A bit of a bore, is 'J. Edgar'.
Leonardo DiCaprio puts in a very good performance as the titular character and his co-stars are all solid, but I just found the way that the story is told to be lacklustre. There aren't, at least for me, any memorable scenes and I wasn't invested in the plot at any point really. It's semi-watchable, but goes on for too long to be passably so.
It does, as noted, have a neat cast list, with Armie Hammer, Naomi Watts and Judi Dench, among others, involved behind DiCaprio. I think they all give their best, with any issues I have with this 2011 release being away from them. Two duds in a row to start the 2010s from Mr. Eastwood; in my humble opinion, of course.

Super well-done, didn't realize that the father was *this* involved nor that their family placed such a focus on education. Shame that the film now has a huge asterisk next to it thanks to Will Smith's behavior.

_King Richard_ is a heartfelt biopic that shows the rise of the triumphant Williams sisters, and the film is triumphant on all fronts.
I thought it did a great job showing the trials and tribulations of reaching the top of any sport, while also showing the side of a father wanting to protect his black children in a white man's world. It struck a really nice balance that felt genuine.
Will Smith is excellent in this role, one of his best in years. I can see why he was slam dunk to earn best actor at the Golden Globes. The rest of the cast did excellent as well, I was really impressed with the two girls and Jon Bernthal. Bernthal has such a diverse range for acting, he severely underrated in Hollywood.
This film was a joy to watch, and I highly recommend.
**Score:** _90%_
**Verdict:** _Excellent_

This is a top notch biopic. The acting and the pacing are first-class. Admittedly, being a Florida tennis player puts the film a little closer to my heart, but still, it's a touching look at how much a parent can give so his kids have a better life. Well worth the long running time.

King Richard feels a little too gentle with a favourable look at a key figure in the careers of two of the most significant tennis players the world has seen.
The script starts off intending this to be a feel good story though it’s not without some dark moments.
It’s immediately a folksy good hearted angle for Wiliams Snr. He’s determined yet kind hearted. It’s a favourable view, but calls critics of that can be told thatAfrican American people could be cut a little slack. There’s no doubting the spirit behind the film.
Smith’s performance is as sincere as the character is. The rest of the cast as the family and coaching staff are just as good with their performances.
It’s a feel good film to be sure, but the thing about feel good films is that they make you feel good.

FULL SPOILERF-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/king-richard-spoiler-free-review
"King Richard is not only one of my favorite movies of the year, but it's also one of the best biopics I've ever witnessed.
The subject matter may speak more to me than to the average moviegoer due to my emotional connection to the sport, but it's the captivating story about a dedicated, loving father that ultimately grabs the viewers. Will Smith delivers one of the best performances of his career, as do Saniyya Sidney and Demi Singleton.
The sport is exceptionally explored, taking the audience through the immense sacrifice a player needs to go through to become one of the very best. Technically, all filmmaking elements work together perfectly to demonstrate the physical and mental effort that tennis requires, dedicating a surprising amount of screentime to practices and matches.
Nevertheless, the thematically rich screenplay surrounding family, self-belief, and parenthood takes the spotlight. I don't have a single bad comment to make about Reinaldo Marcus Green's film.
Deserves all of the awards buzz it's inevitably going to receive. Don't you dare miss it!"
Rating: A

As to the acting, it was great! The biopic was about the family and the inception of greatness. It took the word "humble" to a new level. As i see it, it is a exceptional
performance by all the actors. Note: Very little of the film is about the mechanics
of tennis but more about the struggle to envision a dream and chase it down.
Will Smith (King Ricard) is ready for a nomination. Hats off to the girls (Singleton)
and (Sidney) for strong performances. I hope the Real World Williams Family enjoyed
the film. Thanks for all the hard work in and off the courts. Inspired by all.

**A perfect example of how disrespect for the past and history can totally annihilate a film, even if it is fiction.**
I really enjoy watching period films. However, my work as a historian gives me some antibodies to these films, for reasons linked to the lack of ability to harmonize creative freedom and strict respect for the historical facts and period customs. So, it was with some curiosity that I decided to see this film. After seeing it, I just wanted to slap director Dominic Sena and screenwriter Bragi Schut. None deserve any respect for what has been done here. The film is an insult to historians… even if it is not deliberate!
The script is the film's biggest problem, with a writing that seems to glue together fragments of several different stories: we start with the Crusades, we follow two knights in several military episodes and then, somewhat brusquely, they turn their backs on the Church (supposedly) and leave, probably for their homeland. It turns out that, on the way, they come across the Plague, and there is a woman, supposedly a witch, who was arrested, accused of causing the disease. Now, it's up to them the task of escorting the so-called witch to a monastery where some friars will judge her, in the light of a book that doesn't exist anywhere else in the world.
When you make a film with a historical background, at the very least, you should ask for the support of a consultant, someone who really knows History. No one should have the presumptuous arrogance to think they know everything, much less to take the public for an idiot, thinking that they will swallow everything that is shown to them! This film is an authentic case study in cinematic anachronism! How can the production admit the placement of clearly baroque decorative pieces in the midst of a medieval setting? How the hell can characters to disinfect their hands with alcohol if that was something totally unknown to medieval man? Since when is there a sea in Styria, if that ancient region is an inland part of present-day Austria and Slovenia? How can characters defect if this military concept simply didn't exist at the time?
And if these small questions seem serious, there is something much worse: the Crusades were an entire religious, political and military effort that involved Christianity for about 300 years, but that effort had practically ended decades before the Black Death, and much before the dates that the film uses for the fights where the characters take part. There were, in fact, no serious crusades in the 14th century. The Battle of Artah, which is shown in the film, took place two hundred years earlier, in 1105. Therefore, the film deliberately delayed the Crusades two hundred years, in order to almost coincide with the Black Death, and the characters could participate in both situations! It's absurd! Another thing that simply didn't exist in the Middle Ages was the notion of a witch hunt! Of course, for medieval man, the Devil was a threat, and of course there was a relationship between diabolical art and the works and studies of many scholars, alchemists or sages who contradicted the religious knowledge. But the so-called witch persecutions only began to be more notable in the 16th century, framed in a clerical response to the Reformation and to ideas (all of them) that endangered the dominion that the Church had over knowledge!
I pity Nicolas Cage and Ron Perlman. They are actors I respect, and seeing them participate in such a poorly made film is quite unfortunate, given that they have talent and are, as far as I've seen, almost the only positive things to highlight. Even if everything had been done in a way that respects history, the end of the film is so unbelievably stupid that it would spoil any previous effort. The rest of the cast, except for the two names mentioned, do not stand out in any way.

***Knights, crusades, black plague, witches, castles, foreboding forests and demons***
RELEASED IN EARLY 2011 and directed by Dominic Sena, "Season of the Witch" chronicles events when two ex-Teutonic Knight crusaders (Nicolas Cage & Ron Pearlman) traveling through Styria in modern-day Austria are enlisted to escort an alleged witch suspected of causing the black death (Claire Foy) to a remote monastery in the mountains for trial and to hopefully stop the devastating plague. Stephen Campbell Moore (Debelzaq), Stephen Graham (Hagamar) and Robert Sheehan (Kay) accompany the Knights.
This is basically the American version of "Black Death," a European film released around the same time. Both movies are dark, gritty and brutal in their depictions of Medieval Europe, but "Season of the Witch" is more of a stereotypical blockbuster with modish protagonists, amusing one-liners and CGI-laden climax. "Black Death" is deeper, more thought-provoking and realistic, which is why I give it the edge in overall value (see my review).
"Season" is the more conventionally entertaining movie and anyone who appreciates Dark Ages-based flicks are highly encouraged to check it out. Films which come to mind include "In the Name of the Rose" (1986), "Kingdom of Heaven" (2005), "Robin Hood" (2010), "Ironclad" (2011), "King Arthur" (2004), "Dragonslayer" (1981), "Red Riding Hood" (2011), "Tristan + Isolde" (2006) and "Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves" (1991). It's as good, or better, than any of these.
The colorful Medieval cinematography (castles, dungeons, villages, dark forests and breathtaking mountains) is mind-blowing and the two protagonists are great with their amusing rapport. Furthermore, Foy is easy-on-the-eyes. Look out for a thrilling rope-bridge crossing à la "Sorcerer" (1977). Although the climax is over-the-top cartoony, the tone up to that point is quasi-realistic, similar to "Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves.”
THE MOVIE RUNS 1 hour 35 minutes and was shot in Austria, Hungary and Croatia with reshoots done in Louisiana. WRITERS: Bragi F. Schut. ADDITIONAL CAST: Christopher Lee is almost unrecognizable as the plague-ridden Cardinal D'Ambroise.
GRADE: A-/B+

It never received very god critics and I have to say it wasn’t the best film that I have seen, even though Nicolas Cage is one of my favorite actors. Then again, I never really like it when my favorite actors die at the end of the movie. Also the CGI, especially at the end of the film, was of rather mediocre quality.
Anyway, on the whole it was a fairly nice medieval sword swinging fantasy/supernatural action flick and not at all as bad as the critics tried to make it but then I’m not really surprised that the critics are off-whack as usual.

So this movie started off great and THEN FLAT LINED... Ai i had such big expectation for this movie and all it did was disappoint.Don't get me wrong Michael B is a good actor but the story itself was missing so much and became more a drama than a action thriller. but it is what it is.

Better than I expected but not enough for anything higher than 3 stars...

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
Tom Clancy is the author behind the famous Jack Ryan series of books, which were eventually adapted to the big screen. While the original trilogy with Alec Baldwin and Harrison Ford is fondly remembered by most people, including myself, the XXI century’s reboots with Ben Affleck and Matt Damon were nothing but failed attempts at reviving a movie franchise. John Krasinski’s TV show was apparently successful, but unfortunately, I didn’t watch it. So, why not a spin-off? Michael B. Jordan comes in for a supposedly two-part film series with John Kelly - famously known as John Clark - as the main character. Stefano Sollima rejoins forces with Taylor Sheridan - both worked on Sicario: Day of the Soldado - accompanied by the debutant co-writer, Will Staples.
I can’t consider myself a Jack Ryan “fan”, but I do remember enjoying the first three movies. I don’t possess any knowledge about the story told in the books or John Kelly himself, so I watched this Amazon Studios flick with simple expectations of receiving a decent enough action film. Overall, that’s precisely what I got. The runtime under two hours flies by due to the numerous action sequences, which are obviously the most entertaining element of the entire movie. From the long takes with intense fight choreography to the more steady, suspense-driven situations, Without Remorse doesn’t have extended intervals between each action set piece, which will satisfy viewers solely looking for the more energetic stuff.
The stunt work needs to be complimented. The team behind the riveting, loud, exciting action deserves to be addressed since they’re the ones who truly make this type of film popular and successful. With that said, every movie requires the two pillars of filmmaking - story and characters - to be well-built, which is something this film only partially accomplishes. Despite John Kelly holding a tragic, dark backstory and emotionally compelling motivations, his character arc follows the generic development formula viewers have seen previously in other movies of the same genre. Regarding the narrative, it’s really no more than a direct revenge story with an inconsequential, uninteresting socio-economic, political angle, all being easily predictable from the get-go.
Michael B. Jordan (Creed, Black Panther) delivers a remarkable physical and emotional performance, carrying the whole film on his shoulders. By incorporating his character’s complicated, complex feelings of anger, grief, sadness, and sorrow, Jordan offers a captivating display that holds the viewers’ attention until the very end. Unfortunately, every other actor-character combo is so far away from the efficiency of the protagonist that all are pretty forgettable. From Jamie Bell’s (Rocketman, Snowpiercer) bland interpretation to Jodie Turner-Smith’s (Queen & Slim) forced efforts, the scripts for every secondary character are filled with either exposition or irrelevant pieces of dialogue.
Clearly, this is yet another attempt to revive an action saga, which I don’t think has a place today. From Mission: Impossible to John Wick, passing through Fast & Furious and the superhero universes, a Jack Ryan spin-off might just be interpreted as another random flick instead of serious competition to any of the before-mentioned franchises. Final praises to Philippe Rousselot’s camera work and Matthew Newman’s editing, which contributed to some impressive, entertaining scenes. In the end, that’s all that matters to a massive chunk of the audience.
Without Remorse follows a compelling protagonist in a path of revenge through suspenseful, intense action sequences triggered by the usual cliches and storytelling formulas of the genre. Michael B. Jordan is the star of the show, delivering a remarkably captivating performance that helps Stefano Sollima’s movie survive its unsurprising screenplay. Taylor Sheridan and Will Staples focus on building an interesting “hero”, but forget to apply that same level of dedication to the narrative and the secondary characters. Overall, it’s a fast-paced, action-driven film that will satisfy most viewers looking for something to watch on the weekend. Exceptional stunt work that must not be forgotten. However, if you desire a more creative, unique take on the Jack Ryan universe, maybe the sequel will do a better job.
Rating: B-

Not bad, first one without Alice though. Racoon city now has since been destroyed now. They start to find out what's underneath the city.

**The director’s love for the games is apparent, but too many poor decisions ruined what could have been the best and most faithful Resident Evil yet.**
Welcome to Raccoon City marks the first live-action Resident Evil adaptation to stick close to the original games in story and feel. Character costumes looked like they were plucked right from the games. Sets and locations were identical to levels I spent hours playing. Easter eggs and nods throughout the film celebrated hardcore fans. Unfortunately, its flaws overshadow its victories. An overcrowded story with too many characters prevented developing the characters or making the story have any real impact. Forcing two full game stories into an hour and 47-minute run time had consequences. I enjoyed the movie’s attention to the slow descent from human to zombie, which showed the dread and hopelessness as the victims felt their humanity drain away. There is also a fantastic action scene in complete darkness where the muzzle flash provides the only light for the survivors to see. There were some wonderful moments that Resident Evil fans will enjoy, but nostalgia is really the only thing Welcome to Raccoon City has going for it.

Well I cannot say that I I had high hopes for this movie but I have watched the other movies in the franchise and I am a bit of a sucker for horror/fantasy/science fiction movies. Especially if one can expect a decent amount of special effects and gore so…
It is not a great movie. Not even a good movie really but it is a half decent B-movie horror flick. It sure as hell is better than that woke piece of trash that Netflix has produced with their TV-show adaptation of the franchise but then that does not really say very much.
The story is rather non-existent and things just happen for no good reason. It is like the writer just took a bunch of zombie and monster encounters and threw them in a mixer to see what came out. Sure there is a resemblance of a background story there but it is not much.
We never get to know why the zombies escaped into Raccoon City, why the experiments where abandoned or anything else that might enlighten us as to why zombies pop up here and there all the time (apart from the fact that it is a Resident Evil movie and it is Raccoon City of course). There also seems to be a number of characters in the movie that knows a lot about what is actually going on but again, we never really get much of an explanation. I have understood that the movie is based on the story in the first three of the games so I guess those that have played them might understand the why’s better.
The main reason to watch this movie is the special effects, the gore and the action and this is best done with your brain in the off position. There are indeed some decent gory special effects and I have to say that the monsters in the later half of the movie was pretty okay.
I do miss Milla Jovovich though. There is not really any good kick-ass replacement for her although some of the characters tried. Also, for f… sake, will the dumbass Hollywood script writers ever going to stop putting stupid shit in the movies, like firing off bazookas and rocket launcher in confined spaces, say a train car. It doesn’t work unless the goal is to also kill the person firing it you morons!
One thing that annoyed me throughout the entire movie though is the fact that it is really dark. Sure it is a horror movie so some dark scenes is to be expected but the entire movie is really really dark. To the extent that it really is difficult to see what is going on for a lot of the movie. It might have worked in a cinema but on a TV-screen, even with the pretty good OLED that I have, it is really too dark.
So it was pretty much what I expected, a basic B-movie of the gore feast variety. Didn’t feel like I wasted my time but that is a positive as it gets.

This is one of these films that you can watch time and time again and still enjoy. Certainly, it's not the best crime story ever committed to film: the actual plot is comparatively straightforward with little by way of anything subtle, but I doubt you will readily find a more charismatic leading man who manages to combine humour, menace and style than Clint Eastwood ("Callahan"). He is a no-nonsense cop who is on the trail of a seriously psychopathic serial killer. After a few red-herrings, we discover quite quickly who the perpetrator actually is - that chase isn't really the point. It is what ensues now - a tense and suspenseful battle of wills between Eastwood and the wonderfully seedy, menacing and maddening Andrew Robinson whose performance here has to be up there with the best, all round, characterisations of any antagonist I've ever seen. Don Siegel keeps the action alive and the cast tightly knit; the dialogue - aside from the now infamous pithy quotes from "Callahan" - is potently sparing. The tension builds-up excellently using the cinematography of the city and a superb score from Lalo Shifrin whilst simultaneously exposing us to what is essentially the seamy, gritty underbelly of San Franciscan sub-culture. It is violent, brutal even - but never graphically. The imagery is designed to horrify but not, in my view, to scare. Eastwood expertly epitomises this cop - a maverick, almost vigilante, police officer and leaves us thanking the lord he is (sort of) on our side. Terrific film.

I can't imagine anyone else playing Harry Callahan other than Clint Eastwood. He will always be an iconic character with his tough demeanour and his means to get justice no matter how many rules he needs to break. Some of the scenes at the start have nothing to do with the investigation and while feel quite unnecessary to the plot, they still bring entertainment and shows us just what type of character Harry is. Andy Robinson is fantastic as Scorpio and while the investigation does take a little while to get going in the beginning, the cat and mouse game between the two really ramps up towards the end and I particularly loved the climax. Excellent film that still holds up well today.
8/10

Surprisingly straightforward story-wise, but very enjoyable all the same.
'Dirty Harry' is no doubt stylish, features an eye-catching plot and has a very good lead performance from Clint Eastwood; he really does own the role. With that noted, I was surprised at how simply the story unfolds. That's not necessarily a criticism, I just presumed it would've been more than just 'event one, event two, event three etc. ... the end'. I enjoyed it, which is all that truly matters.
It's, for me, an entertaining, solid film. I have no real issues with it.

Recently I've considered drastically negatively re-appraising Clint Eastwood's work, both directorially and as a thespian, as a knee-jerk reaction to his constant defense of the more racially-bigoted face of conservative America, but because of what his work has meant to me as a cinephile over the years, plus in tribute to everyone else's work involved in this film, particularly director Don Siegel's, that simply wouldn't be fair.
As well, you're basically getting, boiled down in its 103-minute timespan, 45 years after the fact, the main dilemma facing the USA. Whose rights are more important--the good guys' or the bad guys'? If they're equal, should they be considered equal, and what does that mean to the law enforcement and judicial systems?
Quite simply, THE most important American-made film of the past 50 years. NOT my very favourite (that's '2001: A Space Odyssey'), but the most significant.
And it hasn't aged a single day because of it.

The directing is remarkable but, the most interesting side of this film is the character created by Eastwood, a policeman who decides to take the law by his hand disregarding any kind of right or procedure.
Quite like his characters in the far west ... but in nowadays U.S.
The story itself is, plainly, bad and grotesque.

More than iconography here in dynamite Siegel/Eastwood teaming.
The film opens with a shot of a memorial wall in praise of the San Francisco Police officers who lost their lives in the line of duty, a SFPD badge is prominent as the camera scrolls down the ream of names on the wall. Cut to a rooftop sniper shooting a girl taking a swim in a swimming pool, cut to the coolest looking cop you have ever seen making his way to the rooftop scene, he stands and surveys the whole of the San Francisco bay area, this is, his area, and we know we are in for a very special film indeed.
Dirty Harry is now something of an institution, the film that pushed the boundaries of cops versus bad guys movies, some of the film's dialogue became part of modern day speak, and it's the film that propelled Clint Eastwood into the stratosphere of super stardom. Often tagged as a fascist film, I think it's more a cynical look at the rights of criminals because Harry is everyone who has ever been a victim of crime, he will do what it takes to take down the criminals festering in society, you break the law and Harry will get you any way he can. Here Harry is on the trail of Scorpio, a ruthless sniper killing at random, Scorpio kidnaps a teenage girl and demands $200.000 from the city or she will die in the hole he has her buried in. Harry is just the man for the job of delivery boy and this sets the wheels in motion for what becomes a personal crusade for Harry to take Scorpio down at all costs.
Director Don Siegel crafts a masterpiece here, creating a western within the big city landscape, the pace is energetic at times yet reeling itself in to provide genuine suspense when needed. Siegel should also be praised for sticking by Andy Robinson as Scorpio, for it's an insanely great performance from him. Yet it might never had happened since Robinson was petrified of guns, but Siegel stood by him and coaxed him through it. The result is a maniacal turn that scares and amuses in equal measure - witness his mad singing during a bus kidnap scene, you will not know whether to laugh or be afraid.
Yet as good as Robinson is, he gives way to a seamless piece of magnificence from Eastwood as Harry Callahan, note perfect and enthusing the role with the right amount of dynamic cool and gusto, it's no surprise that the character became a cinematic legend after such a great acting performance. Finally I must mention the wonderful score from Lalo Schifrin, jazz/electro/beat combinations segue perfectly into each scene with maximum impact to cap off one of the finest films of the 70s, and if you don't believe me then you can go argue with Harry. 9/10

Decent watch at best, could watch again, but probably won't, and can't sincerely recommend.
I had to watch this twice to make sure I followed what happened, I thought it was because I was really tired the first time, but nope, it made about as much sense the second time.
A lot of this is just the writing. I don't know what is with writers and mysterious islands (I'm looking at you, "Lost"), but it makes them crazy: just because ANYTHING could happen, doesn't mean it needs to. The problem with "Lost" is that they were actively reacting to viewer reactions, trying extremely hard to produce episodes that didn't match predictions (allegedly keeping the audience guessing), but that just makes disjointed story lines that wildly diverge for no reason. This movie is basically that happening all in one go.
The reason that the audience can draw lines is because a pattern is established by the written story, diverging breaks that pattern; it does not enhance it.
This movie keeps some movie mystery clues in there, but there is a LOT of wild diverges and acting within acting here that I can't elaborate on without spoiling it (it's the one "great" thing about this movie, so I won't). There is a high quality way of writing that involves red herrings and proper misdirection, but this is not it. The end result looks the same, until you review what happened and realize that the first was based off the information given and the second is based off of arbitrary writing decisions.
The mystery of the island itself interferes with the traditional mystery aspect as well. Even in ghost mysteries there are rules to follow. When there aren't any rules left, you can't predict and the story actually gets boring if not frustrating.
I am not saying this movie is without worth, but I am going to say that I feel bad for Lucy Hale as she's definitely the best of this movie.

'Fantasy Island' is a surprisingly fun, undemanding, slickly-filmed diversion that will keep its target audience entertained.
- Jake Watt
Read Jake's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-fantasy-island-a-suprisingly-fun-horror-tinged-adventure

> _**Review on Horror Focus_**
Blumhouse is a strange one to predict when it comes to pumping out quality horror films. Jason Blum cleverly orchestrates a plethora of films on a tight-string budget, allowing some breathing space in the (un)likely case that one of his films is a flop. Normally, this is not the case as Blumhouse is prone to releasing the odd PG-13 horror movie every now and again, and strapping that age restriction on any horror already racks in the doe.
This, however, has no accounting for taste, as fans like myself can often be left puzzled by the fodder that is pumped out of the Blumhouse canon a few times a year. With quite the eclectic resume of films under its belt, we were treated to the likes of Halloween, Get Out and debatably The Purge, and with the brilliant The Invisible Man coming out so recently, it's truly baffling how a film like Fantasy Island is also the product of the same company.
No production company or director is perfect, as we are often exposed to some atrocious pieces of work from our most-trusted filmmakers (with the exception of Jordan Peele duh!). Blumhouse is not to be excluded as it isn't uncommon for them to pump out at least one absolute stinker a year, films that could easily go down as some of the worst the genre has to offer. Blumhouse itself is largely successful overall, and very rarely releases an all-out disaster; but if you see that dreaded brand stapled onto the start of a film title ie. Blumhouse's Truth or Dare, and Blumhouse's Fantasy Island, know that what you're about to endure will be 100 minutes of mind-numbing torture.
Image result for fantasy island
Let's make one thing crystal clear, Fantasy Island is camp as tits. The problem here however is that it doesn't realise, which is ridiculous given its boistrous bravado. What we have is a half-baked, often muddled experience that is so oblivious to its own unique charm and goofiness that such comments end up becoming a serious negative. If Fantasy Island capitalised on its own brand of silly then this would be an entirely more enjoyable experience from that alone, but instead it takes itself far too seriously and often gets lost in its own waffle.
Some elements here are promising, with the overall plot being somewhat intriguing, but its the sheer execution and over-crammed production halts any above average element from being anything more than ill-conceived and inept. The biggest problem lies in the fact that it never knows what it is, nor understand what it's trying to be. It never fully lands on being a jumpy scare-centric horror, nor does it fully execute its trippy Midsommar-esque sci-fi rife that it tries so desperately to juggle.
Fantasy Island is first and foremost a generically dull experience, one that feels like three extremely underwhelming scripts stitches together like the knock-off Leatherface mask. The final product is actually quite puzzling, one that has a troubled time trying to establish its own identity which inevitably leaks out onto its viewer, resulting in a nonsensical, head-scratchingly hollow experience that is as dense as it is naff.
VERDICT
Word to the wise; like Truth or Dare, if Blumhouse attach their name onto the front of a film title like they're Clive Barker, save yourself time and avoid it. This is one getaway you definitely want to cancel

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
First of all, no, I have no knowledge of the TV series this film is based upon, and after watching Jeff Wadlow's adaptation, I'm definitely not watching anything related to this story. I always follow this principle: the two pillars of any movie are its story and characters. It doesn't matter if everything else is absolutely perfect. If the two central pieces fail to convince the audience, then the whole movie falls to the ground. Sometimes, there are some crumbles that remain intact. Very rarely, there's a big segment that has no scratches whatsoever, which can help the film to survive and, even more rarely, actually make it "okay".
Fantasy Island has two little crumbles named Portia Doubleday (Sloane) and Maggie Q (Gwen), who deliver good performances, especially the former who everyone knows from one of the best TV shows of all-time, Mr. Robot. Everything else is completely destroyed. The Grudge still has a couple of redeeming moments, but Fantasy Island is undoubtedly the worst movie of the year, so far. The before-mentioned two pillars are built with the most annoying, cliche characters, as well as a ridiculous narrative that ultimately brings the whole thing down.
The third act possesses some of the most nonsensical, irrational, and illogical plot twists I've ever witnessed. This is 2020's version of Serenity, also a movie with an absurd twist that only turns the film even worse than what it was. The big difference between the two plot twists is that Serenity's was predictable from the get-go. Fantasy Island's last twenty minutes are profoundly unexpected because no sane soul would have thought of such a baffling narrative decision.
The best way to describe the twist without spoiling a thing (and I won't) is through the editing. During the exposition-heavy revelation, the editing is so awkwardly choppy that it made me think it was all fake. I genuinely thought the plot twist was a false sequence. When I realized it wasn't, I simply laughed like a maniac because I couldn't believe someone thought this made logical sense. Usually, a plot twist carries some sort of build-up, even if it's literally a couple of minutes before the explicit revelation.
This one just happens. Without any preparation, a character just shows up on the screen and begins explaining everything. It simply doesn't make any logical sense. It generates so many incongruencies with the whole story that I lost count of the plot holes I was able to point out. The film starts with establishing a few rules, only for an hour later to ignore or change them completely. A particular character acts a certain way without any plausible reason as to why. If the screenplay wasn't messy and confusing enough, the characters are also horribly-written.
I never enjoy writing that an actor failed to do its job, but Ryan Hansen (JD Weaver) is the weak link of the cast, even if every single script is dreadful. Even the casting doesn't make sense: Michael Peña as a dramatic Mr. Roarke? A character supposed to be serious and mysterious? It's Michael Peña! I don't want to insinuate that he can only do comedy, but making him the villain (if I can call him that) is another addition to the list of questionable production decisions. Lucy Hale (Melanie) is fine as the protagonist, but it all comes down to the lazy, unimaginative scripts. Everything is so unbelievably messy that I don't even have any sort of technical remarks... Maybe that the beginning of the film and the actual concept look interesting. That's the only compliment I can think of: it wasn't a bad idea (different fantasies, different genres, it could have been a fun mix of styles).
Fantasy Island is undoubtedly the worst film of the year until now. Consider it 2020's version of last year's Serenity, but with a third act's plot twist that is so unexpected, everyone will have their jaws on the floor due to how nonsensical it is. The story wasn't close to being decent until the revelation, and it only turned into something a lot worse after it. Dozens of incongruencies and massive plot holes are generated due to the ridiculous attempt at a Shyamalan-like twist. If the absurd narrative decisions aren't enough, the horrible character scripts don't help the not-that-great acting, with the exception of Portia Doubleday and Maggie Q, the only good aspects of the whole movie. In the end, the two pillars of any movie (story and characters) are a total failure, making everything else fall apart with no possible salvation.
Rating: F

_The Little Things_ is a suspenseful crime thriller with great performances by Denzel Washington and Jared Leto. The film keeps viewers engaged with its tense atmosphere and well-executed twists and turns. However, the plot can be somewhat unrealistic at times, with certain aspects feeling contrived or far-fetched. Despite this, the movie's strong performances and gripping story make it a worthwhile watch for fans of the genre.

It is a movie full of Oscar stars. The story of the movie is the presence of a serial killer and the investigators' attempt to find this killer. If you are interested in investigation films in the 1990s, especially Seven, you will find that the events of the movie are similar to these steps that were in this movie.
This movie was written in the 90's and was to be directed by Steven Spielber. I liked the movie, although some might think that there were clips that were long and boring to the extreme, and this proved to attract viewers until the end.
What I liked the most about the movie is Jared Leto, although his scenes were few compared to Denzel Washington and Rami Malek. It is what prompted me to admire this movie and continue watching the movie until the end. The performance of Denzel Washington and Rami Malek was frustrating. They were not investigative. The way they monitored Jared Leto makes you think that they are not highly experienced investigators. The surveillance was primitive and superficial.
There was no reason for Jim (Rami Malek) to get into the car with Albert Sparma. Also, the compatibility and chemistry between Denzel Washington and Rami Malek was completely non-existent.
The cinematography was great and brought back the 90's, while the editing was bad

I was quite intrigued by the trailer for this. Somehow, though, they seem to have managed to squash all that's interesting about the film into it... It reminded me a great deal of "Se7en" (1995) with Denzel Washington "Deke" a former detective with a history that resulted in him being relegated to a rural uniformed role. He is despatched to the big city to collect some evidence whereupon he becomes embroiled in an investigation led by the cocky "Baxter" (a rather wooden Rami Malek) into a series of brutal killings. The title of the film is the gist of Washington's character - he is methodical and detailed in his methods, and together this unlikely alliance starts to bear fruit - they get their suspect, but he (Jared Leto) is no fool, and soon the game of cat and mouse leaves us uncertain as to whom is pulling who's strings. The first half-hour is quite well structured and effective, we get a sense of the mystery and the two stars gel quite well together. The second hour of the film, though, is really pretty poor with an ending that I felt really let the whole thing down. Any semblance of plausibility is sacrificed, almost as if director John Lee Hancock felt he was running out of time so had to cram too much into the closing stages - and so we are left with a hastily cobbled together conclusion that really underwhelms. Not a film you need bother seeing in the cinema - it is bound to be on a streaming service shortly to help you kill 2 hours.

Boasting some of the worst editing of the last couple of years, John Lee Hancock (The Highwaymen) delivers a Se7en's copycat narrative that lacks the overall interest and impact of the classic film. Despite good performances from the (type)cast, the supposedly mysterious, suspenseful story surrounding a serial killer is just another variation of the same formula people have seen hundreds of times.
Characters, relationships, and plot points are far from compelling, making the whole movie feel extremely forced and somewhat predictable. With no surprise factor and zero innovative developments, the overextended runtime simply becomes heavier and heavier...
An utter waste of remarkable actors.
Rating: D