This is a good, solid fantasy adventure. It is not a “wow great” kind of movie but definitely enjoyable to watch, at least if you are a fan of fantasy, magic, dragons and such like.
The movie is based on a book which I have not read although I believe it is considered as a young adult book. The movie seems to reflect this in that it has a fairly simple, straightforward, adventure plot. This is a movie made to entertain with magic, adventure, a bit of humor and visual effects. Nothing more and nothing less.
In my opinion it does so fairly well. I do like Jeff Bridges in his role as a rather wacky hunter of evil witches who have fallen into a dark and uncaring attitude towards the world around him. Uncaring about everything except slaying of witches that is. Ben Barnes, portraying the apprentice and Seventh Son is unfortunately making a rather bland impression. Then Julianne Moore is definitely better as the evil witch.
No movie where fantasy, magic and dragons are among the main themes can be without special effects. So, not surprisingly, there are a fair amount of them in this movie. I think they are generally well made and complements the story well without being overdone.
On the whole I liked the movie. It is a simple but solid adventure story with just the right amount of a few humorous remarks, nice visual effects, a bit of romance and action.

The mundane medieval movie ‘Seventh Son’ is indicative of the cinema wasteland that the beginning of a brand new movie season trudges in after the New Year arrives. In any event, ‘Seventh Son’ is in good company (or is that bad company?) with flaccid fare such as the sci-fi eyesore ‘Jupiter Ascending’ and the meatless melodrama ‘The Boy Next Door’ joining the parade of putrid pictures occupying the big screen at the same time. What is even more shockingly shoddy about ‘Seventh Son’s embarrassing presentation as a sluggish supernatural movie misstep is the inclusion of Oscar-winner Jeff Bridges (‘Crazy Heart’) and current Oscar-nominee Julianne Moore (for 2014’s ‘Still Alice’) saddled in director Sergei Bodrov’s (‘Mongol) period piece sci-fi sludge. Bridges’s gray-haired evil-bashing spook and Moore’s wicked witch may very well deserve to have their SAG cards revoked upon audiences sitting through this faceless fantasy of hocus-pocus.
‘Seventh Son’ wastes no time in setting up its familiar, generic premise involving a mentor-trainee tandem in the wise and haggard spook Gregory (Bridges) and his youthful farmboy protege Thomas Ward (Ben Barnes), an apprentice learning the ropes in taming the evil-doers that dare to exist and persist. Get this…old Gregory is considered a laughingstock (in addition to appearing as a leading personality in this ludicrous narrative) for believing in the evil-minded forces that he warns about consistently. Well, Gregory’s warnings are not so humorous to the naysayers when the sinister witch Mother Malkin (Moore) makes her hostile presence known. Resembling ‘Maleficent’s gaudy twin sister in wardrobe, Mother Malkin escapes her confines to concentrate on two treacherous tasks at hand: seek revenge on the meddling geezer Gregory and, of course, to control the world under her devilish grasp. The sorcery sass Malkin means business and the desperate Gregory must contain her with the recruitment of the chosen Thomas.
Naturally, Thomas comes with a unique yet confusing mythology attached to his backstory which explains Gregory’s undivided attention towards the young sword-wielding raw talent. It is revealed that the revered young-blood Thomas is the ‘seventh son’ from a lineage of seventh sons in his lineage. Thus, Thomas has the specialized aura to carry his own weight into battle as he will serve as an adequate fighting tool for Gregory and the cause to restore order for a doomed society not ready to deal with cutthroat Queen of Mean in Mother Malkin.
So we witness Thomas’ so-called training methods and the philosophical mantras that go along with his journey in the name of good versus evil. What would a stud-in-combat-mode be without a lovely lady as an incentive to complete his heroic sacrifices? In this case, Thomas develops a romance with his object of affection in half-witch Alice (Alicia Vikander) who may have some hidden relationship secrets of her own that may prove critical.
Bodrov’s wooden direction and screenwriters Charles Leavitt (‘Blood Diamonds’) and Steven Knight (‘Easter Promises’) present an amateurish and spotty script that does no favours at all for the rancid ‘Seventh Son’. Drowsy dialogue, disjointed storylines, hammy acting, tedious fight sequences, derivative-looking 3-D special effect flourishes, cornball sorcery ans swords swagger, spaced-out and unintentional amusing dragons and other convoluted creatures are all are on delusional display in this faulty fable that feels strung together in the aftermath of a drunken stupor originating at the local pub.
In this demonic dud, both Bridges (whose ‘Seventh’ role recalls the forgettable flop ‘R.I.P.D.’) and Moore are outrageously cast in this clumsy costumed drama and one has to wonder why these veteran performers would sign on the dotted line to appear in this medieval mess? Barnes follows suit as the touted apprentice but his Luke Skywalker-lite antics in ‘Seventh Son’ are dismissed almost instantly. Even the pronounced presence of Oscar-nominee Djimon Hounsou (‘Blood Diamonds’, ‘Gladiator’, ‘In America’) cannot give any animated muscle as he appears as Radu, a multiple blade-armed, sword-swinging warlock with stylish jazzy chain accessories. Only the supporting roles of Vikander’s bewitching beauty Alice and Olivia Williams’s Mam Ward (Thomas’ mother) come out of this vacuous venture looking mildly memorable and inviting.
‘Seventh Son’ is based upon the Joseph Delaney books with a decent following in literary circles. The big screen adaptation of Delaney’s pages is meager to say the least. Clearly, there will be no heralded ‘Twilight’ trend beneath ‘Seventh Son’s cinematic wings and, if this statement is proven wrong, then perhaps those very same wings need a serious clipping.
Seventh Son (2015)
Universal Pictures
2 hrs.
Starring: Jeff Bridges, Julianne Moore, Ben Barnes, Djimon Hounsou, Alicia Vikander and Olivia Williams
Directed by: Sergei Bodrov
Genre: Science Fiction and Fantasy/Medieval Melodrama/Supernatural Fable/Sorcery and Swords Saga
Critic’s rating: * star (out of 4 stars)

**Hustle has a typical unknown up-and-comer plot for a sports movie, but it doesn't keep it from being an enjoyable movie.**
Hustle is basketball Rocky with Adam Sandler as the Mickey-type character and Juancho Hernangomez as the Rocky. As a Netflix straight-to-stream, Hustle rose above expectations. Hustle tugged on the heart from time to time, and Sandler gave a sincere heartfelt performance, helping boost the quality of the film. With most of the rest of the cast rounded out with professional basketball players, the game performances were excellent, but the character acting was restricted to not over-stretch their acting skills. This sometimes limited the story's depth, and some of the movie's plot felt generic. Still, Hustle is a solid sports movie that is enjoyable for basketball fans.

Highly recommend!
Riz Ahmed gives an incredible performance as Ruben, not only did he make me care immensely for the character but he also makes Ruben feel like a real person. You can tell he put a tonne of effort into this and it really does show.
Away from Ahmed, Olivia Cooke (Lou) and Paul Raci (Joe) are also very good performers, while it's nice to see Lauren Ridloff (Diane) involved - she's great in 'The Walking Dead', while she is soon to be in the MCU's 'Eternals' as well.
So much heart to this. I couldn't possibly say with 100% certainty for obvious reasons, but it seems to do a terrific job at telling the story that it intends to. That's not always the case, so the filmmakers deserve praise for that - as well as for the sound design et al.
'Sound of Metal' is worthy of the hype, no question.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
With moderately high expectations, Sound of Metal genuinely surprised me. Darius Marder and Abraham Marder's exquisite screenplay is the absolute standout, at the same insanely good level as Riz Ahmed's impressive performance. The former holds a meaningful, enlightening story about not only the deaf community but also about accepting our limitations as something that's a part of us instead of taking it as a handicap. Except for a couple of unnecessary scenes that could have made the movie a bit shorter, the two-hour duration is quite fair, boasting a very captivating narrative.
Countless storytelling technical details elevate this film into one of the best of the year. From an apparently simple yet extremely clever use (or absence) of subtitles for sign language to emotionally compelling dialogues, an outstandingly realistic atmosphere surrounds the movie throughout the entire runtime. Never, not even for a second, the viewer needs to deal with an over-the-top reaction, cheesy conversation, or a typical Hollywood, overdramatized moment. Darius Marder has terrific control of the tone, keeping it exceptionally grounded.
Riz Ahmed delivers what I believe is his career-best display, incorporating his character's hearing disability in a seamless fashion. His subtle facial expressions and body movements are essential for the performance that can easily guarantee him dozens of nominations. Olivia Cooke (Lou) is also excellent in her role. Technically, huge praise to Daniël Bouquet's cinematography, which insists on an almost documentary-style composition by applying standard camera angles and shots often seen in this type of feature, helping to generate the before-mentioned authenticity.
One of my absolute favorite films of 2020.
Rating: A

'Sound of Metal' is a unique cinematic experience that has consumed my every thought in the days since my viewing, and should be on the radars of anyone wanting to catch one of the best films this year. If you're lucky enough to get the opportunity to see it on a big screen, take it as soon as you can. Movies like this do not come around very often.
- Ashley Teresa
Read Ashley's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-sound-of-metal-a-touching-cinematic-triumph

I was working in Atlanta for a broadcaster the night of the Atlanta bombing at the Olympics so remember quite a lot of the immediate aftermath and the enormous speculation into what had actually happened and of the expectations put on law enforcement to convince not just the USA but the rest of the world that the Games were safe. This film is an authentic take on these days with a strong performance from Paul Walter Hauser as the security guard who found the bomb only to be later accused of having planted it in the first place. Sam Rockwell is great as the attorney determined not to cave in to the pressure and ensure his client gets a fair hearing as the authorities appear determined to scapegoat him. Kathy Bates plays his mum strongly, too. It's far too long, though - and at times it sags in the middle - it is virtually impossible to sustain the level of intense dialogue. It's a good film, but not a great film.

This is an excellent film from Clint Eastwood!
Firstly, what a terrific performance from Paul Walter Hauser! He plays lead perfectly, as he makes it impossible not to root for the titular character - which is admittedly a given due to the plot, but Hauser adds an extra level of believability to proceedings. I felt every intended emotion.
Sam Rockwell does very good behind Hauser, as do Kathy Bates and Olivia Wilde. Jon Hamm is good, too, as he returns to an Eastwood flick, having made his film debut in the latter's 'Space Cowboys' nineteen years prior.
Portraying a messed up true event, 'Richard Jewell' is a film that I'd most definitely suggest you check out. 9/10 from me.

Before talking about the movie, it can be said that "Richard Jewell" is one of those movies that proves that art does not know age. Ninety-year-old Clint Eastwood is still alive in the cinema and can make good films. The most important strength of the movie is its strong characterization, so that in the very first few scenes, we get a good definition and knowledge of the main character, in a way that from the very beginning, Richard finds his place in our hearts. And we want everything that is good for him until the end of the film. This innocence of Jewell, which turns into oppression throughout the film, keeps us by his side until the end of the movie and does not allow the viewer to be indifferent to Jewell and his fate. The camera also plays an important role in completing this characterization and the viewer 's closeness to Jewell's character, from the very opening scenes that represent him, the middle of the film which is the culmination of events for him and his mother and the end of the film which is a good ending. This strong characterization has also been performed for Jewell's mother, who is also far from exaggerated and can be fully understood and believed. This point, however, is a bit weak for the lawyer, so that the reason for his acceptance of the case is a bit weak, but with the progress of the film, his efforts are somewhat acceptable, although this point still has no effect on the emotional depth of the film. The script, which is the most fundamental cinematic element of any movie, plays a very important role here as well, and this characterization comes out of it.This coherence and quality of the script makes Richard's ideals of believing in the law and the police credible And it does not let his honorable sentences in the last interrogation seem like slogans at all. In the meantime, the good acting of "Paul Walter Hauser", "Sam Rockwell" and of course "Kathy Bates" cannot be easily overlooked. Kitty's character is also somewhat good, but her sudden and emotional change at the end of the movie is not very believable. Eastwood has done well in instilling a hatred of the media in the viewer which is sometimes even more dangerous than the law and its injustice, but one downside to the film is that the federal police investigation process is somewhat vague and it is not clear exactly how and with what evidence they can advance the case so much, but this movie is enough good that these negative points do not have much effect on its quality. The final sequence of the interrogation is also a good sequence, because we see the release of real Jewell's thoughts and ideals, not slogans, through words that are still uttered innocently, like himself, and according to the characterization and script, it is not a cliché at all. Also, it should be noted that the camera works well in the same sequence and the mise en scène is also acceptable. In general, "Richard Jewell" is a good film that entertains and satisfies the audience as much as it can.

Since I couldn't have told you when the Olympics were in Atlanta, I found it worth watching. Whether there's much to the story beyond the depiction of events is an entirely different conversation.

Despite some stumbles with the script, 'Richard Jewell' is a well-acted and admirably low-key piece from Eastwood that raises a lot of questions. At the risk of sounding ageist, most 89-year-olds are lucky to have one good bowel movement left in them, let alone films this interesting.
- Jake Watt
Read Jake's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-richard-jewell-man-versus-media

I bought this as a DVD years ago assuming it was some kind of drama or thriller a la The DaVinci Code. Turns out it is a comedy - well, almost a farce it seems. As an atheist I am okay with mocking organized religion, but he plethora of blasphemy might be too much for some viewers.
There were a few plot holes that jumped out at me, but they were forgivable in this type of comedy. With a wink and a nod, they cast edgy comedian and atheist George Carlin as a big time evangelist or bishop or something.
It seemed to take a while for the various pieces of plot to merge together, unless it was just me being thick. The movie has some laughs and is well written in places. Alan Rickman looks like he is having fun, which meant that I did too when he was on screen. So yeah, it was a fun watch mostly, but on the other hand, I gave away the DVD, so there’s that.

I didn't know it at the time, but watching _Mallrats_ on VHS as a kid was my first foray into View Askew, but it wasn't until _Dogma_ that I realised there was something bigger and better I could latch on to with Kevin Smith at the helm.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

Fractured is a tense psychological thriller that thrives on its cold, unsettling atmosphere. The cinematography does a great job of pulling you into the story, using muted tones and stark settings to keep you on edge. It’s visually striking and sets a somber mood that makes the experience feel heavier, but in a good way. The cold theme adds to the discomfort, making the story even more jarring to watch.
Sam Worthington carries the movie with a solid performance, convincingly portraying a man unraveling under pressure. His intensity keeps you invested in his journey, even when the story starts to lose momentum. On the other hand, Lily Rabe feels miscast in her role. While her screen time is limited, it’s enough to notice that she doesn’t quite fit, and the lack of chemistry between the characters weakens some emotional beats.
The plot, while intriguing, feels a bit predictable and struggles to maintain its energy throughout. It lacks the driving force that would keep it gripping from start to finish. Structurally, the movie feels loose, as if it’s not quite sure how to pace itself. You can piece it together if you look at it through the lens of a traditional three-act structure, but it’s not immediately clear while watching. Still, the movie’s atmosphere and Worthington’s performance make it a decent watch, especially if you enjoy psychological thrillers that play with perception.

When a movie holds a mystery, that's great, but when a movie just straight-up lies to you, that's crap. _Fractured_ is the latter.
_Final rating:★½: - Boring/disappointing. Avoid where possible._

After an accident, Ray, played by Sam Worthington, has to take his daughter to the hospital. But something funny is going on at the hospital, which comes to a head with they take his wife and daughter for tests and she doesn’t return. Not only does she not return, but the hospital has no record of his wife or daughter ever having been there. He must now rescue his family from an organ harvesting operation being run out of the hospital.
OR DOES HE??? *dramatic music plays*
There are questions about whether he’s really perceiving things as they are while the hospital staff attempts to gaslight him and make him believe that he’s for all intents and purposes crazy.
OR IS HE??? *dramatic music plays*
Okay, I have to add these dramatic bits to this review because they’re more dramatic than the actual movie. It’s pretty obvious rather quickly what’s going on. Part of the problem may be the short runtime combined with a kind of lengthy setup. The setup seems to be designed to convey the sense of waiting long times in the hospital ER waiting room (...ah hah hah social commentary…) But this lengthy first act cuts into the time that could be used to build mystery and tension. As it is, it almost seems like a long “Twilight Zone” episode.
If you want an “Are they crazy or not?” film that’s much better, check out “Flightplan” with Jodie Foster. But “Fractured” is a generally poor take on the genre and I can only recommend it if you really have nothing else to watch or do.

The opening scenes of this movie are the sort that stay with you for ever: the brutal assault and murder of a young girl by two rednecks in Mississippi. Before their trial, they are gunned down in the courthouse by the girl's bereft father "Carl Lee Hailey" (Samuel L. Jackson) and it falls to "Brigance" (Matthew McConaughey) to defend the man in a state riddled with institutional and communal bigotry. Kevin Spacey is effective as the DA ("Buckley") who assumes the all white jury will never countenance the murder of these two odious creatures by a black man, but he doesn't count on the resolution - despite threats to himself and to his family - of "Brigance" and of his feisty assistant "Ellen" (Sandra Bullock). Joel Schumacher really does capture the almost viscerally racist elements of John Grisham's book cleverly here with frequently potent, but not unnecessarily graphic, scenarios depicting just how "justice" was expected to flow, even though there is never any doubt about the guilt of either the initial rapists/killers or of her avenging father. McConaughey is super. Sure, he has the boy next door looks but here, also, he portrays his determined character in a convincing manner. So does Bullock - demonstrating, through one especially harrowing scene, that she has more to her than we see with her more regular smart-mouthed comical roles. As ever, Patrick McGoohan excels - this time as the aptly named judge "Noose" and both Donald and Kiefer Sutherland and a few short scenes from Oscar winning Brenda Fricker all serve to demonstrate that there is still some semblance of hope (and futility) against the inherently malevolent prevailing attitudes of the time. The closing speech at the end from "Brigance" is especially potent. SLJ was nominated for a Golden Globe, his appearances are fine but sparing, but there was a curious dearth of plaudits for McConaughey which I found astonishing - he holds the threads of this menacing, at times quite sickening drama together well till the end. Not an easy watch, but well worth it.

**It's a good movie, but I've seen better courtroom dramas.**
I saw this film not long ago and was very impressed with its quality. I didn't know, however, that it was based on a novel by John Grisham (I've never read it, and I have doubts if it was translated into Portuguese), and based very lightly on the emotional testimony of a young girl victim of rape. It should be noted, moreover, and by mere curiosity, that, in the real case behind the novel, the victim was a white girl and the man accused of having raped her was black. In summary, it's very good, but it's not a perfect film, and it pales in comparison to other much more consistent and effective courtroom dramas.
Joel Schumacher is the director of this movie, and that's really surprising me because his work rarely pleases me. I was able to appreciate the qualities of “Number 23”, the beauty and musicality of “Phantom of the Opera” were able to captivate me, but on the other hand, I hate the two “Batman” films he made, and I felt that “8 mm” is one of those films full of potential that ends up not living up to expectations. And then, this movie. And I'm still wondering whether I should consider the director responsible for the film's biggest weaknesses, or as a redeeming work that shows that, despite the crap, Schumacher had some talent.
The cast is strong. Despite the downward trajectory that his career has taken after his consecration, Matthew McConaughey is in good shape here and gives the public an enjoyable job. It's not the actor's best, it's nothing original, especially if we think about courtroom dramas, but it's effective and it looks credible. Samuel L. Jackson also does a good job, but the character is the most ambiguous in the film, and he can be a villain or a hero depending on our opinion (and the film makes an effort to sell him a hero). Kevin Spacey is good in a highly stereotyped character, and Donald Sutherland gives an air of his grace when the material allows. Less interesting were the appearances of Kiefer Sutherland and Sandra Bullock.
Technically, it's a low-key film, without major visual strokes or effects, which is good as it gives all the necessary space to the story and the actors' performance. It does, however, have good cinematography, a clever use of filming locations and sets, and also good costumes. It's a little long for the story it brings, but that fact doesn't constitute a very serious problem here.
The story has problems that we have to consider. It begins beautifully, presenting the opening incident with shocking colors and tones. The scene where the father kills his daughter's rapists is also incredibly well done, but the rest, and especially the scenes outside the courtroom, are bland. Bullock's character is so expendable that it was preferable that it had never been added: she appears to throw some adulterous romance into the script, but that never goes beyond a succession of flirtations because the main character does not have the nerve to really cheat on his wife. For the rest, she gives him some good ideas, aiding an incompetent lawyer to do a job well done, but that would have been better if it had come from Donald Sutherland, giving him a greater utility and better material.
I had serious problems with the trial of this film, starting with the judge's attempts to focus the facts on the death of the rapists. This would never be acceptable by a real court or a real defense, considering that, after the obvious failure of the transient insanity claims, the defense would have to rely on a clean criminal record, good citizenship and a truckload of extenuating circumstances in order to lighten the penalty to which that man was fatally to be condemned. And the most credible and convincing mitigating factor for a judge or jury would be, exactly, the enormous commotion that the rape would have caused, leading that father to act in a way that would have been impossible under other circumstances. And the insertion of the KKK in the film, not being a problem in itself, only serves to exaggerate a racial problem that is already there and that doesn't need to be exaggerated anymore.

His parents think he's a bit bonkers, but "Norman" swears that he can communicate with his deceased grandmother (especially when she wants the central heating turned up!). When his uncle tells him that his unique skills might help with a ritual that could spare their sleepy town from a curse, he agrees to help - but oops! Next thing, the place is awash with zombies and it falls to "Norman" to figure out just what originally caused the curse and to find a way - together with his popular sister and his new found, and rather unlikely, friends - to annul it before it is too late! This is a fun family adventure with some strong characterisations (including the really enthusiastic voice talent of Kodi Smit-McPhee in the title role) and some superbly detailed stop motion animation. The writing is frequently quite pithy with plenty for the grown ups to smile at, and think about, as the story progresses. Though hardly original - the story itself has everything from "Salem's Lot" (1979) to "Hocus Pocus" (1993) running through it - it's still an enjoyable watch that lends itself well to a big screen to better appreciate the colourful vivacity of the creative artistry and lively Jon Brian score. Sure, their heads are bigger than the rest of their bodes combined, but the facial expressions are what makes this and I rather liked this film.

Really good watch, could watch again, and can recommend.
This is surprisingly dark, and underrated. While the animated characters are almost grosteque in their stylization, it serves fairly well when it comes to the undead. It also pushes the boundaries of it being a "kid's" movie or an "adult's" movie in it's content. So this is probably a movie for "older younger" audiences.
Not only is this a great concept, effect execution, and story, the characters that do pop, really do. I honestly could have done without a few of them, but most of the important characters work for what they need to do.
There is a much appreciated "twist" that examples some self-aware story telling that comes with the tropes typically involved with "I see dead people" stories. Its really rather refreshing without removing the idea that burning witches at the stake was an atrocity in history.
The story is touching and charming and just requires an open mind, which is part of the message of the story.

Mom, tell the Zombie to stop saying stuff about me!
The medium of animated films has really gone through the roof in the last 20 years. There was a time when Disney was the only reliable source for such colourful frolics. Now we are blessed with a whole raft of film makers creating their own animated films born out by their personal visions. One of the benefits of this "branching out" has been the rise in the animated horror comedy, right up there with the best of them in recent times is ParaNorman.
Norman Babcock is considered to be the weird kid in town, you see he claims to see ghosts. Little do the residents of this New England haven know it, but they will soon need Norman to break a centuries old witches curse or they are all doomed!
Picture unfolds in a delightfully quirky nature, with the makers showing great love and respect to both the genres it appertains to. As with the best animated films, ParaNorman manages to be an all encompassing family friendly production. The chilly thrills are the right side of child friendly, the animation craft superb, while the humour is smart and the Gothic atmosphere surrounding the tale is pitch perfect. It all builds nicely to a bona fide thrilling finale, where the visual spectacle sits comfortably with the emotional beats of the film. Lovely, intelligent and spooky into the bargain. 8/10

This was really disappointing. That I **almost** laughed **one** time is the nicest thing I can say about _The Dead Don't Die_. I don't adore Jim Jarmusch as much as some, but I did expect more than this. Now you could argue that's on me, but I don't think it's **too** out of line to hope that a horror be scary, a comedy be funny, or a respected director's shot at horror comedy to be at least a little bit of at least one of the above.
_Final rating:★½: - Boring/disappointing. Avoid where possible._

_**Very funny, but very peculiar (and somewhat preachy)**_
>_I don't like making statement films. I just don't feel comfortable with that. I like to weave certain themes and different layers into films. This one's a little more blatant in certain ways, but we have a bigger problem, which is the sixth mass extinction that we are currently in. I am appalled by people's denial of these things. You can run from things, you can hide facts, you can hide science, but you can't change it by hiding it. And we're in a very severe state right now and this is not a political issue. This is an issue of_ _survival of species. This is a real concern. I'm not an activist. I'm not in the middle of Pennsylvania, digging a sea wall or whatever we should be doing. I'm making a silly film with my friends. But I am very concerned. I'm saddened and disappointed by human behaviour._
- Jim Jarmusch; "Jim Jarmusch's New Comedy _The Dead Don't Die_ was Inspired by his Serious Fears for Humanity" (Brandon Katz); _Observer_ (June 12, 2019)
>_I think of the film as a comedy, very much so. It's not agitprop. It definitely has a sociopolitical thread in it, which is reflective and therefore dark. But hey, everyone, wake up! We're in the sixth mass extinction on this planet. To not have that darkness would have been a little superficial. There is a sadness in human behaviour for me, and zombies are the most obvious metaphor you could employ. We were also trying to make a kind of extension or homage to George Romero because of his postmodern reinvention of zombies, and those sociopolitical threads are evident in his films. Romero does a lot of fascinating things. The zombies are monsters, but they're not Godzilla. They don't come from outside the social order. They come from within a collapsing social order. They're us, or any of us who have died, so they are also victims because they don't choose to be undead. It's because of some stupid shit humans did that caused them to become undead. The problems of mass consumerism, the things that are woven into Romero's films, have only gotten worse. They haven't changed. We're at a crisis because of what his films were warning. And now we're at the endgame of that. What is more terrifying than having 1 million species going extinct in the last decade?_
- Jim Jarmusch; "Jim Jarmusch Believes in the Teens, But Not Joe Biden" (Bilge Ebiri); _Vulture_ (June 17, 2019)
_The Dead Don't Die_ is such an unexpected film that when the trailer first dropped, a lot of people assumed it to be a joke of some kind; that the film purportedly being advertised couldn't possibly be real. And there's a good reason for that, as who could have predicted that celebrated indie writer/director Jim Jarmusch would have any interest in making an ensemble zombie comedy? Well, the thing about that is that, as it turns out, he doesn't. Jarmusch has certainly made genre films in the past – _Down By Law_ (1986) is a prison break film, _Dead Man_ (1995) is a western, _Ghost Dog: Way of the Samurai_ (1999) is a samurai film, _The Limits of Control_ (2009) is the story of an assassin, _Only Lovers Left Alive _(2013) is about vampires. Usually, he is exceptionally successful at grafting his worldview onto the generic tropes, often to such an extent that it can be difficult to separate the two – these films are undeniably genre pieces, but so too are they undeniably Jim Jarmusch films. With _The Dead Don't Die_, however, he's not quite as successful; this is very much a Jarmusch film before it's a zombie movie, with these two components often rubbing awkwardly up against one another.
Unexpectedly chosen as the opening film at Cannes 2019, the film has met with mixed responses from both critics and audiences, and it's not hard to see why – glib socio-political commentary is introduced without really going anywhere; heavily promoted performers have nothing more than one or two-scene cameos; some of the characters know they're in a movie, even referring to Jarmusch himself, whilst others do not; a lot of the humour is of the flippant self-congratulatory kind; things become very preachy towards the end as Jarmusch abandons all semblance of narrative progression and shifts gears into a pseudo-TED talk. However, for all that, I enjoyed it. A zombie apocalypse movie set very much in Trump's America, it embraces all the weirdness that such a scenario suggests; the awkward humour works well for the most part, the meta elements are intriguing but not too distracting, and as for the didacticism? Well, nothing that Jarmusch says is incorrect; we _are_ a culture ruled by materialism and we _are_ sticking our collective heads in the sand regarding the fact that we're destroying the only home we have. So it might be inelegant (and Jarmusch has never been a satirist of Swiftian pedigree), but it's not wrong.
Set in the fictional town of Centerville (pop. 738), the film begins as Chief Cliff Robertson (Bill Murray) and Officer Ronnie Peterson (Adam Driver) are following up a complaint from farmer Frank Miller (Steve Buscemi), who claims that a local vagrant, Hermit Bob (Tom Waits), has stolen one of his chickens. Issuing Bob with a warning, the duo are returning to the station when they realise that despite it being 8pm, the sun is still shining brightly, also noticing that their watches have stopped and they can't get any signal on their phones. Meanwhile, at the local diner, Frank and hardware store owner Hank Thompson (Danny Glover) watch a news report about recent "polar fracking", which some believe has knocked the earth off its axis. Returning to the police station, Cliff and Ronnie discuss the situation with Officer Mindy Morrison (Chloë Sevigny), also talking about the town's strange new undertaker, Zelda Winston (Tilda Swinton), a white-haired Scottish woman with a collection of samurai swords and a statue of Buddha. Ronnie and Mindy head home for the night, leaving Cliff with the body of Mallory O'Brien (Carol Kane), a local drunk who recently died. As the sun finally sets on Centerville, however, two zombies (Sara Driver and Iggy Pop) rise from the dead and set out in pursuit of the one thing all zombies crave...eh, coffee.
Very much an ensemble piece, aside from the above characters, we're also introduced to a litany of additional Centerville residents - diner waitress Fern (Eszter Balint); detainees at a juvenile detention facility Stella (Maya Delmont), Olivia (Taliyah Whitaker), and Geronimo (Jahi Di'Allo Winston); gas station owner Bobby Wiggins (Caleb Landry Jones); delivery man Dean (RZA); motel owner Danny Perkins (Larry Fessenden); journalist Posie Juarez (Rosie Perez); cleaner Lily (Rosal Colon); and out-of-towners Zoe (Selena Gomez), Jack (Austin Butler) and Zack (Luka Sabbat).
If _The Dead Don't Die_ has a salient theme, it's apathy, suggesting that humanity is sleepwalking its way towards its own extinction. The zombie apocalypse is depicted as initially slow and distant, not something about which to be overly concerned, until, without us realising how it has happened, there's no escape or chance of salvation. In this sense, Jarmusch uses zombies as double signifiers – they not only represent the apocalypse towards which we are moving, they also represent us, indifferently shuffling our way to an oblivion we know is coming, but which we choose to ignore (at one point, Cliff literally falls into an open grave because he isn't looking where he's going). Targeting rampant materialism, capitalist greed, and moral idiocy in elected officials, the film does provide a narrative explanation for why the dead are rising from the grave (the oft-discussed polar fracking), but really, Jarmusch isn't as interested in the "why" as he is in the "how", castigating a moribund and materialist society which has become blind to everything but trivial consumerist gratification.
In short, Jarmusch is suggesting that as a society, we've become zombified; lazy, instinctual, addicted to things that don't matter (whilst the first zombies we meet want coffee, others are on the hunt for WiFi, Siri, Chardonnay, Xanax, and "Fashion"). Indeed, in this sense, one of the film's more subtle (and interesting) points is that the best way to remain outside such societal calcification is to avoid conformism and remain on the edges of the social contract – the characters who do best against the zombies are the socially ostracised Zelda, the three kids in the detention centre, and the philosophical Hermit Bob, who suggests that "_hunger for more stuff_" has become society's primary motivator. Indeed, the way most of the characters react to the zombies is itself part of the critique – the vast majority respond in a blasé manner, suggesting that in these insane times, when so many people are falling all over themselves to normalise the rantings of the racist, misogynistic, incoherent manchild in the Oval Office, even something like the dead rising from the ground is no big deal.
Of course, using zombies as vehicles for social satire isn't exactly new; George A. Romero did it as far back as _Night of the Living Dead_ (1968), which is more about endemic racism than zombies. He did it to even greater effect in _Dawn of the Dead_ (1978), where he targeted materialistic vapidity. Later, he looked at issues such as Reagan-era militarism in _Day of the Dead_ (1985), economic disparity in _Land of the Dead_ (2005), media impartiality in _Diary of the Dead_ (2007), and tribalism in _Survival of the Dead_ (2009). In this tradition, _The Dead Don't Die_ has its eye very much on the climate change-denying administration in Washington; Frank is introduced wearing a MAGA-style baseball cap with a "Keep America White Again" logo, whilst his dog is called Rumsfeld. Indeed, Centerville itself is very much a quintessential Heartland town, the kind where Trump so successfully mobilised his blue collar base. And whilst it remains a comedy, much of what _The Dead Don't Die_ says is deadly serious – the current xenophobic American government is incompetent to an almost surrealistic degree; facts are no longer considered irrefutable, vying for space with blatant lies, amidst paranoid accusations of "Fake News"; the planet _is_ dying; the polar ice caps _are_ melting, and with them, the future of our species; universal scientific guarantees of impending extinction _are_ largely ignored, whilst the idiots in power discard the warnings of their own people, strip away environmental protections, and continually confuse weather and climate.
One element of the film that's especially interesting is the Pirandellian self-reflexivity, with some of the characters aware that they're in a movie, but the rest seemingly oblivious. For example, the opening credits are scored to Sturgill Simpson's "The Dead Don't Die", and only a few minutes later, the song begins playing on the radio in Cliff and Ronnie's car. When Cliff asks why the song sounds so familiar, Ronnie explains that it's probably because "_it's the theme song_". In another scene, Ronnie is shown wearing a _Star Wars_ key-ring, alluding to his portrayal of Kylo Ren in that franchise. Later, after Ronnie has declared about a million times that "_this isn't going to end well_", an exasperated Cliff asks him how he can be so certain, and Ronnie says it's because he's read the script. This upsets Cliff because he was only allowed to read the scenes in which he appeared, prompting him to complain that he's helped "Jim" out many times in the past and this is the thanks he gets. A few minutes later, when something especially bizarre happens with Zelda (like, really bizarre), an incredulous Cliff asks Ronnie "_was that in the script?_" (according to Ronnie, it was not). And the point of all this self-reflexivity? Honestly, I'm not entirely sure. The fact that only Cliff and Ronnie seem to know they're in a movie is, in and of itself, a little strange, and the fact that it only comes up a few times means that it never really gels as a motif. If I was to guess, I'd say that Jarmusch may be using it in the Brechtian sense to ensure the audience remains a consciously critical observer, more engaged with the narrative on an intellectual level than an emotional level.
For all its positives, however, the film does have some problems. For one thing, the last ten minutes or so will irritate a lot of people, as Jarmusch abandons all semblance of narrative, and gives us a scene over which Hermit Bob delivers a dire assessment of who we are as a species. It's very preachy, it's very didactic, and it will rub some people up the wrong way. Another issue is the humour, which is best described as Jarmuschian – all awkward stilted dialogue, deadpan one-liners, people repeating things other people have said, and subtle winking at the audience. It definitely isn't the kind of broad stroke humour one finds in zombie comedies such as Edgar Wright's _Shaun of the Dead_ (2004) or Ruben Fleischer's _Zombieland_ (2009). Some of the political themes are also underexplored. For example, Frank's MAGA hat is a pointed critique of Trump and those who blindly vote for him and excuse his behaviour, but to what end? Aside from introducing the hat, Jarmusch doesn't really say anything more on the subject. The trio of kids from the detention centre are also introduced as if they will be major players, but they're gradually forgotten about, and ultimately don't play much of a role the story. Also, as Jarmusch himself is well aware, the film isn't really saying anything that Romero hasn't already said.
Nevertheless, I enjoyed _The Dead Don't Die_. It's certainly nowhere near Jarmusch's best, and I can totally understand people who dislike it; a lot of the themes have been explored before, a lot of the jokes have been made before, and the film ends up as neither a terrifying thriller nor a self-conscious meta-comedy, instead occupying a strange middle ground between the two. In this sense, it doesn't do a huge amount to stand out in a crowded field. Having said that, however, the socio-political commentary is undeniably relevant and the cast is universally impressive. And ultimately, you may have a problem with the cynical manner with which the film communicates its message, but that doesn't alter the fact that that message is absolutely legitimate.

‘The Dead Don’t Die’ is a luxuriously paced, wittily gory zombie comedy. It’s part social commentary, part homage to cinema, and all ridiculous. With yet another pleasing genre film on offer from Jim Jarmusch, you’d be dead right to want to check it out.
- Charlie David Page
Read Charlie's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-the-dead-dont-die-a-zombie-comedy-thats-anything-but-grave
Head to https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/sff for more Sydney Film Festival reviews.

Kevin Bacon ("Sebastian Caine") leads a team of scientists looking for ways to make living things invisible. When he decides to be the ultimate guinea pig, it all starts to go a bit wonky - they can make him disappear ok, but they cannot quite reverse the transaction. Needless to say, despite the best efforts of Elisabeth Shue ("Linda") and Josh Brolin ("Matt") he starts to go off the rails a bit, and with his new found abilities to go about undetected, he soon becomes quite a nasty piece of work determined to wreak retribution on his boss and his erstwhile colleagues. It's a rather daft slasher with plenty of clever skeletal effects and pace, but the dialogue and scenarios are pretty preposterous with little, if any, chemistry between any of the stars.

Loved this movie. I never seen a concept for a movie like this. I wouldn't hate being invisible at all. I can also see how it would be frustrating to not be able to become normal again too.

Great watch, will watch again, and can definitely recommend.
This has a fantastic premise of what happens when humans discover a process to "invisible-lize" and "visible-lize" organic life forms. For a 2000 movie, this has a high production value and probably state of the art computer effects in 2000, and for most of the movie they hold up, though they do struggle at points. I honestly do think that it's an "invisibility" effect, is what helps it hold up.
This is a rather tricky premise, it's presented as a scientist turning himself invisible, but it's much closer to a "Twilight Zone" episode with a philosophical waxing of a Dr.'s god complex. What would a human do when it has a distinct advantage / power over others. And while that is super interesting, it tracks a little better if you just think of him as "snapping", but the movie fights you on this as it very quickly devolves to "I could do [horrible thing], who's going to stop me.". It parallels with the mad scientist trope of "We can, but do we ask if we should?".
Kevin Bacon nails the awful, irredeemable mad scientist, and Elisabeth Shue does a wonderful job of playing support to Bacon and a protagonist in her own right. It is refreshingly different that the protagonist is the bad guy, or at least he's fluid, and it's almost two different perspectives blended together to make one story.
I'm a big fan "inescapable terror" type of thriller, and this is fantastic example of it, and I think other thriller / horror fans will enjoy this where the sci-fi types might not enjoy it as much, even though that's how this one is sort of advertised.
With "The Invisible Man" soon available, I'm very excited to have watch this, and am looking forward to a newer version of it.

Some pretty impressive effects for the era, and a pretty cool (if not original) core concept, but what's most intriguing about _Hollow Man_ is the hero's journey, or more accurately, the absence of it. The inverse of it. I don't feel like it's fair to even say that it's a villain's journey. Assuredly, by the end of the movie, it is very clear who our villain is, but given that he starts out such a dick anyway, the intriguing thing is not so much that he necessarily changes, but the idea that his character is maybe just "revealed". To become the type of prick he always could have been, if only had the power to be so. The thing is, he starts this movie a pretty archetypal protagonist. His role is seen almost identically across any number of movies for decades before _Hollow Man_ was released, and one that we honestly still see today. And this archetype is almost always beloved! "Sure he's a bit cheeky, but that's why he's such a great character". It's very confronting to think about what this archetype is so close to being, and I think maybe that's kind of the point of this whole thing.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

It's amazing what you can do... when you don't have to look at yourself in the mirror any more.
It was the film that convinced director Paul Verhoeven to leave Hollywood and take a break from film making. His reasoning being that any Hollywood director could have made Hollow Man, a big effects led movie that made a lot of cash at the box office. It's this that is the main problem with the picture, it lacks some of the director's bite and satirical savagery, even the souped up sex (natural or deviant) that often comes with his productions. Yet devoid of expectations of a Verhoeven masterpiece, and the crushing realisation that it basically wastes its potential and plays out as a haunted house stalk movie - it's a good enough energetic popcorner.
It quickly becomes obvious that we are entering special effects extravaganza, the opening credits are dynamite, sci-fi sexy, then the opening gambit sequence literally grabs us - and a rodent - by the throat. From here on in we are treated to grade "A" effects and some genius ways of exposing "the invisible" Sebastian Caine (Kevin Bacon) to us and the prey he soon comes to hunt. Unfortunately the whole cast performances are a much of a muchness, and playing a roll call of sci-fi stereotypes. All involved here have done much better work in their sleep, but they put the bums on theatre seats and ultimately this works as one of those movies designed to thrill and awe the senses - but sadly not the brain. 6.5/10

I have been unusually lucky with my SyFy-channel movie watching lately. I had no idea what this movie was really but there was nothing else on last night and I also noticed that it was directed by Paul Verhoeven which have directed quite a few movies that I really liked so I decided to give it a try. As it turned out, this is another movie that is somewhat above the usual standard for movies given on SyFy.
It has a rating on 27% on Rotten Tomatoes which is just bullshit. But then, the so called “professional critics” used by the Rotten Tomatoes are dimwits who trash every movie that is not “intellectual” enough for their self-imagined refined tastes. I do not know why they continue to use these clowns for their official rating system instead of the real audience? On IMDb it holds a 5.6 out of 10 rating which is more realistic. I was hesitating between 7 and 6. In the end I gave it a 6 because, as I said in the title, it is a quite okay movie but not a fantastic one.
The story of the movie is a fairly standard one. Scientist experiments on himself, experiment goes wrong, scientist goes mad, hack hack, chop chop, scientist dies, happy ending for the remaining survivors. Thus the movie pretty much relies on its special effects which are indeed quite good. The various invisible effects, not to mention the scenes where Caine is partially visible due to smoke or water effects, are quite enjoyable to watch.
Kevin Bacon is making quite a performance as a very disagreeable fanatic scientist. He is doing a remarkably good job of it even when he is covered by a latex mask which of course is quite a feat being deprived of any facial expressions. The rest of the cast was fairly standard Hollywood fare, that is, fairly bland.
On the whole I found the movie quite enjoyable. It was perhaps a bit slow at the beginning and Cain’s show of megalomaniacal attitudes was indeed becoming a bit tiresome after a while. As I said, his roles was a very disagreeable one. Once he became invisible things started to become more interesting although it took a wee time for things to speed up even then.
It was certainly not a wasted movie evening and the movie is worth at least 6 out of 10 stars.