I never thought I'd see Tom Hanks starring in a feature film with the same production values as a SyFy Channel original movie, but here is Greyhound – an otherwise tight, lean, and straightforward picture.
Director Aaron Schneider and Hanks, who also wrote the script, do a good job developing suspense and urgency; for example the opening sequence wherein the crew of the Fletcher-class destroyer Greyhound patiently stalks and intercepts a German submarine before eventually blowing it up with depth charges, or when, after the hunter becomes the hunted and the American destroyer comes under heavy fire, the captain of the Greywolf – another, much more fearsome, German submarine – radios the Greyhound to taunt the crew with omens of doom; other than this disembodied voice we hear or see no Nazis, and the Greywolf, like Moby Dick, appears only until the very end, all of which adds to the sense of constant, ever-present danger.
Greyhound is best when decisions are made and orders are given on the ship’s bridge. Unfortunately the thrill of the hunt loses its impact when we peek outside and see that the Greyhound is surrounded by a completely computer-generated sea – as if it's sailing through an ocean of half-congealed grape jelly. Say what you will about Waterworld, but at least it was honest; I don't care if they used a real body of water or just dug a giant pit and filled it one bucket at a time – the point is, it was honest-to-goodness H2O.
On the other hand, Greyhound's Atlantic Ocean and everything in it – ships, submarines, explosions – achieves a level of fakery that not even Hanks's considerable gravitas can overcome. As far as I'm concerned, he's just playing a real-time strategy video game, to the point that when someone died I didn't care; I would just tell myself, “it’s okay, it was just another non-playable character.”

Let this review reflects that I really enjoyed this movie. It seems a lot of war movie fans didn’t, so since I only enjoy the occasional war film, perhaps it makes sense I would like Greyhound.
It is a surprisingly short movie at just over 90 minutes. Since I am a writer (though not a successful one), I can imagine the scriptwriter (wait, Tom Hanks!?) wanting to compress the action to help give the film a sense of immediacy, a pacing to match the key moments of battle. But who knows, besides Hanks and a few others? Not all war movies need to be of epic proportion; let’s allow some of them to simply tell a compelling story, if only for non war movie fans such as Myself.
Most of the acting is restrained, and that makes sense. This was the captain’s first real gig on patrol, so he needed to present a calm, commanding presence no matter how his insides twirled and spun. As for the crew, their lives depended upon staying cool under pressure. I really liked Stephen Graham’s quiet confidence in his crucial role interpreting the sonar.
I thought there was enough tension to drive the story forward, especially when you consider that the most tense moments are when you don’t see anything - while the U-Boat subs are under water.
There has been chatter that this war film is not realistic or accurate in key details, but I wonder about that. I see where the novel by C. S. Forester that the movie is based on was used as a navy training text for many years. So there’s that.
I plan to watch Greyhound again, as it strikes me as one of those movies that might reveal subtle details with a second viewing. That’s my story and I am sticking to it, as it gives mer a reason to re-watch it.
*** Note: I just watched it a second time, and I stand by my positive review. I caught a few details I missed the first time by having the captions turned on. ***

When you hear the words “a Tom Hanks war movie,” there are certain expectations of quality that flash in your head (with good reason). Perhaps that’s why “Greyhound” feels like such a disappointment. This World War II military action film is one of the most boring war movies I have ever seen.
The screenplay, written by Hanks and based on the novel “The Good Shepherd” by C.S. Forester, recounts the fictional story of Captain Krause (Hanks), a veteran Navy officer who is serving as a first-time captain of a U.S. destroyer. Krause is tasked with protecting a convoy of three dozen ships carrying thousands of soldiers and supplies across the Atlantic. Krause and his men must navigate the treacherous waters for five days with no air support, relying only on the aid of two additional escort ships in an area of the ocean dubbed the “Black Pit.” Things get really bad when the fleet is attacked by Nazi U-boats, and a lengthy battle of ships vs. submarines breaks out.
The story is inspired by events that took place during the Battle of the Atlantic in the early days of WWII, but it’s not a true story. If that wasn’t enough of a bummer, the film is mediocre all around. From the dreadful original score (by Blake Neely) to the weak special effects and dreary cinematography, the movie screams “low budget” in more ways than one. It’s not cinematic, and the production values look and feel cheap. The film is poorly directed (by Aaron Schneider), who seems to hold a pathetic understanding of the architecture of visual excitement and suspense. Hence, the wartime action is mediocre and dull, and the entire project is little more than a crudely edited jump cut fiesta.
Hanks has written his character in such a one-dimensional manner that all Captain Krause really does is quote Bible verses and bark military lingo. The film assumes an advanced knowledge of technical military terms, making it all to easy to check out of the experience. It’s also overly religious, to the point that it could easily be a faith-based film.
“Greyhound” is nothing more than one long, non-exciting battle between a warship and submarines. There are far too many good war movies to spend your time watching than this blunder.

Greyhound is watchable but entirely fanciful.
Tom Hanks is a Captain of a destroyer taking on the u-boat menace. He's fearless, god fearing, modest and faces down hordes of u-boats who are out to get him.
The enemy goads him, sends u-boats to face off with destroyers in 18th century style exchanges and sails around on the surface following his floatilla, in open defiance.
Now for an injection of reality. U-boats did not take on destroyers in surface battles of the kind you see in this film. They did not goad their captains (and records show they took no pleasure in the job they did) nor did they let the destroyer know they were there. This is a fiction and a rather silly one at that. U-boats were not a match for a destroyer, in any sense and made every effort to evade them.
The US in the early days of this war, were hopelessly outclassed by u-boat packs. It took considerable time before they started defending merchant shipping. Their admirality mostly declined advice and help from their more experienced, British counterparts. This predictably made the situation a lot worse. Eventually they did catch up but only after suffering massive losses.
This film is, in short, a fiction. Its entertaining, its well acted, I do like Tom Hanks and the action scenes whilst in many instances ridiculous, are well rendered and frenetic.
So by all means watch Greyhound for pure entertainment but don't expect a "Das Boot" experience by any means. Its worth mentioning too that even Das Boot was not 100% correct but a lot closer to the truth than this film could ever hope to be.
6/10.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
I love war movies, especially when they're able to depict the action in such an immersive way that the viewers really feel like they're there. In my opinion, it's the genre that most requires a technically outstanding production quality. The visual effects need to be absolutely perfect. The cinematography must capture the intensity of the battlefield. The sound design has to be incredibly powerful. Finally, a war film requires the most epic, nail-biting, chill-inducing score so the audience can actually feel the unbelievable atmosphere that this genre usually possesses. Greyhound has one of the greatest actors of all-time as its protagonist, but does it check the points mentioned above?
Yes and no. Technically, this movie barely has any issues. The VFX look utterly stunning, no doubt about it. Shelly Jackson, the cinematographer, has one of the most challenging tasks a filmmaker can have: filming in a water environment. He deals with this problem surprisingly well, by allowing the viewers to fully understand everything that's going on for the entire runtime. The score (Blake Neely) is emotionally powerful, but I believe it could have elevated a lot more action sequences than it actually does. The editing (Mark Czyzewski, Sidney Wolinsky) is excellent as well.
So, what failed? Well, I will always defend that the two pillars of any film are its story and characters. Without one of these two, very few movies can survive. Without the two, no film can. I have to use Dunkirk as an example here. Christopher Nolan spent the whole marketing campaign saying that his movie was about the depiction of an actual war. About how it felt to actually be in one. Therefore, Dunkirk barely has any sort of character development… because not only it never intended to, but it doesn't need it to accomplish its goal.
However, its storytelling follows a distinct method that allows for some exhilarating moments in the air, ground, and sea. Its action sequences are so powerful and incredibly realistic that I consider it the most immersive war experience I have ever experienced. Thus, the lack of compelling characters didn't really bother me because I was there to try to feel what it's like to be in a war. Greyhound also doesn't have one single character who's well-developed or well-explored. They all seem to have names, and that's it. Tom Hanks is obviously impressive in his acting role…
But his skills as a screenwriter definitely need to improve. Like I insinuate above, there's no problem in having depthless characters, as long as the story and, in this case, the action, work. None do. I'm not lying when I write that 90%+ of the script is Hanks yelling "turn right", "hard left", "slow down", and hundreds of other types of direction guidelines in nautical language. The action is lackluster. Basically, the whole film is a repetitive, tiresome cycle of a U-boat showing up on the radar, Hanks looking through several windows shouting the same nautical stuff to his crew, and trying to eliminate the enemy's ships.
I could feel the suspense and the tension that Hanks' ship emanated. I love the first encounter and pursuit of the first U-boat, it's exceptionally filmed and quite riveting. But from this moment on, it's just the same sequence stuck on repeat mode until no more ships exist. So, even though the set pieces look marvelous, these scenes quickly lose impact. Aaron Schneider should have found a way of elevating Hanks' screenplay, but unfortunately, he can only do so much. By the end, I'm left with a character whose name I can barely remember (honestly, I needed two full minutes to remember the protagonist's name after the movie ended).
All in all, Greyhound could have easily ended up as a small-scale Dunkirk. Technically, it has everything it needs to be a brilliant war flick: beautiful visual effects, powerful sound design, impeccable cinematography, and an epic score. Disregarding one of the two pillars of filmmaking (story and characters) is only an issue if the other also doesn't work. The lack of any character development can be perfectly compensated in a war film, as long as the method of storytelling allows for a unique experience packed with realistic and immersive action. However, Aaron Schneider's movie doesn't possess a compelling story, and the action set pieces are stuck in a dull cycle of hunting U-boats in the exact same way throughout the whole film. The first sequence is packed with tension and suspense, but from that moment on, the entertainment levels drop drastically. Tom Hanks is fantastic as the protagonist, but his screenplay is far from truly being one. All dialogues revolve around characters (mostly Hanks's) calling nautical instructions for most of the runtime and looking either through a window or binoculars. In the end, it's underwhelming and disappointing, but I still recommend it to the war genre's aficionados.
Rating: C

**Absolutely wonderful, and suitable for the whole family.**
Usually, people look at this movie as just another movie for kids. This is not my opinion. It is true that it is a fantasy film, with animals that talk and have human postures and behavior. However, it was built and developed in a way that turns out to be very pleasing to adults as well. Perfect to be seen with the whole family, it is a regular presence on television, especially during Christmas.
The script couldn't be more delicious: Babe is a baby piglet who, on his lucky day, was taken from the slaughterhouse where he would inevitably die (as happened to his parents and siblings). The little pig ends up in the hands of the owner of a sheep farm, who thought of fattening him up with the intention of killing him. However, and through a series of funny adventures, the little pig turns out to reveal a special talent for helping to herd the sheep, which will put the natural position of the animals and the reputation of the sheepdogs in the spotlight. Through this story, the film approaches, with humor and feeling, serious questions such as the meaning of life, death, the place of each one in the world, evil, reward and punishment.
Making this film as an animation, traditional or computerized, would have been easy. However, the production made the film with real animals and used technology to perfect the material and file rough edges. At the time, the film received some harsh criticism for making strong insinuations about meat consumption (after all, we are not used to seeing our lunch speak to other animals about the nobility of the food purpose for which it was created), and the truth is that it seems that there were really people to stop eating meat because of this.
If animals are the main protagonists of this film, where do humans come in? It's not the protagonism, I believe, that changes things a lot. The main human role in this film goes to James Cromwell, an extremely competent and talented actor who had no difficulty with his character, the owner of the farm where Babe will live, and who understands how special his piggy is. And despite speaking little, the way the actor communicates with his body and face is excellent. Magda Szubanski also does a good job, and it's interesting to see how the actress has aged so that she can play the character, which is a woman much older than the actress.
Technically, the film is exquisite and achieves some feats worthy of mention. To begin with, the number of animals, trainers and handlers that were used in the film is extraordinary. The logistical effort alone must have been enormous, in order to guarantee not only continuity (they could not all be different animals) but the hygiene and health of the animals. The make-up department, with her work, not only aged Szubanski but she humanized some of the animals, which is no small feat. The film has excellent sets and props, recreating well the childhood imagination and the idyllic bucolic rural life, very different from the life of hard work in the countryside. But what delights and surprises us most is the extraordinary cinematography, with vibrant colors, high contrast and radiant beauty. Although I'm not particularly a fan of mice, they serve their purpose. As for the soundtrack, it is solidly based on pieces from the classical repertoire such as the waltz “The Blue Danube”, by Johann Strauss II, “Cantique de Jean Racine” from Gabriel Fauré's Requiem and, particularly, the adaptation of the most famous chords of the last movement. from Symphony No. 3 Op. 78 for Pipe Organ and Orchestra by Camille Saint-Saenz. It is a piece that seems to have been chosen at random, but that may be explained by the fact that the composer is also the author of the famous work “Carnival of the Animals”, which could very well be here.

Truly disgusting type of entertainment that inspires vegetarianism! It also has a scene too much to be in a children’s film that reflects on domestic violence (between two dogs). The producers who made this sort of junk were obviously nuts in the head to put such a scene like this into such family oriented film. Please do not watch after seeing this review. You do not especially want to get inspired by such propaganda about using certain animals as food.

Seems only fitting to watch this today and still holds up really well and Betsy Palmer was really creepy. Have to think a newer generation of teens or those in their early 20s probably would find this mild compared with other horror movies, but I kind of like the simplicity of the story and kills.

***The beginning of the most successful slasher franchise***
Released in May, 1980, "Friday the 13th" was produced in the wake of the success of 1978's "Halloween" and also shares elements of "Carrie" (1976) and "A Bay of Blood" (1971). The story revolves around a cursed summer vacation spot, Camp Crystal Lake, New Jersey, and the slayings of young camp counselors. Critics slammed the film and I'm not sure why since it's in the same league as the acclaimed "Carrie" and "Halloween." Regardless, it was hugely popular at the box office, making far more than any of the sequels until "Freddy vs. Jason" in 2003. As of this writing there are 12 movies in the franchise and another in the works, making it the most successful slasher series and one of the most successful franchises of any genre.
I'm not a gorehound at all and only occasionally watch slasher flicks, but I'm a huge fan of the "Friday the 13th" franchise. Why? It has nothing to do with nostalgia since I didn't become a fan until I was well into adulthood when I saw 1985's "Friday the 13th Part V: A New Beginning" on TV one night. I think I like these movies because they typically involve young adults in a fun camp-type environment in the woods, which naturally stirs fond youthful memories; the presence of a lunatic unstoppable killer, who becomes more and more of a hideous monster, just adds an air of danger and suspense to the dramedy and adventure. Add scores of gorgeous females and various filming locations around North America and you have a fabulously entertaining franchise that has yet to end.
Speaking of the women, this first movie is highlighted by Annie (Robbi Morgan), Alice (Adrienne King) and Marcie (Jeannine Taylor) with honorable mention to Brenda and Claudette, the latter from the opening 1958 segment. As far as dudes go, a youthful Kevin Bacon is on hand as one of the counselors.
As for the filming locations, this one was shot in the remote townships of Hardwick, Blairstown & Hope, New Jersey. It's interesting how none of the films were shot at the same location even though, typically, the location in the story is Camp Crystal Lake and that general vicinity. Other locations include Connecticut (II & IX), California (III, IV, V), Georgia (VI), Alabama (VII), British Columbia (VIII & XI), New York City (VIII), Toronto (X & XI) and Texas (XII).
It's the camp-like settings of most of the franchise and the unstoppable monster that is Jason Voorhees (and the demonic thing that possesses him, his mother and others, as disclosed in 1993’s “Jason Goes to Hell”) that especially sets "Friday the 13th" apart from similar franchises.
Concerning the tone, the first two films are serious in nature with the expected antics of youths on vacation in the woods, but the franchise introduced a campy element in Part III, which rears its head in several entries (V, VI, IX and X) until the reboot in 2009. Not that I'm complaining much, as these films are only quasi-believable anyway. Speaking of which, the only thing questionable about this first film, as far as realism goes, is how the killer is able to throw an adult corpse through a window or hang a body from a door, etc. But I suppose these things can be attributed to the powerful psycho Voorhees gene (or the hellish entity that possesses them).
Many people find these films scary and shocking and the first two movies have some slightly chilling aspects, some of the others as well, I guess, but, with the exception of the 2009 reboot, I don't usually find these movies particularly scary. They're sometimes creepy, sometimes suspenseful, sometimes exciting and always entertaining, but not scary (although there are numerous jump-scares, of course). In fact, I usually bust out laughing at the inevitable death scenes.
I give "Friday the 13th" a high rating because it IS an effective film in the oft-maligned slasher/horror genre, not to mention it’s iconic and kicked-off this amazingly successful franchise. No genre is beyond redemption if done right; and that's the case here.
The film runs 95 minutes.
GRADE: A-

Certainly not the first slasher movie, but arguably the most influential.
This original film stands alongside _Part V: A New Beginning_ as the only two movies in a 12 film long franchise where they play the killer as a mystery, I think that premise would wear thin had they tried it every go around, but here it is executed, if not masterfully, at least to the film's benefit. _Friday the 13th_ is a movie I'll watch at least once a year, ever since I first saw it in the early 2000s. Maybe it's not the best movie ever, or even the best slasher movie ever, Hell, maybe it's not even the best Friday the 13th movie ever, but the fact that I'm not sick of it yet has to count for something.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

Some films benefit with time, maturing and holding a nostalgic charm. Others rot like a bad apple, like _Friday the 13th_. Perhaps I had to be alive in 1980 to actually appreciate this one, but it is really not as groundbreaking as some people like to think it is, rather another spin on films like _Psycho_ and _Halloween_, minus the budget. And the acting.

Clearly, the team behind “Friday the 13th” expected at least to make a reasonable profit out of it, but I seriously doubt that anyone involved in the making of this film even considered the possibility of it becoming the cult classic that it is today. Victor Miller, who wrote the story, openly admitted that he was riding off the success of Halloween (1978). The late actress Betsy Palmer even claimed that, after reading the script, she thought the story was trash (well… she actually used another word), but she took the job because she needed a new car. Little did she know when she took the role that her character would immortalize her as one of the biggest horror icons of all times.
Yes, it is evident that Victor Miller and Don Mancini capitalized on the success of Halloween (1978), but the truth is that “Friday the 13th” manages to stand out on its own, and in the end, other than being two slasher films about a killer who prowls around murdering teenagers; these two films don’t really have that much in common. To this day, John Carpenter’s “Halloween” is considered a more “serious” horror film (for the lack of a better word), while “Friday the 13th” remains a classic, but is still seen as a less underappreciated respectable flick. Why? Probably because, even though I absolutely love it, I will admit that “Friday the 13th” certainly has a campy nature (no pun intended). In my case, I don’t mind the campiness, I actually enjoy it.
In “Friday the 13th”, the story begins in 1958, in a summer camp named Camp Crystal Lake. We see two young camp counselors who are about to have sex, when someone appears out of nowhere and murders them both. We don’t get to see who the killer is, since the murders are shown in a point-of-view shot, and the reason behind the murders is not yet explained either.
The story then jumps to 1980 and it focuses on Alice, a young and sensible girl who, along with other kids of her age, is hired as a counselor by a man who attempts to reopen Camp Crystal Lake. Unfortunately, someone doesn’t seem too thrilled about the reopening of the place, which will lead to a series of gruesome murders. Could it be the same person who killed those two counselors back in 1958? In the end, it is Alice who will have to come face to face with the killer and fight for her own life.
*Spoilers ahead*
Plot-wise, “Friday the 13th” may not be too remarkable, but it doesn’t really need to be either. I could be wrong, but I believe this film first introduced the formula that consists on: a summer camp as a scenario, a pinch of mystery, plentiful gore, creative deaths and a gratifying reveal towards the last minutes. Just like this film attempted to ride off the success of a previous slasher, ironically, “Friday the 13th” itself ended up generating a bunch of (arguably) inferior clones as well. Of course, commercial success doesn’t necessarily imply quality, but I do think “Friday the 13th” has a certain something that makes it appealing to a lot of people.
For the most part, the characters in this film seem somewhat generic and one dimensional, which is a common attribute in slasher films. There really isn’t much of a character development, and we don’t get to know them very well. Most of the victims are young boys and girls who seem to be in the camp to have a good time themselves, rather than working hard to make the children happy. Surely, these characters don’t really deserve to die for being immature and silly, but at the same time, it is hard to feel too bad for them either. However, the first character that gets killed after the time-jump seems genuinely sweet and caring, so one obviously feels bad for her when she is brutally murdered, just for being naïve enough to trust a stranger. I think this death after the time-jump was a perfect move, because it sets the tone perfectly for what is going to happen later: a bunch of innocent young people will be brutally murdered without having done anything to deserve it.
The acting in “Friday the 13th” is mostly plain or, in some cases, over the top, which, along with the silly dialogs and lines, provides the film with an enjoyable campy nature. The late Betsy Palmer, who played the role of Mrs. Pamela Voorhees, was nominated for a Razzie Award, and while I love the character of Mrs. Voorhees and I felt bad to hear about Palmer’s passing, I can understand why she was nominated. It’s true, Betsy’s portrayal of Jason’s mother is over the top and it can appear as unintentionally funny during her delivery of some of her lines, but at the same time, I’m not sure if I can imagine the character being played differently at this point. Then we have Crazy Ralph, literally jumping out of a closet, telling the kids to leave, because they’re doomed and that Camp Crystal Lake has a death curse. This character, aside from being called “Crazy” Ralph, (in case anyone didn’t notice that he was crazy in the first place), is perhaps one of the campiest characters in the slasher subgenre, which earned him an iconic place in the franchise and even a small part in the first sequel.
“Friday the 13th” offers a nice variety of gory murders, with Tom Savini in charge of the makeup effects, which is an undeniable seal of quality. The legendary “axe in the face” death scene is perhaps one of the most memorable parts of the film for many fans. In this scene, Sean Cunningham and Tom Savini not only offer a morbidly satisfying and shocking on-screen death, we also get a lot of tension and suspense preceding the murder, which creates a feeling of panic and desperation.
The final confrontation between Alice, our final girl, and Mrs. Voorhees, Jason’s vengeful mother is really extensive for a good cause, as it helps to build a lot of tension that culminates with a gruesome murder. To some extent, when Mrs. Voorhees suddenly appears out of nowhere and begins to tell the story of what happened to that “poor boy”, it is easy to assume that she is responsible for the carnage, or at least, that she is involved to a certain degree. Up until this point, we had never seen her before throughout the entire film, so why is she popping out now? There are no other supporting characters left to blame for the murders and Mrs. Voorhees shows up the exact moment when things got really ugly? What could she be doing at Camp Crystal Lake in the middle of the night, other than murdering boys and girls? Of course, our final girl, even though she is not unintelligent, seems to be somewhat oblivious of what is really happening and this is what makes up want to scream “Get out of there!”. Mrs. Voorhees is basically explaining the whole story to the audience, but at the same time, she is subtly revealing herself as the killer, before going into a weird trance, in which she starts talking as if she is possessed by Jason, her own son, who drowned at the lake (I always considered this like a switched version of Norman Bates and his mother).
As mentioned before, the acting in this final confrontation is not exactly brilliant and the audience ends up getting more than they probably needed to understand the story, since Mrs. Voorhees’ monologue basically goes into detail of what happened, just to make sure we get it right (just like when they make sure that we understand that Ralph is a crazy old man, by calling him “Crazy Ralph”). Regardless of the over the top acting and the spoon-feeding to the audience, the confrontation is full of tension, and it is still considered one of the most memorable “killer reveal” moments in the history of horror for a good reason.

**Shallow Hal might have a pretty divisive premise in today's culture, but the message and character growth champion worth and dignity while making you laugh.**
This movie would never be allowed to release in today's world, but it was a hit when it came out in 2001, and it's because it really is a funny, sweet movie. What could be a crude and offensive movie is thoughtful and even deep at moments while being laugh-out-loud hilarious. Jack Black plays the same lovable goofball as always, except this time, his character struggles with only caring about a person's appearance and his particular expectations on how they should look. But as the movie progresses, Hal grows and matures, discovering the beauty in everyone, both inside and out. Shallow Hal ultimately shares a meaningful message while also pouring on the laughs and poking fun at every character in the film. So don't balk at the premise of the movie. Instead, give it a shot, and you might just enjoy it.

Really good watch, could watch again, and can recommend.
Now, I'm honestly not the biggest fans of this cast: Jack Black, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Jason Alexander, but that's not to discredit their acting abilities, and I don't just limit that to these performances as everyone did a great job.
Because of the complexity of the story itself, they clearly wanted to make this as silly and palatable as possible so everything essentially has rounded corners and rubberized edges. Hal is purposely left as a generic stock character to endear the audience as lesser but relatable, when it's actually a representation of the expectant audience. Mauricio is clearly a similar representation of our self-loathing, self-sabotaging selves: anytime we actually get something we think we might not deserve we take it away. Even Rosemarie is a generic representation of women's self-view (granted it is wildly simplified in this "guy's" movie), and by "blurring" the view between taught beauty (very clearly Jack learned from his dad) and personal connection you're able to find real happiness with people that might actually matter to you past an image.
I and the movie aren't "glorifying fatness" (people say weird stuff), you should of course continue to work and be the best version of you that you can be, but "but he/she/it is fat" shouldn't be the only factor.
It touches on real issues in the work and that ruins the escapism for me a little bit, but it does it in such a odd, fun, philosophical way it's easy enough to overlook.

***Fun romcom with a worthy message***
A shallow man (Jack Black) from Charlotte, North Carolina, falls in love with a 300 lb. woman (Gwyneth Paltrow) after Tony Robbins enables him to see inner merit. Jason Alexander is on hand as his best friend.
“Shallow Hal” (2001) is a romcom that’s both amusing and meaningful. The movie stresses the importance of inward beauty, which Hal was incapable of seeing because of his focus on solely physical attractiveness. When the latter is removed through Tony Robbins' mesmerism he's finally able to see the former. Whiney libs that are unable to grasp fantasy and humor might be offended by the fat jokes, but the overall moral is commendable.
The flick scores pretty well in the feminine department with Paltrow in her prime and never looking better, speaking as someone who was never overly wowed by her. She’s jaw-dropping here and the movie doesn’t fail to spotlight her beauty. Other beautiful women are featured, like Susan Ward as Hal’s neighbor, Jill.
The film runs 1 hour, 54 minutes and was shot in Charlotte, North Carolina.
GRADE: B+

Shallow Hal wants a gal.
Hal Larsen (Jack Black) only ever dates beautiful trophy women on account of advice he received on his death bed from his father. However, a chance meeting with a self-help guru helps him to see inner beauty first and foremost. Soon after, he falls in love with his boss' severely overweight daughter, which as it raises eyebrows everywhere the couple go, Hal is oblivious as to what everyone else is on about.
Tender, sweet and subtle are not words one readily attributes to the Farrelly Brothers, but in Shallow Hal they have managed to blend all three with their penchant for close to the knuckle humour.
Gwyneth Paltrow in the dual role dons the fat-suit and once again showcases her unheralded comic timing, while Jack Black proves ebullient and engaging in a role that calls for him to shut out what he is actually meant to be seeing. In support Jason Alexander gets the weasel best friend comedy sidekick role, and is wonderfully abhorrent and good at keeping the cards close to his chest.
It's never uproariously funny, but it doesn't need to be, it tickles where it needs to, and it prods the emotional psyche with requisite impact. In a world that has become obsessed with the girth and weight of a person, especially with women - and as it happens is led by Hollywood, Shallow Hal is refreshing entertainment. 7/10

**RUN! Save yourselves!**
The cinematography makes this movie lovely to watch while being miserable to experience. Filled with amazing actors trying to make sense of a film riddled with plot holes and disappointment. I was hoping for a good Del Toro horror movie and sadly was met with a poorly executed mystery romp... spent the whole movie hoping the ending would somehow save it... and sadly, it did not.

Bradley Cooper picks up the baton from Tyrone Power (1948) as the ambitious "Stanton Carlisle", a shrewd young man who works the travelling shows with an eye for the main chance. That chance comes when he hooks up with Toni Collette's "Zeena", who shows him the tricks of their mentalist trade. Pretty soon they are fooling the great and the good - and he meets "Dr. Ritter" (Cate Blanchett). She is a psychiatrist, every bit as ambitious and ruthless as he and is content to share some of the innermost secrets of her clients with him so he can exploit their suffering. To the top of their list goes sceptical millionaire "Ezra Grindle". Together they conjure up one hell of a sting on this man - but can they succeed? This film looks great, but I found it took too long to become interesting. Cooper is handsome, but struggles with the unscrupulousness that the part needed to convey, and his scenes with Blanchett lack chemistry, indeed it is Collette who really steals the few scenes she is in - especially towards the rather twisted end of the tale. It is good, but maybe just had too much time and money and the story sacrificed some of it's soul here.

Full review: https://www.tinakakadelis.com/beyond-the-cinerama-dome/2021/12/28/the-spook-show-must-go-on-nightmare-alley-review
Writer and director Guillermo del Toro has built his career on monster movies. He’s filled them with the Pale Man, the Crimson Woman, a fish man, all creatures you don’t want to find yourself alone with at night. And yet, time and again, del Toro shows us that the real monsters, the things that should scare us the most, are our fellow humans.

This is great! I loved it!
'Nightmare Alley' is a superb watch! I particularly enjoyed the beginning and end, which are truly excellent; the middle part isn't as strong, but is still top notch in its own right. I love the dark atmosphere it sets from the get-go, the sound design is outstanding - some bits are so striking and I love it! It has a quality, engrossing story to boot.
Bradley Cooper leads the cast with quality, though he isn't even the sole standout of the film. He is joined by a whole host of terrific performers: Cate Blanchett, Rooney Mara, Toni Collette, Willem Dafoe, Richard Jenkins, David Strathairn ... I could go on, simply phenomenal casting! I wanted more of them all, and yet felt I got the perfect amount too.
The 150 minute run time went by incredibly quickly for me; if I hadn't known it was on for that long, I would never have guessed its length to be anywhere near that. It's a slow burn, but a slow burn done tremendously. Guillermo del Toro - this is the first film of his I've seen - & Co. did a super job, I have no complaints at all. I was toying for ages between a 9 or a 10 rating, it just about creeps its way into the latter.
Just brilliant. Go watch!

The duration of _Nightmare Alley_ may seem like a slog even as you’re watching it. On one hand, your mindset is essentially, “How many times do I have to watch Bradley Cooper read a book and point at his temple over and over for two and a half hours?”
But _Nightmare Alley_ is expertly crafted in a way that every sequence feels relevant later on and it leaves you with a lot to ponder after it ends. It’s a beautiful film with an incredible cast full of strong performances from del Toro regulars.
It may feel like an extreme case of a slow burn, but it’s also a rare instance where it’s worth your valuable time and the investment. The audience being in on the con from the start makes you feel like part of the carny family. At this point in his illustriously hellish career, _Nightmare Alley_ is arguably Guillermo del Toro’s best written film.
**Full review:** https://boundingintocomics.com/2021/12/13/nightmare-alley-review-a-murky-noir-that-tinkers-with-greatness/

Stanton Carlisle (Bradley Cooper); is a man trying to get by in late 1930s America in the new film "Nightmare Alley". Our first introduction to Stanton is less than flattering and he soon finds himself employed at a Carnival after coming upon it by chance.
The eager Stanton is given advice and tools of the trade by his boss Clem (Willem Dafoe) as well as the mystic Zeena (Toni Collette) and Stanton eagerly wants to get ahead. While striking a friendship with fellow employee Molly (Rooney Mara); Stanton learns that Zeena's older and alcoholic husband has a skill from a former act where he learns to read people and use verbal cues to appear to have the power of clairvoyance.
Eventually, Stanton seeks bigger opportunities and leaves with Molly for the city where they in time develop a successful act that offers them two shows a night at a fancy hotel and some of the finer things in life.
Unwilling to be content with what he has; Stanton becomes involved with a Psychologist named Lilith (Cate Blanchett) and uses her knowledge to set up higher-profile marks who will pay well for his supposed abilities and in doing so; sets a dangerous chain of events into motion.
The film is based on the 1946 book of the same name and an earlier 1947 film, and while it does an amazing job with the visuals and moody atmosphere of the era; it is a very long and slowly-paced film. The movie is over 2.5 hours long and comes across as overly long and self-indulgent as Director Guillermo del Toro could easily have shaved 30-45 minutes from the film and told the story without losing much.
The cast and performances are very good but a slow-paced and dour film is not an ideal way to spend 2.5 hours at the movies no matter how much it has going for it. The movie does have some good points but I think it will do much better on streaming and home video where audiences can pause and take a break.
If you are a fan of the Noir style of old; then this may be just what you are looking for, but I think it should have been so much more.
3.5 stars out of 5.

Feels like a watered down version of 'Mad Max', albeit one that is still worth watching.
'Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome' turns out to be a problematic title, given the most entertaining moments happen at the Thunderdome - so when events move away from said location, it isn't quite as interesting. I didn't really like the 'Peter Pan' Lost Boys-esque parts, not that what's produced is bad it just isn't what I want to see from this franchise, personally.
Mel Gibson is good value as the lead once more, while it is noteworthy to see one Tina Turner in a big supporting role. Yet again, though, I didn't get that much off the cast performances. I'm sounding like a broken record, I know, but it's very much the action that keeps these movies ticking over.
The weakest of the series, for me. Here's hoping 'Mad Max: Fury Road' is the best one, which - based on murmurs down the years - I am led to believe that it is; with Tom Hardy as the main man, I imagine that I will enjoy that 2015 flick - fingers crossed!

The wandering "Max" (Mel Gibson) finds himself in the brutal "Bartertown" ruled either by "Aunty Entity" (Tina Turner) or "Master" (Angelo Rossitto) depending on whether or not you needed electricity! The former, and her devious cohort "The Collector" (the always reliable Frank Thring) concoct a plan by which they can use the ingenuity of "Max" to sort out this power struggle once and for all. That goes to plan, to a certain extent, but when that sense of decency still within our hero causes him to defy his new boss, he is consigned to the "gulag" whereupon he alights upon some youngsters who believe him a god capable of flying them to safety. When he tries to point out that they have the wrong man, dissent amongst these children leads him, and them, back for a final confrontation with the "Aunty". Tina Turner was very much at the top of her musical renaissance when this was made, and had she featured a little more then perhaps we could have better developed the sense of menace here. As it is, she doesn't and once we end up in feral kindergarten territory, the story just becomes predicable and really rather dull. "We Don't Need Another Hero" tops it all off well, but much of the rest of this is pretty unremarkable and may well sound the death knell for this now well spent anti-hero.

_**Bizarre comic book post-nuclear adventure in the Outback with Mel Gibson and Tina Turner**_
In post-apocalyptic Australia, Mad Max (Mel Gibson) travels to Bartertown in the Outback run by Aunty Entity (Tina Turner) & her associate The Collector (Frank Thring). Max accepts a deal to take out MasterBlaster, who runs the town’s methane production underground, but ends up exiled to the deadly desert where he meets… (watch the movie and see).
“Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome” (1985) is the third in George Miller’s franchise after “Mad Max” (1979) and “The Road Warrior” (1981). The fourth installment, “Fury Road,” didn’t surface until 2015 (meanwhile Miller has announced a fifth entry, “The Wasteland”). All of these films were rated R except “Beyond Thunderdome,” which turns off some devotees. I could care less since the amount of gore, violence, sex and cussing don’t determine the quality of a film, except maybe to teenagers.
Like the previous two films, “Beyond Thunderdome” combines the austere life-or-death situation with a cartoonish vibe, so it’s difficult to take it too seriously, as can be done with the first two Planet of the Apes flicks (1968 & 1971). This campy air always turned me off to these movies, but if you can accept it they can be enjoyed on their level of semi-believable fantasy. You just have to be willing to enter into their weird world.
Most fans object to the kids in the desert angle, but this section only lasts 25 freakin’ minutes before tying back into what took place in the first act. Besides, Savannah (Helen Buday) is cute and has nice legs. The departure from a paradisal oasis in exchange for Bartertown seems nonsensical, but it’s figurative of leaving the utopia of youth to the ugly real world and challenges thereof.
The verbiage is odd, basic and guttural so don’t look for fascinating dialogues. Meanwhile the storytelling isn’t very compelling. Nevertheless, the movie’s iconic to the 80s and has its points of interest, like its all-around bizarreness, the desolate landscapes, the laconic hero and cutie Savannah, not to mention Turner and her songs (“We Don't Need Another Hero”).
The film runs 1 hour, 47 minutes, and was shot in Australia.
GRADE: B-

Max Rockatansky and the Goonie feral gang.
Even allowing for my unabashed love of the first two films in the franchise, and sweeping away any sort of biased leanings I might of had for the character of Max, I just can't bring myself to rate at average this cartoonery waste of space that so nearly soils what had gone before it.
Gone is the rugged nasty streak that brought feeling to the character Mad Max Rockatansky, gone is the impacting feeling of desolation in an apocalyptic world, and more crucially, gone is director George Miller's passion for the franchise. The dreadful score matches the cartoon heart of the film, it seems that the makers didn't really know what to do with the amount of cash given to make this third instalment. Sure the stunts are spot on (to be expected by now), and of course Miller manages to paint a barren desert landscape by purely lifting from what he has done before. Yet he clearly struggled for fresh ideas with the action since "The Road Warrior's" crowning glory of the Petrol Tanker pursuit is replicated here, only he uses a train instead!!.
It's just a very poor show that may have seemed like an ambitious turn of events back in the mid 1980s, but when viewing the three films together now, Thunderdome just comes across as a director losing his edgy approach whilst sadly getting caught between the mix of comedy and fantasy action. And the truth is that neither of those genre slants would have worked singularly, in the context of this series, anyway. I give the film 3/10 purely for one real good Thunderdome fight sequence, while the stunt men here deserve some credit at the very least. But this is the third time I have tried to like this film, and as glutton for punishment as I undoubtedly am, I wont be trying again, ever.

**The best of the Mad Max films**
High production values and a compelling story line make this the best of the series. This one doesn't rely on basic car smashes for the duration and instead gives us a moving and more thoughtful adventure.
No campy men dressed for the _Blue Oyster_ bar in this one, thank goodness. _The Road Warrior_ (1981) is widely regarded as the best but I have to disagree. That film had a very one note narrative that verged on the bland and an overload of homoerotic imagery.
This is a beautiful looking and entertaining film that does not have the shoddy and amateur vibe of the first two. _Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome_ is the film that the first should have been.
- Charles Dance

It’s Done!
Directed by Brad Anderson and starring Halle Berry and Abigail Breslin, The Call is one of those infuriating thriller movies that destroys all its hard work with a lame last quarter. The plot is based around a 911 Emergency Call Centre, where Berry works but suffers a breakdown of sorts when an error she makes costs the life of a young girl being stalked by a maniac. Some time later and Breslin is abducted by a whacko and locked in the trunk of his car, which brings Berry back into dutiful action. Can she save the girl this time?
For the most part it’s a sturdy thriller, it’s not breaking new ground or anything, but it has some good ideas and the scenes of Breslin and Berry talking on the phone are well crafted and performed. So far so tightly wound by Anderson. But there’s a point in the movie where you know exactly what is going to happen for the remainder of film. Logic, suspense and credibility is quickly replaced by a roll call of popcorn munching conventions clearly aimed at pleasing the undemanding multiplex goers.
The police are buffoons but thankfully Berry, a phone operator, can do their job for them. Though this comes at a cost to Berry as well. Where earlier there was an actress playing with conviction an interesting and emotionally confused character, now she is reduced to doing the sort of dumb things that happen in laughably bad scream queen movies. Or not as the case may be in one colossal plot hole that is badly attempted to be explained away by the makers!
Such a shame, because both Berry and Breslin turn in good thriller performances, and Michael Eklund is suitably nuts as the serial killer with on-going issues. But they are all better than this screenplay, and deserve better, it feels compromised after such a good start, while Anderson is clearly capable of greater things given he has Session 9, The Machinist and Transsiberian on his CV.
The Call is cautiously recommended to those after a better than average thriller time waster. The lead actors are good value, the direction clean, the premise safe and the production design for the nutter’s lair suitably grotty. If only the writer and the suited financial backers could have been in sync and stayed true to the earlier tone of the pic, then this would have been a bigger hit. 6/10

**A short and objective film, with a clear and still relevant message, as well as a huge performance by Kirk Douglas.**
There are several films about World War I, but it is far from being seen by the public as one of the best. In fact, it seems to me a little forgotten today. It is, however, timely and current in its pacifist message in which the greatest absurdity of war is emphasized in a partially true story, in which a group of three French soldiers is shot by cowardice after joining an inglorious attack to a much stronger and prepared German position.
Stanley Kubrick is a director to which no one gets indifferent: either if he loves or hates. He seems to have enjoyed fostering this by choosing hard themes, uncomfortable and debatable movies. This is just one more, and I, who loved some of his movies just as I hated others, decided to put this movie in the middle of the table. It is much more direct and easy to understand than most of his later work, but is nonetheless uncomfortable for the questions raised. For example, the contrasts between the ordinary soldier, mud in a trench and subject to die like an animal, and the generals, kilometers in the rear, in beautiful palaces where there is not a single shot. Intelligently, Kubrick focuses on the obvious injustice of punishment as proof of the inhuman absurdity of war and military leaders.
Thus, the movie is simple, direct, short (not even one and a half hours) and abrasive. Black-and-white cinematography is very clear, luminous and works a lot of light and shadow. The edition is effective and the soundtrack almost imperceptible for discretion. The sets and costumes are worthy of a large production. However, there are no action and combat scenes do not focus on the intensity of the fight, but its most human side. It is another perspective of war: those looking for action will not have what they want, but who wants a deeper movie has a full plate here.
Kirk Douglas is the protagonist, embodying a colonel who is responsible for carrying out the defense of the military under trial. The efforts he desperately leads to the last instances are notable, but as the sentence was predetermined, the court is a sordid masquerade. Douglas begins to be cordial and contained, an officer at the orders, part of the gear, but gradually changes as his character is confronted with all that brutality, and this is really a meritorious effort for any actor. I don't know his work well yet, but I wouldn't surprise me if this was one of Douglas's best movies. Unfortunately, and without disregard for Adolphe Menjou and Joe Turkel's efforts, the rest of the cast does not accompany him at all.

"Col. Dax" (Kirk Dougas) is cajoled by "Gen. Broulard" (Adolphe Menjou) into taking his Great War weary regiment on one last mission in occupied France. Frankly, it's little better than a suicide one, but his operational commander "Gen. Mireau" (George Macready) is determined at all costs that they succeed. Let battle commence! Only the French soldiers quickly realise that they are facing a well armed, immovable, German opponent and are either killed or driven back. Desperate to motivate his men, "Mireau" gives an order that is luckily not acted upon and with the mission deemed a failure and many of the men now in the relative safety of their trenches, the general orders a court martial for cowardice of three of the survivors. "Dax" is appalled but a trial there must be... Are the right people being tried and is the outcome a mere formality? I saw a 16mm print of this rather gripping and depressing wartime drama and it augmented the genuine sense of peril faced by these men as incoming artillery, the claustrophobic trench existences and - make no mistake - the competencies of their officers are put on display for us. It's dark, wet, gritty and as we reach the denouement clearly illustrative of the futility of much of this stage of this war. Kirk Douglas takes top billing and is adequate, it's Macready who actually steals this for me and the director's wife does the briefest of scenes as a German cabaret singer, too. Again, I think cinema will focus this better than television, but either way it's a thought-provoking exposé of war that holds up well 60-odd years later.