**A striking, culturally relevant and indisputably important film.**
It is not very rare to see that an actor's career, however prolific it may be, ends up being especially remembered thanks to his participation in a very small set of films, or even for his participation in a single film. I don't see this as a demerit, but as something unavoidable: only a very limited set of films ends up surviving the test of time and becoming culturally and historically relevant. Gregory Peck was an actor of great importance in his time, one of the faces of honesty and fairness, since he almost always played characters imbued with great honesty and nobility of intentions. As such, he took place in a wide range of films... but let's be honest, it is with this film that the actor reaches the peak of his career, and it is here that he achieves the greatest recognition and relevance as an actor.
The film brings to the screen the slightly autobiographical novel by Harper Lee. Strongly inspired by the figure of her father, and by passages from her childhood, the author conceived a story in which an honest and committed lawyer struggles to defend a black prisoner, convinced of his innocence in the face of accusations of rape and aggression against a white minor. Of course, it all takes place in the American South, where racial prejudice runs rampant, as everyone knows. In the midst of all this, a sub-plot also develops, involving a reclusive, mentally weak neighbor, who creates a liking for the lawyer's daughter.
I'll start by saying that I've never read the original book, so I'm not sure if the movie does justice to its content. However, when preparing this text, I concluded that the writer watched some footage at the invitation of the production and participated in the works with her collaboration, which leaves me with the conviction that the film sought to respect the literary work. Directed by Robert Mulligan, the film is a very convincing drama, but it takes a while to get into gear and to captivate our attention, which is initially invited to focus on children, on the way they behave and interact with the world around then. It will be, moreover, through the eyes of one of them, that we will observe the events.
As I said, it is in this film that Gregory Peck reaches the highest point of his career, giving us an inspired, profound and emotional interpretation of the main character. He was one of the most relevant actors of his time and there are a number of other films where he shines and deserves a closer look from us, but this is where he immortalizes himself. Without coincidence, this is where the actor receives his Oscar for Best Actor, after being nominated four times. Despite being very young, Mary Badham's performance and a silent appearance by a young Robert Duvall are also worth noting.
Technically, the film is quite discreet and gives the audience plenty of room to focus on the story told. There are no great visual gimmicks, there are no noteworthy effects, but we have excellent black-and-white cinematography with occasional artistic notes and a good filming work. The editing was also very well done, and gave the film a pleasant pace. It takes a while to really become interesting, but if we give the film the opportunity it requires, it will give us an enjoyable story, which we will gladly follow until the end. The soundtrack also deserves praise for its apparent ingenuity, as well as the opening credits and its graphics and visuals.

The part Gregory Peck played in this was reportedly his most favorite role. And he does a marvelous job of it too, as Atticus Finch, the Southern lawyer who agrees to take on the case of a black man falsely accused of rape. The story, from Harper Lee's classic novel, is in itself wonderful. It's filled with brilliant and iconic sequences, just a couple memorable ones being the dramatic courtroom scenes where Finch tries his best to make the prejudiced townsfolk see sense, and the intriguing side-plot of his children's growing curiosity and involvement with their eccentric, hermit-like neighbor that no one's ever actually seen. He is, of course, Arthur (Boo) Radley, played by none other than Robert Duvall in his feature film debut.
Would I recommend? Yes, without a doubt, to anyone and everyone who knows how to enjoy a great film.

If you like children's story, you would love this movie about how the world is shaped from their eyes.
If you don't ... you may find some entertainment in the picture of Southern US and the racial fight that was taking place at the time ...

**It is imperative to rediscover this magnificent film.**
There are many films about con artists and confidence games (Ocean’s Eleven and its two or three sequels, for example), but I had never seen one that was so good-natured and in which the main characters were so likable. It's a light, family comedy from the 70s, in which a group of tricksters decides to risk their lives to deceive a powerful and rich mobster in order to avenge a friend, killed by his hitmen. This film was, at the time, a huge financial success in the USA and won notable awards, especially seven Academy Awards: Best Film, Best Director, Best Original Soundtrack, Best Original Screenplay, Best Costume Design, Best Editing and Best Art Direction!
Therefore, it is difficult to believe that a film with such qualities has been forgotten, but it is true. I never saw it on television, I never heard much about it, I don't think it even had much visibility outside his country of origin. In Portugal there wasn't, but I understand why: the film premiered the day before the country experienced a military coup against the government, and the rest of that year was very complicated here, so no one was very willing to go to the movies. Therefore, I think that recapping this film and bringing it back to theater, in a possibly restored version, would be a gesture of complete justice to its quality.
The film has three enormous actors who deserve praise for the work done here: Robert Redford shows value and talent in a film that will open many doors for him, Robert Shaw offers us one of the best dramatic exercises of his artistic maturity and Paul Newman shines and enchants us in the role of an elegant and friendly swindler full of tricks. Seeing these three great actors together on stage is simply delightful. The film also has a good secondary cast, with Robert Earl Jones, Charles Durning, Eileen Brennan, Ray Walston and other good artists.
On a technical level, we have to surrender to the impeccable cinematography achieved by the meticulous eye of director George Roy Hill, in cooperation with a team of good professionals, and which perfectly emulates old films from the 30s with the advantage of color, in tones deliberately brownish, golden and yellowish. The sets, props and costumes are simply incredible: the cars can make classic admirers salivate and the costumes deserve a place in the closet of any gentleman with a taste for the “old-style” elegance they exude. The period is well recreated and the situations balance dramatic tension and humor well. The soundtrack is solidly based on Scott Joplin's piano melodies and is wonderful to listen to, and the titles are magnificently well-designed and have art in themselves. It's a long film, two hours long, but it's so delightful to watch and so well edited that time flies by.

Say what you like about the undoubted chemistry between Paul Newman ("Henry") and Robert Redford ("Johnny") this film belongs to a superb effort from the understated but hugely entertaining Robert Shaw. He's the hard-nosed gangster "Lonnegan" who gets (anonymously) fleeced by a "Johnny" who quickly decides that discretion is the better part of valour and gets out of Dodge. It's at this stage that the two grifters decide that their mark could be good for a great deal more money and so set up an elaborate operation purporting to be an undercover betting (on horses) proposition. Now "Lonnegan" ain't no easy target and every step they take is filled with danger - but slowly and surely the two, alongside a veritable army of fellow cons, start to piece together the ultimate lure for this clever, but ultimately greedy, man. Can they pull it off? Can they pull it off and survive? The films looks great, the writing is quickly-paced, humorous and it allows for loads of engagement between almost everyone - including an on-form Eileen Brennan and the charismatic "Kid Twist" (Harold Gould). The aesthetics are fabulous too - the sets, costumes, cars - even the tommy guns - all work really well adding huge richness to this cracking tale of the worm that turned. The Scott Joplin accompaniment is just icing on the cake of this classy and stylishly entertaining crime drama that I still love watching, fifty years on.

Not only does it sting, it floats like a butterfly as well.
Academy Award Winner Best Picture, Academy Award Winner Best Director-George Roy Hill, Academy Award Winner Best Screenplay-David S. Ward, Academy Award Winner Best Editing-William Reynolds, Academy Award Winner Best Song Score-Marvin Hamlisch, Academy Award Winner Best Art Direction/Set Decoration-Bumstead & Payne, Academy Award Winner Best Costume Design-Edith Head, Nominated for Best Actor (Redford), Best Cinematography, Best Sound.
Few films can draw me in and indulge me on repeat viewings like The Sting does, it was barely 36 hours ago when I sat there talking to the screen offering advice like I was in the flipping film. I have seen it written that the film's success was only garnered because of the star appeal of the leads! Well for starters that is an insult to Robert Shaw who may be accused of overdoing it at times, but his portrayal of Lonnegan is a complete joy, witness the fury on his face during an on train poker game as the irrepressible Newman does comedy gold. Visually the film is a delight, and the story fuses together to culminate in an ending that not only stings with impact; but also floats like a cinematic butterfly. 10/10

Mark Wahlberg's exceptional performance in this film truly shines, demonstrating his remarkable acting abilities and captivating the audience with his talent. The movie takes viewers on an exhilarating journey, offering a roller coaster of emotions that range from confusion to fear to anger, creating a gripping and engaging cinematic experience that keeps viewers enthralled from beginning to end.
The film's ability to evoke such a wide range of emotions speaks to its powerful storytelling and impactful performances, leaving audiences wanting more and keeping them on the edge of their seats. Overall, it delivers an enjoyable and thrilling ride that showcases Wahlberg's skills as an actor and leaves a lasting impression on viewers.

**Terrorism has a religion and we all know which one!**
One of the best films recently I have seen. It was based on the real. About the 2013 Boston marathon bombing. This film was an eye opener for me. I mean all I knew was the marathon bombing, but I came to know that was only half, the other half was even more serious events that stretched for like a week after the original event.
The best part of the film was, there were no solo heroes in this story. Everybody contributed in some way to fight against the evil. The screenplay was shared by all the great actors, even small role ones equally. I loved how it all went on, as a team from different forces, but tackled the situation by joining the hands. I don't know it was only the film, but very impressive. That's patriotism!
In the opening, you could see different people from different places of Boston preparing for the big event. And then they all end up in the same place where a series of explosion goes up. Quickly the security agencies come together and investigate it. With a small clue, kicks starts the manhunt. This is the part I loved it. Hunting pisslam pigs are always so pleasure to watch.
Suspense, thriller, the story was well paced and took forward with a wonderful ending. Awesome direction. Another hit in a single year alongside 'Deepwater Horizon'. Interesting, Wahlberg involved in both these films. I've also heard that the two screenplays was merged to make a single film. One was a drama and the other one was an action packed story. That's why it was well balanced between everything. From individual's story to together in the events. A must see film.
_8.5/10_

**Man On A Ledge surprises with a story that weaves itself from genre to genre, keeping its audience guessing what comes next.**
Man On A Ledge builds an intriguing plot that takes twists and turns from stopping a jumper to catching a prison escapee to robbing a vault to uncovering corrupt cops. This movie crams in so much in its short runtime, keeping the pace and energy high. There is no time for boredom. Check your phone, and you might miss something. Sam Worthington captivates audiences and is a sympathetic mastermind who pulls on the heartstrings while enacting his revenge. Man On A Ledge throws new challenges at the characters forcing them to get creative and adapt, keeping the movie fresh with its inexperienced characters attempting an ambitious heist. While all of its different story elements are simple or common on their own, these different plot pieces combine to make a fresh, fun, and entertaining heist film.

Your typical Christmas classic. A father waits to long to buy the most popular kids action figure turbo man. He goes out on Christmas eve to try to buy it and to no one's surprise, it is sold out.

A Christmas classic!

**This fantasy film deserves our sympathy and attention.**
This is a good film to watch with the family because it will easily appeal to young people and adults alike. However, I think it never received the attention it deserved, perhaps due to the fact that it was released at a time when the fantasy genre was dominated by a group of other much stronger and more relevant films. The film also strives to show the hidden side of knowledge as something dangerous, less than desirable, following the logic of “there are things we simply shouldn’t know”.
The story begins when a recently divorced woman moves with her children to a rustic house in the forest, which belongs to a great-aunt hospitalized as crazy. This house has been closed for a long time, there is salt on all the windows and an industrial amount of tomato sauce and honey in the kitchen pantry. Intriguing. It is quite evident from the beginning that the brothers get along badly, and that the youngest is very attached to his father and waits for him to return. And it is precisely he who begins to hear noises that convince him that there is something more in the house. He discovers a book with a dark warning, but still decides to read it, finding himself in the power of a series of hidden knowledge that should never have reached him, and that were collected eighty years earlier by a great-uncle, who disappeared without a trace.
Like I said, it's a good film and tells a good story. The characters are good, from the humans to the enchanted figures, and there's a lot of entertainment and creativity here. It didn't have a great reception in America, but it was a success in Europe and continues to appear on television from time to time. Directed by Mark Waters, who already has some experience in films for young people, but was far from being a name to consider from the outset, it has a good group of actors. Freddie Highmore shows talent and commitment, which opened many doors for him in the following years, and Irishwoman Sarah Bolger is not far behind. David Strathairn and Joan Plowright are the adult actors who deserve the most praise for their efforts here. Both were very good, and brought credible and adorably magical characters to life. Nick Nolte also makes a cameo appearance.
Technically, the film relies heavily on high-quality CGI, great visual impact and scenic effect. There's no doubt that there was a lot of money invested in the visuals and cinematography, and it paid off: the film doesn't feel unrealistic or overly fanciful. The enchanted objects and characters seem realistic, worthy of the credit we want to give them. The colors are magnificent, the light is ideal, the studio filming was well done and the house where the film takes place is visually magnificent, worthy of a fairy tale. James Horner provides the soundtrack in an effective but not memorable way.

Perfect Blue, a cult anime film that remains as relevant today as it was when it was first released, follows the story of a teenage girl on the brink of insanity. Its exploration of unsettling themes such as consent and exploitation may make for uncomfortable viewing, but it's a stark reminder of the issues we still face. Despite some parts feeling dated, its prediction of the Internet as a tool for stalking and the rise of social media for harassment is particularly noteworthy.

The young "Mima" has a successful, if limited, career singing with a girl band, but she is restless. Her manager insists he can get her an acting job on a popular soap - and that's the way to fame and fortune. Like so many other impressionable young folks, she tries to follow her dream - but is really only following his, and is soon being photographed (intimately), denigrated and her grasp on reality is soon compromised. When things start to take an altogether more sinister turn, though, we start to wonder just who is responsible for a series of murders amongst those known to hold disparaging views on the young woman. Might she be developing some form of lethal schizophrenia or is she (and are they) really the victims of an over-zealous fan. At times this is actually quite harrowing. The plundering of her innocence by those both venal and neglectful of this young woman is writ large and is really quite depressing to watch. The story itself deals frankly with the unsavoury nature of not just exploitation, but of the pressures the constant search for success can put on a developing mind. This packs quite a lot to think about in in eighty minutes, and 25 years on is still a potent watch.

I caught this in High School and it instantly took me as an eerie Alfred Hitchcock show that did an outstanding job of feeding on pure paranoia.
It was unsettling, it was scary, and at the time it seemed as realistic as it could be for an anime movie.
As I rode through it, I started doubting what was real and what wasn't and that is a hallmark of a great movie, that ability to keep the viewer on their toes.

Perfect Blue perfectly blends psychologically disturbed fantasy with grounded reality. Mima Kirigoe. A pop-idol. An actress. An X-rated model. Public image and its personifying echoes circulate around the world, adhering to the desires of endearing fans alike. But when their inspirational idol haphazardly shifts career, from pop sensation to dramatic actress, the psychosis of the modern consumer society ultimately changes with her. Saddened, angered and crazed. Mima’s abrupt persona altering career move may have developed maddened stalkers, including her fantastically imagined past self haunting the newly suppressed version.
The late Satoshi Kon was known for seamlessly blending fantasy with reality. Depicting an opaque blurred line between delusions and actualities. None more so, than in his exaggerated psychologically disturbed work in Perfect Blue. For many the art form of Japanese animation, commonly titled as “anime”, is cited as “childish”. “Anime is for losers” tweeted kickboxer Andrew Tate. Well, if like Mr. Tate you believe anime to be childish, I implore you to watch Perfect Blue. Without illustrating the voyeuristic nature of Murai’s narrative, it is the most accessibly invigorating piece of psychological stimulation, that is strictly aimed towards adults, to ever be constructed from this art form.
The complete metamorphosis of a character that questions her own perceived identity through inquisitional explicit acts of graphic nature. Exploring the psychosis of shared delusional disorder and the acute harassment of an obsessive stalker. Kon establishes a murder mystery whilst inciting the emasculation of a vulnerable female’s world. Male controllers, likened to manipulative deities of authoritative powers, are gradually weakened by a mysterious individual. Culminating into a twistingly fragmented climax that grants Mima the independence that she was repressed from.
Kon’s intelligence in foreshadowing, the drama series ‘Double Bind’ essentially replicating Mima’s regressive state of mind, allows the audience to question several aspects. He smartly manages to maintain the central mystery without deterring from Mima’s mental instability. He doesn’t stop there though. Kon refuses to relinquish thematic presence in every frame. Exploring the fragility of a rape victim and the traumatisation of such an explicitly heightened ordeal. The dangers of online anonymity and the tarnishing of existing careers. Challenging the extremities of art in all its mediums. The realism of Perfect Blue is what forces its story to be so utterly terrifying. It’s not just a psychological thriller. It’s horror.
Kon’s signature animation style is gloriously vibrant as always, with attentive detail towards realistic environments. The grotesque facial features of “Me-Mania”, only possible in this art form, heighten the natural malformed detest we have for him. Ikumi’s audacious score enables the heart to palpitate more frequently with its sharp tones and ethereal voices. And, as rare as this is, the English dub is surprisingly decent.
The reality is that Perfect Blue transcends the medium that it is presented in. It stimulates through Kon’s trademark visceral style, allowing the dangers of early Internet culture to produce a thrilling psychologically adept feature that blurs fantasy with reality. I mean, for a film to make me stand up, clap my hands and utter the words “perfection”, it has to be something special right?. Well, Perfect Blue is special, because it is perfect. And yes, with that said it does indeed garner the perfect rating. Quite possibly the best anime feature to ever be released.

Just seen this on All Hallows' Eve. It's a bit old, but gold! I definitely have to rewatch this, because you just got to pay attention to 'know' what is happening and follow the story. I think you'd better understand/follow the story and that it will make more sense when you watch it a second time.
The whole movie experience was pretty much like every time you think you got it all figured out, you learn something new and turn out to be all wrong. I loved all those twists and turns and the is-it-real-or-not feeling like, is it really REALLY happening? Is it really acting for her job as a actress, or is it all just a trick of the mind...

An ok movie. Not as good as Hook. He basically has to save Wendy. Who's been abducted by Captain Hook.

I have always been drawn to stories of time travel. The best book I have read was Time and Again, by Jack Finney. I am sorry they never made a movie out of it, probably because it was more subtle with less action than other sci-fi stories for most of the book. But there are plenty of time travel movies out there, like this one.
The fact that teenagers are using the device to travel in time, plus the fact that - at first - they can't travel back more than a few weeks, obviously was put in place to limit their ability to travel whenever they want. So instead of trying to prevent a horrific world event, for instance, they are jumping back in time to tweak their own lives and mistakes. If you have watched many time travel movies, it isn't a spoiler for me to say things don't go exactly as planned.
There are a few clever plot twists here, and I mostly liked the chemistry between the lead characters. The dialogue became a bit wooden here and there, but overall the writing wasn't bad. I have to say my biggest gripe was with the hand-held camera routine. I almost wonder if they used it just to honor another movie with the word "Project" in the title, if you are wondering 'witch' movie I am referring to. But whatever the reason, it didn't really work for me.Their reasons for always lugging the camera around, even when there was just one character, fell flat for me. For the loss in camera work quality, there wasn't enough of a gain in plot or character interaction. But it didn't cause me to give up on it, just to wish it lived up to its potential. I am not going to comment on the ending and risk giving anything away, except to say that it felt a bit anti-climactic to me.

Project Almanac is a film based on time travel. A bunch of students find a device which allows them to make jumps to the past. While the film starts off well, the second half of the movie has way to many plot-holes leaving the viewers with too many questions. The cast is young and is good for the film but nothing out of the world. It's worth a one time watch if you aren't one who complains about timeline consistencies.

Look…one can never have enough time travel movies for our escapist needs, correct? After all, the possibilities are endless in terms of how filmmakers could explore the surreal dynamics of different dimensions thus allowing audiences to suspend their disbelief and engage in the wonderment of SF exuberance. So the question remains: can first-time director Dan Israelite instill some fresh distinction into the ubiquitous genre with the teen-oriented time travel vehicle ‘Project Almanac’? Well, let’s just say that superior spectacles such as ‘Looper’ and this year’s engaging ‘Predestination’ have nothing to worry about in terms of giving way to Israelite’s featherweight found footage fantasy. In fact, ‘Bill And Ted’s Excellent Adventure’ looks appetizing and inspired in comparison. Relentlessly sketchy and as exhilarating as a PBS-televised high school science project during summer vacation, ‘Project Almanac’ fails to bounce sufficiently with its erratic presentation of cockeyed camerawork and crew of stock character whiz kids along for the surreal joyride.
Israelite and screenwriters Jason Harry Pagan and Andrew Deutschman concoct a breezy kiddie escapist flick where the scientific impishness feels somewhat upbeat and the young cast seem to be engaged in the time-traveling adventure that giddily plays out. However, whatever spry momentum that ‘Project Almanac’ manages to achieve is undermined by the distracting shaky hand-held camera movements and choppy jump cuts that turn this sci-fi caper into a disjointed B-movie bubble. Furthermore, the inclusive found footage material is overblown and exhausting. The gimmick, when used sparingly, was a treasured touch to heighten the anticipated tension. But ‘Project Almanac’ is not the only guilty party to spoil the essence of such a ‘trick of the trade’. The reality is that contemporary cinema–especially in horror and sci-fi–resort to these technical tactics to the point of no return.
It is no surprise that the arbitrary jittery cosmetics behind ‘Project Almanac’ is under the producing credit of Michael Bay whose reputation for exorbitant twitchy filmmaking has been documented in previous pulsating actioners. Brilliant high school science mastermind David Raskin (Jonny Weston) has ambitions for attending prestigious MIT and needs the appropriate experimental project to be conducted in his attic for acceptance to his choice of prestigious schooling. The finances are tight and David is chasing after a scholarship that should ease the economic burden on his widowed mother (David’s scientific father had recently died).
So David is a chip off the old block like his late father. Daddy Dearest, however, did provide some incentive for his son to to realise his MIT dreams. David had discovered an unfinished experiment of his dad’s – a mysterious machine that has the capability of relocating individuals through time. This discovery is in the company of his ‘herd of nerd’ friends plus his younger sister Christina (Ginny Gardner) along to record the curious contraption that will eventually take them all on a back-and-forth odyssey where they can pop into time traveling moments that range from dealing with school bullies to being placed in front of chemistry class testing sheets.
Interestingly, ‘Project Almanac’ never seizes the opportunity to think big in its time-traveling exploration. Instead, the movie mopes around with trivial tidbits such as petty scholarly set-ups and never really delves into grand confrontational entanglements that one would expect young impressionable brainiacs to face while awkwardly placing them in sensitive settings that all the book learning in the classroom cannot solve. The concept of this so-called time machine that David found in the basement by the skilled hands of his deceased old man should have predictably brought both father and son briefly together immediately in the name of their beloved interest in science, an irony nearly overlooked that could have been both poignant and profound. The nonsense of the kids cheating through invading the lottery result and retaking tests is a mere slap-on-the-hand cautionary tale that comes off somewhat corny and predictable.
Sadly, ‘Project Almanac’ morphs into teen soap opera territory and sinks the minimal sci-fi flavoring it had for a nonsensical diversion punctuated by the aforementioned shoddy camera fluctuation and lack of time-traveling zest beyond small-time incidental dilemmas. Weston’s David Raskin had the potential to be the second coming of ‘Back To The Future’s Marty McFly but the lame plot and punchless exploits handcuffs him from answering the call.
Project Almanac (2015)
Paramount Pictures
1 hr. 46 mins.
Starring: Jonny Weston, Allen Evangelista, Sam Lerner, Ginny Gardner and Sofia Black-D’Elia
Directed by: Dean Israelite
Rated: PG-13
Genre: Science Fiction/Teen Time Travel Adventurer/Sci-Fi and Fantasy
Critic’s rating: ** stars (out of four stars)

Many folks will remember the wonderful BBC adaptation of this John Le Carré story that featured the late Sir Alec Guinness as the measured and sagely "George Smiley" character. This time, this almost as superior adaptation places an on-form Gary Oldman in that role. What role? Well having just been pensioned off, he is re-recruited by "C" (John Hurt) to try and track down a KGB spy deep within the fabric of MI6. It's fair to say that, as this story starts to unfold, we discover there are plenty of suspects and the classily written story bombards us with characterful and suspicious scenarios that might be true, might be half-true, or might just be genuine red herrings! A formidable cast of British stalwarts add richness to this complex but not convoluted tale of deceit and betrayal. Tom Hardy, Colin Firth and even the usually unimpressive Mark Strong chip in well but my plaudits go to the truly odiously ambitious Toby Jones ("Alieline") and to Benedict Cumberbatch's "Guillam". Tomas Alfredson has paced this film well. It can appear slow at times, but on the second time of watching I appreciated there was much more substance to some of the dialogue, the nuanced efforts from the stars and from a very well crafted period production. It just goes to show that less can definately be more when the writing and acting do all the heavy lifting in concert, leaving the pyrotechnics and visual effects in their boxes.

**Despite a great cast and good script material, the film is tiring, stagnant, a bit gray and boring to watch.**
This film is a remake of an older film from 1973 (I haven't seen it yet, but I intend to), both of which are film adaptations of a spy novel that was written by John Le Carrée. Being the original story known for its quality and this film being an elaborate super production and with a cast full of established names, I was expecting a great film… but the truth is that I felt disappointed in that expectation. The movie is not as interesting and good as I would have liked.
In fact, the film has a lot of well-known actors, with the strongest and most impactful performance given to us by an experienced Gary Oldman. The actor regained his native English accent and was able to masterfully adapt to the character, fully deserving the Oscar nomination for Best Actor he received that year. Besides him, Toby Jones and Colin Firth were also in great shape in this film, but Benedict Cumberbatch, John Hurt and Tom Hardy are not far behind them.
The story is relatively simple: in the midst of Cold War intrigue, MI6 tried to help a Soviet officer defect in Budapest. This officer knew the identity of a double agent, undercover in the British services. However, the operation goes very badly and it becomes evident to the leaders of MI6 that there really are one or more traitors, very well placed within the secret service. To find out who they are, they call in George Smiley, a retired agent with a lot of experience.
On a technical level, I can't help but appreciate the dark cinematography and the way it tries to recreate the dirty, foggy and somewhat paranoid atmosphere of Cold War London, in addition to the atmosphere of British houses of that time and all the effort of the set and costumes. The film is effective in its effort to transport us to the time and context, and manages to place itself in a pleasantly paranoid environment, where everyone is suspicious of everyone else. It's not an action movie and, therefore, the effects are few and discreet, functional.
Despite strong performances from the cast and excellent source material and well-written script, the film has two main issues: atmosphere and pacing. Tomas Alfredson deliberately slowed the film, and that makes the film tiresome and boring, if you add the lack of movement, the endless dialogue, the way each action and movement takes as long as possible in front of the camera. Also, one has to be very attentive to the names of the various characters, and their role in the film, or we will never understand the plot while watching the film.

Great cast, nice cinematography and a fascinating plot.
'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' is very much a slow burn but it's worth it at the end, even if I wouldn't describe the premise as unpredictable - it isn't predictable per se, I just can't say I was majorly surprised at what occurs that's all.
It's not as complicated as the film suggests I feel, that's not a criticism but I'm just saying if I wrote down what I thought was going to happen at the start and checked it at the end, I'd be mostly right - at least with an outline. That's not me being big headed, I just feel it throws a lot of false curve balls to go around the houses a tad. The only part, to be honest, I didn't fully get while watching was the Polyakov bits.
All the cast give excellent performances, with Gary Oldman (Smiley) and Colin Firth (Haydon) standing out most. You've also got Tom Hardy (Tarr), Mark Strong (Prideaux), Benedict Cumberbatch (Guillam), Stephen Graham (Westerby) and Toby Jones (Alleline) all there too. You can't really go wrong with a list like that.
The onscreen talent carry events, but this is still a film that keeps you watching and paying attention - just not to a deep, deep level. With everything said, I still enjoyed this. You should definitely give it a view.

The russians have placed a mole within the Circus (who is the british intelligence service, by the way). George Smiley (Gary Oldman), having been fired from the Circus, has now been rehired (secretly) to find the mole. He assembles his small team and begins to look into the matters. The possibilities are plenty, Percy (Toby Jones), Esterhase (David Dencik), Roy Bland (Ciaran Hinds) and Bill Haydon (Colin Firth). His old friend, Control (John Hurt), even suspected George himself of being the mole.
This movie is directed by a personal favorite of mine, Tomas Alfredson, who also created the vampire movie, _Let the Right One In_ (Lad den rette komme ind), as well as the amazing, _Four Shades of Brown_ (fire nuancer af brun). He is a master of creating a dark and mysterious atmosphere, and does exactly that in this movie. The pace is slow, the music is scarce and the colours are old and faded, perfect for a spy movie such as this.
Watching this movie is like watching a puzzle being carefully put together in front of you. It takes time to get it just right, and you have to look carefully at all the pieces. Good things takes time, and this movie understands that. The viewer has to watch carefully, because it constantly goes from the present and into the past. People who have died, are resurrected in the memories of the past, to help us construct the final image.
_Last words... this movie will not appeal to everyone, it requires the viewer to be active, watch carefully, and to appreciate the slow narrative. I will gladly admit that I have tried watching this movie three times before I finally succeeded in watching all of it. I am not normally a fan of these sort of movies, but I can always appreciate spectacular acting, and the craftmanship of a truly great director, and so, this movie becomes so much more than just a spy movie. It becomes a movie about people living on the edge of a war, trying to survive, trying to find the one threat that might break down the wall and destroy the british empire._

**Trying to be a good husband and father!**
It took nearly a decade for Denzel to direct another film and this time it sailed through the Oscars with four nominations and one won out of it. Yeah, it was Viola Davis, who snatched the most prestigious award for her supporting actress role. Originally the film based on the stage play of the same name. It is a drama takes place in the 50s about a hard working family man, Troy. His past was not very good, which makes him a little arrogant when it comes to raining his boy. Marrying Rose was the best ever thing happened in his life. Though it was not a perfect family. The differences between them is what later bring twist and turns in the tale before heading for the final of the final act.
A very simple drama on the fine topic. Most of the film was just a conversation or arguments. And most of the film was little slow moving with the very long overall runtime. If you can manage that, you can enjoy it. If you are a drama genre fan, then you will be more than happy for giving it a try. One of the best drama films of the year, yet not the greatest. It's all finger points at the performances. Those magnificent actors displayed magnificent show. Nearly 35 years old screenplay and 70 years old timeline, still looked the same and powerful. Despite the film's success and poured praises, I don't think it is for everyone. Definitely young generations won't enjoy it. It is mainly for families.
_6/10_

The start of this shows the American news reporting of the atrocity at the Munich Olympiad that resulted in the murder of eleven people at the hands of the Palestinian "Black September" movement. The Israeli government faces a difficult task in tracking down those responsible. Some political and diplomatic tightropes to walk, so they alight on a plan to engage five freelance individuals to do the job for them. This group is to be led by "Avner" (Eric Bana) and handled by "Ephraim" (Geoffrey Rush) on a distinctly arm's-length basis. What ensues now sees these men, with the help of "Louis" (Mathieu Amalric) who uses their considerable financial resources to secure information of the whereabouts of these culprits, set about their mission. This isn't a task about justice, it's straightforward revenge. No efforts are needed to capture these people alive, though they do attempt to limit the extent of collateral damage - especially as virtually none of their activities take place on Israeli soil. It's when one of their operations goes spectacularly wrong that they begin to suspect that they are also being used by other nefarious folks to do a bit of housekeeping too. The underpinning story is one of vengeance, of retribution and though initially I did have some sympathy with that cause, I found the marauding actions of these men with a self-appointed justification for their slaughtering to become a little unjustifiable. The actor Bana can't really impose himself - or his character - enough to humanise the proceedings and though Rush does impact now and again when he is on screen, the rest of the cast deliver a lacklustre contribution to what I perceived to be an increasingly unforgivable course of action that was only ever going to make matters worse and sow more seeds of counter-vengeance. To be fair to Steven Spielberg, I think he has presented this film in a fashion that invites comment and criticism. Not just of the random atrocity with which we begin, but of the futility of engaging in a dog-eat-dog cycle of self-perpetuating violence. Michael Lonsdale's outwardly rather benign "Papa" living a life of peace and family in rural France illustrating well that there are rarely any winners in these sorts of conflicts - and those that do rarely have any skin in the game beyond the venal. Amalric does quite well in these slightly sleazy sort of roles, but otherwise I was underwhelmed by the whole, somewhat lengthy, thing.

Another big budget movie from Spielberg, this one a thriller drawn from actual events. The movie was tense and entertaining, with an ensemble cast you have to appreciate.
I have no desire to delve into the politics behind the movie or its accuracy. I am looking only at it for its entertainment value. There were a few things I really liked about it. The chemistry among the mission team, once it developed, was impressive. They are not bosom buddies at all, but they grew to appreciate what each other brought to the team. Although there is plenty of tension here, I also appreciated the angle of these men beginning to question the ethics of what they were doing. That sets this script aside from most other thrillers. And I really like Ciara Hinds. He brings a calmness to the role, a calm backed by strength. I have liked in other roles, so it is no more than I expect.
I am not a fan of thrillers, but if there were more like this one, who knows?

Producer Michael Bay steered this remake of the infamous 1970's horror flick, without bringing in anything new. When I first saw the trailer for this version of the story, I thought it looked a lot like a hurried sequel to the contemporary silly release "Wrong Turn." Five youths on their way to a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert pick up a young hitchhiker who commits suicide in the back of their van. Looking for help, and a little common sense, they stumble upon a weird family and their chainsaw wielding offspring. Much violence and such ensues.
While the first TCM was not perfect, I eventually learned to love the shaky camera, lousy sound, and cheap look. One reason that film worked for me was the fact that much of the horror took place in blinding daylight, the cast was hot and uncomfortable, and it showed. In this version, even with the original's director of photography, most of the shots are too calculated. The horrors in the dark are not all that horrifying. This might be the rantings of a jaded horror film fan, but I never got the same feeling of unease as I did in the first film. Much of the original's story has been changed as film makers tried to keep the audience guessing by not doing a shot by shot remake, like Gus Van Sant's "Psycho." The absolute lunacy of the first film's family was strange enough, here the members are more dimwitted than scary. This lessens the impact of Leatherface's scenes. You know he is the worst it can get, you don't have an equally sick family to fall back on. One disappointing scene involves the heroine Erin (Jessica Biel) running to a trailer and meeting two women who will obviously not help her. Instead of being a tense moment, where mind games involving drinking a seemingly harmless cup of tea could be played out, the women are there for nothing more than exposition, blaming Leatherface's penchant to kill on being teased when he was younger for a degenerative skin disease. The five victims all meld together, Nispel's direction is okay, but the cinematography is too nice for this type of horror film. The black and white scratchy scenes recall TV's "Millennium" or "The Blair Witch Project." If I would compare "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" to anything, it would be the terrible sequels that came out after the original "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" to that point. Just one was watchable, "Leatherface," but with the exception of Part 2, they were all simply remakes of the original film. Most direct to video sequels do that now, and while this film tries to be something different, it is simply a remake that cannot match the original. As Leatherface and the clan enter a new millennium, their wrinkles were showing.

"Amy" (Kaitlyn Dever) and best pal "Molly" (Beanie Feldstein) are school swats who, the day before their high school graduation, realise that they're not actually the smartest cookies in the school - but quite possibly the most boring. A few conversations with their fellow students reveal to them that they are every bit as clever, with just as promising prospects, only they have fun - booze, parties, music and even some sex. With twenty four hours to go before leaving, our not so dynamic duo decide to throw themselves wholeheartedly into a night of social whirling. It's clear that the pair already have their entire lives mapped out - only as they let their hair down they discover that their perfectly planned futures are not really what either of them want. Things all come to an head at a party hosted by the popular "Nick" (Mason Gooding) upon whom "Molly" has the slightest of crushes. What happens next? Well that's hardly a six million dollar question as this disappointingly predictable frat-flic takes us on their voyage of discovery. A trip that examines themselves, their attitudes and aspirations in exactly the same way as countless other films that illustrate the process of growing up. The dialogue is actually quite funny at times, but the faux-enthusiasm of the two women going through the increasingly turbulent motions of their relationship started to grate on me quite quickly and it does run quite a bit to stereotype - bits of "Fame" and bits of "Glee" with all boxes ticked. Wasn't for me, sorry.