Well I suppose a sequel to the 1984 success was inevitable, and to be fair Tony Scott has managed to re-assemble the cast from the first film and recruit Jürgen Prochnow ("Dent") to adopt the Steven Berkoff role as baddie-in-chief. The rest of this is pretty much a straight copy of the original as Eddie Murphy's "Foley" reunites with "Ashton" (John Taggart) and "Rosewood" (Judge Reinhold) to get to the bottom of an assassination attempt on their beloved "Bogomil" (Ronny Cox) after he had been suspended for failing to make inroads into the media-dominating "alphabet crimes". What now ensues is really a vehicle for the star and his quick-mouth. The others continue to deliver well as foils for his antics, though this time they are more active participants and less unwilling victims! The plot is thin, but that doesn't matter - Prochnow offers just about enough menace and there are still plenty of perilous scenarios for them to, obviously, get trapped into and then escape from! It clearly isn't as fresh now, the characters are regurgitating themselves to some extent, but as sequels go this one retains much of the character and joie de vivre of the fish-out-of-water aspects that worked well before. It's not great, but it's an easy and entertaining film to watch.

Entertaining enough sequel isn't as sharp as the original and some parts felt like Murphy's stand-up routine, and while the plot itself was weak, did enjoy the on-screen friendships between Murphy, Reinhold and Ashton. **3.5/5**

_**Entertaining action/comedy Western**_
Released in 2000, "Shanghai Noon" features Jackie Chan as Chon Wang (the Chinese spelling of John Wayne) who teams up with good bad-guy Roy O'Bannon (Owen Wilson). They're pursuing the Empress of China or a load of gold -- whatever -- and have many misadventures.
It didn't dawn on me until the end that the title "Shanghai Noon" is a comical take on "High Noon" (aduh). Anyway, this is a good flick to watch if you're in the mood for an Indiana Jones-type movie, like 1999's "The Mummy." It's not as good as "Raiders of the Lost Ark", but it's better than its sequels.
Chan and Wilson have great chemistry and the humor is amusing, like the Wyatt Earp line at the end. Of course, with Jackie Chan the action is great as well, but it goes a bit overboard towards the end, which is typical of Hollywood, as well as overlong.
The film runs 110 minutes and was shot in Alberta, Canada, and the Forbidden City, Beijing.
GRADE: B

_**What if you’re a Westerner and get stuck in a political uprising in Southeast Asia?**_
An American family moves to a country in Southeast Asia that borders Vietnam but suddenly find themselves in the midst of a coup. Owen Wilson plays the father and Lake Bell the mother. Pierce Brosnan is on hand as a Brit that helps them out.
"No Escape" (2015) is an edge-of-your-seat thriller that tackles a real-life possibility. What happens if you’re unexpectedly thrust into a situation where you HAVE to protect your family? Would you kill to survive? This is like “The Killing Fields” (1985) in the modern day, albeit way more compelling and succinct.
It’s nice to see Owen in something serious; he plays the every-man role well. Meanwhile Lake ain’t no slouch and Brosnan kicks axx in a peripheral part.
The film runs 1 hour, 43 minutes, and was shot in Thailand.
GRADE: A-/B+

> In the ocean of orcas, a family of four penguins seeks a way out.
It was one of those movies I've lost interest after seeing its trailer. When I decided to watch I had no expectations, but I liked the surprise it gave me. So much better and very entertaining with lots of nail biting momentum. You can't write a review for this without mentioning the terrace scene which was one of the highlights of the movie.
Remember the 2013 flick 'The Impossible' about a western family while visiting Thailand for a holiday stranded and separated after tsunami struck. Feels like this one is kind of a sequel, because of the similarity and takes place in a neighbouring country, Cambodia. But here the visiting family has to face the threat posed by the men from and during the coup.
Ups and downs in the acting career are very normal and keeping that pace is essential. Right now Owen Wilson is maintaining it well and a few 2016 releases are the most anticipated ones. Pierce Brosnan's decent limited appearance had a prominent part of the storytelling. Comparing recent wonderful movies, Lake Bell carried out phenomenal stage of her career.
I thought it would be old fashioned like the 80s and 90s flicks about people trapped in a local conflict. If you are yet to watch it, I'll clear your doubt that it is the same old theme, but amazes you with many thrill scenes. So this movie is very enjoyable and you would have a good time. Not recommended unless if you're not looking for a masterpiece.
7/10

Watched the preview. The movie is excellent and very thrilling.
The director has transformed from a good horror movie maker to commercial thriller movie maker.
There should be more marketing done for this movie.
Must watch for all set of audience but for those who wouldn't ride into a roller coaster!

For many years since his retirement "Espósito" (Ricardo Darín) has been haunted by a brutal case of rape and murder that he was unable to solve. He decides that maybe the best way to formulate his thoughts and re-order the investigation is to write a novel, so with the help of an antiquated old Olivetti from his friend, and the new departmental boss "Irene" (Soledad Villamil) he starts to reconstruct the investigation. Using transcripts and photographs, he alights on the woman's schoolfriend "Gómez" (Javier Godino) who has long since disappeared from the scene. Increasingly, he becomes convinced in this man's complicity and now consulting with the dead woman's widower "Morales" (Pablo Rago) we all start to learn a little about the backstory, and it's complex, violent and tragic in equal measure. Can his deductions find the truth? This is a great example of a methodological and forensic drama that looks at the crime, sure, but it takes almost the same amount of time and effort to examine the strongly built characterisations. The nature of obsession, the desire for closure and completion - all addictive aspects of human nature that Darín and the almost perfect pacing from Juan José Campanella deliver here. It's a mystery that works on several levels evaluating the effectiveness of legal process and modern policing whilst reminding us that those exposed to crime are also affected, sometimes profoundly, by what they encounter. This works really well in a cinema, if you can. The frequently intimate style of the photography and the sparing use of light at times makes this an eerily effective watch that is rarely straightforward.

Story, director, actors--I bow my head. Have not watched many Spanish movies lately, but along with Iñárritu's 'Amores Perros,' and Babenco's 'Pixote,' I’ve really been missing out.

Please, I emplore you.
This is the original ‘The secret in their eyes’ without the Hollywood gloss and Pseudo ‘Top Actors/Actresses’
The Agentinian original film that won best foreign film at the Oscars.
Deservedly so.
Don’t sell yourself short and see the Hollywood redo.
It’s got a ending I wish I could tell you about.
See This show!

Not as good as the first. Still pretty funny. It would have been better without their dad's in in so much.

Like the first film, 'Daddy’s Home 2' is nothing special but isn't bad either. A fine watch, nothing more or less.
The plot doesn't have nearly as many laughs as it needs, with that said there are a couple of decent bits - and some weird parts, particularly one at the end. Talking of the end, it's very cringe. Mark Wahlberg (Dusty) is probably the best onscreen, Will Ferrell (Brad) does well enough too.
Mel Gibson (Kurt) and John Lithgow (Don) are two newcomers. Both have one or two moments, though nothing more - I liked Lithgow the most. I kinda, somewhat randomly, felt Kurt Russell would've made a much better Kurt - didn't even clock the name clash before having that thought either, funnily enough. Linda Cardellini, meanwhile, is alright.
It needed more, but it's nothing notably worse than its predecessor which is always a positive for a sequel.

I struggled through Borat Subsequent Moviefilm not because it is as wild and ridiculous as the first part but because there's just too much that Sacha Baron Cohen stuffs into it, which made my viewing experience slightly unpleasant. Sure, there are LOL moments and absurd dialogues that make the film what it is, but after a while, the jokes aren't funny (not in a bad way, though). The critique on the Trump administration is spot-on, so maybe this is more targeted towards Americans. However, I have to admit that this sequel is more adventurous, mischievous, and courageous than the first part, which is all that matters sometimes. **Grade C-**.

These films are way better than they have any right to be - entirely thanks to Sacha Baron Cohen.
I enjoyed 'Borat Subsequent Moviefilm' more than its predecessor from 2006, which relied too heavily on shock sex humour for my liking - though I did still like it all in all. This sequel is a little more creative with its jokes, whilst still having the necessary silliness and cringe.
Cohen is excellent as he reprises the role of Borat. He made me laugh a number of times, any other actor in this role simply wouldn't be funny - he somehow makes it work expertly, his perfect delivery being crucial.
In the first film, Cohen had Ken Davitian alongside him. Davitian doesn't return which is a shame, but he isn't missed to be honest. Maria Bakalova steps in very well, I feared her Tutar character was going to be irritating but she's anything but - Bakalova holds her own alongside Cohen.
It's amusing, in ways that are indeed funny but also in ways that you know you shouldn't be laughing at - though that's critical to these films working. It also has the same Punk'd feel that the original production has.
Good satire.

I'm generally not a comedy guy. I did see the first Borat and found it to be a hodge-podge of prank sketches with some very funny gags.
Sacha Baron Cohan's follow-up improves over the original with a more story-based approach that still upends the '-isms" in America (racism, sexism, etc.) in the midst of a freaking pandemic. It couldn't be more well-timed in this brutal election season.
The standout is Borat's 15 year old daughter played by Maria Bakalova (she's actually 24) who steals the show with her cluelessness and likeability.
How well you enjoy this movie will depend on your own level of political ideology and tolerance to very crude and crass behavior. Personally, I found it hilarious. But it is definitely not for everybody.

Full review: https://www.tinakakadelis.com/beyond-the-cinerama-dome/2021/12/28/paint-me-like-one-of-your-french-girls-portrait-of-a-lady-on-fire-review
Celine Sciamma’s fourth feature film, _Portrait of a Lady on Fire_, is a triumph. Few romance movies capture the totality of love, loss, and remembrance in the way Sciamma does in this film. The story is simple: Marianne (Noémie Merlant) has been hired to paint a portrait of Heloise (Adèle Haenel) to be sent to the Milanese nobleman she is to marry. He will not marry her until he sees what she looks like. Other artists have tried and failed to paint Heloise, but she has resisted because she doesn’t want to be married. Marianne pretends to be Heloise’s walking companion, all the while studying Heloise so she can paint her in secret. Eventually, though, Marianne’s secret is revealed and Heloise agrees to sit for her.

Undoubtedly worth a watch; who knew portraits were the Tinder of the 1700s.

Céline Sciamma, writer and director of “Portrait of a Lady on Fire,” calls her period film a “manifesto on the male gaze.” This is the most accurate, elegant description of her story of a romance between two French women in the late 1700s. This is an impeccably detailed, beautifully acted, refined drama with a strong feminist angle that’s as stirring as it is thought-provoking.
Marianne (Noémie Merlant) is commissioned to paint the wedding portrait of Héloïse (Adèle Haenel), a young woman who has just left the convent. Because Héloïse is a very reluctant bride-to-be, Marianne arrives under the guise of companionship, observing the smallest of details about the woman by day and secretly painting her by firelight at night. As the two women spend their days with one another, intimacy and attraction grow, and the portrait becomes a symbol of the intensity of their love.
The lead performances are mannered and structured in the most effective way. The strong desire between the two women is manifested in a gaze or careful examination of a wisp of hair or the way Héloïse crosses her hands. There’s a quiet intensity to the emotional and physical intimacy between these two women, making this love story’s end feel all the more heartbreaking.
This is mostly an all-female film, and the men briefly seen on screen play little importance. Rounding out the characters are Héloïse’s mother (Valeria Golino) and housekeeper Sophie (Luàna Bajrami), who both fill critical roles in the story as the film explores issues affecting women at the time, including arranged marriages, career expectations, and health concerns.
The film itself is absolutely stunning, with gorgeously romantic and lush cinematography by Claire Mathon setting a sensual tone that complements the story. The artistry is outstanding, making “Portrait of a Lady on Fire” one of the most powerful, intellectual dramas of the year.

The best LGBT movie ever. And that's on period luv.

As the credits began to roll on ‘Portrait of a Lady on Fire’, I was practically incapable of moving or speaking. Every time I didn’t think the film could possibly get any better, Céline Sciamma elevated it to even greater, more incomprehensible heights, culminating in one of the most extraordinary moments in 21st-century cinema. This is a rare and precious film, breathtaking in its craft and intensely honest in its passions. This is a film that aches, that longs, that dances in ecstasy and raises its hands to the sky, angelic and ferocious and perfect. Simply put, ’Portrait of a Lady on Fire’ is a masterpiece, and one of the best films of this or any year.
- Daniel Lammin
Read Daniel's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-portrait-of-a-lady-on-fire-a-perfect-film-on-the-language-of-desire

***A ‘hospital film’ with Robin Williams and Robert De Niro, based on a true story***
A shy doctor (Robin Williams) gets a job at a Bronx hospital in 1969 where he attends to several patients in a catatonic state after the encephalitis epidemic of 1917–28. He experiments with a new drug that offers the hope of reviving them. Robert De Niro plays his key patient, Julie Kavner his nurse and John Heard his supervisor. Penelope Ann Miller is also on hand as a potential romantic interest.
"Awakenings” (1990) is based on Oliver Sacks' 1973 memoir of the same name, which chronicled the true event that occurred the summer of ’69. Being a hospital movie about ailing people trying to recover puts it in the same camp as “One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest” (1975) and “Instinct” (1999), but it’s not as compelling.
There’s just not enough human interest beyond the viewer being sympathetic toward the patients’ plight and wanting them to get well. It’s also marred by some blatant predictableness, like Leonard’s name on the bench and the “cup of coffee” aspect. Still, this is a tale that needed to be told and I’m not sorry I watched it. It’s just overrated.
The film runs 2 hours and was shot in Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens, New York City.
GRADE: C+

The chemistry between Witherspoon and Pattinson doesn't really work but the simple "man meets a woman" story works and Waltz nails his character as usual.
This movie was a nice surprise.

Hellraiser is probably one of the lesser of the horror franchises from the 80s behind Halloween (yes, I know that came out in 1978), Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street. This is a movie I’ve seen a few times over the years and while it’s hardly a perfect horror film with a clunky set-up, it’s still a lot of fun as the make-up and effects work perhaps is a bit on the cheesy side yet kind of still holds up in a strange way.
The acting is nothing special, though I did like both Clare Higgins and Ashley Laurence, not to mention Doug Bradley in the role of “Lead Cenobite”, who would later be called Pinhead. Kind fascinating that character was accidentally propelled into being a horror icon as he was only a minor part of the film, though based on his design and overall look, not hard to see why he resonated with horror fans.
Hellraiser, written and directed by Clive Barker based on his novella, isn’t a favorite of mine, as mentioned I lean more toward the more reality based slasher (like Halloween and F13) than the supernatural variety, but still found this to be entertaining as a whole. **3.75/5**

Ok, so I am definitely not the demographic here but I actually found the dynamic quite fun for a while. Following on from the first film (2017) we find that brothers "Tim" and "Ted" have moved on with their lives. The latter is now a successful financier, the former stays at home looking after his own children. It's only when his younger daughter starts to show that she has inherited some of the family business skills that the adventure starts to hot up and the brothers, under the fearless and determined "Tina", start their own new familial enterprise that's not about making money, but about combatting an evil and malevolent competitor! I'm not really quite sure who this film is for. Youngsters wouldn't get the thrust of the narrative nor the humour and older kids would probably be put off by the slightly uncomfortable to watch baby imagery, but the story does well enough once it gets started and though twenty minutes too long, this is no worse than many of the later Dreamworks animations that came off the production line. You'll never remember it afterwards!

I found the original Boss Baby really good. Great actually. Unfortunately this one was quite a disappointing.
Yes, there are a fair number of funny scenes and gags splattered around the movie. The chase sequences in the beginning of the movie are quite hilarious actually.
The story however is pretty lame. The original had a decent story. Yes it was a bit outlandish but at least it was a nice family story. This one is nothing of the kind. The basic premise of the story is just silly and the way it is done has pretty much turned it into a education-and-competition-is-bad piece.
This father which is one of the main characters are generally behaving like a moron and when, in the middle of the action, he just wanders of like a bloody zombie to watch his daughter instead of pulling the bloody switch that would have saved everything then I lost whatever hope I might have had of liking this movie.
Also, after that there was a repeated splattering of woke rubbish about how bad adults are, global warming nonsense and so on and so forth. Sure, those images came from the so called bad guy but any one with common sense knows that they were really there to push the message. I find it really despicable when woke story writers cannot keep their agenda out of children and family movies.
As I wrote at the beginning, quite a disappointment.

A Man Called Otto was an incredible surprise for me, as a big Tom Hanks fan, but not in a good way.
Tom Hanks starred in, and produced, this film, made popular in some literatary circles who enjoy books of this European very-dry comedy. For many that praise the movie are familiar with the original book, or similarly themed British movies. I wasn't.
Simply put, having seen every Tom Hanks movie, this one was simply awful in so many ways. I kept waiting for a turn of events that would pull me in as a viewer, but it never happened.
I left feeling depressed and saddened at having wasted two hours of my precious life going through such a terrible journey.
Shockingly, this movie is categorized as a "Comedy". Needless to say, I didn't laugh or smile once during the movie.
Tom Hanks should stick to acting.

#MovieReview #AManCalledOtto
Initially hesitant to watch "A Man Called Otto" due to doubts about its ability to captivate my interest, I waited for its streaming release. Tom Hanks' involvement and the lengthy runtime coupled with lackluster promotional material contributed to my hesitation.
To my pleasant surprise, the film turned out to be fantastic. With a well-crafted script and Tom Hanks delivering an outstanding performance, the movie was truly remarkable and enjoyable to watch. Witnessing the transformation of an elderly, embittered man into a loving and remarkable character was a highlight.
While the movie seems tailor-made for streaming, it still managed to perform decently in theaters, meeting its financial goals. However, I believe its true potential could have been realized through a streaming release from the start, potentially turning it into a major hit. I highly recommend watching it on a streaming platform for an enriching viewing experience.

Two problems: Hilarious enforcing of Woke Agenda + being too preachy and politically correct.

I had read the book and watched the original Swedish version of the movie before I had a chance to watch this, so I suppose I had some baggage to carry going into it.
But I liked the film, especially the irrepressible Marisol, Otto’s new neighbor next door. I tried to avoid the thoughts of “Was that in the original?” and the like and just let it roll over me. Oddly enough, I wasn’t sure that the two characters that played young and old Otto seemed like the sort who would be DIY experts. I am not sure there is a look for that sort of skill set. Perhaps his social ineptitude planted that doubt in me.
But it was worth watching, if not something I will ever feel the urge to repeat.

A Man Called Otto is heartfelt and sad story about a widowed husband trying to find his place in the world without his wife. It is incredibly touching and can resonate with any audience member no matter the age.
Going into the film, I was expecting it to have it's sad moments but there are times where this movie gets very dark. This was a surprise and it is a major tonal shift from the rest of the film. It works really well as this tonal juxtaposition is a metaphor for how Otto is feeling on the inside versus the positivity that is given to him in his every day life.
Tom Hanks delivers a great performance here. He had great comedic timing and delivered a tremendous amount of emotion in just his subtle facial expressions. Mariana Treviño was excellent and her chemistry with Hanks is superb throughout the film. Her hard fast nature is able to drive a wedge into Otto, giving him the ability to open up for the first time and genuinely live since the passing of his wife. It worked wonderfully and was a highlight of the film. The majority of the other performances were poor... I liked the kids though.
The plot is pretty generic in terms of overall structure, I could have predicted the ending after the first ten minutes. It differentiates itself by having a very real and brutal look at the mental health of a widower. How someone's lack of direction and companionship can lead them down a dark path. It was great. This movie does try to shoe horn in some social commentary about transgender acceptance and societies selfishness with phones. I am all for giving that type of representation in film, but it was done here in a very inorganic way, making it feel not genuine.
Overall, this movie accomplished its goal and made me cry. It really affected me as both my grandmothers are widowed and it let me gain a view of what they went through in the aftermath of losing a partner.
Score: 72%
Verdict: Good

Fans of the BBC sitcom "One Foot in the Grave" might recognise something of the "Victor Meldrew" in Tom Hanks' portrayal of the eponymous curmudgeon. Formerly head of the community association, he takes it upon himself each morning to do his "rounds" - checking the gates are closed, the permits are displayed, the recycling is correct - all pretty anal, really. A combination of circumstances are about to rock his rather pedestrian world, though. He is laid off after thirty-odd years at work, a deed which renders him pretty rudderless; and he gets new neighbours - "Marisol" (Mariana Treviño), husband "Tommy" (Manuel Garcia-Ruffo) and their two daughters. Now their arrival causes him no end of irritation (and, if truth be told - for me too!). The family are pretty hapless and soon "Otto" finds himself helping them out and gradually, her forceful and annoying character starts to morph into something more accommodating and he begins to feel just a tad useful. Now it ought to be said that most of this story evolves against a backdrop of attempts by the older man to kill himself. There is humour to be had here, as well a rather nuanced message illustrating the effects of loneliness and a general resignation that the fruitful section of his life is finished. Gradually using "Marisol" and a few other neighbours as conduits, we learn of the tragedies that have led him to his current predicament, and to a position where there might just be a new light at the end of his tunnel. From a character perspective, I preferred the "Otto" at the start of the film. A rather bitter and amusingly sarcastic figure, but as the plot develops we lose that sharpness, the story becomes a little too cluttered and I found the initial poignancy falls away as a rather sentimental degree of melodrama edges into it all. Still, Hanks offers a strong performance and after her distinctly annoying start I found myself increasingly engaged with the whole family across the road who might just offer "Otto" some validation and/or salvation. It's also a remarkable understatedly inclusive film. This community has all sorts of colours, shapes and sizes - and "Otto" for all his faults, has no truck with discrimination. This inclusiveness is delivered to us quietly as if it is all no big deal. A more productive and subtle method than many offering the screamingly obvious box-ticking characterisations. It's essentially a remake of the more characterful "A Man Called Ove" (2015) - a Swedish film with the excellently cast Rolf Lassgård in the title role, but it's still well worth a watch.