There's quite a cast assembled for _Deep Blue Sea_, not what we've come to expect from the Asuylum-soiled genre of shark movies in this day and age. It's not a fantastic movie, but it proves more watchable that 90% of its company.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole_.

SPOILERS
On my second watch of this film, I am now convinced that Von Trier is the Ingmar Bergman of the 20th century. No other director today digs so profoundly into the human soul, or in such a creative way. And no other director has been so daring with visual translation.
On this watching of Dogville, it finally hit me that this story is the life story of a woman in an abusive relationship. Maybe inspired in part by Polly's "Seeräuberjenny" from Threepenny Opera, or not. Nonetheless, the film script is the same as what might be experienced by a woman drawn into a relationship by a seemingly enchanting man(town). Eventually, as it turns exploitive and finally abusive, she becomes numb and resigned. Some women never escape that stage. Some women are able to escape and most of those are murdered by the abuser. And a few actually murder the abuser. Perhaps the latter is the only way out.

I reckon this is my favourite Lars Von Trier film. Set amidst some eerily basic staging purporting to be an hick American town, we see the arrival of "Grace" (Nicole Kidman). Now she is attired in furs and lace and is clearly on the run from something, or someone. Shortly after, some hoods turn up in the town and leave a card in case she ever shows up... The townsfolk are ostensibly nice enough - if rather an eclectic mix, and local "Tom" (Paul Bettany) takes a bit of a shine to her. Can she stay? Initially they can find nothing for her to do, but gradually they seem to embrace her and she becomes an integral - almost enthralled - member of their society. Some rather odd manipulation from the young "Jason" (Miles Purinton) causes things to start to take a darker turn, though, and she and her as yet unfulfilled beau decide that it might be time for her to go. Will she be permitted? This story is darkly brutal at times, the harshness of her increasingly inhumane treatment is exemplified by the presence of a cast that features an almost menacing Lauren Bacall, as well as effective contributions from Blair Brown, Ben Gazzara and Philip Baker Hall who all demonstrate clearly just how fake the facade in this town is. Kidman is superb, probably the best I have seen her on screen. She has a potent chemistry with the on-form Bettany and the stage lighting, paucity of settings and the overall simplicity of the production works really well before an ending that I feared might not deliver as I wanted - but boy, it does! This is well worth a watch. It illustrates the best and worst in human nature - but with the emphasis very much more on the latter!

Rapists and murders may be the victims according to you, but I, I call them dogs. And if they're lapping up their own vomit, the only way to stop them is with a lash.
A sparse soundstage is stylishly utilized to create a minimalist small-town setting in which a mysterious woman named Grace (Nicole Kidman) hides from the criminals who pursue her. The town locals at first decide to shield Grace, and in return she openly works labour tasks for them to work off her gratitude. It's not long, however, before the residents of Dogville begin to show their true teeth...
One thing is an absolute, Lars Von Trier knows how to push the buttons of critics and movie lovers alike. Dogville proved to be a case in point, a film that saw some high profile film critics renounce the director as anti American - even anti human, while others lauded the "Great Dane" as a visionary and a director of bravura panache. The point is, and it's a fact, there is no guarantee that Dogville will hit the spot of every first time viewer venturing in for the challenge.
As it happens, I'm very much in the plus camp here, to me it's not only brave in style of production, but also it's narratively as caustic as anything so called "anti human" directors like Kubrick, Godard etc ever produced. The bareness of the sound stage setting, where we can see the workings of all residents of Dogville going about their respective business, very much shows there is no hiding place, all the bile strewn movements/ignorance is laid bare for all to see, we are all complicit.
There's an outstanding cast assembled, fronted by Kidman (never more beautiful and never better as an actress), with support coming from Paul Bettany, Stellan Skarsgård, Lauren Bacall, Ben Gazzara, Patricia Clarkson, James Caan, Philip Baker Hall and others who give their all for their director. It's often charged that Trier is a misogynist, personally I don't see it that way, more so as Dogville reaches its crushing climax. This easily could have been shaved of 20 minutes from the run time, but it has to be said that Von Trier doesn't waste a single frame here.
Roll your dice and take your chance, you will either love it or hate it, or admire or admonish, what isn't in doubt is that you will never ever forget watching Dogville. 9/10

Fantastic watch, will watch again, and highly recommend.
This is one of the most unique and interesting sci-fi action movies I've ever seen. Doing the entire movie from first person perspective is an amazing feat all on its own. If you watch carefully, then the cuts are really subtle if they even exist in places where you would expect them to be. There are a few points of lost consciousness, but those are the more obvious ones.
Because it is a "First Person" movie, Andrei Dementiev literally carries the movie through the camera, but Sharlto Copley ("District 9") is the repeating character that helps drive most of the movie, so he would be the traditional carrier, as opposed to the mute camera. Danila Kozlovsky and Haley Bennett give great supporting roles as well.
The problem with the main character being "super powered" is that they need drawbacks to balance their benefits so they can "power creep" to match / exceed the villain by the end of the movie, and this follows that formula really nicely and in unexpected manners, unless you've seen "Crank 2: High Voltage".
It definitely makes it immersive and enjoyable, and there is even a very well written plot happening.

"_Chronicle_" meets "_Shoot 'Em Up_".
Like _John Wick_, I knew I was going to see this movie when they had a Payday 2 tie-in. But truth be told I was already clued onto it before hand, and it had my interest piqued, because it looked like something new. Which we don't get a whole lot of these days.
I went in to _Hardcore Henry_ pretty blind, because the trailers give yo very little information. And that was a good way to watch it. All you need to know going forward is that it's bloody, and it's entirely shot from the first person perspective. If those are both things you can handle, then I can't recommend Hardcore Henry strongly enough.
I can understand how these things would turn some people off, and I'm not going to sit here and tell you _Hardcore Henry_ should take home the Oscar for Best Picture, but as en exercise in catharsis it is brilliant, and as a self-aware black comedy, it's even better. There were genuinely more times in this movie that I was out-loud laughing then any other movie I've watched this year. Likewise for the person who saw it with me.
Not for the faint of heart, but definitely worth it for someone with similar sensibilities to me.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I strongly recommend you make the time._

> A video game that you won't play, but watch!
The entire story was told from the Henry's perspective, I mean what he sees through his eyes are the visuals we get. The first person point of view. Like the video games, but you won't play, just sit back and watch it. So you won't see the Henry's face, because he's you and you won't utter a word. That character was actually performed by many stuntmen and their risky stunt sequences pay off so well. That means, the main character is the cinematographer of the film. So all the credit must go to them for doing multiple task at a same time.
It is a one day event based narration. All about running and chasing, right from the beginning. Along the way it lets us know why it's taking place and who's behind it. The rest of the cast was too amazing, especially that South African actor of 'District 9' fame was simply brilliant with different getups. I also enjoyed the Russian locations which were something refreshing.
The story was simple, but puzzled. They explained nearly everything, yet a few doubts remain with us. So I'm expecting a follow-up, more than that I want it to be a trilogy and nothing less. For the sequel, put us in the cinema hall, but give us Virtual Reality Headset, I think that's how the future of cinema should be, especially for this film.
Very unique and craziest film, one of the best of this year. It was kind of similar to Statham's 'Crank', as well as good as that one. If you like action films, then surely you would love it. Especially if you're a gamer, then it will be a double treat. The Americans did not show interest in this like usual which is not Hollywood or British. Especially critics never appreciated the creativity, but this is a must see film and the rest of the world accepted the truth. So don't think of skipping it.
8.5/10

"Sarah" (Jennifer Connelly) is having to babysit her baby brother "Toby" and she's not best pleased. Indeed, as he won't stop wailing, she implores the "Goblin King" of lore (David Bowie) to take him forever! As good as his word, the child is gone and "Jareth" expects some gratitude from the girl. Of course, she realises that she can't be without the little brat and so implores him to return him. Well maybe, but only if she can find the way through the labyrinth that guards his castle - and she has only twenty-four hours! Luckily (or not) she encounters the goblin "Hoggle" whom she bribes to take her through - but he's not exactly trustworthy and that's what leads to an enjoyable series of adventures as they both have to face the perils of a maze that is full of weird and wonderful creatures - some friendly, some not so - as she races the clock to find the boy. Jim Henson has had a field day here with multiple beasties of all shapes and sizes coming alive on the big screen and coupling with a storyline that shouts "Monty Python" at us on more than one occasion - especially with the derring knight "Sir Didymus" and his cowardly (or just intelligent) steed "Ambosius" - who's really just a sheepdog! Luckily, they also encounter the mighty "Ludo" who is on good terms with boulders large and small - especially useful as they find themselves uncomfortably close to the 'Bog of Eternal Stench" which bubbles and festers so you can almost smell it in the cinema. All the while, the manipulative "Jareth" is putting obstacles in her way as well as offering a couple of decent songs along the way. Bowie doesn't actually feature that often, here, but when he does he brings a mischievous charm to the proceedings (even if he doesn't look that comfortable in his hoes!). The visuals are great fun, mixing the costumed with the manufactured skilfully and energetically and though I don't suppose there's really any jeopardy at all, the film has something akin to the "Wizard of Oz" in it's storytelling. If you can see it on a big screen, then do - it looks so much better than on the telly, and is a good watch.

Interesting movie. It's a shame that there's lives got ruined. This what they resorted to. Different type of roll to see Jim Carey in.

**A guide on how to get through during unemployment.**
I thought I have seen almost all the films of Jim Carrey, but then I found that's not true, so I decided to start with this. This is a remake of the 70s film or you could say the second screen adaptation of the novel of the same name. I haven't seen the other version, but I must admit that I enjoyed it thoroughly. This is not the greatest comedy I have ever seen, but still so good with great performances, particularly Jim Carrey's.
A simple storyline, a couple loses their jobs and they find hard to get another. They begin to lose one by one, everything that belongs to them and finally the house is the last thing they want to lose. So they plan to do something very serious thing to tackle their situation and seems its working out so well, but for how long. Then comes their masterplan to the permanent solution and how they accomplish it is what leads to the conclusion.
The film was so fast, feels too short or like a TV episode. That means makes us to feel to have more, but it ends very nice way. The story might feel silly, but the comedies are so good. And if you like Jim Carrey and his trademark jokes, then you would have a great time. Truly, I haven't seen a good comedy from the recent time releases, so I'm happy I saw this, even though it is a decade old. There's no serious negative stuffs in it like drugs, sex or nudity, so I think it is okay for family viewing.
_7/10_

Last watched this years ago and didn't think much of it then but seeing it again, did find it moderately entertaining if not cheap looking at times under journeyman director Rob Bowman who helmed more TV episodes than feature films. Still, Jennifer Garner is great and I guess some of the fight scenes were okay and a serviceable enough of a story, if not feeling slapped together. **2.75/5**

It has all the ingredients that I'd usually love in a film, but the pacing lets it down for me.
'Only God Forgives' is pretty dark and strikingly gory, with the stylish cinematography really shining through to set the right tone. Ryan Gosling, meanwhile, is good in a role which is similar to his one in 2011's 'Drive', which was also directed by Nicolas Winding Refn. Kristin Scott Thomas is solid, though I couldn't get away from the thought that her character was made to be portrayed by Toni Collette. Vithaya Pansringarm plays it cool as his character.
All in all, I enjoyed it. I just didn't love it. It's a little too stop/start for my liking, as in it felt like I was watching a series of events as opposed to a fully fleshed out plot; I don't mean that the scenes feel unconnected, it just feels like every scene is too much its own thing in terms of storytelling.

A challenging piece of cinema. Definitely not for everyone. The cinematography is breathtaking, and the violence is stomach turning. 8/10

It is an artistically very interesting movie. I would say that the benefit of watching this movie is entirely from the visuals were it excels. Unfortunately after a while the blood-red and, often, bizarre scenes become a bit boring.
The story, well you have it in the movie blurb above. There is not much more to it and it is just used to tie the string of artistic expressions of the director/writer together. This is a quite violent movie. The old cop, Chang, gets more than one opportunity to use various sharp instruments, mostly his sword, on various criminal elements and the effects are frequently shown in all their gory glory.
What about the actors and their performance? Well it is quite good for this type of movie but having said that the acting mostly consists of various people silently staring at each other.
I had quite a bit of difficulty in deciding what rating I should give this movie. If I would go by the visuals only it should be very high but if I would go by the rest of the content it would be rather low. In the end I decided that although I appreciated the artwork I did not really like the movie as a whole that much. Thus it gets 5 out of 10 stars.

Good watch, probably won't watch again, but can recommend if you can handle a medical emergency adventure.
If you've seen "A Fault in Our Stars", this has a similar vibe for a lot of it.
I'm a fan of Kumail Nanjiani, and I like Emily Gordon more, I'm honestly a little disappointed she didn't star in her own story, but I understand her reasons. Zoe Kazan, Ray Ramono and Holly Hunter are great in this, they all felt very natural.
Now, I know Kumail is the lead, and a good portion of the story focuses on family nonsense, but (even though she's in a coma for a lot of it) Emily is equally a star in the story. That's what this is about, because it's (pretty much) a true story of two people coming together to form one life, and it is SO personal....so very personal. I almost think Kumail wanted to make the movie just so he could stop telling the (rather long) story in person, "Just go watch the movie."
I know that a lot of it is just truth, but the adaptive writing for this is excellent, the structure keeps a well balanced pace between all the events happening, we have (lots) of loss and (powerful) gains. There is even a good bit of comedy worked into the story, but it is hard to handle the heavy weight of Emily's medical story. It might be affecting more due to the timing of it in my life, but, regardless, it's there. It doesn't make for the most upbeat experience.
Emily, obviously, makes a recovery as it happened in real life, and now Kumail has a movie to remind her that he saved her life *eye roll*.
The end is very uplifting, and sometimes it is nice to see a piece of history on screen, but do be aware that is what this is, for the most part.

**Brainwashed!!!**
Here's the most overrated film, not just for the year, but forever. The title says it all, a big sick flick. Just remember, it was only based on the real, not a biopic. Because they have changed entire storytelling to cinematic convenient. To fool the people from the actual truth. So the terrorists are shown in a good light. Good humans won't support such barbaric people.
It's a shame that American Academy Awards recognised it. Only best thing in the film were the Holly Hunter and Ray Ramona. Even in the real life characters, they were brainwashed, along with Emily. Totally skippable film. Instead, I would strongly suggest to watch 'Punching Henry', 'Obvious Child', 'Sleepwalk with me' and even 'The Vow' or you you could find many more in film database. Don't waste your time with it!
_2/10_

FULL DISCLOSURE: I saw this while I was working my ass off in a foodtruck at an outdoor cinema. I missed whole chunks of it, and it certainly didn't have my full focus. I'll give it a proper chance at a later date, and alongside that, another review. What I did see of _The Big Sick_ certainly held potential for me, I even had one genuine laugh, but American comedies rarely if ever resonate with me. I know this one plays it at a very different angle to your standard Sandler-esque faire, and I appreciate that, but I wasn't brought in enough from what I caught to get on board.
_Final rating:★★½ - Not quite for me, but I definitely get the appeal._

A truly funny and immensely heartwarming _While You Were Sleeping_-esque romantic comedy. It's actually not fair to compare this to any other film because the story here is wholly real and not fabricated for the screen. This is Kumail Nanjiani's real life story about how he met his wife and it's incredibly moving.
While Kumail and Zoe are both really great, the heart and soul of the movie is Holly Hunter and Ray Romano. They are truly superb and every scene they share with Kumail while Emily is in the coma is spectacular. I would watch this movie from start to finish again right now if I had it in me - it's incredibly taxing as it's an emotional ride; I cried maybe 4 times throughout the movie.
It's amazing how reliably brilliant Holly Hunter always is and I hope she garners some awards attention for this performance. It truly moved me. Her delivery of "_Do you mind?_" before she gets into bed with Romano at the end was such a beautiful character moment.

Charmingly funny.
Not a cliché comedy at all.
A little heavy on the Uber references, but still a movie that can be watched multiple times.
(Saw at a pre-screening in Seattle.)

"Barbra" (Judith O'Dea) and her brother are laying some flowers at a cemetery when they espy a man wandering around aimlessly. He suggests it's really a zombie and boy how right he is. She manages to flee to their car but, oh, only if she could have just steered the thing - we might not have had a film! She hits a tree, though, and now dazed and suffering from shock has to take shelter in a nearby house where she gets an hint of what's marauding around outside. Luckily, "Ben" (Duane Jones) also finds the house and with a few emerging from the safety of it's cellar, they proceed to fortify the place as best they can and sit it out. It's soon clear from the television and radio reports that this is an epidemic and that those critters are resurrecting themselves and eating their victims. "Tom" (Keith Wayne) and girlfriend "Judy" (Judith Ridley) decide their best hope is to get the truck parked outside gassed up so they can all escape to the nearest town - but will that work? This film is almost as old as I am, and I am afraid to say it hasn't really aged an whole lot better. Much of the sense of peril comes from the frantic dialogue at the start and the scary elements are now more comical than menacing - especially towards the end. The regular use of the television reportage is useful at first but then seems more designed to pad out this thin story for a ninety minutes that I felt looked more like a TV movie that was just too contrived. It was good to see it on a big screen, but I really don't think I'd bother to watch it again.

**The film that practically founded the zombie subgenre.**
As I've said on other occasions, I'm not a fan at all of films about zombies and similar creatures. It's a type of horror cinema with a strong graphic appeal that doesn't really captivate me. However, I confess that I liked this film. It is much more moderate in its approach to these types of monsters, and effective in building tension and suspense. It's not scary (I believe it was very scary at the time, but these are different times), but it's entertaining.
The story told doesn't give us much explanation: we see two brothers who visit a grave in an isolated cemetery and, upon returning to the car, they are chased by what looks like a very disturbed man. It's obviously a zombie, and we know it, but the characters don't know and are extremely confused by what happens next: a growing group of zombies attacks them and forces them to seek shelter in a nearby house, where shortly afterwards they realize that they are not alone and, thanks to radio and television, that the problem is not just there, but it's national.
George Romero was very intelligent in the way he conceived and wrote the film, which is an entirely independent production and the result of the ingeniously of everyone involved. It is an innovative work, it was one of the first films to bring zombies to the horror universe and the influence of “Carnival of Souls” is very clear in the cinematography, in the way the sound and soundtrack were worked on. The short budget forced the production to be very pragmatic and efficient, to do a lot with little and prioritize credibility and authenticity. I would like to highlight some effective effects such as the flesh eaten by zombies, fake blood and Molotov cocktails. The design of the sets and choice of filming locations is also to be congratulated.
The cast has a few points in its favor, but it is essentially amateur and only tries to do what has to be done. Despite being a minor issue and not usually subjected to reflection, it seems significant to me to highlight the choice of a black actor for the main role. Duane Jones, in the film of his life, does a very well done job, with great commitment and that fulfills everything necessary. Karl Hardman is just annoying and the two actresses, Judith O’Dea and Marilyn Eastman, don’t really add anything positive to the film, simply appearing helpless the whole time.

Night of the Living Dead is without a doubt a fantastically innovative film; creating the modern day interpretation of a zombie and forever changing the genre as we know it. There is a lot to like about this film, but unfortunately the limitations of its time hold it back, resulting in a somewhat boring viewing experience.
For starters, the story was pretty good. I really enjoyed how the plot focused on a single group of survivors and their thought process as they attempt to deal with the horror and panic of the dead reanimating. There was a tremendous amount of lore delivered via telecommunication broadcasts that I thought added to the movie perfectly.
The performances were uneven, some were quite stellar, particularly Duane Jones and Karl Hardman. But Judith O’Dea was quite bad. I’m not sure if it was her performance or the way her character was written but it was just bizarre to see her body language and gestures throughout the film. The beginning chase scene with her was fantastic, with some stellar cinematography. But after that, the way she portrayed shock was laughable.
The action in this movie was bad, with punches being all too slow and clunky. I would imagine this movie was quite scary for the time, but with modern day horror constantly elevating, I hardly found myself unnerved. Overall, this movie is Time Capsule for horror and the genre has taken so much from this film throughout the years, but unfortunately it’s legacy far outweighs the entertainment the film brings.
Score: 54% |
Verdict: Average

This is kind of like a meanwhile at her sisters place. Both of them have had haunting since they were kids. This could have been better as well. Not much happens for more then like half the movie. It makes it pretty boring till then.

**Paranormal Activity 2 (2010)**: ***6.6/10*** *(Fair, Above Average)*
---
While “Paranormal Activity 2” improves upon the original in a few areas, the film’s underwhelming conclusion ultimately brings it down. The first “Paranormal Activity” was more effective because of its slower but steadily increasing levels of tension and unease; this time around, the tempo is a little over the place. The story isn’t bad on its own, but it falls apart as soon as you connect it with the original. The first film had a more intriguing concept, with a demon nearly showing affection towards Katie, rather than the same old pact with the devil nonsense this one has going on. As a standalone film, Paranormal Activity 2 is a passable horror flick that, like its predecessor, excels at keeping things straightforward. If you liked the first film in the Paranormal Activity franchise, you’d appreciate this one just as much, and even if you didn’t, you might want to give it a go because it’s different enough to appeal to those who didn’t enjoy the previous one.

More of the same as the first movie, found myself dozing off a couple of times. Only part I liked, in a funny sort of way, was the invisible demon pulling around the lead actress. **2.0/5**

'The Curse of La Llorona' entertained me! First and foremost, the La Llorona demon is exactly what I wanted 'The Nun' to be - creepy without words, a perfect mix. The filmmakers utilise the character nicely, as well as importantly setting the right tone.
Not to quote Gloria Stuart, but it feels like forever since I've enjoyed a movie from this franchise - and this isn't even an 'official' part of 'The Conjuring' universe (which probably explains why it's actually good - harsh, yet true). That's not to say it's amazingly made, e.g. there is some iffy writing; that part near the end with the doll is rather dumb, if ignorable.
Linda Cardellini brings a very good performance, while Raymond Cruz is a neat piece of casting. Roman Christou and Jaynee-Lynne Kinchen make for solid kid actors, too. Tony Amendola appears as Father Perez, but remember it's absolutely not a part of the franchise...
The bad reception that this has got is a shame, not that it changes the way I see it. A perfect example of why it's good to form your own opinions with film, because apparently 'The Conjuring 2' is good but this is bad - the opposite is true for me. Me and this franchise don't click correctly, evidently.

Acting was fine but the rest was one big cliche of the supernatural-horror genre with too many jump scares and the evil entity pretty much reminded me of the Nun, which makes sense since this is set in the Conjuring Universe.

Where I'm from, this was marketed as _The Curse of the Weeping Woman_ 'cause I guess Australia can't be trusted with to pronounce a Spanish word. Similarly, I guess Warner Bros. can't be trusted to make a horror movie without cramming it into the bloated _Conjuring_ franchise.
I love seeing Linda Cardellini get work, but I don't know that a La Llorona movie was the best choice to put her in lead of, and I do know that **this** La Llorona movie was a bad choice, just like... Generally speaking. "Bad" might be too far. Bland? Old hat? Something along those lines might be a label that fits a little better. Definitely not the label "good" though.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)
It’s not as bad as The Nun, let me write this straight away. If there’s one thing that this movie proves is Michael Chavestalented filmmaking skills, which offers hope for The Conjuring 3. Contrary to the other spin-off of the universe, The Curse of La Llorona toned down on the lazy exposition and elevated its scary sequences, simply by having a more capable director. Beautiful one-take scenes are spread throughout the runtime, which not only increase the suspense but prove that Chaves actually works hard to provide a terrifying environment.
He also delivers some effective and innovative jump scares, even though most of them still follow an annoyingly predictable timing. These are still heavy on the cliche of “character turning her head, big ugly monster face screams and the score goes from silence to screeching volume.” Scenes like these aren’t scary anymore and they feel dated, as well as the typical origin story. There’s nothing new or exciting in an “urban legend turned true.” Fortunately, the backstory is simple, it isn’t filled with explicit exposition every two minutes, and the short runtime helps the film to develop through a fast pacing. Sadly, it’s just another common horror screenplay that the writers took from the scripts cabinet.
Linda Cardellini gives a strong performance as the protagonist. Even though every character in this movie makes questionable decisions that lead to avoidable events (something inevitable in horror films), Anna is a compelling and courageous woman, who only wants to do what’s best for any children, not only their own. Raymond Cruz portrays Rafael, a priest who sort of almost is a deus ex machina. He barely has any kind of decent character development, but he works well enough as comic relief to lighten up an otherwise too dark tone. The kids are good, but Patricia Velasquez (Patricia Alvarez) is way over-the-top, which doesn’t help her already not-so-good script.
All in all, The Curse of La Llorona is … okay. It’s not near as horrible as The Nun, and honestly, that’s a good compliment for such a typical and cliche horror flick. Michael Chaves truly saves what could have been a disaster with another director. Wonderfully handled one-take sequences, which elevate the suspense levels, and he also produced some imaginative jump scares, even if most of them still lack actual scariness. Linda Cardellini is great as the lead, but every character is compelled to make dumb decisions to move the plot forward. Some characters needed more care in their scripts, and more focus on the story to tell instead of just creating scares after scares.
Close, but not close enough …
Rating: C+

My only real complaint about Leonardo DiCaprio is that he looks like, well, Leonardo DiCaprio and that is a shame given that given that he doesn't play Lenardo DiCaprio, he plays whoever the script says he is and we all think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread because of that.
Except in J. Edgar where, for the first real time, DiCaprio doesn't look like DiCaprio, he looks a lot like the cross-dressing fascist he's portraying.
And being Leo, he acts like him too.
THANK YOU. For once the studio didn't bank on his face and it paid out.
So we not only get to see Leo acting the part, but for the first time we get to really see him looking the part too and the last time he did that was in "What's Eating Gilbert Grape." And on top of it all we have Clint Eastwood directing and, honestly, not a fan of him as an actor, love him as a director.
Given his politics I walked in thinking Right Wing Love Story...I walked out with "honest depiction" and that helps a lot.
Not only does that help, but the scandal around Hoover's sexuality was done appropriately, that is to say it didn't take center stage, J. Edgar did...and, as I said, you were watching J. Edgar and not Leo doing his best to be the man while having to still look like himself.
it's just a win all around...except it could have benefited for time. Trim it down a bit. I know he's hugely important to history and Eastwood is a great director with a great cast but...it got a bit long in the tooth at places and that hurt the flow of the film.