Stupid liberal leftist show where conservative people are vilified as some monsters while those "innocent" leftist liberals are portraited as victims and funny thing is that in reality it's the opposite.

People are going to look back at the Censorship decade and think that this and Harry Potter are the only two books the cancel culture freaks read...
... and then realize that they were both adapted for the screen.
This was good when they made it for HBO in the 1990s when it had an actual plot and was actually pro-Atwood.
Only the people that made this turned on Atwood during #MeToo when she spoke out in favor of Due Process and then it slowly started to distance itself from her IP... as it became more and more in your face political.
And that is when things like this lose me.

This is one messed up TV show; about a dystopian America ruled by a misogynistic government.
Elizabeth Moss' performance though was pretty good.
While I don't condone the mistreatment of women in the series, I do praise it for popularity nonetheless.
I wonder what the conclusion of the show will be like?

Every now and then a production comes along that such an absolute gem, it has you lost for words.
A Handmaids Tale, is based on the novel by Canadian author Margaret Atwood . I have not yet read the book but if this series is anything to go by, it will, I'm sure, make its way into my collection very soon.
On the surface the premise behind the series seems novel. Yet when you consider the fate of women in contemporary and historic theocratic societies, its not so far fetched. Indeed, what Atwood has rather cleverly done, is transplant aspects of life in theocratic societies, most notably Medieval Europe and Puritan colonial America, into a futuristic setting using civil war as a vehicle. A biological imperative is introduced too, in the form of pollution induced human sterility. Fertile women in Gilead (formerly the USA) are reduced to human incubators, their only imperative to produce children.
On face value, this might seem to be a story about the subjugation and commoditization of women. Indeed, it is that. Yet, what this series is ultimately about is the hypocrisy of intolerance. Not just women but any individual or group, who diverge from the rigid religious script, meet a grim fate. Meanwhile, those controlling the dialogue, are more or less free to make and break their own rules, as they see fit. Even those who do follow the societal script, often do so for reasons that are in opposition to those they claim to uphold.
For my money everything about this series is superb. Elizabeth Moss is a wonderful, off beat choice, for Offred the handmaid to a powerful commander, who is directly responsible for hers and others suffering. Joseph Fiennes, is capable in the role of the superficially charming but emotionally empty commander.
Update: Yes a decent series but, for my money, its run on too long and now simply appears to be recycling the original script with a few twists and turns. At times, in my opinion, perilously close to looking like misandry, too.
In short, an engrossing, thoughtful and engaging series but it needs to come to a close, as it no longer has much more to say, that has not already been said.

The Show is great! i will admit when my wife said i have a show we should watch i thought what is this? but after the first episode I was hooked.
I recommend this show but it is quite confronting and if you have trouble with that type of thing it may not be for you.

****From June to Offred: A 21st century slave tale!**
**SEASON 01:****
I was not sure to give it a try, in the end I just went on. The reason was, another dystopian theme. It was a short season with the 10 episodes, and I've got a mixed feeling. It was based on the 30 year old novel of the same name. I mean 3 decades old source is very old in the present trend. Since that book there were plenty of films, series were made similar to that theme, including one feature film adaptation. I don't know the screenplay was highly borrowed from its original source, but all I expected was alterable.
Even though I felt familiarity, I enjoyed watching it. My issue was the drag. The whole season was a drag. Dragged to have one more season, or maybe more in the future. Especially I was very disappointed with the season finale. It only felt like a mid-season finale and yet a lot more to come in the same season. But that was only my assumption, this season ended at the halfway. They had held back too much to have some of it in the upcoming seasons. That's very intense move from the production perspective, but for the viewers, it left with unsatisfying.
The plus points were the casting and production. Elisabeth Moss was very good. Her expressions saved in parts of the earlier episodes. Particularly, her smile during those circus were going on, instead of being tensed and confused. That reveals the character, who wants to stay alive for a reason. As the story progresses in the next episodes, you would know more reasons why. Alexis' part was short, as well as many others. The overall the characters design was good. But I anticipated more from the story side to reveal.
In the near future, the humans had lost fertility capacity, excluding a very few men and women. Those who are capable of having babies are taken as slave surrogate mothers, after separating from their husbands and kids, to assign them those who desire to have children. This tale follows Offred, who is one of the maids. Her struggle against the couple who took her in, and overall society, how it treated her and others like her. The American dreams are gone. Many fled to Canada and yet some are trying to make it there. But Offred is not concerned about that. She now has to find her daughter before planning anything.
Each epidoe was decent, but only a couple of them were top class. At least now we know what to expect from the follow-up season. Also the perspective of the story was very restricted like everything was from Offred. The episode like 'The Other Side' really made it interesting. We need more those kind of explanation of what's going on on the other side. Especially for a television series, they have all the time to detail out from all the angle. That's what I like in the series, otherwise I'm always a film fanatic, love to watch short and sweet tales. So I'm waiting for the season 2.
_7/10_

I'm late to this, I know, but at the time it came out I was in college and working multiple jobs to pay for it. It came out in that stretch of time that I was practically blind to current culture.
But now I'm watching it, and honestly it's like all those other Mafia movies and TV shows that come around every decade or so. They never really get old.
The Mafia allows for a few things, stress, tension which are both great for drama...and then brutal violence and humor, which also pair wonderfully together.
The only time you're going to miss is when you don't do it well, but The Sopranos actually did it incredibly well. It was amazingly fun, amazingly dramatic, and beautifully acted...so, it's going to entertain.
And, unlike the movies, the episodic nature of a TV show plays well with the mafia shtick, especially when paired with a premium channel like HBO that can do whatever they want.

The fantasy element was great. I wish I could live in this fantasy world. It was exceptional and very wonderful. I watched the movie twice. The first time, I didn't understand the movie well and didn't like it. I did not know whether I liked the movie or not, but when I watched it again, I was fascinated and inspired by the wide imagination element that exists within the scenario.
The character of Lily Cole was amazing, she is incredibly beautiful and I have to show respect for Heath Ledger's performance and Tom Waits gave an amazing performance. Christopher Plummer stole the show with a controlled, professional performance
The animation element wasn't well managed, it could have been shown better the way it was.

This is the stereotypical romantic drama which tries to use the successful mix from Speed between Bullock and Reeves. It doesn't really work.
The movie is quite flat and the plot is quite nonsensical. Of course, in a movie with time traveling you cannot think much about that part of the story or will fall apart. Not specifically, the fault of this one. But the behavior of the characters is really, really pointless in some parts.
Also, the parallel family struggles of both characters are quite pointless and irrelevant for the main story.
The main mistake, however, is the lack of spark that Bullock and Reeves did have in Speed. They are just numb.
The best part, the beautiful setting of the Lake House.

***Simple, cute and sweet***
Christopher Robin (Ewan McGregor) is in his 40s, married with a daughter, and working the joyless grind in London when his pal Winnie-the-Pooh unexpectedly shows up. He takes the stuffed animal back to his childhood haunts in Hundred Acre Wood to find Pooh’s other stuffed animal friends. Hayley Atwell and Bronte Carmichael play Christopher’s wife and daughter.
Released in 2018, "Christopher Robin" is a decent live-action rendering of A.A. Milne’s popular characters with the twist that Christopher is an adult rediscovering his childhood friends and the simple joys thereof. The theme of escaping the work grind and getting your inspiration back recalls “Joe Versus the Volcano” (1990), “City Slickers” (1991) and probably a gazillion other flicks. The stuffed animal critters are ultra-cute, the story is simple and the English cinematography is exquisite. I would’ve preferred a more gripping story, but I think the creators kept it simple on purpose.
The film runs 1 hour, 44 minutes and was shot entirely in England (London, Berkshire, Kent & East Sussex).
GRADE: B-/C+

Not only was that **so fuckin' cute**, I also absolutely support its Oscar nomination for visual effects. Owl and Rabbit were less stellar, but all of the stuffed animals, most especially Whinnie the Pooh, looked **incredible**.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

_**Self-indulgent? Absolutely. Disturbing? Partly. Hilarious? Definitely**_
> _Jack is a part of me. But I'm not a psychopath. I'm pretty sure. I've been diagnosed since I was six. So I think I'm safe to be with._
- Lars von Trier; "Lars von Trier: 'I know how to kill'" (David Jenkins); _Little White Lies_ (December 13, 2018)
Ostensibly a psychological horror/serial killer film, in reality the latest from professional provocateur Lars von Trier is more a dark comedy about the nature of art, capped off with a quite literal descent into Hell. As much an interrogation of his own dark psychology as an "up yours" to his detractors and the oft-levelled accusations of misogyny and nihilism, von Trier all but _dares_ you to be offended, whether by the violence done to a duckling, the cold-blooded murder of children, the verbal degradation of a woman, the critique of the #MeToo movement, the celebration of Albert Speer, or the mockery of American gun culture. Partially self-reflexive in nature, the film suggests a parallel between murder and artistic creation, with von Trier offering more of an _apologia_ than an apology for his oeuvre. When he's really on his game - _Breaking the Waves_ (1996), _Dancer in the Dark_ (2000), _Dogville_ (2003), _Antichrist_ (2009), _Melancholia_ (2011) - von Trier is capable of depicting horrific violence alongside psychologically complex characters and scenes of devastating emotional veracity. _House_, which is far too long and tends towards self-indulgence, doesn't come anywhere near those heights, and is thus more open to accusations of empty provocation, but von Trier has definitely tapped into "something" here, and, love it or hate it, you _will_ react to it.
As the film begins, we hear (but don't see) a conversation between Jack (an emotionless Matt Dillon) and "Verge" (the always superb Bruno Ganz) as Jack attempts to defend and justify his serial killing. Choosing to discuss five random but illustrative "incidents" over a period of twelve years during the 70s and 80s, the subsequent film is divided into six sections ("1st Incident", "2nd Incident" etc., and "Epilogue: Katabasis"). A wannabe architect whose mother forced him to be an engineer, Jack, who suffers from OCD, contends that his murders are literal works of art, and has given himself the moniker "Mr Sophistication". And short of describing each incident, that's about it as far as plot is concerned, although it certainly wouldn't hurt to be at least partially familiar with the work of William Blake and the _Inferno_ book of Dante Alighieri's _Divina Commedia_ (1320).
_The House That Jack Built_ was originally developed as a TV miniseries by von Trier and Jenle Hallund, who has a "Story By" credit on the final film. Premièring out of competition at Cannes 2018, it was the first time von Trier had been to the festival since receiving a "lifetime" ban in 2011 for making ill-judged comments about sympathising with Hitler. Not that he is saying sorry, of course; how could he be when the film extols the work of Albert Speer, and lauds the design perfection of the Stuka dive bomber. The first film in Cannes history to feature a warning on the tickets (for "_scènes violentes_"), at the much-publicised première, over one-hundred people walked out, although those that stayed gave it a ten-minute standing ovation. This kind of extreme polarisation has continued ever since; _House_ is one of those rare films whose Metacritic scores range from zero (Jessica Kiang's hilarious rant for _The Playlist_) to 100 (Michael Roffman's review for _Consequence of Sound_). Particularly galling to some viewers has been the scene where a young Jack (Emil Tholstrup) cuts off a duckling's leg, places it back into the pond from which he took it, and watches it drown. PETA, however, defended the film, praising the fact that it draws attention to the link between adolescent animal abuse and adult psychopathy, and for the realistic special effects (which, it has to be said, are flawless – like many viewers, I thought the scene had been shot for real).
To begin parsing the film, one first needs to look at the character of Jack himself, specifically his lack of emotional interiority. Call it sociopathy, call it an inability to empathise, whilst there's definitely an intellectual core (seen in the many digressions he and Verge take concerning art and the nature of the artist), Jack is emotionally dead. Although we see him practising various emotional states in the mirror, he does this so as not to stand out when in the company of others, and the only _real_ emotions we ever see from him are irritation and anger, and even they are rare. Irritation is confined mainly to the 1st Incident, where he gives a lift to a woman whose car has broken down (Uma Thurman), and gradually gets more and more vexed as she goads him – telling him he looks like a serial killer but is obviously way too much of a "_wimp_" to ever actually kill anyone. Anger is mainly seen in the 5th Incident, when, right as he is about to murder a group of men tied up in the industrial freezer he uses to store bodies, he realises he has been sold hollow-point bullets instead of full metal jackets, prompting an infuriated trip to the gun store and a hilarious berating of the owner, Al (Jeremy Davies).
However, the running joke with Jack is not his emotional barrenness; it's his utter banality (the "_banality of evil_" personified). A frustrated architect, he's convinced that if he hadn't been forced to study engineering he could have been another Antoni Gaudí, Albert Speer, or Frank Lloyd Wright. In reality, however, he proves incapable of designing and building even a modest house – his grand artistic ambitions undermined by his limited abilities. Indeed, his delusions of grandeur are such that he sees himself of the same ilk as people such as Shakespeare, Mozart, Blake, and, especially, Glenn Gould. In contrast to these heightened artistic aspirations, especially in the early stages of the film, his actions are often those of a bumbling neurotic. Interestingly, however, the more he kills, the less his OCD bothers him; essentially, the more pain he inflicts on the world, the less in pain he feels.
Specifically on this point, it's impossible to ignore the parallels between Jack and von Trier himself. Von Trier, who suffers from depression and has battled alcoholism, has said in the past that his films are a kind of therapy, an attempt to work out his own inner demons. In this sense, the more films depicting pain and torment that he makes, the less in pain he feels. It's definitely a superficial reading of the character, who is clearly not a 1:1 surrogate for the director, but it's hard to deny the analogy of how Jack feels the need to one-up himself with each murder, becoming more and more sadistic as he goes. This, of course, has become a very common criticism of von Trier's filmography. He has also been accused of misogyny and of exploiting the psychological (and often physical) suffering of his actors, just as Jack is obviously a misogynist who exploits the suffering of his victims. And this isn't subtext. Rather, von Trier himself makes the connection explicit when a discussion of genocide and tyranny features a montage of scenes from his own filmography; _Forbrydelsens element_ (1984), _Medea_ (1988), _Riget_ (1994), _Breaking the Waves_ (1996), _Dogville_ (2003), _Antichrist_ (2009), _Melancholia_ (2011), and _Nymph()maniac: Vol II_ (2013). There's even an element of self-flagellation about the whole thing, with Verge positing that "_hubris must be punished by Nemesis_" – are the criticisms von Trier has faced the Nemesis punishing his hubris?
Thematically, according to von Trier, the film
> _celebrates the idea that life is evil and soulless, which is sadly proven by the recent rise of the Homo trumpus – the rat king._
Yep, that's a reference to Donald Trump. As with _Nymph()maniac_, the film is structured around a conversation between two people, with frequent digressions to topics often fairly tangential to the main narrative. So whilst _Nymph()maniac_ gave us treaties on fly-fishing, parallel parking, and the Fibonacci sequence, _House_ features discussions concerning viticulture, the oak tree in Buchenwald, cathedral architecture, photo negatives, and the dichotomy of predator and prey, via a rather simplistic comparative analysis of Blake's "The Lamb" (1776) and "The Tyger" (1794). One especially interesting digression, and perhaps the most obvious instance of von Trier biting his thumb at his accusers is a monologue where Jack laments the fact that men are the _de facto_ villains of every situation. Being set in the 70s and 80s, there's obviously no specific mention of #MeToo, but it's obvious where the invective is aimed. Coming across like a slightly more unhinged Jordan Peterson, Jack has no time for debates concerning gender fluidity or sexual misconduct, even going so far as to suggest that women are more cooperative murder victims because they're "_easier to work with_." You can all-but hear Rose McGowan blowing a gasket!
Aside from the aforementioned duckling scene, by far the most disturbing scene is the 4th Incident. Here, we are introduced to Jacqueline (an excellent Riley Keough), whom Jack has been dating for a while. What is most distressing about the scene is not how Jack kills her (although it's far and away the most graphic death in the film), but what precedes her murder. After making an incredibly kind and thoughtful gesture, Jack then proceeds to mercilessly verbally belittle her, calling her by the nickname he has given her, "Simple", because he believes she is so unintelligent. He then takes great delight in revealing to her that he is Mr Sophistication, enjoying her discomfit as she tries to decide whether or not he's telling the truth. The cumulative effect of the psychological torment is unsettling, to say the least, and when she does finally realise that he is not lying about being a killer, he revels in suggesting that she scream; the futility of which he demonstrates by shouting out an open window, "_no one will help you_." It's a devastating scene, far more emotionally upsetting than it is physically violent, and because of that, it's one of the best scenes in the film, provoking a genuine emotional response in the viewer beyond mere disgust.
As unsettling as this scene is, the film can also be extremely funny, with the entire 2nd Incident playing out like an extended _Key and Peele_ sketch. Trying to gain entry to a woman's (Siobhan Fallon Hogan) house, Jack does a hilariously bad impression of a policeman, explaining, "_I don't have my badge with me because I'm getting a promotion_", and then cheerfully waving to a passing driver as if they are best friends. Once inside, he only manages to kill his victim at the third attempt, and then, having left the house, his OCD compels him to return three times to check for blood splatters in such places as behind a picture on the wall and under the leg of a chair. Finally, to get away from the cops that have shown up, he ties the body to the back of his van, pulling it along the road, and leaving a blood trail from the house to his industrial freezer, only for it to start raining and erase the blood.
From an aesthetic point of view, Von Trier and regular cinematographer Manuel Alberto Claro shoot _House_ in a cinéma vérité style; almost the entire film is handheld, with the immediacy further enhanced by having the focus occasionally drift in and out, creating a scaled-back naturalistic look somewhat reminiscent of John McNaughton's _Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer_ (1986). The interesting thing about shooting it this way, however, is that the pseudo-documentarian visual approach clashes with the narrative and thematic concerns, which more closely resemble Mary Harron's _American Psycho_ (2000); both films are focused on unreliable narrators, both feature scenes in which the killers try to confess their crimes and are ignored, and both tell stories that may very well be taking place only in the demented mind of the central character. In a general aesthetic sense, the film ends on a very strong note as Jack and Verge descend to hell ("Katabasis" is the Ancient Greek word for "descent"). This incredible sequence starts with a stunning repurposing of Eugène Delacroix's _La Barque de Dante_ (1822), and culminates in a Hell that's equal parts Hieronymus Bosch, Pieter Bruegel the Elder, and Zdzisław Beksiński.
However, the film is far from perfect. For starters, it can be incredibly self-indulgent. Von Trier's name, for example, appears on the title card, not in the sense of "A Lars von Trier film", but just his name, as one would expect to see of a major actor. The film is also unnecessarily long, and there are stretches which are extremely tedious, a problem which also afflicted _Nymph()maniac_, particularly _Volume II_. I'm also not sure that a clip reel of his own films was the wisest choice. Additionally, the female characters are, by the very nature of the film, essentially empty shells who exist only to be murdered. We may feel a degree of sympathy for them (especially Sofie Gråbøl in the 3rd Incident), but only Jacqueline has any degree of psychological verisimilitude. Some of the digressions concerning art and its relationship to love and hate are also (perhaps intentionally) juvenile and intellectually vapid.
Whilst it could be argued that _House_ is about a desensitised world indifferent to suffering, it seems to be more about Lars von Trier and the criticisms that have been levelled against him over the years. Although he doesn't seem willing to apologise for anything, he is more than happy to defend, attempting to use the depiction of violence so as to facilitate introspection, reflecting on the importance (or lack thereof) of morality and culpability in artistic creation. Does he point the finger at an indifferent and often culpable audience yearning for blood, such as Michael Haneke does in _Funny Games_ (1997)? Is he using violent extremes to criticise societal oppression and exploitation, such as Pier Paolo Pasolini does in _Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma_ (1975)? Is he simply mocking the contemporary craze for thrill-kill films and TV shows? The answer to each is perhaps. _House_ is an especially self-reflexive and somewhat self-disdainful film, which Von Trier has intimated may be his last. If that is so, it certainly makes for a fittingly provocative and confrontational final word.

Another film by Lars von Trier done very much in the flavor of his previous picture, Nymphomaniac. It is, in my opinion, much less uneven and messy, but still too undisciplined to feel fully realized and satisfying. It ranges from brilliant to dubious constantly, while Nymphomaniac, despite also containing brilliant segments, sinks to cringe-worthy more than once.
Similarly to Nymphomaniac, where our main character is exploring a central part of her personality, in the case of that film her sexuality, by confessing her history to another character, all intertwined with commentary from philosophy and religion, here it's a murderer confessing the central part of his personality, his killer nature, to another character, all again mixed with dialogues on philosophy, art, etc. So in the style and approach the films are quite similar. Maybe even more that I would prefer, because Nymphomaniac didn't rub well off me, as the premise took precedence over proper story development.
The story in The House That Jack Built again is told in episodic manner, here even more so with the narrative being split into separate "incidents", and it often feels too artificial, staged, and improbable. I'm not sure how much this was premeditated and intentional. As I already mentioned, it feels too often quite implausible and ridiculous. It makes you question director's true intentions with this approach. Is he toying with the nature of the film medium, with audience expectations, or is simply using this narrative instrument to make a statement on art and (his own) filmmaking? It's hard to say. The approach however, has a quite potent result, which is in my opinion accidental. It tapped on that feeling of reality being stranger than fiction, and that impression of life being utterly indifferent to people doing evil things. But how the movie was executed, it makes you feel that this aspect of the film was a mere accident of the director's approach, and not a fully realized vision. As previously noted, the script veers into absurd one too many times for this sense of reality being stranger than fiction to have a chance to establish a footing, or simply, too feel convincing and compelling. As maybe it should have been. From the technical standpoint, I've found the usage of shaky cam very innapropriate for the story being potrayed and rather detrimental to the enjoyability of the film. But missed opportunities in the script feel more jarring to me, to be terribly bothered with this specific directorial choice.
It is definitely a more satisfying film than Nymphomaniac, but again feels too sketchy, too undisciplined, it's hard to embrace it. Despite being a fan of self-referential, meta filmmaking, I think this specific approach does this film a disservice. A more subtle, distanced angle, would do this story, keeping the same structure, wonders. It just so obvious that von Trier has the chops for a much more compelling film. You can sense is so many times during the course of this film, that you feel frustrated witnessing how he opts for another direction repeatedly.
Lars von Trier is a marvelous director, a talented visionary willing to tap into uncharted territories, and because of his prestige he is able to secure solid budgets for his film projects, as well as A listers probably doing the work for a discount, just to be in a Lars von Trier film. In that sense, his every new project is an exciting event for any film buff. But after these last two endeavors, I'm personally starting to lose interest. I'm simply convinced that discipline is important in art, and von Trier, at the current stage of his artistic career, chooses to blatantly disregard it, with weak results.
Worth being seen, but don't expect to be very impressed.

**Overall : a self-aware satire that takes joy in ridiculing overused horror movie tropes in hilarious and, at times, heartwarming ways.**
Tucker and Dale vs. Evil is a delightful satire of stereotypical teens trying to survive an attacker in the woods horror movies. I laughed nonstop from start to finish. This dark comedy hilariously mocks horror trope after horror trope producing a wonderfully funny film that horror and cinema fans will most appreciate. Still, anyone who has ever seen a slasher movie would also find it entertaining and amusing. Even with its dumb fun, Tucker and Dale somehow finds a way to make you care for the main characters and root for their survival. This movie is a hidden gem for any movie fan.

Bloody and Bloody Hilarious.
Tucker & Dale vs Evil is directed by Eli Craig who also co-writes the screenplay with Morgan Jurgenson. It stars Alan Tudyk, Tyler Labine, Katrina Bowden and Jesse Moss. Music is by Michael Shields and Andrew Kaiser and cinematography by David Geddes. Plot has Tudyk and Labine as two harmless mountain/country men who head to their newly acquired vacation home in the woods to fix it up and get some R & R. But after a misunderstanding at a roadside store with some college kids, who think Tucker & Dale are hillbilly psychopaths, the wheels are set in motion for a bloody battle for survival, but who for?!
In 1996 Scream came slashing forward to inject witty life into a fading horror genre, with freshness and inventive splinters from the slasher formula, Wes Craven's movie rocked the horror faithful's world. Tucker & Dale vs Evil will not have the same impact, its limited release and low budget worth ensured it never had a chance of being a big thing, but still it's the freshest horror/comedy to have come out since Scream made its bloody bow at the box office.
It's such a simple idea at the core, you have to wonder why it wasn't thought of before? Craig and Jurgenson have flipped the age old Hillbilly Killers vs Preppy College Kids idea on its head, and in the process smothered it gleefully with dark humour, laugh out loud moments and inventive deaths. There's also some social comedy nestled nicely in the narrative, big points about first impressions and ideas of stereotypes, and hell yes! There's even an opposites attract arc - though that admittedly helps to bog the picture down as the central joke premise runs out of steam towards the end. In fact were it not for a relatively sloppy finale, this would surely be falling into sub-genre classic status. Thankfully all that comes before it is so full of vim and vigour, blood and bluff and fun and frolics, it's not hard to forgive the debut director his one misstep.
The neat trick is having the film unfold from the Hillbillies viewpoint, where the carnage that unspools gets increasingly difficult for them to explain, this in spite of their innocence. Each death is logical to the college kids who go on the attack when one of their number, they think, is kidnapped. And it's logical to us the audience as well, were it not for us being privy to these wonderfully funny sequence of events, we too would have them hung, drawn and quartered after a guilty verdict was reached in 10 seconds. This is the ultimate horror/comedy flip-flop movie. So many funny sequences light up the picture, with a chainsaw scene one of the finest moments to have ever graced a horror comedy movie, but the dialogue, too, is not found wanting in the fun and charming department. Cast are on top form, with Tudyk & Labine a most agreeable double act, where their comedy timing is impeccable, and Bowden & Moss are more than just pretty faces.
Craig (Sally Field's son) has started with a bang, if he can top this then he is a name to really get excited about. If he can't top it? Well he will at least always have one of the best horror comedy movies on his CV. Yes it's that good, fans of Scream, Severance, Shaun of the Dead and Zombieland should seek it out post haste. 8.5/10

A bit of a breath of fresh air is this in a low budget and yet well produced comedy horror that gives Død Snø and the likes a run for their money. Tucker & Dale Vs Evil follows two redneck hillbillies- Tucker (Alan Tudyk) and Dale (Tyler Labine) who head into the woods in the Appellation Mountains so that they can drink some beers, do some fishing and fix up a worn down cabin to turn it into the holiday home of their dreams.
At the same time a group of preppy college kids are on a camping trip into the same woods also to have a good time. After a couple of run ins with the hillbillies, they assume that they must be your stereotypical inbred manic chainsaw wielding killers right out of Deliverance or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. So when one of the kids Allison (Katrina Bowden) is rescued from drowning by the hillbillies, prejudice and paranoia reign supreme with the others mistaking it as her being hauled away in a kidnapping attempt. So they embark on a mission to rescue her from her saviours with hilarious consequences.
Despite the premise of the movie being based on one long running joke of a massive misunderstanding, the story remains fresh and the scenes extremely funny for the majority. I'm not aware of any other movie that has done this type of role reversal with hillbillies in this type of scenario and managed to blend in the right amount of comedy with horror and gore. In fact across all the genres, it is not often that you get to see the perspective of the 'bad guys' (far from it in this film).
The best moments come from the writing as we follow the bickering between Tucker and Dale as a bromance emerges on screen. Both Tudyk (aka Steve the Pirate from Dodgeball) and Labine impress making the characters extremely likeable and charming so that by the end you really do care what happens to them. Bowden plays her part solidly as well and definitely brings some eye candy to the film!
Most of these types of films tend to lose their drama element but this keeps the anticipation and as I said, you end up really caring about what is going to happen to the characters. However, the only major fault that I can pick out is that despite all this, it does begin to fade as a spectacle in the last 15 minutes as they focus a bit too much on the back story and tying up loose ends when what they were doing up to that point was more than enough in my books.
It's usually hard to combine the right amount of comedy and horror without creating a somewhat tacky result so credit must go to the new guy on the block- director and co-writer Eli Craig. If you are looking for a unique comedy horror that has a chance of hitting cult status/settling in nicely behind Shaun of the Dead then you need look no further than this.
For more reviews, visit www.ireviewfilms.com

Motel manager “Bobby” (Willem Dafoe) tends to turn a bit of a blind eye to a few of his longer-term residents so long as they toe the line and don’t disturb the equilibrium of things at their residence a stone’s throw from the Walt Disney estate in Orlando. One such beneficiary of this benign attitude is “Halley” (Bria Vinaite) who lives, largely on welfare and her wits, with her feisty young daughter “Moonee” (Brooklynn Prince). They are regularly a pain in his neck, but he knows that they aren’t going to do any real harm and that, more importantly, they have nowhere else to go. As the summer months arrive, though, “Halley” begins to bite the hands that feed her just once to often and when her attitude starts to attract the attention of the authorities - concerned about the well-being of her daughter, things start to become harder and harder for this couple to stay together and for “Bobby” to continue to help out. It’s quite ironic that this glorified homeless hostel sits so closely to the wonders of the Disney castle, and that contrast is well made. Unfortunately I just found, though, that this woman was just too much the architect of her own predicament to engage with and even though I could appreciate the efforts of the well-meaning “Bobby”, I found my interest in this family dwindling as the constant stream of expletives and thoughtless behaviour rendered the whole thing uninteresting. The acting from Vinaite and Prince is compellingly natural, especially towards the denouement, but somehow I felt that I ought to have cared more about their situation and any solution way more than I actually did. Is it supposed to be an indictment of a hopeless/helpless working class? If it is, it merely succeeds in depicting an obnoxious woman who has little interest in compromising or improving her own lot in life in an irritatingly “entitled millennial” sort of fashion. Dafoe doesn’t really say much - not that he gets much opportunity, and when he does he doesn’t really develop his character sufficiently. Too much is left to our own perceptions of and sympathies for these people and I just didn’t want to bother after the umpteenth bout of adult petulance. “Halley” might be trying to protect her daughter, but that kind of protection nobody needs - six years old or no and the angry and aggressive writing here just made me turn off.

I think Wayne put it best when he said: _"Don't, uh... Don't care much for kids, so..."_
_Final rating:★★½ - Not quite for me, but I definitely get the appeal._

"Sean Baker’s neo-realistic eye for humour, honesty and heartbreak has crafted a slow burn, potent commentary on America’s struggling underclass..."
Read the full review here: http://screen-space.squarespace.com/reviews/2017/10/4/the-florida-project.html

_The Florida Project_ is a beautiful film about people and life and survival. Sean Baker has shown us the underbelly of American culture that we normally don't get to see; these people aren't known and are the outcasts of society. Much like Andrea Arnold's masterpiece from last year, _American Honey_, this film brings to light many issues that are insanely topical in the current American political climate such as classism and racism.
Gorgeously shot on 35mm, this film is a feast for the eyes. It uses every colour in the crayon box from the gloriously purple exterior to the dilapidated Magic Kingdom motel to the impossibly bright oranges, reds, and greens of the local shops where the kids venture every day. While plasticky and candy-like during the day scenes, the film is even more stunning at sundown - the dusty, sun-drenched shots here are sublime.
Everyone has been abuzz about Willem Dafoe's performance in this. He's absolutely charming and is the glue that holds these dejected people's lives together in this film. He's the father figure to all of them and he does the absolute most with his character. The breakthrough star of this film, however, is 7-year-old Brooklynn Prince. She's an absolute superstar. During the Q&A at the North American premiere she wore a baby blue princess gown and simultaneously waved like Queen Elizabeth II and blew kisses at the audience as they gave her a standing ovation. Child performers lately have been better and better - remember how good Jacob Tremblay was in _Room_? Just you wait for Prince to wow you in this. She has a scene at the very end of the movie that requires her to break down and cry and it tore my heart out.

I've been expecting a drop-off from this series and it has finally come. Admittedly, it still isn't all that bad.
'Hotel Transylvania: Transformania' is basically what I expected its past entries to be like, at least the most recent two. I mentioned in my 'Hotel Transylvania 3: Summer Vacation' review that the watchable plots were the only thing I was enjoying about these flicks (cast/characters being extremely meh, same again here) so one was bound to slip up eventually.
This one I found to be quite boring, if not terrible. Focusing heavily on just Dracula and Johnny was a bad call, especially given Adam Sandler's absence as the former. I actually wouldn't have predicted that the film would've missed Sandler (given my aforementioned thoughts), but it's a case of you don't know what you've got until you lose it because Brian Hull is a lame replacement; nothing against him personally, of course!
The setting of South America just takes out any 'Hotel Transylvania'-y vibes too, so another wrong decision in my opinion. Here, the story isn't interesting enough to, like across 1 to 3, cover for the gaps in location, cast, characters etc. - at least in my eyes.
Still harmless and all that, just lacking oomph.

_Hotel Transylvania: Transformania_ had a lot of obstacles relating to its release and after viewing the film you can understand why. It’s a lukewarm sendoff that mostly feels like a lethargic attempt to recapture its former glory. It’s built around an entertaining concept that it doesn’t fully capitalize on. It ultimately obliterates character traits for trite gags and cliché punch lines.
**Full review:** https://hubpages.com/entertainment/Hotel-Transylvania-Transformania-2022-Review-A-Monstrous-Monstrosity

This has got to be the ultimate cinematic illustration of the strata of human existence. Whether it be a story of the survival of the fittest; the cleverest; the most devious; most beautiful - or a hybrid of some/all - it reflects poignantly how humanity always seeks to exist within a hierarchical structure (merited or otherwise, but perfectly epitomised here by the matriarchal, deific robot), but how much more effectively mankind can succeed if it accepts and values everyone and works together. It also clearly identifies the perennial problem of those with the brain always ending up far more successful, comfortable - and powerful than those who do the labour. Hence, this wonderful tale from Fritz Lang takes us to "Metropolis" - a totalitarian - though not necessarily intentionally malevolent - society, in which everyone has their place and role. Except, that is - for the son of the "Master". Like many a fickle youth; he has little to occupy his time and his meaningless existence leaves him ripe for new ideas. When he takes pity on a recently sacked employee of his father and shortly afterwards is exposed to a lifestyle he couldn't even have imagined, the story starts to gain a thought-provoking and unstoppable pace. The score magnificently guides us from the drudgery of day-to-day-life through the emancipating revolution that inevitably follows, with all of the ill-foreseen, largely devastating consequences - like a bottle of champagne that has been shaken, sooner or later the cork pops! It is also a story of love between the son and a woman way, way, way beneath his station. Yes, there is light on the sunlit uplands - and much like a forest fire that destroys all in it's path; this film clearly suggests at the end that hope and optimism will triumph and a green shoots of recovery starts to grow again... It also, as a piece of cinema, is clearly the inspiration for so many directors, cinematographers and story tellers that followed...

Metropolis is one of the greatest films ever made. It's amazing set design, brilliant cinematography, groundbreaking special effects and futuristic story truly makes it one of the must-sees in cinema!
It is set in the future, in a city called Metropolis where the citizens are divided into two groups: workers (who live under the ground and are working 10 hour shifts by enormous machines that keeps Metropolis working) and the royals (living in luxury in the great city on the surfice). And over them all, is the creator of Metropolis: Joh Fredersen (Alfred Abel). His son Freder (Gustav Fröhlich) falls in love with a woman of the working-class called Maria (Brigitte Helm) who preaches that a mediator will come and create peace and equality for both workers and royals. Joh Fredersen sees Maria as a big threat agains his "order", so he and the inventor Rotwang (Rudolf Klein-Rogge) kidnaps her and copies her appearence onto a robot, which will destroy the workers faith in Maria. However, Rotwang secretly plans to programme the robot to make the workers destroy the city and crush Joh Fredersen, as an act of vengeance against Fredersen for a sin he committed in the past...
Lang made this film in 1927, and it was a huge blockbuster event of that year. However, after the premiere, the US distributor heavily cut down the film, and thereafter the original version was considered lost for almost a decade. In 2008 they found the original version in Argentina (very damaged, but watchable), which became the basis for the most recent reconstruction (2010). If you are going to watch this movie (as I highly recommend that you do!) that's the version to watch!
Overall, Metropolis is a REALLY REALLY great movie, that you, once again, MUST watch!
I give it a 10/10

This isn't so much a movie, as a stark - almost biblical - lesson on the reap and ye shall sow principle. Thomas Jane is unhappily married to Molly Parker. When she decides it is time to sell up their small ranch (complete with fields of tall corn!), he hits on the idea of disposing of her. He ropes in his 14 year old son Dylan Schmid and what follows is a rather beautifully shot story of retribution (divine or man-made) on the pair. This is more of a cross-thread of what happens to the two men dealing with the consequences, than a story with a narrative, and that is where the film really slows down to a rather ponderous grind. It was only ever a short-ish story from Stephen King so it was always going to be tough to properly string it out for 100 minutes and though atmospheric, it is really just a rather procedural plod of a film with little about the two men to engage sympathy. At times the imagery is graphic, but not in an especially potent way, and the dialogue seems to take for ever to make the point we have long guessed for ourselves much earlier. More of a moral message than a movie...

***There’s always another way than murder***
Two members of a corn-farming family in 1922 Nebraska commit a crime and get away with it, but do they really? Thomas Jane and Molly Parker play the parents while Dylan Schmid is on hand as the son, who’s about 15.
Released in 2017, “1922” is a haunting crime drama/period piece with elements of horror, unsurprisingly based on a Stephen King story of the same name. The confined farm location, tone and even genre are akin to films like “The Messengers” (2007), “Husk” (2011) and “Signs” (2002). There’s also a nod to “Bonnie and Clyde” (1967).
Thomas Jane should’ve gotten an award for his performance, as he literally disappears in the role and is unrecognizable. His farm hick accent is so thick I strongly recommend using the subtitles.
The themes revolve around disloyalty, the danger of allowing hostility (hatred) to fester, the abuse of authority/manipulation and the power of conscience.
The film runs 1 hour, 42 minutes and was shot, believe it or not, in Western Australia. Additional cast: Kaitlyn Bernard appears as the kid’s neighbor girlfriend and Neal McDonough her father.
GRADE: B

Thomas Jane's accent might be pretty hard to understand, and the story is just a just a plot you've already seen put through the Stephen King's _Children of the Corn_ wringer, but that doesn't stop 1922 from being another Stephen King adaptation we can put in 2017's "Good" column, alongside _It_ and _Gerald's Game_ (and decidedly not alongside _The Dark Tower_).
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

I found this to be a quite enjoyable family movie derived from the Peter Pan story we all love. I am not really sure why it holds a fairly mediocre rating on most rating sites. It is undeserved as far as I am concerned.
The movie is a prequel which tells the story of how Peter became Peter Pan. I think the story is fairly well done and allows for both adventure and humor.
The characters are pretty good although I found Peter Pan to actually be the weakest of them. Hook and Tiger Lily not to mention Blackbeard stole quite a lot of my attention. Peter Pan is not bad just a little…bland.
The movie is darker and more real than other Peter Pan movies. Blackbeard is a rather nasty villain and there are certainly more danger for the good guys in this movie. People do not just get nocked down and come back, they really die.
The special effects are not bad. I quite liked the pixie swarms at the end of the movie. Also, unlike what some reviewers state Peter Pan does fly in the movie. I can only assume that those who state that he does not never bothered to see the movie to the end. Do not review a movie if you cannot be bothered to finish it for Christ sake!
The movie leaves a bit of a whole between the end of this story and the beginning of the traditional Peter Pan story. What happened to make Peter and Hook become enemies and what is the story between Hook and the crocodile for instance? I certainly would not mind a second movie about that.

> Its when Peter stepped into the Neverland for the first time.
Usually everyone loved growing up watching the various film adaptations of original work by JM Barrie's a century old creation, 'Peter Pan'. There are plenty of unofficial prequels and sequels were also made and met success. Yet this prequel with high budget and modern technology, but not a Disney film, generated some expectations with stars like Hugh Jackman and Rooney Mara in it.
The box office was not as expected, and the movie was also just above average, but I liked the performances and visuals. The story is about an orphan Peter who becomes a Pan, a leader to 'the lost boys'. The opening line goes like this: 'Sometimes friends begin as enemies and enemies as friends' and that's what the rest of the movie evolves.
I don't think I liked this story. In all the prequels, I loved the Nick Willing's 'Neverland' who is a master of prequels to all the greatest fairytales. I disappointed with this only because of lack of the depth in narration, short storyline and quick scenes, other than that it was not a bad flick to me. The main relief was, it was not like the recent 'Alice in Wonderland' style movie with the weird costumes, makeups and the character physiques.
Despite all the negative feedback for this flick, I feel it won't hurt for a one time watch. My eye is now on its sequel, because before the Wendy's introduction there's another story is to be told and that is between Peter and Hook. But now it's on doubt over the result of this movie. Anyway, I'm on for it and hope it only gets better than the original.
6/10

As likened to an innocuous fairy tale rash, the movie mythology surrounding J.M. Barrie’s classical kiddie character “Peter Pan” comes and goes when it pleases. Naturally there have been several big screen interpretations to outlast one’s reserved stash of pixie dust to fling around. From perhaps the best known animated film adaptation of Walt Disney’s nostalgically revered version to the surprisingly big-budgeted Steven Spielberg-directed spectacle dud Hook with a high-caliber cast the legend of “The Boy That Never Grew Up” seems to spark the challenge of presenting yet another spin on Barrie’s iconic treasured tyke.
In director Joe Wright’s sci-fi fantasy action-adventure Pan the familiar factors of Barrie’s magical Boy Wonder are evident and should serve as a mild and manufactured revisit to the “Peter Pan” folklore for children of all ages. However, the whimsical aspect of Pan was dubiously overshadowed, overproduced yet curiously understated in its ability to convey a storytelling moment that did not seem laborious. Consequently, Pan feels mechanical and never quite settles in with any sense of breezy charm or youthful balance of wonderment. Instead, the audience is left wondering about the uniqueness and distinctive approach to an already ubiquitous serving of Barrie’s celebrated literary lad. Despite the vibrant visuals and the given big screen blueprint for “Peter Pan’s” endearing legacy Wright’s toothless tale of flashy action and adventure may just prove to be another proverbial flash in the Pan.
Clearly, there is no rhyme or rhythm to tamper with the built-in concept of what the majestic make-up for “Peter Pan” should be conceived in the minds of generations that were subjected to Barrie’s boundless boy. Still, Wright and Jason Fuchs fail to capture any fresh imagination or intrigue about the puppy dog-eyed youngster’s on-screen by-the-dots adventures. This pumped-up project is pedestrian at best and nothing more than another sparkled rung in the “Peter Pan” ladder of box office hits-and-misses. The casting for Pan is decent enough but the shoddy material they are left to elevate with their included presence is wasted in a stillborn fantasy odyssey that cannot overcome its own creative indifference.
Pan seeks to start out with its own embedded twist by delivering this narrative as a prequel set in 1940’s London. Here, we are introduced to 12-year old Peter (Levi Miller) whose disillusionment continues to spiral while staying at the chaotic Catholic orphanage he was unceremoniously dumped off courtesy of his desperate mother (Amanda Seyfried). Nevertheless, Peter maintains some semblance of hope that his mother will soon return to fetch him and all should solve whatever abandonment issues he has at hand.
Soon, Peter and his fellow orphanage buddies will succumb to the clutches of Blackbeard the Pirate (Hugh Jackman). Evidently bad boy Blackbeard had been a notorious busy beaver by sadistically kidnapping working class children and shipping them off to his Neverland mines to toil there. However, Blackbeard and his bunch cannot be too bad to tolerate since they welcome out-of-the-blue snappy sing-a-longs to such noteworthy tunes as Nirvana’s “Smells Like Teen Spirit” and the Romones’ “Biltzkrieg Bop”. Huh? Of course this impromptu musical sequence is not the only thing that seems curiously out of place in the disjointed Pan.
Okay...so Hugh Jackman has both a black beard and a black heart in PAN. How about a blackboard to erase this ill-conceived ode to the J.M. Barrie treasured tyke?
Okay…so Hugh Jackman has both a black beard and a black heart in PAN. How about a blackboard to erase this ill-conceived ode to the J.M. Barrie treasured tyke?
It is not long before the plagued Peter meets and becomes attached to a hustling drifter named James Hook (Garrett Hedlund). Yes folks…it appears that Star Wars comparisons are in order here as Peter’s Luke Skywalker teams with shifty Hook’s Han Solo to defeat the devilish Blackbeard’s Darth Vader. And you might want to ask who is the Princess Leia in this disguised Star Wars premise amid the mines and high seas? Well, in this case Princess Leia is in the form of Pan’s Tiger Lily (Rooney Mara). Thus, the gang assembles together in an attempt to thwart the iron fist of Darth Vader…er, the diabolical Blackbeard. The excitable exploits of the crew coming together to defeat the pesky pirate is meshed together with the flashy flourishes of random 3-D special effects, the vitality of color and scope and playful variations of well-known “Peter Pan” personalities. Hence, all the festive and feisty flexing that Pan demonstrates still cannot compensate for a lackluster execution of Wright’s anemic installment that botches a ready-made backstory for “Peter Pan” enthusiasts.
As Peter, Miller shows some solid and impish promise as the boy searching for self-discovery in a bizarre surrounding of despair and disappointment. Jackman’s over-the-top villainous Blackbeard is simply passable but nothing really worth hanging your hat on. Jackman’s plotting pirate will not make anyone dismiss Johnny Depp’s Captain Jack Sparrow from the Pirates of the Caribbean movies anytime soon. The added elements in supporting players such as Hedlund’s Hook and Mara’s Tiger Lily (not to mention the Lost Boys) feel synthetic and arbitrary–something not very encouraging as these characterizations are essential to the whole “Peter Pan” universe.
Unfortunately for Pan one might end up saying never mind to the boisterous yet aimless shenanigans situated in Neverland.
Pan (2015)
Warner Bros.
1 hr. 51 mins.
Starring: Levi Miller, Hugh Jackman, Garrett Hedlund, Rooney Mara, Amanda Seyfried
Directed by: Joe Wright
MPAA Rating: PG
Genre: Sci-Fi Fantasy and Adventure
Critic’s rating: ** stars (out of 4 stars)