This is the 2010 remake of the old classic. The original is pretty much crap so I bought this one solely based on the fact that it has been getting unusually good reviews from both critics as well as viewers.
I have to say that I am at loss as to why. There are loads of much better films in the action/horror/fantasy genre’s that, at least the so called “critics” totally hammer. Why the hell this trash got so good scores is beyond me.
The female acting consists of showing off your boobs then get eaten. The male acting consists of being an asshole, get your dick eaten, then get the rest eaten. The main “event” is a contrived scene when the main asshole get his dick bitten off and the piranhas eat it and spit it out again under water. I’m sure the 3D effects made it even more ridiculous than in 2d. I usually have rather high tolerance for poor acting and bad scripts when it comes to otherwise effects and gore loaded films but most of this film I was just thinking, “what the f... is this shit!”.
Most of the film was just scenes stashed on top of each other designed to show of 3D effects with boobs and various ways a human could get eaten. This is a typical example of why 3D is bad for the movie industry.

When evil, inbred, cannibal, devilish, prehistoric, underground piranha are unleashed on the tiny town of Lake Victoria during "Spring Break", the outcome is all rather predictable. Babes, bikinis, boobs, bums, blood, bazulco and bad acting.
Run from a budget of $24M the film has almost no actors of note in lead roles. Although there is a cameo from Eli Roth (_Inglourious Basterds_), which is always cool.
What we have here, is a virtually flawless example of stupid fun. There's no point in trying to evaluate a film like _Piranha 3D_ on factors like good taste, because it goes out of its way to smash these conventions apart. The film has this crazy energy about it from beginning to end.
It also however, is the perfect example of why 3D is so fucking unnecessary. And though I appreciate how forward the film is, that doesn't make it strictly speaking good. It's part creature-feature, part horror-comedy, but it doesn't stand up in a thrill sense to actual monster movies like _Anaconda_ or _King Kong_, and it doesn't stand up in a humour sense to actual horror comedy like _Shaun of the Dead_ or _Dead Snow_, but it sort of takes off on its own in a passable manner. Though it's kiiinda humorous, the film is mostly just "fun", as opposed to "funny".
The script seems cobbled together with a couple of different half assed plot points, but several half ass plots taped together is better than just one half assed plot trying to hold its own and ending up looking like no plot at all. Exploitation has never really been A-grade material, and even though the "suspension of disbelief" thing that films are supposed to have as a general rule, is sort of... not here, _Piranha 3D_ still manages to somehow get this piece of crap off the ground.
I watched it at about 2am with a male friend of mine who has very similar taste and sense of humour to me, and that's pretty much got to be the best possible setting to watch it in. The CG gore is ridiculous, the 3D focus is ridiculous, the film itself is just fucking ridiculous. But brainless is great sometimes, just don't make a habit of thinking that you can get away with bad exploitation, and calling it Black Comedy, once or twice is fine, but soon it just looks like you're aiming for cult, and getting lazy.
-Gimly

This is something... I think I might've enjoyed it, marginally.
I'm not entirely sure how, to be honest. For the most part I was pretty nonplussed by 'Polar', though by the conclusion it kinda grew on me if I'm to be truthful. I kinda seperate the film into two parts, the bits with Mads Mikkelsen & Vanessa Hudgens and the bits without Mads Mikkelsen & Vanessa Hudgens. It's like chalk and cheese, really.
Mikkelsen and Hudgens are certainly pros and, by the end, an almost endearing duo. Any scene involving them fluctuates from decent to good, nothing more admittedly but positive stuff from those two still. Aside from them, I do like how the film commits to its gory kills and somewhat gratuitous sexual content. It works, just about.
What doesn't work, however, is those other characters that appear onscreen. Matt Lucas is hit-and-miss but probably just about passable, though every member of the supposedly specialist hit squad just didn't work for me. Ruby O. Fee, Fei Ren and others try but as a group they just didn't give off any badass or fun to watch aura... almost cringe, in fact.
It is far, far adrift of being a great film or even one I'd recommend with all my heart. However, it entertains... just. I'd be up for seeing Mads Mikkelsen and Vanessa Hudgens together again in this set-up, which is reportedly something that'll happen soon as it seems they are remaking this 2019 flick already... with similar people behind it. How intriguing.

**What a bloody mess.**
I the middle of the film, I stopped serveral times and wondered how to salvage this trainwreck, if I was the writer.
The Mikkelsen and Hudgens scenes are strong, emotional, well written and acted, and make sense. And Mikkelsen is excellent for this sort of action hero thing - for which there are good action scenes, iconic even.
But all of that doesn't tie in with the violent clowns. That part has some clever moments, but really daft hours - like, most of the movie. I wonder how the script came to be - whether a good original story got script-doctored by the wrong people. Add some wanton violence, some sex scenes, some torture and more torture, daft villains - lot's of unnecessary stuff that's just ups the rating without giving anything of value. I kept wondering "why".
There is a number of good bits, which seem familiar; there is a lot of crap that feels like a complete WOMBAT. Someone OK'd this, produced, made, left it in the cut - and I don't see why.
This could've been an original, violent and interesting movie. But it was utterly messed up.
Won't watch again, but managed to finish it.

This is a bit of a strange movie. Part of it feels like a pretty good, dark and gritty thriller, part of it feels like a wannabe Tarantino movie and part of it feels like a comedy. Overall I would classify it as a B-movie but a pretty good B-movie. As strange as the movie is I have to say that I liked it.
I kind of watched this movie on a whim. It popped up on my Netflix home screen and I kind of liked the blurb. A type of story that I like. Then I saw that Mads Mikkelsen played the lead role and this sold me on it. I quite like Mads Mikkelsen in these kind of roles.
The movie starts off in a fairly normal way for this kind of movie. You know, some assassinations, introduction of the hero, the bad guys, the even badder guys and all that. It is fairly clear already from the start that there will be blood splatter. That it would reach the levels it did towards the end of the movie was a bit of a surprise though.
I did like Mads Mikkelsen in his role as Duncan, the somewhat brooding and grim assassin starting his retirement. But then I’m not really surprised. It’s a perfect role for him. The rest of the actors, well let’s just say that their acting was for the most part forgettable. Maybe with the exception of Matt Lucas as Blut. But then, his role was so comical and wacky so one wonders if it required acting skills or just a good dose of insanity (or some chemical products).
The blurb states that he is deemed a liability. Well, that is not exactly the truth actually. It is more that his overly wacky boss is trying to screw him. This is where it starts to get into comedy land. Already in the first couple of scenes it is clear that this guy is a nut job. Then he let’s loose his assassins and at that point the movie escalates in a orgy of blood, violence and comedy.
I cannot really make up my mind if it would have been a better movie if the violence would have been less comical or not. With the comedy this movie becomes a bit unusual and sticks out. Without it it would risk becoming just another thirteen on a dozen assassin thrillers. Also, as comical as it is, it is fairly well done.
Anyway, there is of course a pretty dramatic and violent fight as the movie draws to a close. I quite liked that one. There is also a little twist that I actually did not see coming at the end.
Overall, it was a fun movie to watch.

Butch Cassidy (Paul Newman) and the Sundance Kid (Robert Redford), leaders of a gang, find themselves chased by something special after a train robbery, and come up with an idea to escape to Bolivia.
They commit a robbery smartly, being so naive in other fields. The unbalance makes it hard to simply see them as bad. They are even charming, probably because of Paul Newman and Robert Redford. This movie depicts them quite objectively and gives you no stress of judging or interpreting their life, letting you enjoy the casual, a little nostalgic atmosphere symbolised by the soundtracks.

**Unique among the westerns, we understand this film better in the light of the time in which it was made.**
Butch Cassidy, Sundance Kid and the Hole in the Wall gang are in the “Hall of Fame” of the greatest thieves and robbers of the Old West. They had a long, varied and violent criminal career, with spectacular robberies of trains, stagecoaches and banks before moving to South America, where they spent all their money before returned to their old ways. They were persecuted by authorities in Argentina, Chile and Bolivia, where they apparently met their death at the hands of law enforcement. And I say “apparently” because, in fact, there are several theories that say that the two thieves somehow survived, and may have returned to US soil under the cover of new identities. True legends like that are always difficult to kill and, even in death, find a way to survive and endure in our imagination.
Directed by George Roy Hill and written by William Goldman, the film is quite good and very well done, trying to follow the path of the two robbers. However, it is far from being a faithful portrayal of the facts, giving us instead a story sympathetic to the thieves, without the inflated patriotism of western films. It is necessary to consider that the film was made and released in 1969, in the midst of social protests that occurred due to the Sexual Revolution and the challenge to conventional values and concepts and, also, against the US participation in the Vietnam War. At a time of social and political turmoil, when many felt embarrassed by the attitudes of the USA, the film transforms each heist by Cassidy and Kid into an act of rebellion, of fight against the “establishment”, of disobedience and rebellion against the authorities. Of course, it's a mindset that never occurred to them, and that ignores ethical and moral issues surrounding the eventual glorification of organized crime, in addition to forgetting the innocent lives that Cassidy and Kid were sacrificing.
Director Hill did a very elegant job, especially in cinematography and footage. Look at the opening credits, or the first sequence in sepia, and the way color is gradually introduced during a cavalcade. The sets, props and costumes are also very good, although I have doubts about the historical accuracy with which they were designed. There are scenes that I can't understand in any other way than as deliberate winks at hippies, the most obvious of all being that bicycle scene, set to the suggestive melody “Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head”. And let's face it, there are more comedic moments than serious action.
For me, the biggest reason to see this unusual film is the impeccable performance of Paul Newman and Robert Redford, two great actors that we know well and whose talent is recognized by everyone. This is not one of the best that they have starred in, each of them has done better works, before and after, whether comic or dramatic. However, the way Newman and Redford played together is the film's greatest strength. Their partnership is remarkable, as the way they overcome each challenge. The film also features good work by Katharine Ross, who was experiencing the peak of her artistic career.

Robert Redford and Paul Newman are on super form in this story of the eponymous turn of the century train robbers. There is loads of charisma on display as this pair take a sort of care in the community approach to their crimes. Determined to avoid fatalities, they proceed to make the life of poor old railway clerk "Woodcock" (George Furth) a nightmare. Eventually the authorities catch up with them, and after a period of trying to go straight, they succumb to boredom and along with "Etta" (Katharine Ross) they flee to Bolivia to start all over again. It's this bit of the the film that I enjoyed most - thanks in no small part to a few short scenes from the always personable Strother Martin ("Percy Garris") before an ending that - along with the scene featuring Newman and Ross on their bicycle - is the stuff of cinema legend. The films looks good - the use of still photography to tell aspects of the story and the innovative use of the Bacharach and David soundtrack works well to sustain and to vary the pace of this film. It is a classy piece of cinema well worth watching some 50 years after it was made.

This is what you might call "lightly likable".
It's a comic Western about the two famous outlaws of the Hole in the Wall gang.
I saw it at the Louisville cinema when it came out, and I wasn't thrilled, but I wasn't totally averse to it.
I remember when the scene where Sundance (Redford) looks like he is going to rape the gorgeous school teacher (Katherine Ross) telling her to undress at gunpoint, and she does so, and then when you think it will be violent, she asks him what the H.. took him so long. I remember it because while I thought it was corny, one hot girl in the theater started laughing and commenting on how funny it was. I thought it was ordinary, but some people really ate this stuff up.
Butch (Newman) is the thinker, and Sundance is the muscle. Like I say, the comedy is of the lightly likable sort. I'm not sure it will be appreciated that much over time, but who knows?

I found this movie to be entertaining and intelligent, sticking surprisingly close to real events a lot of the time. Robert Redford and Paul Newman have a good chemistry together, as they will illustrate again in The Sting.
This was one of if not the most popular movie the year it came out. Apparently s9me viewers feel it can’t decide whether it is a western or a comedy, but as an author who writes novels that cross genres a bit, I do not mind seeing it in films.
The scenery is grand and the old time photography that is featured at times is a neat addition. The ending is one place where it varies from what we know of the facts, but it remains just true enough to be okay, as it adds excitement to the scene. It is one of those trademark endings.

Esto es un robo, las manos arriba!
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is directed by George Roy Hill and written by William Goldman. It stars Paul Newman, Robert Redford, Katharine Ross and Strother Martin. A Panavision/De Luxe production with music by Burt Bacharach and cinematography by Conrad Hall.
Not exactly a hit with the critics of the time, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid had no such problems at the box office or with longevity of popularity. It is still today one of the few Western films that none Western fans enjoy immensely. Much of this can be attributed to the wonderful buddy buddy chemistry between Newman and Redford, and of course the general blending of ragamuffin drama with cheeky chappy comedy.
The casting as finished was not exactly set in stone, Newman was always in but was originally going to play the part of Sundance. McQueen was pencilled in for Cassidy, as was Lemmon while Beatty was mooted as well, but eventually a chance was taken on Redford and Newman switched to the role of Cassidy. On such things can a movie be made or broken, as it turned out it was the ace in the pack as infamously legendary characters were brought vividly to life.
Only based on the basic real life facts of the Hole-in-the-Wall gang led by Butch Cassidy, the film follows the simple formula of two lovable rogue entrepreneurs being chased by a Pinkerton posse whilst robbing their way to a new life in Bolivia. A gorgeous sepia opening sets the standard for the visual treats to follow, with over a quarter of the film being an extended chase sequence through the landscapes. As Hill and Goldman (Academy Award Best Story/Screenplay) provide the tension in the sequences, Conrad Hall (Academy Award Best Cinematography) brings clarity of beauty that's blended with dust strewn sweat.
The music by Burt Bacharach (Academy Award Best Music) has not always gone down well with critics and fans alike, especially the pivotal "Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head" (song by country singer B.J. Thomas). But in the context of the scenes, and the changing of the West (even the Western movie in fact), the music mostly works. Yes, "Raindrops" is a touch corny in essence, but the accompanying sequences as the bicycle replaces the horse for a major metaphor - and the warmth of the Etta Place (Ross a little bland) and Cassidy friendship is born out - it's hardly a film killer. In fact it's a daring move by the makers.
Hugely influential on Westerns that would follow and spawning further tales of the exploits of Butch and Sundance, Hill's movie has well and truly earned its much loved reputation. With the constant by-play between Redford and Newman always engaging (who are those guys?), a number of iconic scenes firmly ensconced in movie folklore, and technical smarts to cherish, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid never takes its foot of the pedal or its grip on your heart. Because as the freeze frame sepia ending passes muster as a blaze of glory, it's indeed true that Hill, Hall, Goldman, Newman and Redford have made a true Western classic. 9/10

Certainly not as good as the first one, but to be fair, that came completely out of left field, with _The Second Part_ there was actually some degree of expectation. Very much a kids' film, but there's still a little bit of that broader appeal and deeper meaning that was found in the first one. Amazing from what amounts to a 107 minute ad for branded plastic blocks.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

Decent watch, probably won't watch again, but can recommend.
Again, Neil Patrick Harris and Jayma Mays are the best thing about this movie titled "The Smurfs", and this time they have more humans taking the focus away from the Smurfs. Additionally they have the Naughties that also distract from the Smurfs, but they at least make the movie interesting and accent the Smurf story line instead of stealing the spotlight for their own story.
This time around they did something very interesting and focused the story line to Smurfette, not well, but they did it. This allows Gargamel, the Naughties, the Smurfs and the humans (part time) to focus on her so the movie is chiefly Smurf focused, even though (as specifically discussed in the movie) Smurfette and the Naughties aren't technically the same as the others. (This is arguable, as it is possible all Smurfs are magically created.)
The messages of inclusion and togetherness and family are actually a lot stronger in this movie than the first, as well as the level of goofiness from Gargamel, to include his celebrity status.
I think I'm just not a fan of this movie series, but clearly the movies did good enough to warrant their production value.

Fugly.
There were so many things to dislike, hate, and/or projectile-vomit from this ghastly horror that I am a little embarrassed about how I couldn't wait to grab some alone time to watch Bone Tomahawk. This is a gorge-suppressingly awful movie that is too long, more tedious than suspenseful, and features a man getting scalped, strangled, and split in two, crotch to chops. I thought the water buffalo in Apocalypse Now had it easier.
The movie vaguely reminded me of John McTiernan's The Thirteenth Warrior (with a dash of Quest for Fire). In TTW, an Arab diplomat hooks a ride with Beowulf and his posse. The blood flows like spaghetti sauce as the "Geats" fight it out with a tribe of spider-worshipping Neandernasties.
Here, a mini-posse of 1890s Southwesterners go on a rescue mission into desert badlands held by a pack of "Trogladytes." Where McTiernan drives the narrative at a bone-crushing pace, Bone Tomahawk crushes bones, slices scalps and genetalia, and makes the characters almost impossible to like. Kurt Russell, a man who has a voice as gritty as his stare is cold, is so restrained that the fire he brought to Tombstone is almost snuffed out.
I suspect the movie tried to present the good guys as flawed and believable, but we get tired of endless trudging through the outback of the Southwest while the characters use arcane language.
As I'm writing this, I'm slowly changing my mind about the blandness of the characters. Maybe they are, in their own way, working-class anti-heroes, but I just wanted a bit more savagery on the part of the "good guys."
I'm going to hit "submit" now and hope my wife has not prepared spaghetti for dinner.

_**Slow-burn Indie Western with a quality cast builds to a potent climax**_
In the 1890s, four men in the Southwest -- a sheriff (Kurt Russell), his aged deputy (Richard Jenkins), a gunslinger (Matthew Fox) and a wounded cowboy foreman (Patrick Wilson) -- set out to bring back captives kidnapped by a mysterious nameless tribe that lives several days ride away. Lili Simmons plays the cattleman’s wife while David Arquette plays a trashy outlaw. Sid Haig has a small role in the opening.
“Bone Tomahawk” (2015) has a surprisingly good cast for an Indie Western that only cost $1.8 million and shot in 21 days. It was the first film written/directed by S. Craig Zahler and reveals a master filmmaker in that he was able to make a quality movie on such a low-budget. The film has the confidence to take its time with interesting characters and entertaining mundane dialogues, which is reminiscent of Tarantino. There are flashes of violence, but this is a slow-burn Western that builds to a rewarding climax.
It’s a unique Western that meshes the Tarantino-style with realistically mundane Westerns like “The Homesman” (2014) and horrific gritty Indies like “Cry Blood, Apache” (1970). It’s superior to the latter two, especially “Cry Blood,” but it’s not quite in the ballpark of Tarantino due to lack of funds. Yet it ain’t far off either.
The movie runs 2 hours, 12 minutes, and was shot at Paramount Ranch, Agoura, California.
GRADE: B+/A-

> Meet the most savage people of the American native.
This was one of the three western films I've watched back to back recently. The other two were 'The Salvation' and 'The Homesman'. They all were totally different from each other and I enjoyed them a lot. I did not know what this title means, but I learnt it before going for it which means some kind of axe used by the American Indians. So I have waited for that moment to know why the film's called that and then, omg, I was very shocked, totally uncomfortable to watch that part. I felt like it was a western version of 'The Hills Have Eyes'.
This was a road movie. A group of peoples' journey to rescue those who were abducted by some mountain tribes. The rescue was the third act and the rest of the film was about how they make into that remote place. Obviously a slow pace, makes you sit whatever position you want, but after the 90 minutes you will be more focused than before as the narration gets tense. The best part of the film in any western the audience were looking for finally arrives. It was a simple, but very strong and disturbing.
The cast was the plus point, everyone did their part best. Even the music and the locations were very nice and appropriate. One of the rare western films I've seen, with a mix of horror-terror. This is the cheapest film and shot within a month of time, but a fine production and completely unexpected film. Possible for a sequel, but I think that's not a good idea unless it retains the same crew. If you're okay with a slow narration, then you will enjoy it. Compared to the opening, when it ends, you will feel satisfied. It is not a greatest western of all time, but still worth a watch.
7/10

It's sure to be a bone of contention...
Written and directed by S. Craig Zahler, Bone Tomahawk stars Kurt Russell, Patrick Wilson, Matthew Fox, Richard Jenkins and Lili Simmons. Music is by Zahler and Jeff Herriott and cinematography by Benji Bakshi.
Ah, yes, the horror western hybrid, a most difficult thing to get right at the best of times, even harder to entice newcomers to the sub-genre splice if they don't particularly like horror or westerns! This is a tough sell, a pic of startling originality, but of homage worthiness as well, that it kind of feels like a film made for a secret society of film fans. A society perhaps like the Troglodyte tribe who dominate the horror aspect of this particular tale.
Plot is set in the wild west, where after a set of circumstances leads to the kidnapping of three people from the local jail - by members of the Troglodyte tribe, four men set off on a rescue mission...
How splendid to find a narrative that isn't afraid to nod towards one of the most revered westerns of all time, yet be its own entity at the same time. Bone Tomahawk will polarise opinions, no question about it, the whole middle section involves a travelogue pumped by characterisations and a need to set the stage for what will occur in the final third. However, to even think that the four horsemen of the apocalypse bulk of this movie is mere slow time cinema is unfair, for dark comedy is at work - a racist horse? Surely not?.
So the screenplay not only sparkles with wit, but it also pulses with drama, drama that comes from human stubbornness. Be it men who know that no matter what will happen, they will maybe die in honour due to mistakes or mismanagement, or just a matter of redemption, this mission on the surface seems pure folly, but in reality there is more at work here. And thus comes the horror, characters have been well formed, we know them and are interested in what will happen to them. Like or dislike is irrelevant, we bloody know them, so as the film hits its raging "B" movie straps, shouting at the screen or wincing in harmony becomes a requisite. As is squirming...
Intricately paced, beautifully photographed and splendidly performed by a top cast who aren't interested in top billing or walk of fame recognition, Bone Tomahawk is a grade "A" culter. Zahler could be someone to keep an eye on. 9/10

This was a surprising good movie. They tried to be like a little bit of Mr. & Mrs. Smith though. Still a pretty decent movie and funny.

I actually found it hilarious. Plus, good to see Magnum P.I. back in the screen after so long!

A brilliantly informed piece of history. I learnt more than I thought I would and enjoyed it even more. Enjoyed probably isn’t the word as it’s a disgrace that any of this had to happen but overall it’s an empowering film of right over wrong.
I feel slightly more informed about LGBT history now than I did before the film, ready for LGBT history month (every February).
The acting is really good and believable but I have to admit I found it difficult watching straight actors cast as gay men fighting for fair representation of gay people.
This is a spotlight on a part of LGBT history that is rarely told outside LGBT circles so maybe Penn brought the message to a more mainstream audience. My view of Sean Penn's acting ability has changed based on this movie. Penn is an enigma in his controversial views on masculinity and gender but this was brilliantly acted, executed and researched and I wasn’t expecting to say that when I loaded the video.
It’s a really good watch but left me craving the "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" and academy award winning film it was based on, “The Times of Harvey Milk” 7/10

Milk shakes its nutrient-rich substance to produce a delectably important biopic. No fat free milk. No semi-skimmed froth encrusting the top layer. Lactose is included. Just whole Harvey Milk dairy, freshly pasteurised by superlative direction and sharp writing. Much like fine wine, Milk tastes exquisitely with age, consistently complementing current democratic strands of chaos. Highlighting the significance of a single vote in a referendum without glorifying the omnipotence of activism.
Harvey Milk, for all intents and purposes, was the first openly gay individual to be elected for public office in the shining state of California. Combatting initiatives such as Proposition 6, the banning of homosexuals to acquire careers in public schools. As a homosexual myself, who had been unfortunately suppressed into the “closet” due to fear of zero familial acceptance, Harvey Milk can only be described as an LGBT hero. The focus on political lobbying and general activism never dissipates, with Van Sant constantly presenting Penn as a voluptuous sculpture for gay rights. And, whilst it would’ve been supremely simple to resort to a melodramatic approach by documenting the several deaths and polygamous relationships in Milk’s life, Van Sant opted for a subversive aesthetic.
By combining archival footage of police raids and controlled protests with the core dramatisation, Van Sant effortlessly blended a documentarian style with a standard biographical narrative. In doing so he enabled Milk to remain human throughout, retaining an ever-important reminder of the work that he had lovingly committed to, not just for his own acceptance into the community, but for every LGBT representative.
Ingeniously, Black addressed Milk and Moscone’s assassinations from the offset, establishing a flashback narrative structure to illustrate Milk’s political career. From opening a store entitled Castro Camera to campaigning against Christian fundamentalists. Black’s audacious dialogue inserted a substantial amount of characterisation, often resorting to humour and sassy quips, whilst tackling the heavier subjects at hand. Further humanising Milk and his supporters. The representation of opposing conservatives were also well-developed, with Milk’s fellow supervisor White gaining the most traction in comparison to Briggs and Feinstein. Offering a clash of perspectives in the democratic environment, eventually building up to a subdued yet profound climax that unleashed an endless candlelight vigil lighting up the streets of San Francisco.
Van Sant’s astute direction, specifically the inclusion of multiple one take sequences of delicious dialogue, would not have been as effective if it wasn’t for one element. An aspect to which the entire biopic relied on. Sean Penn as Harvey Milk. Without a doubt, one of the greatest performances to ever grace our screens. Rarely do I take issue with heterosexual actors portraying homosexuality, and his unanimously acclaimed performance is a valid reason why. Very shortly after his presence was noticed, subverting his typical “hard as nails” gritty roles, I no longer saw Penn. Through sheer mannerism changes, he transformed. The whispering voice, the exaggerated hand motions and the gentle personality. Deserving of any and all awards that he received.
Hirsch was just as transformative portraying fellow supporter Jones, fully embodying gay culture into a singular character. Brolin and Luna also offering noteworthy performances. Franco on the other hand failed to replicate the same quality. His monotonous delivery felt reminiscent to ‘Pineapple Express’ or any other stoned comedy. Elfman’s score, whilst enabling a lighter tone throughout, occasionally overwhelmed the more emotional sequences. Some jarring jump cuts edited by Graham also further relinquished the effectiveness of Milk’s central character and the pace.
However, as a dramatisation of a leading figure in LGBT history, Van Sant delivered the goods. Yet, as a reminder for both heterosexuals and homosexuals alike for how archaic life was, Milk is absurdly powerful. As a “fellow degenerate”, I stand alongside everything that Harvey Milk represented, enabling the LGBT community to come “out of the closet”.

I was sort of annoyed by _Ma's_ promotional campaign. When that very first trailer dropped, I was hooked instantly. It very much played up the mystery. You knew there was something not quite right, but no idea what. I couldn't even be certain the angle they were gonna play up was Octavia Spencer as a villain. Then every bit of marketing material afterwards showed the hand almost immediately. Ma's a headcase no doubt about it and that great act 2 twist we had waiting in the wings was ruined. Then I actually watched the thing, and, no, it's totally fair, because the escalation on her craziness is pretty much complete by the end of day 1. Things from the first trailer that I thought could maybe sow of doubt towards making the audience dubious about her intentions, in the actual movie take place **after** she's already commited murder in broad daylight. So my expectations were off, that's on me. All that aside though, _Ma_ really isn't that great. It is okay, not terrible by any stretch, but probably doesn't merit a revisit. Octavia Spencer's character does provoke both genuine sympathy, and an overwhelming creep-factor, and hitting those two opposing aspects is quite impressive, but there is so much that _Ma_ completely drops, it almost feels unfinished.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

So-so thriller, that could've been straight out of the 90s, features some decent performances, particularly Octavia Spencer and Diana Silvers. Nothing special and outside of the language and sexual content, kind of feels like something that would be on the Lifetime Movies network or something. Probably worth a rental, not much more. **2.5/5**

Early on in Demolition there is a brief but interesting scene. Davis Mitchell (Jake Gyllenhaal) is looking in a mirror, crying the way bad actors do – i.e., contorting the face to compensate for the inability to produce tears.
Gyllenhaal is of course far from a bad actor, and sure enough, Davis immediately regains his composure. Was he rehearsing? Quite possibly, especially when you consider that he seems more concerned with the faulty vending machine in the hospital hallway than the fact that his wife Julia (Heather Lind) has just died in a car accident.
But Davis is not a heartless bastard; he simply finds it easier to depend on the kindness of strangers. For example, the letter he writes to the vending machine company, which quickly becomes a confessional epistle, and gives us a clue to his impassive reaction to Julia's death.
In contrast, Davis is unable to relate to Phil Eastwood (Chris Cooper), Julia's father. As usual, Cooper delivers the goods, in particular an emotional speech about how there is no word – such as ‘orphan’ or ‘widower’ – to describe someone who has lost a child.
Ironically, while we've been fascinated by Cooper's craft, Davis’s mind has been wandering, trying to discern why the drinks are so expensive at the restaurant where they're at, without taking the slightest notice of a single word his father-in-law has said.
Meanwhile, the letters he will continue to write to the vending machine company customer service department become his main outlet. In a delightful plot twist, Karen Moreno (Naomi Watts), the company's only customer service rep, has been moved to tears by Davis's missives, and begins talking to him on the phone.
Davis is certainly an intriguing character, and to develop him Gyllenhaal has borrowed from others as well as himself. Davis is outwardly a vain, aloof yuppie like Christian Bale in American Psycho – although instead of dismembering people, he takes apart machines, not bothering to put them back together again.
At the same time, he undergoes an inner transformation that is a combination of Kevin Spacey's in American Beauty and Ron Livingston's in Office Space. Also, Davis becomes the opposite of Gyllenhaal's character in Moonlight Mile.
Unfortunately, Demolition loses momentum in the second half, with director Jean-Marc Vallée putting the plot on autopilot. Davis and Karen's relationship is perfect when limited to letters and phone calls, but goes awry as soon as they meet in person. Additionally, and completely out of the clear blue sky, Davis is diagnosed with a rare medical condition that results in part of his heart being apparently eaten by “gypsy moths.” The hell?.
All things considered, Demolition feels familiar, and we can recognize elements we've seen elsewhere, but while some of it is clichéd, the outside-the-box use of some of those familiar elements is in itself refreshing; furthermore, Gyllenhaal provides another stellar performance.

> When we won't feel a thing for a great loss...
I am observing closely Jake Gyllenhaal's acting career and he's giving the best performances in all his films. He's one of top 5 best actor of our generation. So technically I love all his films, especially in the recent years and tell me who won't if they love good stories and performance. I expected this to be another excellent film and yes it was, but not that great.
What he has given to his fans and film viewers is the promise and fulfilled it all the way. So even an average film can automatically become a better one. This film was based on the one of the blacklisted script, but Gyllenhaal's presence made all the difference along with the wonderful director.
It was the story of a man who lost his wife in a car accident. His way of grieving is what the film narrates. He realises that he's not able feel a thing when everyone around does, so he decides to make search for the answers and so the bizarre journey begins. The casting was good, but it was all about the Gyllenhaal's role. I like Naomi Watts, but for the first time she looked old to me. And the others did not have much screenspace, except that new face boy who was decent.
I think not everyone would enjoy it, it is a weird story of almost a weird person, so you would easily get it. You must need to be a patience, besides it is a dark comedy. You might wonder why the title was named 'Demolition', the films gives a strange demonstration for that in a good way. It is not like a must see, but totally worth for Gyllenhaal alone. I can't say it should have been better, because there's nothing to get better, everything was at its best.
7/10

Good but not Great 3.5/5
2 series I was told I have to watch by many were GOT n The Wire. I have to say I'm at the end of Season 4 of The Wire and its just... well, OK. I'm not sure why so many people seem to praise this show so much when nobody seemed to care when it was on, rating weren't anything to talk about not to mention it never won a single Emmy. IDK it seems like all it takes is for someone to talk up the show n everyone new jumps on the bandwagon. I'm definitely expecting a lot more from GOT which is why I saved it for last. 🤞

Without doubt, this is the finest, most complete TV drama ever! I know other people will say I am not even close, but for me it really is, and that includes watching Breaking Bad and The Sopranos!
Years ago I watched "The Corner", which was like a prequel to The Wire, and it not only saddened me as to how people live and are dependent on drugs, but it also intrigued me. So much so that I went on to watch The Wire.
What I loved about the show is how it views the misery of drugs from different perspectives. In season 1 it focuses on the on-going battle between the street-corner dealers and the police; season 2 focuses on drug distribution; season 3 the possibility of a drug amnesty; season 4 and school kids and their choices between education, employment and drug dealers; season 5 the media take on drugs.
There is a certain feeling of helplessness running through this show, as you quickly realise that despite the extreme law enforcement the war on drugs is long gone. But because of the exceptionally good writing throughout you keep on hoping that something can be done to rid the city/state/country of this cancer.
Unlike other drama shows, this feels so real even today, and one does wonder if governments and law enforcement departments are just peeing in the wind when it comes to winning the fight on drugs.

I put off watching this movie because I am from Selma Alabama and I grew up there. Being from a town that was the heart of the Civil Rights Movement is hard growing up as a poor white girl because some of the black people in that town hold the racism against every white person and do to this day. I've never been one to be prejudice, but some of the people in that town really are and I think it has a lot to do with the fact that Selma was the turning point for all of Civil Rights. I left Selma and I can't say that was a bad thing. I had researched the March as a teen because I wasn't old enough to be there or wasnt even born yet, and I know for a fact they left out a lot of key elements in that movie that they didn't want you to see so I cannot give this a decent rating higher than a 1 because there's quite a few things omitted for the public not to see. The actors were very well casted and the backdrop made me proud to see my hometown shown so beautifully. Still I can't give this anything but one star due to the omitting of certain aspects of the story which are HISTORY and should not have been left out.

Decent watch at best, probably won't watch again, but can recommend for younger audiences.
This franchise just keeps getting weirder as it goes on. Almost like someone is making bets behind the curtain about whether or not they can get away with things.
I'm the first person to get onboard with a "stuck in a video game" trope, but they made some really weird choices that offset it. The inclusion of big celebrities that kids won't recognize is a little odd, but the in your face 3-d stuff is irritating, and there were several forced scenes, and a conflicting message of competition vs cooperation.
There are really high points of the movie: the story line itself is actually pretty good, the robot battle detour was actually a fun way to set up a call back, and there is a really good, if short, twist that I wouldn't expect in a kid's movie.
The last act was a little too insane for me, but I'm thinks kids might like it.

**A good movie.**
Despite acknowledging the quality and attention to detail, I can't really enjoy Japanese cinema. Maybe because it's so different from what we have around here. But even being so different, we have to recognize the talent of those who have it. Akira Kurosawa is a director with a sharp eye and detail, who knows how to direct the people under his command and extract from each one what he needs for the film he has in hand.
This film seemed to me to be a lot more complicated than it would have been presumed, and I must say that I decided to watch it without knowing very well what I was going to find. Sometimes it feels good to discover something and let yourself be surprised, doesn't it? The story revolves around a crime committed in the middle of the forest, in which a very rich nobleman dies, and the film explores very well the nuances between the versions of the facts, told by various actors. However, the relativity of truth, which Kurosawa ends up defending in his film, I cannot help opposing the precision and absolute reality of the facts. If Kurosawa thinks that there can be several truths around a fact, I personally prefer to defend that there can be several perspectives, several faces of a single truth, factually verifiable. On that point, I disagree with the director.
Regardless of my personal disagreements with Kurosawa, we have to recognize the beauty of the script, in its simple writing, but not simplistic, crystalline and clear, but always done in a challenging, philosophical tone. The actors help the director a lot in his eagerness, with great commitment to the ongoing project and high doses of professionalism. Personally, I think I can only highlight Toshiru Mifune, an excellent actor in yet another superb job. The others are just as good, but I don't know them.
Technically, the film is worth it for all the details. The cinematography, in black and white, stands out with an excellent use of light and shadow, and great sharpness. The film takes place in the middle of the forest and knows how to make it mysterious, yet fascinating, and the settings are magnificent in their detail. The soundtrack is also good, but I confess that it didn't always captivate me.