In what seems like an endless, almost biblical, rainstorm we meet three people sheltering in the ruins of an old gatehouse. Each has their own story to tell of the rape of a woman and of the murder of her husband. It was the woodcutter (Takashi Shimura) who discovered the body and who alerted the authorities. It was those authorities that conducted a trial at which a priest (Minoru Chiaki), the woodcutter, the widow/victim (Machiko Kyô); the ghost of her deceased Samurai husband and, finally, the renowned bandit "Tajômaru" (Toshirô Mifune) are required to testify. We are shown manifestations of each testimony: all smilier but different. Who were the two victims? Was he honourable and decent? Was she demure or a temptress? Are those testifying embellishing what they saw, what they did? What makes this film great is that there doesn't appear to be a right answer. Each version is plausible, nobody is entirely trustworthy and at the end of each story, you could easily agree that was an accurate report on the turn of events. Accompanied by the relentless sound of the rain and by a soundtrack that reminded me very much of Ravel's "Bolero" we explore each permutation with some super performances from all concerned, but especially from the almost maniacal Mifune and from Miss Kyô. Kurosawa packs loads into less than ninety minutes in a salutary lesson in classy and enthralling film making that is quickly paced, characterfully delivered and suitably exasperating at the end! This is a good film.

Rashomon beguiles through the torrential downpour of fabrication. “It’s human to lie. Most of the time we can’t even be honest with ourselves”. Honesty. Deceit. Contradiction. A crucial part of human preservation is the requirement to lie. Intentional or accidental, it’s within our ancestral blood. The unprejudiced can succumb to the immoral values of deceit, either through meticulous storytelling or scattershot deception. Even the truth can be distorted by one’s self-absorbed ego. The mutually contradictory stories of a bandit, Samurai and his wife, during a police questioning of an ambush, rape and murder, provides Kurosawa with the leverage to thematically explore the depths of human duplicity. A narrative conveyed through the perspective of four individuals, each telling a variation of the same event and asserting it as the truth. Yet who is moral? Who is verifiable?
The answer lies within the embellishments of mankind. The egotistical residue enveloping the desires for personal gain. The bandit, openly admitting to the events in question, proud of his barbaric conquest. The wife, subjecting herself to sorrow and helplessness, innocently scarred from the visceral crime. The Samurai, communicating through a spiritual medium, self-gratifying his noble demise. And the distant woodcutter, examining the various preceding stories, acting as the fragile bystander solidifying his story as the whole truth. But when characters reside in a downbeat world where “you just can’t live unless you’re what you call selfish”, is anyone’s depiction correct? Is lying for personal gain and visibly stealing an abandoned baby’s clothing the same selfish endeavour? Variational stories so similar yet so different in tone. It all comes down to the genius that is Kurosawa.
Depicting egoism through embellishment, not just through the verbal tales of the living, but also beyond the grave. Signifying the requirement for flattering falsehood, even when life has been fully exerted. It is the impossibility of human nature that provokes us into fabricating the most obvious details. Never has such an influential film, shrouded in its own classicism, infiltrated my soul through its thematic examination of human psychology as much as this did. Every word. Every detail. Every deadpan look into the camera. Every tracking shot that showcases the glistening sun of truth through the obscurities of darkened natural foliage. It’s perfect.
The imperfect gender politics of feudal Japan (“women are naturally weak”) delicately inverted to portray the weakness of humanity, regardless of gender. Utilising the subjectivity of the woodcutter’s perspective, and regarding it as the most truthful conclusive narrative, mankind is objectively weak. And it’s only through our own digressions that we manufacture the strength of the soul. Kurosawa’s symbolic attentiveness never deviated from this examination. His rampart artistry poetically manifesting the beauty of mystery. Invoking the investigative mind of human psychology. And once that overcast storm dissipates, revealing the warm beating rays of honesty, the overwhelming sensation of enlightenment will seep through.
A synergistic vitality equalling that of Mifune’s energetic quadruple performance. Each tale altering the personality of his bandit blood. Hysterically laughing at the face of adversity, to unbearably breathing from profuse fear and sin. The nuances are not exhumed just from the enigmatic cast. Kurosawa himself orchestrated a tantalising, influential and innovative mystery that combats the perception of regressive culture. It’s never retrograde nor unprogressive. It is however, and I can utter this with adorned confidence, perfect.
Short, sharp and sensational. Relatable on a thematic and personal level that transcends the discourse of time. Apt now as it was back then, only proving that humanity is cemented in deceit and acts of selfishness. As with any Kurosawa feature, the mind must be prepared for allegorical beauty. Rashomon is no different. Rashomon is painted with silky smooth brushes, illustrating an unconventional technique of storytelling through visceral imagery. Rashomon quite simply acquires the perfect rating. An undisputed classic that justifiably conceived, what is now commonly known as, “The Rashomon Effect”.

Patrick Wilson is just all-out balls-to-the-wall hamming it crazy, and I am Here. For. That. I say that quite genuinely. But Stephen King adaptations have had quite the resurgence (in a good way) over the past couple of years, and _In the Tall Grass_ just really doesn't hit that bar we've been getting recently. In terms of quality, I mean.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

In The Tall Grass is overgrown with flimsy dialogue and a premise that needed landscaping. Stephen King seems to have an endless amount of material to adapt. So much so, that his son is mimicking the footsteps of his father by also writing horror-related fiction. When the two generations joined together to write a novella on a mysterious field, it should’ve harked back to King’s legacy as the legendary writer he once was. Sadly though, despite the faithfulness to the source material, it’s yet another King story unable to translate comprehensibly into a full-length feature. Two siblings, with one six months pregnant, stop outside an old church and venture into an endless field of tall grass when they hear a child yearning for help. This field however is enshrouded with a mysterious force that prevents anyone who enters from leaving, and so the two must survive the oddities of the tall grass before “something” or “someone” endangers them.
Massive ‘Triangle’ vibes from this story, except its conceptual complexities are less innovative and more mundane. Past, present and future selves are lurking within the swaying echoes of the tall grass, conveniently outlining the rules and boundaries of the field’s power. “The grass won’t move dead things” states an embattled young boy, whom had been lost for days. “The rock is the way out!”. Paradoxical in nature, this story had the capacity to be both atmospheric and tense, given the frustratingly claustrophobic environment. Alas, was not meant to be. Despite Wrobleski’s stunning cinematography that encapsulated the natural order of the field through stylised motion, particularly when visualising the field to be a living entity of its own, Natali’s one-dimensional screenplay forced certain characters actions and personalities to be questionably dull.
The extent of characterisation can only be surmised by the pitch at which they shout for each other. For example, Cal continually shouting “Becky? Becky? Becky with the good hair!?” is the maximum capacity at which we feel for his character. Becky then shouts for “Cal!”. Travis waltzes on in and shouts for “Becky?” and “Tobin!”. Ross is just shouting at himself about real estate. His wife is the most expendable individual with nearly zero lines (shouting included!). And the dog had more screen presence than the majority of characters. The dialogue felt inorganic, starkly contrasting the entire premise. Yes, the performances were all functional with what the actors were given, although Wilson as always goes above and beyond. But it’s not enough to carry a supernatural mystery that seeks to explain everything almost immediately. Unable to classify it as a horror, considering there was no legitimate threat/tension, although some eye-wincing gore was well-utilised.
The third act commences and the plot’s lunacy ramped up from confusion to diabolically non-sensical. Without spoiling it, stuff happens near a rock that resembled an incarnate of King’s worst tendencies in fictional writing. Unnecessary “creatures” are added into the mix, ironically adding nothing to the story. Then, as all films featuring time loops end, the characters miraculously close the loop before it even happened. So, what’s the point? Did they honestly learn anything from this ordeal to which they hadn’t actually experienced? Urgh.
It’s abundantly clear that Natali was unable to stretch King’s novella into a feature-length film, despite being a faithful adaptation. The technical excellence was dimmed by flimsy writing and limited characterisation that forced this supernatural mystery to be anything but mysterious. This is why we should all purchase a portable lawnmower, you never know when you’ll be stuck eternally in a field with a giant ancient rock in the middle...

“In the Tall Grass” is a Netflix film based on a short story/novella written by Stephen King and his son Joe Hill. A little disclosure that I have not read the original story, so I can’t attest as to how faithful this film is, so I’ll be looking at the movie on its own merits, as few as they may be.
We start with two siblings, Cal and a pregnant Becky who are travelling through Kansas (a plus here is that we have a story from Stephen King that does not take place in Maine) when they pull over to the side of the road when Becky gets morning sickness and they hear a boy calling for help from the tall grass field on the side of the road. They get separated from each other and realize that something weird is going on, that travelling in one direction doesn’t necessarily mean travelling in that direction and time is out of joint. Others that they meet in the field are Ross, played by Patrick Wilson, his son Tobin, his wife Natalie, and Lisa’s ex-boyfriend Travis.
Alright, so as more disclosure here, I filled in the names of these characters after looking them up. I honestly could not remember their names, that’s how much of an impression they left on me, with the possible exception of the boy because when we first see him he comes off really creepy. I mean, really, it’s not so much that you want any characters to die because they’re irritating. They’re just so cookie-cutter and stereotypical that they leave little to no lasting impression.
Another reason for this is that the audience can be a little too distracted by the grass itself. It does have a certain character to it, even if it’s nearly impossible to figure out. But I found myself distracted trying to figure out the grass, how it works, its motivations, at the expense of the human characters.
And here is where we run into another problem. Because most of the set looks the same, that being in the middle of a tall grass field, the filmmakers need to rely on a series of technical and visual gimmicks to keep the audience interested and focused. But they’re inconsistent and stand out when they use them (for example, one consistent shot that is a 360 degree rotation). They don’t feel natural. You see the gimmick instead of what the gimmick is trying to show you, although that’s arguable as they’re clearly proud of some of these visual effects. In addition, this being a horror movie, there are going to be jump scares, but jump scares are just about all there is for this horror movie.
The conclusion is pretty meh and isn’t really consistent with other parts of the movie from what we learn plotwise. All around, if you’re really a Stephen King or Joe Hill fan and have nothing else to watch, go ahead, but for most people I would say not to bother.

In many ways, this reminded me of "Aces High" (1976). An example of young, barely pubescent, men sent to a war that would test their mettle to the extreme as they lived each day, perilously, as it came. This time, these young men are encased in a few hundred tons of creaking metal submarine and are tasked with harrying the Allied convoys travelling to and from the UK as World War II continued. The crew are led by an unorthodox captain (Jürgen Prochnow) and with the combination of underwater claustrophobia and paranoia now coupled with far more effective protection tactics from their enemy, the atmosphere in their sweaty and sweating sardine tin grows more and more tense. The film depicts with effective plausibility the lives of these submariners who have their successes, but as they gradually realise the war isn't quite going their way, they also face dangers on an increasing basis. The photography is expertly delivered using the natural dinginess of the boat's interior, the frequent hostility of the ocean and the failing mechanics of their home to present us with something that really does make for uncomfortable viewing - even if we ought not to have been "on their side" for a moment. Prochnow works well as the commander with a purpose, but also with a compassion for his struggling crew and a sense of decency that provides him with what might be a little too delicate a respect for his "fat slob" bosses in Berlin. The dialogue and it's cast-wide delivery also manages to create a real feeling of life-and-death scenarios as these men lurch from manmade risk to equally treacherous natural ones. Erwin Leder probably stands out more from the supporting cast as his "Johann" character epitomises most potently the strains under which these youngsters must prevail, but there are generally strong performances all around from an ensemble that illustrates powerfully the camaraderie and inter-dependence of a crew constantly living on the edge of it's nerves. It's almost perfectly paced, with moments of high drama and moments of quiet reflection which Wolfgang Petersen has crafted into an enthralling story of human endurance, temperament and determination. Big screen if you can, it does much more justice to the whole aesthetic of this drama, but even on the television it's an honest and compelling look at war.

"Das Boot" stands out as a masterful epic of war cinema, not just for its thrilling combat sequences but for its in-depth look at the human element of warfare. Wolfgang Petersen's direction brings to life the claustrophobic world of a German U-boat, filled with men who are far more than the enemy caricatures often depicted in war films. Jurgen Prochnow's performance as the Captain is especially noteworthy, bringing a palpable sense of leadership, humanity, and burden.
The film's slow pacing allows for an immersive experience, making viewers feel a part of the crew's long, tense moments of silence followed by the chaos of battle. The technical details and the psychological depth explored in the characters break down the traditional barriers of war movies, showing the crew as skilled, complex individuals rather than one-dimensional soldiers.
"Das Boot" is a powerful, nuanced, and visually arresting film that captures the futility, dread, and sometimes the mundanity of war. It's a unique perspective that offers a gripping narrative and an emotionally resonant experience, making it a classic in both war and world cinema."

_**Life on a German U-boat**_
During WW2, the German submarine U-96 (with Jürgen Prochnow as the captain) leaves the French harbor of La Rochelle for war adventures & misfortunes in the North Atlantic when they’re eventually commissioned to go through the Strait of Gibraltar. The men experience the challenging claustrophobic life of serving on a U-boat with its highs and lows. Who will make it back alive?
“Das Boot” (1981) is a well done accounting of what it was like to live on a U-boat in WW2 – the claustrophobic living conditions, boredom, filth, sheer terror and… no women. One great scene is when the submarine surfaces after torpedoing a couple ships in a British convoy; it’s like hell came to Earth.
The flick focuses on the Germans in the restricted spaces of the U-boat and it’s amazing that a compelling film can be made from that limited dramatic angle. While this is a war picture, it doesn’t glorify war. It’s “anti-war” simply by showing the way it was for sub-mariners.
The film runs 2 hours, 29 minutes, and was shot in North Sea near Heligoland; the Atlantic Ocean; La Rochelle, France; and Bavaria, Germany.
GRADE: B

Really like this movie. Hugh Grant before he started playing himself.

"Will" (Hugh Grant) lives a life of leisure living off the royalties of a Christmas song written by his grandad. He dates a succession of women but usually neither party want much more than a quickie. He realises that all of the interesting people have grown up and into relationships, marriages and family life - so he decides that it's time for him to have a son too! An imaginary one. Then he encounters "Fiona" (Toni Collette) and her son "Marcus" (Nicholas Hoult) and they begin to bond a little - even if the boy does bring out his (and my) best Herod tendencies. Despite himself, "Will" isn't a complete waste of space and when a near tragedy strikes the life of the bullied "Marcus", the two start to bond over afternoon editions of "Countdown" on the television and slowly all concerned start to realise the benefits of family - shiny new trainers, warts and all. The dialogue is quite observationally witty here and as much of the story is told via a punchy narration from Grant and Hoult, we get an additional degree of honesty to their story that augments the acting quite amiably. Hoult is the star, no doubt about it. His characterisation of an increasingly savvy and persistent child is engaging to watch and though I really did struggle to get through the cheese-fest that is the conclusion I did rather find myself wanting an happy ending. It's easy to see why Grant was Hollywood material and here he effortlessly delivers a gentle feel-good film tinged with the odd bit of reality. One that still works well.

It didn't kill me softly.
Will is self centered and has cast off all his responsibilities. But during one of his more dubious scams to date single mothers, he is forced to reconsider his moral fibre after coming into contact with a 12 year old outcast named Marcus.
Adapted from the massively popular book written by Nick Hornby ("Fever Pitch" & "High Fidelity") About A Boy easily translates well to the screen without truly breaking free of the modest premise. Oddly enough for such a British picture, this is directed by an American, Paul Weitz, who along with his brother Chris, brought the world "American Pie". It works, largely to the undervalued comic talents of one Hugh Grant (Will). I would go so far as to say that without Grant leading the film, this would have been a flop, all the highlights on offer are when Grant is on the screen. Expressive with his face and delivering his lines with a natural high, Grant nicely lures the audience into the less than admirable Will's hands. Which is quite a trick considering that Will is a morally dubious scum bag!.
Nicholas Hoult (Marcus) is OK as child actors go, but here he is given far to much to do. Which is another reason why Grant is so important to the film being a success, he shoulders much of the emotional burden, letting Hoult breathe what life he can into poor young Marcus (worst hair cut on film ever). Solid support comes from Toni Collette and Rachael Weisz, and Weitz's direction is smooth and unobtrusive, with Badly Drawn Boy's score an integral part of the story. Yet as much as I enjoy the film myself, one still feels frustrated that it didn't turn out better than it did. A double handed narration from both lead characters intrudes on the flow of the plot, and the pay off is ultimately an "oh" moment. So to me it's an OK movie made into a good one courtesy of one of Britain's best light comedy actors. 7/10

Oakes Fegley is quite charming here as the eponymous orphan who has managed to survive, alone, in the forest following an accident that killed his parents. One day, this mini-Mowgli is spotted by park ranger "Grace" (Bryce Dallas Howard) who tries to introduce him to society - and school. How did he survive, though? Well he tells her all about "Elliott" - a dragon! Sceptical, well yes - but when she mentions this to her own father "Beacham" (Robert Redford) he seems to support the boy's story and on returning to the wilderness together, they encounter his not-so-imaginary friend. They have to be wary, though - there are some not so nice folks out there who want to capture "Elliott" and the kindly dragon is ill-equipped for conflict with the nasty logger "Gavin" (a distinctly out-of-sorts Karl Urban). This is a perfectly watchable feature that is well made, stays reasonably faithful to the original story - with a few obvious updates, but it is essentially a short story and stringing it out for 1¾ hours is just too much of a challenge. That said, it is a touching film about a boy's love, lonelines, kindness and imagination - and it's about growing up and learning to evolve as a person too. The visual effects are good, the narrative flows well with engaging performances and dialogue that allow the characters and imagery to immerse us in "Pete's" world. I enjoyed this.

Wholesome viewing.
'Pete’s Dragon' is a pleasant film. This remake brings a lot of feels thanks to its hearty narrative. The special effects are nice, as is the score - particularly towards the end. The cast isn't all-star but they all do good jobs.
Oakes Fegley gives a sweet performance as Pete, though it's Bryce Dallas Howard who is probably the film's standout. I also enjoyed Robert Redford's role (Meacham) in this, though it would've been nice to have seen him utilised more - the same could be said for all bar Pete, in truth.
There are some neat scenes in this, even if it is a film that does feel like it takes different elements from different films in parts - e.g. 'The Jungle Book' and 'E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial'. A few of the characters aren't written to perfection, but not to the degree of it becoming an irritation.
Touching. Worth a watch, for sure.

Disney's retelling efforts post-Maleficent continue to be worthwhile. Does what the original did only better, and though it's not a brilliant movie, it is well made for the most part, and I found myself quite endeared to the titular dragon.
_Final rating:★★★ - I personally recommend you give it a go._

**For Pete, home is where Elliot is.**
I saw the '77 film prior to this so that I'm not going to miss anything if the upgradation was done in this new version. That was a quite okay film, so do this one. The difference between two was mainly the technology, but there's a major surge on all departments. Somewhat this looked more enjoyable than the old one. Visually very good, all the actors are great and so the locations, but the story was too short, not the film. It was over a 90 minute long and the entire film looked like an introduction. So there were no developments, everything was just like a beginning. That means the sequel could become a great adventure or it should be.
The five year old boy Pete, who lost in the wood after the car with his parents met a mishap, is raised by a dragon named Elliot. Now, eleven, meets some people from the nearby town who came with an agenda. It's like he got everything back what he had lost 6 years ago. Followed by misunderstanding and the human interference in the Elliot's enclosure, the chaos unleash and thrilling final act proceeds before the narration concludes in a style.
The kid who played Pete looked some kind of related to Sarah Snook, but he was good and so the others. The film was not good as I was expecting. The box office success was not that great comparing with other Disney films. So the sequel is in doubt, yet the story had ended with a wide open. I am sure you will enjoy watching it, because everything was so pleasant, but only a few people would like it at the end. I don't know if you are one, but definitely worth a try.
_6/10_

The infectiously whimsy and adventurous **Pete’s Dragon** undergoes a polished millennial-style rebirth for today’s kiddies not fortunate enough to be alive when the 1977 live-action animated musical blueprint made its charming, impressionable impact for youngsters of all ages back in the day. The festive and frolicking Disney flourishes are applied to co-writer/director David Lowery’s re-imagination of an impish boy and his devoted dragon. There is an even balance of refreshing nostalgia and modern-day spryness and magical sentiment that hovers over this engaging family fable remake from the polyester period. Lowery (2013’s “Ain’t Them Bodies Saints”) and screenwriters Toby Halbrooks and Malcolm Marmorstein pack some vibrant punch of wonderment into this children’s tale of gentle mischievousness. Sure, the simplistic approach to the storytelling feels like a step-by-step progression experienced in a majority of child-friendly escapist entertainment. Still, **Pete’s Dragon** is steady in its gentle precision for homespun high jinks.
Whether appreciating this Disney classic from four decades ago or relishing in Lowery’s current contemplative spectacle one will agree that the heart and soul of this sweet and uplifting narrative remains true to the main factors involved: the runaway (now orphaned) boy Pete and his trusty creature companion Elliot. In fact, it is just as instrumental that the adult presence in **Pete’s Dragon** make an impacting impression as well because this exposition should cater to the delicate sensibilities in us all whether as a curious tyke or reflective grown-up.
Orphaned and alone, 10-year old Pete (Oakes Fegley) had become a wild child in the deep woods. What was looking pretty grim for Pete in terms of loneliness, abandonment and despair was soon cured when he ended up befriending a giant green furry high-flying dragon named Elliot. For the most part the imposing Elliot served as Pete’s surrogate parent while ensuring protection and friendship for the parent-less prepubescent. There is no question about the dependency that Pete and his dragon Elliot share in loving dependency. The scenic wooded haven serves as the treasured playground for the playful, nature-loving tandem.
Enter the father-daughter duo of Mr. Meacham (Robert Redford) and Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard). Both strangely have an eerie connection to Pete’s and Elliot’s existence without realizing it. Meacham had been telling engagingly colorful stories to the local children about a mysterious dragon existing in the Northwest Pacific woods. As for Grace she happens to be employed as a Park Ranger for the site of the mentioned woods her father constantly references in his repetitive stories. Soon Grace will encounter the disheveled Pete who is more than willing to share his adventures of living in the thick woods with his massive dragon buddy Elliot. This all seems rather intriguing to Grace because Pete’s description of Elliot is curiously similar to the fictional monster that Meacham cites to the spellbound youngsters. Whatever the case may be regarding Pete and his personalized plight this is something that Grace must investigate.
Grace is not the only one who finds the wandering Jungle Book youthful clone intriguing. Both Grace’s fiance Jack (Wes Bentley) and 11-year old Natalie (Oona Laurence from “Southpaw”) are in awe of Pete as well. In any event, Grace and Natalie are determined to find out what lies beneath the surface with the boy and his behemoth sidekick dragon that recalls Meacham’s exaggerated tall tales.
**Pete’s Dragon** dutifully follows what amounts to be the on-going formula for escapist children’s storybook gems as recently told on the big screen. The reliable source of pathos and warmth wisdom stems from a vulnerable child in search of belonging especially when trying to locate, recognize, reunite or reminisce about the absence of parents. Thankfully, **Pete’s Dragon** is in formidable company with animated treasures such as _Finding Dory_, _The BFG_, _Stranger Things_ and even the aforementioned _Jungle Book_ that follows such a playbook. The realism behind the idyllic childhood is having that sturdy foundation of family and support especially in the impressionable stages of youthful innocence. Among other things Pete’s Dragon solidifies the magnitude of growing pains and a sense of isolation and quieted despair. This is an important message although embedded in the confines of an innocuous juvenile fantasy.
The young Fegley resourcefully carries the breezy heartfelt material on his capable little shoulders as the enchanting Pete. The adorable Laurence is equally effective as Natalie whose bonding with her imaginative partner-in-crime Pete is admirable. Elliot the dragon is nothing more than an overgrown affable beast that would make for an amusing act at a neighborhood children’s birthday party. Both Redford’s Meacham and Howard’s Grace are essential as the older elements bridging the mysteries surrounding the mischievous moptop and his humongous hairball confidante.
There is no need to critically slay **Pete’s Dragon** as the thrills and life lessons in resiliency should prove instrumental for the enthusiastic kiddie crowd watching from the sidelines.
**Pete’s Dragon** (2016)
Walt Disney Pictures
1 hr. 30 mins.
Starring: Oakes Fegley, Bryce Dallas Howard, Robert Redford, Oona Laurence, Wes Bentley, Karl Urban
Directed by: David Lowery
MPAA Rating: PG
Genre: Children’s Fantasy/Sci-Fi/Action and Adventure
Critic’s rating: *** stars (out of 4 stars)
**(c) Frank Ochieng** (2016)

What made Hannibal the beast he was?
Indeed, director Peter Webber and author Thomas Harris bring us Hannibal Lector (ne: Lecter) the formative years. Off the bat you have to say it's not overtly a horror film, something which has proved to have annoyed many who ventured in expecting something different. Which on one hand is a shame because it's a very effective thriller, ripe with literary smarts and boasting some very good acting performances. While there is horrors around, genuine ones that history has taught us as fact.
On the other hand it is a disappointment to fans of the Hannibal series, and to horror fans in general. The marketing didn't help, it was sold to all and sundry along the lines as the cannibal begins in earnest, thus nobody was quite prepared for the fact Hannibal was a normal kid once, even human! Once the pic kicks into being a revenge killer thriller, it lacks an emotional wallop, with the screenplay shaking too many eggs in the basket and not coming up with a tasty fava bean based omelet.
Smart tech credits help to still further keep this out of stinkerville and above average, but the heavy feeling of missed opportunities and poor writing hangs heavy as the end credits roll. 6/10

Considering the star power here (Clooney, Jeff Bridges, Kevin Spacey) I can understand why people might feel somewhat disappointed when they watch it. I mean, the description even mentions the Coen brothers as a basis for comparison. With Jeff Bridges' role, it was difficult not to think of The Big Lebowski, but this film isn't of that caliber.
Still, I thought it was entertaining most of the time. There were slow interludes that could have been removed to improve the pacing without harming the story. But if you understand that they aren't going for laugh out loud gags or one-liners, but rather they work for their punch lines or leave you to figure out where the joke is, maybe you can appreciate it more.
I will say that the plot seemed a bit disjointed to me. The flashbacks weren't confusing, but in a slower paced film like this one, I think they were sometimes more of a distraction than plot-enhancers. The ending also had an air of an anticlimax to it, like - oh, okay. I guess it fit the laid back mood of the rest of the movie, but they might have done more with it.
Still, I liked it. Enough said.

Not half as clever as it thinks it is. Not half as bad as it's purported to be.
I'm glad that this never became _EI8HT_ though. It struggled enough to work as a standalone tale, I don't really see it working as a _SE7EN_ sequel.
_Final rating:★★★ - I personally recommend you give it a go._

Should have been in wide release...
Anthony Hopkins! Colin Farrell! Jeffrey Dean Morgan! A super well paced film with these fine actors and... straight to VOD in the USA.
Oh and Abbie Cornish! Not as well know as the above but she was great in her role as well!
Twenty years ago this film would have been given a wide release and been, if not a huge hit, a modest one. Certainly would have made it's money back and more. Today?? VOD.
So what happened? Too many movies coming out in the theaters to make room for this one? Too many showings of "Beauty and the Beast" taking up ten cinemas or more in the multi-plex thus shutting out "Solace"? Fear that Americans would not know what Solace meant?? Think I am kidding??
Back when Dalton played Bond the second feature was to be called "License Revoked" but was changed to "License to Kill" because the studio feared too many Americans would not now what revoked meant!! At least the Bond folks decided we were not all idiots and eventually gave us "Quantum of Solace"! (See? We knew what solace meant!!)
I don't know why this fine film was dumped on the internet and not playing at the nearby 1-105. It deserved a wide audience.

> The A list actors in a B movie, is the latest trend.
A bunch of great actors with their very good performances, but the story was merely okay, even though somewhat it was an enjoyable flick. 'Two Rabbits' was a good Brasilian thriller, this is from the same director and his Hollywood debut which is not a spellbinding. I expected a lot after knowing it was his film, it did not disappoint me either, but for the Hollywood standards this was a let down. If it would have been a Portuguese film, then no one would have complained much.
It was supposed to be a sequel to David Fincher's 'Seven', but failed to fuse both the stories. So then it became an independent narration. The title should have been 'Premonition', but there's already a movie with that name. Like I said the story was kind of a mix of other films. The theme was a too much intelligence, so it needed the clever writers for its screenplay. I only say it was a missed opportunity to turn the product like 'Law Abiding Citizen'.
For a concept like this, the scenes were too ordinary and the end has been just alright. The best thing about this was the entertainment it offered, no matter if you feel deja-vu of watching this film, you won't get bored. Top actors, but I still consider it a good quality B movie than an average quality A list movie.
6/10

Much more heart than expected!
'Kramer vs. Kramer' is a film I've heard of for as long as I can remember, though I didn't actually know much about it itself... a quick glance at Wikipedia and I saw that they class it as a "legal drama", which is obvious given the title. With that, I was waiting for a long court battle to start so was surprised to see it not arrive until the final 30 or so minutes. The film is actually mainly about a father and son, in how they react to a certain life event.
And boy do the filmmakers do a great job at making you care for the characters of Dustin Hoffman (Ted) and Justin Henry (Billy)... and even Meryl Streep's Joanna, though I could've personally done with more development for the latter's character; especially as the ending is quite predictable, so additional scenes for her side of the story would've been nice. I wouldn't say it's a big deal, however, as you see what's needed.
Hoffman puts in a terrific performance, as does youngster Henry. Streep also brings a good showing, as do Jane Alexander and Howard Duff more minimally. Credit to everyone onscreen, in truth. It's, of course, sad to read about the offscreen incident(s) that occurred during the production involving Hoffman and Streep, albeit settled incident(s) between the two.
In conclusion, and this won't come as a surprise given my rating and all the positive noise that this film has received in the decades since its release, I'd undoubtedly recommend this motion picture from 1979.

**The struggle of women in the 70th of the last century**
To what extent can a simple social story and a familiar family problem such as separation or divorce. To what extent can it represent and reflect the condition of an entire society, the culture and morals of this society, and the social changes that occur to it. The events of the film tell about the story of the divorce and struggle of the Kramer couple over the custody of their child, which reflected in its essence the social and cultural change in American society during the seventies of the last century.
In 1979, the American social film Kramer vs. Kramer This film won good reviews, including an Academy Award. It is a reflection of the changes that took place in the family and in women's choices after widespread demands and protest movements in the United States of America in the sixties of the last century. Part of these demands was related to the call for women's liberation and the struggle for equality.
After the round of conflict, the woman came out strong, and a measure of her rights were taken away. She also became economically independent and self-reliant, and the door of her ambitions was wide open, and she turned from a subordinate to an equal. Certainly, all these changes had to find their reflection on people's daily lives, on the woman's relationship with the man, and on the arrangement of women's priorities in terms of family and life, as yesterday the family was at the top of the list of American women's priorities, but after this cultural and social transformation, we see that the ambition of some women as Kramer's wife It is what settles at the top of her priorities now.
And as the wife Kramer is the strongest and most economically able, she takes custody of the son from the father without regard to whether this behavior is in the best interests of the son or not.
I was affected by what Kramer's wife did, which is that she was faced with two difficult choices, either to take care of the son, or to continue what she had achieved in her work. Unfortunately, it was prescribed for a woman to sacrifice everything.

Not as good as the first time, but 'The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear' still delivers entertainment.
Leslie Nielsen remains brilliant as Lieutenant Frank Drebin, such a fun character to see him play. George Kennedy and Priscilla Presley do well, while Richard Griffiths and, slightly less so, Robert Goulet are positive newcomers. I will say that I don't think the comedy is as strong in this one, the gags in particular seem a little more in your face with additional winks and nudges.
Still a good time, though. Now to find out what 'Naked Gun 33 1/3: The Final Insult' had to offer...

**A sequel that closely follows the initial film, although it may not be as strong.**
After a predictable success with the first film, the sequel was already predictable and the public flocked to see a new dose of madness, with Leslie Nielsen in great form. When watching this film forty years after its commercial debut, it is not difficult to recognize some merit: the film has aged very well and continues to be entertaining today.
I recognize that the style of humor in this film will not be to everyone's liking, as it is solidly based on “slapstick” and double meanings with a strong sexual connotation, however it is frankly more elegant and intelligent than many modern comedies of our day. The dialogues are quite idiotic, to be nice, but that also has its joke. Leslie Nielsen is the big star, and much of the film's quality is based on her participation and the inspired way in which she interprets her clumsy character. In fact, the rest of the cast doesn't interest us at all: they are there because they simply have to be. Okay, we can consider that Priscilla Presley took some extra care in the way she acted and has good enough material for the actress to work on her character successfully. Richard Griffiths also deserves positive marks, being another exceptional addition to a fairly bland supporting cast.
The film's weakest point turns out to be the script: the story, created to support the film and serve as a skeleton for the avalanche of jokes created for it, is so weak that it is almost unnoticeable. After the first half of the film, I found it very difficult to remember why it all started. I really felt like the story didn't count, just the jokes and funny dialogues. This is a problem, compared to the first film, where the story told, however insane it was, was stronger and better written. The film also has good production values, including the sets, costumes and visual, special and makeup effects.

This isn't an half bad sequel to the entertaining "Naked Gun" (1988) with Leslie Nielsen reprising his hapless "Drebin" character. This time he teams up again with "Ed" (George Kennedy) and "Nordberg" (OJ Simpson) to try to thwart the ambitions of big business in the energy sector. To protect their control over domestic power consumption, these moguls arrange for the kidnapping of a scientist - "Dr. Mainheimer" (Richard Griffiths). He is about to publish a far reaching report extolling the viability of solar power as a cheap and available source of electricity for everyone. Things is, though, it's not just a simple kidnap - they plan to substitute this learned man with a fraud who will ensure they retain their monopolies for years to come. Can the "Police Squad" get their act together in time...? It all gets a little more precarious when we discover that "Jane" (Priscilla Presley) is the assistant to the professor - and renewing his association with her after a while sets Drebin into many a comedy tailspin. As with the first film, the humour is quick-fire, contemporary and often more Laurel & Hardy than, well, Laurel & Hardy. Griffiths was a good comedy actor, his facial expressions and his sheer size were attributes he new well how to exploit to elicit a laugh. There is loads of on screen chemistry too to enjoy here, and it's not even ninety minutes so there's not enough time to get bored by the rather formulaic plot. That last point is what drags it down. It is difficult to reinvent the wheel, and to be honest very little effort appears to have gone into making this sufficiently different from the first outing. It's just too similar, with too many punchlines you can see from space. Still, it does what it says on the tin - and it does raise a smile - just not a guffaw.

It's quite difficult to watch this in the UK and not draw parallels with a certain real former Prime Minister - especially given the way "Lang" is rather chummily played by Pierce Brosnan. He is trying to have his memoirs written, and after an accident robs him of the incumbent, his team alight on a man who shows no interest in or has any knowledge of politics. This nameless character (Ewan McGregor) is given strict instruction about the manuscript, whom he can talk to or about it to and his subject and wife "Ruth" (Olivia Williams) seems approachable enough. His investigations, though, start to arouse a few suspicions - especially when he begins to feel like he is being watched, followed and manipulated. "Lang" is soon publicly caught up in some war crime investigations and his ghost writer starts to wonder just how far his boss went to foster and facilitate the relationship between his country and the USA - where they are now living and working. Add to this internecine play, his secretive secretary "Amelia" (Kim Catrall) and a rather enigmatic contribute from "Emmett" (Tom Wilkinson) and we have the makings of an intricately woven political thriller in which, for a chance, McGregor does well. He does rabbit in the headlights well as his character becomes embroiled in matters well beyond his depth. Roman Polanski keeps the film well paced with the chilly scenario and remote locations playing well to a sense of menace and duplicity. It's a bit sluggish out of the blocks, but once in gear it works well.

Such an eerie and haunting movie… I expected just another political thriller, but this is so much more interesting…
The remote setting, the media storm… the layered motivations of the characters, sexual, financial, political etc…
It was also great to see cinematography that wasn’t just close ups of talking heads, which is the norm for these kinds of movies…
I also liked the parallels to the real world, the Blair-esque prime minister, the Middle Eastern wars and such, but also that it really is it’s own movie and is more concerned with painting a certain world than with commenting on current events…

Licorice Pizza: Paul Thomas Anderson's Masterful Meditation on Becoming
In "Licorice Pizza", Paul Thomas Anderson does what he does best: he transforms the messy, uncertain terrain of human becoming into a luminous, deeply compassionate narrative.
Set in the San Fernando Valley of the 1970s, the film follows Alana and Gary - two souls navigating that treacherous landscape between adolescence and genuine adulthood. Their relationship isn't a traditional romance, but a complex dance of aspiration, confusion, and tentative connection.
Anderson's distinctive cinematic language is perfectly suited to this narrative. His episodic structure mirrors the non-linear path of personal discovery. Scenes drift and connect like memory itself - impressionistic, unpredictable, charged with both humor and melancholy.
Alana Haim and Cooper Hoffman are nothing short of revelatory as first-time actors. Their performances transcend typical debut expectations, displaying a raw, intuitive understanding of character that many seasoned professionals never achieve. Haim, particularly, brings a complex emotional landscape to Alana - vulnerable yet defiant, lost yet determined. Hoffman channels a pitch-perfect blend of teenage bravado and genuine vulnerability. They're not performing characters so much as revealing the raw, unfinished nature of human potential. Their performances feel less like acting and more like witnessed life.
The 1970s backdrop isn't mere nostalgia. It's a metaphor for cultural transition - a moment when traditional narratives are dissolving and new possibilities are just beginning to emerge. That, and the reflection of that in the soundtrack, are awesome.
Ultimately, "Licorice Pizza" argues that becoming is a process, not a destination. And who better to tell that story than Paul Thomas Anderson, cinema's most empathetic cartographer of human complexity?

The is a real colourful oddball of a movie.
From start to finish we are instantly thrown into Alana´s journey and are taken trough a series of strange situations and developments.
There is no pre-development or little to be told about the main characters history. The movie is a moment-to-moment tag-along story of romance and its ups and downs. However i enjoyed the little humour moments in it and i had to giggle at times.
Catches the 70´s vibe mighty good and i personally enjoyed every moment of it.
Of course the woke community had to react to this movie but there is nothing to be offended about anything.
Enjoy the film.