Full review: https://www.tinakakadelis.com/beyond-the-cinerama-dome/2021/12/28/sweet-valley-high-licorice-pizza-review
There’s a lackadaisical feeling that runs throughout writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson’s _Licorice Pizza_. It feels like summer, where there’s nothing in the world but time and friends to spend it with. With a loose narrative and a long run time, Licorice Pizza has moments of magic. It’s a perfect snapshot of wasting lazy, hazy, eternal summer days with your best friends and the crazy ideas you cook up together. Getting to see it on 70mm really adds to this dreamy ambiance.

I can't say I enjoyed 'Licorice Pizza' as much as most, but this flick from Paul Thomas Anderson is a good one.
Alana Haim and Cooper Hoffman are entertaining in the lead roles, with Haim particularly standing out - though Philip Seymour Hoffman's kid definitely improves as the film ticks by. There are some amusing roles for more well known faces, my favourite parts of this 2021 release are in fact with one of them - funny stuff! Some parts are amiss, mind; e.g. the strange Japanese wives bits.
I did find the dialogue a little pretentious I can't lie, mainly early on as we get to know the characters - once everything is fleshed out and set it's all shipshape, to be fair. The film gets a tad aimless near the end, I'd actually say the pacing is perfectly fine but it does feel as long as it is in terms of the run time - I felt every second of the 130 or so minutes.
All in all, I'd recommend it. Major film buffs will lap it up, evidently.

Set in the San Fernando Valley of 1973; Writer/Director Paul Thomas Anderson has created a loving and nostalgia-filled look at that era with his new film “Licorice Pizza”. The film focuses on a teenaged Gary (Cooper Hoffman) who becomes intrigued by an older photographer assistant named Alana (Alana Haim); during his school photo sessions.
Despite their age difference; the two become friends and Gary attempts to impress her with his hustle as he works in the fringes of Hollywood and has become a regular on the audition circuit and various events thanks to his agent.
When he is able to get Alana to act as his chaperone on a promotional trip to New York; reality sets in when Alana catches the eye of an older actor and starts dating him; Gary moves his hustle into high gear and begins a successful Waterbed business and even convinces his agent to represent Alana.
What follows is a long-winding story as the two move into Hollywood circles and face various challenges associated with their times, confused feelings, and goals.
While the film has some great moments and really great performance; especially that of Haim and Bradley Cooper; the two hours and forty-five minute run time seemed overly long and self-indulgent and could easily have lost forty-five minutes or so and not lost much as the film is loaded with scenes that are overly long or do not advance the story or characters in any meaningful way.
In many ways, the film plays out like a teenaged boy’s fantasy as there is the alluring older woman and his repeated ways to impress her; some of which stretch credibility.
What makes the film work so well is the nostalgic and loving look at the era and the winning performances from the cast. Much like he did with “Boogie Nights”; Anderson is not afraid to take broken or dysfunctional characters and make them sympathetic and relatable.
Expect the movie to do well with the Award voters and it will be interesting to see what the cast will do next.
4 stars out of 5

"Ira" (David Duchovny) and "Harry" (Orlando Jones) are local college professors who go to investigate a meteor landing near their American town. When they get there, though, they discover it's riddled with strange looking creepy-crawlies that don't look at all indigenous. It's not long before the army shows up and these two are kicked off the project by an wholly incompetent "Gen. Woodman" (Ted Levine) and proper scientist "Allison" (Julianne Moore) - an ex of "Ira" who relishes sticking the knife in. As these beasties start to grow in number and size and become more menacing, the state governor "Lewis" (Dan Aykroyd) demands that the army takes action - but what can they do? Napalm? Meantime, our two intrepid scientists and their buddy "Wayne" (Seann William Scott) are working on a more "direct" approach to thwarting the expansion of our menacing alien visitors. At times it's quite a good laugh and some effort has gone into creating some squelchy and sticky monsters. There are even some hungry blue apes and SWS does a good job trying to tunelessly serenade one in the mall, but the rest of this is not especially original and the whole thing really relies too heavily on "Jones" to bring us some predictably comedy whilst Duchovny and Moore fall rather flat amidst a sea of not so subtle advertising. It's watchable and quite good fun, though, just not a film you'll remember.

Lubricant and the giant product placement.
A meteorite falls to Earth and lands right in the desert at Glen Canyon, Arizona. Two college professors, Dr. Ira Kane and Prof. Harry Phineas Block, take it upon themselves to investigate and mooch around. At the site, they discover worm like insects that are not of this world. Thinking they are on to Nobel Prize type history, they are dismayed when the government takes over the site and shunts them out the way. But as the insects start to evolve in the Earth atmosphere, they take on various shapes and forms of alien creatures. Pretty soon the whole place is over run and the government is at a loss in how to stop them. Enter Ira, Harry, Wayne and Allison to hopefully save the day.
Directed by Ivan Reitman (Ghostbusters 1 & 2), Evolution is a zany sci-fi comedy that achieves firmly what it sets out to do. Using the available special effects for great rewards, and lashing it in Technicolor, all that remained was to have a cast happy to be in on the joke itself. Up step David Duchovny (revelling in none serious X Files malarkey), Orlando Jones (getting all the best lines), Julianne Moore (accident prone) and Sean Wiillian Scott (goofball fireman wannabe). Backed up by Ted Levine, Dan Ackroyd, Ethan Suplee and Ty Burrell, pic is well served right across the cast list. Of course they aren't asked to do anything special, but it's not that kind of film. There's enough here for all the family to enjoy, kids will be awed by the array of alien creatures, whilst the adults should be chuckling away at some of the jokes.
If you are expecting real science then you have come to the wrong place, Evolution parodies the sci-fi parodies, and then some. 7/10

Marcello Fonte delivers really capably here as the marmoset-like "Marcello" who has striven for years to develop his dog grooming business. To supplement his meagre income, he dabbles in a bit of cocaine dealing and in that he's partnered with the violent "Simone" (Eduardo Pesce) who is as selfish and unstable as he is brutal and ruthless. Unfortunately for the rather nervous "Marcello", his pal loses his temper just once too often and so soon is in need of a large sum of cash. To get that, he organises a robbery that ends up sending the loyal dog-man to prison for a year. Upon release, he feels that maybe "Simone" owes him a debt of gratitude. Failing that, €10k in compensation. When his reasoning falls on deaf ears, he decides to engage his brain and concoct a particularly unique form of revenge. This is quite a poignant look at a society that really does epitomise the keep your head down mentality. Nobody in this town is prepared to put their head above the parapet to challenge "Simone"; the police are lazily incompetent and the culture of fear that prevails is well illustrated here by the photography and look of their grotty estate. The writing rather shrewdly, I thought, leaves much of the punchier elements of the story to the visuals, and so whilst is does help to emphasise one man's timidity and another man's indifference, it isn't so crucial in telling the story. This is also a film about loyalty, and about how fickle or misplaced that can become when the scenario changes - for better or worse. Some of the dogs wouldn't bear messing with either, as this grim and compelling story warns of the dangers biting the hand that feeds you, or underestimating the potency of revenge.

**_A well made modern fable_** [contains spoilers]
> _I sprayed him with gasoline in his face and set him on fire. With his head he breaks through the wire mesh of the cage and begins to scream. He screamed like a madman. I tie him with two chains around his neck, the ones I use to hold dogs. I turn up the volume on the stereo, grab a stick and hit it. Twice. He faints, his head hanging from the broken wire, his body extended and his legs open. I take the scissors, I cut the thumbs and the indexes. I spray the gasoline on the wounds and burn them to stop the bleeding. He wakes up. He is gro__ggy, looks at his hands and begins to scream again. And he growling: "I swear that when I am untied I will kill you." It's five o'clock by now. Every now and then I go to the bathroom and sniff some coke. I leave the shop, take a breath of air. Then go back inside. I leave for half an hour to go to the nearby school where my daughter is. I take her to my ex-wife's house and return to the shop. I took the scissors and I cut his face. Then the ears, then the nose. He screamed, but the volume of the stereo covered everything. He was bleeding and I sprayed fuel on the wounds and burned them. He is no longer responding. He was still alive. He never died, he had a strong heart. He was breathing, but now he was no longer talking. He understood who was the strongest. I took the scissors and I cut his tongue, then his cock and balls. I opened his mouth with pincers and put everything in it. Then I whispered to him: "once a man, now you are a woman!" He kept moving. Then suddenly he died. Suffocated. But the torture is not over. I break his teeth, stick a finger in his anus and two more in his eyes. Then I hammer open the skull and wash his brain._
- Daniele Mastrogiacomo quoting Pietro De Negri; "E Alla Fine Si E' Deciso A Morire..."; _La Repubblica_ (February 23, 1988)
Loosely based on a real-life incident, _Dogman_ is an intimate character drama telling the story of an inherently good man who pays the price for attempting to foster a friendship with an irredeemable and sociopathic brute. Directed and co-written by Matteo Garrone, the film operates on the level of both social realism and as a kind of modern-day Aesop's fable, as filtered through the sensibilities of a Martin Scorsese or a Francis Ford Coppola. Postulating the somewhat nihilistic view that, when pushed to extremes and backed into a corner, man is no different than a dog, the film returns Garrone to the mob-infused milieu of his breakout, _Gomorra_ (2008). However, the two are markedly different films – whereas _Gomorra_ weaved five separate stories into a complex narrative tapestry, _Dogman_ focuses tightly on one simple core story; whereas _Gomorra_ told the story of a widely-influential and powerful organised criminal enterprise, _Dogman_ tells the story of a localised and utterly ridiculous criminal mentality; whereas _Gomorra_ depicted mob figures both powerful and insignificant, _Dogman_ depicts people not even on the lowest rungs of the ladder. However, there are also undeniable similarities between the films. Both emphasise the importance of omertà, and both explore some of the less glamourous aspects of gangsterism – the casual and often pointless brutality, the illogical sycophancy, the centrality of pusillanimity, the power granted to dealers by addiction, the nature of poverty and/or ignorance, the abdication of immediate self-interest in deference to potential long-term accruement. Essentially, if _Gomorra_ showed us how the Camorra is run, _Dogman_ shows us the squalor and sordidness at street level. And whilst it isn't a patch on Garrone's masterpiece, focusing a little too much on allegory and not enough on self-contained narrative beats, it's still an accomplished piece of work.
Diminutive and inoffensive, Marcello (Marcello Fonte, who won Best Actor at Cannes for his performance), owns a small dog-grooming business in a run-down Neapolitan sea-side suburb. Separated from his wife, Marcello is devoted to his daughter, Alida (Alida Baldari Calabria), with whom he has a strong relationship. Popular in the community, he spends his free time playing five-a-side football and eating in the town's only remaining restaurant with the vicinity's other business-owners, including Franco (Adamo Dionisi), who owns a gold-for-cash store next door to Marcello. However, to pay for the expensive holidays on which he takes Alida, he sells cocaine on the side, his best customer for which is the hulking Simoncino (a ferocious performance from Edoardo Pesce that's equal parts Robert De Niro in Martin Scorsese's _Raging Bull_ and Matthias Schoenaerts in Michaël R. Roskam's _Rundskop_). An unpredictable and volatile ex-boxer who everyone in town fears, although Simoncino treats Marcello with utter contempt, bullying him into being the driver when he is engaged in a robbery, Marcello seems to genuinely respect the bigger man, wanting to foster a real friendship – when Simoncino finds himself in a fight with two drug dealers, Marcello intervenes to help him, and later, when Simoncino is shot, Marcello steps in to save his life. However, when Simoncino decides to rob Franco's store by busting a hole through Marcello's wall, Marcello is immediately uncomfortable. Failing to talk him out of the robbery, Marcello is subsequently arrested, but refuses to testify against Simoncino. As a result, he is charged and sentenced to a year in jail. Upon his release, he is distressed to find the locals no longer speak to him, and Alida looks at him differently. Unchanged, however, is how Simoncino treats him, and Marcello soon decides he's had enough of being pushed around.
Although it hasn't been widely advertised, the film is actually based on the case of Pietro De Negri. Known as "Er Canaro" (the dog keeper), De Negri was the owner of a dog-grooming business in the Magliana area of Rome who dealt cocaine on the side. In 1988, fed up with being bullied by former boxer and cocaine addict Giancarlo Ricci, De Negri laid a trap for Ricci, imprisoning him in a dog cage, and murdering him. The case made headlines in Italy because of the details of De Negri's confession, in which he claimed to have tortured Ricci for over seven hours prior to his death. According to De Negri, he tied Ricci up and, with Ricci still conscious, amputated the thumbs and index fingers from both hands, before cauterising the wounds with a blow-torch to ensure he didn't bleed to death. Having left to pick his daughter up from school, De Negri returned, cutting off Ricci's nose, both his ears, his tongue, and his penis. Using a pincer, he then inserted the severed penis into Ricci's throat, choking him to death. After Ricci was dead, De Negri smashed his teeth with a hammer, inserted some of the severed fingers into Ricci's anus and eyes, and finally split his skull open with a pipe wrench and washed the brain with dog shampoo. He then wrapped the body in plastic and attempted to burn it in a nearby landfill, where it was discovered the next morning, still smouldering. When De Negri was arrested, he confessed to the murder, making the above claims without any remorse. However, an autopsy quickly revealed that much of what De Negri had confessed hadn't actually happened – all of the amputations and much of the bodily harm had been done post-mortem. Ricci had actually died due to severe head trauma, with the coroner estimated that death had taken approximately 40 minutes, not the seven hours De Negri claimed. Additionally, the fingers had never been cauterised and there was no trace of shampoo in the cranium. During his trial, it was argued that De Negri suffered from paranoid psychosis, exacerbated by his own cocaine addiction, and he was sentenced to 24 years in prison. He was released in 2005. _Dogman_ is one of two 2018 Italian films based on the case, along with Sergio Stivaletti's less high-profile _Rabbia furiosa: Er Canaro_.
Narratively, _Dogman_ is relatively uninterested in the culmination of the relationship between Marcello and Simoncino, and much more in the events that build to that culmination. In this sense, the narrative is fairly evenly bifurcated by Marcello's jail time, with the first half of the film focusing on the increasingly dangerous and destructive "friendship", whilst the second explores the fallout from the cumulative abuse, looking at what can happen when even the most mild-mannered individual is pushed too far too often. The film goes out of its way to ensure that the audience feels sympathy for Marcello, if not necessarily empathy, depicting him as a fundamentally decent person, coke dealing aside. Yes, he's weak-willed and a terrible judge of character, but he dearly loves his daughter, who he treats like a queen, he is respectful and accommodating to his friends, and he seems to genuinely believe he can save Simoncino from himself. When Simoncino proposes robbing Franco's store, one of the reasons that Marcello offers as to why he doesn't want to do it is that, "_it's important that people here like me_." Although this could come across as narcissistic, the way Fonte plays the character instead suggests that being liked sincerely makes Marcello happy, and he is quite content to do what he must to earn the admiration of his peers. In this sense, his hamartia is that he believes he can apply logic to his friendship with Simoncino – if he gives Simoncino what he wants, then Simoncino will come to respect him, and at that point, Marcello can turn him away from the path down which he is travelling. Highly skilled at placating the snarling dogs who don't want him anywhere near them, Marcello believes he can do the same with Simoncino. The problem, of course, is that he is 100% wrong about this – Simoncino is a wild beast, permanently in battle mode, and logic cannot be applied to such a man. For a very brief period, it does seem like he has endeared himself to Simoncino, if not necessarily earned his respect - when the two visit a nightclub, Simoncino goes out of his way to try to hook Marcello up with a woman – but this is only a momentary lull, and the relationship soon returns to the bullying foundation on which it was originally built.
Especially worthy of praise is the film's almost post-apocalyptic location, which is practically another character entirely – the beach is ugly, dirty, and overgrown; the buildings are unoccupied, paint peeling off the walls, vines crawling up the facades, some of them literally only shells; the shopfronts are rusty. This ties into the film's allegorical concerns, as the desolate nature of the locale mirrors the barren souls of the men who live here (and they are almost exclusively men – the only females of note are Alida, who lives elsewhere, and Simoncino's mother (Nunzia Schiano), who appears in only one scene). Director of photography Nicolai Brüel often shoots the dilapidated housing blocks in extreme long shots, rendering the already diminutive Marcello even smaller and more oppressed. The film also mixes subjective handheld camerawork, with more elevated and fixed, pseudo-omniscient shots. The colours are also extremely limited, with white, yellow, and beige predominating.
Fitting very much into Garrone's oeuvre, Dogman bears a number of similarities to _L'imbalsamatore_ (2002); both are loosely based on real events, both are set in run-down coastal suburbs, both focus on co-dependent and toxic relationships between mismatched male characters. The Fellini-esque tendencies evidenced in _Reality_ (2012) and _Tale of Tales_ (2015) are also apparent, with Marcello and Simoncino working as a kind of twisted version of Gelsomina (Giulietta Masina) and Zampanò (Anthony Quinn) from Fellini's _La Strada_ (1954). In _Dogman_, however, the allegorical content is taken further than in any of Garrone's previous work. Co-written by Garrone and his regular collaborators, Ugo Chiti and Massimo Gaudisio, the film wants to convey universal truths in respect to humanity by focusing on the micro rather than the macro. Of course, for an allegory to work, it must first and foremost function as a stand-alone story, and the argument could be made that this is where _Dogman_ falls down. The storyline is very slight, with Garrone seemingly more interested in philosophising than he is in story-telling.
However, there are certainly metaphorical aspects that work. For example, it's telling that the activity most favoured by Marcello and Alida is scuba-diving. Similarly, "Dogman" may be the name of Marcello's business, but it also describes both protagonist and antagonist – Simoncino is the snarling attack dog who Marcello must try to calm, whilst Marcello is the unfailingly loyal lapdog who always returns to his abusive master. On the other hand, are the caged dogs seen throughout the film supposed to represent how Marcello is entrapped by Simoncino's violence, or are the shots of Marcello pampering them a metaphor for his servility to an indifferent master? In other words, the film is a little muddled on exactly which side of the allegorical equation the dogs belong.
However aside from this slight impreciseness regarding the allegory, _Dogman_ is a fine film. Humble in its aspirations, and small by design, some viewers will find it too uneventful, whilst others will find the ending too abrupt. However, all things considered, I found it to be a strong piece of cinema.

Whenever Iko Uwais is on screen kickin' ass, Mile 22 has something to offer you. All other moments of the movie are skippable at best.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

Before it even begins, Coming 2 America already has five strikes. It integrates a number in its misleading title (most of the action takes place in Zamunda), it arrives three decades after the original, the plot revolves around a son that the protagonist did not know he had, its content has been sanitized to reach a wider public, and its stars are, albeit briefly, digitally de-aged. This means that C2A has at least one thing in common with 2 Fast 2 Furious, The Odd Couple II, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, The Expendables 3, and The Irishman. This is not good company.
We learn that Zamunda has a neighboring country called Nextdoria. This name perfectly illustrates the creative bankruptcy of director Craig Brewer (though any filmmaker is better than notorious infanticide John Landis, who directed the original) and screenwriters Kenya Barris, Barry W. Blaustein, and David Sheffield. It baffles the mind that it took three people to write a film in which what passes for humor is, for example, Akeem (Eddie Murohy) constantly and cheerfully calling his son a “bastard.”
Swearing is not funny in and of itself; it requires context. In Coming to America, it was funny when Akeem used, unaware of its meaning, foul language because, ironically, he intended to be polite; it’s quite a stretch, however, for him to be oblivious of the offensive connotation of the word ‘bastard.’
And speaking of offensive connotations, another source of quote-unquote comedy is the cultural clash between the refined royals of Zamunda and Lavelle’s (Akeem’s illegitimate son) uncouth family; Lavelle’s mother Mary and Uncle Reem are played respectively by Leslie Jones and Tracy Morgan, so you can be sure there is no shortage of stereotypical African-American behavior.
C2A is not entirely devoid of pleasures, but these are few and far between. For instance, there's an appearance by En Vogue and Salt-N-Pepa performing their 1993 hit “Whatta Man” with reworked lyrics – but the best thing about the movie is by far Wesley Snipes's performance as General Izzi (older brother of Imani, Akeem's original fiancée). Snipes easily steals every scene he’s in, even outshining Murphy and Hall.
The rest is pure nostalgia, and the movie is indeed firmly rooted in the values of the 80s. There is a nod to gender equality when Akeem changes the tradition of royal succession to allow his eldest daughter to rule Zamunda upon his death; he conveniently forgets, on the other hand, to abolish that other tradition, dating back to the original film, according to which kings and princes are bathed by attractive young women who, as we remember from Coming to America, had to be sexually subservient (not to mention that poor Imani is still hopping in one leg and barking like a dog as Akeem cruelly ordered her to decades ago).

_**Fun reunion, but pales in comparison to the first movie**_
Three decades after the original film, Akeem (Eddie Murphy) discovers that he needs to go back to America with Semmi (Arsenio Hall). The principal cast members return with some new characters played by Jermaine Fowler, Tracy Morgan, Nomzamo Mbatha and KiKi Layne.
“Coming 2 America” (2021) is nowhere near as good as the first movie (which is probably my all-time favorite comedy), but it is fun to see where the characters are at after over thirty years, not to mention what they look like.
There are four things that hold the flick back: It seems like it’s in a hurry, peppered with music videos, not to mention it’s noticeably goofier than the original. It’s afraid to slow down for some compelling or heartwarming drama. When they do, like with Lavelle (Jermaine) and Mirembe (Nomzamo), it works and you start get drawn into the characters, but then it cuts to another crazed scene.
Secondly, Akeem isn’t as likable or funny here, whether that’s because of Eddie’s low-energy, mediocre writing or simply Akeem being stifled by tradition, I don’t know; probably a combination. Thirdly, the trip to New York City comes and goes so this isn’t really much of a Coming to America 2. The focus is on Zamunda, which is fine, but the story needed more interesting ideas and writing.
Lastly, I liked Jermaine Fowler as Lavelle Junson; he has charisma, but he pales in comparison to Murphy as Akeem in the first movie. The creators needed to spend more time fleshing out the potential of Jermaine and his character.
Despite these shortcomings, “Coming 2 America” is still worth catching if you’re a fan of the original flick. It’s great to see all the old characters and there are some amusing and entertaining moments; for instance, the early bit with Bopoto (Teyana Taylor), which made me bust out laughing.
The film runs 1 hour, 48 minutes, and was shot in Atlanta, Georgia, and New York City.
GRADE: B-/C+

I didn't watch this movie before I bought it on its release day. But I'm a big Charlize Theron fan, so it was bound to be good. I'm a big sci-fi fan, so I was bound to like it. I like movies that are a little different, so it was bound to be worth watching. Oh man, when I'm wrong I'm WRONG!

Not really that good of a movie, but it's action packed tho. Some of the fight scenes are pretty awesome.

I like it.
'The Princess Switch' is basically 'The Parent Trap', but I felt it added a decent edge to it to make it suitably entertaining. I enjoyed seeing it all unfold, it's well made. I found the casting and pacing good.
I rate Vanessa Hudgens and thought she did a great job here, given she's playing a dual role; and practically has to act four different ways as Stacy and Margaret. She's convincing. There's not much happening away from her, I admit.
Cheesy Xmas vibes, of course. I dig it though.

Decent to good watch, probably won't watch again, but can recommend.
There is a whole range of movies that "have to be" bar bets. Someone bet Vanessa Hudgens she couldn't do a Lindsey Lohan "Freaky Friday" or an Anne Hatheway "Princess Diaries" and someone she knew had a Christmas season slot coming up so they made this.
While everyone else in the cast is fine, the only other actor really worth mentioning is Mia Lloyd, but I'm sure it is easy for a competent, spunky kid to play a competent, spunky kid.
The storyline is simple enough, if not powered by plot serendipity. It's fairly amusing, including the bad British accents, but it lacks impact.

First of all, the set design in this film is spectacular. Every set makes you feel like you really are there with these characters. I also really liked the costume designs on them. It was an excellent choice for everybody and to show how the royalty has better-looking clothes compared to everybody else in the film. The acting in this film was marvellous. Nobody seemed like a character but a real human being. You can easily relate to either Stacy or Margaret in a way. For example, you either connect to Stacy because you are the type of person who plans out everything or Margaret who is spontaneous. I had no issues with the pacing at all in this film. Everything seemed to flow from one thing smoothly to the next. I think one of the only things that bugged me about this film was how everything happened like magic and was never explained.There was a character in this film that just kept appearing at the right moment and it was never explained. And two characters would stand underneath mistletoe that magically appeared out of nowhere. Also, it doesn’t seem realistic. Yes, I know this is a fictional film but they make the characters out to be stupid and not question why Stacy or Margaret is acting differently than usual. They show signs of questioning it but again like when things happen in this film they just shrug it off. Other movies who have done this kind of plot had a few characters shrug it off but not all. Also, I’m pretty sure who wrote this movie wrote A Christmas Prince there is a lot of similarities between the two princes. In the end, this movie is good for people who like RomComs or who don’t. I give The Princess Switch a 7/10.

For evidence that you're never doing enough, look no further than Bryan Stevenson's book-turned-film, _Just Mercy_. Emotional and gripping, performances from Michael B. Jordan and Jamie Foxx bring to life just one story from an iconic life-long pursuit of justice.

Dave’s 1-Word Review:
_Disturbing _
67%
If you have seen Tim Burton’s run on the classic story, Alice in Wonderland, than you probably know who Mia Wasikowska is, however; you may not be aware of the other works that Wasikowska has been involved with. In fact, Mia has been involved in a little less than thirty titles, but hasn’t been the title character in most of these films. She is known best for her roles as Alice in Alice in Wonderland, Jane Eyre in Jane Eyre, and now India in Chan-Woo Park’s latest thriller, Stoker. Just remember before deciding to watch this film that it is very distasteful for a majority of viewers.
After her father dies in a car accident, India Stoker must cope with the unusual fact that her Uncle Charlie, whom she had no idea even existed, was moving in with her and her distant mother. Charlie is quite a smooth talker and seems to have gotten on India’s mother’s good side…a little too good. His charming personality leads India to believe that there is something more sinister going on, which leads her on a path of discovering the truth. Although, where most movies would have the hero find out the truth and take down the bad guy, India acts as more of a villain who begins to practically side forces with her evil Uncle Charlie, reaching the boundaries of unacceptable behavior.
Right from the beginning, you know that the movie is remarkably disturbing. You have a creepy Uncle with crazy eyes and a goth girl who you are preparing to witness turn into a psycho-killer at some point. Whether this happens or not, I obviously cannot disclose, but her personality as well as Charlie’s is just out of this world creepy, which is when you begin to realize that there really is no protagonist in this entire story. How can you really root for anyone when no one gives you a solid reason to root? A story can survive with just a protagonist, because we have coming-of-age stories, but just an antagonist doesn’t work well. What this film turns into is the opposite of a coming-of-age flick, you see a teenage girl descend into darkness.
Also, even though it isn’t expressly described as such, there is some incestuous themes going on that are hard to miss, which just adds to the ever-growing disturbing nature of the film. When it comes to the writing, it’s a little much to take in, and when it actually comes down to everything all together, it just isn’t very believable unless the world was centered on an extreme episode of Jerry Springer. What was done well, on the other hand was the display of mystery and visual scenery.
The mystery in the movie really provides the life, or the glue to what makes this film survive. You can be as disturbed as you like, but there’s just no way you can leave the movie without seeing how it ends, and that’s a really powerful weapon that a film can have. Yeah, it strives away from your traditional Hollywood format, but it at least did the mystery right. The visual sceneries are just out of this world. It’s not a fantasy or 3D film or anything, but it gets as beautiful as a movie can get, realistically speaking. It does a better job at conveying the beauty that our world already provides without the use of creating beauty that doesn’t exist. This display really compliments the film in a lot of ways, and gives you just another reason to keep watching the movie.
What it really boils down to is that the movie is just too disturbing to watch on a multiple basis, and doesn’t give you a protagonist to root for, but it has great acting, great visuals, and a dark mystery that will have you plastered to the screen. For some, this may be a guilty pleasure, for others they may find themselves compelled to stop, finding it distasteful. It’s really give or take.
Check Stoker out for yourself when it is released on DVD and Blu-Ray on Jun. 18!

I wish I could dress the exact same every day and still be cool.

"Manni" (Moritz Bleibtreu) calls his girlfriend in distress to tell her that he's left DM100,000 on the subway and unless he can repatriate it by noon, he's going to have to rob somewhere else he is toast! What now ensues sees three scenarios play out as "Lola" (Franka Potente) tries to figure out a way to raise this fairly huge sum of cash in the twenty minutes allowed. Her dad is a bank manager - so perhaps he could help (willingly or otherwise)? Maybe she could chance a bet on a roulette wheel? Maybe she could not get there at all and let him do some robbing? What ever happens, she is going to have to do some running and timing is going to be crucial. It's filmed at break neck speed for the most part, with both characters simultaneously trying to find a solution to the predicament - and sometimes that produces some comedy, sometimes some tragedy, some furniture gets a bit trashed, some dirty laundry gets aired and the permutations all provide us with an answer - just maybe not the ideal one, or maybe yes - the ideal one. It's also quite a fun observation on just how frustrating tiny amounts of time can be when you are in a rush. This is well exemplified by the security guard at her dad's bank, but also by the traffic and the pedestrians and other obstructions that a few seconds of patience would easily (and probably just as quickly) overcome. It's quirky this film, it's short and focussed and I did enjoy it.

Stupid criminal is stupid and expects his girlfriend to bail him out and fix his problems. We watch 3 different scenarios of her running around trying to come up with money. More stupid stuff happens and she screams to try to make things go her way. Yes, literally screams. Ridiculous

I suspect I enjoyed this movie than most people. I tend not to watch spy movies or action films if I can help it. Most of the time when I do, it is because they have a humorous slant. This one certainly has that. As with most serious action movies these days, however, there is a rather large body count here, to the point where it seems almost cartoonish, as if the dead people all are going to spring up and go fetch an anvil or stick of dynamite or something to try to finish off the coyote (Wait a minute, don’t a couple of characters actually do that?).
The two main characters have a great chemistry and play off each other well. If I had read a description first, I would have guessed that Kate McKinnon would be the dumped character, but she is wonderful in the loose cannon role of Morgan, so there was a correct move. To a lesser extent this film also serves as a pastiche of the tried and true “Don’t trust anybody” serious spy films. And it is a rom-com also, though a rather abnormal one.
There are a few holes in the plot, such as Morgan using a cell phone shortly after stomping both of their phones to death at the airport, but sometimes you just have to let the art flow over you, as Nick says in The Big Chill. (“I think the guy in the hat did something terrible.”) And no, it isn’t believable that these two women would have such an instant instinct for mayhem and murder, but if details like that don’t keep you from enjoying it, perhaps you need to gather a few of your most fun friends, buy a 12-pack, and start watching.

Not good, for sure, but way exceeded my expectations.
_Final rating:★★½ - Not quite for me, but I definitely get the appeal._

Nothing new but still a delight.

**Reign of Fire might not have a robust deep story, but it’s still a solid post-apocalyptic sci-fi adventure with an impressive cast and great action.**
Reign of Fire collects Batman, Leonidas, a Bond Girl, and a crazed Matthew McConaughey and throws them headlong into a charred, barren post-apocalyptic world covered in the ash of millions of unstoppable hungry dragons. Critics savaged this movie with its harsh reviews, and if you expect an action sci-fi film about fighting dragons to win an Oscar, you will be disappointed. But if you embrace the movie for what it is, a fun action movie with a surprisingly good cast, pretty solid special effects for being 20 years old, and a simple but entertaining plot, then you will be more than satisfied. Christian Bale plays to his strengths as an intense but caring hero, while McConaughey goes full insane soldier dragon slayer in one of his more ridiculous roles but is also one of my favorites. Reign of Fire won no awards, but that doesn’t mean it can’t entertain and warm your heart (ha, get it? 🐉 😉).

_**Grim tale of the dragon apocalypse**_
Dormant fire-breathing dragons are awoken in subterranean chambers and proceed to unleash hell on earth. Almost two decades later a group of survivors led by Quinn (Christian Bale) live underground in England when American militants pay them a visit, led by seeming-psycho Van Zan (Matthew McConaughey). It seems they have a strategy to slay the dragons once-and-for-all. Izabella Scorupco plays the woman stuck between the two rival leaders.
"Reign of Fire" (2002) is similar to the Mad Max films, but without the comic book goofiness. This is a solemn, grey tale with a quality cast, convincing sets/costumes and surprisingly effective CGI. I gained greater respect for McConaughey as he is unrecognizable as the bald combative and loses himself in the role. Unfortunately, the storytelling is weak. It’s just not that compelling, which isn’t helped by the mumbled dialogue and ambiguities. Still, if you can adapt to the viewer-unfriendly style, there’s a lot to appreciate here.
The film runs 1 hour, 41 minutes and was shot in Ireland.
GRADE: B-/C+

**Just do your job! Don't think above that like you can be a saviour!**
It looked like some kind of thriller, that's what anybody would say if they read the title correctly. The story was suspense, well developed to keep that for a very long time. Though it had no major twist, just a revelation like clarifying our doubts. Because most of the storyline seems alike 'Orphan', the film that came just months before this one. But this is a horror theme, I mean real horror, not a terror-horror like 'Orphan'. The overall story relied on one big secret that revealed at some time in the final act.
I have seen many films about the child abuse, and this one set in as a same kind of theme, but takes a turn during the end of the first act. So when a social worker, Emily, finds a ten year old Lilith was abused by her own parents, she takes her away from them, followed by theirs arrest. Later, Emily adopts Lilith, but soon finds some strange events around her circle. That leads to suspect Lilith, but could not prove anything. Finding the truth becomes her first priority, but how she's going to solve it is what leads us to the conclusion part.
I haven't seen Renee Zellweger in any recent films, she looked so good in this. Jodelle Ferland too was good as a little girl, the most important role in the film. But Bradley Cooper was in a small part. I think it was a decent film, but not a fresh theme, except developed differently with a new cast. If you are a big horror film fan, you might disappoint with it. Because those parts were minimised and the suspense was maximised. Yet surely most of us can easily predict many scenes, event the ending. So I conclude my review saying it is a decent watch.
_6.5/10_

Keep Away From Children.
Case 39 is directed by Christian Alvart and written by Ray Wright. It stars Renee Zellwegger, Jodelle Ferland, Ian McShane and Bradley Cooper. Music is by Michl Britsch and cinematography by Hagen Bodanski.
Another in the long line of demonic/psycho children films, Case 39 sat on the shelf for a few years before finally seeing the light of day around 2009. Met with a whole bunch of negative reviews it is somewhat pleasing to find that while it’s not a misunderstood classic or anything, it actually works well within this sub-genre of horror.
Story in short order form has Zellwegger as Emily Jenkins, a social worker who after rescuing young Lilly Sullivan from crazed parents, takes her in on a temporary foster basis and soon comes to regret it.
Offering up a more supernatural slant than many other films of a similar ilk, German director Alvart does still follow the familiar formula for crazed child movies. Lillith (unsubtle name or what?!) serenely ingratiates herself into Emily’s world and that of the people around her, then of course things start happening, bad things. Having taken his time to build it up during the first half, Alvart then revels in unleashing demonic chaos, with young Ferland giving an unnervingly superb performance as Lilly. The shocks and psychological torments are tidily crafted, and it all builds to a suitably daft and frenetic finale.
It’s too long at nearly two hours in length, it’s sometimes silly and it’s cliché heavy. However, some striking scenes, a mightily strong child performance and the decent chiller thriller fun factor, lifts this just above average status. 6/10

This movie is a masterpiece of storytelling. It explores the themes of loss, grief, and growing up in a captivating way that resonates with anyone who has faced challenges in life. It balances the drama with moments of humor, especially in the interactions between the young boy and his father, who have a realistic and touching bond. The ending was satisfying and emotional. The movie also excels in its visual aspects, with stunning cinematography, art direction, and setting that create a vivid atmosphere of the Sicilian culture and lifestyle of the time period in which the movie is set. The casting was spot on, with the young actor and Monica Bellucci delivering outstanding performances. Bellucci in particular impressed me with her expressive eyes in the market scene, where she conveyed the character’s feelings without words. As a man, I related a lot to Giuseppe Sulfaro character and his coming of age. Honestly, I didn't think I was going to like this movie as much I did when it finished. Rarely do I ever bother writing reviews for a movie I liked but this one I loved. Definitely worth a watch.

I usually struggle with comedy movies - but a combination of great casting; good, well-paced comedy writing and some lovely special effects from Stan Winston keep this rollicking along with loads of tongue-in-cheek swipes at the sci-fi genre (and "Star Trek" in particular) that is done in a sympathetic, engaging fashion. The "crew" are a bunch of washed-out actors doing the comic-con rounds with Tim Allen as the supercilious Captain: Alan Rickman - a wonderfully aloof thespian playing the disillusioned semi-crustacean ship's doctor; Sigourney Weaver as the buxom, but largely pointless "Tawny Madison" and Tony Shalhoub as the engineer on the "NSEA Protector". At one such event, they encounter the "Thermians" who need help battling the evil, all-conquering "Sarris". Having seen the telecasts of "Galaxy Quest" and treated them as actual historical documents the "Thermians" have built a real starship and hope the crew can be as true to their characters as they were to their scripts and save everyone's bacon... They are all on good form here, even poor old Sam Rockwell in the sort of Trekkie "red shirt" role (who expects to be killed at any moment). Perhaps not quite laugh out loud, but if you are a fan of this genre then you cannot fail to frequently raise a smile at the fight scenes that are comically staged; off course the captain's shirt gets ripped - and everyone finds a tiny bit of heroism in their persona. I loved it!

Really good watch, would watch again, and can recommend, especially for Star Trek fans.
This has a sufficiently high production value, but I think a lot of the budge went to hiring the cast, and building the locations, especially the ship. It's probably the chief reason why (at least I feel it is the case) people have wanted to do spoofs of Star Trek since the original series, but only "Galaxy Quest" and "The Orville" have really made the attempt. Usually the reaction is to take it in its own serious direction, like Babylon 5, and even "The Orville" lands in between.
I think my favorite aspect of this movie is that it's actually very similar to "The Invention of Lying" where not only does an alien race build a starship, hands it to Terrans, and then we just keep up the ruse so we can have a starship. While I think the more interesting aspect is the same things that we see in "Star Trek": the interactions between xenos and Terrans and the reflective aspects of humanity, the audience is quickly reminded that it's a comedy throughout the movie.
Everyone of the actors is funny, there's even a young Justin Long here, and while there is sufficient action / drama to move the story forward with some substance, it's the comedy that you're going to remember here. Alan Rickman and Tim Allen fighting, Sigourney Weaver translating from human to ship, and general awkwardness of situation.
It's a good watch, and I think that whether or not you're a fan of "Star Trek", then I think there is something at which you can laugh.