FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/the-french-dispatch-spoiler-free-review
"The French Dispatch possesses all of Wes Anderson's trademark quirks, but this time, even hardcore fans of his unique style will struggle to not feel overwhelmed.
Every filmmaking department shines in such an impressive manner that one could call this movie a "technical masterpiece" packed with fantastic performances across the board. Unfortunately, the cliche criticism "style over substance" fits this picture too well.
The infinite amount of Anderson-ish quirks transforms the already uninteresting narrative with emotionally hollow characters into an extremely challenging, hard-to-follow story.
In four simple words: it's just too much..."
Rating: C+

Yet again a great piece of art!

A modern update of the cult following horror...
Truly terrifying, and gore-tastic!

**The following is a long-form review that I originally wrote in 2009.**
_Friday the 13th_, originally released in 1980 began one of the most successful film franchises of all time. Now, 31 years later, the newest incarnation of _Friday the 13th_ has just been released on Special Edition DVD. It seems unlikely that the director of the first film Sean S. Cunningham (who is also the producer of the 2009 version) could ever have seen just where the monster he had helped to create would go. So now, with the series being given one of those oh-so-popular of late "reboots", it's important to take a look at what Jason Voorhees has been up to, what has changed, and just as importantly, what hasn't.
The film loosely follows the progression of the first four _Friday the 13th_ films, the opening credit sequence has mother dearest Pamela Voorhees on June 13, 1980 confronting one of the Camp Crystal Lake counsellors , she is promptly decapitated with a machete, as per the original story. This is a powerful intro to the rest of the movie, as a reboot, you have to show Mrs. Voorhees at some point in time, but it can't take up too many of those valuable 90 minutes. At this point the film begins to deviate from the original, we get some of Harry Manfredini's musical score (Ki-ki-ki-ma-ma-ma) but this time round Jason is very much alive, sees his mother beheaded and picks up his iconic machete and some very bad habits from here on in. After the credits there is a new bunch of kids, looking to score some pot, have a little pre-marital sex, get wasted, go places they're not allowed, and just generally set themselves up to die. But something is missing... that would be... Oh yes, the cast! Only a single member of the "media-hyped" actors portrays a character in this group, so we already know that these guys are going nowhere. Only after their demise are we given the "_FRIDAY THE 13TH_" movie title, and the film begins. Unfortunately, by the time this happens, we have already been through a good set of characters, and it feels like watching a sequel after you're 23 minutes in.
The new group of rowdy teenagers have much the same plans in store as the last, but they are much less believable characters when compared to the ones we had just minutes ago. They are somewhat saved by the performances of Travis Van Winkle (from _Accepted_) as Trent, the "rich asshole" of the movie, and Aaron Yoo as Chewie, the lovable little stoner. Jared Padalecki's character Clay (a reboot of Rob from _Friday the 13th Part IV: The Final Chapter_) is wholly out of place, maybe it's his _Supernatural_ fame or maybe it's his deliberate intention to not have a good time. Either way the protagonist of the entire film really doesn't seem like he belongs in the movie at all. Sort of a down point when you think about it.
While the film didn't seem to have plot holes per se, it very much seems as though they tried to fit the creation of the film in before it was due to be released on Friday, February 13th. Now don't get me wrong, I love novelty and a good theatrical gimmick as much as anyone can, but know what I care about even more? The end product (especially when it comes to _Friday the 13th_)! The time could have been much better spent on filling in all the little bits where the movie just seemed to be missing something. You're not quite sure what it is, but that's their job to figure out.
The hype over the film's sexual content seems to have been grossly over-exaggerated. Supposedly Michael Bay walked out of the first screening due to the sex scenes. After having watched the film, I find this very difficult to believe. Although the sex does seem to have been thrown in for the Hell of it (isn't it always), there really isn't all that much. But, after all of the problems the film goes through, they get the most important thing right, Jason. With culturally recognised hockey mask and machete in tow, Mr. Voorhees does his thing, and he does it well. Whilst this particular incarnation of Jason is wholly more believable than any of the others, Derek Mears makes it work, he's not a supernatural boogieman-esque killing machine, he's a hunter, he's a natural, he's almost the anti-hero. Upon first hearing that Kane Hodder was yet again not to be playing the role of Jason Voorhees, I think a little part of me died inside. But I submit, Derek Mears has given the best representation of Jason I think we've ever seen.
The 2009 reboot of _Friday the 13th_ is the type of movie that you can watch, and when it's finished, want to go right back to the beginning and watch it all over again, you're just not sure why...
-_Gimly_

***Scarier and with a more dangerous Jason, but not as fun***
I became a fan of the "Friday the 13th" series after seeing "Part V: A New Beginning" (1985) on TV in the late 90s and have subsequently digested all of the films in the series. This '09 reboot takes elements of the first four films, drops all campy elements seen in Part III (and V, VI, IX & X) and provides better scares with a more dangerous Jason, who runs, shoots arrows, uses traps and schemes. In the original series Jason was comparable to an unstoppable zombie-like force, particularly as the series progressed where Jason became more & more infernal and monstrous. Here he's more human, which makes sense since it's early in the timeline and Jason hasn't yet morphed into the hellish zombie he became in later segments.
The appeal of the series for is not the gore or kills but rather the plot of a group of youths gathering in the wilderness; the inclusion of a psycho killer on the loose adds a necessary element of threat & suspense, and Jason's a quality nemesis/monster. Simply put, "Friday the 13th" is an entertaining series with creepy elements, but I never found the flicks all that scary, not even the first two films, which are the most serious in tone, along with IV, VII, VIII and XI. Of course there are jump-scares galore, but that's not what I'm talking about. With the third installment, campiness was added, which made several of the installments even less scary. The good thing about this '09 reboot is that it throws out the campy aspects and opts for a more serious approach. In addition, it has a couple of sequences that produce actual frights, something I never experienced with the rest of the series, as well as scenes with genuine suspense, like when Jason chases the three protagonists through the tunnels, etc.
Speaking of the three protagonists, the cast is filled with youthful no-names, but the three main protagonists, a brother & sister and a brunette who takes a liking to the brother, are good and likable. It's always nice to have some people you can root for. Really, there are only two characters who are unlikable, a creepy redneck hick (and his "hot" mannequin, lol) and the arrogant alpha-male whose father owns the vacation house.
I found one aspect of the film highly unusual and unique. I'm referring to the 24-minute prologue before the opening credits. This has to be one of the longest prologues in film history. I have to give credit to the filmmakers for being creative and trying something different.
This reboot also just plain LOOKS better than all those older films; I'm referring mostly to the creepy woods at night. This is to be expected, of course, with the advancements in filming technology since 1980, not to mention the bigger budget.
The series is known for its excellent assortment of women in every entry, but this one's not quite as good as most of the films in the franchise. There's the excellent Amanda (America Olivo) in the first act and also Whitney (Amanda Righetti) and Jenna (Danielle Panabaker) as the two female protagonists. They're solid, but not in the same league as Pam in Part V, Agent Marcus in Part IX and Heather in Part XI (FvJ). I suppose it's all a matter of taste though.
The film was shot in the heart of Texas, mainly in regions relatively near Austin.
FINAL WORD: My biggest criteria for judging the worth of a film is whether or not it pulls me in and makes me forget about the passing of time. This '09 reboot succeeds in this respect. Although nothing can replace the initial 1980 film and its immediate sequel, this reboot should be given credit for generating a few genuine scares, which I rarely if ever experienced with the rest of the series; not to mention providing a worthy trio of protagonists, as well as scenes with genuine momentum.
Other than these factors, the reboot is just more of the same, but it's at least as good as the better sequels, although it's not as fun as several of them because it shoots for serious horror. This is good, but the first half is more effective than the second. And it fails to approach the greatness of the '09 remake of "The Last House on the Left," a veritable masterpiece that transcends the usual one-dimensional nature of most slasher flicks, not that I would expect (or necessarily want) that for "Friday the 13th."
I have the "Killer Cut" that runs 105 minutes, while the theatrical version runs 97 minutes. Needless to say, this is a heavy R-rated picture.
GRADE: B

'Friday the 13th' turned out to be one of the biggest disappointments when it comes to horror classics remakes. After watching the trailers, I got the wrong idea that this film was going to be more serious. The previews gave me the false impression that this remake was going to go deeper into Jason's background story or maybe even offer extremely gory murders, when in reality, it is exactly the opposite. I'm not one of those horror lovers who want to know everything related to the villains, their origins and such, but in this case, it would have been acceptable to throw in some flashbacks regarding Jason Voorhees' past. Unfortunately, this remake wastes all the opportunities to make this interesting and instead, it offers an exaggerated and ineffective amount of comedy situations that are badly placed and ruin the possibility of creating a genuine horror feeling. Comedy situations in slasher films are no surprise, but in this remake, the attempted comedy is badly placed and seems like it was forced by the producers to make the film more marketable. I will give an example: after a really tense and dramatic persecution, the film cuts to a scene involving a horny stereotyped hillbilly lusting over a mannequin, while Jason silently walking up to him from behind, with the obvious intention of slashing him. How can they mix cheap humor and tension in one scene? The results obviously cannot be good. It was a murder scene, but instead of causing uneasiness, tension or shock, everyone at the movie theater was laughing at the guy talking about how he lost his virginity to a mannequin. The worst part is that the so-called humor is extremely 15-years-ago and even back then, it wouldn't have been funny.
The gore is very unsatisfying also. Nowadays, slasher films usually offer creative and really brutal murders and even if the plot is not so good, you can always at least settle for that. When I found out that Marcus Nispel was directing this, I thought it was good news, because he directed "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" remake, which is a fine example of a movie that may not be as good as the original, but at least it offers something more serious, gory and overall fulfilling. Naturally, since Marcus Nispel also directed 'Friday the 13th' remake, I expected something in the same vein as 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' remake. Sadly, that was a very inaccurate assumption. In this film, the gore is completely unsatisfactory and in some cases, the murders are even funny. The entire movie theater burst into a maniacal laughter during some of the murders and I must say that in those cases, I had to agree with them.
Another thing that bothered me about this film, is the fact that they could have showed a little bit more about the character of Mrs. Voorhees. Unfortunately, she only appears during the first seconds of the film and they cut her scenes with the opening credits, which is a disgrace. The confrontation between Mrs. Voorhees and the counselor girl is perhaps one of the finest points of the entire 'Friday the 13th' series, and it should have been remade in an equally tense way. Cutting the scene with the opening credits is, in my opinion, a self-sabotage. I think it's safe to say that many fans of the original film were eager to learn some more about Jason's beloved mother and see her more time on the screen. But no... apparently, they didn't even take advantage of that opportunity to make this movie more interesting. True, we see a little bit about Jason's environment, since the characters get to take a tour inside his house and it was a good idea to show his bedroom and evidence the fact that once upon a time, the killing machine was an innocent boy with a normal life. However, that doesn't make up for the lack of space that Mrs. Voorhees had on the story.
'Friday the 13th' turned out to be a teen comedy with lousy humor and some badly placed murders from the beginning until the end. Watch it if you're curious, but unless you're a silly teenager who thinks everything is funny, don't expect anything even remotely good, because you'll be devastated.

I have spent a LOT of time here rallying against remakes and my absolute hatred for them. And trust me, that hatred is nearly absolute.
But, the fiance wanted to see this. And I read the reviews here, and I read the critic's reviews...and noticed that the critics all hated it on the basis of "NRA Propaganda" In other words they hated it because...politics.
And I am really not a fan of that unless it's blatantly political.
But, then I noticed that the audience reviews were largely the EXACT opposite of the critics reviews (with the odd absolute remake hater like me and the everything is political crowd).
So, why was that...had to see it.
And since ALL the Death Wist movies seemed to be exactly the same, might as well.
Eli Roth...that name should say it all. It was graphic and gory and not in the boring Saw way, but in the fun ultra-violent entertainment way. And, really, I won't complain about that at all. It's one of the kind of movies I like for the sake of popcorn munching entertainment.
And that is what you get here, pure entertainment with NO POLITICS, despite what the "everything is political crowd" says.
It is JUST a super gory and graphic crime movie and nothing more, nothing propagandist about it. It's really just violence and gore for the sake of entertainment,.
The bottom line is, this is a remake that actually entertains. And since that is the primary purpose to sit down and watch a movie, if it meats that purpose, I recommend it and give it 10 of 10 stars.
So watch it...unless you have a weak stomach...because it will entertain you and it is a lot of fun.

An entertaining (full of) action film.
I enjoyed 'Death Wish', plain and simply. The action is satisfying, with it featuring some neat death scenes. The plot, meanwhile, is one that has heart to it. Bruce Willis is suitably fun in the titular role and is joined by the terrific Dean Norris. Camila Morrone is the pick of the rest of the cast.
It's nothing deserving of any awards of course, but that's OK as this is a production well worth a watch - in my opinion at least. Not seen the original yet, will aim to check it (and its many sequels) out some time.

Robert “Bronzi” Kovacs Played in a Movie called Death Kiss, he looks like Charles Bronson not a bad actor, he'd been better that Bruce, or possibly the two could have been in the remake.

"It's not as good as the original" he said, shocking absolutely no one.
It's alright though. I don't think that I'll watch this Bruce Willis version ever again, but I actually didn't hate my experience here.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

When Hollywood starts regurgitating old Charles Bronson Films that we’re ico in their day. Then cast the washed-up Bruce Willis , you gotta know that Hollywood is totally bereft of any original ideas.
I mean what producer actually signed off on this piece of Shite?
It is an insult to any moviegoer and should be liable for incurred costs on wasting a patrons valuable time and money.
Simply Abysmal.

"Willis and his director faced an uphill battle to make their lead character anything less than reprehensible; if that’s their only achievement, it’s a significant if questionable one..."
Read the full review here: http://screen-space.squarespace.com/reviews/2018/3/6/death-wish.html

Really fresh movie and story with great performances by Mann and Cooke. Great directing. Not the funniest nor the deepest movie but a small jewel nonetheless.

_**Similar to “A River Runs through It” but more heroic and melodramatic**_
Near the close of the 19th Century, a disillusioned Army Colonel (Anthony Hopkins) sets up a ranch in remote western Montana with his Cree friend, One Stab (Gordon Tootoosis). He nurtures a family of a wife & three boys, plus his loyal personnel. One son is sensible and “follows the rules (Aidan Quinn) while another is wild and well-versed in Cree traditions (Brad Pitt). After a harrowing involvement in WW1, the two brothers go separate ways during the Prohibition Era of the 20s and early 30s. Julia Ormond and Karina Lombard are on hand in the feminine department.
"Legends of the Fall" (1994) is similar to “A River Runs through It” from two years prior. Pitt basically plays the same character, just exaggerated here. Where these movies differ is the earlier one was based on Norman Maclean’s memoir and is therefore thoroughly realistic whereas “Legends” was based on James Harrison’s book and has a larger-than-life vibe. Like that earlier film, “Legends” effectively brings to life the era with its Model T's and bootlegging of alcoholic beverages.
While I give the edge to “A River Runs through It,” this one ain’t no slouch. It begins mundane and tedious with AmerIndian mumbo jumbo (I’m talking about the eye-rolling spiritual gobbledygook, e.g. the “wild spirit of the bear”), but picks up when the boys go to Europe to fight. Like “A River Runs through It,” this is a character study of two contrasting souls, both generally likable and noble, but one functions successfully within the box of society whereas the other cannot be contained in this box.
Although neither trips my trigger much, Ormond is very attractive and Lombard is stunning.
At the end of the day, “Legends” is a well-done artistic Western that takes place in the early 20th Century with commentary on the masculine nature, duty, bravery, death, love, rivalry, commitment or lack of commitment, searching for meaning, familial altercations, following the rules, living “free,” tragedy, acceptance, forgiveness and honor. It’s simply about life and every family will be able to relate, one way or another.
The film runs 2 hours, 13 minutes, and was shot in Alberta, Canada (Ghost River, Morley & Calgary), and Vancouver, British Columbia (the Helena scenes), as well as Ocho Rios, St. Ann, Jamaica (the exotic scenes).
GRADE: B+

This is the point in the movie where everything goes haywire, veering off a cliff into confusion, leaving you wondering what you're even watching.
Felt like a repetition without the depth of a storyline, filled with plot holes and rushed scenes that felt forced.
If you're going to commit to a franchise, then commit wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, this installment falls short, making it the weakest link in the trilogy.

I seem to recall seeing the previous episode of this trilogy in the cinema - a beneficiary of the lockdown dearth that propelled some serious dross onto the big screen. This, mercifully, never found a home there and so could be watched, half-heartedly, from the comfort of my own living room. The rather uninspiring, self-indulgent characterisations of "Tess" (Josephine Langford) and "Hardin" (Hero Fiennes Tiffin) continue to vacillate from loving to loathing each other for reasons that continued to escape me after the first two films. The narrative reminded me of a visualisation of letters one might have written to a lonely hearts column - each problem being acted out on screen by the pair, before the scenario resets (for good or ill) and off we go again. To be fair, they are both quite easy on the eye, but their frequent, creatively photographed, sex scenes accompanied by some mediocre AOR soundtrack quickly start to wear thin. Perhaps I am just too old for this, but I just found their on/off relationship, their secret keeping about things that couldn't matter a jot to anyone, let alone to those who purport to "love" one and other, really boring. The truly stilted dialogue and delivery (especially from HFT, complete with a his unique set of "letraset" tattoos) ) contrive to make this a real dirge of a watch. Watch out, there's another one coming too....

Ace! 'Sunset Boulevard' is a splendid flick from 1950.
I will note that I found the middle to be ever so slightly less interesting than the beginning and ending, though even so overall I most definitely enjoyed watching it. Love the dialogue, the score is excellent too. William Holden and Gloria Swanson are tremendous together onscreen, in what is a supremely well told story.

"Gillis" (William Holden) is a down-at-heel script writer who is struggling to keep his head above water. Not having had any successes for a while, his car is about to be repossessed and his erstwhile boss "Sheldrake" (Fred Clark) has nothing for him. On the run from the pursuing repo men, he turns his car into the drive of a decaying old mansion. Hiding his car in the garage, he is mistaken by the house's owner for an undertaker - she has a small matter that needs attending too! Realising her error she demands he leave, but not before he mentions what he does for a living. She has a script. Hundreds of pages of script - and she offers him a job, champagne and caviar if he will edit and refine it so "Norma Desmond" (Gloria Swanson), a retired former silent movie star, can present it to her favourite director Cecil B DeMille and restart her glorious career. Initially just seeing dollar signs, he agrees and what now ensues is a masterfully crafted story of love, dependency, ambition and delusion in which Swanson absolutely shines. It's clear to us from the outset that her grasp on reality is somewhat limited, and but for her dedicated factotum "Max" (Erich von Stroheim) she might well have fallen victim to her own depression many years ago. Holden is also on solid form here, his initial selfishness starts to morph into something more, he begins to care for this woman whose head is increasingly in the clouds, and upon whom she is becoming more reliant. The dialogue is delivered via a mix of Holden's quite honest narrative and the conversations between the characters delivering some of the best lines in cinema - "I'm still big - it's the world that's got smaller!". The mental decline and instability of "Desmond" is expertly displayed here by a star who new a thing or two herself about the silent film scene, and who brings her facial expressions, her mannerisms and her generally star-studded demeanour to bear really effectively as the audience gradually realise that nothing here is going to pan out as it seems - or as anyone wants. Von Stroheim underplays his supporting role with aplomb and though I didn't really love the sub-plot with Nancy Olson's "Betty Schaefer" - it took away from the intensity of the main storyline - it did to serve to illustrate just how powerful jealousy can be. This is a super film, that still captivates on a big screen and is really well worth sitting down to watch.,

**One of the great films of Hollywood's golden age.**
This movie is really special. Not only does it show us a lot about the world of Hollywood during its golden age, but it also reveals a lot about the actors' egos, vanities and their titanic struggles to preserve their careers and stay in the limelight. Brilliantly directed by Billy Wilder, it is considered by many to be one of the great movie classics, combining entertainment, artistic value and cultural relevance. In 1951, it won three Oscars (Best Screenplay, Best Art Direction in a Black and White Film, Best Comic Film Soundtrack) and could perfectly have won one more, for Best Actress. But awards like these are never completely fair, especially in years so fertile for good films.
Starting with the iconic scene of the dead man in the pool, the film intrigues us, and curiosity grips us, as the film shows how it all happened, introducing us to an average screenwriter who struggles to write a successful script that can leverage his career. He owes money, is in serious trouble and takes advantage of the opportunity to earn some easy money at the expense of a retired silent film actress, who decides to hire him to revise and type a script, written by herself and designed to mark her return. The script is mediocre, and he knows that the film will never happen, but he is coerced into silence, becoming the privileged eyewitness of the former star's gradual loss of lucidity. Of course, things get complicated as he loses his individual freedom and becomes more dependent on the whims and desires of his mistress.
Despite the fiction, the film is based a lot on several loose true facts: one of them, the most obvious, is the fall of several actors in the course of the transition from silent to talking films. There were great actors who looked magnificent on screen and had great physical and facial expression, but who didn't survive this transition due to things as prosaic as a poor English fluency or a strange accent. Others, however, simply did not know how to understand and adapt to the novelty. The collapse of their careers and personal lives led to alcoholism, drugs, mental disorders. The film is able to condense almost all of this into a single character: Norma Desmond, the epitome of the fallen star.
The cast has several well-known names, three of which – William Holden, Erich Von Stroheim and, obviously, Gloria Swanson – offer us the interpretation of their lives and their work of greater value and recognition. Of course, we cannot ignore that Swanson was a great star of silent cinema and that she shone in films like “Trespasser” or “Indiscreet”, and that Holden would continue to be a highly sought actor after this, having won his Oscar for Best Actor in a film that starred two years later. But there is no doubt that this film immortalized the three of them.
Technically, the film is impeccable, and the merit lies a lot in the brilliance of the dialogues, in the excellence of the conception and development of the characters, in the extraordinary way in which Wilder managed to get the best out of Swanson and lead the actress to a magnificent performance, which has so much to brilliant and difficult as well as provocative (especially from the point of view of many Hollywood shooting stars, who saw themselves in character and felt offended by it). With an excellent pace, the film does not waste time or let the atmosphere of tension and drama fall into a standstill. The mansion, owned by the Getty family, acquires character by itself as it becomes the most obvious symbol of the disturbed personality and only of its resident. The black and white cinematography is magnificent, and accentuates, in its details and shooting angles, the dramatic feel of the film. The soundtrack isn't memorable, but it's effective and functional.

A classic for the must to be seen list.
Gloria Swanson is magnificent.

Well, there is a Boycott and, all I am going to say about that is that, given who it's coming from, they just want Lian Neeson to apologize, so they can refuse to accept it and destroy his career to signal how virtuous and powerful they are by harming others..
The motives are horrible.
But, for those among us that are normal, or at least not jumping onto that bandwagon, all I can say is...BEST ENDING EVER!!!!
So it's a bit 90s, the actor that did the big bad is not decent, but the twists are all kind of out of left field, and it's fun, for a revenge flick that is written to be sedate, darkly comical, and stylish.
And, to think I almost didn't see it because I am sick and tired of Taken.
What you get is a fun and entertaining film.

_**Revenge in the snowy Rockies with Liam Neeson**_
A grieving snowplow driver in the Rockies of central Colorado (Liam Neeson) seeks vengeance after his son is murdered by members of a ruthless drug cartel. Tom Bateman and Tom Jackson play the warring drug moguls while Laura Dern is on hand as the protagonist’s wife.
“Cold Pursuit” (2019) is a quirky crime drama/thriller that’s a remake of the director’s Scandinavian flick “In Order of Disappearance” from five years prior. Instead of being a straight revenge thriller in the snow it opts for a peculiar tone akin to Tarantino, the Coen brothers and Guy Ritchie.
Neeson is stalwart, the wintery locations are outstanding and the technical filmmaking is proficient. Unfortunately, the odd tone and supposedly ‘hip,’ morally bankrupt characters struck me the wrong way. Maybe it’s just a Scandinavian thang that didn’t translate well to North America. There are still enough highlights to make this worthwhile if you can roll with thug scum obsessed with killing each other mixed with black humor.
For similar movies that are arguably better, check out "Fargo" (1996), “Deadfall” (2012) and “The Big White” (2005).
The film runs 1 hour, 58 minutes and was shot in western Alberta (Kananaskis Country), British Columbia (Vancouver, Fernie & Victoria) and Manitoba (Winnipeg & Gimli).
GRADE: B-/C+

I am not sure why but I had fairly low expectations for this movie. Perhaps partly because revenge flicks really aren't my sub-genre. But I liked Cold Pursuit, seemingly more than many reviewers. I found it to be quite entertaining, with bits of humor, good dialogue and several small plot twists along the way. Plus I have always liked Liam Neeson. There is a child character who comes off looking more wise and savvy than the adults. His short scenes are pleasant interludes between the scenes of drama and violence. Being an action film, I knew not to look for character growth or subtlety in the subplots. I just buckled up and enjoyed the ride.

Took me a very long time to adjust to the format, but _Cold Pursuit_ is a win in my book. A moderate one, but still, take that W boys. Sure the setting feels underdeveloped, the tone is back and forth like it's hangin' off the end ball on Newton's cradle, and off the top of my head I can think of a minimum of five characters you could cut entirely without affecting the story in any way whatsoever, but I'm still here for it's weird good thing.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

Nels Coxman (Liam Neeson) is a simple man who spends his days clearing the roads in a remote Colorado Ski Town and spends his days with his wife and his son. Nels is so unassuming that when he is awarded Citizen of the Year he states that there are others far more worthy and fusses over getting dressed up to accept the award and make a speech.
When his son is found dead of a Heroin overdose; Nels is not willing to accept that his son was a user even though this puts tremendous strain on his marriage and has taken Nels to consider suicide. At his worst moment he learns that his son’ co-worker was involved with some shady dealing and that his son was likely collateral damage from the criminal elements involved.
With a new found sense of purpose: Nels embarks on a quest to find the truth and avenge his son’s death no matter the consequences.
One would think that “Cold Pursuit” is a standard revenge film but it unexpectedly changes direction shortly after Nels starts exacting his revenge. The film transforms into a Dark Comedy of sorts as characters get a Title Screen when they are killed many of which have a morbid humor to them. The film even takes the bold step of moving away from Neeson for a good third of the film and putting the emphasis on other characters from rival crime organizations to the Sherriff and his eager Detective (Emmy Rossum).
As such the film is not what you expect as although there is plenty of action at times; it is a Dark Comedy with dramatic elements. It is more in line of what you might expect at a Film Festival from an Indie studio versus a major studio release.
As such fans of Neeson may be disappointed in seeing a departure from the type of films they have come to expect from him in recent years while others may embrace the quirky nature of the film.
3 stars out of 5

This movie was great for entertainment, the action was there, and the story was believable, although sometimes a little strange. All in all, I would watch this again. ⭐⭐⭐⭐

**special mix**
Double Scotch, but ice?! Well, some like it.
Part of the story is standard thriller fare by now - the professional assassin becoming hunted. Some over-the-top action scenes there.
Another part is the dysfunctional but caring family, with guilt, remorse, love, drama. Well played, but it's an unusual combination with the assassin story; and this special mix will appeal to some people - but my guess is: not many.
Good actors giving good performances, solid work from other departments. But I don't think script and direction were bringing their A-game.
The part I liked best were the close combat parts. These were worth watching, IMHO - the exhaustion that sets in, no matter how trained people are; well played, choreographed, and the make-up+fx departments did a good job as well.
I can't recommend this in general; you need to have some special taste to enjoy it. In which case, have fun. And you may like "Hummingbird (2013)".

Great watch, will likely watch again, and do recommend.
This is probably one of the best assassin movies I've ever seen ("Smokin' Aces", "Kill Me Three Times" and "Hanna" come to mind as others), the best thing it does is be refreshing, normally when a "character comes home after a long time away" trope happens, it's all about re-integrating, and how that affects the family, and it becomes a dark dramedy about dysfunctional families.
I'm not saying it doesn't to that, to a degree, but it does it in a spectacular way, and keeps it brief. It would actually be a solution to the main adversity of the movie, but because the premise is that she drags her work home with her, it's all about survival.
Jessica Chastain, Colin Ferrell, and (especially) John Malkovich do an amazing job on rather down to Earth (if a bit psychotic and brutal) action sequences.
While there is a lot going on around the story, the real focus, and it's worth it, her just trying to live through the organization she joined which she knows has to end in either her or the company's death.
I do feel like the worst of it is just that Diana Silvers sort of got sidelined, but I'm hoping that the sequel will focus on her quite a bit.

**Overall Score: 4.6/5, 4.5/5 Stars, 9/10 Stars**
It's rare when you buy a movie unseen an end up enjoying it. I have always been a fan of Jessica Chastain, so when I saw a new movie with her in it, I knew I had to at least give it a shot. When I saw that it was inexpensive on VUDU, I figured why not just buy it. And I have to admit, I'm glad I did.
**Storyline: 4/5**. Jessica Chastain plays Ava, an assassin working for a mysterious company who doesn't really appreciate the fact that she talks to her targets. When she begins questioning herself, she goes home to see her family and ends up in a struggle for her life.
**Characters: 4/5**. Ava is the main focus of the movie, but we also get introduced to her mother, sister, ex-boyfriend, and handler throughout the movie. Each has their own issues with Ava, but the one closest to her is Duke, her handler and trainer. Her mother is in the story for really no reason than backstory for Ava's character. The sister, Judy, is a little more involved with her overall and might be the closest thing to a full secondary character. The ex-boyfriend, Michael, comes in a close third. There is no deep character connections in this movie, but the characters all do a good job moving the story forward.
**Direction: 4/5**. I do not think I have seen any movies by Tate Taylor before, but he's done a few movies that I never cared to see, so this is my first experience with him. Overall, he's not a bad director. He has a good eye for how a movie should be filmed, he doesn't use any crazy camera movements to show action, and overall I was happy with how he made the movie. I had no real problems with his sense of direction.
**Casting: 5/5**. I love when a movie has a good cast. Jessica Chastain, Geena Davis, Common, Colin Farrell and John Malkovich are always good in whatever roles they are given.
**Acting: 5/5**. What makes a good movie to me is when you lose the actors in their roles. There were times when this did not happen in the movie, but it was very rare. For the most part, I believed everyone as the parts they played and not as the actors playing them.
**Music: 4/5**. The music in this movie isn't the type I would download the soundtrack for, but it did its job in blending in without being a distraction, giving scenes that little extra *umph* they would need.
**Cinematography: 5/5**. One of the most annoying things in recent action movies is the use of shaky-cam to give a feel of action. Thankfully, this movie did not use that. Scenes were shot well, and lighting was always perfect.
**Production Design: 5/5**. There did not seem to be too many built sets in this movie, which really helped because I'm sure this movie probably did not have a large budget. The sets they used were used well and helped bring the story together.
**Pacing: 5/5**. This movie did not drag like I was expecting it to. It moved a little slow but not at a pace where I kept wondering when the movie was going to end. Scenes seemed to be the perfect length to keep the story going without rushing through them or taking too long to get through.
**Enjoyment: 5/5**. To me, how much I enjoy a movie is one of the most important factors. I enjoyed this movie a lot. It was a good spy-assassin thriller with a low enough budget that not too many chances could be taken so the story had to come through. I debated on whether my enjoyment was 4/5 or 5/5, and it might change in the future, but for now, I really did enjoy this movie.

This movie started out really slow, the middle was really slow and the end was predictable and slow, nice to see Gina Davis but if you want a decent movie watch something else.