Sorry, but this movie was unwatchable for me. The premise is clever enough. The wife of a romantically unavailable husband has a fatal accident and he's forced to repair his relationship with his alienated daughters. It's good chick-flick material and no doubt, all the women scored it high and not only because of George Clooney. I normally love his work, but this premise is so poorly executed in this film that even he can't find a solid stage on which to base his acting. There are too many good movies out there to waste time watching this one.

Great watch, would watch again, and can recommend.
If you're accepting or even intrigued by the case of Jack the Ripper, then this should be a great murder mystery for you.
Johnny Depp, opinions aside, does confused, drug-addicted, and detective all well. Heather Graham is able to emote and elevate her role wonderfully, despite it basically being a damsel role.
Almost everyone else is old British guy, and it really feels like the complex mystery and drip-fed information investigation is really what makes the movie stand out.
Fortunately, despite the movie still being somewhat gruesome, it's not a complete gore-fest, so there is very little to distract from the investigation aspect of the movie except for a ill-found romantic entanglement.

From Alan Moore, the Hughes brothers and Johnny Depp
RELEASED IN 2001 and directed by the Hughes brothers, "From Hell" details the Jack the Ripper slayings in the slummy Whitechapel district of London in autumn, 1888. Johnny Depp plays an opium-addicted detective while Robbie Coltrane appears as his colleague. Heather Graham is on hand as a prostitute that captures the Detective’s interest.
The film was based on Alan Moore’s graphic novel of the same name. Moore condemned the change of his "gruff" version of Frederick Abberline with an "absinthe-swilling dandy,” referring to the protagonist played by Depp. In real life, there’s no evidence that Abberline “chased the dragon” or that he had “psychic visions.” Speaking of real life, Moore’s graphic novel was based in large part on the royal conspiracy theory popularized in Stephen Knight's 1976 book “Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution.” This is one of several theories on the identity of the slayer. True or (probably) not, it makes for a good story.
“From Hell” plays like a Hammer film, but with a blockbuster budget in the modern era. A couple of comparable Hammer flicks are “Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed” (1969) and “Taste the Blood of Dracula” (1970). “From Hell” even shares a minor subplot with the latter (high society ‘gentlemen’ in the Victorian era secretly partaking of taboo hedonistic pleasures). Like Hammer’s Gothic horror catalog, you can expect top hats & black coats, cobblestone streets, alluring women, a ghastly killer (or monster) and lush colors.
THE MOVIE RUNS 2 hours, 2 minutes and was shot in Prague, Czech Republic, and England (Boscastle & Goldings).
GRADE: B

I went into this having only seen 'The Book of Eli' by these directors, The Hughes Brothers. I quite liked that film, although I did feel their vivacious stylizations interfered with the telling of the story. Seeing this earlier film of theirs confirmed that suspicion, though it's still a fine film. Though Johnny Depp (the brothers' 5th choice for the lead) does a fine job as the film's protagonist (I haven't read Alan Moore's graphic novel yet, so I can't say how this filmic adaptation compares), it certainly would have been interesting to see how any of their previous choices would have done (in order of their preference): Daniel Day-Lewis, Sean Connery, Jude Law and Brad Pitt (but especially either of the first two). It has a fine supporting cast, is beautiful to look at and is consistently intriguing. I especially liked Heather Graham (I think this is solidly amongst her best work), Ian Holm, Robbie Coltrane and, most significantly, Katlin Cartlidge. Boy, do I ever miss her in films made ever since.

I cannot say that I am an outright fan of old era British crime stories but I do fancy them now and then. This one is a rather dark, grim and gloomy story perfectly suitable as a evening movie at this time of the year when darkness already starts to come quickly and matches the candlelight mood of Victorian London.
I found this a quite nice movie. Well up to its very end which I have to admit is way too tragic for my taste. The voyage to the end was well worth watching though. The dark scenery is very well done. Beautiful and depressing at the same time. It is yet another Jack the Ripper based story and it is pretty much pure fiction loosely based on the character of Jack the Ripper. It is a good and well implemented story though and it was enjoyable to follow Inspector Abelard unravel to true reason behind the murders.
As far as I am concerned the acting was without any major faults and generally of high standard although it is perhaps a bit sad that Johnny Depp again proves that he plays best in roles that portrays a more or less crazy, even insane, character.
The movie is not as gory as one perhaps and it certainly would not classify as a horror movie. Most of the violence is hidden from the viewer although there are a couple of scenes which are a wee bit “splattery” but only if you really have a weak stomach for these things and if you do perhaps you should not watch serial killer movies in the first place.
The ending took a star or two off this movies rating but otherwise it was surprisingly enjoyable.

"Eva" (Tilda Swinton) and "Frank" (John C. Reilly) do make for quite an unlikely couple but that they become, marrying and having a son. He's the eponymous child with whom she simply cannot bond. She only has to look at him and he bursts into tears, or fills his nappy. She must persevere, though, hoping as he ages that things might improve. Fat chance! Indeed, when the couple have a daughter, this seems to make matters between her and him (now Jasper Newell) even worse. He's not a very pleasant character, it has to be said, and as he ages further (into Ezra Miller) he knows exactly which buttons to press ensuring both her compliance to his wishes most of the time, and that has the most miserable time whilst he plays up to his father and pretends friendship with his sister. Now dad maybe didn't think it through when he gave the youngster a toy bow and arrow set, especially as that becomes a more serious hobby for a "Kevin" who has malevolent tattooed on his forehead. You just know things are going to end badly, but maybe not quite as horrifically as they do in the conclusion. I like Miller, and I think here he adds a strong degree of calculation to his portrayal of the flawed "Kevin". He also worked increasingly effectively with an on-form Swinton whose exasperation becomes more palpable as she reaches the end of her tether, time and time again. It's delivered by way of a retrospective, so we have some clue as to the fact that something heinous happened, but we have to follow the plot to discover just what led to the scenario in which we find our story related. There's not a great deal of dialogue and what there is is reminiscent of many a parental conversation with a non-communicative child whom it's tempting to just throw under a passing bus! It is a disturbing watch, but not for the sake of it. It's one of those films that gets under your fingernails a bit, and that's down to Newell, Miller and Swinton creating a psychological maelstrom that's quite chilling.

I enjoyed this, although I felt that it had potential to be really special. The direction was overall solid, with great audio and visuals beats that are present throughout the entire film. It creates subtle and eerie tension that continues to grow until the sinister climax of the film. Tilda Swinton was great and was really the only performance that stood out. John C. Reilly was such a weird choice, I do not really see him as a dramatic actor, and it kind of showed here. Ezra Miller was fine, though I thought they were a bit exaggerated. The pacing was pretty slow, I felt there was too much build up to the finale and not all of it was warranted. Two hours felt too long in my opinion. Overall, this is still a solid film with tremendous direction that is single handedly saved by Tilda Swinton.
Score: 52%
Verdict: Average

**How do you define a parenting failure!**
The film was based on the book of the same name, directed by a Scottish director. A psychological thriller, one of those what some people feel uncomfortable watching it. The film holds a suspense from the past event, it is not going to be revealed until the final quarter. Till then makes us to keep guessing it. Followed by the pieces of flashback, the story of a mother who struggled to raise his first born, a boy named Kevin was told.
It takes us to show how happy she was before. Once she got pregnant, everything changed in her life forever. She failed to understand her son. Ever since he was a baby, he had given her a lot of trouble. When he reaches his teenage, it becomes even more complication to her to handle him and events around him. But a big blow is what shocks the entire neighbourhood and her life turns a hell.
Shot within a month. Tilda Swinton's one of the best, maybe the best of all the bests. She should have been nominated for the Oscars. I think that's one of the greatest snub ever. The supporting cast was amazing too, including John C. Reilly in a small part and particularly those Kevins from different ages. The overall tone was great, the atmosphere was created perfectly to the kind of story it dealt.
I should have watched it earlier, but you know the type of film we look for and moods, all some times influence to miss a film narrowly. Anyway, it was on my watch list and I am finally going to scratch that off. It was a good film, but there's nothing special. The theme was strong, and seems like straight out of a real event, particularly these things are common in the United States. So if you are an American or familiar with the American culture, it will interest you.
This is not as inspiring film, but kind of factual film like parenting failure. The end was disturbing, yet there's nothing bold revelation in the narration. Definitely an interesting take, though blaming parents, especially the mother was kind of disappointing, as well as depressing. That's why the tale was commenced since pregnant till the final twist. Actually, it was the editing tricks that make the film to have a twist. Otherwise, it is a straightforward story. Not bad for viewing once. It was slow and too long, if you think you can manage that, then you could try it.
_6/10_

Deeply disturbing and utterly engaging.
Not one I can really see myself watching again. But I'm very glad to have watched it the once. Superbly cast and acted. Brilliant photographed and amazing direction. Not to be missed for those who can handle the subject matter.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I strongly recommend you make the time._

A decent enough action thriller. Neeson, Harris, Kinnaman and Holbrook do a good job.
The direction is also good. The script is just predictable, although has some good points but, that's it. A movie to watch without doing any mental effort.

> Neeson is good at it, none other would've played better than him.
Pretty entertaining action flick with a fast paced narration. A typical Liam Neeson's movie. Take a gun and go hunt down the bad guys or protect loved ones from them kind of movie. Under his league, like always he was awesome. This has been a already heard story, like a trivia say. Yes, it was similar to 'Road to Perdition', but happens for a different reason and with the different cast. Still the movie was better that I expected.
I went speechless when I saw Neeson was begging in the opening scene. Because that's not his style, action heroes like him, Jason Statham, Bruce Willis et cetera, they don't fit in those roles. But what came just a few minutes later was like switching to second, third, fourth and fifth gear in a quick session. You know you can't judge a book by its cover, same applies for this as well. The film was good, I mean better than average, better than ratings and reviews across the web.
It was kind of unofficial 'A Man with a Gun' trilogy (I made it up) after 'Unknown' and 'Non-stop'. Because if you check it out all these three film's posters, Neeson will be seen with a gun in the similar fashion. Hope this director and actor comes together to do more movies in the future, since it is a rocking combo. Well, they all might not be the masterpieces, but enjoyable at the time of the watch. Especially it will not disappoint Neeson's fans.
7/10

A lady who sets her heart upon a lad in uniform must prepare to change lovers pretty quickly, or her life will be but a sad one.
First thing that is patently obvious is that as a visual piece of work the film has few peers, from stunning shots of rolling hills to the lavish period detail, it quite literally is breath taking. The attention to detail by director Stanley Kubrick and cinematographer John Alcott is admirable, whilst the costumes are of the highest order. I have never read the novel by William Makepeace Thackeray so have no frame of reference as regards the portrayals we witness unfolding. I have read that many find the film lacking in the humorous wit that is rife in Thackeray's page turner, yet Kubrick's take is full of satire surrounding the social standing that is the core beat of the story - well it certainly had me smiling anyways.
The film is pretty downbeat, thus, for a three hour movie it can bog down many a viewers patience. Which puts this into the movie for mood scenario bracket - because I personally wouldn't want to watch it if I was having a particularly blue day, so that is something newcomers to the film might want to bear in mind. There seems to be much division as regards Ryan O'Neal's performance in the film, and again having not read the novel I couldn't tell you if he nailed it. What I do know is that he seems perfect for the tone of the movie, and that really shouldn't be seen as a negative in my opinion. My only gripe really with it is that as a story it really doesn't engage me, I really didn't care about what happened to our title character or the assorted people close in his rapidly annoying world. Is that Kubrick's fault? Well he did his job with much style, the story just doesn't warrant a three hour epic, even when it's dressed up as splendidly as this most assuredly is. 8/10

"Event Horizon" is one of those movies that pulls you in with its eerie atmosphere and keeps you hooked with its intriguing premise. It’s a sci-fi horror that isn’t just about space exploration but dives into darker, more psychological territory. The visuals are haunting, the tension builds steadily, and the overall design of the ship itself adds so much to the unsettling vibe. From start to finish, the movie keeps you on edge, and the pacing ensures you’re never bored.
What I really appreciate about "Event Horizon" is its ability to blend genres so seamlessly. It’s a sci-fi film at its core, but the horror elements are front and center, creating an experience that feels fresh and unique. The story is easy to follow, which makes the intense moments hit even harder. You’re not trying to untangle a complicated plot; you’re just along for the ride, which makes it even more effective when things start to unravel.
While it could have benefited from a bit more character development to really drive that emotional connection, the film still manages to leave a lasting impression. It’s the kind of movie that grows on you the more you think about it. If you’re into suspenseful, atmospheric films that mix horror with sci-fi, "Event Horizon" is definitely worth checking out. It’s dark, it’s intense, and it’s an experience you won’t forget anytime soon.

Although this plot has been through the wringer a few times already, over the years, I still quite enjoyed it. A group of exploring astronauts set off to find out what happened to the eponymous spaceship that disappeared long since but has now returned! "Miller" (Laurence Fishburne) leads a team that also includes "Weir" (Sam Neill) who originally designed the enigmatic craft. Onboard, all seems fine until things start to go terrifyingly awry for this crew as they discover, quite literally, the remnants of the previous occupants floating around. Pretty quickly, they find themselves facing a shapeless foe of untold power that may well emanate from another time, certainly it does from another place. We are now presented with a creatively entertaining mix of sci-fi and light horror, with some good visual effects (especially the lighting) that complement, rather than overwhelm, the story. The acting - even from the usually stiff as a board Neill (and his creepy eyes) - makes for a well presented and exciting adventure that offers us menace, some decent dialogue and a genuine sense of peril as we edge nearer the quite uncertain denouement. Much better than I was expecting.

This is the third time seeing this one and my opinion pretty much remained the same. Some interesting ideas but not very well executed, though that's kind of Paul W.S. Anderson's style of filmmaking it would seem. Visual effects are at times iffy (the CGI in particuular) but the acting was okay and I can't say I ever was bored or mystified with what I was watching. **3.25/5**

A fantastic "horror in space" thriller led by an excellent assemble cast (Laurence Fishburne, Sam Neil, Kathy Quinlann). Do we really want to know what can be found at the edge (event horizon) of a black hole?

You know nothing. Hell is only a word. The reality is much, much worse.
Event Horizon is directed by Paul W.S. Anderson and written by Philip Eisner. It stars Sam Neil, Laurence Fishburne, Joely Richardson, Kathleen Quinlan, Richard T. Jones, Sean Pertwee, Jason Isaacs and Jack Noseworthy. Music is by Michael Kamen and orbital and cinematography is by Adrian Biddle.
2047 and a group of astronauts are sent to investigate the 'Event Horizon' which disappeared mysteriously 7 years ago. It has returned minus its crew and now the crew of the 'Lewis and Clark' become exposed to horrifying secrets of the ghost ship...
It is what it is, a haunted house chiller set on a space ship. It's derivative within the genre but it does the genre staples with no little amount of quality. The tone is set from the opening credits being accompanied by a ferociously foreboding musical score, and from there the pic delivers a "who is going to get killed and in what order" process - and why? Just what is the mystery at the core of it all?.
A great cast has been assembled, which lifts it above its "B" movie roots, so with some thoughtful ideas within the narrative, it's easy to buy into the characterisations. Naturally the blood will flow, devilishly so, but the makers here put a different slant on the sci-fi/horror assailant thread. Of course it gets a bit by the numbers come the final quarter, arguably a bit hokey in fact, but it's very effective and perfect for a lights off viewing experience.
Smart production design helps keeps up the chilly feel to proceedings, whilst the bleak tonal flows that director Anderson goes for really draws the engaged observer in. It's neither ground breaking or a top line film of its type, but holding up on repeat viewings it proves to be a sturdy and unsettling space based chiller. 7/10

In the year 2040, a spacecraft called the Event Horizon was sent out to journey among the stars with an experimental gravity drive that purported to allow faster-than-light travel. On its maiden voyage, however, it vanished. Seven years later, it has returned, orbiting Neptune, and a rescue crew is sent out to investigate, along with the scientist responsible for the ship’s creation. The rescue crew of the Lewis and Clark are a group of no-nonsense blue-collar workers, led by Captain Miller (Laurence Fishburne), with Dr. William Weir (Sam Neill) along for his expertise. When they arrive at the Event Horizon, they find the crew long dead. “This ship is a tomb,” judges Captain Miller at one point. The rescue team begins to realize that the ship passed through a black hole created by the gravity drive, but didn’t return alone. The ship with a long-dead crew shows life signs. The rescue team begins to have terrifying visions. The gravity drive begins to spin of its own accord...
Something is loose on the ship, and the rescue team has to not only unravel out what happened to the original crew, but also protect themselves from the horrors that returned with the ship. It’s a simple but sturdy setup, standard B-movie stuff. What elevates Event Horizon is its first-class production design and solid atmosphere. Paul W.S. Anderson (Mortal Kombat, Resident Evil, Alien vs. Predator) is not a name one would generally associate with good film product these days, but here he managed (in spite of himself, one may think given the rest of his output) to present a film steeped in suspense, with strong performances, gorgeous set pieces, and palpable horror.
Let’s be honest: there’s nothing new here. The strength of this film lies in how it fits together the pieces it stole from other films. This is very much (and very completely) The Shining by way of Alien, even to the point of lifting the character archetypes directly from Ridley Scott’s 1979 masterpiece. The Event Horizon is the Overlook Hotel, teeming with supernatural power and malice. The film delves into gore in its last third, but it’s not quite proficient enough to have it enhance the scares (which were doing just fine before the blood started flowing so freely). However, the film is even structured like Alien and The Shining, all slow burn and building dread until things begin to go to hell (literally, perhaps). The cast have stock characters but they bring them to life admirably, particularly Neill and Fishburne; among the secondary characters, Kathleen Quinlan, Jack Noseworthy, and Sean Pertwee are particularly memorable. The script by Philip Eisner is derivative but effective, and Anderson was clearly at the peak of his directorial prowess here. Don't misunderstand me to say that the film's lifts from other works make it bad; it's certainly not. Originality is overrated as an attribute, and fairly value-neutral even on the best of days. I'd much rather have a tale well-told than one that does weird things simply for the sake of doing weird things (French sci-fi/fantasy directors, I'm looking at you. Yes, you, Jeunet), though the greatest films find a way to combine both sturdy storytelling and originality in the medium. In total, Event Horizon is a very effective sci-fi horror film, breaking no new ground but doing what it does very well. A minor classic of the sci-fi horror genre.

> Growing up is not the problem. Forgetting is.
I usually love the French animations, because unlike American, the stories, musics, characters that influences the thousands of year cultural history. Definitely not comparable to the Hollywood standards, but it had its own technical brilliance. All I wondered was why this film was in English language.
It deserves to be on the upcoming's big occasion (2016 February), if it is eligible for the American Academy Awards. From the director of 'Kung Fu Panda' original movie, which was partially based on the children's novel. The book adaptation is the stop-motion animation and the remaining story's the regular 3D animation.
Just remember the movies like 'What Dreams May Come' and 'The Lovely Bones', those magical worlds and breathtaking landscapes. Usually animations are associated with comedy genre, especially when a child character attached to it. This film was not even a comedy, more like those two titles I mentioned.
The screenplay wise it was a very 'Neverwas' type, except this one was an animation. But appropriate for people of all ages. The kids can realise the importance of their childhood and the older people can become kids again. The film compressed the gap and erected a bridge between the two hoods, the childhood and the adulthood.
> "What is essential is invisible to the eye."
I did not know what to expect from it, but I highly satisfied with the final product. The film characters had no names, but called, the Little Girl, Mother, Fox, Rose, Snake, King et cetera as what their role is and species. Barely there are only 3-4 characters where the story was focused. Obviously it had a villain, but very unusual existence time and in a crucial part of the story.
I don't remember how the 100 minutes went so fast like a ray of the light beam flashed away. The pace of narration was not a rushy, except the opening part. But once the old man character, the Aviator, voiced by Jeff Bridge was introduced, the movie turned into completely different and awesome. Yes, Jeff Bridge's voice was so good for the background narration.
This story is about an old man who refused to grow up mentally and believes the existence of the magical stars and planets. The whole neighborhood stayed away from him and his troubles, until a new girl arrives at the next door. The little girl befriends him and falls for all his stories discarding her daily routines, but later it complicates their relationship after her mother finds out what they're up to. What happens to them and how the story concludes is the remaining part.
> "She was not a common rose.
> She was the only one of her kind in the whole universe."
This story was finely fused between the reality and fantasy. Most essential storyline for the present world. In the name of education how the children were enforced by their parents to mechanical life with less time to play out and make their own friends. Especially as they were lacking the creativity to make up their own fictional worlds with their toys like the kids from a century ago were.
It might psychologically affect their characters while becoming an adult like the Aviator in this film, but as one of lines from the movie say 'Growing up is not the problem. Forgetting is', the children are losing their innocence over the adult's reality world. Who knows, someday those kids may become the greatest writer inspired by their childhood days.
If you ask me, I strongly recommend it for all. It is very encouraging film for the parents how not to raise their children and for the grown ups how not to get lost is the adult world. Most elegant flick of the year, along with a very few others.
You don't have to ignore it because you have read the book, like I said it was not completely borrowed from the original material. Instead, two-third of the film was freshly established out of the same name masterpiece. I'm not familiar with the book, so I've no thoughts that differentiate between these two formats. But definitely the film deserved all the appreciation from critics and movie
9½/10

**_Atmospheric, dark mixture of film noir, comic book horror and sci-fi_**
A man (Rufus Sewell) wakes up one night to great mysteries: There's a dead prostitute nearby that he gets blamed for murdering, but he can't remember much of anything. Several people seek him in the ensuing night hours of the big city: a somewhat mad doctor (Kiefer Sutherland), a detective (William Hurt), his estranged wife (Jennifer Connelly), an alluring woman of the night (Melissa George) and a group of pale bald males in black trench coats. He tries to piece together reality and escape the perpetually dark city.
Alex Proyas' "Dark City" (1998) takes place entirely on elaborate shadowy sets with CGI backgrounds, etc. The first time I tried to watch it I gave up after 20 minutes. But, if you're in the right mode, it's a cool sci-fi flick with elements of film noir and mystery/horror that is thought-provoking and never devolves into predictable blockbuster dreck.
The revelations at the end are well done. In addition, Sewell makes for a top-rate protagonist and William Hurt is effective. Many complain about Kiefer's offbeat performance, but the role called for it. If you don't like it blame the writers.
On the female front you have Jennifer Connelly when she was still curvy and ravishing (by the early 2000s she lost too much weight and thus her alluring appeal). Meanwhile Melissa George is gorgeous in her small role as a call girl.
My interest in "Dark City" was spurred by Roger Ebert's exuberant accolades. He was so impressed by the illusion of the vast scope of the city, which can be attributed to the well-done CGI backgrounds and accouterments beyond the immediate exemplary sets. Of course, this is no big deal today, but at the time it was still fairly new technology.
Some people compare "Dark City" to the more popular "The Matrix" and for good reason since they have similar themes and "The Matrix" was actually shot on some of the same sets, but that one came out over a year later in 1999. There are also similarities to "Gattaca," which debuted 4.5 months earlier in late 1997.
"The Matrix" went on to mega-success at the box office while "Dark City" floundered despite its brilliant bits. Why? For me, the characters needed fleshed-out more with increased human interest. There's some, for sure, but not enough. As such, audiences in general found the film odd, perplexing and uncompelling. However, sci-fi aficionados should eat it up.
It's superior to "Gattaca," but not as as good as "The Matrix."
The film runs 1 hour, 40 minutes, and the Director's Cut 1 minute longer; it was shot on sets in Sydney, Australia.
GRADE: B-/B

This review is of the Director's Cut.
Welcome To Shell Beach.
Dark City is directed by Alex Proyas who also co-writes the screenplay with Leon Dobbs and David S. Goyer. It stars Rufus Sewell, William Hurt, Jennifer Connelly, Kiefer Sutherland, Richard O'Brien and Ian Richardson. Music is by Trevor Jones and cinematography by Dariusz Wolski.
A man wakes up in a grotty hotel bathroom and upon finding a dead girl in another room he realises he has no recollection of who he is or how he got there...
There's a lot of Blade Runner fans still out there waiting for that film's sexual partner to happen along. What many of them don't realise is that Alex Proyas has already made that movie. More than a cult film yet still criminally ignored in certain circles, Dark City, by way of poor box office and studio interference, never got off to the best of starts. The problems were compounded with the release of The Matrix the following year, where that film's popularity, and its sci-fi linkage to Dark City, led many to think that Proyas' movie was a Matrix rip-off; pushing it further (unjustly) back in the sci-fi noir pantheon. Fact is is that Dark City homages much great cinema from previous years, but it has influenced much that followed, with Inception fans asked to note that Nolan himself was taking notes...
Stolen Memories.
Dark City is a feverish film noir dressed up in stunning sci-fi clothes. The amazing visuals have led many to state that it's a film with much style and little substance, something which Proyas has fiercely argued against; and he's right to do so, especially once his own preferred director's cut became available to view. The story is a complex one, pulsing with human characters living in a world where there is no daylight, with their respective memories scratchy to say the least, it quickly becomes evident that a creepy alien race are overseeing things. The aliens, wonderfully attired in black trench-coats and hats to match, and aided by Kiefer Sutherland's shifty - stammer affected - doctor, have special powers and their reasons for being here unfold in deftly constructed stages. One man stands in their way, John Murdoch (Sewell), but he is an olde noir amnesia sufferer supreme and his battle to unravel what is going on is our task as well.
Do you think about the past much Mrs. Murdoch?
The search for identity and the truth is what propels the picture forward. Murdoch in his confused state is not only at the center of an existential dilemma, he's also the focal point for a serial killer murder investigation. This also as he tries to come to terms with matters of the heart, it seems he has a beautiful wife (Connelly), and that she may have cheated on him? And why is he drawn to the place known as Shell Beach? A simple narrative hidden by visual splendours? Don't make me laugh! But hell you have to say the visual look and atmosphere of the design is very much attention grabbing.
I have become the monster you were intended to be.
With the film noir characters in place; Hurt's dour sleuth, Sewell's amnesiac and Connelly's sultry torch singer, Proyas brings German expressionism in abundance whilst overseeing an eye splintering neo-noir colour palette. Greens and reds often ping from the screen, while the murky browns and golds down on the angular city streets pave the way for changed perceptions and revelations of plotting. There are reoccurring motifs throughout, with swirls and circles integral to mood and meanings, while at the mid-point we then get to see Proyas' tricks of the trade, where the city shifts and moves to create a meeting of Metropolis and Gotham, all as the humans slumber away. Watch those clocks folks...
You know how I was supposed to feel. That person isn't me... never was. You wanted to know what it was about us that made us human. Well, you're not going to find it...
Acting performances are hardly top of the line (Sutherland especially irritates more than he impresses), but they actually don't need to be, and they all look terrific in their respective dressage. The story is of course bonkers and one which I myself found was much better whilst consuming mucho alcohol! (I watched it three times in 48 hours!) While Proyas himself is on record as saying it's a far from flawless picture. Again he is right, but he also knows that his film is still under valued and in need of more to seek out his director's cut. The late Roger Ebert championed Dark City with much gusto, and he provides very good input on the DVD, much like Roger I have to say, this is a unique and fabulous sci-fi noir experience. A film in fact fit to watch alongside Blade Runner; And I do not say that lightly. 9/10

"Lance" is the super-effective, suave and sophisticated secret agent and "Walter" is his "Q" type of undervalued supporting boffin. It's fair to say that the former man treats the latter with disdain - he doesn't, after all, ever have to actually take the field! Desperate to impress, "Walter" convinces "Lance" that he can make him invisible! Snag? Well, it's a much more reliable formula for turning a man into a pigeon! "Rats with wings"? Well as our escapades become gradually more surreal we learn that pigeons do, actually, have some neat skills that are positively useful in the espionage game - and they are going to be really helpful as the two have to work together to restore "Lance" to his sharp-suited self whilst also apprehending the baddies bent on world domination. There's way too much dialogue here, but the last half hour is quite entertaining with plenty of action, some daft humour and a few messages about teamwork, trust and inter-reliance to underpin the predictability of it all. The animation is a bit too linear for my liking, but it's still an engaging testament to brain complementing brawn that is watchable enough.

Simply a charming aminated movie in which you feel sorry for the wannabe and want to give the hero a slap. Chucklefest.

_Spies in Disguise_ has a genuinely interesting methodology put forth revolving around the core ideals of teamwork, and non-lethal measures. Or at least it has that in the opening 5 minutes and closing 10. In between it has a pigeon instead. I don't mean "The pigeon thing is so ridiculous that it distracts from it", I mean they drop it altogether for the lion's share of the runtime because "WILL SMITH VOICES A PIGEON HAHAHA!" And sure those early concepts were laid on a little heavy while they were there, but this is a kids' movie, nuance isn't mandatory. It also didn't help that literally every single supporting character (but most especially Ben Mendelsohn's "Robot Hand") were far more likeable than either of the leads. Buuut it was okay. Okay. At a stretch. Okay. At best.
More than anything though, I just want to know if somebody goes into this without any idea of what the story is actually about, does it hit you as hard as the trailer did? Like is this _From Dusk till Dawn_ for pre-teens?
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

Fun animated action-adventure-comedy that has a nice, albeit naive, message, but still was a nice time-waster and pitch-perfect voice casting for Will Smith in a role like this. Doesn't break new ground however the animation was great and there's just enough to keep adults entertained along with kids. **3.75/5**

It's really a rip off of Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs and was quite disappointing. Walter is essentially like if Flint and Sam had a baby but more obnoxious with his can't-shut-his-mouth, self-righteous attitude. There's even some elements in the story taken from cloudy like the whole invention goes wrong thing. I was expecting it to at least be average because characters barring Walter didn't seem bad but it turned out worse than I thought. The characters are two dimensional with predictable arcs and Walter had no flaws so no character development besides a predictable bonding with Lance. Even the pigeons are one-dimensional. It's one of the top 10 or 15 worst animated films of the decade even if it came out at the tail end. Avoid it, it's so overrated.

A thoroughly entertaining movie... way better than I was expecting after reading the reviews.
I loved Ann Hathaway's portrayal of the Grand High Witch. She really threw herself into the role.
Not really a kids movie, as it's a little dark... but definitely a good watch!

Unlike what a lot of people seems to think about this movie I though it was a fairly decent family movie. It’s not great but decent enough. I quite enjoyed it at least.
The story is what it is. It is a Roald Dahl story so it is somewhat dark but funny and with some light at the same time. Of course there are a bunch of whiners complaining that it is too dark and not suited for children. Well, everyone knows (or should now) what to expect from a Roald Dahl story so just go and see another movie then. My kids, even when they where younger, would have no problem with this movie. But then I would spend the time to watch it with them. It is called parenting.
The beginning felt a wee bit slow perhaps but once the grand witch, and in particular the three mice, entered the scene it became rather funny.
The one thing I did not like that much was the over the top silly acting of the witches, especially the grand witch. They could really have toned down that it bit to make her a bit more scary. Now she just became silly and somewhat annoying.
The special effects were quite nice. The mice was a bit cartoonish but that was okay for this movie. I quite liked how the grand witch’s mouth split open from time to time to reveal her “witchiness”.
Apparently a bunch of disability advocates, including British Paralympic swimmer Amy Marren, got unhinged and claimed the movie was “perpetuating bias against individuals with ectrodactyly and other limb differences.”
Seriously? Get a grip. It is fiction and a family movie about witches for Christ sake! Presenting witches or other supernatural creatures as having “abnormalities” like crows feet, fangs and God knows what is what makes witches. If these obsessive whiners and cancel culture freaks would have their way no movie worth watching and no book worth reading would ever be made.
Anyway, I felt it was an hour and 45 minutes that I enjoyed.

Is a good movie for family. The end is unexpected and Anne Hatheway is always a good choice in distribution.

When you hear the names Robert Zemeckis, Guillermo del Toro and Alfonso Cuaron, you expect something visually engaging. These three names paired with Dahl's work could have been something really special, but this is just another bland adaption. The more you compare it to both the source material and previous adaptions, it comes across as bland and missing the mark. The same could be said about the star-studded cast led by Hathaway and Octavia Spencer, with Stanley Tucci playing the forgettable hotel owner. This team really could have made something unique, but this is not it, witch.
- Chris dos Santos
Read Chris' full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-the-witches-horrifying-for-all-the-wrong-reasons