I did not feel as positively about _You Were Never Really Here_ as most people seem to have, but I **do** absolutely recommend it. One of Jaoquin Phoenix's best roles, and that is about as far from small praise as it gets.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

The way this movie was hyped up in the press about it being the Next ‘Taxi Driver’obviously raised my expectations and Phoenix being the Antihero ah-la Travis Brickle .
Well, did I get letdown like a disappointed kid at Xmas when he didn’t get what he expected.
If Phoenix won best actor at the Sundance Festival for his performance in this film.
Then I’m decidedly in the wrong profession. He had a one dimensional character, very dark and not much else to him.
The hammer being the ‘DIY’ tool of choice , which you never actually see it nailing anything.
And there’s no real curiosity or imagination attached to the extent of him using the ‘hammer’.
If you haven’t seen ‘The Professional’
With Natalie Portman and Luc Besson and Gary Oldman as a real lunatic cop.
Then do yourself a favor and rather watch it.
I was largely disappointed in this film and it doesn’t live up to anything it’s primed to.
Not Memorable.

> A very familiar theme, as well as a small quantity entertainer.
The second movie for the director. His first, 'Project X' was an unexpected full treat. I simply loved that one, just for the entertainment's sake. I anticipated, 'Project XX' or 'Project Y', followed by 'XXX' or 'Z', but that never happened. I thought the director was setting up his own style of filmmaking, but this film did not clinch well. There's no story, just based on one evening event that stretches as far as another day by adding brief oral flashbacks to match with the rest of the storyline. But the fact is it was a comedy version of 'Hitman'.
The red band trailer I saw revealed many stuffs, but the movie still offered lots of variety from the different angles of the same stuffs. Jesse Eisenberg, I never expected him to play a character like this, he was good. But it was only a partial display, if there is a sequel, I expect that would be an uncompromised when it comes to the stunts and heroic adventure. Although I enjoyed the end credit animation.
Kristen Stewart was just hanging around, though her character had potential to be a game changer, so let's hope the sequel strengthens that part. Yeah, I'm kind of certain about the follow-up after seeing this film's ending, if they don't consider to make one, that would be theirs great loss. Anyway, the movie is a good entertainer, but not your unusual story as you expect it to be.
6/10

This movie was an extreme disappointment!
The story line is good, and it could have been a very cool movie. However, the directing goes wrong from the very beginning with the going back in time to show how we got here trick, and the voice over, narration. From there it just got worst. The acting/characters are bad, the story gets lost in it self, and the twists don't add anything to the movie.
I can't see how this is good entertainment. They could have done to the spy genre what Shaun of the Dead did to the zombie genre.

A bloke has a curse placed on him where he learns that instead of being mean, he can be creepy.
Absolutely nobody on the planet would behave like a single one of these characters, and if that weren't the case, this movie would still suck. Gets the extra star for LisaGay Hamilton & Neil Patrick Harris who, though still ridiculous, are at least endearing.
(Also he's way hotter as The Beast).
_Final rating:★½: - Boring/disappointing. Avoid if possible._

'Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason' is a totally pointless sequel. There isn't really anything substantial that happens in this, it basically goes in one big circle before finishing how it started; aside from one minute-long detail. Admittedly, it does manage to avoid being bad.
Renée Zellweger remains a plus, as do Colin Firth and Hugh Grant. With that said, this film adds nothing new to their characters, they are just replicas of themselves from the 2001 original. The film (as before) does have a charm to it, which saves it from a lower rating... too generous?

Picking up from the first outing for the ditzy "Bridget" (Renée Zellweger), she is now six weeks into her doting relationship with human rights lawyer "Mark" (Colin Firth). Thanks also to a bit of skydiving and some pigs, she is finding her broadcasting career blossoming too and with boss "Richard" (Neil Pearson) keen to build her part up, she is annoyingly partnered with smarmy old beau "Daniel" (Hugh Grant) and despatched to do a travelogue on Thailand. He's a charmer is that one, but she knows he cannot be trusted. That's successfully proven when she gets herself caught up in a drug smuggling caper and confined to a 40-to-a-cell women's prison with only one fairly hapless Foreign Office gent telling her how sticky her wicket is! Can she be rescued? Can she get back to her beloved? Of course there's not a jot of jeopardy to any of this, and in the intervening three years since the first film this character has lost much of her charm and punch. In many ways this just mirrors that story only it's not so innovative any more. There's still plenty to poke fun at amidst her sexist and accident-prone environment and Zellweger really does have the character down to an hapless T now, but I just felt I knew what was coming long before it did and the writing this time around defers all to often to the soundtrack. It's amiable enough, but a little tired and predictable.

"_You think you've found the right man, but there's so much wrong with him, and then he finds there's so much wrong with you, and then it all just falls apart._"
It feels like an extension of the first movie more than a prequel. I mean that as in it is very similar, contuing from where we left off and is still pretty funny. Lesson for me here is that overthinking is a bitch.

**A good comic film with four great actors.**
We are facing a light comedy that tries to remake a much older film that has a very similar story: three elderly people on the verge of retirement who are going to try to rob a bank. Although the film is a very welcome comedy and is not unpleasant to watch and rewatch, unfortunately, it brings to the fore a very serious problem that the USA, and other countries, insist on not solving: the precariousness in which we live when we are sick or has reached retirement age. It is not uncommon to see people who spend the overwhelming majority of their monthly income on medical and pharmaceutical care, and who find themselves on the verge of poverty due to very low pensions. The situation that it brings to us – a company that is going to close and that, through a legal device, is now able to use money from workers' pension funds to pay off part of its liabilities – is much more complicated, and I believe it could even be illegal, but the truth is that it wouldn't be surprising if it happened in real life.
Unfortunately, I haven't seen the older film yet. What I saw in this film, however, is quite good and worth our attention. The cast is led by well-known veteran actors and their work is excellent. At the same time, the situation is seen with the lightness that befits a comedy, even though it is a serious matter. The film does not need additional explanation, things happen before us, and the film pays much more attention to all the characters' problems, as well as the planning of the robbery, than to the act itself. It’s not “Ocean’s Eleven” or anything like that, there’s no roulade action or great refinement in the “art” of stealing. The intention is to make us laugh with the caricatured situation itself, and this is done in a reasonably effective way: it doesn't make us laugh out loud, but it does enough to entertain us.
If the film has any positive points to praise, it will certainly be the participation of the cast, who are far above average and deserve praise for the way they played and acted. The three protagonists – Morgan Freeman, Alan Arkin and Sir Michael Caine – are effective and create an excellent collaboration, and I would venture to say that the pleasure of seeing the four of them working together is one of this film's best assets. In the secondary cast, Matt Dillon provides welcome support as a federal agent tasked with investigating the bank robbery suspects.
The film is a regular comedy, it has no technical aspects that deserve an in-depth analysis, but what it presents to us is done with great effort and works well. The point that caught my attention the most was the bank itself, whose setting evoked old banks from the first decades of the 20th century. I discovered, in fact, that this film used a classified historic site as the setting for this bank.

'Going in Style' is a fun one!
I got more entertainment than I was expecting, given I had anticipated a somewhat half-arsed 90 minute comedy with potentially half-arsed showings from stars of yesteryear. Pleasantly, I was wrong. The more it went on, the move I enjoyed it. The one lame scene comes at the supermarket, but even that saves itself really with the addition of Kenan Thompson.
It made me laugh at a few moments, namely with the 'E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial' 'homage' and when Josh Pais' character does the cat thing the second time (it's barely visible, just about in shot) - both funny! The masks were a nice touch, too. And that last scene with Annabelle Chow & Nancy Sun is so dumb but I'm totally here for it.
It's paced well, has a strong second half and, also, features a well done bit with John Ortiz's character in there too. A swell surprise, all in all. I would happily rewatch it. Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman and Alan Arkin make for a great trio!

**In an alternative way, against all the odds, they fought it!**
This was a remake of the 1979 film of the same name. I haven't seen that, but I enjoyed this version. I did not say I liked, but very entertaining. From 'Grandma Gangster' to 'Stand Up Guys', there you could find a few more that all these films have commonalities. The old fellows try to do something out of their age and strength can cope. So, for fun, this film will do just fine.
The poster says it all, but the film reveals much detail, like with small twist and turns. Three lifelong friends suddenly feeling the heat after their pensions got messed up. Apart from that, serious health condition and other financial struggle force them to rob a bank. The film is going to tell us their preparations for the action and post heist developments with some close encounters.
No one particular, but all the three veteran actors were good. Good to see them in such energetic film, other than supporting roles in other big flicks. Zack Braff too was good at his direction. I did not like that much his previous feature film. This is a commercial film, but well done. He says it is a reboot, not a remake. And seeing decent success, there could be a sequel. Simply watch it and have fun, but don't analyse deeply, which might only disappoint you.
_6.5/10_

In a way, there was something slightly Dickensian about this story of two small urchins who regularly zip about the Mississippi river on their boat. There must have been an hurricane recently as on one stop, they discover a boat lodged firmly in the branches of a tree. After a quick inspection, they realise it's had a recent resident and as they are about to leave they are introduced to "Mud" (Matthew McConaughey). "Ellis" (Tye Sheridan) is a bit more engaged with this enigmatic stranger than his pal "Neckbone" (a solid effort from Jacob Lofland) and agrees to bring him some food and then help him fix the boat - so long as the boys can have it after! As their relationship slowly develops, we discover that there's no shortage of baggage across the lives of the youngster whose parents are separating and who is about to lose his houseboat home and the fugitive who has a story of his own to tell of love with the gorgeous "Juniper" (Reese Witherspoon) and violence. With the temperature rising and the hunt for "Mud" closing in on the boys, things become perilous and the characters have to take a good long look at themselves as they come to terms with actions past and present that will impact on their futures. McConaughey is at his most natural here; his charisma does much of the heavy lifting but it's really Sheridan who steals the show as his curiously decent character evolves from an innocence to something altogether more mature, more aware and - thanks to "Mae Pearl" (Bonnie Sturdivant) - frustratingly hormonal, too! The setting works well offering us a look at a community that has it's own way of doing things, as does the judicious amount of dialogue allowing the story to develop effectively under it's own steam delivering a bond between these two unlikely characters that emerges in quite an unexpected, and risky, fashion. It's a little more intricate than might appear on first inspection, and is worth a couple of hours.

To love or not love in Arkansas along the Mississippi
RELEASED IN 2012-2013 and written & directed by Jeff Nichols, “Mud” is a southern gothic crime drama taking place in Arkansas along the Mississippi River where two boys discover a fugitive named Mud (Matthew McConaughey) hiding out on an island and decide to help him evade the authorities & vigilantes that are on his trail in hope of reuniting him with his true love, Juniper (Reese Witherspoon).
This is a film about authentic Southern people and the code by which they live. Urbanized types usually refer to them as “rednecks.” While some of them may be “white trash,” most of them are not. They’re independent of the government, hardworking and respectful citizens, not to mention rooted in Christian morality, although not necessarily Christians. The film respects the intelligence of the viewer, leaving it to him/her to read between the lines. It’s similar to “Joe,” which was released a year later, but not as abrasively pessimistic and is overall better. In tone, it’s akin to “Undertow” (2004) and “Snow Angels” (2007). If you appreciate those flicks, you’ll like “Mud.”
There are a lot of gems to mine: Ellis (Tye Sheridan) mirrors Mud as an adolescent. Will he make the same mistakes that brought Mud to his current state? The movie’s basically a rumination on the potential in both masculinity and femininity for good or bad, but the focus is more on the toxicity of some women, which is refreshing, as Hollywood tends to paint men as evil incarnate or thoroughly inept while women are usually sterling examples of eminent nobility (Why Sure!). The film also reveals the idealization of love and how “love is blind.” Just because you truly love someone in a romantic sense doesn’t mean s/he is good for you and that you should develop & maintain a relationship.
I was never a fan of Witherspoon, but didn’t dislike her either. In any case, she’s quite good as the seemingly innocent-yet-toxic love interest. Bonnie Sturdivant is excellent as her teenage counterpart, May Pearl; they should’ve done more with her.
THE MOVIE RUNS 2 hour 10 minutes and was shot in Arkansas (Crocketts Bluff, Eudora, Dumas and Stuttgart). ADDITIONAL CAST: Sam Shepard, Michael Shannon, Paul Sparks and Joe Don Baker.
GRADE: B/B+

I eat Green Berets for breakfast. And right now, I'm very hungry!
Commando is directed by Mark L. Lester and written by Jeph Loeb, Matthew Weisman and Steven E. de Souza. It stars Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rae Dawn Chong, Dan Hedaya, Vernon Wells, James Olson, David Patrick Kelly, Alyssa Milano and Bill Duke. Music is by James Horner and cinematography by Matthew F. Leonetti.
John Matrix (Schwarzenegger) is the former leader of a special commando strike force that always got the toughest jobs done. He is forced back into action when his young daughter (Milano) is kidnapped by kingpin criminal Arius (Hedaya) and his gang of thugs. They want Matrix to carry out an assassination, but all Matrix has on his mind is to save his daughter - he has half a day to do so before the thugs will kill her - so it's now a private war...
After playing "Conan" and "The Terminator", Schwarzenegger slipped into a role that would prove to carry all the hallmarks of the big man's action movie career. Commando is awash with outrageous action, pure carnage and gruesome deaths, plenty of quippy one liners, and of course over the top villains.
Clocking in at just 90 minutes in length, it's the perfect "leave the brain at the door" popcorn crowd pleaser. Chong gets a well written lead lady part, giving us a spunky heroine who evolves as the plot grows ever more chaotic, and young Milano gets to play a resourceful child character.
High art it is not, but who cares if you want to just watch Arnie waylay a whole army on his own. Great fun. 7/10

Let the story, acting, stunt-work, script, cinematography, production value, and just about everything else all dribble away while you sit back and enjoy watching Arnie kill more than 80 antagonists in about 80 minutes.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

## Simple and entertaining.
Some call it a "guilty pleasure", and yes, it is. At times, characters and acting are like those movies you made with friends at high-school or as freshman (you did, didn't you?). A bit cardboard, but friendly fun, and over-the-top.
Well, this has a bit more budget, and Arnie in it (plus a cast of Peter Stormare, Luis Guzman, and a handful of other solid actors). But at heart, it's a simple shoot-em-up action movie; no complexity, no surprising twists. What will happen is obvious from the start, as if this was JACK SLATER VIII; how it will happen is what you get to watch.
Don't expect much, just enjoy it.

After a very long hiatus from the film industry, Arnie is back!
The Last Stand is a cheesy yet epic action movie in 2013. I recommend it as a guilty pleasure.

I was prepared to be disappointed by this comeback by Arnold Schwarzenegger. After all he is fairly far from the shape he once had. Luckily I was not. This is a quite enjoyable movie. Sure it is falls short compared to his previous really hard hitters but it is still a good movie. The plot is okay although a fairly standard one. Escaped criminal races for the border, hero sheriff (good old Schwarzy) stands in his way. Been there, seen that, done that. It is a plot that works though and the racing maniac and bridge building twist made it not feel too old.
It was fun to see Arnold in a leading role gain although he did look a bit rusty. He also felt a bit wimpier than he used to. Sure, he beat, stabbed and shot the bad guys for a good enough chunk of the movie but it was with a bit more hesitation and without the “I’m gonna kick your ass” attitude that he used to have. For being an experienced guy he, that is him in his role as the sheriff, also seemed to bungle it every now and then. The scene where he turns his back to the bad guy and, of course, gets stabbed annoyed me quite a lot for example.
It is always nice to see Peter Stormare in a movie. Not just because he is from my native country but I do like him as an actor. He put the necessary spice on the bad guys which was quite needed since, personally, I thought Gabriel Cortex was a somewhat shallow mad drug baron stereotype. Seeing him floor it or change gear became somewhat boring after the 5th or so time. Also that scene where he bumps a Suburban of the hood of the Corvette was just silly. No way would the hood, or the car for that matter, stand for that. I just do not understand why producers/directors continue do these obvious and arrogant we-think-the-audience-is-to-stupid-to-notice things. News-flash: we are not that stupid!
Forest Whitaker was not too bad as the FBI guy being screwed over and I did like Luis Guzmán as one of the sheriff’s sidekicks. Otherwise the team was somewhat bland. I guess the historical weapons guy was supposed to be funny but I mostly found him silly. The shootout between the sheriff’s team and the bad guys at the end of the movie was quite fun to watch but, at the same time, fairly silly. There was not much real life logic in how it played out. The bloody bus they used to move the machine gun into place made no sense at all for instance except as a reason to make some driving stunts with a bus.
The bottom line though is that, for me, this was a enjoyable movie and not at all the bungled comeback attempt that I was afraid it would turn out to be.

Great Comeback for Arnold. Great Action Movie!!!

I'm afraid to say that seeing this very recently on the big screen without an huge degree of audience participation showed the film up rather poorly for what is has has now become - tame! Barry Bostwick ("Brad") and new wife Susan Sarandon ("Janet") find themselves stranded in the kooky manor house of "Dr. Frank N. Furter" (the excellent Tim Curry) just as he is about to unveil his newest invention - the epitome of sexual perfection; every person's wet dream... "Rocky Horror" (Peter Hinwood). It doesn't take long for the corrupting influences to dazzle our naive newlyweds, and soon just about nothing is off limits. The superbly written, catchy songs are the stuff of movie legend, as it the marvellously camp contribution from Richard O'Brien ("Riff Raff") but 45 years on, the innuendo-ridden script and gender-bending routines have lost almost all of their punch. As a cinema experience without good company, loads of noise, fishnets and red wine - it's all just a bit flat now.

**As a film, it could be better, but it's funny and bizarre enough for us to see it at least once in our lives.**
This is one of those films that everyone should see at least once in their life. It's a pretty good comedy musical where satire meets nonsense intensely, in a film adaptation of an English play that had been successful at the time. I don't know much about the stage version, I don't even know if there are any concrete differences, but I can say that the film gives us exactly what it promises.
The story told is probably the film's biggest weakness: anyone who likes logic and a story with some consistent structure will be disappointed with this purposefully disjointed, sloppy and surrealistic script, where an innocent and foolish engaged couple ends up lost in a storm and ends up in a gothic mansion. There lives the bizarre Dr. Frank-N-Furter, a kind of mad scientist who is proudly gay, transvestite and from “Transsexual Transylvania”, presumably another planet or dimension. He has just created a man for his sexual pleasure and is celebrating this effusively with other strange characters, such as his enslaved servants.
From the moment the couple enters the mansion and meets its owner and his guests, the film stops and starts to hiccup a lot: the director had no good ideas to present from then on and limited himself to recreating the play in a cinematic environment. Obviously, the film has an intense sexual energy that challenges us to awaken our sexuality, to explore our bodies, pleasure and sexual identity. Sexual maturity, sexual identity and homosexuality are strong themes that underlie the script and fit well into the era in which the film appeared (remember, the Sexual Revolution was still leaving its marks at this time). Furthermore, the Counterculture was experiencing an intense moment at the time and made its aesthetic and visual contribution, which was very noticeable in the sets and costumes.
The film has some anthology-worthy scenes, such as Frank-N-Furter's personal introduction at the beginning of the film, and a very strong cast dominated by actors with unquestionable talent. Tim Curry, in his film debut, is gigantic in the lead role and absolutely dominates every scene. He's sexy, he's provocative, he's malevolent, intense and sometimes cruel. The actor gives himself completely to his work, without fear, and offers us work of absolute value. Susan Sarandon, still exuding youth, is perfect as a modest, sexually repressed and docile young woman, and Barry Bostwick seems an excellent choice for her romantic partner. Richard O’Brien and Charles Gray also do a good job, while Patricia Quinn and Nell Campbell work very well on the songs, but have little to add when the music stops. On the negative side... Jonathan Addams added very little to the film, Meat Loaf makes only one unnecessary appearance and Peter Hinwood, whose character could have been more central, is quickly discarded.
On a technical level, the film has several quality aspects that deserve our analysis and a positive comment, starting with the colorful, clear and impactful cinematography, and the elaborate and bizarre sets. The makeup and costumes are impressive, with a strong “punk” inspiration, but they look cheap. The castle where much of the film was made is beautiful and fits well into the story. Being a musical, the soundtrack is crucial and works very well. Even the less interesting songs work well from a narrative point of view, moving the film forward, with sung dialogue and the action advancing to the rhythm of the music. The opening credits song is iconic, as is “Sweet Trasvestite” which introduces us to the main character, but I confess that I especially liked “There’s a Light”. It's a very beautiful song and full of hope.

A time(warp)less classic!

Moving on from the riotous cult stage show which was born in a small studio theatre in the early 70s, this movie version is a well-cast, outrageous romp showcasing the absurdity and sci-fi obsession of Richard O'Brien's inventive musical.
The small cast - the wonderful Tim Curry as Frank 'n Furter (the sweet transvestite from transsexual Transylvania'); Barry Bostwick and Susan Sarandon as the odd science students Brad and Janet; Patricia Quinn as Magenta ('a domestic'); Little Nell as Columbia ('a groupie'), Jonathan Adams as Dr Scott; Meat Loaf as Eddie; Richard O'Brien himself as the handyman Riff Raff; Peter Hinwood as the muscle man Rocky, created by Frank in a spoof on Frankenstein; and Charles Gray having a great time as the Criminologist - are all really good, and the songs are terrific, from the madness of 'The Timewarp' and 'Sweet Transvestite', to the ethereal 'There's a Light' and 'I'm Going Home', by way of the rocky 'Whatever Happened To Saturday Night?' and the film-reference heavy 'Science Fiction Double Feature'.
Great, great fun and the floor show sequence in particular, showcasing Frank's obsession with Fay Wray and the RKO cheapies, is exceptional, with its statues in basques and its huge swimming pool. Trash, yes, but classy trash, and most enjoyable.

Bridgerton is a period drama that surprisingly featured sex scenes, but most importantly it also featured a diverse cast as well as modern music.
My only regret though is that the couple could've continued the rues until the last two episodes, and them getting married would've been in the second series.
But I suppose it is uncertain if there would be a second series, despite high praises from viewers. In any case, whether or not there will be a second series, the ending left this series on a suitable high note.
The show was entertaining and the casts' performance exemplary, with very intriguing storylines and lastly the surprising twist on the identity of Lady Whistledown.

'Buried' mostly delivers, the ending is what makes me definitively say that I had a positive time. The film does build tension nicely, it feels claustrophobic without a doubt. It is also paced competently, impressively so given its one location setting (credit to Ryan Reynolds).
The only criticism I hold is that the film makes the lead character kinda unlikeable early on, which really shouldn't be the case given it ought to be a tap-in to make you care for Paul Conroy given the plot's nature. To me, in moments, he came across more dick-y than panicked.
That kinda led me down the garden path in terms of predicting how it was going to all end, one on my (half-baked) theories was that it was going to head in a 'Butterfly on a Wheel'-esque (great movie, fwiw) direction. It didn't, of course, but the unpredictability was satisfying.
I'm perhaps being harsh or was overanalysing with the unlikability factor. Either way, it doesn't really matter all that much because I still think of this in a good way post-watch. Well worth seeing.

Despite the fact that there are quite a few plot holes in this quite tautly put together drama, Ryan Reynolds might actually have turned in one of the best performances of his career, here. Perhaps that's because he awakens to find he's been buried in a big wooden box with only an hip flask, torch and his phone. He's been in Iraq driving for an American truck company when it was attacked and he's now the subject of a $5millions ransom demand. Over the next ninety minutes he has to use the phone and his wits to try to track down some phone numbers who can help find his particular hole in the ground. This, bear in mind, is before we all had GPS on our telephones - so it's quite a frantic affair as he begins to realise the dangers of his predicament. There's also quite possibly one of the most obnoxious phone calls I've ever heard between him and his ass-covering personnel director that really did have me shouting "lie, for God's sake" at the screen. This gives Reynolds a chance to ditch his pretty boy image and try to imbue his character with a degree of claustrophobic frenzy from a staring start - and I think he does it quite well. It has a sinister plausibility to it, and as to the denouement - well there's nothing straightforward about that, either. Worth a watch, I'd say.

I really LOVE this movie ! I love films like this and “Entrapped . A Day of Terror” , entirely shooted inside one claustrophobic location :-) only a perfect screenplay can make the film Adrenalinic and not annoying, as of course the set is on few square mq2 !

Interesting and entertaining movie getting the maximum from just an actor and a coffin. However, you will feel cheated every now and then when you see how the coffin seems to enlarge and shrink.

**An elegant and moving film about family, family values and how they change and adapt to new times.**
Overall, I liked this movie. Skillfully directed by Alexander Payne, the film tackles several issues around a Hawaiian family in apparent disintegration: while his wife is in a coma due to an accident, and the doctors are deciding what to do, the protagonist has to take responsibility for the education and guidance of his two daughters, each troubled in her own way, and to decide what to do with a huge portion of still virgin land that her family owns on one of the Hawaiian islands, and which is all that remains of an inheritance that dates back to the times of the last Hawaiian kings.
Although the film is sometimes considered a very light comedy, I didn't see anything comical or funny here, and I prefer to think of this film as a family film, that is, whose focal point is the family and the way the family works. Being myself from an aristocratic family (albeit without fortune or privileges), I understand very well the relevance of family past, ancestors and the weight of an inheritance, especially being as old as the one in this film. And personally, I can see myself in the way Matt King, the main character, decides to deal with this, right at the end of the movie. He made the same decision I would have made.
George Clooney is the lead actor, and he's in excellent shape, he did a really good job, and he was really believable and authentic in the way he played his character. I liked the way he approaches the problems, and also the very positive collaboration that was established between him and the young Shailene Woodley. She proved to be very competent in the way she gave life to the couple's eldest daughter, an angry and troubled teenager who has problems with drugs and alcohol, and who, however, seems to have a very valid reason for all the revolt. Amara Miller also does an interesting, albeit more discreet, job. There are, however, actors who don't do so well: Patricia Hastie is never convincing, Beau Bridges has almost no relevance in the film and Nick Krause is simply annoying and always seems to be left, in the plot and in the scene.
Technically, it is a fairly regular film, which bets little on effects or visual artifices and prefers to give the actors more space to shine, taking advantage of the good quality of the script and direction. Thus, the emphasis is entirely on the good quality of the cinematography, which wonderfully uses the landscapes of the Hawaiian Islands, fully honoring the archipelago and its great scenic beauty. We have excellent plans that highlight the bright blue sea and the intense green of the forests, as well as good perspectives on urban life, cities or traffic. The colors and lighting were well-crafted and the film never feels lukewarm or too still thanks to a good editing job and a pleasant pacing. The soundtrack is also excellent and makes a very interesting use of some Hawaiian melodies, calm and harmonious.

I really like this movie...
I've watched it many times and am always entertained. I like the Hawaii locations, the young Woodley, Clooney's clumsy but morally accommodating character, and the confrontations with
life's inevitable surprises. All the characters gel, and the
story moves forward with some sadness as well as some laughs.
8 out of 10 stars