A lot was changed in this remake and I thought it would irk me. After about twenty minutes I thought I had been wrong, the opening had some originality and it seemed like something fresh. then they arrived at the Hotel and Anne Hathaway came on the scene like a wrecking ball. Any potential that this movie had was suffocated by Hathaways incredibly poor performance. Watch Anjelica Huston's performance in the original and you will see the MASSIVE difference in ability. Hathaway's performance is akin to an amateur impressionist. It feel more like an insult than an homage by Hathaway, she put zero effort or spirit into this character. Her accent is atrocious and her presence is almost nonexistent. Also the CGI already looks cheap, c'mon they had better puppets in the 80's. All witches now have joker smiles and shark teeth? This could've really been a good movie and it is just marred by an extremely poor performance from the lead villain, an overuse of cheap effects, poor pacing, lack of originality in the second half and a horrendous ending. The only highlights of this movie are Octavia Spencer and Jahzir Bruno who do a fantastic job of filling and updating their roles. Unfortunately as most fans know, Jahzir spends the second half of the movie as a poorly CGI'd mouse. Leaving Octavia Spencer to carry the entirety of the movie from there on out almost seems like a cruel prank. Tucci is decent as is Codie Eastwick as Bruno but there characters are so poorly written and used they practically add nothing. The addition of a third mouse is also meaningless and changes nothing in the story. Ultimately this movie is a far worse version of the first one. They actually managed to tell less of the story, give characters less development, and have worse effects than a movie made over 30 years ago. Some of this may have been forgivable if they added any decent original concepts but again this is a poor retread with no added substance. Its disheartening to see so many big names attached to this film. Guillermo Del Toro should not put this on his IMBD page. Of course your children will like it, they like Peppa Pig.

This movie had quite some premise and it is a decent enough movie but, sadly, it never really rises out of the ordinary. We have some really despicable criminals and I mean some real creepy nutcases and we have Liam Neeson as a gritty former cop turned private investigator. Good recipe to start with I would say.
Unfortunately it never really took off. Liam Neeson is doing a good job of portraying the former cop and he is pretty much making the picture. The creepy guys are, well creepy but they never really get to shine in their creepiness. Most of the other characters around are just decoration with the possible exception of the young brat whom I personally just found annoying.
Speaking of annoying I have to say that the AA sessions and the voice overs from them pretty much falls into that very category. They felt at best like unnecessary fillers to me. I do not know why it is so popular to portray “heroes” as drunks or former drunks.
The movie is not a quick paced one. It is more of a thriller than a action one although there are a few outbursts of action. Sometimes it goes quite far down the road of some real detective work and sometimes it just jumps about leaving a few inconsistencies and plot wholes hanging around.
I would say that this movie is a fairly ordinary, good but nothing special, crime story about two psychopaths and a gritty former coop given the task of chasing them down. Without Liam Neeson as a lead actor more or less carrying the movie along it would have been a fairly bland movie.

Though I haven't watched a lot of them yet (I've mainly devoted my time, of late, to catching up on 1920-1970s cinematic milestones), I have a profound respect for the new roles Liam Neeson has taken on in recent years. It makes me think of what would have been had my favourite actor ever, James Cagney, hadn't basically retired for the quiet life in the early 60's, when the perfect storm of 'great actors in B-movies' hit the fans.
My lady is more a horror aficionado, and of recent vintage films, so it was nice to throw this on for a spin and show her its neo-noir tendencies, almost as if going through a 'make your own movie' template, checking them off one-by-one. I don't mind that sort of rote predictability if it's done right, and, though heavily flawed, for the most part it does. By the climax, I basically only cared for four things: that the kidnapped girl, Matthew Scudder and TJ were alive, and that the two kidnappers/murderers got their just desserts, whether it be lengthy incarceration or murder, anything so their crime spree would be ended. The film was well-made and a very enjoyable experience, so considering the relatively minor flaws (especially the one-dimensional aspect of the antagonists), I would definitely recommend at least a watch for most cinephiles out there, especially those interested in 'true crime' type of contemporary American cinema.

It was just too much...but to be fair I saw it in 3D. The none 3D version may have actually been better, but honestly I have no way of knowing.
At first it was, well, it was wow. I had never actually seen anything in 3D, being far too young for for the first round of popular 3D movies to hit the theater, but my father assured me it was nothing compared to this...
He also assured me it didn't make him as nauseous, and sometimes I can see where he's coming from on that point.
It came out right in the first wave of the new 3D, right when 3D was becoming popular again and actually worth it.
And it was jaw dropping even if some of the motion made my old man sick.
But it was also too much. A new technology and one that was a spectacular in itself, but not exactly tested to perfection.
It seemed like a 14 year-old girl putting on make-up and not yet understanding that less is more.
Less than half an hour into it, I had no idea what was going on, the 3D was too distracting to even attempt to follow the plot.
About an hour into it, the 3D got boring, and yes, still over-the-top distracting.
By the time I left I had the feeling that I had just experienced something that I had never experienced before. I had the feeling that watching a movie on the big screen would never be the same again...but I still couldn't figure out if I saw a movie or not.

Beowulf hasn't aged well; it looked like crap when it was released in 2007, and it looks like old crap 15 years later. This movie plays like someone made a videogame based (loosely, natch) on the epic poem, then took all the cutscenes out and edited them together into feature length. Now, if only Beowulf came with an option to skip the cutscenes.
The film features human characters animated using live action motion capture animation, but I fail to see why they even bothered. Five years after The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, which was the first feature film to utilize a real-time motion capture system, the novelty should have surely worn off; moreover, this technology hasn't aged any more gracefully than Beowulf has, and even today the best motion capture in the world can't make a silk purse out of the sow's ear that is even the best computer-generated imagery in the world – in fact, putting the two together is just piling crap on top of crap.
It's too bad, because a good live-action film could be made with Anthony Hopkins, John Malkovich, and Ray Winstone – though not a good live-action Beowulf film, mind you, because it would still go the CGI route for Grendel and the dragon and who knows what else; a fully animated movie would at least be consistent, or in this case consistently crappy.
Not that consistency is something of which one could accuse Beowulf; some characters look vaguely like the actors who provide their motions and voices (namely Hopkins), while others not at all (Malkovich) – and there there's Winstone, who looks for all the world like a poorly-rendered digital version of Sean Bean.

_**Entertaining and thought-provoking, even moving**_
"Beowulf" (2007) is an animated version of the epic poem of antiquity featuring Ray Winstone, Anthony Hopkins, Angelina Jolie and Robin Wright Penn. It uses live action motion capture animation, which was previously utilized for “The Polar Express” (2004) and “Monster House” (2006). Although it's a "cartoon" it's the equivalent of an R-rated picture with brutal violence and openly sexual situations & dialogue.
The film has the same characters as the epic poem – Beowulf, Hrothgar, Wiglaf, Grendel, Grendel's mother and the dragon – and the three Acts split between Beowulf's fight with Grendel, Grendel's "sea hag" mother and the dragon; other than this the film deviates from the poem with some interesting ideas to tie everything together. Needless to say, don't watch if you're a Beowulf purist.
However, if you don't mind the animation or the re-imagining and enjoy sword & sorcery adventure like Conan, you'll likely appreciate this. It's both entertaining and thought-provoking. I recommend watching it back-to-back with 2005's "Beowulf & Grendel," which is a live-action version with Gerard Butler and Sarah Polley, shot on the gorgeously bleak landscapes of Iceland.
I should add that, not only is this a beautiful film to look at, animated or not, it also has an excellent epic Viking-ish score by Alan Silvestri, highlighted by the main title, "What We Need Is A Hero,” and the two versions of "A Hero Comes Home,” the first is the shorter version sung by Robin Wright-Penn whereas the second, sung by Idina Menzel, plays during the end credits.
The message of this animated version is that the reality behind the story is much different than the legend because it has been embellished over the years. Some reviewers complain that Beowulf isn't a genuine hero, but he’s certainly heroic, faults and all. He's a bold warrior who takes on the gargantuan and intimidating (not to mention UGLY) Grendel NAKED and somehow defeats him! He then goes on to lead a mighty Nordic kingdom for decades to come. If this isn't heroic, what is? So he exaggerates his past exploits and has a weakness for women, what else is new?
The main lesson, aside from the one noted above, is that new political leaders tend to make the same mistakes as past political leaders, so new leaders should be careful or they'll experience the same pitfalls.
Other morals include: Apart from redemption, the "sins of the fathers" will cast a pall over the family or community and eventually come back to bite 'em (literally, in this case); even the greatest heroes are human and have serious flaws; deal with your past mistakes (sins) or the guilt & shame will drain the life from you and your environment; it'll also make you wish you were dead; offer a man unlimited power, wealth and fame and he'll likely go for it no matter the cost, selling his soul to the devil, so to speak; men are easily entranced by feminine beauty, regardless of how obviously impure her intentions; the importance of saying you're sorry and forgiving; the importance and ultimate triumph of love.
Some things to chew on: Why is the dragon one-and-the-same as a noble-looking gold-skinned man? Does this signify he's a cross between malevolent blood and noble blood (mother and father respectively)? Is the golden man his spiritual side and the dragon his dark side?
Some criticize that Beowulf is not a Christ-figure, as in the poem, which isn't accurate. (***SPOILERS FOLLOW***) Although late in the story Beowulf mourns that there are no heroes in the new Christian era, only "weeping martyrs," ironically he goes on to be an obvious type of Christ by sacrificing himself for the people of his kingdom (the world) by slaying the dragon (the devil). Keep in mind that, according to the Bible, all things were created through Christ, which would include the angel Lucifer (a “son of God”), who later devolved into Satan. Likewise the golden man in the movie is the son of Beowulf and ultimately revealed as a hideous dragon.
All human types of Christ are flawed because humans are flawed, even “heroes” like Beowulf which, again, is one of the main points of the film. Hence, Beowulf's perception about "weeping martyrs" is faulty and can be attributed to his fallen condition when making the statement. Later, he rises out of the ashes to slay the dragon and sacrifice himself for the people. Right before doing this he declares his love for his wife and asks her to forgive him for his past failings.
One scene had an impact on me. Years after becoming a king, Beowulf boldly confronts a defeated Frisian warrior who mocks him on the Nordic coastline. Beowulf commands his men to step back, discards his sword and challenges the warrior to kill him (at this point the Frisian has picked up his battle axe). Weaponless, Beowulf yells at him with every fiber of his being, "KILL ME! DO IT! KILL ME! KILL ME!" Why does Beowulf do this? Is he invulnerable and, hence, has no fear of death? No, the ending shows that he's wholly mortal. Actually he's so burdened by guilt and shame that he no longer even cares if he lives or dies. This is reality.
The film runs 1 hour, 55 minutes.
GRADE: B+

Really bad, the kind of thing that probably at least would have been commercially succesful about five years ago, but now? Ends up not only a box office lightweight, but also a failure of a story.
_Final rating:★½: - Boring/disappointing. Avoid where possible._

Darkest Minds: Rainbow
They grow slightly older and have kids. Some of those kids are new colours. I like purple. Purple is cool.

I recently revisited the delightful film "Bedtime Stories," starring Adam Sandler and Keri Russell as parents to two young children. This charming movie follows a series of imaginative and whimsical bedtime stories that come to life in exciting and over-the-top ways.
The film's direction showcases a blend of creativity and thrill, taking viewers on a magical journey reminiscent of Disney's storytelling magic. It offers an incredible experience for children, inviting them to immerse themselves in the fantastical bedtime tales filled with excitement and wonder.
Adam Sandler and Keri Russell deliver standout performances both individually and as a duo. Their on-screen chemistry as husband and wife adds a special touch to the movie, enhancing the overall viewing experience. Their portrayal of the parents navigating through these enchanting stories brings a sense of joy and warmth to the film.

I bought this movie on a whim when I seen it at Wal-mart sometime ago. Turned out to be a pretty decent movie. Very funny!

**The Punisher avoids the comic book cheese of the era and grounds its story in a realistic revenge tale that fits the character perfectly.**
Jon Bernthal might have been the perfect actor to play the Punisher, but Thomas Jane was a close second. Rather than getting all wrapped up in the comic universe, The Punisher (2004) keeps its story contained in a more realistic world and focuses on the transformation of Frank Castle into the Punisher. The cast of this movie is filled with exceptional talent, and the plot is a carefully crafted revenge that unfolds as the film progresses, with an excellent payoff at the end. Some parts are cheesy and larger than life, but overall, the movie stays true to The Punisher's dark and grounded roots. Out of all the interpretations of The Punisher in films and shows over the years, this one is my favorite and the standard by which I compare every new Punisher.

Thomas Jane and John Travolta are good in this, but man is The Punisher one stupid movie.
I'm willing to suspend my disbelief quite a bit but how is it a gangster assassin doesn't double tap and headshot their target when they have them at point blank? This mafia family soon proves to be one of the dumbest in all of gangster cinema, leaving their loved ones completely open to be followed by Frank Castle, falling for a really terrible manipulation scheme, and how did they find out where Frank Castle's apartment was?
This is the kind of try-hard movie that Hollywood makes every so often when they have a revenge story script, an alpha-male protagonist, and all the rights to heavy metal tracks. It tries so hard to be cool and fails so spectacularly it's actually painful to watch.

The sleazy, bleak, and primal low budget crime thriller “Good Time” feels like a cinematic punch in the face. The more I think about this film through my figurative black eye, the more I like it. It’s rare to find a movie so confident and wholly committed to its bleak tone, bursting onto the screen in its opening scene with a disarming, bold swagger. This one is reminiscent of Scorsese’s early works but it never once feels like a cheap rip-off of the auteur.
A nearly unrecognizable Robert Pattinson (kudos to him for taking on challenging and unglamorous roles like this) is incredible as scumbag Connie, a low level criminal who has industrious and ambitious ideas but is far from smart. After persuading his developmentally challenged brother Nick (a fabulously understated Benny Safdie) to serve as his wing man in a bank robbery, everything goes wrong and his brother is captured and arrested while Connie runs free. The next hour is spent riding shotgun with this despicable man as he tries to free Nick from police custody.
Connie traverses the city streets throughout a sleepless night and grows increasingly trapped in this nightmare. As the evening progresses, he becomes even more desperate and begins mentally or physically harming everyone who crosses his path, from an amusement park security guard (Barkhad Abdi), a teenage girl (Taliah Webster) and her immigrant grandmother, and a newly paroled drug dealer (Buddy Duress) with a soda bottle full of LSD.
Connie isn’t a nice guy. He exploits his brother as a criminal pawn, he verbally abuses his unstable girlfriend Corey (Jennifer Jason Leigh), he has harsh racist tendencies that subtly manifest in different ways, and he takes advantage of nearly everyone who crosses his path. He’s not really nice to anybody except his brother and a dog, but Pattinson is so incredibly amazing in the role that I actually became disgusted with myself as I inexplicably began rooting for this amoral, predatory man to get away from the cops. This is one of those defining moments for an actor, and Pattinson is unforgettable. Comparisons to a young Al Pacino are inevitable.
This film oozes indie spirit throughout and feels intimately personal, which isn’t a surprise because bothers Benny and Josh Safdie had a hand in just about every aspect of the movie, from writing and directing to editing, sound design, and acting. The film’s phenomenal sound is particularly effective, with a harsh, pressure cooker of an original score to the ear-splitting sound effects that serve as a mirror to the overall discomfort and discord of the script. The story is simple yet filled with so many abrupt narrative jolts that it shocked and surprised me more than a few times.
The only criticism I have for the entire film (besides its irritatingly ironic title) is the epilogue, which I won’t spoil in this review. It has a pronounced tacked-on vibe, an unnecessary piece that the directors should’ve cut but just couldn’t let it go. Yeah, I get what they’re trying to say here, but there’s no sense in beating audiences over the head with it. We’re much smarter than that.
This movie accurately echoes the desperation in last year’s bleak “Hell or High Water,” telling a similarly mesmerizing story of an American man who has nothing to lose and will therefore take anything he can. The grimy urban landscape of New York City manifests itself through intense, textural, dreamlike visuals that feel more like a nightmare. Every scene is alive with a squalid vibrancy and a pulsating tension, yet it’s beautifully done and never showy.
“Good Time” may have a morally repugnant protagonist, an unpleasant narrative, and an unsettling vibe, but it’s also one of the best movies of the year.

A gritty, anxiety-inducing heist-gone-wrong film capturing the kinetic energy and depressing vibe of those eeking out a living (legal and illegal) in the big city.
The acting is phenomenal with a powerhouse performance by Robert Pattinson and a surprisingly poignant performance by co-director Benny Safdie who plays Pattinson's brother.
A wild ride.

I can only assume people were joking when they told me Good Time is a good time. It most certainly is not a good time! Good Time is very uncomfortable, anger inducing, and depressing and I enjoyed every minute of it. Easily the highlight is the color palate with most scenes being lit by neon lights or the glow of a TV or a distant street light. As dark as the movie went tonally, seeing Robert Pattinson's face lit up by a neon red light is beautiful. Personal preference, but I'll watch a movie just for the neon lighting and Good Time uses it as a great counter to the dirty feel of everything else. The story was my least favorite part, but the acting, cinematography and score work so well that it didn't bother me that much. I say the acting it great, but really I mean that Robert Pattinson and Benny Safdie are great, everyone else is really just a way to move the plot forward and are fine (except Barkhad Abdi who just doesn't connect). If you've only seen Pattinson in the Twilight Saga (I'll admit that's the only time I've seen him) where no one acts and just recites lines with dead eyes, this is such a departure and he really delivers a believable and authentic performance. The story isn't perfect, it's got some pacing problems and a few "Why are they doing that?" moments, but it's a very compelling story that is just so dark and grim, but still manages to carry heart. The plot sets Pattinson as the protagonist, trying to help his mentally challenged brother after they leave home but it's really complicated whether or not you want to root for him. The ending isn't what I expected or wanted, but it is a solid ending and it works for the film. Good Time is not a movie that most people will appreciate or even want to watch if they know what it's really about, but if you can respect a fully dark and bleak film that doesn't let up it is a worthwhile film that has something to say.

Never before has somebody drinking a bottle of Sprite made me wince in sympathetic pain and terror.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

One of the most delicate and visually gorgeous movies from studios Ghibli with a great celtic OST to remember.

Brad Pitt is acclaimed Austrian mountaineer Heinrich Harrer who leaves his expectant wife to climb in the Himalayas. A couple of high-altitude mishaps and the commencement of WWII see him and colleague Peter Aufschnaiter (David Thewlis) interred by the British and confined to a POW camp. After a few failed attempts, the pair manage to escape and after some perilous trekking through the hostile wilderness, they find themselves at the gates of the holy city of Lhasa. Foreigners are not especially welcome here, but they are fed and watered and gradually become accepted to the point where Harrer is introduced to the Great Mother and thence to the young, curious and engaging Dalai Lama himself. The spiritual leader takes a shine to his new friend with golden hair and the older man regales him with tales of wonder from the outside world. Simultaneously, their much larger and increasingly more territorial neighbour has clear designs on Tibet. With troops massing on the borders, the precarious nature of the independence of this small country becomes more obvious and, well history is never far from the narrative. I think Pitt plays well as the arrogant climber and as the story develops so does his character - from a selfish loner to one who learns to care for things greater than just himself. To that end, Thewlis also delivers strongly as the pair bond - despite themselves, sometimes - and "Jamyang Jamtsho Wangchuk positively oozes a decency and spiritualism as the boy who is fighting a losing battle against those who think religion is a "disease". Though it does rather oversimplify the politics, this film is beautifully shot with some genuine Tibetan scenes around the amazing architecture that is the Potala Palace and by the denouement you can't help but empathise with a nation that just wanted to be left in peace to live in peace.

_**Twelve years in the Tibet area, 1939-1951**_
“Seven Years in Tibet” (1997) is a biographical historical drama about Austrian mountaineer Heinrich Harrer (Brad Pitt) and his time in Tibet and friendship with the Dalai Lama, a boy, just before & during WW2, as well as the build-up to the invasion of Tibet in 1950 by Communist Chinese forces and the immediate aftermath. David Thewlis is on hand as Heinrich’s German mountaineer friend.
The movie’s similar to other realistic walk-to-salvation wilderness adventures, like “The Way Back” (2010). Pitt is charismatic as the pompous mountaineer who is slowly humbled in the highest region of the globe. The movie couldn’t be made today since it paints the Chinese Communist Party in a negative light; in other words, it’s truthful.
The film runs 2 hours, 16 minutes and the bulk of it was shot in Argentina at the city of La Plata and the Andes Mountains in the Mendoza Province, while about 20 minutes of footage was secretly shot in Tibet.
GRADE: B

**Action, shots, bullets and… “latinxploitation”?**
I confess that I expected something more from this film. I was left with the feeling that it has little to offer us other than two tons of spectacular action scenes, with explosions, hundreds of gunshots and some gratuitous destruction. Even more: it reminded me of those films from the 70s, which we call “blaxploitation” because they reinforced a series of stereotypes about the African-American community: if we pay attention, we have almost all the stereotypes attributed to Latinos and Mexicans-Americans.
In general, I'm not a fan of political correctness and I don't care about stereotypes! I deal with this well, being a proud Portuguese who was born and lives in a Latin country, but I am in solidarity with those who, especially in the USA, suffer from prejudices about the Latin community, a vast community that encompasses Castilian and Portuguese speakers, forgetting, interestingly, that Italian Americans are also culturally Latino. Robert Rodríguez is Latino and makes films that reflect that. I think he must be a man proud of his roots, and I think that's magnificent. We must have this pride. Therefore, I think he made this film in that spirit, but my doubts lie in this: a film with so much violence, with so much to do with drugs and crime, was it good or bad for Latinos?
António Banderas is one of the greatest Spanish actors of all time and easily transitioned to Hollywood, where his career took on stratospheric proportions. Here, he did an interesting job, mixing a bit of Latin lover with gangster and Zorro. He has the right profile and was a good choice. I also really enjoyed seeing Joaquim de Almeida, my compatriot, in what was the best North American film he has made to date (and I think that productions could really invest more in this actor, I think he has talent and ability). Steve Buscemi adds a friendly touch to the film, and Danny Trejo and Tarantino make brief, innocuous appearances. Salma Hayek, another good actress, unfortunately just has to be sexy and hot in bed. That's not enough.
I don't know what the production budget was, but it doesn't seem like a cheap film to me because the number of strong names in the industry in this project is considerable and no one, nowadays, works for free. We also have a good special effects department, with great capacity and creativity: the sets are very realistic and the film's action scenes are very well thought out and executed. As an action film, it works impeccably and is a delight for fans. The script, unfortunately, is much less interesting, with too many stereotypes, weaknesses, clichés and insipid dialogues.

This was a solid and highly enjoyable take on the spaghetti western by Rodriguez that rightfully put the director on the map and provided star Antonio Banderas the breakthrough he needed in the American marketplace. Though I love his work on the Sin City films, particularly the first, his incredible earlier trilogy will always hold a special place in my cinephilic heart.
My recent project of coming to terms with classic Westerns has only further helped me enjoy these more recent contemporary releases.

Great watch, would watch again, and can recommend.
This is an interesting mix of science fiction and science fact. We could absolutely have technology like this and not know it because....why would anyone tell us that they have it?
The craziness of the action with naivety of the characters we follow make for a great spy movie with NO SPYING! So it hits a personal note of satisfaction for me.
It really feels like all the good "operator in my ear" moments from the Matrix, with a good mystery plot thrown in.

The most interesting part of the film is dropped not long after the film's act two reveal, and a film that seemed "not great, but promising", ended up losing its promise.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

A timely reminder of what makes action/thriller movies fun.
Jerry and Rachel are two strangers thrust together by a series of scenarios put together by a mysterious female caller. Under threat to their families and themselves, both Jerry & Rachel must overcome the most hazardous of situations. Intriguingly everything around them seems to be controlled by the female voice that guides them, but just why is the FBI so hot on their tail?, does Jerry's twin brother hold the key?. All will be answered as our protagonists hurtle towards something that may have deadly consequences for America.
Big Brother gets a reboot and delivers as fun a genre picture as was released in 2008. Yes it's total nonsense, but really the critics venting spleen on this one must have gone through a popcorn entertainment bypass prior to viewing it. Director D.J. Caruso continues his Hitckcockian leanings by following his surprisingly fun "Disturbia" with this "North By Northwest" type concept that meets a host of the genre staples, where the influences are very hard to miss. Yet as daft as it is, and it is folks, "Eagle Eye" knits well together to play out as a highly accomplished piece, the action is first rate, in fact on big screens the two main sequences explode with joyous action abandon. This isn't found wanting on the thriller front either, it's safe to say that no new ground is to be found as we get to the tick tock countdown finale, but Caruso, and writers John Glenn & Travis Wright, have spliced together a series of wholly interesting and thrilling strands. So much so that the finale is disappointingly unable to quite deliver on the promise of the prior build up.
Shia LaBeouf seemed destined to be a young actor who had to earn even the smallest bit of respect, where much like DiCaprio at the time, you felt LaBeouf was likely to get better notices later in his career. After being sidekicks to John McLaine, Indiana Jones, and erm, Optimus Prime, LaBeouf here earned his acting spurs and carries the film with a charm and credibility that the daftness of the piece doesn't quite deserve. Shia is helped enormously by a strong female lead, Michelle Monaghan has an impressive ability to sweat strength whilst channelling believable emotional turmoil, and her interplay with LaBeouf is the heartbeat of the picture. Of the rest, Michael Chiklis is a bit underused, but this is offset by Billy Bob Thornton continuing that knack of being one of the most watchable actors of his generation. Rosario Dawson is sadly weak in this and William Sadler is barely noticeable, conversely though a nod of approval goes to Anthony Mackie who shines in a crucial sequence towards the end.
My first viewing was when I went to the cinema with the then two ladies in my life, we were a bit early and sat in the foyer for a while, we watched as they were queuing out the door for "High School Musical 3" and weird looking people were trundling in to see "Saw 5". There were a total of 12 people in the cinema to see "Eagle Eye" on its second week run, at a peak viewing time as well. That was a damn shame because "Eagle Eye" may well be a dumb and fun action/thriller picture, but it's not pro-porting to be anything else, and really film's with honest entertainment intent are to be treasured and used for why they are made for in the first place. "Eagle Eye" is made for those who want to shut off from the world for a couple of hours, and in doing so have an energised blast in the process. 7.5/10

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/dragon-ball-super-super-hero-spoiler-free-review
"Dragon Ball Super: Super Hero offers what most fans of the saga come looking for: energetic action, new transformations, and the classic Akira Toriyama humor that works brilliantly in this film.
The risk and courage in creating a narrative focused on Gohan, Piccolo, and Pan turn out to be successful due to the more intimate context, but it's still quite far from the epic levels and supreme satisfaction of the last movie.
Exaggerated fan service leads to unjustified, absurd new forms. The pacing and balance of the different storylines and relationships lack better control. The fight sequences have good moments, but some abrupt cuts take away some of the dazzle. And finally, 3D animation proves to be a massive decline in almost every aspect compared to the ideal mix used in recent content.
It's a pleasant, light, fun adventure but sadly unfulfilling."
Rating: B-

There's great potential there with the concept, but 'Meet the Robinsons' feels convoluted and rushed.
The first hour of this is boring, once the (admittedly good) turn comes it does slightly improve. If you take out the main parts of this, you'll hold some good stuff - the message, the twist, the means are just some of them. Sadly, everything that surrounds the positive things set it back.
The cast aren't great either. It's cool to see a Disney film, especially from this era and before, give new voices a chance; rather than giving roles to the usual suspects. Unfortunately, none of this cast are memorable - at least to me. Matthew Josten has one or two funny bits as Goob, they could've done more with him.
Animation-wise it's largely fine, though a few moments haven't aged incredibly. The end song from Rob Thomas is nice. All in all, however, this isn't a film I can honestly say I enjoyed. I wouldn't be opposed to a remake, if they ironed the execution out.

Alright, let's talk "Den of Thieves." This cops-and-robbers story is a solid ride, even if it takes its sweet time getting there. The plot's your standard cops versus robbers, but with a twist that tries to keep you guessing. It's a heist movie, so you've got the planning, the execution, and the inevitable double-crosses. It's not reinventing the genre, but it's got enough action to keep you engaged. The directing is solid, nothing flashy, but it gets the job done. They went for that raw, street-level feel, and the cinematography does a decent job of capturing the urban landscape. Those wide shots of LA? Yeah, they work.
Now, let's get to the performances. Gerard Butler's in his element here, playing that rough-around-the-edges cop with a serious attitude. He brings that intensity you expect from him. There's a scene where his personal life intrudes on his work in a way that really highlights his character's flaws, and it's a powerful moment. Pablo Schreiber nails the hardened criminal role, no surprises there. The supporting cast does its part, and there are a few standout scenes, like the one where a younger character is introduced to the world of crime in a way that's both shocking and oddly compelling. The script is functional, it moves the plot along, but it's not exactly Shakespeare. The dialogue is there to serve the action, not to win awards. The score and sound? They're present, they amplify the action, but they don't really stand out. It's the kind of soundtrack that blends into the background, doing its job without drawing too much attention.
Basically, "Den of Thieves" is a solid action flick if you're in the mood for something straightforward and entertaining. It's not going to blow your mind with originality, but it delivers on the action and the tough-guy performances. It's a good choice for a night when you just want to turn off your brain and enjoy the ride. Just don't expect any deep philosophical insights, and you'll be fine. It's a decent rental, and you'll get your fill of shootouts and tense standoffs.

I've always wondered why nobody ever thought of pinching the banknotes that were about to be shredded or incinerated and making a killing! Well "Merrimen" (Pablo Schreiber) has alighted on just such a plan - and he aims to relieve the Federal Reserve of $30 million in a daring heist. Unfortunately for him, local cop "Nick" (Gerard Butler) has been following him for an while, and when one of his other would-be raids results in his leaving with nothing but dead policemen in his wake, "Nick" apprehends his suspected associate "Donnie" (O'Shea Jackson Jr), learns of the plan and determines to both thwart it and to apprehend his nemesis. So far, it's all quite interesting and the first half hour is pretty action packed. Thereafter, though, the whole thing sort of grinds to an halt. The planning and execution of their robbery is interspersed with the police counter-plan in a dialogue heavy - frequently peppered with some unedifying homophobic language - and clunkily delivered fashion. There are just too many characters; most people who have a gun couldn't hit a barn door with a shovel and the two leading characters do little, if anything, to engage the audience. I actually found myself wanting "Merrimen" to succeed, and Butler just hasn't the gravitas to carry this for what seemed like an endless 2¼ hours of relentless chases, misses, more chases and more misses before an ending that had a touch of chivalry to it, but that I found not worth the wait.

For a movie that's basically just _Heat_, _Heat_ this ain't.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

Den of Thieves is a heist/caper film with a running time of 140 minutes. The movie gives tribute to classic crime thriller movies, including Heat (1995) and The usual suspects (1995).
Den of Thieves is the directorial debut of Christian Gudegast, he also co-wrote the script and produced the film. The film features fast paced action sequences. Both the videography and sound of the film were very good. The acting and the plot twist was also good but the film contained some plot holes, some deficiencies in the writing.
Final verdict: 6.5/10