it truly wins out. Even allowing for some standard Hollywood additions to the real story (Spartacus most certainly didn't meet his maker the way the film says), it's emotionally charged and as inspiring as it is as sadly tragic. 10/10

Great, but it should have been a series instead of a movie
Dramatic movie based on true events taken from The Lawyer Who Became DuPont's Worst Nightmare and this New York Times article. The story of the movie is about a corporate defense attorney named Robert Billet, who filed an environmental lawsuit against a giant chemical company, with time discovering a long way from pollution.
A dramatic and humane movie that you will enjoy watching if you are a fan of investigative investigations, but it is heavy if you are a fan of light movies, but it is dramatic and controversial. After watching the movie, I felt that my entire soul was polluted and poisoned, and I was almost afraid that my clothes were all full of radiation. It was a shocking thing for me.
We have seen what humans do in certain things they make and don't think about their consequences even if they know their consequences. There are companies that do not care about any of the creatures on the planet, only seeking and crawling for money.
There have been films similar to Dark Waters such as A Civil Action 1998 by John Travolta and Erin Brockovich 2000 by Julia Roberts.
This movie, which contains destruction, pollution, and damage, harms a frightening number of living creatures. The movie portrayed major companies as a scary monster that devours humanity and living creatures, even seaweed.
I loved Mark Ruffalo in this movie. He played the role of a person who makes huge sacrifices in order to reveal the truth. He waited 15 years for the American judiciary to issue the final ruling in the case, and we saw how big and giant companies rule the country regardless of the law. Mark Ruffalo's acting was strong and I liked it, but it doesn't reach the perfection that deserves an Oscar.
Bill Camp impressed me the most in this movie. He could be an Oscar star. His scenes were powerful and breathtaking, and the pain was heart-wrenching.
The sequence of the story and events was somewhat flopped at the beginning of the movie, sometimes it becomes interesting and sometimes it becomes boring. I understand that the story is long and its events took place over a period of years. I think it is worth making a series for this instead of a movie, in order to see a more coherent story.
I don't think that Dark Waters deserves an Oscar, but it deserves to be nominated for an Oscar, and it is a good drama movie, and I wish it would be done in the form of a series

Great acting and portrayal of corporate madness and the total disregard for human lives in exchange for the almighty dollar.

After watching 'Dark Waters', you'll simply leave the cinema enraged by the sheer display of economic cruelty from a monolithic, faceless corporation and its evil and very rich henchmen.
- Jake Watt
Read Jake's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-dark-waters-a-frightening-and-infuriating-tale-of-corporate-greed

Might be good, not sure.
This is one of those films that punish you for having bought an HDR TV. I'm not sure what's going on here, because someone decided to turn down the brightness to 20%.
It's possible there's a good movie here, and I do love Kurt Russell, but unfortunately I was unable to watch it, because on a 4k OLED HDR TV, this was just a dark gray mass of pixels moving around.

Pretty standard fare mostly. Dad died, son going off the rails, daughter still believes, let’s haul Santa in to help. (Which he does by letting them help him.) I found myself poking holes in the plot, which is a silly thing to do anyway in a Christmas fantasy film, such as If Santa can make presents magically appear in the jail, why can’t he get himself out of the jail without help? But the writers have the last laugh, when it turns out that this all seems to be a test for the kids. Or something.
Okay, Kurt Russell isn’t your typical Santa, but he is the movie version I would most want to hang out with. It is all a little predictable and silly in the way Christmas movies are, but there are worse ways to spend your time. Like shoveling snow!

Fun film, perfectly suitable for the festive period.
I do enjoy Kurt Russell, I like most of the films that I've seen him in and this is another one to add to the list. He's great in the lead role, very much carrying the film. The other actors could've been better cast, but are still passable in their respective roles. There are also cameos for Goldie Hawn and Steven Van Zandt.
The special effects are pleasant, the reindeer look alright but it's the elves that look the best. Plot-wise it's fine, nothing to shout about but it still makes for more than satisfactory viewing - they get the Xmas vibe right. There's only one scene I didn't rate, it involves a jail, yet it still kinda worked - in a cheesy way, of course.
Without Russell I'd be rating 'The Christmas Chronicles' lower, admittedly. Still, an enjoyable film.

Decent watch at best, probably won't watch again, and can't recommend.
Perhaps it's just that I don't like Kurt Russell and him injecting all his "Russellness" into Santa Claus ruins the magic of the character for me, but I really feel this portrayal of Santa Claus is lacking and borderline inappropriate.
While the over all story structure and script are fine, there are just odd choices throughout the movie, particularly for the degree of life threatening risk in the adversity.
I also hate the elves, they're basically furry smurfs.
The really impressive thing is that Darby Camp can carry a movie. Despite everything happening, she is on it, mostly as a wide-eyed, dream filled kid, but she adds the charm of childhood spirit the movie requires.

I wouldn't put a lot of faith on what the captain says. I'm an architect, and these boats weren't designed to float upside down.
After playing water games with "The Perfect Storm" six years previously, director Wolfgang Petersen returns to the water to reimage 1972's "The Poseidon Adventure" (novel by Paul Gallico). Story essentially finds a cruise liner capsized by chaotic weather and survivors try to make their way out of an upside world before the boat either sinks or the inrushing water drowns them.
The original is one of the highlights of the disaster genre that burst forth in the 1970s, so it really didn't need remaking, but Hollywood insists on remaking old films for cash cow purpose. As it is, this is hardly a terrible movie, it lacks character development, the plot is stripped bare without any additional depth, and ultimately it's the CGI effects (that do work handsomely enough and were Oscar Nominated) that carries the picture to just above average status.
Hardly a must see disaster film but enough excitement and suspense to make it a dent time waster for fans of the genre. 6/10

**Someone needs to go back to directing school**
This gem of the millennium comes with a great story (which has been done countless times before and after), great actors (funny faced most of them), and very well done action.
Unfortunately all is wasted on the terrible actual telling of that story and its people in action. We get weird colors, useless zoom ins, shots into nothing, a boring soundtrack, the whole thing stripped off any continuity and stretched to 2 hours 30 minutes.
It is understandable the makers of this film wanted to underline the realism with a documentary style, but come on. Or maybe they just were on some of the drugs shown in the picture, or maybe, and that must be it, they wanted the audience to feel like they were on drugs.
9 June 2017
I am migrating my reviews from a different site which has become simply garbage. TMDB looks awesome and I look forward to be a part of it.

Seen this a few times over the years and still remains a compelling multi-character drama with some fine performances all around. Also has some great visuals depending on the storyline. Not sure where I rank it amongst Soderbergh's other works (Ocean's 11 has the fun factory going for it) but still love it no matter how many times I've seen it. **4.5/5**

Hunter Killer jumps straight into action with little time for character development, which can be a hit or miss depending on what you’re looking for. The plot is straightforward but packed with tension, keeping the pace tight throughout. While it doesn’t dive deep into its characters, there are small moments like the archery scene that try to add some depth. The directing keeps things engaging, and the cinematography does a solid job of capturing the intensity of underwater warfare, though some CGI moments are not perfect.
The acting is commendable, with Gerard Butler delivering a dependable performance, but nothing groundbreaking. The script holds the movie together, balancing the tactical aspects with the action-heavy sequences. The sound design and score work well to enhance the tension, adding to the overall thrill. It is not a film that reinvents the genre, but it knows what it is. An action-packed military thriller that delivers on suspense and spectacle. If you are in the mood for something that keeps the adrenaline going without overcomplicating things, Hunter Killer does the job.

So a megalomanic Russian admiral "Durov" (Michael Gor) concocts a plan to start a nuclear war with the Americans by kidnapping his own president "Zakarin" (Alexander Diachenko). His best laid plans had not, however, factored in the cunning of "Capt. Glass" (Gerard Butler) who commands the "USS Arkansas" and who begins to suspect that the clues he is being left are red herrings. When he discovers that a recent maritime disaster might not have been caused the way he is being told, he initiates a daring rescue mission and soon jeopardy is the name of the game... It's not a bad action adventure story, this - but the acting is pretty diabolical. Butler really struggles to sustain whatever accent he is trying to deliver and Gary Oldman is just completely mis-cast as his Joint Chief boss "Donnegan" whose character would hardly have been left in charge of a lawnmower, much less the military might of the United States. Therein lies the problem here - nothing of it pans out in anything like a plausible or menacing fashion. Had it been made seventy years earlier, it could have been brushed off as a piece of post-war propaganda, or sixty years ago as a piece of cold war cinema - but in 2018 it all just comes across as poorly written and delivered nonsense. There are a few fun underwater special effects but they are usually drowned out (no pun intended) by an overly enthusiastic score. Might have looked better on paper, but ultimately it's just another weak outing for Butler that nobody - including him - is likely to ever remember.

__So much potential, but still a disappointment__
If you have nothing else to do and need to fill some time, this is an okay respite. But, don't expect anything more than a *standard military action movie* with cliched dialogue, unreasonable scenarios, and mediocre acting.
This movie could have been decent, if the producers and script-writers had only spent some time researching facts about how the military and special forces work IRL. Instead, they decided to throw reality to the wind and use fantasy & make-believe to create contrived conveniences to support a predictable storyline. I don't mind when a movie asks me to suspend belief a little. But, this one asks us to leave all rational thinking at the door.
It's __just__ interesting enough that you'll stay with it, mostly because you think it might get better. __Sadly, it doesn't__.

Brilliant concept, yet so-so execution which would have been helped by a higher budget. However, this is a brilliant attempt at creating a time travel film with next to no money. While the film has its faults, the performances and dialogue are great and I love that it doesn’t expect its audience to be dumb; by the way, when I say that… I mean it. This is maybe the most confusing film of all time.

This has quite a clever concept - a group of four engineering friends are building a prototype piece of equipment. "Abe" (David Sullivan) discovers - accidentally - when testing it, that is has positively game-changing potential and confides his secret in his colleague "Aaron" (Shane Carruth). Rather than share this invention between the group, the two decide to relocate their gadget and use it to exploit the stock markets and make themselves rich. It demonstrates quite well, the conflicting values and morals that this sort of limitless opportunity might present if given to any one of us - but the characterisations are way too one-dimensional. The dialogue is relentless, and after a while you just want them to stop talking and get on with it. It's short - and does require a bit of concentration to get anything out of it - but more, I found, as a source of an ethical conversation about "what if?" than about anything to do with this piece of drama, itself.

**Tons of stylish action, a big budget, a script reduced to the minimum and a huge list of actors with nothing to do.**
It was only when I saw this film that I realized that it is the last film in a trilogy that begins with “Mariachi”. However, I saw it after having seen “Desperado” and that allowed me to have a better understanding of the story: the gunman and his girlfriend are chased by a drug dealer until the day his men manages to kill the girl. Devastated, the Mariachi retires to live out his days in bitterness. After a while, he is called by a CIA agent, who gives him the opportunity to take revenge while preventing the total success of a military coup that will assassinate the Mexican president.
Sound confusing? Maybe because it is! The script is very light, without beauty, care for details or stylistic refinement, and the text ends up being dominated by what I defined, sarcastically, as “latinxploitation” when I wrote for “Desperado”: a bunch of cheap stereotypes about Latinos and Mexicans. And I continue to have the feeling that these films are not healthful to clear up these preconceived ideas that dance in the heads of white, Anglo-Saxon, English-speaking America.
If we saw director Robert Rodríguez dazzled by action scenes in “Desperado”, here he lost his mind: there are enough bullets for another invasion of Iraq. For those who live far away, Mexico may seem like a highly corrupt country and the difficulties that the authorities face in the fight against well-armed, cruel cartels with strong allies abroad are very well known. The film, however, takes two steps further and transforms Mexico into a land without law or ruler, where the order comes from those with bigger weapons and their hands deep in cocaine. Perhaps for this reason, the film did not have much support from the Mexican authorities and ended up not even showing the Mexican flag which, in the film's presidential palace, is replaced by something else with stars. I am still unable to fully understand this flag exchange. Speaking of action, was I the only one who smelled a faint whiff of Tarantino in this film's action scenes?
Of course, with all this, the film develops and evolves very quickly, and we don't have any dead or boring moments. From an entertainment point of view, the film works very well, considering that we are an audience that seeks action and doesn't mind turning off our brains and accepting what is given to us. The underlying problem is that, if the script is already weak, things get worse if it speeds up like this. After a point, it no longer matters who is trying to do what. They're all shooting. For what reason? Maybe they don't even know!
Despite the poverty of the material given to him and the poor construction of his character, António Banderas continues to deserve our attention, even if, in this film, it is unquestionably Depp who stands out when we talk about the cast. There aren't many actors capable of shining in an underwritten character, but he does it and steals the spotlight whenever he appears, sending Banderas to the corner and turning Salma Hayek into an extra. Eva Mendes is sexy, but she has no material to work with, and Willem Dafoe is very weak. There are a lot of renowned actors and even a singer – Enrique Iglesias – in the cast list, which shows more desire to be in this project than the ability to add something good to the final product.

Red Eye is a solid thriller that builds tension well, especially in its first act. The slow-paced setup allows for strong character introductions, but it does feel like Rachel McAdams' character should have picked up on Cillian Murphy's unsettling presence sooner. The second act loses some momentum, with certain scenes dragging more than necessary, but Wes Craven's direction keeps the suspense alive. The final act is where the movie really kicks into gear, delivering a satisfying climax. The script does a good job of balancing psychological tension with action, though some moments require a suspension of disbelief—especially regarding in-flight conversations that seemingly go unnoticed by passengers.
Cinematography is straightforward but effective, using tight framing to enhance the claustrophobic feel of the setting. Cillian Murphy brings an eerie, controlled intensity, while McAdams carries the film well with a believable performance. The supporting characters don’t add much, and the film occasionally misdirects attention to elements that don’t pay off. The score complements the suspense but isn’t particularly memorable. While not groundbreaking, Red Eye is an entertaining, well-crafted thriller that works best when it leans into its psychological tension rather than its action.

"Lisa" (Rachel McAdams) is chatting away to her fellow passenger on an aircraft when suddenly things all start to take a bit of a menacing turn. It turns out that "Rippner" (Cillian Murphy) needs her to contact the hotel in which she works and get them to move a visiting - and important - family to a new suite. Should she not acquiesce to this perfectly reasonable request, then he has a pal on the ground who is all set to bump off her father "Joe" (Brian Cox). For the first half an hour, this is quite an effective thriller - the dynamic between the two, with her hemmed into her increasingly claustrophobic airline seat, helps build quite a decent sense of peril. Sadly, though, as she begins to fight back the scenario begins to lose it's potency. His complete control of the situation begins to become more and more compromised as serendipity takes just bit too much of an interest in the story for my liking. That's not to say that "Lisa" need be a shrinking violet in the face of her psychological oppressor, it's just that the fightback is all just a bit far-fetched, before a rather messy and unsatisfying ending that you just know is going to happen. Murphy can be quite an edgy character actor - he is an attractive man with a hint of something underhand (I think he'd make a good "Bond" villain) and McAdams is confident and competent - it's just the originality of the story that peters out and becomes predictably mediocre.

'Trolls World Tour' is mostly what I expected the original film to be: an uninteresting story meshed with meh music. I, in fact, enjoyed the first flick, though this one I didn't. The all-troll story is a drop-off, who knew the Bergens were the glue that held this together?
It is practically a standalone sequel, the writers plucked this story right out of their, er, minds. That's not to say the plot is bad, it isn't, but it just didn't really hold my attention, the downgraded humour and less catchy music contributes. Character-wise, they give too much time to some.
James Corden and Ron Funches are given more prominent roles compared to last time out, but I'm too sure why; neither stood out to me and they are just as dull in this one, to be honest. Anna Kendrick and Justin Timberlake do, at least, still lead it and those two are solid.
None of the new cast members stood out in terms of who they portray, though of course their voices are well known. Sam Rockwell, Mary J. Blige, J Balvin and Ozzy Osbourne are some examples, though there are a fair number of familiar peeps scattered throughout.
I found 1 to be good, 2 to be not good. All eyes on 3, 'Trolls Band Together'...

"Thrash" and "Barb" have discovered thanks to "Poppy" and "Branch" that it's not just rock that makes the music world tick in Troll land. They are not impressed, and so set about on a unification drive that will eliminate just about everything from techno to pop so that it's just their favourite music that prevails. "Poppy" gets wind of their not so cunning plan and they decide that they need to galvanise all Trollkind to thwart this regal plan. This sequel is a bit bland but still offers some perfectly watchable fayre to plonk the kids in front of on the television. Otherwise it's all just a bit lazily disappointing with a few ballads and mediocre AOR tracks peppered throughout a soundtrack that turns a battle of the genres into more of a limp skirmish. The animation looks pretty fake from start to finish and though there is actually the semblance of a story here, the characterisations are undercooked leaving us with something remarkably sterile - despite it's vibrancy. I'm not really the demographic, but Dreamworks seem to be determined here to capitalise on the brand and an awkwardly delivered mixed message about equality and individualism rather than create something remotely memorable or that might resonate with the younger audience above whose heads most of this will probably wash.

The 'Trolls' franchise could have been another cheap brand name recognition film, like 'The Grinch' or the upcoming 'Scoob!', but when you have a team that cares about the project at every level, you end up with not only a fun kid's film, but one with a powerful message.
- Chris dos Santos
Read Chris' full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-trolls-world-tour-poppy-and-the-gang-are-back-and-rocking-harder-than-ever

**Fantasy and light horror are relatively in harmony, even if this is problematic for a lot of people.**
I saw this movie recently and I really liked it. It's nothing original, it does what others have done equally well, but manages to entertain the public very well, and especially young people and teenagers. Alright, the movie has some scarier scenes that might impress, but they didn't strike me as unbearable.
The script is based on the journey of a young orphan to his uncle's house, a former illusionist who lives in the mansion of his former partner in the show, also deceased, and who is actually really a sorcerer, even if he is not particularly gifted. The house is enchanted and the furniture and objects have a life of their own, but beyond that there is a clock hidden inside the walls, somewhere, that needs to be found to prevent something very bad from happening.
The problem with films that try to harmonize comedy with light horror is that, in fact, they risk not pleasing very few people: those looking for one thing may feel uncomfortable with the other. The film, as I said, can be very appealing to young people, but the stronger scenes may make parents think twice about allowing them to see it.
Jack Black is an actor I never particularly liked, not least because I only knew him from rather shallow comic films or films linked to music. This was, as far as I remember, the first of this actor's films that I liked, and it must be recognized that Black is a key part of everything in that he manages to be funny without losing the ability to look serious when necessary. Cate Blanchett is, to some extent, a surprise, she is an extremely high-rated actress that I normally associate with big productions. She's a great actress, she's excellent in this film and it's worth seeing what she's doing, especially when she appears opposite Black, with whom she seems to have established a good collaboration. Unfortunately, I didn't feel anything particularly positive about young Owen Vaccaro. Okay, he's very young and we still can't expect great work as an actor, and there are several moments when he shows signs of talent, but for now it's not much more than that.
Eli Roth is not a director I particularly like. Very focused on slash horror movies, it's someone I wouldn't bet a lot on for a movie like this. Surprisingly, the director handled the task at hand with reasonable skill and competence. The film has excellent cinematography, which is solidly based on good quality CGI and a good design of the sets and costumes. The effects are also really good. I particularly liked the scene where the characters play with stars and planets in the garden of the house, and the opening sequence of the film, which is able to intrigue and conquer us. The soundtrack helps a lot, with good melodies that add to the film without stealing our attention.
However, there are not only flowers here. The editing work is a little lacking, there are scenes that would benefit from being slightly shortened. The pacing also presents problems: after an excellent beginning, and before an excellent ending, the film has a whole middle part that is not so interesting, and there are several characters that were poorly used, starting with the villain, whose motivations and attitudes they are, to say the least, clichés without any kind of interest and there are, throughout the film, some disturbing scenes (the living puppets, for example) that don't seem to be in the right movie.

I was surprise about how much I enjoy this film. Jack Black and Cate Blanchett are great together in this film. The film felt like a 80s kids horror film. I would love to see more films with these characters. There are a few poop jokes which were the worst part of the film (but these jokes seem to be expected in modern kids films). I feel like this film would have cult film status in a few years.

There was a couple of instances over the course of _The House with a Clock in Its Walls_, particularly early on, that had my hopes up, but by the end? God I was so disappointed. The lead is not a great actor (often a trouble when you have to cast young), and the effects are pretty bad. The worst thing though is that _Clock in Its Walls_ can't keep its story straight, which is a pretty unforgivable sin when it's your own story. Like, you set the rules here, why are you going out of your way to break them for nothing?
_Final rating:★½: - Boring/disappointing. Avoid where possible._

The "Creed" family relocate to a rural town in Maine where the father - "Louis" (Dale Midkiff) is to be a local doctor. They don't get off to a great start after the beloved cat of daughter "Ellie" (Blaze Berdahl) gets squashed by a passing vehicle and so it is ceremoniously buried in an ancient graveyard populated by centuries-worth of other pre-loved animals. Their neighbours are very reticent to discuss this facility - it is rumoured to have oddly recuperative powers which to his shock and horror prove true when the moggy comes back - and with attitude too! The troubles for the young doctor only get worse when a real human tragedy occurs and he is faced with the ultimate dilemma... It's more of a cumulative story this - like many of Stephen KIng's stories. The plot builds by degree and is told here in a way that almost asks us what we might do differently from "Louis" even though we see, and can readily anticipate, the consequences of his actions. The horror here is not so much garish and scary, but human and almost voluntary - and that makes it a little more effective. There's no getting away from it, though. The acting is mediocre and the visual effects at times reminded me of an old episode of "Bagpuss". I am not now, nor ever have been a pet lover - so the underlying premiss of hysteria when the cat gets splatted also never really resonated with me either. Still, it is an eerie and solid story that challenges a lot of assumptions about love and rational behaviour and is still worth a watch.