70/100
In Malignant, director James Wan crafts a visually-impressive horror experience in which camera work, production design, and aesthetics do most of the heavy lifting. Annabelle Wallis and her Backpack do their best with a garbage script and subpar supporting cast that appears to be there to punch the ticket. If you can get over the slow opening 30 minutes, Malignant's innovative ideas distinguish it from the usual horror movie clichés, giving surprising turns that keep you intrigued until the end.

Malignant is a ride, one that changes directions in multiple different ways that I did not expect. This film is an ambitious genre bend that takes tropes from slashers (loved the Friday the 13th/Halloween cords used in the beginning of the film), the classic James Wan ghost films, action, and strangely enough some elements from Scream in the comedy side. With some many different themes it was hard to really understand what this movie's identity was. The film had a serious tone throughout but had some awkward lines that felt right out of a Scream film. With those two different tones it felt as if the lines were funny bad writing rather than artistic vision.
The kills were bloody as all hell, which is par for the course with the slasher genre and a positive for this film. The reversed humanoid figure visuals for the killer were very incredibly unsettling.
I really enjoyed the plot for the most part, even though I felt the beginning and the end were much stronger than the middle lull. The twist was great, and I did not see it coming till it was almost too late. When this happens the movie really finds it grove and kept me locked in for the remaining twenty minutes.
Overall, Malignant is decent movie, maybe a little too ambitious for its own good.
**Verdict:** _Decent_

I'll give it this much, it's a weird movie. Can't say it's a good weird nor a bad one, just plain weird. Now, I do appreciate that James Wan returned to his horror roots in between the wait for Aquaman 2 goes into production.
As for this movie, there was parts that felt off, such as the acting which I don't think was all that impressive. Wan's direction wasn't particularly noteworthy either outside of the finale which had impressive moments. As a whole, the least I can say it's not pedestrian or forgettable, but on the other hand I really don't have much desire to revisit. **2.75/5**

This movie has started very strong the ending was a little bit silly but it was fun i like this movie it's better than any of the other horror movies that come out in 2020 and 2021 ok the conjuring 3 was the best this movie is on my second place

Classic case of the trailer being the best part. I'll hand it to them though, I was completely fooled about what this movie was going to be. When they showed Gabriel behind the plastic sheet in the beginning ... I knew it was not what I signed on for.
As my mom would say: It insults my intelligence.

This is one of the dumbest films I have seen in a long time, start to finish it is a dumpster fire, the "twist" is projected so hard so early, and so often, then over explained to the point of the death of any subtlety, and it's not original or clever in it's execution.
I don't understand how people seem to be liking this film I feel like I'm taking crazy pills
I rarely say this, but I hated this dumb film

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/malignant-spoiler-free-review
"Malignant is yet another excellent origin movie for a new franchise created by one of the most successful horror filmmakers of the century, James Wan. The talented director picks up a thematically rich, mysteriously intriguing narrative written by the feature film debutant Akela Cooper, and lets himself get inspired by the giallo genre. Boasting a fascinating protagonist brilliantly interpreted by Annabelle Wallis, the unexpected yet exposition-heavy revelations of the brave third act definitely improve upon a rather generic, unexciting first half. While the impressive action sequences steal the technical spotlight, Joseph Bishara's score holds divisive creative choices that might not please every viewer. For horror fans, I couldn't recommend it more."
Rating: B+

Really good watch, would watch again, and can recommend.
While this was casted really well and the actors all did a great job, what makes this movie for me is the structure. It doesn't really do anything special, but for that sacrifice they do 3-4 parallel arcs.
For slasher fans, there is a lot of fun here, and the bodies hit the floor all over in a spectacular fashion.
Really trying not to spoil anything, I can only point to a handful of features where there are multiple survival situations in play at once. Its a special kind of intensity that obscures what's going to happen next.
While there is a telegraph of a sequel / series in the title, they do an excellent job of wrapping up the story to move forward to the next feature.

Acclaimed director "Guido" (Marcello Mastroianni) is looking for a peaceable life after his last successful movie, but at every turn he is being pursued by people who want to capitalise on the success. He just hasn't the inspiration though - and determined not to just churn out any old rubbish, retreats to a small town for some rest, recuperation and hopefully inspiration. He in also rather reaping what he sowed as his wife "Luisa" (Anouk Aimée) and her rival "Claudia" (Claudia Cardinale) are vying for his increasingly frayed attentions and that makes any chance of concentration almost impossible. What happens now? Actually that's not so important to the thrust of the plot. What's a little more engaging here is a sort of hybrid illustrating the foibles of those creatives desperate for and addicted to the whole process of making a film as well as all of them demonstrating just how difficult it can be to actually produce a feature film. The narrative is also quite confusing at times with chronologies blurring and timelines being adapted as if on a whim - and those whims aren't always immediately clear to us who watch on bemusedly. There's something natural about the characterisations too. The venal, the aspirational, the lovelorn, the lovestruck - and the director who is genuinely swimming through a series of doldrums from which he cannot readily escape. The intensity never really lets up - indeed every time you see Guido Alberti - his long-suffering producer "Pace" you almost want to weep for a "Guido" under the sort of relentless pressure usually reserved for the father of a family of two hundred dependents. Mastroianni juggles the balls required for this part skilfully and by the mid point of this 2¼ cinema curiosity I felt a degree of his physical and emotional exhaustion visited on me, too! Nino Rota could always be relied upon provide a solid score - and here he reflects the mood of the story and it's personalities with an eclectic series of themes that range from the adagio to an entertaining Italian version of a grand scale hokey cokey. There's maybe just a little too much dialogue for me here. It's all pretty break-neck paced anyway, and occasionally I did just want them all to shut up - but this is still a potpourri of ideas and personae that offers an amusing look at film making and film makers alike.

**Fellini, deconstructed, improvised and enshrined in a film that (not) pleases everyone.**
I'm not a fan or deep connoisseur of Italian cinema, but I've heard of Federico Fellini, and I know that this film is considered one of this director's best films. I haven't seen any of his films yet: this was the first. And honestly, I don't quite understand this fascination: the film is chaotic! I think that, unless someone is an expert in cinema, the vast majority of people who saw the film did not understand it, but then said that it was very good just to avoid being criticized. I'm glad I don't give a damn what other people think of me...
Fellini was out of great ideas, and the production started working without even having an idea of what the director was going to do. Not even he knew! He was about to give up when the light came: to make a somewhat autobiographical film about a filmmaker in crisis, who had to make a film due to studio commitments, but didn't know what film he wanted to make. Let's face it: it was an excellent idea, even if it resulted in a film that is too complicated and disjointed. Over the course of more than two hours, we see scenes and situations in which the director reflected a lot about himself in the main character: the complicated issues with a restrictive and judgmental Catholic faith, strong moral conflicts, a rebellious childhood, the omnipresence of impactful female figures (the mother, the wife, the objects of desire)… everything is composed as a delirium of a filmmaker empty of ideas. For the time, this was quite innovative, but looking closely today, it doesn't make much sense and is more tiring than interesting.
Technically, the film is excellent. The soundtrack, by Nino Rota, is quite atmospheric; the cinematography, with the framing, the differences in shot and sharpness, is an authentic lesson taught by a master. The choice of filming locations and sets is careful. Marcello Mastroianni and Claudia Cardinale are the most notable actors in the film, but they both have better works and I don't feel that this film is worth seeing because of them. But what really tired me was the artificiality of the dubbed dialogues: Fellini liked to film with noise (he's like that college students who like to study in crowded cafeterias), and the actors often improvised their lines over a sketch that was given at this moment, so all the dialogues were dubbed and arranged in post-production. The result is surreally strange and fake, with the movement of the mouth not matching what we are hearing.
Yes, this is one of the great works of Italian cinema, that's for sure, and when we see these points analyzed we can understand it better. But it is not the type of film that the general public wants to see, and it ended up being left to an intellectualist and hermetic elite, who like to treat cinema as their thing, with an almost mystical sort of knowledge that cannot be passed on to any mortal. I don't care about that, or what anyone calls me: films like that are good for sleeping.

Widely touted as one of the all-time great works of cinema, Federico Fellini’s 8½ is an elusive film about even more elusive things. It’s a meaningfully chaotic picture about trying to distil meaning from chaos and it’s a creative success about creative failure. It chronicles the resonant moments in one man’s life and admits that it can’t quite clarify why they matter. Doing justice to its early working title of The Beautiful Confusion, 8½ is a daring high wire act and an outstanding technical achievement that channels its story of artistic crisis into something sweepingly, uniquely profound.
Working again under Fellini’s direction after his winning performance in La Dolce Vita, Marcello Mastroianni plays Guido, a creatively blocked director feeling constantly distracted from the development of his latest semi-autobiographical work. Between avoiding his mistress (Sandra Milo) and disappointing his wife (Anouk Aimée), Guido spends time reflecting on his past, searching for answers and escaping into fantasies. The narrative seamlessly weaves in and out of Guido’s dreams and memories, to the point that it becomes impossible to distinguish real from imagined. The actress named Claudia, tellingly played by the legendary Claudia Cardinale, seems especially intangible, generally appearing only fleetingly in Guido’s visions playing the woman in his film that Guido intends to be a symbol of purity, innocence and redemption. The story, in a sense, is a mess but a brilliantly orchestrated mess that skilfully highlights the mysteries and confusions of life and the human psyche. Characters suddenly enter the narrative then leave before you’ve even noticed they’re gone because the film is confined within the periphery of Guido’s life. What these supporting players actually do isn’t as important as the impressions that they make. They’re all just additions to the fabric of the filmmaker’s mind.
This perception of the world is completely in tune with the engrossingly complex lead’s own self-involved view, seeing everyone he crosses paths with as a supporting player in his existence, rather than a fully-rounded individual with a long, complicated life of their own. Guido lacks awareness of the emotional impact of his actions and underestimates his own transparency, not realising when people detect his deceptions and cowardly evasions. His wife, Luisa, in particular seems more observant of Guido’s fraudulent nature than even Guido.
It’s made abundantly clear from the film’s choice of protagonist and its title (8½ being Fellini’s count of the number of films he’d made so far) that this film was meant to be viewed at least in part as a very personal work from the director. But if the weary half-heartedness of Guido’s filmmaking is meant to reflect Fellini’s own exhaustion, it’s evident that the director had got his groove back by the time shooting began. Every shot seems perfectly placed and every cut is perfectly timed for the film to fold out with effortless cohesion, like one extended monologue. Fellini hardly wastes a square inch of a single frame, saturating (but not over-saturating) his backgrounds with rhythmic movement and entrancing production design. His thoughtfully precise camera creates inexhaustible space, extending rooms by their mirrors and constructing distinct layers to the crowded environments he observes. This may well be the best directed film of Fellini’s celebrated career.
8½ remains one of those rare feats of cinema that have proved highly influential (acclaimed descendants from recent years include Charlie Kaufman’s Synecdoche, New York and Paolo Sorrentino’s The Great Beauty) and yet still wholly unique. Even Fellini himself never made another work that so gracefully blended irony with sincerity, surreality with relatability and ambiguity with insightfulness, but once was enough. This richly intricate film is built to be endlessly re-seen, enjoyed and puzzled over. The final paradox of 8½ is that it refutes itself. Apparently when a great director doesn’t know what kind of film he wants to make, he makes a masterpiece.
Written by David Pountain
Watch '8½' at FilmDoo.com now (UK & Ireland Only)

So, after years of lethal "Mortal Kombat" competition "Outworld" is poised to complete it's tenth victory over "Earthrealm" entitling it to take it over. It falls to defender "Rayden" (Christopher Lambert) to recruit three warriors who might just be able to thwart the ambitions of his nemesis - the sorcerer "Shang Tsung" (Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa). The three he selects would not have been the obvious choice. "Liu Kang" (Robin Shou) and "Sonya Blade" (Bridgette Sampras) are driven by the need for vengeance of their own whilst the outwardly shallow "Johnny Cage" (Linden Ashby) is an actor just out to prove there is more to him than his acting. Can they defeat the champions of "Outworld" and their own demons? It is only 100 minutes long, this - but somehow it seems so much longer. The story takes far too long to get going, the character establishment introduces us to three people that have axes to grind, but they are not particularly interesting or characterful - and neither is their dialogue. The nature of the fight scenes is repetitive and shows a startling lack of imagination as does the really drawn-on look of the special effects. Lambert makes only the briefest of appearances as the guru in the white suit; indeed the star of the show is probably Tagawa who hams up wonderfully as the baddie. The narrative does try to combine action, adventure and mysticism - but neither the writer nor the director have anything like enough flair to make this anything other than a predictable, candle-lit, martial arts flop.

Mortal Kombat was one of the most popular, and controversial video games of the 90s, so naturally, in 1995, New Line Cinema released a live- action film adaptation. When the film was being advertised, several people were either excited for it, or skeptical due to Street Fighter being a total stinker, and since the film was rated PG-13, which meant the violence and gore from the game had to be toned down to appeal to the then-young MK fan base. Thankfully, all expectations were surpassed as Mortal Kombat actually turned out to be, believe it or not, a good video game movie. Upon its release, the film was, surprisingly, a box- office success, making it the first video game adaptation to be successful both financially, and with fans, despite mixed reviews from critics (although Gene Siskel gave the movie a thumbs up). To this day, it is considered one of the better game to film translations. Now, it's time to find out why that is the case.
The film succeeds by sticking to the plot of the first game while incorporating elements from Mortal Kombat II. The plot itself is very similar to Enter the Dragon (which I consider to be the greatest Martial Arts film ever made), but with a supernatural twist to it, which is rather refreshing, and helps it stand on its own. Unlike Street Fighter where the focus was on Guile instead of Ryu and Ken (the original protagonists of that franchise), this movie centers mostly around the Mortal Kombat game's original protagonist; Liu Kang.
All of the characters from the first Mortal Kombat game (as well as a few from MKII) are present in the film, and are given appropriate development, and screen time. The casting is also spot-on. This is one of the few adaptations of a video game, comic book, and cartoon show (at least one of the few I could think of) where all of the actors are cast perfectly. Christopher Lambert, and Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa are especially great as Rayden and Shang Tsung (respectively), they deliver the right amount of charisma without chewing the scenery. Linden Ashby also plays a great Johnny Cage since he brings the character's cocky personality to life, and delivers some of the best humor in this movie. But my favorite casting choice in the film has to be Robin Shou as Liu Kang. Not only is Liu my favorite character in the games, but Shou looks very much like the character, and makes you feel for him by showing his impulsiveness, and guilt over the death of his brother. It's a shame he didn't receive more starring vehicles after this movie, because I feel he is a capable actor, and Martial Artist. He definitely has more of a personality than Steven Seagal.
While the movie is rated PG-13, and doesn't contain the large amounts of gore from the game, it does make up for this area with the large amounts of Martial Arts action. The fight scenes are very well done, and often emulate more of the Hong Kong style of fight choreography, which was a refreshing change from most American action films prior to this. They also incorporate several of the special moves from the game, such as Liu Kang's bicycle kick, Scorpion's spear that comes out of his hand, etc., and they manage to make them look believable, and not embarrassing, unlike Street Fighter.
The person who directed this movie is Paul W.S. Anderson, and if that name sounds familiar, that's because this is the same man who would later go on to butcher Alien vs. Predator, and the Resident Evil movies. Despite his more recent efforts, he does a solid job directing this film. One of the strong points of his direction (aside from how well he filmed the fight scenes) is how he handled the movie on a technical, and design level. The cinematography, set designs, and lighting are stylish, and keep in touch with the game's dark, and mystical atmosphere. The special FX in the movie are also pretty cool, granted, they aren't exactly Terminator 2, or Jurassic Park, but they work fine for a film released in 1995. Though not everything is CGI, the character of Goro is a puppet, which still looks good to this day, and were created by special FX masters Alec Gillis, and Tom Woodruff, Jr.
Overall, Mortal Kombat is still a fun film to watch. It made up greatly for Street Fighter, and in my opinion, it still is one of the best video game movies (right up there with Street Fighter: Assassin's Fist). It may not be Oscar winning material, but it is one of my personal favorite movies, and as a huge fighting game fan, I couldn't be any more proud of it.

***People with various mental abilities fighting each other in Hong Kong over a suitcase***
Three individuals with mind powers in Hong Kong (Chris Evans, Dakota Fanning & Camilla Belle) vie with agents of a shadowy government agency called the Division over a mysterious suitcase. The super powers include pushers, who can push thoughts into other’s minds; movers, who have the power of telekinesis; watchers, who are seers; sniffers, who can find others; shadowers, who can block watchers and sniffers; screamers, who can attack through shrieks; and more. Djimon Hounsou plays the head agent of the Division.
“Push” (2009) is a thriller that combines the style and themes of “Lucy” (2014) with the surreal take on a major Asian city of “Lost in Translation” (2003). Imagine the abilities of Professor X, Jean Grey and Magneto of the “X-Men” flicks, but without the costumes and superhero trappings, and you’d have a good idea of “Push.” The setting of Hong Kong is a highlight, but it focuses mostly on the working class underbelly rather than the posh areas of Tokyo seen in “Lost in Translation.”
The style is hip and kinetic, like “Lucy” and “Eye of the Beholder” (1998), and the film does a good job of keeping the complicated elements understandable to the viewer. There’s also a quality score/soundtrack. Yet it’s the least of all these pics mentioned. The story’s just not as engrossing, but it’s not too far off either. The Division is suggestive of MK Ultra on steroids.
The film runs 1 hour, 51 minutes and was shot in Hong Kong.
GRADE: B-

Weathering with You unfortunately doesn't live up to the masterpiece that is Your Name, but still delivers a heartfelt story with brilliant animation.
Many complain that they had trouble connecting with this story on an emotional level, and while I understand that complaint I slightly disagree. I think this story does a fine job at really making you care about the characters. The journey you take with them from poverty to some modicum of financial success is endearing and makes that tightknit family easy to root for. Where the story fails are in the details, mainly why Kataro Daigo ran away from home in the first place. What trials and tribulations led him down this path and why he is so hesitant to return? This small detail could have gone a long way to further that connection to the character. The overall story is fantastic, and while it has some very similar beats to Your Name, it does enough to differentiate itself. All the characters are unique, and their outcast natures makes them have a super close bound that makes each emotional moment that much harder. While the ending may be divisive, it delivered a sucker punch to my stomach drawing a tear from my eye.
The animation style is gorgeous once again, with this film allowing the artists to flex their weather animation effects to the max. So many rainy scenes were so incredibly detailed with reflections that seem too real for a simple 2D animation. I do think the film lacks a bit in diverse landscapes as it mainly focuses on the city of Tokyo, whereas Your Name spans from Tokyo to the Japanese countryside.
Overall, Weathering with You is an excellent addition to Makoto Shinkai's filmography. It is heartfelt, emotional, and an endearing story about struggle, family, and making the most of every moment. While it may not exceed its predecessor, it is still one of the better anime films I have ever seen.
Score: 88%
Verdict: Excellent

Starting off as a slow burn, I started questioning how this anime got so much talk on the net. But the pace lets you get to know and relate to the characters before the final act where things really spring forth. And I was sucked in (enjoyably) for the ride, holding my breath as I honestly did not know how it was going to end.
Beautiful, gorgeous, etherial at times, there just arent enough words in the English language to describe appropriately just how stunning this is...nor how seamlessly the traditional and 3D animation blend together.
The voice cast of both languages are great and the soundtrack and score are both great.
After The Garden of Words and Your Name, Makoto Shinkai is proving to be a master of his craft in the same vein as Miyazaki. A classic.

Men of Honor is one of those films that hits hard with its message, yet somehow got a mixed reception from critics who called it too conventional. But honestly, what’s wrong with a movie sticking to a classic, inspiring formula when it’s done right? The story of Carl Brashear, played by Cuba Gooding Jr., is all about perseverance, dignity, and refusing to let others define your worth. Robert De Niro, as the tough and unpredictable Master Chief Billy Sunday, brings an intensity that elevates every scene he's in. Their dynamic is what makes the movie so gripping, showing how respect is earned through resilience and action, not just words.
The script carries some powerful lines, but the standout moment for me is when Carl confidently fires back, "You're damn right I am!" That single line encapsulates everything the movie stands for. It’s not just about race or breaking barriers, but about proving to yourself and the world that you belong where you’ve worked hard to be. The cinematography and production keep things grounded, never feeling overly dramatic, which makes the emotional beats hit even harder. The pacing might feel a bit slow in places, but it gives enough breathing room for the character arcs to feel earned rather than rushed.
Overall, Men of Honor is an inspiring watch, especially if you appreciate stories about overcoming adversity without unnecessary fluff or exaggeration. Gooding Jr. delivers one of his best performances, and De Niro balances toughness with subtle layers of respect and mentorship. It’s a movie that deserved more credit than it got and remains a solid reminder of how persistence and belief in yourself can break down any obstacle.

Men of honor what a film it is in my top 10 films

Fairly close to being a good film, for me at least.
I could see something positive coming from 'Chaos Walking' at differing moments, though unfortunately all in all it does end up being a pretty underwhelming 109 or so minutes. It holds an interesting concept and I was very much willing it to come to fruition in an entertaining manner but it never does.
The 'inner' monologue thing does get a tad annoying, it isn't amazingly implemented via special efforts nor audio - less would've been more, especially of the phrase "control your noise" which is said too often for my liking. The characters, including the main two, could've been far stronger as well, though the acting talent themselves actually do OK.
Daisy Ridley and Tom Holland are good names to have attached, though I didn't sense enough onscreen chemistry between the two. Mads Mikkelsen is alright, David Oyelowo's character is probably the only one who didn't intrigue me from the main bunch; the filmmakers could've utilized him better.
No surprise to see that this has been received poorly. I didn't dislike it, though I can't really defend it all that strongly either.

In 2257 AD, the colonists of the planet New World, all men, have been afflicted with a condition called the Noise, which causes everyone to see and hear each other's thoughts. Judging by the level of intelligence the characters exhibit, this ought be a deafeningly silent planet.
People who colonize a new world and literally call it "New World" can't have much in their minds (perhaps they should have called it Planet Faulkner, since everyone here seems to think in an uncontrollable stream of consciousness and/or has the mental faculties of a Benjy Compson). When sort of halo envelops their heads when they 'think,' it’s like the light is on but no one’s home.
The only one here who manages to avoid appearing like a complete idiot is Mads Mikkelsen, and only because the Danish actor is too smart to play this dumb; his character, David Prentiss, is not particularly brilliant, but one can at least give him the benefit of the doubt — after all, he’s more insane than he is inane.
Prentiss is the only one who has learned to control his "Noise", which shouldn't be too difficult; ever heard the expression 'think before you speak?' I don’t think it’d really be all that hard to 'think before you think;' these characters, however, are mentally incontinent.
Either director Doug Liman and screenwriters Patrick Ness and Christopher Ford are as dumb as the movie they've made, or they assume the audience is. For some reason, women can see and hear men's thoughts, but men can't see and hear women’s — making the “Noise” nothing more than a clumsy allegory for female intuition.
This actually has to do directly with the lack of women in Prentisstown (of which, as the name suggests, Prentiss is the mayor), in a twist preposterous enough to make M. Night Shyamalan himself scratch his head in disbelief.

It should first be noted I have never read (or even heard of) the novel this was based upon, so I don't have any preconceptions or expectations on how the adaptation was handled. With that out of the way, I found this to be... fine. A little messy in narrative and structure but I suppose moderately entertained. I also liked Tom Holland in the lead for the most part and Daisy Ridley grew on me though her character isn't very well developed. It's probably worthy of a rental but doubtful I'll revisit this very soon other than to listen to the commentary by Doug Liman considering the behind-the-scenes issues and major re-shoots. **3.0/5**

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
After decades of experiencing so many films and understanding the respective industry, I rarely get extremely excited for an original sci-fi movie starring famous actors. I wouldn’t be surprised if Chaos Walking is the most anticipated film of the month for thousands of viewers, which isn’t an easy decision having in mind March is releasing tons of highly expected movies, such as Raya and the Last Dragon, Cherry, Zack Snyder’s Justice League, Godzilla x Kong, amongst others. It’ almost impossible not to feel remotely interested in watching a film with such a phenomenal cast - Tom Holland (Spider-Man, The Devil All the Time), Daisy Ridley (Star Wars, Murder on the Orient Express), Mads Mikkelsen (Doctor Strange, Rogue One: A Star Wars Story), Demián Bichir (Land, The Grudge), Cynthia Erivo (Widows, Bad Times at the El Royale), and more.
Add Doug Liman (The Bourne franchise, The Edge of Tomorrow) as the director and screenwriters with tremendously successful credits as Patrick Ness (A Monster Calls) and Christopher Ford (Spider-Man: Homecoming), what could go wrong? Well… almost everything. I possess no knowledge of the source material, but from what I could gather, the book trilogy of the same name was very well-received, which I don’t doubt for a second. If there’s one thing no one can take away from Chaos Walking is its incredibly captivating concepts and imaginative visual ideas. From the premise of people being able to hear men’s thoughts (noise) to the actual visuals of said brain activity, I felt deeply invested during the first act.
The futuristic setting is somewhat familiar, but the production/set design definitely set an engaging atmosphere. The score (Marco Beltrami, Brandon Roberts) also features interesting tracks that create a sense of wonder in this new world. Unfortunately, this is as far as I can go compliment-wise. Sure, the cast offers remarkable performances, especially Holland and Ridley, who obviously share most of the screentime as the underdeveloped protagonists, but sadly this is one of those movies where it’s hard not to find a significant flaw with everything. The lack of proper characterization is one of the main issues. While Holland’s character misses a regular arc - he has no evolution whatsoever, ending the film with the exact same defects as in the beginning - Ridley’s character raises dozens of questions that remain unanswered about herself, her past, her abilities, and her origins.
The new world presented to the viewers packs hundreds of unquestionably innovative and exciting ideas, but none reaches even a fraction of its potential. The “superpower” of hearing thoughts is rarely seen in a different manner other than chaotic, annoying noise, which is hugely disappointing, having in mind the scarce showings of its real power. Nevertheless, the most frustrating component of the narrative is the introduction of massively important story elements that are completely forgotten by the end of the movie, namely - without getting into spoilers - an entire native population that remains as one of the most fascinating aspects of the screenplay that wasn’t remotely explained.
Nowadays, people have more knowledge and understanding of how much studios impact the production of any film. Honestly, I don’t know if this is one of those projects ruined by awfully dumb corporate demands or if Doug Liman and his team of writers screwed the pooch. One thing is for sure: director, screenwriters, and/or producers, they’re the people to blame for such a frustratingly terrible adaptation. I apologize to Doc Crotzer, but this is one of the worst editing jobs I’ve seen in years, though I want it to be clear: Crotzer is far from being the sole or main culprit of such a horribly put-together movie. The camera work is also all-over-the-place (Ben Seresin).
Finally, I don’t know if this following story detail is as explicit and barely explained in the source material as it is in this film, but due to the lack of any decent explanation besides “because”, I strongly dislike the whole “everyone can hear men’s thoughts, but no one can hear the women’s”. To be clear, my issue isn’t related to the idea but to its evolution in this movie. Men, especially Holland’s character, are shown to think like a primate with sexual thoughts concerning women and offenses to everyone and everything. Men’s thoughts represent them as utter pigs. However, the whole “women’s thoughts are hidden from everyone” can easily be interpreted as “women don’t have brains”, especially considering the film’s failed attempt at elaborating this concept.
Chaos Walking will end up as one of the most disappointing, frustrating movies of the year. In addition to this, it’s also another entry in the list of “films with innovative, interesting concepts that fail to reach half of their potential”. Besides the engaging production design, a cool score, and decent performances, any viewer will struggle not to find a massive flaw in every single aspect of the narrative. From the dozens of unanswered questions regarding Daisy Ridley’s character to the lack of a proper arc for Tom Holland’s role, the underdeveloped protagonists are just one of many screenplay issues. Critical plot points and story elements either miss an explanation or are entirely forgotten by the end of a horrendously edited movie. Transitions between cuts are very choppy and make zero connection between storylines. The whole “men’s thoughts are seen by everyone, but women’s thoughts are not” is depicted in a way that leaves men portrayed as pigs and insinuates women have no brains. I genuinely don’t know if this massive disaster is due to studio interference and/or to the director and screenwriters team-up, but one thing is for certain: personally, it's one of the worst films of the year.
Rating: D+

Adapting a series of books into a movie is often a daunting task. As anyone who has seen many Stephen King adaptations can attest; plot complexity, characters, and depth are removed in order to condense the story into a two-hour or less run time.
The rise of streaming services has allowed many books to be adapted into series without having to cut much of the adult content in the books which would make it difficult for network television.
As such it makes adaptations such as “Chaos Walking” a delicate undertaking. The film is based on a series of books and stars Tom Holland as Todd; a young ma living on a distant world where there are no women and people can hear and see each other’s thoughts by a process known as “Noise”.
Their rustic colony is run with a firm hand by their Mayor (Mads Mikkelsen); who keeps those around him from seeing his thoughts which gives him a big advantage over those who rule.
When a landing craft from a mothership filled with a new wave of colonists crashes on the planet; Todd is shocked to find that the only survivor is a woman named Viola (Daisy Ridley) whose arrival disrupts the community.
The Mayor wishes to keep her from contacting her ship so they can seize it when it lands to maintain control of his empire as he sees the arrival of new individuals as a threat to his power.
Todd and Viola escape trying to reach a distant colony where she hopes to find a way to warn her ship about the danger the Mayor and his men present and they pursue the duo to keep this from happening.
The film lightly touches on the native race that Todd believes killed all the women of their colony but they are not visited save for a brief appearance. It is clear that the Mayor is hiding something and the reveal of what and why is fairly underwhelming which reduces him and most of his followers as thinly developed stock characters.
There is also the mystery as to why the Mothership does not bother to do any sort of follow up when they did not hear from their lander and like many aspects of the film; require the audience to simply go along with things and not ask too many questions to make things work.
Thankfully the two leads are interesting enough and they hold attention even when the story is slowly moving along with scene after scene of rivers, woods, and a little conversation.
One big issue with the film is the Noise as the visualization of thoughts as well as hearing them mixed in with verbal communication can get very confusing as it is like multiple voices in a crowded room.
Despite the issues, the potential is there and I found myself wondering what was next for the characters and hope that they do adapt future books in the series. While the film on its own does not work as a fully developed story’ as an introduction to the series it does enough to peak the interests for more.
3.5 out of 5

I went into watching this expecting the worst, but it wasn't bad. (In comparison, I gave the Bigelow original a 9/10). To its advantage was an intriguing update of the original W. Peter Iliff screenplay to incorporate a) more extreme sports; and b) more aspects indicative of the present generation, great cinematography and both Delroy Lindo and Ray Winstone--who are both 'cash money' in terms of great supporting actors.
Disadvantages include awful soundtrack choices, a highly-unbelievable and lazily-written, underdeveloped script, the actors selected aren't nearly in the class of Patrick Swayze, Keanu Reeves, Gary Busey and Lori Petty...and the director's no Kathryn Bigelow.
Good for a watch, out of curiosity, especially if you liked the original and are a fan of extreme sports. Otherwise, it's probably not worth your time.

> Most deserved remake, but relying on CGI for everything ruined it.
This movie is only about stunts, the story wise, it's a great disappointment. I have seen the old version, for a 90s movie, the actions were fantastic with an awesome story. In this remake I don't know where's the story, the characters were underdeveloped and it rushed towards the end with plenty of high octane action sequences everywhere. This formula won't work all the time like '300' and 'Fury Road', but it's really good for watching in digital 3D.
The story was kind of sameness, but slightly altered, especially about that 8 ordeal and stunts were obviously freshly designed. The graphic works were weak in some parts, it failed to give a natured effect. Yeah, I think CGI is the issue, the movie relied on it for everything.
The cast performances were fine, but a big star in the lead might have given a different result. It's entertaining, but that was not enough these days, especially for a cop movie we expect details, not just physical tricks. IMO its a one time watch movie, or better try the original.
6/10

So this is like Flatliners... only its not as scary because modern audiences. And it doesn't offer the same satire because modern audiences. And it gender-swapped the main character because modern audiences.
And because of the Swap she couldn't be as dynamic because that would show weakness and yadda yadda yadda so you end up not really caring because she never comes across as a real person, just checked boxes.
And in the end you have wasted a chunk of your life again because you Millennial wife thought it might be cool to watch the remake of one of the movies your old Gen-X butt raved about

Line of flatness for fans of the original - for others not so much.
Strictly on a personal level, I always felt that the original Flatliners was average at best. A missed opportunity to use the premise for frightening results, to unnerve, unhinge, whilst intelligently examining the life after death question. So when news of this 2017 remake broke I wasn't in the least bit surprised, the idea at the narrative core was ripe for further filmic delvings.
Niels Arden Oplev's 2017 version is itself problematic, and a long way from being all the things I so wanted from the original film, but at least it has its own twists, a supernatural slant for scares. The makers are also to be applauded for making a truly bold decision in the story, rendering complaints about this not offering anything new as being redundant.
Chances are that if you are a fan of the original film you will hate this, if like me you have no affinity to it then this is an ok time waster. While for those not familiar with the 1990 pic can go in for some mild shock and afterlife dalliances. 6/10

I thought the original _Flatliners_ was okay, but I was never a big fan. That said, I was still at least partly on board for the potential of a _Flatliners_ TV series. That idea was abandoned in favour of a straight up film-remake, but still I was interested if for no other reason than the cast. The end result? This one's even worse than the original.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

There is always a risk involved when revisiting cinema from the past and dusting it off in favor of an ambitious remake for the consideration of today’s adventurous movie-going audience. Hollywood has done this tactic for decades now so this is nothing new to contemplate as food for thought. It is one thing to try and bring back the freshness and impact of the original blueprint from yesteryear for a distinctive film that proved to be critically acclaimed, extremely popular, conveniently trendy and memorable for it box office heyday. So what gives for trying to resuscitate a mediocre 1990 Brat Pack medical psychological thriller and re-packaging it as an updated glossy horror/SF fantasy focusing on the tiresome and exploitative life-and-death theme for the millennial mindset?
Perhaps director Niels Arden Oplev (‘The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo’) can answer this puzzling inquiry as he presents front and center his modern-day take on the nearly three decade-year old Joel Schumacher-directed DOA drama **Flatliners**. Indeed, Schumacher’s original outing was not what one would call engaging or stimulating but at least it boasted a noteworthy listing of talented young Hollywood hotshots (Julia Roberts, Kiefer Sutherland, Billy Baldwin, Kevin Bacon, Hope Davis, Oliver Platt, etc.) to give a creative jolt to this highly contrived existential experimentation regarding the afterlife. However, Oplev concocts a faceless rehash that offers tepid thrills and chills, frivolous fright impulses that amount to all the riveting tension of a leaky bed pan in the emergency ward and a paper-thin payoff that never quite delivers.
In portraying young idealistic doctors that have an affinity for exploring the unknown realm of the human condition beyond the physical alertness of existence is somewhat of an interesting concept in consciousness on various levels of medical science, spirituality and just plain man-made curiosity. Nevertheless, **Flatliners** (Oplev’s version, of course) does not have the inquisitive juice to lubricate any in-depth instinctive moral dilemma or philosophical ambivalence in this disjointed supernatural medical melodrama lacking a pulse (yes, pun intended). Oplev’s unimaginative direction and the run-of-the-mill script by screenwriter Ben Ripley does nothing to pump any bombastic blood in this cardiac caper that…er…has no intriguing heart (okay…another pun intended). Ironically, reviving the previous serving of the 27-year old Schumacher vehicle for a contemporary copycat that drips more than a faulty IV bag is the biggest fearful flatliner fantasy to behold.
Oscar-nominated Ellen Page (yesterday’s treasured darling courtesy of her spunky turn as a self-deprecating pregnant teen in 2007’s ‘Juno’) plays the film’s ringleader Courtney, a medical student whose guilt and fascination with death is incredulously shared by her group of contemporaries. Courtney is carrying a psychological burden involving a deceased sister, so naturally this is among the unfinished issues that haunt her personally. Basically, Courtney and her crew conduct risque experiments in the hospital’s underground basement in which they enthusiastically kill themselves only to be brought back to life afterwards. During their so-called flatliner sessions, they are disturbed by the ominous sensations of their life-and-death odyssey but remain captivated and invigorated at the same time. This does not deter Courney and her peers from stopping their hearts for the eerie adventurous rush they receive when entering the zone of a dream-like or appropriately nightmarish tranquility.
Among Courtney’s fellow medical heart-stopping thrill-seekers are James Norton’s Jamie, Nina Dobrev’s Marlo, Kiersey Clemon’s Sophia and Diego Luna’s Rudy, who is the recipient of the golden nugget for playing Page’s/Courtney’s lovey-dovey boyfriend whose primary role is to revive his sweetie and her associates after their treacherous trip through death’s delusional door. In any event, these halting heartthrobs (get the double meaning?) possess this awkward ambition to prove whether or not there is brain activity after leaving the land of the living. When the flatliners return to their lively senses, they acknowledge that the brain functioning has sharpened for the better. On the flip side, Courtney and her comatose cohorts all start to undergo some supernatural psychosis that promotes an array of problematic mental dysfunction. The significant vital signs include the drudging up of dark tormented secrets embedded in their damages psyches, monotonous memories that create disturbing unrest and an overall nervousness undefined in and out of their death-defying field trip into mercurial madness.
Interestingly, the mystery is not so much how dedicated and challenged these model-ready med students are ready to tip toe through the tulips of traumatic trances while bodily stopping their organs in the name of scientific ambivalence. The real mystery is why this insipid remake of **Flatliners** was even made and revisited in the first place? For starters, Opley’s nervous system narrative into the realm of human consciousness feels clumsy, trivial, pointless and frivolously far-fetched. Even Schumacher’s original edition, albeit it a shoddy one, had some semblance of attempted earnestness despite its cockeyed and uneven capricious construction. Here, Opley does nothing in the least to give his **Flatliners** any sense of flair, distinctive energy, dubious drive, lofty scares or hypnotic insight into this aimless, recycled material. The film looks cheaply produced and the real message of these young doctors’ journey into an abyss of deadened state is merely reduced to them hyperventilating at their own psychological indiscretions from the past. Sounds rather captivating, huh? The true malpractice at work here is the fraudulent posturing of **Flatliners** coming off as an intriguing mega-medical malaise of major proportions. Plus, the obligatory jump-scares are relentlessly obvious and overplayed. Simply put, this drowsy doctored drama has nothing to say or suggest other than to sprinkle some meaningless titillating CGI imagery around to give this horror-induced hokum some creepy credibility.
Although the winking gimmick of having original **Flatliners** star Keifer Sutherland return to his roots regarding the film’s reminiscence as a middle-aged lecturer is somewhat of a feel-good nostalgic touch, there is not much else that one can hang their hat on for this baseless paranormal puff piece into death-style delirium. Page’s Courtney and her care-giving counterparts come off more as polished twenty-something treats that should be shooting a provocative TV ad for The Gap clothing store rather than portraying death-jumping doctors. Sophomoric dialogue and the soulless randomness into the landscape of living and dying take its silly-minded toll beyond belief. Page, once an adventurous and resourceful actress with a nuanced nose for notable colorful parts in indie and mainstream films, is embarrassingly handcuffed to this SF/horror health care hazard of a motion picture.
What **Flatliners** needs or any other regrettable notions of its future sequels or remakes is a decorative quarantine sign hanging on its hospital bed.
**Flatliners** (2017)
Columbia Pictures
1 hour 48 minutes
CAST: Ellen Page, James Norton, Kiefer Sutherland, Diego Luna, Nina Dobrev and Kiersey Clemons
DIRECTOR: Niels Arden Oplev
WRITER: Ben Ripley
MPAA Rating: PG-13
GENRE: Horror/Science Fiction/Drama/Fantasy
Critic’s rating: * 1/2 stars (out of 4 stars)
(c) **Frank Ochieng** (2017)

I've killed everything that's walked or crawled. If you do it enough, you get used to it.
Hostiles is directed by Scott Cooper and Cooper adapts the screenplay from the story written by Donald E. Stewart. It stars Christian Bale, Rosamund Pike, Wes Studi, Rory Cochrane, John Benjamin Hickey, Jeremiah Wilks and Jesse Plemons. Music is by Max Richter and cinematography by Masanobu Takayanagi.
In 1892, legendary Capt. Joseph J. Blocker (Bale) reluctantly has to escort his old Cheyenne adversary Chief Yellow Hawk (Studi) and his family through dangerous territories. The aim is to get them to the Cheyenne tribal homelands of Montana so Yellow Hawk can get his wish to die in peace.
Where we at these days with the grand old bastion of American cinema, the Western? The only real constant is that thankfully for lovers of the form there are new directors willing to tackle the genre and bring something to the newer generations. Here we have Scott Cooper, who right from the off hasn’t hid the fact that Hostiles is his rallying call for a better world, or at least a better understanding of different cultures. What better way to cry out than to do it in a Western, using the Indian Wars as the backdrop. Perfect really.
Hostiles jumps right out of the blocks to grab you by the throat with soul shattering violence, with Cooper and his team initially facing charges of old by fronting up a one sided argument – but there is more. Quickly a switch ensures that both sides of this particular bloody coin have been tossed, scene set for what will follow. A meeting back at Fort Berringer where Captain Blocker receives the orders he simply doesn’t want to obey is in hushed tones, yet the words being spoken are brutally loud and to the point. And on to the journey, damaged souls unbound who not only have to fear hostiles from outside their group, but the hostiles within it and within themselves.
As the story moves through the journey undertaken by our protagonists, the makers have not cut corners with the characterisations, the emotional development of the principals is one of the film’s strengths (cast are superb, there’s a real authenticity to their respective performances). Also worthy is the pacing, it is deliberately unhurried and allows the characters to breathe, it also gives the jolts of action more potency, whilst simultaneously we can absorb the stunning landscapes (New Mexico/Arizona) and rejoice at the pleasures of an outdoor Western. While how nice it is to have a musical score that doesn’t blunderbuss the important sequences, rounding out what is a top technical production.
There’s some irritants here, though, so it’s not perfect, and this is before it is marked poorly by those not in sync with the messages of the piece. Ben Foster turns up as Philip Wills, a most edgy character that makes one wish there was far more of him in the pic, for as it is it ends up feeling a bit pointless since he only emphasises what we have learned about Blocker at the start. Then there’s a key turn of events for the story’s coup de grâce that leaves a frustrating taste in the mouth, not as a film killer or even close in fact, but it should have gone another way one feels. Especially given the two sides of the argument stance Cooper and co had began with.
Yet this is for Western fans a real treat, following in the footsteps of new era classics like Dances With Wolves and Unforgiven, Hostiles may have a new age sensibility in its narrative thrust, but traditionally old age adultness propels it forward. 9/10