There are some (emphasis on 'some') good moments in _Grimsby_. I sniggered twice (and would have a third time if that moment hadn't already been in the trailer) and there are a couple of surprisingly solid action sequences, primarily the ones with Mark Strong helming them.
That said, I still didn't like the movie. It's oft lazy and the quote unquote "humour" is almost entirely of the gross-out variety. It's like "HEY LOOK A DICK! HEY LOOK SOME POOP! FUCK YOU GIVE US YOUR MONEY!".
Must admit, I've never seen a "football hooligan/espionage/action-thriller/adult-comedy/family drama" before though.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

> These brothers joining hands mean the world is in trouble.
I thought it might be a spin off to 'The Man from UNCLE', but it wasn't. From the action-thriller director known for 'Transporter' films and this is his first comedy, yet it has some great stunts. It is about the two brothers who meets after a lot time separation. Now they're two opposite kinds, professionally and socially. So coming together means trouble is inevitable wherever they go in the world. Against all the odds how they accomplish their task that forced them to do it is the rest of the film.
If you like Sacha's trademark comedies, you might like it as well. Like always his part was excellent in this, especially jokes were very hilarious. Though the story was weak, but the rest of the film was not bad. The overall film leaned on its comedies and that's how the narration somewhat successfully carried out till the end. An enjoyable film, but you might hesitate to rate higher, because this is not the best film of the year, definitely not for me, I've seen a lot better ones.
Besides, Mark Strong was amazing. He was always been a co-star, but here he's equal to Sacha and he did some good stunts as well. I think the film is passable, because it is one of the recent decent comedy. I can suggest it for those who're seeking some laughs. It might won't bring the loud ones, but surely will raise your cheeks. The film is for adults for the R rated jokes, there are some unexpected scenes that I was surprised for them. I enjoyed it and I'm sure I won't remember it for very long, that kind of film it is.
6.5/10

As career defining roles go, this has to one of the more masterful efforts from Ben Kingsley who manages to engage right from the start with his sprightly, intelligent and considered portrayal of this visionary and independently minded man of peace. Arriving in South Africa, his baptism into a sea of bullishness and racism quickly tests his mettle and soon has him on the radar of a General Smuts (Athol Fugard) government that was as yet unused to any sort of challenge from the non-white elements of society. Unafraid to take a beating, or to challenge the cultural norms without own his own caste-driven society, he is swiftly back in India where, flushed with a degree of success, he allies with Pandit Nehru (Roshan Seth) and becomes even more determined to use the sheer size of the dominated Indian population to rebel against the last vestiges of post war Raj. His strategy of non-cooperation sees him incarcerated and separated from those he loved but, again, his patience and determination made even the most formidable of his foes realise that this man was just a bit different - and that he was on a path to a victory that necessitated a dignified, but definite, retreat. The latter part of the story illustrates well that old adage about the difficulties of winning the peace, made more difficult by intolerances of an all together different nature, before a denouement that history dictated for all. Richard Attenborough told a story of his first meeting with Prime Minister Nehru when he was planning this film, and of how that ten minutes of courtesy ended up considerably longer and more beneficial to the look of this beautifully filmed biopic. Using grand scale cinematography that focusses on the vastness and variety of the country, but also using an intimate and really quite tough to watch style of photography as the brutish behaviour towards the colonised was clearly demonstrated. As to the exact nature of the history, I'm not sure that detail mattered so much as the overall assemblage of some of the great from British stage and screen who seemed, by themselves, to offer an heart-felt apology for what had gone on as the sun did start to set on the Empire. There features also a gently supporting effort from Geraldine James's Mirabehn and Candice Bergen also helps the narrative's chronology along as the photo-journalist never far from Gandhi's side. It's long and can be a little sluggish at times, but the sheer participatory nature of this is reminiscent of the epic cinema of the days when crowds were real, cheap, colourful and enthusiastic - and that all adds to the richness of this classy and stylish production. Big screen experiences don't come much more poignant and this is well worth a watch in a cinema if you can.

**Cheesy and bad writing**
“**Spoilers may be inside**”
The first episode starts with a socking scene, followed by good acting and beautiful views of Montana. Soon many characters are introduced and their complex dynamics start to shape in. So far so good.
By the episode 5-6 onwards the show starts to lose its grip. No consistency in behavior, illogical violence, unnecessary screaming/cursing, followed by some lazy cowboy scene, and this becomes monotonous. The writing is so poor, e.g. someone kills somebody, and the next morning he is enjoying some cowboy moments, as if nothing happened. No fear, no remorse, nothing.
The whole show becomes pretty repetitive and cheesy. I am surprised it got 8+.

Legitimately bad writing. All the scenes seem to needlessly end in escalation, hostility or outright violence to the point it's exhausting. There are shows about gangs, drug dealers and hit men with fewer murders per season.
This ranch has an implausibly high body count, dozens if not hundreds of people have been murdered here and there's not been anyone looking into it? None of the lazily disposed of bodies get investigated? This one farmer is powerful enough to keep away state and federal police for decades?
For whatever reason everyone is perpetually wanting to fight. They'll just escalate the most trivial interactions into a fight. Guy asks you for money? Bash his face in. Someone wants to quit their job? Kill them. Even the most aggro person wouldn't escalate to fighting as often as these people do just out of laziness/exhaustion.
***
**Spoiler for S01E01:**
The characters are extremely shallow, always trotting out the same spiels and back story. They will all talk endlessly about how traumatised they are about the death of their mother decades earlier without a single mention of their other dead family member who died on the show and is seemingly never mentioned again.
***
Ultimately the whole show feels like a badly written soap opera, obscenely implausible scenarios occuring on a ranch with a body count in the hundreds. The characters become caricatures of themselves, dialogue and character development is shallow with the plot falling apart with even the slightest thought.

I recently watched this for the second time, many years after my initial viewing. I confess I didn't always give it my full attention, not just because I had seen it once but also because the plot isn't very subtle, and careful viewing isn't necessary. The dialogue is realistic and well done, but the characters seem a bit stereotypical. You have the grizzled captain whose skills and luck seem to be in decline, a gentle giant with an ex-wife and a kid, a young man desperately in love, the newcomer ready to pick a fight with one of the above and a ladies man who I think was creole, but I am not sure.
So the plot bumps along and the special effects of huge waves and wind works to build suspense, only partly successfully. There are subplots also: the meteorologists with their eyes widening as the perfect storm develops, a yacht crew of three and the Coast Guard rescuers who try to save them, and a female ship captain who in real life wrote the book all this is based on.
The film is entertaining enough, in its undemanding way, but I can safely say I don’t expect to watch it for a third time. There were a few cliche moments and moments of melodrama. But it is watchable, especially if it is your first time.

The Perfect Storm, I just love it so much.
"The fog's just lifting, you throw off your bow line, you throw off your stern-you head out to South Chanel past Rocky Neck...Ten Pound Island, past Niles Pond where I skated as a kid-and you blow your air horn and throw a wave to the lighthouse keepers kid on Thatcher's Island - then the birds show up, black backs and herring gulls, big dump ducks - the sun hits you, head North, open up to 12, you're steaming now, the guys are busy, you're in charge - you know what? You're a god damn sword boat captain, is there anything better in the world?"
Ordinarily I would write a review that is fair minded and as honest as I can call it, something that hopefully would interest the readers either side of the fence. But here with The Perfect Storm I just want to write why I love this particular picture, and what a most divisive picture it has turned out to be. I'm aware of the complaints about the movie, even the ones from the family of the real Captain Billy Tyne {played by Alpha Male regular George Clooney}, but as an entertaining spectacle with huge slices of emotional fortitude, The Perfect Storm will forever be hitting my spots.
The character build up is just wonderful, people with things to prove, fractured and blossoming romances, loyalties on the line, grudges carried over from previous encounters, the lives of sea fishermen fully formed in the films first quarter. Then there is a sequence as George Clooney says the monologue that I have opened this review with, beautifully recited, but it's the emotion in Linda Greenlaw's face (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio) as she watches and listens to him speak it, just wonderful. Then the boys go out to see, heading off into dangerous waters to hopefully make a killing in the fish market, tensions run high, accidents happen, heroes are born and rivalries quickly overturned, but the boys must go further if they are to corner the market, the Grand Banks are evil at this time of year.
A three pronged hostile weather front is heading their way, they are, as Linda tells Billy on the radio, heading into the belly of the monster, and what a monster it is. Here the makers excel, director Wolfgang Petersen, his cinematographer John Seale and his S/E maestro John Frazier do literally put me right there in a amongst the waves and derringdo bravado. Then it's the final couple of reels, the emotional mangler, even a spiritual coda that is hated by so many can't make me dislike the film any less, and I'll wager right here and now that as funeral eulogies go, few if any have been delivered with as much heartbreaking emotion as the one read by Mastrantonio here. All of which is backed by a truly involving score by James Horner, shades of Braveheart's emotional swirls in there.
It's a personal opinion you know, but The Perfect Storm is a magnificent film that I enjoy three times a year, every year, and nobody will ever be able to take that away from me.
"There's no goodbyes Christina, only love," damn straight! 9/10

Thunderball is definitely one of the worst Bond films, after the 1st act nothing exciting happens and it is rather boring.

Whilst he isn't quite as megalomaniac as "Auric Goldfinger"; Adolfo Celi is great here as "Largo" - the Spectre agent charged with their most ambitious mission yet. A great deal of meticulous planning has gone into their scheme to hijack an RAF plane carrying nuclear missiles that they intend to blackmail the world with. "M" (Bernard Lee) despatches "007" (Sean Connery) to investigate, a global journey that ultimately ends up in the Caribbean Sea. The film has oodles of pace and sexiness; the story is probably the best of the original Ian Fleming adaptations (by Richard Maibaum) and the last half hour finds us dabbling with sharks and scuba-divers armed with lethal spears; underwater jet-craft and ultimately a cracking boat chase with the original super-yacht - the "Disco Volante". Claudine Auger as "Domino" is one of my favourite, fiestiest "Bond Girls" - loads of attitude and glamour with just a hint of dastardliness of her own; and the characterisations are rich enough across the board to offer us a really superior, well put together, action adventure topped off with a rousing theme from John Barry, Don Black and a superlative Tom Jones.

This is the hay day of Bond.
We get it all. Stunning women, great gadgets, non stop action, wit, and the exotic scenery that make 007 films so iconic.
We also get the two greatest evil henchmen deaths in 007 film History, and may in film History. The boardroom assassination sticks out, because we know which of the two men is the embezzler by his demeanor. Innocent men have no idea how to prove their innocence, and so they sweat. It is the guilty man who thinks he has his tracks covered.
The other henchman death is little fish "Quist", in a scene brutal and brilliant.
The underwater battle scene still remains to this day as the most action packed and best directed underwater action scene in Film History.
There is so much else going for this film that it would take ten pages to explain.
Suffice to say it is a top five 007 film. I rank it about with Goldfinger. Goldfinger has more charm, while Thunderball has more excitement.and action.I usually rank Goldfinger 4th and this one 3rd, but I go back and forth on that.

This is certainly the last of the classic 007 films. This is the last time we see 007 as the cold hearted assassin that he is. The last time we see a Bond that, the only reason he's really a good guy is because of what side he is on and not what he is.
In later films they call him a blunt instrument, but in this film he actually still is. He's still the trigger man. He still has no respect for human life and is only really concerned about the mission.
After this we enter the era of Silly 007, with a layover for Lazenby who walked the line and ended up more Cannery than Moore. And as where the Silly Bonds do still have their appeal (and trust me, I still love them) the franchise never seemed as lethal or as cool again.
But, rest assured, this is also the 007 where Special Effects and over-the-top stunts made their introduction and would later become a much loved 007 trope.
So it stands as a bridge between classic and contemporary 007, and as much as I love them both, I like the classic 007 just a little more.

**Thunderball goes all out, taking James Bond to new heights (and depths) with bigger action sequences, new gadgets, deadly villains, and beautiful locations. Thunderball is peak 60s Bond!**
Thunderball is my favorite of Sean Connery’s James Bond films. How could it not be? With the Bond formula finally established, Thunderball takes it all to the next level! With Sean Connery returning as the suave secret agent, villainous femme fatale Fiona, Claudine Auger’s stunning Bond Girl Domino, a bad guy with an eye patch, climactic underwater battles, jet packs, evil shark booby traps, the beautiful Bahamian beaches, and Tom Jones singing Thunderball, the Connery’s fourth entry as Bond is an outstanding campy and wild ride. All the 60s charm and camp permeate every aspect of the film, creating a ton of classic goofy charm (and a few awkward comments that aren’t very politically correct nowadays). Thunderball cranked everything up to eleven, creating a lot of fun and so many spy movie tropes for decades to come.

_**James Bond underwater adventure with the best female cast**_
After a couple atomic bombs are stolen from the RAF, agent 007 (Sean Connery) travels to Nassau, Bahamas, to clash with SPECTRE agent Emil Largo (Adolfo Celi) and his femme fatale accomplice (Luciana Paluzzi). Claudine Auger is on hand as Largo’s naïve woman.
"Thunderball" (1965) is one of my favorites of Connery’s run in the franchise due to the interesting intrigue, the Tom Jones’-sung title song, and the best cast of women in the series. Other than Luciana Paluzzi (Fiona) and Claudine Auger (Domino), Molly Peters plays a voluptuous masseuse at a health clinic while statuesque Martine Beswick is on hand as an MI6 agent in the Bahamas (Beswick previously appeared in “From Russia with Love” as one of the Gypsy cat-fighters).
I was surprised that the bulk of the flick takes place in the Bahamas as “Dr. No” (1962) took place mostly in Jamaica, which is 400 miles south in the Caribbean.
For those interested, “Thunderball” was remade as the non-canon “Never Say Never Again” (1983), which was Connery’s final excursion as 007. I prefer this one, which was the most successful Bond flick of the 60s (at the box office), but “Never Say Never Again” is worth checking out even though it’s not as ambitious as Roger Moore’s dynamic “Octopussy,” released the same year.
The film runs 2 hour, 10 minutes and was shot in Château d'Anet, Anet (opening) & Paris, France; England; and the Bahamas.
GRADE: A-

It can be difficult and not very useful to compare the early James Bond movies to the later ones. The female characters become more than merely ornamental and more interesting, the plots become more intricate, the villains less stereotypical, and the special effects better and better.
Having said all that, I must confess I give Thunderball a pass on any such criticism or comparison, for a rather odd and personal reason, and not just because I like Sean Connery! As a teenager I sort of inherited the soundtrack album for Thunderball, either from my dad or an older brother. That was well before I ever saw the movie. Except for the Tom Jones title song, the album is all instrumental, and I found myself playing the album while doing school work, or reading, or writing short stories and later on, novels. I am surprised I didn't wear the grooves out. Later my taste moved towards instrumental new age and finally on to ambient music.
Where was I? Oh yeah, so when I finally watched Thunderball, I recognized the background music whenever it came into play. So I liked this film in a way I never quite experienced with other James Bond films. I admit I don’t know that this helps prospective viewers, so I will add that if the newer Bond films seem to glossy and too much like each other for your taste, Thunderball is a slightly different animal, so you might enjoy it. And did I mention it includes a Sean Connery?

Sir, I'd respectfully request that you change my assignment to Nassau.
Thunderball is directed by Terence Young and adapted to screenplay by Richard Maibaum and John Hopkins from a story by Kevin McClory, Jack Whittingham and Ian Fleming. It stars Sean Connery, Adolfo Celi, Claudine Auger, Rick Van Nutter and Martine Beswick. Music is scored by John Barry and cinematography by Ted Moore.
The fourth outing for James Bond (Connery) sees 007 assigned to the Bahamas to try and thwart SPECTRE's number 2 operative, Emilio Largo (Celi). Largo has hijacked two atomic bombs from NATO and sets about extorting huge ransoms of money. If his terms are not met he will blow up major cities.
It was meant to be the first James Bond film, but Thunderball became part of a long drawn out legal battle between Kevin McClory, Jack Whittingham and Ian Fleming. Eventually an out of court settlement was reached and Thunderball rolled into theatres in 1965. After the colossal success of Goldfinger, and Bond as a pop culture phenomenon, producers Albert Broccoli & Harry Saltzman knew that they had to try and up the ante to keep Bond on top. They were also acutely aware that many imitators were springing up on film and TV. These facts led Bond to go epic, with the producers going for a more is more approach, however, Thunderball is a considerable step down from Goldfinger.
As with many other Bond movies, Thunderball polarises opinions amongst the fans. Some are happy to laud the pure entertainment value on offer, the reliance on hardware and gadgets viewed as an aid to the Bond persona and not a hindrance to his humanistic worth. Technically the film is often exceptional, be it on or under the water, director Young really crafts some Bondian quality. The exotic Bahamas locale is beautifully realised by Ted Moore, Barry's blunderbuss score is one of his best for a Bond movie and Connery has charisma in abundance. The girls, too, are delightful, particularly Auger who positively sizzles with sexuality. Bond's by play with M, Q and Felix Leiter (Nutter very enjoyable and more charismatic than Cec Linder in Goldfinger) is well scripted and performed. While for those who adore the gadgets and daring stunts? Thunderball excels with its assortment of trick vehicles, under water weaponry, aids and radioactive pills! Without doubt the near $6 million budget is all up there on the screen.
Yet for other fans, and this is the category I fall into, it's a film of too many flaws to be considered one of the greats. Whilst it's undeniable that when it hits the high points it excites royally (the extended underwater battle is eye popping brilliance), but there's too many languid passages in the overlong running time. Young himself lamented that he couldn't get the pace right on account of the plot structure. The other major problem for me is Celi as Largo. Visually he's striking, with his white hair and eye patch, he looks well villainous, but physically he's wrong and someone you can't buy into as a man able to not only take on Bond, but to overcome him as well! While the finale lacks a grandness to reward those having sat for over 2 hours with the film. But what do I know? Film made a stunning $141 million at the box office! And the fanaticism that began with Goldfinger had now reached epic proportions.
The more is more approach worked for the makers, and it ensured that for the time being Bond was going to stay in this epic, gadget effects strewn groove. Connery wasn't happy though, he had voiced his concerns about Bond becoming characterless, while he hated the mania surrounding the films and his role within them. He would return for the next instalment, You Only Live Twice, but the question was, would it be his last performance as Bond? 7/10

**One of the most iconic romantic comedies of the decade.**
What if a baby, still inside the mother's womb, could tell us what he thinks? The premise of this film is that, and it gives rise to one of the most outstanding romantic comedies of the 80's (and this is no small thing, considering the amount of romantic comedies that appeared in the 80's and 90's) and gave rise, thanks to a considerable critical and commercial success, to another two sequels, renewing John Travolta's career and making Kirstie Alley a star.
The film is a good comedy, intelligently made, full of well-placed humor and that makes us smile, when it doesn't really make us laugh. The plot was well-thought-out, has a sense of humor, is witty and has a good dose of sympathetic sentimentality, without exaggeration: a young woman from a good family, single, became pregnant by a married man with whom she had an affair that only she is incapable of seeing who has no future; when the inevitable happens, and she ends that relationship, she finds herself alone and pregnant, ending up emotionally supported by a taxi driver she casually met. Of course, the baby will be the first to do what he can to bring them together as a couple, and we will listen to his ideas and opinions.
The film is largely based on the figure of the baby, whose voice is that of Bruce Willis, an actor with great vocal versatility and who proved to be totally up to the challenge. His vocal expressiveness was essential for the jokes that the baby plays. In addition, the text given to the actor is humorous, very well written and seems to really correspond to what the baby could be thinking at that moment. John Travolta also does an excellent job here, with an excellent performance, one of the best in the actor's career. He manages to embody the figure of a loving, sincere and sympathetic man, who really cares about the other characters, thus being more than a mere heartthrob. Much less pleasant, but still worthy of our appreciation, Kirstie Alley does an impeccable and funny job. The actress, who was not particularly well-known, will be catapulted to stardom with this film. The film also has the collaboration of veteran actors such as Olympia Dukakis, George Segal and Abe Vigoda in supporting roles.
Technically, the film isn't particularly brilliant, but it's in line with what was common in light films of the decade: low-contrast cinematography with unclear or vibrant colors, but very natural, without great artifice; a regular edition, without any notable mishaps, regular sets and costumes, good filming in several locations, with a good part of the film being shot outside. The soundtrack is the most notable element, thanks to a good selection of rock songs that include themes by the Bee Gees and the Beach Boys.

A decent superhero comedy from Disney.
'Sky High' sets up a little iffy, with a few cringey moments early, but goes on to produce a suitably entertaining film. Kurt Russell gives the only performance that I'll likely remember, but all the cast do their part - they are well cast, with none of them leaving anything to be desired to be honest.
The effects are good, while there are a couple of amusing gags thrown in. It's a simple and pretty predictable premise, but that doesn't stop it from being fun to watch. It could've, perhaps, worked better as a TV show? There are murmurs that that's what they plan to do soon, so I wouldn't be surprised if they did.
Worth a watch.

Great watch, will watch again, and can recommend.
This is one of the best superhero movies outside of DC and Marvel movies. Not only does it use the silly costumes that I like from comics, but it incorporates it as part of normal life: the world is clearly built to show that Supers are somewhat normal to see, and that there is a community of them. It's basically Professor X's school if people treated Mutants like the Avengers.
The immediate problems are in the the casting: there are SO MANY great people, almost everyone is funny and takes to their roles perfectly, but the lead, the focus of the story, is forgettable, and it is completely unbelievable that he would have these girls after him, let alone someone who we're happy to have powers. And I hate Kurt Russell, but the movie is so good I forget he's in it until he suddenly appears and smarms it up.
A "coming of age" story, with "high school politics", and "girl next door" tropes all mixed together is a good recipe, and with super powers to keep it interesting. I think that's the thing that makes this movie stand out. Using the super powers, the movie is all about SHOW, don't tell. A lot of movie forget this, overusing narration and dialogue out of place.
The content of the movie is all about meaningful dialogue, showing the world, and how it works. It is also about being fun, they pay special detail to the scenes to keep it light and add something extra to the scenes. Another thing that comedy movies forget is that a joke should compliment the movie, not stop it: there are so many little bits sewn into the movie that happen to the side (Larry being a 2-ton rock at a party), or as part of the world building (a hero support montage of utility belts).
The oddest parts of the movie deal with teens dating and their parents, it's perfectly apt, but you can feel the awkwardness of the situation.
If you've ever liked any super hero anything, then give this a go, you'll probably like it.

**_Solemn life-or-death jungle mission is one-note, but worthwhile for a few reasons_**
A squadron of Navy Seals led by Lt. Waters (Bruce Willis) are ordered to Nigeria to remove a beautiful American doctor (Monica Belucci) from a Christian village before Islamic militants move in and annihilate 'em all. The Doctor insists that "her people" go with them and so Waters opts for leading 'em out on foot to the Cameroon border. Will they make it out alive?
"Tears of the Sun" (2003) has an ultra-serious vibe and _some_ depth. If you appreciate "The 7th Dawn" (1964) with William Holden and Capucine, this is cut from the same cloth, just with modern production quality and more focus on grim jungle drama & action, like "Rambo" (2008). While it's arguably on par with "The 7th Dawn," it doesn't stand with the giants of the genre, such as "Apocalypse Now" (1979) or "Platoon" (1986).
For one thing, the characters outside of those played by Willis and Belucci are relatively forgettable, which isn't the case with "Apocalypse Now" and "Platoon" wherein you know and remember the bulk of the key characters. Another good example would be "Last Of The Mohicans" (1992), which has a similar tone and theme, i.e. protagonists being chased through the forest by savage antagonists.
The issue I have with "Tears of the Sun" is that it jumps right into the thick of the jungle story without allowing the viewer to get to know anyone. The theme is heavy and the vibe is fittingly serious, including the score, but because we aren't emotionally tied to the characters the picture comes across too heavy-handed and melodramatic. It doesn't help that it's one-dimensional.
Meanwhile the 2-hour movie is fairly slow moving with the big-action sequence not taking place until the finale. The problem with this "exciting" climax is that the viewer, once again, doesn't care what happens at this point because we don't really know the characters and therefore have little emotional attachment.
Although the story takes place in Nigeria the picture was obviously shot in Hawaii. The difference in geography is enough that the film loses points for realism, but who can deny the beauty of Hawaii? So maybe it gains the points back.
The Director's Cut merely adds the deleted scenes from the Special Edition DVD to the film. In other words, unless you absolutely love the flick it's not necessary to buy the Director's Cut; just watch the deleted scenes. Speaking of the deleted scenes, there's one quietly potent scene where a black American talks with a black Nigerian. It has good dialogue and should've never been cut.
Yet "Tears of the Sun" has some attributes, including the ultra-serious vibe, cinematography, score and Monica Belucci. The harrowing sequence where the squadron saves a rural village from some ruthless militants is well done. But this is far from a good film IMHO; at the same time, it's not bad and has its points of interest. Check out "Rambo" (2008) if you want to see the same theme done in a more effective manner.
GRADE: B-/C+

**_Humans are fallen angels with shameful secrets_**
A young man in a mountain town outside Seattle (Daniel Radcliffe) is accused of murdering his beloved girlfriend (Juno Temple). As he maintains his innocence, he seeks to find the truth while curiously growing horns and learning the innermost secrets of the town’s citizens.
"Horns” (2013) is a crime drama/fantasy with elements of horror and black comedy. It was based on the novel by Stephen King’s son, Joe Hill, and so has that King flavor à la “Needful Things” (1993), just with more modern production values. Like that movie, this one emphasizes the secret carnal impulses that lie just below the surface in any community. When given full reign they cause destruction and misery.
Besides Juno on the female front, Kelli Garner plays a friend of the protagonist who’s secretly in love with him while Heather Graham is on hand as a pathological liar.
I’d give this a higher rating, but the ending is needlessly long and there’s some seriously contrived writing concerning someone’s response to cancer (you’ll see what I mean). Moreover, there’s an overdone ‘gay’ scene in a police car that’s just eye-rolling. It could be argued, however, that this was in keeping with the flick’s penchant for exaggerating things to comical effect.
The film runs 2 hours and was shot mostly in Squamish, British Columbia, which is about 45 miles north of Vancouver, and also Mission (the diner), which is just east of Vancouver.
GRADE: B-

Really good watch, would watch again, and can recommend.
Trigger warning: rape and murder.
It's in the premise, but certain information sources hide some things more than others.
Some movies are hurt by trying to be too many things, but this finds a wonderful balance between a murder mystery and religiously mythical. I think it is that they compliment each other. Regardless of why Daniel Radcliffe's character has been imbued with horns, the powers he gains serve toward revealing the mystery. I never felt like there was a dead spot where the story wasn't moving forward or we were re-hashing all the details: they do a good job of keeping the relevant information at the fore front and refreshing the information on pace.
Why it is a great premise, it is awfully sad one, but I do feel it helps humanize Daniel Radcliffe almost immediately, and he retains his like-ability throughout the film just for the shear insanity of his situation.
It is also a lot of fun to see how the power of the horns affect the different townsfolk.

I was looking forward to this film going into it, based on a highly entertaining book, but ultimately it was just okay.
Well shot and directed, Daniel Radcliffe is the best thing about it, but it lacked the punch and dark humour of the novel. Juno Temple's character feels painfully underwritten, as do most of the 2nd tier characters. The worst part is it takes itself way too seriously for such a silly premise. There is some destructive chaotic fun, but not enough of it. The creature design for the finale is very cool, then the film just sort of stops rather than giving a satisfying wrap up.
Could have, should have been much better, maybe that's my fault because I was expecting more. Still watchable, even if not memorable.

> Expected a very little, but delivered very hugely.
The first word I said after the watch was 'unbelievable'. That means the movie is not bad, but how come I missed it for this long. This is the best dark-fantasy movie I have seen recently. But earlier, I thought it would be like the movie 'Tusk' which made me a little uncomfortable to watch. So in the end, what's the difference between the tusk and/or the horn. Both come in a pair and animals have it to defend themselves from the threat. When I watched that movie, I lost interest in this. Yep, it is a silly reason and now I feel bad for that.
This movie dominated by the British cast, especially for having Daniel Radcliffe and Juno Temple I thought it was British film, actually it was not. It was a Canadian-US jointly produced, adapted from a book of the same name and directed by 'Mirror' director. The story was so good, not genuine, though explored the theme very well. For every few minutes later, the narration was taking a turn and that made the plot to get lot tighter before heading for the concluding part.
Maybe this the best movie of Radcliffe that I've seen after his goodbye to 'Harry Potter' movie series. I don't think he's a chocolate boy type, but this kind of movie suits him well. I think he should get muscles for more movie like this, but his height is another negative factor. The film was entirely shot in Canada, the photography was great, music as well as performances. Even those settings like woods, tree house feels kind of wet English and Scottish atmosphere that fits for a devilish mythical charactered movie like this. I regret for reviewing it so delayedly, but anyway I did it and over it, so I hope you watch it very soon as well if you haven't seen it yet.
7/10

The movie was alright. It was more of a sadistic type of love story. What they failed to capture is really how nuts she was. Like do less of a love story and more of her psychoness. The bitch was crazy! All the crazy interviews with her and all the outbursts she did in court, where's that? This movie almost tried to make you feel sorry for her when they really didn't show just how crazy she really was.

We can be as different as we wanna be, but you can't kill people!
Monster is the bleak story of Aileen Wuornos, a prostitute and one of America's most notorious female serial killers. Based around facts of her life and death, the film primarily focuses on the last year of her freedom. Where after entering into a strange lesbian relationship with Selby Wall, Wuornos, fed up of being a abused by men, starts killing those calling on her services.
Sad and potent is Patty Jenkins' first full length directorial effort. Though perhaps a touch guilty of pandering to Wuornos' own self created "monster" image, the film none the less has the right blend of sympathy and revulsion to make it a fascinating, if uneasy, experience. Former model Charlize Theron goes through a major transformation to become Wuornos, so much so she's practically unrecognisable. Bulked up in weight and with beaten down make up withering her face, Theron goes on to give a towering performance as the troubled, on the edge killer.
Without any thrills or hints of histrionics, Theron is uncompromising throughout the picture. To garner empathy with such an abrasive character is quite a trick, then to switch to monstrosity with conviction seconds later? Well that's almost magical in itself. Theron is backed up well by Christina Ricci as Selby. Selby Wall, an immature young lady oblivious to the dark path she is walking down, is given a great portrayal from Ricci. In light of the powerhouse show from Theron, it's much credit to Ricci that she enhances the film with her own delicate characteristics. Helping to emphasise the strangeness of the union in the process.
It's a tough film for sure, and come the final credits one is left with a feeling of sympathy towards Wuornos and the life she lived. If that be right or wrong is of course up to the individual viewer. Or if that was even Jenkins' intention is probably up for debate. But Monster exists and survives as a bitter character study of a desperate woman, which through the medium of cinema, makes us the viewers privy to something very edgy indeed. 7.5/10

Before there was Madea, there was Martin Lawrence as Big Momma. I love this movie. Freaking hilarious.

**_Looks amazing, but tries to cover too many issues, and the plot is laughable_**
> **Reggie Ugwu**: _What fascinates about seeing women in historically masculine roles? Do you see something qualitatively different about the way women and men conduct themselves?_
> > **Viola Davis**: _All we want from women is for them to be pretty, and for them to be kind. And it's those shallow qualities associated with womanhood that we see on screen. So we always feel less than. We always feel like the predator's prey. We always feel that boot of male influence and power. That's what #MeToo and Time__'s Up is all about. This movie is a realistic journey into women gaining ownership of their lives. And not at the expense of who they are. The feminine energy and the vulnerability are still there. But I think it's a fantasy in every woman to do something bold and brash and not nice, to bust out of themselves and social norms to get at some level of authenticity. I think that's what attracts people. I know that's what attracts me._
> > **Ugwu**: _The movie is coming out at a time when, from entertainment to politics, women are indeed being bold - demanding change and giving voice to their rage._
> > **Steve McQueen**: _I'm grateful. But it's hugely bittersweet. I based this film on a TV show I saw 35 years ago and nothing's changed. Absolutely nothing's changed. But the fact that, as an object, this film can be useful - I'm very grateful for that._
> > **Davis**: _I always say the three famous words: And now what? It's got to keep going. It can't just be "This is a time for female rage, so this is a time for female-centric movies and maybe some black artists." It should've been time years ago. This is what it always should be._
> > **McQueen**: _What's happening with #MeToo and Time's Up is amazing - these are huge, giant steps. But I just feel sometimes, as a black filmmaker, that it's still going around in circles. We've had this debate within the black film community about being represented as filmmakers and actors and stories. We never seem to break through. It goes up and then down. With #MeToo and Time's Up, it just goes on and on and on. And I think it's because there are people in situations of influence who are actually behind it and are doing a genius job. I wish those people would get on board with a black movement. Too much of this stuff is, "Oh, I'm very happy for the black actors or actresses who are doing well." And it's like,_ White man, you're part of this_! You should be saying, "Hey, I'm with them. I'm out there." That civil rights method: WE, not them. I don't know what you think about that, Viola._
> > **Davis**: _If you're a black actor - especially actress - who gets to any level of power and you say, "I'm going to produce my own film and I'm going to be the lead in the film", you need a No. 2 who's going to get that film international distribution. That means you need a big white star._
- "Steve McQueen and Viola Davis on Hollywood, Race and Power" (Reggie Ugwu); _The New York Times_ (November 15, 2018)
Arguably the most ambitious heist movie since _Heat_ (1995), just as did Michael Mann's genre (re)defining epic, _Widows_ has aspirations far beyond the limits of its generic template. Written by Steve McQueen and Gillian Flynn, and directed by McQueen, the film is based on the 12-episode British TV series of the same name written by Lynda La Plante, which aired on ITV in 1983 and 1985 (a six-episode sequel series, _She's Out_, aired in 1995, and the original series was unsuccessfully remade as a four-episode miniseries on ABC in 2002). McQueen's first two films, _Hunger_ and _Shame_, were two of the finest films of 2008 and 2011, respectively, but I'm pretty sure I'm the only person on the planet who didn't like his third, the recipient of the 2014 Academy Award for Best Picture – _12 Years a Slave_. Reading around some of the professional reviews of _Widows_, I seem to again find myself very much in the minority regarding a McQueen film; it has been very well received (91% approval on Rotten Tomatoes at time of writing), but I was left distinctly underwhelmed. Operating firmly within a genre framework, the film essentially tries to filter the basic heist template through a feminist pseudo-#MeToo prism, taking in such side-issues as political corruption, police homicide, Black Lives Matter, institutional racism, American gun culture, hegemonic masculinity, and the importance of wealth. McQueen approaches genre much like Michael Mann, as opposed to, say, Quentin Tarantino, using the generic template as a launch-pad to examine various socio-political issues, as opposed to using it as a destination in and of itself. The problem, however, is that he tries to pack far too much into too short a space of time. Whilst I can certainly appreciate and celebrate how progressive the narrative is, placing a black woman at the centre of a genre traditionally dominated by white men, the film still needs to work as a genre piece, or no amount of moralising, didacticism, polemics, or political grandstanding can save it. And this is where _Widows_ fails most egregiously – the core genre elements are as far-fetched and ridiculous as anything you're likely to see out of mainstream Hollywood, which serves to undermine and dilute the serious topicality for which McQueen is obviously striving.
Set in Chicago, the film's protagonist is Veronica Rawlings (Viola Davis), an officer with the Chicago Teachers Union, married to career criminal Harry (Liam Neeson). Although she is not involved in his business, she knows what he does, and is happy to look the other way, allowing the couple to live a life of relative luxury. As the film begins, Harry and his crew, Carlos Perelli (Manuel Garcia-Rulfo), Florek Gunner (Jon Bernthal), and Jimmy Nunn (Coburn Gross), are fleeing from the police after a heist gone bad, a chase which ends in a shoot-out during which their van explodes, killing all four. Meanwhile, Jamal Manning (Bryan Tyree Henry), a local crime boss, has decided to run for alderman of the 18th Ward against Jack Mulligan (Colin Farrell, with the strangest Chicagoan accent you've ever heard), the son of retiring incumbent alderman Tom Mulligan (Robert Duvall, chewing scenery from scenes in which he doesn't even appear). Although the Mulligan family has controlled the 18th for over 60 years, due to a recent redrawing of the city's constitutional borders, Jack finds himself having to campaign in the poor black neighbourhoods which his father never had to worry about, thus giving Jamal a shot in the election. This connects up to the main plot insofar as Harry's fatal last job was stealing $2 million from Manning and his psychotic enforcer brother Jatemme (an ice-cold Daniel Kaluuya), cash which burnt up in the explosion. A few days after Harry's funeral, Jamal gives Veronica one month to liquidate her assets so as to pay him back. However, she discovers Harry's notebook, which contains a detailed plan for a heist worth $5 million. Deciding to use the notebook to carry out the heist, she recruits Linda Perelli (Michelle Rodriguez), whose store has been repossessed to cover Carlos's gambling debts, and Alice Gunner (Elizabeth Debicki, in the film's standout performance), whose odious mother, Agnieska (Jacki Weaver) has pushed her into high-end prostitution. She also approaches Amanda Nunn (a criminally underused Carrie Coon). However, with a four-month-old baby to look after, and reasonably secure finances, Amanda is reluctant to get involved. Still needing a fourth person, Linda recruits her babysitter, Belle (Cynthia Erivo), about which Veronica isn't thrilled, but with no other options, and the night of the heist rapidly approaching, she acquiesces.
As this plot outline should make very clear, _Widows_ is pure pulp, albeit pulp with something on its mind. McQueen's first genre film, he approaches it with the same seriousness with which he approached political protest, sexual addiction, and slavery. Obviously not especially interested in making what he sees as a generic crime thriller about bereft women taking matters into their own hands (which is about as political as the original series got), he and Flynn use the material as a vehicle for a racially-tinted critique of both powerful men (who are mainly, but not exclusively, white) and the corrupt systems that enable them. By creating a canvas depicting life at various social strata in Chicago – from the inherited white privilege of Jack Mulligan to the materialistic social trappings so important to Veronica, from the poor black neighbourhoods of the Manning family to the "_everything is a transaction_" philosophy of high-powered real-estate – the film attempts to address a plethora of racial, political, and gender issues. With this kind of Richard Price-style cross-section of an urban _milieu_, _Widows_ reminded me a little of _The Wire_. However, whereas David Simon, Ed Burns, _et al_ had 60 episodes to depict Baltimorean drug dealers, dock workers, politicians, educators, and journalists, McQueen and Flynn have just over two hours, and the results are concomitantly streamlined.
And herein lies one of the film's biggest problems. Rather than trying to deal with one or two core issues with something resembling thoroughness, it instead tries to deal with upwards of about seven, and ends up saying little of relevance about any. There's gender, economics, politics, racism, police corruption, prostitution, gun culture, materialism, etc. It often feels as if McQueen and Flynn were simply throwing ideas against a wall to see what stuck, especially when you consider just how little attention some of these themes receive, making you wonder why they're there at all. Gun culture, for example, is really only addressed when Alice is assigned the task of buying the team's weapons. Asking where she is supposed to go to get guns, she is told simply and unironically, "_this is America_", a wink-and-a-nod point which relies almost entirely on the audience's left-leaning political affiliations. Another example is that of racially-motivated police homicide, a theme which feels especially shoehorned in. Several years prior to the film, Veronica and Harry’s teenage son, Marcus (Josiah Sheffie), was shot and killed by a white police officer at a routine traffic stop. And that's about it really. Marcus does factor into the film's big twist (kind of), but the racial overtones of his killing are never brought up again, and it remains unclear what McQueen is trying to say with this underdeveloped subplot. And ultimately, with so much thematic material competing for attention, much of it disconnected from the containing narrative, it's hard to focus.
Which is not to say, of course, that none of the film's themes are foregrounded. Gender, for example, is built into the plot, especially in relation to notions of subverting the patriarchal status quo. As they prepare the heist, Veronica tells the team that their greatest strength is the element of surprise, because "_no one thinks we have the balls to pull this off_". Later, she reminds them they have "_to look and move like a team of men_". Whilst on the heist itself, they have to disguise their voices so no one realises they are women. Similarly front-and-centre is the theme of race relations, something introduced in the opening frames – an above-the-bed shot of Harry and Veronica engaged in some _very_ heavy petting. Whilst promoting the film, Viola Davis has spoken a lot about how unusual it is to open a film with an interracial pseudo-sex scene, and she's right about that; even in a world which celebrates something like Jeff Nichols's _Loving_ (2016), interracial couples are still relatively rare on-screen, especially sexually active older couples (speaking at a Q&A screening of the film in LA, Davis said,
> _I don't care how much people say they're committed to inclusivity – they're not committed to that; the opening shot in this movie where you have a dark-skinned woman with a big nose and wide lips and all of that, and her natural hair, kissing – romantically kissing a white man onscreen._
Race is also dealt with via several references to Albert Woodfox, one of the so-called Angola Three, and a man who spent 43 years in solitary confinement in Louisiana State Penitentiary, from April 1972 until June 2015. Woodfox is actually quoted on a radio report to which Jatemme is listening, discussing what it feels like to realise that "_nothing you do is gonna change your situation_." Of course, this is _exactly_ what the widows are trying to do (and, in a far less noble, though arguably far more legal sense, so too is Jamal).
Another excellent shot that carries huge thematic importance, this time in relation to city-wide macroeconomics, can be seen when Jack and his assistant, Siobhan (Molly Kunz), travel from a poor black neighbourhood to the affluent white suburb in which his campaign headquarters is situated. Filmed in one of McQueen's patented single-takes, what's especially interesting here is that after Farrell and Kunz get into the car, we can hear them, but we can't see them – regular McQueen cinematographer Sean Bobbitt (_The Place Beyond the Pines_; _Kill the Messenger_; _Stronger_) leaves his camera fixed on the bonnet, with only a portion of the windshield and one of the side-mirrors visible. Meanwhile, we see the city rapidly change in real-time in the background, taking only a couple of minutes to go from skid row to millionaire's row. McQueen's unusual camera placement forces the audience to acknowledge just how thin the line is, geographically speaking, between rich and poor (recalling that great quote from Bubbles (Andre Royo) in the first season of _The Wire_; "thin line between heaven an' here"). At the same time, of course, the ideological divide is massive.
Of vital importance to this particular theme (the vast differences between the haves and have-nots) are the Mulligans. Robert Duvall plays Tom Mulligan as a closet racist (and sometimes he doesn't bother with the closet); an old-school politician who believes that whoever can grease the most palms and line the most pockets should become the most powerful. An angry vestige of a dying era, Tom resents the fact that a Mulligan must slum it to win black votes. Of course, Jack is no angel (he starts a program to get minority women back to work by making it easier for them to open businesses, from which he then takes a cut), but he is smart enough to recognise that the era of men like his father is over. I'm not sure if Duvall's over-the-top performance is the best thing about the film, or one of the worst; in one scene, during an intense argument with Jack, Tom _quite literally_ starts frothing at the mouth, and no one comments on it. He's just that type of character, and the film gleefully embraces his particular brand of crazy, often pushing scenes between him and Jack a beat or two beyond the point where they reach what should be their natural conclusion. For example, when Tom scoffs at the abstract painting on Jack's wall, and mocks his son for spending $50,000 on "_wallpaper_," Jack retorts, "_it's art_", to which Tom growls, "_wallpaper_." This is where a normal film would end the exchange, but _Widows_ allows each man another salvo; "_Art_!" says a frustrated Jack. "_Wall. Paper_," replies Tom, steadfastly refusing to back down. It's wonderfully uncomfortable, and you get the sense this is not the first such allegorical exchange between these two, with the scene speaking to the relationship between money and power at the centre of the Mulligan subplot.
A less signposted, but equally as important theme is the corruption, dishonesty, and mercenary-like behaviour endemic to all levels of society. The most obvious examples of this are probably the political corruption of the Mulligans and the street thuggery of the Manning brothers, but there are many more examples throughout the film. For example, the Chicago PD doesn't have much of a presence, with the main representative, Det. Fuller (Michael Harney) appearing in only two scenes as your basic corrupt movie-cop, Elsewhere, Linda is entrapped by the corruption of the loan sharks who buy her husband's gambling debt, Alice by her mother, who forces her into prostitution, and by David (Lukas Haas), the real-estate agent who pays for her services, and even Veronica, by Harry's chosen career path and the dangers to which it has exposed her. Really, the only man in the film who isn't corrupt in some way is Bash (Garret Dillahunt), Harry's loyal-to-a-fault working-stiff chauffeur, but even he (like Veronica and the rest of the widows) lives off the proceeds of crime. The system may be built on a foundation of toxic patriarchy (a very different thing to toxic masculinity), but the women are no angels in this _milieu_; no one is immune to the corrupting influence of socio-political norms. This is a world in which David's philosophy ("_everything is a transaction_") is universally subscribed to; for better or worse, people are either bought outright or sell off pieces of themselves.
For me though, the whole thing was underwhelming and predictable, with a twist that's as ridiculous as they come, and a narrative that relies far too much on coincidence and movie-logic. The widows need to disguise their voices on the job? Good thing that Belle's daughter has a gizmo that does exactly that! A highly successful modern-day thief who writes everything down longhand? A team of people (irrespective of gender and race) who become experts in something as complex as pulling off a major heist in a matter of weeks (what is this, _Battlefield Earth_)? For all its real-world social and political concerns, I never once bought into the central premise, that these four women could actually pull this off, and that undermines everything else. Much as David Simon has always argued _The Wire_ was about the quintessential American City, McQueen is here attempting to tell a story much larger than the sum of its parts. However, unlike the Baltimore of _The Wire_ (or the LA of _Heat_), McQueen's Chicago doesn't feel lived in (as opposed to say, Michael Mann's depiction of the same city in _Thief_); it feels like someone's idea of a city rather than an actual depiction of that city.
Just because a film addresses certain themes doesn't mean it earns a free pass ("_look, Hollywood cares about poor people; we better not criticise the ridiculous plot_"), and from a narrative standpoint, _Widows_ is pretty ludicrous. With the plot often feeling contorted to support the themes, rather than the themes arising from the plot, McQueen's didactic and polemic concerns seem to have overridden his abilities as a storyteller. More a vehicle for protestation than anything else, that it tries to cover so many topics makes the whole experience emotionless, as if the filmmakers were dispassionately working off a checklist of issues on which to touch, rather than allowing the plot to organically lead into those issues. As I mentioned above, for this kind of film to work, the central heist narrative must be able to stand on its own, and this one most definitely cannot, which works to flatten and neuter the very real criticisms that the film is so concerned with enunciating. The socio-political commentary, for the most part, is never really integrated into the narrative – so you end up with a film that feels like its preaching at you rather than talking to you, light on emotion and dramatic verisimilitude, but top-heavy with moral superiority. If it had embraced its genre a bit more, and eased back on the homiletics, it would have worked much better, not just as a genre exercise, but, perhaps more importantly, as political commentary. As it is, it's a very good-looking but unoriginal, and at times, outright dumb movie, that seems to always assume its intellectual ascendency to the audience.

Arguably longer than it had to be, particualrly when a lot of side-stories had little context and zero payoff. But there is not a **single** member of this cast who disappoints. Obviously heist movies are not a new thing, but there has never been a heist movie like _Widows_ before.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

This film contains two movies, and I enjoyed one of them:
Widows is the story of a trio of...well, widows, who hatch a scheme to pull off a heist. The reason why the widows choose to pull off this heist in the first place is a threat by gangster-turned-political-hopeful Jamal Manning (played by Brian Tyree Henry). It was his money that the deceased husbands of the women were trying to steal before dying in an explosion set off by a hail of police bullets. The money burned up in the flames, and he wants to be repaid. Veronica Rawlings (played by Viola Davis) comes into possession of the plans for a future robbery that her husband Harry (played by Liam Neeson) was planning, and with no other options she and the other women decide to use the plans to commit the robbery themselves in order to pay off the debt (with plenty of money left over).
The cast does a commendable job, with particularly good performances put forth by Viola Davis and Elizabeth Debicki as two of the titular widows, Cynthia Erivo as the babysitter for a third widow (played by Michelle Rodriguez) who gets brought into the scheme, and Get Out's Daniel Kaluuya as a cold-blooded henchman who doesn't need to walk around screaming and shouting in order to be terrifying. Also worth a mention is Robert Duvall, who may not be in the movie a whole lot but is memorable nonetheless. The film is shot well by cinematographer Sean Bobbitt, with one standout scene being the short drive taken by Colin Farrell's Chicago Machine political candidate from an area of blight to the nice, quiet street that he lives on at the edge of the ward where he hopes to be elected as alderman over his opponent (Manning). The camera watches as rundown inner-city buildings give way to nice houses that wouldn't seem out of place in a tidy little suburb.
For a while it is interesting to watch as the women, who were not involved in their respective husbands' lives of crime, try to ready themselves for the heist. Midway through the film, however, there's a surprise reveal. I said in the title of this review that this film contained two movies, one that I liked I liked. The movie that I liked ended with this "twist", and this is where the movie that I didn't like began. Not only is the twist totally unnecessary, but the film just seems to go downhill from there. The women, whose robbing skills seemed understandably shoddy up to this point, suddenly seem to work together like a well-oiled machine. There are more twists thrown into the mix (such as the identity of the person they will be stealing from). The fate of the Rawlings' son, hinted at earlier in the movie. is revealed in a poorly executed scene. The climax of the film feels like a second-rate action flick, and the playing-out of the big twist revealed earlier in the film feels contrived. Then the film ends in a, "Really, that's how they're going to end this?" way.
I don't hate this film (faint praise, I know), but I feel that there was so much wasted opportunity. If only they had kept making the movie from the first half of this film I could have given it a higher rating, but as it stands I give it a 6 out of 10.

Director Steve McQueen (12 Years a Slave) and Gone Girl author Gillian Flynn co-wrote the screenplay for his crazy-intense looking crime thriller starring queen of all queens, Viola Davis. Those three names are honestly all it would take to lure us to a theater, but it actually gets better: the film, based on Lynda La Plante’s novel of the same name, follows four women whose duplicitous husbands’ deaths lead them down a dangerous path.