_Four Weddings and a Funeral Except the Weddings Were Actually Just Extra Funerals._
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

RELEASED IN LATE 2017 and written & directed by Scott Cooper, “Hostiles” is a Western starring Christian Bale as a renowned Army captain who grudgingly agrees to escort a dying hated chief (Wes Studi) & his family from New Mexico to Cheyenne lands in Montana in 1892. Rosamund Pike plays a grieving settler that the detail picks up on the way. Rory Cochrane plays Sgt. Metz and Jonathan Majors Corp. Woodsen.
While the flick starts great and the Western "road movie" plot is full of potential, some elements are too contrived/unlikely (e.g. the whole fur trapper episode) or wannabe heavy (e.g. Sgt. Metz' apology in the rain) and the film just wallows in unrelenting glumness. Still, there is some good in it and you’ll discern a glimmer here or there. It's just that after the excellent set-up, I thought I was in for a great Western, but it wasn't to be. The script needed serious rewriting.
THE MOVIE RUNS 2 hours & 14 minutes and was shot in New Mexico/Arizona/Colorado. ADDITIONAL WRITER: Donald E. Stewart.
GRADE: C/C- (4.5/10)

"Fully Loaded" with what though? "Herbie" must have had a tax bill to pay, else what is our mischievous little VW doing in this? He's now the property of "Maggie" (Lindsay Lohan) who has family pedigree in motor car racing. Her dad "Ray" (Michael Keaton) was hugely successful but he doesn't want his daughter to follow in his footsteps! Anyway, she takes "Herbie" to mechanic "Kevin" (Justin Long) and he agrees to fix her up and get her road ready. The idea - well they need to raise some cash so he can fix up his garage and she can get to college. "Herbie" is on board for this, and his enterprising track antics ensure that she defeats all comers and earns a race against champion "Trip" (Matt Dillon) that could net them $10k. "Trip" smells a rat and also, to be fair, "Maggie" starts to tread on the affections of her car - "Herbie" takes a bit of a huff and... Can they patch up their differences and take out the arrogant and sly "Trip"? Can the family taboo that's lingered for years finally be put to bed? Will she hook up with "Kevin"? (Whatever happened to Justin Long?). Who knows, maybe even some oil-on-oil action for "Herbie" and a sleek new yellow number? It's got very little to do with the "Love Bug" (1969) this - it's essentially a showcase for Lohan and she does just about enough to keep it from crashing and burning. That said, there are no characterisations to speak of and the self driving car has long since stopped being innovative. I didn't hate it, but it could just as easily been an edition of "Knight Rider" without the flashing red light.

Really good watch, would watch again, and can recommend.
It's fun to see a callback to a movie like Herbie, and this certainly leans into it. This is also basically the last movie where Lindsay Lohan is still looks good on screen, or at least cute. Lohan and Herbie pretty much carry the movie despite some good supporting parts by the rest of the cast.
While I'm used to seeing Justin Long playing a support role, and Matt Dillon is the "villain", it is a bit odd to see Michael Keaton play such a small, if appropriate, role.
The unbelievability of Herbie being a racecar and the crazy amount of effort that is put into making Herbie a real character should be a downside of the movie, but it makes it remarkably charming in the best of ways.

"Baxter" (Jack Lemmon) has hit on an unique way to work his way up the greasy pole. He sublets his apartment, by the evening, to his bosses at work so they can entertain their lady friends - all in the hope that promotion from his $90-a-week job will result. This policy frequently ends up with him standing around in the cold whilst they polish off all his liquor. Promises, and more promises - will he every get that better job? His only bright spot in the day is the mysterious but jolly lift operator "Fran" (Shirley MacLaine) but it turns out that she is involved with another big-noise executive. It's this man "Sheldrake" (Fred MacMurray) who could really make a difference for "Baxter" but at what cost? He's undoubtedly a bit of a rake as he plays rather callously with the affections of the loved-up "Fran". Finally, she feels so very despondent and she takes drastic action that luckily our hero is able to thwart, and with her still dazed, confused and upset the scene is set for what you might think is a predicable denouement. This isn't one of my favourite Billy Wilder stories. I felt the first half hour verged too closely on a sort of intellectual slapstick for me and much as I did like his effort, I couldn't warm to Jack Lemmon's character at all. MacLaine and MacMurray, on the other hand, presented me with ones I could sympathise with and detest in equally affecting measure. The dialogue is a testament to what can be written without resorting to endless Anglo-Saxon, yet still convey sentiments of aggressiveness, frustration and yep - even affection. It's all set around Christmas which also proves quite useful as it shines a light on many of the hypocrisies that prevail around this time of so-called "good will". The supporting cast deliver strongly too, especially his neighbourly doctor (Jack Kruschen) and wife (Naomi Stevens) who think he's constantly womanising his way through his evenings next door and by the end it's a stinging indictment of office politics and their peccadilloes. Ultimately, this is down to three strong acting performances delivering a pithily poignant script that ought to suggest you never give your spare key to anyone!

**It's a good movie, but Best Picture at the Oscars? Frankly…**
I really enjoyed this film, largely thanks to the lightness of its story, and the funny way in which the film plays with the situation in which the protagonist finds himself intertwined. The film was, in fact, the big winner of the Oscars in its year, with ten nominations and five statuettes (Best Editing, Best Art Direction in Black and White, Best Original Screenplay, Best Director and, the icing on the cake, Best movie). However, if we observe that that year were also nominated for much more memorable films such as “Spartacus” or “Psycho”, it is questionable whether this film really deserved to be considered the best film of the year.
The script is based on the difficulties experienced by a simple office worker of a large insurance company from the moment he begins to lend his own apartment to several superiors in the firm, so that they can take their mistresses and girlfriends there. With the situation, he gains a bad reputation among the neighbors and with the landlady, in addition to not being able to go to his own house when he wants and thinks he should, being always limited by the arrangements that he is, from a certain moment, coerced into keeping. , as you progress in the firm thanks to the exchange of favors. Of course, there's going to be a very complicated romance midway through the story, and everything will end well, as it does in these comedies.
The cast is half the recipe for this success. Jack Lemmon gives us a very good performance, perhaps the best of his career as an actor, along with his enormous acting exercise in “Some Like it Hot”. Fred McMurray was also very good in this film, giving us with commitment and great charisma an unpalatable character (a married man, very important in the company, who betrays his wife and will take advantage of the ambition of a minor employee). Without disapproval for the good performance of Sirley MacLaine, who gave life to a fragile young woman who is the main love interest of the protagonist, the film is not especially sympathetic to any element of the female cast.
The film has a very pleasant pace and time passes without us noticing it, if we give the story a chance to get involved. I think the good editing and the fact that the film doesn't stop at dead moments helped a lot at that point. Good sets and costumes, especially the office set, with all the details we can imagine, make for a film that is good, although I can consider that there are far superior films.

Essential viewing once a year for soul maintenance

A tiypical Billy Wilder comedy. Fun and with great script and performance from Jack Lemmon.
A must to see.

**Once avant-garde and innovative, this film feels archaic and old as an arcade game, and has an absolutely miserable script.**
I'm not sure what Disney was thinking when they decided to make this film, but I understand the concept and the reasons that led the studio to bet on something like this. In the 1980s, the creation and gradual massification of the computer (a huge box that we see in the movie and which is now primitive compared to the machines we use) generated a “fever” around computing and led to the creation of games that, later, the World Wide Web has taken it to another level. The movie came out when personal computers started to become popular in the US, but here in my country it took about fifteen years to happen. It's extraordinary to think about this, and how quickly things have evolved. I am thirty-two years old, I belong to a generation that still lived its childhood without technologies, but I was a teenager when they started to become something more visible in our lives. So I can understand why this movie was made, but being a Disney movie, I confess I was expecting better.
The film has an uninspired cast made up of third-rate actors. Among all the (almost) anonymous names, only David Warner stands out. The film also has one of the worst dramatic interpretations of Jeff Bridges' life. He was still young here, but the film's material and style didn't help him do a satisfying job. In fact, I blame the screenwriters for most of the film's problems, as they weren't able to come up with a decent story that would justify the feature film. The story that the film brings us is based on the journey of a human being inside the computer, where he will basically have to play and beat opponents. This is very little and it bores us quickly. It seems like a mere excuse for the studio to make an experiment in the field of CGI and the application of technology in cinema.
Where the film really bets heavily is on the visuals, heavily stylized and inspired by two obvious elements: the integrated circuits used in engineering and the colorful and (now) somewhat forgotten neon lights. In those late 1980s, neon was something that drew attention in the urban landscape, and there was no street or square where, at dusk, dozens of neon signs did not light up. It's something that has virtually disappeared in the last decade, but that gave the city a certain life. I confess that I felt some nostalgia when feeling the aesthetic influences of all that, but I recognize that the film tried to do something far ahead of its time: the Hollywood Academy itself refused to nominate this film for an Oscar because it considered that CGI was a form of cheating. And perhaps also because they did so early, the resources used were so rudimentary (even though they were the best there was) that they gave the film an extremely heavy and dated look, which aged very poorly. The same can be said of the sound effects and even that soundtrack, so dominated by the synthesizer.

I saw this again yesterday - it's 40 years old! I didn't see it at the time, I was one of those kids who hadn't the slightest interest in "Space Invaders" nor did I ever have an Atari, but I do recall the fuss that was being made about Disney's first foray into the world of the emerging computer games market. Actually, the story is not so terrible. It's pretty derivative, with a quite handsome, young, 501-clad Jeff Bridges ("Flynn") out to avenge himself on the evil "Dillinger" (David Warner) who pinched some of his gaming ideas and subsequently rose through the company. Thing is, though, "Dillinger" has now designed a "Master Control Programme" (Think "Forbin Project" from 1970) and when "Flynn" tries to break into this system, he is reduced to a player in a game of survival where he encounters fellow rebels "Tron", "Ram" and "Lora". Adventures ensue as they must try to destroy this "MCP" before it bores of industrial aspirations, and sets it's sights on the Pentagon and the Kremlin. By any modern day standard, the graphics are linear and static - but there is no doubt that they were groundbreaking and quickly-paced for 1982. The use of light - blue and red for good and evil; the slightly over-exposed imagery to try and create the feeling of an alternative digital environment works well enough and though there isn't the slightest amount of jeopardy as to the ending, it's actually quite an entertaining 90-odd minutes that reminded me that every oak tree starts with an acorn. The attempts to incorporate technical or gaming language into the dialogue are a bit contrived, but there is a fun sequence with a "bit" that can only say yes and no as "Flynn" drives his wonky thing ("Max" from "The Black Hole" (1979), anyone?) through the maze of circuitry. Warner is not very convincing, it has to be said - he was rarely much good, I thought - but once it gets going it's an enjoyable piece of cinema nostalgia that looked quite reasonable on a big screen.

An acquired taste. For me, someone who has no knowledge of computer programming and the sort, it's a very slow, tedious and boring watch.
'Tron', unfortunately, didn't take my interest whatsoever. Not helped by the poor special effects (they get a pass due to it being an 1982 release; though I'm not convinced it's good either way) and forgettable cast performances, it's not a premise that's easy to get into if you have no prior understanding of coding etc.
There is some intrigue in there, but not nearly enough to satisfy my viewing pleasure - it felt like a much longer run time than 96 minutes, that's for sure. All cool if you love this, but I very much didn't. Hopefully the 2010 sequel gives the concept a major boost.

The stylistic use of the stage drifted between excessive and under-utilised, occasionally falling into perfect balance, of which the ballroom dance scene between Kitty, Vronsky and Anna Karenina is the prime example.
The film tells its story closer to the way a ballet’s is told.

Alright, plot-wise, I might just have to throw in the towel on this one. It is about... people, married, unmarried, love and desire. A lot of characters running in and out of eachothers lives. Since this is based on a famous novel (I think), there must be a lot of summaries out there that can help you along much better than I could.
Quite frankly, I was... confused. The whole movie is sort of based at a theater (more or less), where the scenes change constantly. It can be quite spectacular, I must admit, but also... confusing. As a period piece, this movie has paid attention to the details, and everything looks soo good. I can definitely appreciate this, but it seems that all attention has been placed here, on the form.
The acting, and actors, fit well here... on the stage. They all act as if they were on a stage, which is fitting. In fact, to be honest, I would have much preferred to see this as a live performance on stage, than here. The story simply drowns in all these costumes and colours, fake trains and stages.
_Last words... a good story is more important than anything else. A good story doesn't have to be complicated (just take a look at a movie such as Locke, which is centered around many of the same themes as this). A good story was not important to these people, they just wanted to play around with fancy costumes, beautiful sets and actors who exaggerate. I would surely have skipped this one... had I known._

Great watch, will likely watch again, and do recommend.
Such a great, yet equally awful premise, it affords some top notch ridiculous abuse humor mixed with some of the most fun and fulfilling action I've seen in quite some time.
Playing a guy that piss off the wrong guy on the internet, Danielle Radcliffe (Harry Potter) embodies the spirit of desperation, and he does so much with it, given that he literally can't answer his phone or open a door, since his hands are now guns.
Samara Weaving ("The Babysitter"), really knocks her role out of the park. Madder than Harley Quinn, she not only does a superb action sequence work, but she makes it look fun as well.
The story is a little complex, but the way it is framed turns it transitions of over the top ridiculous scenarios as things escalate.
If you like great action, good reveals, psychotic characters, and/or insane survival situations, then I'm sure you'll enjoy this.

I've made no secret about my opinions on Samara Weaving, but I was more than willing to give _Guns Akimbo_ a chance anyway. I wouldn't say I regret that decision, but I was underwhelmed. I'm going to use a term here that I have not used unironically in... God, maybe, genuinely, over a decade, because I don't know how else to describe _Guns Akimbo_: _Guns Akimbo_ is fuckin' **tryhard**. It's so desperately ~~edgy~~, in a way that tries to emulate works I do love, but goes too far too clumsily. I didn't hate it, at all, but I was very **aware** of what this movie was trying to be, where a better film might have kept me to entertained to notice.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
As it becomes more and more common nowadays, I have to start this review by stating that no controversy surrounding this film affected my opinion in any way. I’m feeling a bit exhausted about the fact that almost every movie has some sort of external problem entirely unrelated to its story or characters. You can watch whatever you want, no one will make you watch this or that film. As long as you don’t purposefully give a negative review based on something that has nothing to do with the movie itself, I’m fine with people skipping them. That said…
I really enjoyed Guns Akimbo! I mean, how can someone not feel entertained by Daniel Radcliffe dressed in his robe with guns attached to his hands? Or by Samara Weaving taking a step up in craziness compared to Ready or Not? There’s no denying that this film is extremely violent, bloody, and it doesn’t shy away from having a clear social commentary. The latter is not only evident, but it undoubtedly demonstrates something everyone knows it’s true: Internet trolls are the worst!
Actually, I wish Jason Lei Howden would have gone even further. There’s a lot of potential in a movie like this, and while it’s safely above average, it could have been at the top of the most entertaining films of the last few years. Still, I wholeheartedly love this take on a subject that everyone (online film critics especially) unfortunately has to deal with every day. A part of me wished it was real… Every time a “troll alert” was activated, that person would have to leave its comfortable, safe couch, and battle TO THE DEATH other online cowards in real-life… okay, maybe not that extreme, but you get my point.
The action is as crazy as the concept itself. It goes by without saying, but obviously, this is one of those flicks which asks the viewer to simply accept and enjoy the unrealistic, far-fetched, no-way-he-could-have-survived-that action. The camera work (cinematography by Stefan Ciupek) suits the videogame-style employed by the action, and even though some sequences are admittedly way too over-the-top, the majority of these scenes are either pure entertainment or truly hilarious. Oh, and Michael Bay, if you’re reading this: Guns Akimbo gives a neat demo on how to make explosions look really cool AND advance the narrative.
The two leads are fantastic and share great chemistry. Daniel Radcliffe has been doing some overlooked/underrated work post-Harry Potter (definitely check out Swiss Army Man), and he’s very funny throughout the whole runtime. On the opposite side, Samara Weaving apparently found his comfort zone in portraying completely lunatic, insane psychopaths. Both deliver incredibly entertaining performances, carrying the whole movie through all of its wild action and comedic bits.
Jason Lei Howden isn’t able to control the film’s pacing very well, but it never becomes overwhelming. However, the tone is spot-on. Guns Akimbo never tries to be something more than what it actually is. It keeps the narrative simple and fun without complex layers or extreme romantic endeavors. It never says to the viewer, “I know the action is absurdly over-the-top, but here’s a really emotional scene that you’re supposed to care about”. It’s an entertainment-driven story with no real emphasis on character development, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Guns Akimbo is the craziest movie of 2020, so far. Jason Lei Howden doesn’t hold back on the brutal, violent, bloody, extremely over-the-top action, and as long as the viewer is able to accept this purposefully unrealistic depiction of a real-life videogame death-match, it’s a blast of pure entertainment. The social message is evident, and it’s perfectly suited for today’s online trolls, who hide behind their monitor. Daniel Radcliffe and Samara Weaving are amazing together, both delivering hilarious performances. Unfortunately, this film doesn’t reach its full potential. It lacks control of its pacing, but I genuinely wish Howden would have gone all-out regarding the social thematic. It’s a good, fun movie, but it could have great. Still, it’s undoubtedly a recommendation of mine, unless the (dumb) controversy surrounding this film clouds your judgment. In this case, just skip it and let others enjoy it.
Rating: B

There's definite cheap fun to be had here, just try not to go in with expectations too high. This was potential wasted, but at least we always have 'Deathgasm' to fall back on.
- Jess Fenton
Read Jess' full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-guns-akimbo-just-like-harry-potter-but-with-guns-and-more-violence-not-really

Take it with a grain of bias, because I too went to a Christian Brothers school and hated it, but I absolutely adored _Sing Street_.
It rehashes a lot of things you will have seen before, but if you're a lover of the 80's, alternative music, coming of age stories or even just good cinema, you could do a lot worse than _Sing Street_.
_Final rating:★★★★ - An all round good movie with a little something extra._

> Back to the 80s with rock and roll and romance.
I seriously thought this might be an overrated film. I knew it was too early to judge it, so I was not expecting anything extraordinary and then it struck me with its progress, I was clean bowled by its style and cuteness. I don't what others think, but this is John Carney's masterpiece according to me. I liked his other films, but this is something I think a perfect dose of contents. In two words to say it is a Golden Touch. I rarely like music and musical films, and it had been long since one I had enjoyed very much like this. Definitely this should be one of the top ten films of the years.
This is an Irish-British film that is set in the Dublin, 1985. It is about a high school boy named Conor, who just got transferred from a private school to a free state-run boy's school after his parents imposed a plan on the budget cut. New school and problems are ahead where he has to come out of it on his own. During getting used to it, he meets a girl who lives nearby the school and to impress her, he lies that he has a band and looking for a female singer. So then he forms one with the amateur musicians and the journey begins for these teenagers that reveals in the remaining film how long they are willing to go.
> "Your problem is that you're not happy being sad. But that's what love is, Cosmo. Happy-sad."
At the end of the final scene, there is a note that says 'For brothers everywhere'. I was impressed by that, because I did not pay attention on that while watching the film. What I meant was, this is not some teenage love story, actually it was about the brothers, but overshadowed by romance theme. I recalled my memories on those parts and quickly realised the centre of the story that how it was developed. The one who played the older brother of Conor simply looked alike Seth Rogan and that is the character you have to watch out for. He's only a supporting character, but the impact was indirectly larger on the story.
Of course, falling in love might make you do crazy things, even you can become a rockstar overnight. But there's a first step for everything and it is not assured that you will be succeed by those attempts. That is where comes the experienced hand, the brother, a close friend who stood by us since our birth. It is easy to fall in love, but it is not easy to have a brother who guides us in every move on that.
In this film the sreenspace between them was very little, but that did not stop to disclose how one's inspiration that got from love to mold accurate shape and to lead the right path. I don't have any brother, but I felt how it would be to have one. So all the brothers in the world must see it, this is dedicated to them.
> "It's like when you don't know someone, they are more interesting. They can be anything you want them to be. But when you know them, there's limits to them."
I did not grow up in the 80s, but was very close to it and I know how it would feel to be born in that generation. Jeans, thick hair and curls, everybody was so thin, weird make-ups with strong eyeliner, big eyeglasses, cassettes, you would love this film if you remember those stuffs from your fading memories.
A very stylish music-comedy and on the romance side, this film was very cute. All the actors were brilliant, especially the lead boy whose first film was this and the girl amazing with her totally electrifying look. They both going have a great future in filmdom. Not to miss out the supporting cast who did their part so well, especially the brother I talked about in the other paragraph.
All the sound tracks were awesome. I should start adding them to my 'film songs' collection, especially 'The Riddle of the Model' which defines this title and the film's climax song 'Go Now'. So from the cast to crew, equal credits must given to the music composers and lyricists from the real 80s bands. The film had a perfect runtime, I would have had no issue if it was extended for another half an hour.
The pace of the narration always kept in a same position, but towards the final quarter it has gone up. Yes, I loved the ending, it was touching, but I don't know how to describe it, only one can experience it by himself. A film I watched without any anticipation, now it is one of my favourite films. Todays generation might take it as another rock and roll inspired theme, but only the middle aged guys and some old ones would know how to enjoy it. So don't miss it out if you are one of them.
8.5/10

"I Am Sam" is one of those movies, that touch you right where it matters and if this movie is not becoming an absoute classic, this world must be full of morons. Sean Penn plays the role of his life and he is way more impressive than Dustin Hoffman in "Rain Man". And that performance already can be considered flawless. Also very impressive is little Dakota Fanning in her role as Lucy and one of the best child performances ever brought to screen. And even after the movie is over it will stay with you for a long time and will get you thinking on what side you would actually be if this case would be happening around you. Would you ignore all logic and just decide by your heart or does the common sense weigh strong enough to side with the court and child services pointing out that little Lucy needs a secure surrounding with capable parents who can provide security and mature advice? Anyhow, this movie is incredible and I wouldn't change a single thing.

A modern approach to the myth of the wolverine in the wolf extincted Japan.
The animation is really fantastic, specially the background staging.
The story is interesting and is quite touching the struggle of the mother to raise her children but at some point it becomes a bit boring for lack of rythm.

The movie is beautifully animated and an emotional Rollercoaster ride.
Topped only by the excellent Soundtrack by Takagi Masakatsu.

Really good watch, could watch again, and can recommend.
Halle Berry carries this great Pyschological Thriller of a doctor turned mental patient. This definitely has the production value to support its needs.
They do a great job of calling into question whether or not she's crazy at any given time while still presenting the "other worldly" aspects consistently.
I even think it holds up (currently) 18 years later as there are technological restrictions in place.
Well worth the watch if you like slasher killer detective movies.

Not great, yet enjoyable.
Halle Berry is the star of 'Gothika', but is also joined competently by Robert Downey Jr. and Penélope Cruz; though we don't see much of the latter, unfortunately. The execution of the premise comes out alright, though could've been better of course.
There's also a tonne of screaming, most of it unnecessary. As for scares, I can't say it produces in that regard to be honest. It's mainly just the cast that stick out, but I still like the vibe of the film even if it never had me feeling tense or anything close.
Thankfully they kept it relatively short at just 98 minutes, even just 10-15 additional minutes would've crippled my feelings towards it. As such, it's passable.

Time to wash away your sins.
Whilst hardly being a very good horror film, it's not exactly the stinker some would have you believe.
The problems with it are that it becomes overblown, after initially pulsing away as a very moody and atmospherically tight spooker, set to a superbly eerie asylum backdrop, it gets away from itself in the final third. The makers never quite grasp the concept of keeping the mystery aspects of the plot still cloaked in scary tints. Tech credits are dandy, though an impressive cast list are not asked to stretch themselves.
It's not ever overtly frightening and lacks suspense in some key areas, but there's still enough of a creepy vibe here to not waste the time of first time viewers. Repeat viewing prospects, though? Unlikely. 6/10

I'm so tired of Marky Mark, Jason Statham, Gerald Butler and all those old mfs doing the same "ex-cop/cop that takes on the corrupt on his own" movies. Don't watch this garbage.

King George angry at them white fellas. King George say them white fella bad spirit. Must be taken from this land.
Australia is directed by Baz Luhrmann and Luhrmann co-writes the screenplay with Stuart Beattie, Ronald Harwood, and Richard Flanagan. It stars Nicole Kidman, Hugh Jackman, David Wenham, Bryan Brown and Brandon Walters.
It took a bit of a kicking from the pro critics upon release, where the consensus is that at a cost of $130 million this intended sprawling epic is an ambitious flop. For the record at the box office it practically made double its outlay, so certainly wasn't a financial flop.
It's a mixed bag for sure, a film of two differing halves. First half sends Kidman's English aristocrat to Northern Australia after she inherits the sprawling Faraway Downs Ranch. Here she finds herself in the middle of a dirty take over plot and reluctantly makes a working pact with Jackman's stock-man Drover. Seeds are sewn here for a bit of a screwball relationship, all while a cattle feud brews and the Aborigines at the ranch - particularly young Nulllah (Walters) - are in fear of racial tension. Pic then flip-flops into a love story, a war story (as the Japanese attack Darwin) and the bile strewn historical strand that features the "stolen generations" of half-white/half-Aboriginal children.
With all this going on, as Lurhman nods to classic epics from classic era past, the vistas are stunning and the hard work of cattle ranching is given genuine credence (helps having the rugged Jackman leading the way). Set pieces are exciting, the Japanese aerial attacks realistic for dramatic worth, while the chemistry between the leads, a worthy child performance from Walters and a quality weasel villain turn from Wenham ensure performances don't harm the pic in that department. There's even the likes of Ben Mendelsohn and John Jarratt in secondary support slots.
It isn't all it can be, and tonally it feels like there might have been some behind the scenes interference (three co-writers probably didn't help). Yet there are some genuine moments of fun and beauty here, mixed with some heart string tugs and reflection of an historical time that should never ne forgotten. Luhrman reached for "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" and didn't quite make it, but it's honourable and has some damn fine craft for entertainment purpose. 7/10

Based on a true story, Jason Statham does his usual as struggling car dealer "Terry" who is alerted to an opportunity to get rich quick by "Martine" (Saffron Burrows). She knows that a safety deposit box facility is going to be without it's alarm systems for a week or so and therefore if they can assemble a skilful team and... yes, think "League of Gentlemen" (1960) only with tunnelling. Now "Terry" doesn't really stop to answer the obvious question - where did "Martine" get this information? Millions of pounds of cash and jewels in these well protected boxes, well of course - but what else might they contain? Who, as importantly, is likely to get a bit narked if their precious cargos are appropriated. Success will come at a price, and that is something that soon descends on them all once they end up with considerably more than the bargained for. This might have worked better with a stronger supporting cast, but neither Burrows nor a motley collection of British regulars really add much to this vehicle for a star who has charisma on screen and a glint in his eye - but that can only take a film so far. This is quite a dry, procedural heist drama that, like so many of the genre, is more fun in the planning but that peters out once the execution and it's aftermath kick in. It's enjoyable enough to watch, and you can only imagine just how many secrets - state or otherwise - are or were holed up in facilities like these all around the world. Somehow, though, this just doesn't ignite nor live up to it's potential and is all a bit flat and forgettable with not enough action and some seriously banal dialogue.

**The Bank Job appears to be a face-paced exciting robbery and espionage film. While those things did take place, it was long, slow, and not as flashy as hoped.**
With Jason Statham as the lead, I expected The Bank Job to have fight scenes and car chases. It did not. Compared to other Statham flicks, The Bank Job was slow-paced and more dramatic than action-focused. Some of the pacing results from the story being based on an actual bank robbery in 1971. As intriguing as that is, it also made the story drag on. The heist takes place halfway through the film, with a full hour of runtime before the end. The robbery's aftermath is filled with political maneuvering and negotiation between several dangerous groups interested in the contents of the safe. With an hour to tie up all the loose ends, the ending somehow felt abrupt and disappointing. The Bank Job has a few cool moments, but even with a strong lead like Statham, it was average at best.

Some of it was kinda funny, but mostly the gross-out humour was plastered on with a trowel. There didn't need to be that much time spent inside an elephant.
Also what's with all the super dated music cues?
Meh