**An absolute disgrace, for everyone involved. They killed Jane Austen!**
I already had an idea that this movie was bad when I decided to see how bad it was. Unfortunately, the film is about as bad as it gets, cloyingly and terribly unhappy mixing up “Pride and Prejudice”, “Seven Samurai” and “Walking Dead”. There are no surprises here, the movie is what it says it is.
What would Jane Austen say? I think she would gladly eat the brains of Burr Steers and Seth Grahame Smith, if they were medically proven to have brains. After seeing this crappy movie, I personally have doubts about it. The movie tried to update or give us a different version of “Pride and Prejudice”… but instead it spit in Jane Austen's face full force. If I were the author, I would take this film as an insult. It's just stupid, idiotic, unintelligent and brutally crazy.
It's one of those movies where, quite simply, nothing works. There is no saving material here, no redeeming qualities. Scenery, costumes? Forget it… it was all a masquerade. CGI, action scenes? It looks like a video game without life or soul, with fight scenes choreographed to the millimeter, like a theater ballet. The actors? All the characters were meticulously run over by a script that should have been burned in the fireplace. If I were an actor, I would not have accepted to work in this film.
I can't write anything else. If you'll excuse me, I'm going to stop here, I need to throw up.

**From loathing to romance and zombie hunting!**
I did not know there was a parody novel of Jane Austen's 200 years old classic. This was based on that, a multi-starrer film, but the lack of star value let down the film. This is the film with a familiar plot, in addition to that zombies were there, but that was not enough. The big names from the cast would have pulled the film out of the box office disaster if it had one or two. But still I think this film was okay, an acceptable with awesome production and performances.
It ended like there will be a sequel, but now I don't think there's going to be one. The story was kind of predictable. Well, I did predict, particularly the character Wickham. Though I was more curious about the Zombies, like how it was going to be used in the narration. I must say, they were excellent. I mean they were not given any big preference, but theirs part indeed helped to build a nice plot. Pretty well composed stunts. I mean carefully, without strong blood and gore, so they got PG13 and warning for the violences.
I think the film critics overreacted like usual. They're like the sheep herds, they follow one another and given verdict for this as a bad flick. But as a film fanatic, I don't think it is worth neglecting, especially if you are a fan of the original story. In the todays world, the critics are a bunch of circus clowns. So I hope you make a right choice on this, not because of me or the critics, if you haven't seen it yet.
_6.5/10_

Better than it had any right being, but still not very good.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

One thing is for certain: no one can accuse director Burr Steers’s off-kilter version of novelist Jane Austen’s lyrical literary landscape **Pride and Prejudice** as being deemed solely melancholy and manipulative. The challenge of presenting a sophisticated and sudsy exposition while incorporating the ghoulish gimmicky of zombies to elevate the surrealism and cynicism of the British-based costume drama is an ambitious taking to say the least. Thankfully, Steers delivers a halfway decent piercing period piece that accentuates both the elegance and eeriness of Austen’s blossomed universe of early 19th century English femininity dripping with refined defiance and desire. Hence, Steers’s somewhat choppy but inspired **Pride and Prejudice and Zombies** provides an imaginative and slightly insane spin on the austere exuberance of Austen’s classic romancer highlighted with the butt-kicking antics of the bombastic Bennett sisters.
There is no doubt that movie and television audiences throughout the years have been subjected to the omnipresence of the Jane Austen Experience through countless interpretations of her treasured **Pride and Prejudice** artistic works. For the most part, the radiance of Pride and Prejudice has always maintained its ravishing romanticism in the various incarnations showcased. However, Steers looks to promote a bloody-thirsty blueprint and enhance the urgent sense of Austen’s femme fatale movement–in this case unite the Bennett brood and arm them with the alertness of sinister-made sisterhood. Instinctively, the premise for **Pride and Prejudice and Zombies** gives off a bizarre but refreshing vibe when distributing its wacky brand of subversive feminine liberation.
Austen heroine Elizabeth Bennett has always been possessed in her personalized convictions especially when it came to love and stability. Nevertheless, **Zombies’** Liz (Lily James) has a mission in mind that does not necessarily involve finding that ideal suitor of choice. In this case, Elizabeth and her sisters Jane, Mary, Kitty and Lydia (Bella Heathcoate, Mille Brasy, Suki Waterhouse and Ellie Bamber) are the sisterly slayers trained to eradicate the unwanted walking dead. The Bennett beauties, all skilled at exceptional swordplay courtesy of intensified training in China, are looked down upon within their elite social circles. Furthermore, the concern over the feisty Elizabeth and her siblings finding their soulmates rests on the shoulders of their worrisome parents Mr. and Mrs. Bennett (Charles Dance and Sally Phillips). What is to become of the vast Bennett estate should their offspring not find the eligible companions to continue the bloodline? The question remains: will the bashing Bennett babes go down in family history as courageous zombie huntresses or suffer the societal humiliation as available spinsters untouched?
Elizabeth’s preference is to be vigilant in her quest to zap out the zombie presence whenever possible as opposed to obsessing over whether she will hook the grand love of her life. Still, the very idea of meeting Colonel Darcy (Sam Riley) at one of the festive balls may have at least humbled the combative Elizabeth a bit and had her entertain the notion of embracing a romantic feeling. Unfortunately duty calls and the agenda for terminating the pesky zombies as they invade the region is the top priority for Bennett brigade.
Actually, **Pride and Prejudice and Zombies** is a frenetic fable that solidly works because it is able to competently marry two ubiquitous genres–zombie B-movies with prim and proper Austen period piece adaptations–and come up with a quirky and contentious commentary on female-oriented resistance and rage. Steers rips into the convention of womanhood wonderment with a horror flick romancer that has its sheer of nuanced nerve and chilly-minded charm. The gory shenanigans and showy execution of Zombies’ cinematic makeup from Remy Adefarasin’s luscious cinematography to David Warren’s production design and Julian Day’s costume designs all mesh with noted symmetry. The balance of wit, suspense, terror and tirade as the Bennett bunch and their suitors engage in swagger as they eliminate the detestable zombies feels delectable in manufactured naughtiness.
The performances are steady and give substance to the welcomed wackiness that uncannily defines this effectively compelling but twisted treat to Austen’s pretty protagonists dressed up in gorgeous gowns that conceal their blood-laced daggers. As the lead Bennett sister, James is rather engrossing as the impulsive sword-swinging sass as her unique spin on Austen’s curly-haired creation is as credible and creative as say Keira Knightley’s stamp on the Elizabeth Bennett role. Although rollicking in a zombie B-movie without relying too much on the crutch of high stakes camp, James and her supporting players are quite poised to go with the flow based on what the unpredictable material hands them.
The bottom line is that **Pride and Prejudice and Zombies** is a serviceable spectacle that dares to weave a Victorian-cultured social class romance yarn with an undead creepfest while finding a common ground in the hidden psyche of the young woman’s destined determination for self-discovery. Perhaps introducing the less literate crowd to Jane Austen’s brand of high class sensibilities through the battling Bennetts during the onslaught of an English countryside zombie invasion would make other future **Pride and Prejudice** installments feel more renewed and receptive.
**Pride and Prejudice and Zombies** (2016)
1 hr, 49 mins.
Starring: Lily James, Sam Riley, Jack Huston, Bella Heathcoate, Douglas Booth, Matt Smith, Charles Dance, Sally Phillips, Suki Waterhouse, Ellie Bamber, Millie Brady
Directed by: Burr Steers
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Genre: Horror and Fantasy’Romance and Suspense
Critic’s rating: ** 1/2 stars (out of 4 stars)
(c) Frank Ochieng 2016

_**Effective haunted house movie with Ryan Reynolds and Melissa George**_
A young couple with three children buys an old, large house on Long Island in 1975. The house has a diabolic history, but they purchase it anyway because it's such a great deal. Will they make it out alive?
I didn’t have high hopes for "The Amityville Horror" (2005) because I'm not a fan of haunted house movies and thus had not yet seen the original version. But I decided to give it a try due to Melissa George. The movie maintains a serious tone throughout and did not disappoint; it successfully piqued my interest in the whole Amityville Horror legend, which you can read about on the internet.
Some may accuse the film of ripping off aspects of "The Shining" (1980), but keep in mind that the original movie was released a year before "The Shining" while the books they were based on were both published in 1977. The difference is that “The Amityville Horror” was inspired by supposedly true events whereas Stephen King’s novel was purely fictional.
Of course this remake inspired me to see the classic version from 1979 with James Brolin and Margot Kidder. What I like about that one is that it takes its time to develop the characters in what is essentially a realistic drama topped off with creepy paranormal happenings. It addresses dark, ugly stuff but it actually has a warm heart (recall what George does in the final scene). This brisk 2005 remake is like the Reader’s Digest version, unsurprisingly upping the ante with the (clichéd) horror elements; it thankfully offers interesting details on the backstory of the house. I think they’re both worth checking out. If you prefer longer with more depth you’ll favor the original version whereas if you want something faster and more modern you’ll appreciate this one.
Melissa George is a gorgeous woman and I enjoy watching her. Also on hand on the feminine front is Rachel Nichols, who played Tamara in the 2011 redo of "Conan the Barbarian." Rachel plays a hippie chick babysitter and she's perfect for the role. The babysitter is haughty and scoffs at the diabolic history of the house but let's just say she leaves as a true believer. This was a great sequence that perked my interest at a time it needed it (as I was starting to get bored by that point). In any event, I had to reassess my appraisal of Ms. Nichols after seeing her in this film as she won my appreciation. Meanwhile Chloë Grace Moretz plays the little girl; she was only 7 when the film was shot.
Ryan Reynolds as the husband is fine, but he seems TOO in-shape for the role. However, I'm sure the ladies appreciate it.
The film runs 1 hour, 29 minutes, and was shot at Silver Lake and Salem, Wisconsin, with other parts filmed in the Chicago area of Illinois.
GRADE: B

I found Holidate to be a fun, entertaining Christmas movie. And really, that is all I ask for a new holiday movie. I probably could have focused and punched holes in it here and there, but I try to be a viewer first and a critic third.
I liked that the story paid attention to all of the characters, it seemed. Aunt Susan and Sloane’s sister and a few others have plot developments as part of the overall fun and they are given a measure of closure at the end.
Hey, I don’t see Holidate gaining entry into my cycle of Christmas movies I watch every year or two, but it is a pleasant diversion and I wouldn’t go out of my way to not watch it.

Not good, not bad. Just meh.
Emma Roberts and Luke Bracey make for a charming duo, Roberts in particular stands out. The premise they star in is an interesting one, I don't really have any issues with 'Holidate' - it's fine. It just lacks the necessary cohesion and entertainment, there are a few amusing moments but not nearly enough. The overly sappy ending is out of place, also.

Really good watch, would watch again, and can recommend.
An odd, jaded, but good approach to the social pressures of being single, but dateable. I guess other people see it as wasted resource, I wouldn't know.
Realistically, this is as much a breakup recovery movie as it is a romantic comedy. The cast does a great job of subtly expressing things without it being obvious. Ultimately it's a cute and charming little movie from a jaded and socially abnormal stand point.
The biggest problem is that they spend a lot of time saying "this works", "this is normal", with the impending implication that they'll get together, and being that it is a romantic comedy, it should be obvious what the conclusion is.
If you're a fan of Emma Roberts, then you can definitely see her grow in this, proving her range.

Decent watch at best, probably won't watch again, but can recommend for a younger audience.
In traditional sequel fashion, this was worse than the original. It feels like it actually has a richer, more complex story to it with a better message of cooperation and right over wrong, but it relies too heavily on weird effects combined with a lack of technology working in the story.
What really sets it apart is cross competitiveness with a secondary kid team, which was really cool to suddenly see a young Emily Osment ("Young and Hungry"). And Steve Buscemi shows up as a mad scientist which is interesting all to itself.
The movie has its high points, but I feel like you spend far more time in the valleys.

This one has to be m favorite out of the series. I was cracking up. Especially when they are on the island. That's when it's the funniest.

My favorite one out of the series. Goes back when they were little kids. This is how it all begin. Lots of hauntings going. This is how I wish the other 2 made before this one was.

Paranormal Activity 3 is a faithful continuation of the series, delivering all the expected horrors and more. Colour me surprised. This one was better than the second, and I enjoyed it more than the first one. The atmosphere of “Paranormal Activity 3” is similar to the first film, and the larger cast delivers respectable performances. The scares might not be as effective as they once were since the same formula is becoming stale, but a handful of fresh ideas were good enough to compensate for it. The plot isn't the franchise's strong suit, but we get a little more insight into the demon and how the demon became connected to the family in this instalment. Most of the connections between the films appear forced, and there is an overall sense of incoherence. Nonetheless, if you like the first two films, this one could be exactly up your alley; if not, it's probably better to avoid it, as it doesn't add much to the formula.
___
Rating: **6.9/10** *(Good)*

A tad better than the first if only because at 84-minutes there's not as much filler and a couple creepy scenes. Still not great with forgettable characters but at least watchable, although it was a bridge too far with the HD-quality level of video for a camera from 1988. **2.5/5**

“Killing Them Softly” has a great noir setting, superb acting and excellent cinematography, but due to the endless pointless conversations, the thin storyline ends up being extremely incoherent.
4/10

.

Once Jim Braddock (Russell Crowe) breaks his hand in a fight, he discovers that his previously reasonably successful life in the ring has come to an end - and that puts him, wife “Mae” (Renée Zellweger) and their kids on skid row. He’s gone from making $8,000 from a fight to ferreting around the docks looking for work and taking state welfare funds so they can keep their children in their now electricity-free apartment. Then serendipity takes an hand as his former manager Joe Gould (Paul Giamatti) arranges a last-minute fight for him that might garner a meagre $250. It’s not a fight he’s expected to fare well in, but against the odds he triumphs and that enables Gould to engage with his former backer Jimmy Johnston (Bruce McGill) and that could, ultimately, lead to a world title tight fight against Max Baer (Craig Bierko). It’s a pretty savage indictment of urban American life in the 1930s and it also serves well at illustrating just how boxing so often proved the most appealing and available conduit for many an uneducated man to escape the poverty trap that would embrace not just him but his family, too. As to Braddock, his story also involves his close friend “Mike” (Paddy Considine) who embarks on a similar career path, only he has neither the skill nor the sense to make it work. For that, Braddock is especially fortunate to have Gould in his corner, a man who is less venal than many who would hire and fire at the drop of an hat. It’s the boxing action that really works well here, though, with Crowe putting heart and soul into a character that is designed to demonstrate fortitude and determination, sure, but also humanity and humility too. Giamatti steals the scenes, but Zellweger also contributes well as Ron Howard presents us with a poignant, violent and plausible story of a man motivated by family and friends who epitomised his own version of the pioneering spirit.

This is a fine boxing movie, one that relies more on the fighter’s personal story than endless scenes of boxing brutality. James Braddock’s final rise to the championship was an inspirational example during the lull in between the headline-grabbing reigns of Jack Dempsey and Joe Louis, when the heavyweight title changed hands several times.
My only complaint with Ron Howard’s film was its portrayal of Max Baer, the champion Braddock defeated to win the title. For dramatic purposes, they changed his personality and made him into a bullying, vicious person, to the point of making a crude comment about Braddock’s wife. They needed a bad guy so they made one.
I became interested in Max Baer when I was a teen and read a lot about him over the decades. He was fierce when he meant business in the ring, but mostly he was happy go liucky and didn’t love the fight game. As a side note, Max Baer’s son was also upset at seeing this man he didn’t recognize as his father (this was Max Baer Jr., Jethro Bodean from the Beverly Hillbillies). But what can you do — making changes is standard procedure for movies based on real events. They are often still worth watching. Just don’t use them for research for a school project, right?

The stereotypical sports movie about a character which goes from glory to hell and back to the glory again.
The story is OK, but nothing new. Crowe performs well, but it is not one of his best movies. Giamatti is great, as always but Zellwegger is too cheesy in her role.
Just an entertaining movie without any more intentions.

"Max" (James Woods) runs a television channel that specialises in adult content. Always on the look out for new and more innovative and shocking content, he stumbles upon a brief series of satellite images that tantalise him. It's on a television talk show that he meets "Nicki" (Debbie Harry) who has a penchant for sex with a twist - and that not only turns them both on, but furthers his desire to obtain his newly found (and pretty violent) content for his Channel 83 output. The other guest on that show is the renowned "Prof. Oblivion" (Jack Creley) who prognosticates that one day the reality of television and video will replace the "real" reality. These threads slowly all tie together when "Nicki" decides that she is going to star in this new "Videodrome" enterprise and "Renn" must now reconcile his concern for her safety with his mounting need to acquire the show. This film is surreal and bizarre and yet it's still quite effective at illustrating the most visceral aspects of human nature - sex, venality, lust - even pain; and the visual effects (particularly towards the last fifteen minutes) must have been particularly effective. It's a bit on the sordid side - not that that's necessarily a bad thing, but at times the seaminess of it all is distracting from the more interesting and provocative aspects of the narrative. Time hasn't been very kind to it either, the effects have lost much of their potency now and the acting is mediocre at best. It is well worth a watch, but I'm not sure that will be the case for very much longer.

Pretty good movie. Kind of like the sixth sense. In this case though he can see them in spirit when they are close to death. Uses it to help people.

Admittedly, there is nothing brilliantly creative about the script, which is why I gave it only 8 stars. The elevator story: a teenager trying to find, and assert, herself in the world and her family, who itself is struggling to remain commercially viable in an industry that's been devastated by commercialism and global warming. The wrinkle in the story is that the protagonist's parents and brother are all deaf. (CODA = Child of Deaf Adults.)
That's where ho-hum departs, and I have two things to say about it: First, this film deserves all the accolades and awards it's received. Second, this may the first time I've known a remake to exceed by far the original.
The acting from nearly everyone in the cast is unbelievably great. The production values are fantastic. The film is incredibly hilarious (thanks to brilliant performance by Troy Kotsur), and also, surprisingly emotional. In what could have been "just another meh coming-of-age story", Emilia Jones worked super hard to create a character that draws the audience in.
To Siân Heder's credit, everything about this production shines.

Whilst I did quite enjoy this, I am struggling to see what all the fuss is about. Emilia Jones is "Ruby", a talented young singer who is keen to attend music college. Her family live in a maritime town where the local fishermen are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet. When her father's business looks doomed, she has to choose between staying at home or fulfilling her dream. What makes the film interesting is that she is the only one in her family who can hear. Her parents (Troy Kotsur and Marlee Matlin) as well as her brother "Leo" (Daniel Durant) are all deaf. Whilst that certainly adds an extra dimension to the narrative, the story itself is really nothing much to write home about. Their deafness is in no way the cause of the family woes, and much of the narrative is taken up with this family struggling to survive the decline of their livelihood, whilst she has boyfriend issues and her demanding music teacher (Eugenio Derbez) is constantly challenging to do her best. It does feature an haunting version of Joni Mitchell's "Both Sides Now" and, on occasion, we are presented with an audio appreciation from her family's perspective which does resonate well, giving us an inkling of how sounds sound (or not) to people who are deaf. It is a fine looking production, is enjoyable to watch and the dynamic between the parents and their daughter is frequently amusing and touching. It ought to raise awareness, but as a piece of cinema is nothing particularly special.

**Full Review and Analysis at SpotaMovie.com**
Produced and released by Apple in 2021, CODA is an inspiring movie. It delivers music and voice to deaf people, highlighting important topics. **The Story:** Ruby is the only hearing person in her deaf family. They run a small business as fishermen, and she helps and supports them, mainly translating everything to her family in the deaf signs language. As a result, she splits her life between her family and her dreams.
Ruby discovers an incredible talent, something that makes her feel alive and happy. But the two worlds are not easily manageable for her because society and her parents are not ready to understand each other. Ruby’s role becomes crucial for her family, especially when a new law threatens their business and future. Therefore to keep her dreams moving forward, she will need to fight, sacrifice and change the reality around her story. Fortunately, Ruby meets an incredible character during her journey and something powerful will happen. It’s an engaging story. **Opinion**: It’s a film of revolution, passion, family and friendships. It teaches us about integration and shows us the difficulty deaf people face every day. The pieces of music are perfect, and the film has pace and rhythm. The performance delivered by the actors is incredible and makes the movie more engaging. It's a must watch in our opinion because it makes us better person.

I cannot think of one person to whom I wouldn’t recommend “CODA,” an uplifting, emotionally rich movie from writer / director Sian Heder. This crowd-pleasing film is one of the first real gems to debut at this year’s Sundance Film Festival, and I’m still riding the wave of good vibes hours later.
Being a teenager is difficult enough, but try being Ruby (Emilia Jones). The 17-year-old is the only hearing member of a deaf family, and she spends most of her spare time working on her parents’ (Marlee Matlin, Troy Kotsur) fishing boat along with her older brother, Leo (Daniel Durant). and serving as their sign language interpreter. Ruby juggles her family responsibilities, her schoolwork, and a newfound passion for her high school’s choir club (and her cute duet partner, Miles (Ferdia Walsh-Peelo)). When her music teacher (Eugenio Derbez) hears that special something in Ruby’s voice, he encourages her to think about a life beyond fishing and supports her in applying to a prestigious music school. This unfairly puts the responsibility of the household on Ruby’s shoulders, and she must choose between keeping her family afloat or pursuing her dreams.
This very funny and very honest story has a universal appeal, with charming performances and a likeable family that you’ll want to spend time with. Kotsur and Matlin are terrific as Ruby’s randy parents, and Derbez brings a genuine charisma to his role as the young woman’s mentor. The cast includes three deaf actors, so much of the dialogue is expressed in sign language — and everything about that feels normal. This film goes a long way in shattering stereotypes about people who are hearing impaired, and that is to be commended.
Heder has created a film that’s filled with insight, refreshingly direct dialogue, and a fully developed cast of characters that all add up to solid storytelling all around. Not only is this a coming-of-age story for Ruby, but it’s one for her family, too. The four of them struggle through the disappointment that life throws their way, hoping to work together to emerge stronger than ever.
Heartfelt but never corny, “CODA” is a really special movie about unwavering support, unconditional love, and what it means to be a family.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
I know Sundance is one of those festivals that carry dozens of impressive, impactful films from writer-directors that really throw themselves into the art of filmmaking and storytelling. I anticipated being blown away by many movies that I knew nothing about or didn't recognize the crew and cast involved. I expected some films to emotionally impact me so much that I'd save them close to my heart until the very end of the year. With this said, I was unbelievably far from imagining that the very first viewing would be a heavy contender for my absolute favorite movie of the entire festival.
CODA (Child Of Deaf Adults) is the first film I watch by Siân Heder, and after this session, I can't wait to see what she did so far and what she's going to do in the future. The clearly interesting premise is developed through a much more emotional narrative than I expected. From rich visual storytelling to exceptional use of sign language, Heder is able to capture something unique and deeply important to transmit to the audience and to today's society. The world was fortunate enough to get Sound of Metal last year, and CODA reinforces the essential message that being deaf must not be seen as a massive disability or a brutal handicap.
As the movie cleverly communicates through its impeccable screenplay, having some sort of "limitation" doesn't automatically characterize someone as weird, different, or that the respective family members don't love each other as much or more than the so-called "normal" families. Except for a somewhat insignificant love relationship featuring the main character (that could have brought up an entirely different, unnecessary, and even distracting topic to the film's central, vital themes), I was incredibly invested in every single storyline.
In fact, I find every interaction within the deaf family much more compelling and captivating than any other dialogue in the movie, and this is mostly due to the amazing performances from the cast. Leaving the protagonist to the end, Daniel Durant (Leo Rossi, brother) and Marlee Matlin (Jackie Rossi, mother) are great as supporting characters, but Troy Kotsur (Frank Rossi, father) and Eugenio Derbez (Bernardo Villalobos, music teacher) literally left me in tears with their heartfelt displays. I could feel the outstanding commitment to their roles, and I'm delighted that Bernardo Villalobos isn't just another stereotypical, cliche, hysterical choir adult.
However, the biggest praise in my bag must go to powerful glue that holds everything together, elevating the whole film to a whole other level: Emilia Jones as the only hearing member of the family, Ruby Rossi. First of all, I love music, and Pentatonix is actually my favorite group (acapella or not), so hearing so many wonderful voices singing together would always be a massive plus for CODA in my review. Nevertheless, not only Jones' voice is sumptuously heartwarming, but her performance has everything an actor needs to receive acting nominations. I can't remember the last time I was fully invested in a single character in such an emotionally powerful manner, and Jones is definitely a major reason.
A final praise to Paula Huidobro's visually grabbing camera work and Marius de Vries, who composed the movie's subtle yet efficient score and who I'm guessing had a hand in the song choices. Either way, terrific job.
CODA may very well end up as my favorite film of the 2021's edition of the Sundance Film Festival, and it will undoubtedly become a must-watch movie when it's available worldwide. Siân Heder offers her impeccable direction and beautifully written screenplay, which is packed with emotionally powerful moments that left me tearing up for the last forty-five minutes. Boasting an educative, meaningful message regarding the deaf community and what our society perceives as a tremendous handicap/disability, the characteristic visual storytelling and the captivating interactions within the deaf family prove to be incredibly investing, deeply elevating the overall piece. With the help of heartfelt, genuine performances from the supporting cast (mainly Troy Kotsur and Eugenio Derbez), Emilia Jones takes off and lands one of my favorite female performances in a long, long time. A tear-inducing, thoughtful film that I hope will conquer audiences all around the world.
Rating: A

But no piece of art is worth a human life...
Trance is directed by Danny Boyle and adapted to screenplay by John Hodge from Joe Ahearne's film of the same name from 2001. It stars James McAvoy, Vincent Cassel and Rosario Dawson. Music is scored by Rick Smith and cinematography is by Anthony Dod Mantle.
Art auctioneer worker Simon (McAvoy) does the double-cross on Franck (Cassel), his partner in an art heist, but after taking a blow to the head suffers amnesia and can't recall where he has hidden a stolen Goya masterpiece. Franck and his thug side-kicks decide to send Simon to hypnotherapist Elizabeth (Dawson) in the hope of unlocking the painting's hiding place. However, once the therapy starts, secrets come tumbling out and nothing is ever as it at first seems.
Already this early in the day after the film's release, we know for certain that Danny Boyle's foray into neo-noir is going to split his fan base considerably. Admired for his ability to turn his hand at any genre he fancies, Boyle reaches back to his earlier movies and comes up with a mind bending neo-noir that crackles with the kind of sexual edginess that Paul Verhoeven thrived upon. It sounds snobbish I know, and I have been called a neo-noir snob recently, but if all things noir are not your thing then this really is a film you should stay away from. Think Basic Instinct meets Inception and they take out a 40s Heist movie for drinks and you get an idea where we are at with Trance.
All the hallmarks of noir, both neo and conventional classics, are evident here, from characterisations to visual smarts, it's a noir head's dream and very much a must see on the big screen or on Blu-ray formats. Forget any notion of having someone to root for in this, there is scarcely a decent human bone on show. Characters are either fuelled by greed, lust, jealousy or vengeance, or quite simply just not smart enough to operate in the circles they move in. Amnesia is a key component of the story, something which again features a lot in olde noir, as does the central character being a complete dupe...To expand upon more would be stupid of me, the less you know the better it actually is upon first viewing. It really is a difficult film to discuss without delving into why it is such a trippy and deliciously cheeky piece of film. That's not to say that narratively it's smarter than a brain pie, because that's not the case. For as the threads untangle, several times, the mind meld aspect will fall apart if plot dissection is your thing? Also cramming so much "brain food" into the last quarter of film kind of feels like too much, overkill if you will. While Franck's side-kick bad boys are irritatingly disposable. Yet it's a film that begs to be seen more than once, twice, thrice even...
Visually it's superlative, it's clear that Boyle and Mantle know and admire noir's visual splendours, with an awareness of atmospheric importance (noir is an atmosphere, not a genre. There's the snob in me again!) pulsing throughout. Set in London but filmed out of Dungeness in Kent, the backdrop is a city of steel and mirrors, a thriving city of wealth and mistrust. The tricks of the trade are here but never once is it style over substance, the visual ticks matter to the narrative. Night time overhead shots of a bustling city come and go, different colour tones for different character's apartments are clever, oblique camera angles ensure distortion of frame is equal to distortion of antagonists/protagonists minds (whose trance is this, really?...). Smudgey silhouettes through bronze glass, outrageous POV shots and caressing camera shots of the human form, no shot is wasted in the name of adding detail. Rest assured, Boyle brings his "A" game here. All of which is covered over by Smith's slow rumbling score that acts as a foreboding observer ready to unleash itself when the carnage begins.
The three principal actors come out firing and clearly are enjoying themselves. McAvoy cements his "A" list credentials with a multi layered performance, Cassel is as usual a mighty presence and Dawson, in a bold role, does her best work so far and hints she's ready to move into the big league. While it has to be noted that all three actors have to play their cards very close to their chests throughout; and do so admirably. Boyle's action construction is kinetic, with the pre-credits sequence one of the best opening sequences lately, and Hodge's script has a playfulness about it that ensures those paying attention know the film is self-mocking and not taking itself half as seriously as some film fans seem to think. An audience splitter it is sure to be, but for those with a bent for noirish sexy mind bending heist capers? Get in there! 9/10

Ok movie. I like it better when he messes with Odie. It was like they were trying to be more cute in this movie.

'Piranha 3D' does attempt something a bit different to the film it remakes (unlike the 1995 redo) and parts are decent (e.g. the gore), though all things considered it's not a movie I'd wanna revisit. It isn't as concise or as fun as Joe Dante's flick, the effects aren't the most convincing either.
The 3D portions are funny to see all these years later (in 2D, obvs). I was never a fan of that format, so I'm glad it never stuck around - pure gimmick. Going back to the effects, the piranha's usage and design underwhelm. I also said this in my review of the 1978 flick's sequel, but: less is more.
The cast are alright. Elisabeth Shue is the clear standout, her character is actually quite cool in terms of what she does and how she handles herself; not a female character that is only there for their looks, like most are here to be frank. Elsewhere, Steven R. McQueen is solid too.
Interesting to see the involvement of Kelly Brook, someone I know from her work away from film; smart casting, to be fair. Away from those, Jessica Szohr is decent, though Jerry O'Connell is rubbish. Adam Scott, Ving Rhames and Christopher Lloyd also appear, Richard Dreyfuss too.
It is better than the other 'follow-ups' to the original and I didn't find it to be absolutely bad, so I guess it merits small praise for that. Still, not one I'd recommend.

In 1975, Richard Dreyfuss starred in Jaws; 35 years later he had a cameo in Piranha. His connection to the first film is obviously the only reason he’s in the second, wherein he’s killed off before his name even appears in the opening credits.
Dreyfuss is not alone, though; Elisabeth Shue and Ving Rhames also get to whore themselves out. In the latter's case, there was never any danger that Piranha would result in another hand-me-down acting award for Jack Lemmon; on the other hand, Rhames has easily the best scene in the entire movie — using an outboard motor in a way that would make Ash Williams proud.
But I'm getting ahead of myself; Shue and Rhames first have to find the remains of Dreyfuss, then capture a piranha which they take to Christopher Lloyd (in full Doc Brown mode), who identifies it as a species that has been extinct for two million years (according to the subtitles, Lloyd calls it the "regional piranha," but he may actually be saying "original"; either way it doesn’t matter because neither term makes sense).
An earthquake released the piranhas from an underground lake, or some such bullshit. Q: "How could they survive for so long cut off from the surface?" A: "Cannibalism. They must have fought each other to survive.” Until, presumably, there could be only one. Piranha MacLeod? Well, that would actually explain their apparent immortality.
Piranha is supposed to be a comedy — or, specifically, it's a remake of a parody of Jaws released three years after Jaws and 32 before this one. In other words, this material was so diluted it was almost homeopathic.
Shue and Rhames are big fish in a small pond here — kinda like those poor Sea World orcas (I know they’re mammals; you get the idea, though); as such, the only emotion they inspire in the audience is pity over their career choices.
Only Jerry O'Connell, in a role no doubt based on Joe Francis (of Girls Gone Wild infamy), moves as if he's in his own element — because he is; he knows exactly, having been in several others of the same ilk, what kind of movie this is, and navigates it accordingly.

Piranha hunt in packs - not for protection, but for overwhelming force.
Actually many of today's younger multiplex goers hunt in packs, they know what they like and they know how to have a good time with even the most crude or banal movie. I don't mean that as an insult, it's just indicative of the film market available to them, it's the reason why films like this here Piranha remake/re-imaging/re-jig exists and makes money. Even "spawning" a franchise on occasions.
Alexandre Aja's Piranha 3D is a complete machine gun of a movie, it knew exactly how to sell tickets at the box office. Even before the 3D was used as a selling point, the word down the grapevine was the promise of lithe bodies in beach wear and loads of CGI killer fish shredding the hell out of a whole community. And that's exactly what is delivered, only with extras that see considerable nudity in the mammary areas and Elisabeth Shue and Ving Rhames kicking buttocks.
It's all very bloody, even lurid and exploitive, while it's difficult to know if you are meant to laugh, scream or do something that Russ Meyer would endorse? But, and I say this as a middle aged old fart, there is so much fun to be had here if you are prepared to unscrew your head and take out your brain. Strap yourselves in Piranha 3D haters, your grandchildren might just be enjoying in the future: Piranha 27: Sexy Mechanoid Bimbos Fight Back. But will they hate themselves in the morning? 7/10