Even if it wasn't any good, Pet Sematary's sort of a must watch given how heavily it's been referenced in the film and television industries since. But it is good, so there's that too.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

And the night when the cold wind blows, No one cares, nobody knows.
The Stephen King novel from which the screenplay was adapted very nearly didn’t see the light of day. It was actually written by King based on a real place and instances during a stay at a rented house. He was never quite happy with the tone of the book and only submitted it as a contractual obligation. Glad he did because it provides a very solid grounding for horror and deals with the very real horrors of overwhelming grief.
The film gets the tonal flows right, the family dynamic is neatly pitched in readiness for what is to come later, the house and the titular Pet Sematary of the title are eerie personified, and Fred Gwynne is on hand for a sage old characterisation. The potential for shattering horror is not fully realised, yet the makers deliver a good quota of scares and unease to make this a better than average King adaptation to screen. The use of the Ramones in the soundtrack is a good one, King loved them, they loved him, so much so they wrote the title track and named an album after it. 6.5/10

Heard some good things about this rendition of the forklore and while not bad with some funny moments and a decent cast, I wasn't totally enamored with this one. The effects were alright and the horror elements were fine, but never really was fully engaged. I don't know, not exactly a horror Christmas classic and not much desire to revisit anytime soon. **3.25/5**

A mixed bag.
'Krampus' has a lot of potential, based on the dark themes we see. However, unfortunately, it dumbs itself down in festive family gathering melodrama. I also didn't rate the ending that much, not that it's bad per se - it's just meh to me.
Adam Scott is alright in the role of Tom, though is bettered by Toni Collette as Sarah; albeit minorly. The most interesting character is Krista Stadler's Omi, though they don't delve as deeply into her as I expected/wanted. Elsewhere, David Koechner's character, Howard, is kinda lame, but Koechner himself is solid. Of the younger actors, Emjay Anthony (Max) and Stefania LaVie Owen (Beth) are OK.
It does do positive things. Some of the tension building is good, even if their eventual pay-offs are a little underwhelming. The antagonists look cool, especially the gingerbread men and the jack-in-the-box. It works Xmas music vibes into the score well, also.
Nothing terrible, but it didn't work out all that enjoyably for me personally.

> A creepy Christmas tale of a family.
Probably no one would have anticipated it, this is a surprise movie, especially being an anti-Christmas theme. Possibly the one last time I enjoyed was a Finnish film called 'Rare Export', that's the name came in my mind after watching this. I also could not believe this rated PG13, well it differs in other countries. Of course, there are plenty of intensified frightening scenes, even for the adults, but no gores. The violence parts were well edited/shot, yet it makes sure they're still part of the story without showing them. I think it was a smart filmmaking keeping in mind the family audience. So in the end, I guess it paid off well.
I did not know the plot, as well as a few words that referred in the movie. But while watching it, I was worried about the graphics, because this is not a big budget film. Even the cast was not from the top league. Overall, it achieved a good result, that's the point. There are no major flaws as well, and the small ones can be easily ignorable. Because on the other side the movie provides a good suspenseful entertainment that makes you not to move the body or the eyeballs. After I'm saying all these, you should at least consider giving it a shot. But remember there's no story in it, it was constructed on a panic situation during the heavy blizzard when one after another begin to disappear.
7/10

A well acted Civil War drama, but one that perhaps would have played better on the stage of a theatre than the screen of a cinema.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

**The lust and the destruction!**
I neither read the book, nor seen the original film. It was a small slice of the American civil war. But did not focused on the actual war. A fictional drama that followed an injured soldier who sheltered in a girls school was looked after well by the stayed back teachers and students. While he was recovering, fallen in love with one of the women. But everybody else too had a little crush on him since he's the one man around. That causes a bump, following a twist in the tale, all comes to halt.
A simple and nice drama. Best picks for the roles. But Kristen Dunst did not sync-in with the rest of the girls. Nice clothings too, a perfect recreation of the mid 19th century. I enjoyed it, good for watching at once, but I bet those who watched both the version would go for the old one. Especially for Clint Eastwood. Though Colin Ferrell was not bad in this. Not the best film from Sofia Coppola compared with her others, definitely not worst either.
**7/10**

"Hana" (Juliette Binoche) volunteers to remain in war-torn Italy to look after her badly burnt patient. Who is he? Well nobody knows. All he recalls is that he came from England and that some time ago he was married. The arrival of the enigmatic Canadian "Caravaggio" (Willem Dafoe) starts to unravel the mystery as his suspicions as to the bedridden man's true identity, along with that man's gradually more lucid recollections take us back to a time when he first arrived in North Africa. He is "Count Almásy (Ralph Fiennes) who has come to draw maps. The onset of WWII interrupts his cartography, but "Caravaggio" suspects that he proceeded to assist the Nazi occupiers. Did he? It's also clear that he had a deeply intense relationship with "Katherine", (Kristen Scott Thomas), a married pillar of the local colonial society. Slowly, but surely, Anthony Minghella ensures that the threads start to come together - but tragedy seems to follow the Count wherever he goes, and it isn't long before we fill in the blanks that led him to his present, terminal state. Meantime, "Hana" is falling in love with "Kip" (Naveen Andrews), a bomb disposal expert who, with his squad, has taken up residence on their lawn. What really makes this stand out is the glorious cinematography. John Seale uses the light wonderfully on the Tunisian Sahara, at the eerily beautiful "Cave of Swimmers" and at the various Italian locations that add huge richness to this gently unfolding story. Fiennes and KST have a wonderful, understated, chemistry between them; Binoche adds real integrity and humanity to her role, and though Dafoe features quite sparingly, his crucial part in unravelling this human puzzle is played deftly. There is no denying that this is far too long, and the pacing of the film could do with some added juice now and again, but the assembly of talent on display here delivers a classy mix of romance and ambiguity in a stylish and creative fashion.

This movie Trailer was one of those that shows you all the good parts and then when you actually watch it, its just mhe. the movie does not capture you as it should've ,I mean they want to bring in demons and the supernatural in then do some effort. but instead we got a movie that just sat there waiting for something big and nothing really happens.

**A light comedy that works reasonably well, but ends up being forgettable.**
I saw this film when I was younger, fifteen or twenty years ago, and I really liked it. However, time passes, we change, and when I saw him last night I couldn't feel the same fun I had felt. It all starts with a robbery and the theft of a large amount of diamonds. The thieves are a team that doesn't know each other well, but where there is no honor: after betraying each other and one ending up in prison, the diamonds disappear. While trying to find out what happened to them, the group will have the difficult task of trying to elude the authorities and also kill the only witness who can incriminate them.
The film has a strong cast, full of notable names: Jamie Lee Curtis, John Cleese, Kevin Kline, Michael Palin and Tom Georgeson. Although the leading role belongs to Cleese and Curtis, neither of them is in very good shape and this gave way to secondary actors. Let's be honest: Cleese still makes a worthy effort, but it's Kevin Kline who exceeds all expectations. He's funny, sharp and works wonderfully alongside Curtis without her having the breath to keep up with him.
Despite the cast's honorable efforts, the film is largely uninteresting. In the most technical aspects, it is absolutely banal in all aspects, and I would even say that it seemed to me like a cheap film that goes for very economical, but functional, solutions. The humor is there, it still works minimally and the twists in the script, coupled with the speed at which everything happens, keep the story moving forward without allowing the audience to think about it. But it's not a kind of humor capable of making us laugh. This film was nominated for three Oscars in 1989 and deservedly won in the Best Supporting Actor thanks to Kline's "tour de force". But the truth is that, today, almost no one remembers him. It left no memory, even in the comedy context of that time.

A Fish Called Wanda swimmingly sails through a screenplay fishing for eccentricity. You may or may not already know, that comedies are not my genre of choice. The heartless individual that I am fails to grasp humour in its entirety, finding the most unusual of gags hilarious yet the most mainstream of jokes unwaveringly pointless. “Classic” British comedy, despite being a patriotic Brit myself, is just one of those strands I’ve never tangled with. ‘Monty Python’ and 80s sitcoms reassure my darkened thoughts where most others would laugh out loud, for I am dead inside.
Naturally, approaching this classic that many deem utterly hilarious, had me both anxious and intimidated. All the signs were there indicating that I would not appreciate this. Two ‘Monty Python’ actors, in Cleese and Palin, teaming up yet again. A femme fatale central character that utilises her sex appeal to acquire anything and everything. British versus American colloquialisms. Yet, despite all these elements being fruitfully incorporated into the feature, I flippin’ loved A Fish Called Wanda! A gangster, animal lover and two American con artists plan a jewel heist, to which the eponymous Wanda attempts to double-cross them.
Comedy, in my opinion, is most contagious when written well. The visual aspect is a product of the screenplay and performances. So when I acknowledged that Cleese himself wrote this hilarious screenplay, especially after the groundbreaking success of ‘Fawlty Towers’, I breathed a sigh of relief. The man is comedy gold, and I’ll tell you why. A Fish Called Wanda isn’t a string of random set pieces to which the characters must adapt to in order to achieve a comedic response, a formula commonly used in modern “hilarity”. Rather it’s actually the same scene repeated, but with comic illogicality emphasised with each repetition. Wanda insists on seducing George’s barrister to obtain information. Simple? Yes. Durable? No.
Ingeniously, Cleese continues the affair throughout the entire feature, and solely focussing on the dynamics between Wanda and Archie. When does the hilarity ensue, you ask? Well, it’s the unwanted surrounding characters that heighten the situation into the comedy stratosphere. Archie unexpectedly greets his wife when Wanda is hiding behind a cupboard door, after some “necrophiliac” foreplay. Her locket is dropped (vital plot point!), wife sees it and instead of exploding in anger at the possibility of Archie’s betrayal, she believes it’s a gift and decides to wear it. This is without mentioning Wanda’s “brother” who walks into the room and pretends to be an agent investigating KGB operatives in the local area. Oh, and Archie’s daughter is waltzing in and out of the scene to make matters worse. My description doesn’t do it justice, but each time Wanda and Archie are together, the scenario constantly escalates. It really is edge of your seat comedy, and I can confidently state I was flailing my arms about like a fish out of water whilst laughing the house down.
Situational comedies like this, when written incredibly meticulously, are able to re-ignite my soul. However, these sequences of awkward hilarity would not be possible without the detailed characterisation that seeps through the screenplay. Each character implements a unique trait and differing style of comedy into the fray. Archie and his general buffoonery. Wanda and her insistence on sex appeal. Otto with his disapproval of the word “stupid”. Ken with his on/off stutter. These are just the crust on the fish pie, for there are a ludicrous amount of personable qualities that bring these characters to life. And that is what makes the comedy feel so effortless.
Crichton, in what was his last directorial feature, solely placed Cleese’s writing at the forefront. No ostentatious camerawork or intelligent editing. With that, it can feel somewhat rough around the edges. The constant switching between Wanda’s shenanigans and Ken’s progressive task of murdering a witness (by killing her beloved dogs instead of, y’know, her!), were abrupt and occasionally disjointed. Fortunately the rounded performances secured a narrative momentum throughout, never once depleting. Cleese, Curtis and Palin were exceptionally decent, yet it was Kline’s excessive screaming and shouting that generated comedy excellence. Yes, the homophobic slurs are now outdated and unfortunately taints a portion of his character, especially since he continually maintains this remark throughout. But I appreciate that’s a personal issue more than anything.
The characterised comedy is what matters. These minuscule fishes in the medium-sized pond that is Britain, swimming around causing hilarity wherever they rest their fins. Bolstered by fantastic performances, an engaging story and exceptional writing, Wanda certainly is a fish I shall be remembering. Modern comedy just cannot replicate this exemplary feature.

Mottola strikes one from the heart.
It's 1987 and James Brennan is home for the summer after earning himself a degree in Renaissance Studies. Which unsurprisingly isn't any use to him when trying to gain employment in this part of Pittsburg. Which is now a problem since his planned trip to Europe has fell by the wayside due to his father's enforced unemployment. So thus he finds himself working at Adventureland, a rusting time warp amusement park where only odd balls and idiots appear to frequent. But here James will make friends, learn life lessons and maybe just find true love?.
Be under no illusions, Adventureland is no teen sex comedy reliant on crude jokes and cringe slap-stick moments to get its humour. Which as it's brought to us by the director of Superbad may come as something of a surprise. Greg Mottola is the said director, who here has crafted an ode to his own teenage strife's concerning first jobs and first loves. Though not really offering anything new as such, I mean the old "summer I came of age" film is hardly new is it? Mottola has however managed to blend youthful spirits with a serious kink and nicely cloak it in a bittersweet 80s haze.
Some parts are clearly aimed at the guffaw teen viewers, awkward erections and friends who punch you in the testicles - tee hee hee, Adventureland feels, and is, a subtle film made by someone who clearly lived it. The care and thought that Mottola has put into it benefits the cast as much as it does the viewers. Jesse Eisenberg (James) is a splendid bit of casting, almost poetically slow, he nicely plays it to have the upcoming tribulations totally believable. Enter Kristen Stewart as Em, pretty and smartly essaying a girl, soon to be woman, trying to make sense in her off kilter world. Her scenes with both Eisenberg and the buff Ryan Reynolds, in a role that takes some skill to get as right as he does, are the highlights of the piece. While Martin Starr is the other performance of note as the pipe smoking intellectual, Joel.
What youngsters that I know who have seen the film have had less than favourable reactions to it. This can probably be put down to two things. One is that the expectation of another Superbad-a-like comedy has not been met. Two is that, you know what folks? Mottola hasn't made this for kids, he's made it for those who were once kids themselves in a decade not so very long ago... 8/10

So bloated, if still almost good. I having nothing major against it tbh.
The cast are probably what stop me from disliking 'This Is 40'. Paul Rudd (Pete) and Leslie Mann (Debbie) are likeable and more than competent in the lead roles, while John Lithgow (Oliver) and Albert Brooks (Larry) are strong additions to this 'Knocked Up' spin-off.
The story features interesting stuff and has, just about, respectable intentions, but man is it overly long. They could've made the exact same point but with 30-40 minutes worth of fat cut out. I didn't care enough about the characters to see them for as long as I did, in short.
As alluded to, the onscreen talent do keep it bubbling along at a minimal level and, also, the music is very good. It just didn't need to be so dragged out, in my opinion.

Virginia Cherrill charmingly plays a young, blind, flower seller whom the tramp (Charlie Chaplin) falls for, hook line and sinker. Later that night, he is crossing a bridge when he encounters a suicidal, dipso, millionaire (Harry Myers) whom he convinces to hang about for a while longer, and who by way of appreciation invites him to a party at his mansion, then to a series of evening entertainments. Thing is, when he wakes up with the mother of all hangovers next morning, though, he has never a clue who the tramp is and so gets his butler to send him packing. Meantime, still determined to help his new love, our kindly vagrant reads in a newspaper that there might be might be a cure for her blindness - but it will be expensive. His boozy buddy offers him $1,000 to help but when, as usual in the morning, he sobers up and denies all knowledge of the "gift". The police are called and things now take a series of unhappy turns that force the tramp to think of other ways of raising the cash. This challenge is especially spurned on when he discovers that she has left her usual selling spot and is now quite poorly and being taken care of by her grandmother (Florence Lee) - and they are facing eviction. It's probably his attempts at boxing that provide for most of the entertainment here, but there are plenty of other humorous exploits - especially between him and Myers and the scenes with Cherrill are touching and joyous, too. Chaplin keeps the pace moving along well with plenty of variety in a film that's a gem to watch.

"Bob" (Tom Hardy) and his cousin "Marv" (James Gandolfini) run a bar that is regularly used for the anonymous drop - money paid to their Chechen landlords - and all goes fine until it is robbed. They are tasked with retrieving the money and are soon immersed in a cycle of gangland betrayal and deception that isn't helped by a police investigation into another murder, and the curious "Eric Deeds" (Matthias Schoenaerts) whose dog "Bob" has rescued from maltreatment. Nobody knows who to trust and director Michaël Roskam manages to use the talent at his disposal, alongside some effective lighting and a careful build up of the pace to help this better-than-average thriller work up to it's clever conclusion. Noomi Rapace ("Nadia") features only sparingly, and Hardy's accent maybe isn't the best - but the complexities of the plot as well as a reasonable attempt to develop the characterisations into people we cared a little about do help this stand out. Hardy shows us that he has the ability to deliver a slightly more multi-dimensional persona and this is a good watch with quite a quirky ending.

Are you doing something desperate? Something we can't clean up this time?
The Drop is directed by Michael R. Roskam and written by Dennis Lehane, who adapts from his own short story titled Animal Rescue. It stars Tom Hardy, James Gandolfini, Noomi Rapace and Matthias Schoenaerts. Music is by Marco Beltrami and cinematography by Nicolas Karakatsanis.
Brooklyn barman Bob Saginowski (Hardy) spies an opportunity for a better life - but only if he can escape family ties, the crime that surrounds him and a dark past
It's arguably a tricky film to recommend with confidence given that it doesn't sit still in crime genre company. This is very much a character based story about a small handful of people affected by crime, where they are chained to events occurring by way of law breaking. Roskam is in no hurry what so ever to spin his picture's literary worth, very much favouring a slow burn - even low key - approach. He deftly develops atmosphere whilst simultaneously ensuring we the viewers are very much a part of the setting and situations - something Lehane does so brilliantly in his novels. By the time the pic plays its hand, what appeared at first to be needless complexities, are valid and close the piece down with some considerable success. 7.5/10

Whilst I didn't hate this film, I really did wonder who on earth it was for? Is it just one of those retrospective conscience-salving efforts designed to deflect the attention of the audience as to just who told us all what ahead of the invasion or Iraq? In any case, the plot seems to suggest that that whole invasion was predicated on an elaborate American scheme to install a puppet administrations in that country. Based on what, precisely? Well - that's what "Miller" (Matt Damon) and his team of elite WMD hunters are on site to discover. What now follows is a rather pedestrian affair with loads of CIA cloak and dagger drama as the team constantly come up empty in their search. Is there a leak somewhere? Did the things just simply never exist? Is their a broader game afoot? Well those are the questions about which I couldn't say I was really very bothered. To make these intrigues work effectively, the writing and the acting have to be far sharper and nuanced than here in this rather simplistic take on not just the Allied (i.e. not just US involvement in Iraq) activities, but on the attitudes of the local population who are portrayed here as either little better than sheep farmers, or as duplicitous murderers. Damon is going through the motions, as is a slightly oddly cast Jason Isaacs ("Briggs") and a completely underwhelming Greg Kinnear as "Poundstone" - the Pentagon man charged with leading the search. Add to the mix the faintly annoying interventions of investigative journalist "Lawrie Dayne" (Amy Ryan) and the whole thing is, frankly, a derivate mess. At times the pace is active, but for the most part is just plods along towards an ending that is probably all that this speculative and weak script could hope to offer us.

Good Action Movie.

Its about the false allegation of US that Iraq had WMD. Which turns out to be a manipulated intel for personal gains of few people.

**One of the masterpieces of classic German cinema.**
There isn't much that can be said about this film that almost everyone hasn't already said or written. It is one of the great films of German cinema, one of the best productions that were made before the Second World War and one of the best films in the career of the renowned director Fritz Lang, who shortly afterward would leave Germany due to the rise of Nazism, refusing to deal with that political regime.
The film is inspired by real events, namely the murderous path of Peter Kürten, the “Vampire of Düsseldorf”, who terrorized people at the same time and also had young teenagers as his victims. The film manages to capture very well the feeling of fear that existed among the people of the city and the attempts that the police made to find this merciless killer.
The cinematography, in black and white, still shows signs of the influence of German expressionism without, however, giving up the realism that the entire film demanded. In fact, I can't say whether the film was inspired by “noir” or came to inspire “noir” later, but I could see the aesthetic and style similarities. Peter Lorre is the only actor who stands out: he brought the main role to life and shines without almost having to say anything. It's an excellent work by the actor and has undoubtedly opened many doors for him.

Random person: Nobody knows him (The murderer). Woman who lives with the murderer: Am I a joke to you?

So you say you want to enroll in film school? Don't bother. Just watch Fritz Lang's M and Metropolis.

The movie is classic and yet this is my first time watching this.
Peter Lorre alone is worth seeing this movie as he always played such the great villain. No music keeps your focus on the image and dialogue throughout the movie. Camera work looks pretty awesome especially when they start doing the manhunt.
This movie clocks in at almost two hours so there will be a lot of pacing and dialogue to go through. It will feel a bit dragging when Lorre isn't on the screen but it is well worth going through the film to see how it all plays out.

An improvement over Thunderball but still not as good as the original 3 Connery films, it is still very iconic despite it only just having a reappraisal.

This time, "007" (Sean Connery) has to investigate some mysterious goings on in outer space as first an American, then a Soviet rocket disappear. Naturally, they blame one another but "M" (Bernard Lee) has an inkling that Japan might be the source of the mischief and so our suave and debonair "Mr. Bond" is duly despatched. Allied with their spy chief "Tiger" (Tetsurô Tanba) who has his own underground train - he is soon hot on the trail of the "Ning Po" berthed by a small island that might well provide some answers. It's got loads of action scenes - "Little Nelly" and her heavily armed aerobatic battles being one of the better ones. The beautifully delicate Akiko Wakabayashi provides the glamour - though little of substance and Donald Pleasence - armed with some peckish piraña fish - turns up as the scheming arch enemy just before a series of disappointingly set-piece battle scenes at the end of what had, up until the last 15 minutes been a more sophisticated and intriguing film that relied more on subterfuge and mystery, as well as a decent soupçon of Japanese culture (including some interesting bathing/wedding traditions that our "James" joined in with, heartily). It's a good film, with a memorable Nancy Sinatra theme song (from Messrs. Barry and Bricusse), but not one of the best, I'd say.

This is in the hay day of 007 films.
Made when 007 was exciting and entertaining.
That gets a lot of hate from people with Generation Xenophobe ideology.
But it's totally exciting.
Here, we get almost all the venues. We even get outer space. We get super beautiful scenery that pretty much make this one of the great Bond films, secure at number 5 in my opinion.
Most of this is set in Japan, and much of it is filmed there.
While Thunderball inspired the most in Austin Powers, this is probably second place in inspiration for Austin, and that's a good thing. Let us face the fact that the modern day 21st century Bond movies couldn't inspire Nolan Ryan to throw a baseball.
This was made in the era when piranha were considered dangerous, and that plays a big part in the film. "Blowhard" (my name for Number 1) likes to feed his piranha. And you can guess what he feeds them.
Lots of action, lots of scenery, lots of beautiful women, lots of wit, lots of gadgets. It has everything, which is probably why so many critics are so jealous of it.

Yeah... forgotten isn't it?
Maybe it's forgotten because they try and turn Sean Connery into a Japanese man to hide him and he just ends up looking like a harry chested Leonard Nimoy.
Or maybe it's forgotten because little choppers are more Roger Moore than Sean Connery.
Whatever the case, it starts off pretty strong and then falls apart at the end. The first half of the movie is Connery Bond, and in places it's almost surreal in it's imagery.... but it ends up with 007 Leonard Nimoy, and that is just a shame.
I can't really hate on the movie, because parts of it are seriously good. I just can't get disguised as a Japanese man 007 Leonard Nimoy with a harry chest out of my head, and that is really the memory that stays with you decades after watching this film.
But, if you can get beyond that, it's still a pretty darn decent 007 film.

_**James goes to Japan**_
"You Only Live Twice" (1967) takes agent 007 to Japan where he seeks the secret SPECTRE installation responsible for literally stealing space capsules and threatening war between the USA and USSR.
This 5th installment in the franchise upped the ante with the action & spy-stuff and is more dynamic than the previous ones. Speaking of the spy aspects, they're often over-the-top here to the point of being cartoonish. Another reviewer criticized the film in this regard -- pointing out that it was this film more than any other that gave the Austin Powers movies the most material to spoof -- and he was right. One scene, for instance, brought to memory that Gilligan's Island episode where Gilligan had a dream of being Agent 014 (remember the soup spoon?). No wonder the franchise got goofier in the 70s -- it was the next logical step.
Disregarding the "Yeah, right" spy shenanigans, "You Only Live Twice" has everything you'd want in a Bond picture -- the action, intrigue, gadgets, beautiful women, spectacular locations and larger-than-life villains. The story is interesting enough that it keeps you absorbed and even builds suspense as the film goes from one action scene to another, culminating in the explosive climax. It was understandably a huge hit in 1967.
The film runs 1 hour, 57 minutes, and was shot mostly in Japan, but also England, Spain and Gibraltar.
GRADE: A-

**A worthy continuation.**
After the great success of the first film, it was quite predictable that another film would be made that would continue the story. This film picks up right where the first left off, and follows in the footsteps of Daniel and his master, Miyagi, on a journey to southern Japan, the latter's homeland, to see his dying father and settle a score with a man he swore to kill. Him if he ever set foot on Japanese soil again.
As in the first film, we again have Ralph Macchio in the role of Daniel and Pat Morita as Master Miyagi. Both were very good and they give us again everything that we appreciated in the first film. The main difference in the work of both actors turns out to be the greater formal protagonism of the character of Morita, who is the great protagonist of this film: all the action, and the whole story, is centered on the figure of Miyagi, in the past and in the its peaceful stance in the face of a situation in which it is forced to fight. Of course, the film tries to give Macchio equal relevance by forcing an enmity between his character and another, created to be one of the film's antagonists, but the situation feels far too forced and contrived to really be an advantage to the story. Incidentally, even the romantic sub-plot between Daniel and Kumiko, a young Japanese woman played by Tamlyn Tomita, doesn't seem credible enough, despite the actress' good work. Danny Kamekona doesn't do a bad job, but he seems a little stereotypical, whereas Yuji Okumoto does nothing but be hateful.
Technically, the film is quite correct and seeks to create a convincing Japanese environment, in which the houses, gardens, buildings and other elements really look like a rural area of Japan. Filmed in Hawaii for production convenience, the film really managed to recreate that environment well and give us a flavor of Japanese traditions through clothes, houses, sets and other details such as the tea ceremony and dance. The cinematography is quite pleasant and the soundtrack has some very good songs, one of which even deserved an Oscar nomination that year.

A disappointment.
I gained nothing from 'The Karate Kid Part II', it adds very little to the original. Pat Morita (Mr. Miyagi) is the only plus point for me, he especially has one great and emotional scene with his co-star. Otherwise, no-one else stands out - not even (the still solid) Ralph Macchio (Daniel).
Up until the ending I was actually nonplussed about it, neither liking or disliking it, but the conclusion is so uninteresting and lame that I just couldn't wait for 'The End' to appear. I will say it isn't an excruciating watch or anything, but I just expected a great deal more from this sequel. It doesn't feel attached to the first film, which is obviously a negative.
Other things that didn't help were the shoehorning out of Elisabeth Shue (Ali) & Randee Heller (Lucille) and the repetitive nature of the story; e.g. another love story that features a jock-like character, Daniel still getting battered and bruised for the majority.
Hopefully the next two follow-ups are much better.