Admittedly I have a love for anything involving World War II and although the dialogue was a bit spotty and some of the visual effects were okay at best, I still found this to be a pretty good war movie and nice performances all around. Probably doesn't rank all that high compared to others about Midway and Pearl Harbor, yet still found it to be worth checking out. **3.75/5**

War stories are only worth retelling in film if you're doing something new and interesting with the genre. Otherwise, it's just a retread of 'Pearl Harbour' or 'Fury' or any of the dozen other thematically-empty, explosion-happy extravaganzas from the last ten years. There's a compelling, nuanced, and affecting film to be made about Midway. This is not that film.
- Jake Watt
Read Jake's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-midway-sound-and-fury-signifying-nothing

***Just the facts, Jack***
Intelligence officer Edwin Layton (Patrick Wilson) warns that a Japanese attack is imminent, but his advice is disregarded and the Japanese use their carrier fleet to attack Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Admiral Chester Nimitz (Woody Harrelson) swiftly assumes command of the heavily weakened US Pacific Fleet. After the Doolittle air raid on Tokyo & Honshu 4.5 months later, events lead up to the Battle of Midway on June 4–7, 1942. Ed Skrein plays cocky pilot Dick Best while Dennis Quaid is on hand as carrier commander William "Bull" Halsey.
"Midway" (2019) tackles the Battle of Midway and events leading up to it without throwing in a dramatic fictional story, like the love triangle of “Pearl Harbor” (2001). While I loved “Pearl Harbor” and proudly stand by it, “Midway” chooses to stick to the facts and is thrilling from beginning to end. The main cast members are all real-life figures and there’s a tribute to each at the close.
This is superior to the 1976 movie because Roland Emmerich had the CGI technology to pull off the battle scenes which take place in & above the Pacific Ocean near the atoll of Midway, which is located a little over a thousand miles west of Hawaii. The flick successfully takes the viewer right into the midst of the fight on the water, in the air and under the water. It’s exciting, horrific and revelatory.
The film runs almost 2 hours and 18 minutes.
GRADE: A-

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)
With all due respect to Roland Emmerich and to his fantastic Independence Day, his movies never quite reach their potential, ending up in constant disappointments. It doesn't matter if he has excellent casts or amazing VFX teams, his films' screenplays are almost always stuffed with narrative issues. Midway is simply another installment in his saga of letdowns. Without knowing the director, anyone who looks at this movie will feel instantly captivated. From the unbelievably talented cast to the impressive visuals, it has two attention-grabber ingredients, which can result in a remarkable film… only if the two pillars of any cinematic production are decent enough: story and characters.
These are the main issue with Emmerich's movies. His characters are not compelling or intriguing enough, and his screenplays lack creativity and excitement (whether these are written by him or someone else). When I noticed that Midway had such an acclaimed cast and that it was about the Battle of Midway, I immediately got excited. War epics are a genre that I sincerely appreciate. However, when I checked who was "running the show", I instantly lowered my expectations. Honestly, it's exactly what I expected it to be: visually gripping, but emotionally hollow.
I don't want to understate it. The CGI work in this film is jaw-dropping. The actual war is riveting with astonishing aerial sequences and powerful sound design. Even at a regular screening with the usual 7.1 Dolby surround speakers, the floor was rumbling with the explosions and the planes. This is why I think audiences will definitely enjoy this movie. Maybe not a vast majority, but surely most people will leave their theaters feeling it was good entertainment. It has a long runtime, and it's hard to get through the exposition-heavy story, but in the end, I bet the general public will appreciate the war action enough to give the whole thing a thumbs up.
Nevertheless, it's still a very superficial flick. While it's very respectful to everyone who fought in the war (including the Japanese) and to the historic event on itself, it lacks emotional attachment to its characters. Dunkirk was praised by both critics and audiences all around the world, but its main criticism connects to what I just wrote. Christopher Nolan's film also didn't have any compelling characters. However, there's a big difference between these two movies. Both their marketing and their ultimate goal are distinct. Dunkirk was all about showing the actual war. It never marketed itself as a character-study or that it would even have a significant focus on some of the heroes that fought there. Nolan repeated several times: it's about the war and the war only.
It's genuinely one of the best, if not the best, *pure* war film I've ever seen. When it comes to depicting the claustrophobic, unbreathable, restless, bloody, loud event that a devastating war is, Dunkirk is so realistic it can even become uncomfortable with just sitting in your chair (at least, I did in IMAX). On the other hand, Midway's marketing was about paying homage to "people who fought in the Battle of Midway". Hence the stellar cast compared to Nolan's just competent actors (with obvious exceptions like Mark Rylance or Tom Hardy). It spends most of its screentime trying to develop the actual people that helped win that battle, not with the action itself. Therefore, these characters need engaging scripts and emotionally resonant arcs.
Wes Tooke delivers a screenplay packed with so much exposition that a lot of it looks clearly unrealistic. Characters discuss specific topics that don't make any sense of being in a conversation at a particular time and place. Throughout the runtime, there are dialogue sequences with the sole purpose of explicitly telling the audience what we need to know to understand the story, which ends up turning the narrative confusing, convoluted, and lacking faster pacing. It's tough to get through the non-action periods, and I can't even imagine how dull it would be without such an impeccable cast. Ed Skrein remarkably portrays Dick Best, the only character who's genuinely compelling and carries a complete, well-developed arc.
Unfortunately, I didn't feel invested in any other character. Only the best movies of every year can have a numerous and talented cast while giving each and every actor an exciting role. Midway has too many characters for the story it wants to tell. In addition to this, it has to stretch its runtime because you can't get Woody Harrelson or Dennis Quaid playing secondary roles and not giving them more than just a couple of lines. As time goes by, Emmerich's storytelling structure gets needlessly more and more complicated to follow. It's yet another film added to the "wasted potential" list…
Potential due to how truly magnificent the action sequences can be. It's undeniable that these are entertaining, gripping, and exciting. The dive bombers' scenes are packed with so much tension that I was getting more and more frustrated every time they missed their target, and a bomb went into the sea. I wanted them to succeed so bad, and this feeling can only be triggered by something extraordinary. Midway's war is as close to epic as it could be, but as with every other cinematic production, if its story and its characters are not up to par with the action, there are no outstanding VFX that can save a lousy screenplay.
All in all, Midway is a respectful homage to the people who fought in the Battle of Midway, but it fails to deliver an engaging story with compelling characters. With more characters that what it needed, the runtime is stretched beyond its limit due to the numerous acclaimed actors who would never be in a movie if they didn't have more than a couple of lines. Roland Emmerich has to thank his VFX team for presenting the closest war action we could ever get of the famous battle. Truly epic visuals with tense and riveting aerial sequences, plus a powerful sound design, get your teeth biting the nails. Unfortunately, except for Ed Skrein's character, I didn't feel invested enough to appreciate the non-action moments due to the confusing, convoluted, and exposition-heavy narrative. It's a shame that a visually impressive film possesses such an emotionally dull story. However, I still recommend it for anyone who enjoys war epics and "based on a true story" adaptations.
PS: it doesn’t hurt to research a bit about the Battle of Midway. I didn’t and I’m sort of regretting that now. Don’t make the same mistake. Going in with basic knowledge of what, how, and why it happened will only help you enjoy this movie more.
Rating: C+

The Man From Earth is a rare gem in indie filmmaking, a movie that relies solely on its thought-provoking writing and concept rather than flashy visuals or high-budget effects. Directed by Richard Schenkman and written by Jerome Bixby, the film unfolds entirely through dialogue, as a college professor reveals an extraordinary secret to his friends during an intimate gathering.
The story is the heart of the movie, blending history, philosophy, and science fiction into a compelling narrative. It challenges viewers to think deeply about humanity, mortality, and the nature of belief. Despite its minimalist approach, the script is captivating, offering twists and intellectual depth that keep the audience engaged.
However, the performances are uneven. While Richard Riehle stands out with a grounded and heartfelt portrayal, David Lee Smith as John—the enigmatic central character—falls flat. His portrayal lacks the emotional depth needed to make such a profound character relatable or compelling. Given John's fascinating background, this detachment feels like a missed opportunity to connect with the audience on a deeper level. The rest of the cast, including John Billingsley, deliver serviceable performances, but none leave a lasting impression.
What makes The Man From Earth truly unique is its appeal to open-minded viewers. It thrives on its ability to explore big ideas and timeless debates, inviting its audience to ponder questions about history, religion, and the limits of human understanding. While the lack of cinematic flair and some stiff performances may detract slightly from the experience, the strength of its writing and concept make it a must-watch for fans of intellectual storytelling.
This is a film that may not resonate with everyone, but for those willing to engage with its ideas, it’s a deeply rewarding journey.

I'd like to invite you to **believe the hype**. This movie is very well written and simply great. Keeps you at the edge of your seat and doesn't fail to amaze you till its very last second.

DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE!
Maybe that statement is a little facetious, but I feel it is true. I read **_AMAZING_** reviews for this film. I went in with high hopes, expecting a well acted, thoughtful, existential and quiet science fiction film.
Instead I saw a film so poor I wondered what's the scam here? How could this film possibly have a score in the high 7s.
The premise is solid at first glance, but as the film moves along it delves deeper and deeper in to melodrama, and then eventually patronising and insulting trash. I am agnostic, but I found the religion bashing heavy handed and unnecessary.
Most of the actors were doing the best they could with the script, but everything comes across flat and lifeless. None of the characters rang true. None of the dialogue sounded like how real people actually talk. If you want to make a science fiction film that shies away from special effects, and instead relies on realism and storytelling, you had better make the dialogue realistic, and the storytelling compelling. Sadly neither are found here.
The look of the film, I get that it is a low budget film made on a single location, but the quality of the film stock! It may seem petty, but I could not get over the thought that I have seen better looking lifetime films. Honestly I have seen better looking daytime soaps from the 80s.
Basically I don't get why anyone would call this film good, let alone a masterpiece. I have read rave reviews, 10/10 reviews, gushing about how thought provoking and challenging this film was. My thoughts were ones of disdain. My challenge was to finish this abysmal film. Many of the reviews seem to fixate on the fact that the writer of this wrote for the original Star Trek series. That to me is not a good enough reason to rate this film highly.
I honestly felt ripped off by this film. I've been told I didn't get it, but sadly I did. I understood every scene, I understood the implications, I understood the moral dilemmas and deeper meaning of what was being said. It's just that the deeper meaning was shallow and unconvincing. I've been told maybe I should have watched Transformers instead. Just for the record, I was looking forward to a slow, intelligent film minus explosions. Instead I got, this.
3/10, avoid unless you have already drunk the kool-aid and are pre-conditioned to love the film because the writer worked on Star Trek.

A great idea for a movie developed in a witty script. Well done and with a decent cast.
Perfect for being played also in the theaters or watched under the blanket at home.

***"Sit here... SIT HERE"***
I was hugely disappointed by "Conan the Barbarian" (1982) when I first viewed it because it deviated too far from the blueprint established by creator Robert E. Howard. Yeah, they got many things right, but the things they got wrong ruined the film for me. Yet I’ve warmed up to it over time because one can’t deny the film’s merits. If you’re a fan of the books and the faithful comics, it’s important to realize going in that this is an ALTERNATIVE Conan, similar to Howard's, but far from a strict interpretation.
The flaws mostly have to do with John Milius and Oliver Stone's deviation from Howard. Consider the opening sequence of Conan as a little boy on his father’s knee getting advice about the trustworthiness of the sword: Sorry, but the lad looks like an average soft suburbanite boy, not a tough kid that grew up in the wilds of Cimmeria, land of darkness and deep night.
Secondly, the "wheel of pain" sequence is just dumb. I have a bit more respect for this part now that I realize it's a metaphor for the cyclical drudgery of grade school but, c'mon, the REAL Conan wouldn't spend that many years in captivity! He would have escaped long before, not to mention slay his captors. I suppose it helps when consider that Stone & Milius were taking bits from Howard’s other creations, like Kull, who was a slave for a few years.
Thirdly, when they first meet Valeria while robbing the temple of Set the flick cops a decidedly campy tone. Although Sandahl Bergman is great throughout the rest of the picture that initial meeting is pretty cringe-inducing. It was at this point that I really tuned out when I first viewed the film. Fourthly, one of the worst parts is when Conan grovels at Thulsa Doom's feet crying, "You killed my father; you killed my mother!" This in no way resembles Howard's Conan. But, in its defense, it does make Conan more human and therefore more relate-able to the viewer.
Thankfully, the film has several strengths, starting with the magnificent and awe-inspiring score by Basil Poledouris. The movie's worth viewing just to hear this score. Secondly, despite acceptable discrepancies (e.g. Conan has black hair not brown), the casting is quite good; although Schwarzenegger doesn’t really reflect the air of REH’s character (Jason Momoa is far better). Thirdly, Milius & Stone show their brilliance by incorporating Genghis Khan's historical quote in Conan's response to "What is best in life?" Conan answers: "To crush enemies, see dem driven before you and to hear da lamentation of der women."
Fourthly, the locations, sets and costuming are superb. They certainly got the LOOK of Robert E. Howard's Hyborian Age right. Fifthly, As long as one is prepared to accept the deviation from Howard's Conan, the story keeps your interest throughout (which is my way of determining the worthiness of ANY flick). Sixthly, Sandahl Bergman is super sharp and sexy; she possesses a certain barbaric beauty essential to the role and it's hard not to gaze at her shapely form in awe when she's on screen.
Lastly, the overall tone of the film is quite serious and brooding. Despite Valeria's initial campy sequence mentioned earlier and a couple of amusing scenes with Mako, the film eludes the rut of camp (unfortunately the 1984 sequel cannot boast of this quality).
SPECIAL MOMENTS AND INTERESTING ITEMS:
•The love scene between Conan & Valeria and, later, the death/funeral pyre scenes are reverent, beautiful and moving. The accompanying piece by Poledouris is emotionally potent.
•Conan's spiritual evolution in regards to sexuality and love is interesting: His first exposure is as a slave when beautiful women are occasionally thrown to him for the amusement of those watching. After he acquires his freedom his first (and presumably only) experience with casual sex goes horribly wrong. Later in Zamora he dismisses the solicitations of prostitutes with a wave and a derogatory word. Finally he meets Valeria and discovers true love and commitment, conveyed well in the love/death/funeral scenes noted above.
•Both the battles inside the mountain fortress and, later, the showdown at the mounds are thrilling with the accompanying score getting your blood pumping.
•Right before the battle at the mounds Conan and Subotai brace themselves as the 'riders of doom' trot forth. You can see the bold determination on their faces: They have no other recourse; they will stand and fight as men, come what may. (All men will eventually have to stand and fight in this manner one way or another, and we wuss out at our own peril).
•After their unlikely victory Conan raises his arms (and weapons) in salute to the altar where Valeria was cremated. It gives you goosebumps.
Both "The Complete Quest" and "Collector's Edition" contain an excellent 55-minute "Making Of" documentary wherein all of the principle actors and creators are interviewed, as well as an excellent commentary by Milius and Schwarzenegger.
FINAL ANALYSIS: Like I said, I've finally come to see the magnificence of "Conan the Barbarian," but I had to get over my hang ups concerning the deviations from Howard's Conan to see it. As an ALTERNATIVE Conan it's a nigh masterpiece of cinematic art.
One last thing: Um, don't use that first line of dialogue ("Sit here... SIT HERE") on your wife or girlfriend; I tried it and she didn't take too kindly to it!
The film runs 2 hours, 9 minutes, and was shot in Spain.
GRADE: A-

Though definitely a guilty pleasure from the cheesy 80's of which I grew up, this is such outstandingly fun. It's so unique a cinematic experience, knowing what we know of Schwarzenegger's life and career the 34 years since, seeing him at this juncture, as he's just starting out. (No, I haven't seen 'Stay Hungry' yet.)
Part of me always wishes he had simply stuck to these films (as well as the 'Terminator' series), and was still making them. In his prime, I dare you to find anyone better at this kind of material. Director Milius has a fine feel for the swords-and-sandals/fantasy worldscape this material requires. An excellent and underrated supporting cast is here at well to help Arnie out, too.

_**Reverent drama/romance/fantasy with McAdams and Bana**_
A young woman (Rachel McAdams) meets a man in a Chicago library (Eric Bana) and recognizes him as the man she loves who has traveled back in time from his future to meet her as a girl. Can their relationship handle the stress of him suddenly disappearing without warning and the complications thereof?
“The Time Traveler’s Wife” (2009) is a drama/romance with a sci-fi element comparable to “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” (2004). Like that film, it can be mind-boggling, but both Bana and McAdams make it worthwhile and there are thought-provoking & moving parts. Eric is masculine and charismatic here, really showing off his talents, while Rachel shines as one of the most uniquely beautiful women to walk the earth. Also check her out in the underrated “The Lucky Ones” (2008).
The ending shows that the real problem in America is old, white, gun-toting Republicans. (rolling my eyes). Now we’re talking fantasy.
The film runs 1 hour, 47 minutes, and was shot in Toronto, Hamilton & Chalk Lake, Ontario, Canada, with establishing shots of Chicago.
GRADE: B-/B

Yep hope I never see any giant anaconda In person. I would freak the hell out. Probably pee my pants too lol. It's a ok movie, but the snake does look fake. Either way I hate snakes.

Good watch, would watch again, and can recommend.
This is a huge surprise that this holds up after 20+ years, which is great because there aren't enough giant snake movies out there.
This was a bit before modern technology, but that's offset by taking place on the Amazon River, far away from where technology would work anyways.
This was also back when Jennifer Lopez and Ice Cube thought they were actors (and I honestly prefer them as actors), and I certainly don't think that they are the any of the bad parts of this movie.
Jon Voight was by far the most confusing, if not "bad" part of this movie. I think he was doing an impression of a Spaniard, but maybe was supposed to be having a Portuguese accent as that's what they speak in Brazil, but it was never clear if he was supposed to be FROM there or not. Even the character itself is oddly motivated, fighting to stay alive against people, but clearly has no self preservation when comes to catching the snake alive....so he can.....what...mate with it?
Owen Wilson, in typically form, plays the "let's ruin this" role and really is a catalyst for the movie spiraling out of control.
This is a "Mr. Toad's Wild Ride" of a movie, not good (even back then), but still lots of fun. With the bad CG and odd, but impressive practical effects, it certainly was never the impending threat of an unstoppable beast that was the problem.

Why did I wait to see this until now? And why did Jon Voight not win another Oscar for this movie?
“Anaconda” follows a group of highly intelligent and not at all oblivious documentary filmmakers as they search for a hidden tribe in the Amazon. Along the way, they find a not at all creepy snake hunter played by Jon Voight, whose tries to help them but completely by accident takes them into a forbidden area of the Amazon where resides giant, completely realistic-looking snakes that move at entirely believable and not at all unrealistic speeds. Trust me, you won’t believe how realistic the CGI is. You’d swear the snakes were right there with the actors.
The characters are in no way infuriating. At no point do you ever root for the snakes to win and all the human characters to die in horrible ways. You feel genuinely upset when a character dies and don’t want to laugh or cheer at all.
Trust me, you need to see this movie. It’s easily on par with such masterpieces as “The Room” or Kirk Cameron’s “Saving Christmas.”

**What's your favourite thing about Earth?**
You might ask that question for yourself while/after watching this film. This is not a great film, but surely different and enjoyable. This kind of storyline can be acceptable for the todays space ambition by the humans they have to accomplish. A couple of decades ago, it was called a fiction, still it is, but quite close to realistically possible.
So we had seen many films based on human connection with the red planet, Mars, but this one was a little different. It is romance theme, though not like east meets west. It is Mars meets Earth. The story of a boy from Mars and the girl from Earth. That's how it ends, but not that how it was initiated. It was the boy who searched for his connection with the Earth, and doing that, all the usual things happen, like some people come after him, like running and chasing.
Well made film. It was not a complicated screenplay, but the twist was unexpected at the end yet I did not think it was strong. Explained everything with details, as well as intentionally added some of scenes to cover up later parts when the narration takes the unexpected route. Best cast for sure.
Britt Robertson played the role ten years younger than her she is. But it does not matter, she still looks like a teenager. And Asa Butterfield was quite good too. The only usual thing about the film was the road adventure, though it did not take the usual route. Nothing was like you have already seen them. That's where it hand upper hand. The end was good, yet I felt it softened to bring a certain type of ending than a relevant one. Because it is a PG13 film and they wanted the conclusion that satisfy their target audience. So, it is a nice film and once watchable.
_7/10_

Somehow Hollywood continues to search for different outlets in conveying young love at the box office. Sure, the goal is always the same in terms of tapping into the youth market by promoting yet another transparent teen weepie but this time among the planetary stars. Hey, youngsters need catering at the movie theaters as well, right? However, one is not so convinced that the Young Adults (YA) genre is convincingly elevated by a flimsy frontier sci-fi romancer among the Clearasil crowd. Hence, **The Space Between Us** fits the bill as a scattershot and schmaltzy pimple-faced love story that has all the emotional stability of moon dust in front of a heavy duty oscillating fan.
Writer-director Peter Chelsom (“Funny Bones”, “Serendipity”) and fellow screenwriters Allan Loeb and Tinker Lindsay delve into the conventional cliches of a lame star-crossed lovers theme that wreaks of saccharine-coated simplicity wrapped in scientific triteness. The awkward mixture of lightweight sci-fi drama, pandering gooey-eyed overtures toward teenage girls still nostalgically embracing their _Twilight_ fixation and space-age elements as filler exploration makes for a paper-cutter potency that creates unwanted space between us or any other species watching this cosmic claptrap. Give Chelsom some credit–at least his young protagonists are not another incarnation of obligatory hairy werewolves or fanged vampires, right?
The adolescent pen pals in **The Space Between Us** are truly from different worlds although this does not stop these particular kids from bonding deeply. Advanced academic in sixteen-year old Gardner Elliot (Asa Butterfield) is having a time of his life in corresponding with the edgy Tulsa (Britt Robertson) in the chat rooms. Whereas Gardner is a whiz in robotics and comes from prestigious stock (his late mother was a pioneering astronaut) his object of affection Tulsa is a motorcycle-loving wild child that had bounced around in the foster care system. The glaring differences between the unlikely young couple is that the scientifically gifted Gardner is located on Mars and Tulsa is a gritty gal living on Earth in the state of Colorado. Geez…talking about long distant relationships, huh?
Poor Gardner has always entertained the thought of traveling to Earth–the home planet of his deceased explorer mother who died giving birth to him during her mission to colonize Mars. So now there is more of an incentive for Gardner to yearn for visiting Earth now that his curiosity and fascination with Tulsa has heightened. At this point all Martian Gardner has going for him socially is his guardian/”second” mother in astronaut/scientist Kendra Wyndham (Carla Gugino) and his robotic pal he built to provide him companionship. The cruel reality for Gardner not being able to take a trip to Earth has something to do with his sensitive Martian-bred bodily functioning not being able to withstand the atmospheric gravity settings on our planet (huh…is he not half Earthling?). All Gardner wants to do is come to terms with connecting to the planet Earth and finding some self-discovery about himself and self-fulfillment with his Colorado-based crush in the leather-clad Tulsa.
Of course the film figures out–in convoluted fashion no doubt–how to place the inquisitive Gardner on earth-related soil through the far-fetched means of a billionaire Nathaniel Shepherd (Gary Oldman) funding the experimentation and expedition of the Red Planet-raised tyke whose dream of reaching the planet that houses his unknown father and his precious Tulsa. Soon, the inevitability of Gardner meeting up with his dreamgirl comes true as the teenage twosome take off and find liberation in each other’s company as the authorities are hot on their trail. Look out Romeo and Juliet…you have a cheesy carbon copy coupling seeking to steal your familiar thunder.
**The Space Between Us** produces more sappy substance than a row of Vermont trees. The fish-out-of-water routine that Butterfield’s Gardner undergoes when reaching Earth is mechanically clumsy and predictable. Butterfield does what he can to portray Gardner as an alien just not from another planet but from his own skin and this notion is philosophically ambitious to pull off for an interstellar teen tearjerker that has all the complexity of a sofa cushion. Robertson’s Tulsa is the typical rebellious chick but her and Butterfield’s Gardner become tiresome as they engage in manufactured chase scenes, teen-angst lovey-dovey lameness and the dragged-out space travel drivel that beleaguers this simplistic sci-fi yarn.
The results in **The Space Between Us** is alarming more than charming because once the payoff is realized where Gardner and Tulsa draw energy from each other’s worldly vibes as they cuddle in zero gravity one will be left wondering where the next asteroid is coming to act as the needed wrecking ball to obliterate this toothless sci-fi saga aimed at the indiscriminate teen targets.
**The Space Between Us (2017)**
STX Entertainment
2 hrs.
STARRING: Asa Butterfield, Brit Robertson, Gary Oldman, Gina Gugino, Janet Montgomery, Trey Tucker, Scott Takeda, Adande “Swoozie” Thorne, Sarah Minnich
DIRECTED BY: Peter Chelsom
WRITTEN BY: Peter Chelsom, Tinker Lindsay Allan Loeb
MPAA Rating: PG-13
GENRE: Action & Adventure/Science Fiction/Fantasy & Romance
Critic’s rating: ** stars (out of 4 stars)
(c) **Frank Ochieng** 2017

I AM... THE LAW!

The story is the weak link in what is otherwise a marvellously fun chain. Unfortunately, when it comes to the film industry, the plot-link is kind of the most important one, so I can't really call Judge Dredd a success. And although the general premise is strong, this is not to the credit of the movie, seeing as it sources its material from the comic books of the same name, and 2000 AD.
Sylvester Stallone (the titular Dredd) and Rob Schneider (his offsider) are perhaps poor casting options. But they aren't so terrible as to make Judge Dredd unwatchable, especially seeing as there are a quite a few good choices to balance this out.
Despite being made in '95, it shares that intrinsically 1980's vision of a dystopian future, where all the buildings are black, all the signs are neon, and all the residents are androgynous punks and goths. Which to be honest I'm a huge sucker for, so this earns Judge Dredd some points (though again, not for originality).
It's perhaps not the sort of description you'd expect of a violence-heavy, guilty-pleasure dodgy sci-fi, but Judge Dredd is just so cute! The ABC Warrior I have a particular soft spot for, but even overall, the piece is enjoyable to not take seriously (though taking it seriously is probably impossible).
Yes it's true that Judge Dredd is enjoyable in a laughing at it kind of way rather than a laughing with it one, but that's still enjoyable in my books.
51%
-Gimly

An improvement on 'Johnny English Reborn', if still a large distance off the entertaining original.
'Johnny English Strikes Again' does feel more like the first film though, unlike the 2011 sequel. That's in positive and negative ways. The vibe of the film being one of the pluses, but one of the cons being a couple of scenes felt repeated from the original.
Rowan Atkinson (Johnny) remains the standout piece of the series, while it's good to see the previously missing Ben Miller (Bough) return. Olga Kurylenko (Ophelia) is alright, while Emma Thompson (PM) is pleasant to see.
One issue I do have with this installment is the villain, who is extremely mundane and not at all threatening, menacing or funny. The main reason why the original is so much fun, at least to me, is that you had John Malkovich absolutely perfecting the villainous role and remaining on the same level as Atkinson. In the sequels, it's basically Atkinson and that's it. Bring back Pascal Sauvage, I say.
The humour in this third release is suitably fine, despite nothing truly hilarious. There are a few good scenes, the most memorable to me being the VR one. The ending is just about passable, almost bad but not quite. Overall, I found just enough that I enjoyed about this.

_Johnny English_ is a franchise that continues to get worse with every movie they release, which obviously makes _Strikes Again_ (as the newest) the worst to date, but I will say, there is one sequence with a certain cannister of pills that I did genuinely enjoy. But digging five minutes out of an hour and a half is not really a rate good experience.
_Final rating:★½: - Boring/disappointing. Avoid where possible._

Though this isn't maybe the best of stories, it's more than made up for by a bunch of entertaining personalities. For many years "Madame Medusa" has been terrorising the Bayou with her pal "Mr. Snoops" and her twin alligators, as she tries to discover the whereabouts of a giant diamond. Convinced it's down a narrow hole below a tree, she "procures" the services of the young "Penny" from an orphanage in New York. Scared and desperate, the young girl puts a message in a bottle pleading for help and next thing, "Miss Bianca" and "Bernard" - two of the best the mice-driven, UN-based, "Rescue Aid Society" has to offer - are en route via albatross. Now when I say "best", well they have actually done very little of this sleuthing lark before and indeed are frequently just as terrified of their new surroundings as the girl they are seeking. Luckily, they encounter the star of the film - "Evinrude". He's a courageous and energetic dragonfly who can propel their leaf boat at great speeds through the ever treacherous swamps in search of the youngster. What now ensues are some fun escapades as they try to keep one step ahead of their nemesis (reminded me a lot of "Miss Hannigan" from "Annie") and her lethal pair of pets. The animation is engaging and focusses more on the facial features of the characters and with a few songs to break up the pace now and again, we get an amiable eighty minutes of family fun.

Shockingly dated. Sure, Arnold is kind of funny and the kids are very cute, but the constant violence, language, junkies, and aiming guns at small children in this day and age (or any day and age). I definitely do not recommend this for any children.

It's his toughest assignment so far!
Kindergarten Cop is directed by Ivan Reitman and it stars Arnold Schwarzenegger as John Kimble, a tough police detective who goes undercover as a kindergarten teacher to catch drug dealing baddie Cullen Crisp (Richard Tyson) before Crisp can get to his ex-wife and son. However, having no teaching experience previouslly, Kimble finds the children a right handful. Not only that but he finds himself attracted to another teacher, Joyce (Penelope Ann Miller) to further complicate things.
Sandwiched in between "Total Recall" and "Terminator 2:Judgement Day", is this light action comedy on Arnold Schwarzenegger's Curriculum Vitae. With a salary of $12 million in his pocket the big Austrian revels in playing comedy. Much as he did with "Twins" from 1988, Schwarzenegger is comfortable in making himself the butt of the jokes. With a crazy premise such as this one it was imperative that he got the feel of the comedy right, something that he achieves in spades.
Schwarzenegger's play off with all the children is good fun cinema, even tender at times. For in amongst the froth the writers still slot in serious issues, issues that Schwarzenegger, in spite of his obvious lack of acting gravitas, grasps with two gigantic hands. There's no surprises in store within the plot, and I'm pretty sure for a film of this type nobody is seriously expecting any. Yet the good honest fun makes this one for all the family to enjoy.
With good support from Miller & Reed, and of course the army of sprightly children, Schwarzenegger once again doesn't take himself seriously. Hollywood, like it or not, is all the better for it. 6.5/10

Between Kindergarten Cop and Predator, you will learn about half of Arnold's famous one liners. That doesn't mean Kindergarten Cop is laughable trash. In fact, it's a wonderfully heartwarming story about broken families and how we learn to communicate with children. Also, it's just hilarious watching Arnold interact with kids.
This is one of those personal favourites of mine that I watch at least once every couple years or so. I love it from it's hilariously campy opener right up to its surprisingly violent ending. It's perfect for the guys to laugh and quote Arnold, and perfect for the girls to gush over how adorable the kids are.

John Kimble (Arnold Schwarzenegger) is a cop assigned to put a killer named Crisp behind bars for good. To do so, Kimble needs to find Crisp's son and ex-wife. All he knows for certain is the name of the small Oregon town where the live and that the boy is kindergarten age. Kimble goes undercover as a kindergarten teacher to try to find the boy. Even though he's a tough cop on a mission, Kimble realizes, to his amazement, that he enjoys teaching the kids. He also finds a love interest in one of the other teachers, Joyce (Penelope Ann Miller) - a single mother whose son is in Kimble's class. And, as luck would have it, Kimble discovers that Joyce is Crisp's ex-wife. How convenient! Kimble will have to act fact, though, because Crisp is on his way to collect his son.
For the most part, Kindergarten Cop is an enjoyable movie. Schwarzenegger seems naturally unnatural around the kids, but that works in the film's favor. Kimble should be awkward around his class. There are a number of humorous interactions between the un-humorous Kimble and the kids - my favorite being his reaction to the kid obsessed with death. Good stuff. As awkward as Schwarzenegger is around the children, it's the exact opposite when it comes to his co-star, Miller. There's a nice chemistry between the two that really shows on-screen. I would have loved to see the pair make more movies together. Another plus for kindergarten cop is Pamela Reed playing Kimble's partner. Reed is always good and gives a solid performance here. Throw in some nice action toward the film's conclusion and Kindergarten Cop ends up being a nice experience.
I do, however, have two complaints. First, the film is too long. I really think that if just 10 to 15 minutes were cut from the runtime, it would be a better, tighter movie. Cut the scenes with Cathy Moriarty, for example. They add zilch to the final product. Second, baddie Crisp and his mother aren't threatening enough. They're jokes. Had the pair been played with a more menacing tone, the final showdown would have been even better. Still, it's a solid film as is.

"_I'm lonelier in my real life than I am out here. I miss my friends, of course, but it's not as if I have anybody waiting for me at home._"
Hadn't watched this yet because people have told me they didn't think it was good but I didn't really mind it. I like that it is based on a true story so this hike has some weight to it. If you like movies about self reflection, this is pretty good.

> Return to where we've come from to revive our life.
Ever since the movie 'Dallas Buyers Club' grabbed the three golden statues at the Oscars, the director has been in the spotlight. But I was enjoying his movies before that and yet this one is another remarkable adventurous-drama based on the real expedition into the wild. Cheryl Strayed whose story was this film based upon appeared in the beginning scene where she drops off her version of the movie character and wishes her a luck.
The world is round, you can't runaway with your problems. If you do, you might end up where you have started. That's why its called a circle of life, goes round and round and round. You can hide your issues with yourself, but it may lead to a depression. Sometime when an experiment goes wrong, it's better to restart from the scratch with a different method. Here in our (human) lives some people do the same, return to where we've come from to restore the lost life. Of course I said all these, because this flick was inspired by such real incident.
I prefer this film was very close to the Australian movie 'Tracks' than bringing 'Into the Wild' into the frame. Obviously the Australian movie and this one are about the two young women, but the thing is, the story deals with the different motivation for their decision to take part in the quest. The Aussie flick has an edge over this when it comes to the challenges faced during the journey and also I loved from narration to photography, music and performance.
Since they both inspired by the true story, I appreciate the filmmaker's effort to bring them into the screen and salute to those two magnificent ladies. In both the films, both the women psychologically affected by their earlier stage of lives which was one of the reasons to step into the wild. I feel, 'Tracks' should have been nominated instead this movie for the Academy Awards.
> I've always been someone's daughter or mother or wife.
> I never got to be in the driver's seat of my own life.
It was a wonderful 2014 for Reese Witherspoon. Back to back career reviving; biographical and inspiring human emotion movies in this graphic, sci-fi and fantasy dominated era. The year's sweetheart for the critics and I doubt there will be another same year. Remember, she was nominated for the Oscars for her role in this film.
The disappointment was the adventures. Not what I expected. The struggles were unable to reach for our deep heart compared to other self-discovery voyage films. Weight she carried and losing a toe nail, I don't see much impact because those are supposed to happen. This PCT (Pacific Crest Trail) is well planned and partially protected the hikers with all the needs supplied all along the route. The only thing they have to do is stay away from the wild lives and watch-out for the intruders between the checkpoints.
In other end coping with depression was what I loved in the movie. Without those flashbacks this film was nothing. Literally, this story all about the mental healing. The pain she carried, she just wanted to eject it from her body and mind, and the journey helped it. The funny thing is I liked Laura Dern a lot than anybody in the movie. Her character as well as her dialogues was very inspiring. Her nominee for the actress in a supporting role was justified. I can watch this film again and again, only for her alone, sadly she won't appear for a long stay.
I loved it, but not completely pleased with the product. The reason is 'Tracks'. I think the film came at the wrong time or maybe I saw this one when the other flick was still hot and fresh in my memory. An achievement is an achievement, I respect both the films. You like the movie or not, that's a secondary thought regarding movie's outcome. But it's a must see for disclosing the extraordinary adventure of an ordinary young woman.
7.5/10

A lackluster _Purge_ entry at best that is only considered decent because the film that came before it is so awful, _The Forever Purge_ does put some effort into attempting to put a different spin on how we view immigrants, but even that seems half-cocked at best.
With a concept this stagnant, _The Forever Purge_ has successfully done what other horror movies have never been able to do; make deaths, murdering, and killing a total bore. Hopefully, with any luck, _The Purge_ franchise will pillage and murder itself with this entry.
**Full review**: https://boundingintocomics.com/2021/07/05/the-forever-purge-review-america-a-ho-hum-dystopia/

In what is being billed as the final Purge movie; “The Forever Purge” has arrived and like elements of the prior films; gains traction from current events which have only made elements of the film more chilling seeing how the film was originally planned for July of 2020.
Following the abolition of the Purge at the end of the “Purge Election Year”; the Holiday where all crime is legal for twelve hours is restored due to radical elements fueling fears of illegal immigration and the increase in crime immigrants will bring to the largely crime-free country.
It is not made clear what happened with the new President who was a staunch critic of the Purge and only that it has been restored so citizens prepare for its return by arming up, barricading themselves, or paying for armed security in a fortified locale.
It is against this backdrop that Adela (Ana de Reguera) has come to America fleeing the violence in her country as she enters illegally and finds work. Dylan Tucker (Josh Lucas) is a wealthy Rancher who along with his family hires friends and family of Adela though having some disdain for them and what they stand for.
The Purge comes and goes with the main cast unaffected and as they prepare to resume their lives; roving bands of armed gangs have continued to Purge in violation of the law similar to those who took to the street in protest of the election and plans to eliminate the Purge years prior.
This new group is well organized and has no issues taking on law enforcement and the military forcing Dylan, Adela, and their family and friends to flee for their lives. As the terror spreads, their only safety is to try to make it to Mexico who along with Canada has agreed to a six hour window to allow people to cross to escape the violence.
As the danger mounts, the severity of the movement is known as the authorities seem powerless to control and stop what is called The Forever Purge.
The film uses a slightly different formula than the prior films which focused mainly on a group of people trying to survive the night and the terrors that come with Purge Night. There is a greater emphasis on racism and Xenophobia this time around directed more towards foreigners than minorities and poverty-stricken individuals but the underlying message is the same.
This time around we are given a longer timeframe of terror and more social commentary as there are elements from the film which seem eerily inspired by headlines past and present which makes the film even more chilling.
While the story is rather bare and the characters do not get much development; the movie should give fans of the series what they look forward to although it lacks the dramatic tension of the previous films.
In the end “The Forever Purge” is an interesting new chapter in the series but not one of the stronger entries and serves as an effective finale to the series should this turn out to be the final film.
3 stars out of 5

A simple comedy (mockumentary) with great visuals, and good performances.