Madness and Patsies Crash Together In Kubrick's Explosive Thunderbolt.
Stanley Kubrick's Paths of Glory is holding up rather well these days, in fact it's as pertinent and relevant as ever.
It's 1916 and the French and German armies are in opposing mud trenches, when the French are ordered to undertake a suicidal assault on a German held hill, many of the soldiers are quick to realise it's an impossible order to see through to its conclusion and retreat, something which brings charges of cowardice from the military hierarchy. Someone must take the fall...
Withdrawn from circulation in France at one time, unreleased in Spain as well, Paths of Glory is a shattering indictment on military hierarchy. On those General types who watch from afar through telescopic sights as men and boys are led like lambs to the slaughter, then off they go to their dinning rooms to gorge on wine and wholesome meat, the stench of rotting flesh as bad on their breaths as it is out there in no man's land. But it's OK for the war effort, while there might even be a promotion for some lucky soul in nice trousers...
A two-parter, the film was adapted from the novel written by Humphrey Cobb. The first half follows the craziness of the attack, the horrors of war brutally realised as Kubrick and cinematographer Georg Krause bring out the worry and simmering anger that jostle for the soldier's souls. The camera is cold and calculating, thus perfect for the material to hand, it leads the viewers - with skillful fluidity - through the bleakness of the trenches and the desolation of no man's land, the former a foreboding place, the latter an atrocity exhibition as bodies get flayed and shattered, while others retreat with limbs or sanity barely intact.
Second part shifts to a legally based procedural as the Generals conspire to make an example of those who retreated. Cowardice and a dereliction of duty apparently means the firing squad must save the integrity of the army. Patsies are lined up, but their Colonel (a superb Kirk Douglas) wants to defend them, there's much sweat, tears and anger, accusations hurled, and mistakes once again proving insurmountable. Which leads to the astonishing finale, heartbreaking whilst inducing fury, and crowned by an elegiac song that brings tears for characters and viewers alike.
A monochrome masterpiece full of technical skills, towering performances and writing to die for, Paths of Glory, candidate for one of the greatest anti-military films ever crafted. 10/10

This one was alright. It was more about the female chipmunks in this. I know there being introduce in this movie. But it was funnier when the male and females were making fun of each other.

I think that _Insidious_ might genuinely be a franchise best watched in the story's chronological order, rather than the movies' release dates. I can't be certain though, because I'd have to re-watch them all to make sure I'm not making a bad recommendation, and I'm not super keen on doing that seeing as this one and the one preceding it were both kinda... bad.
The mythology of _Insidious_ is something I am very interested in, and _The Last Key_ added it to it **somewhat**. But if this is the sort of quality we can expect from future instalments, then maybe we should never see the resolution of the same cliffhanger ending that they've given us for **the last three movies in a row**.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

**_More of the same with a female protagonist, but well done_**
An American paleontologist (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is recruited by a doctor and his assistant (Ulrich Thomsen and Eric Christian Olsen) to travel to a Norwegian base in Antarctica to examine a colossal craft buried under the ice and a nearby frozen specimen. They bring the latter into the base; big mistake.
“The Thing” (2011) is a prequel to the Kurt Russell movie from 29 years prior. The ending fittingly paves the way for the 1982 film, which featured an all-male cast. This one attempts to “fix” that arguable issue with the inclusion of Winstead and another female character, but I wouldn’t look for romantic complications because this flick runs 6 minutes shorter than the ’82 film and so only has time to focus on the life-or-death challenges of the remote station.
It's basically a re-do, just with a female protagonist à la “Alien” & “Aliens.” The laughable torso jaws return, but this shows faithfulness and consistency. The ’82 film is revered by devotees so this movie was never going to measure up in their eyes. However, it’s pretty much on par and I appreciate the presence of Winstead, plus it does do something different in the last act that I’m not going to give away.
The film runs 1 hour, 43 minutes, and was shot at Pinewood Toronto Studios near the shore in Port Lands, as well as nearby Stouffville and the Canadian Forces Base in Trenton, the latter of which is a 2-hour drive east of Toronto. Exteriors were shot in British Columbia.
GRADE: B

Hvem går det?
The Thing is directed by Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. and adapted to screenplay by Eric Heisserer. It's based on the novel "Who Goes There?" by John W. Campbell and is a prequel to "John Carpenter's The Thing" from 1982. It stars Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgerton, Ulrich Thomsen, Eric Christian Olsen and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje. Music is by Marco Beltrami and cinematography by Michel Abramowicz.
Antartica, 1982, and scientist Kate Lloyd is requested to investigate something strange at a Norwegian base station. By accident the Norwegians have discovered what appears to be an alien craft frozen beneath the ice. Their thoughts prove to be correct and they are rightly celebrating a magnificent discovery, particularly as there appears to also be a frozen being in the ice. But it's not long before everyone at the base begins to regret unearthing the being...
No serious John Carpenter fan wanted this film, it wasn't needed or required. His 1982 film is an awesome slice of sci-fi horror, a remake itself of a very good film, "The Thing from Another World" (Howard Hawks 1951), Carpenter flipped the scenario around from Hawks' movie to great effect. Paranoia and creeping dread blended with amazing beasties to make for what many feel is one of the ultimate sci-fi horror movies going. So why remake it then? Well, we are told by Heijningen Jr and his team that this is a prequel to Carpenter's movie, asking the big questions such as just what happened at the Norwegian base station before Kurt Russell's manly mob got there? Making this a sort of filling in the blanks session. Not a bad idea at all is that, something good to work from, even if we know from the beginning of Carpenter's movie just how many Norwegian's survived!
Now the problem here is that it may be a prequel, and attention to detail in scenes linking both films together is rather ace, but it's devoid of freshness, the makers pretty much following the exact same formula of Carpenter's film. Cue a group of scientist types getting spooked by something ghastly stalking them, cue one by one them getting offed in grizzly ways by an assimilating menace and cue paranoia and suspicion. They even put in the test sequence from 82, only with a metal slant instead of blood, while the creatures are the same only bigger in body horror terms and budget. Instead of Kurt Russell's mighty machismo, we get Winstead's spunky lady (she's the one without the face fuzz here), but it's the same old same old routine, only for the "Scott Pilgrim" crowd. When all is said and done, this is pretty much a remake of a far far better film.
Yet for all that is annoying and unadventurous about it, it's still a bunch of fun, the director is capable in having us wonder what is around the corner, utilising the cramped interiors for maximum fret. The various creatures born out of the Thing itself are monstrous, especially the two headed one which we see horrifically birthed, and even though the CGI is there, with some of it poor, much of it is blended with practical work and the human actors to stop it from being "all" about the effects. It's also nice to report that there is undeniably love and respect for the 82 cut. Leading cast performances are efficient, but Winstead is just too young and looks out of place, she does not, however, fail for lack of effort to make her thinly written part work. Bonus is the Norwegian actors adding some intense character dynamics to the plotting. Beltrami's score nods appreciatively to Morricone's original, and on Blu-ray Abramowicz's steely coloured photography really pings out of the screen.
In an alternative universe where there is no John Carpenter film, this would be a well regarded entry into the creature feature stable. With enough shocks and squirmy screams delivered for the genre eager crowd. But unless you are someone who hasn't seen Carpenter's superior movie, then this will feel like a shallow imitation, just like, ironically enough, one of The Thing's assimilated humans. A generous 7/10 from me because I did have fun watching in the privacy of my own home with the lights off. Other Carpenter fans, though, are most likely to start rating from my 7 and work backwards I feel...

**A comedic film that was successful, and which is based on the talented efforts of Eddie Murphy.**
This is one of the comedies that helped establish Eddie Murphy's name as a comic actor, and I wouldn't be exaggerating if I said that it was one of the most memorable comedies that came out in the 90s: almost everyone has seen this film, regardless of whether or not they liked him. The story is quite simple and follows the journey of a clumsy university chemistry professor who, suffering from morbid obesity, decides to invent a serum that allows him, instantly, to assume the physical elegance he always dreamed of having... but when he falls in love with a slender woman, decides to test it on himself and discovers a disturbing side effect: a split personality that threatens to banish the real one and take on a life of its own.
I called him a double personality, but it would be more accurate to call him an “alter ego”, because Buddy Love – that's his name – is actually the reflection of all the repressed desires that Professor Sherman had and that he never fulfilled: a handsome, seductive, bold and flirtatious man, spontaneous and extroverted to the point of not having any kind of shame and having deeply unpleasant attitudes towards other people. Freudian? It's really something that only a psychoanalyst could understand, but which the film plays with in a deeply effective way.
But not everything is good in this film. The dialogues are quite weak, and the jokes were made with such a low and dirty style of humor that a person like me can hardly laugh. There are several moments in which this is observed more clearly, but all the scenes where the Klump family appears deserve negative attention. It's a part of the film that I, honestly, would have cut and deleted, and that I would never let a son or daughter see before we had a serious conversation about it.
Technically, the film is not a show in any way, except for all the makeup and costume work, developed around Eddie Murphy and the various characters he played in the film. It is a truly remarkable work, in which Murphy ages, rejuvenates, gains weight and loses weight as necessary, and always with a lot of verisimilitude and authenticity. And what about the work of the protagonist himself? I think it's enough to say that he deserves all the praise and accolades he received for the film. Despite the weaknesses and all the defects that I have pointed out, the commitment, dedication, professionalism and talent of an actor who, in a single film, plays eight or nine different characters is undeniable! If there's anything that makes this movie work, it's Eddie Murphy. Jada Pinkett Smith (still single at the time, as far as I know) did a decent job as a beauty who serves as Murphy's love interest, and does a reasonable job with her colleague, without being able to keep up with him for a single minute. James Coburn and Dave Chappelle make some positive notes, but that's all there is to it.

This is my favourite movie in the world. I love it so much that I have a Suspiria tattoo, it got me into movies - into Italian horror which is one of my favourite things now.
This is a masterpiece. Nothing will ever come close to this movie’s cinematography and soundtrack. Many people comment on the ‘style over substance’ aspect of Suspiria (and some of Argento’s other films), but I don’t see it as a flaw. It’s an experience. I don’t care if everything makes 100% perfect sense, when I put Suspiria on I feel transported to another world and that’s the best kind of movie. One that can just take you away from the real world.
Suspiria is oddly comforting to me. I guess it’s that taking me away from the world feeling. It feels like a hug which I know isn’t what Argento was going for, but hey, apparently people ran out of theatres screaming in the 70s and I’m just a freak.
Would recommend this movie to anyone and everyone. I can’t imagine not liking it. I get that the dubbing and the cinematography or whatever may be a little jarring at first as beautiful it is, but go in with an open mind and let yourself get lost in the beautiful world of Suspiria and I can’t see anyone at least not somewhat liking it.
Nothing I could ever say could sum up how much I truly love this movie.

If you can, check out the Synapse remaster. Seems to be the only one that gets the colors right, and the little-heard 4.0 English mix is absolute insanity

There seems to be a never-ending feud between many horror fans regarding 'Suspiria', due to the fact that this film is considered Dario Argento's outstanding masterpiece. Personally, I'm completely against the idea of praising something that you don't actually like, so I respect anyone who thinks that this movie is overrated or even plain awful. My summary is only an opinion, but by no means I intend to make people change their mind or disapprove their concept of this film.
'Suspiria' is one of the many Italian horror films that came out during the late 70s and early 80s, that is extremely criticized for having a supposedly questionable plot and denouement. If we compare this movie to some of the other popular films directed by Dario Argento, we're probably going to think that 'Suspiria', is perhaps not as intriguing or well developed, when it comes to the story. To give a few examples of some of the Argento films that are widely considered the actual masterpieces because they offer an intriguing plot, good imagery and well done endings, I would probably name 'The Bird with the Crystal Plumage', 'Deep Red' and 'The Cat o' Nine Tails'. So what is it that we should believe? Nothing! Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and even though I agree with those who claim that 'Suspiria' is Argento's real masterpiece, I would never waste my time trying to convince people that this is true. As a matter of fact, I'll be honest and say that I also believe that 'Suspiria' has a somehow underdeveloped story, but I still regard it as one of the best horror movies in history. The reason is simple: in my opinion, you can make something wonderful, without a wonderful plot. This is perhaps one of the most visually enchanting horror movies I have seen so far and I honestly doubt I will ever find another film that can enchant me as much as this one. Everything about 'Suspiria' is beautiful, even the violent deaths. I know this may sound sick and disgusting, but I believe Mr. Argento has the special gift to make beautiful images out of gruesome situations, like murder, for example. From the beginning until the end, this film takes us to a dark dreamland with beautiful contrasting colors, eerie locations and a recurrent unsettling music. The locations are perfect. The ballet school in which the story takes place, seems to be a nonexistent place taken from someone's dream. Indeed, it was revealed once that 'Suspiria' was partly inspired by a dream that Daria Nicolodi once had (Mrs. Nicolodi was the co-writer and Argento's girlfriend at the time). So if the idea was to create a dream-like movie, I would say they did a perfect job. Everything about 'Suspiria' looks surreal and charming. It's a dark fairy tale, in which the characters behave in a childish way, like playing along with the scenario. It is also said that the actresses were initially supposed to be little girls, but fearing that the film could be banned, Argento had to choose older actresses, but he didn't really change much of the dialogs, which I think is genius. Strangely, the characters don't come off as moronic or anything, they simply are strange and childish, but in a good way. The subject of sex, for example, is barely even mentioned, which is something that doesn't happen too often in horror movies with twenty-something year old characters. But regarding the actors who played these characters, I would mostly compliment the work of the late actresses Joan Bennett and Alida Valli. The young cast was simply fine, but no one did a remarkable job. Not even Jessica Harper, who was a bad choice for the lead character, in my opinion. This is probably the only little detail I would criticize about this film. Mrs. Harper pretty much has the same facial expression and tone of voice throughout the entire film, which is not good. On the other hand, like I said before, Mrs. Valli and Mrs. Bennett were flawless as the two bitter old women who run the school with their awful temper and their little psychological tortures against those who stand in their ways.
So concluding: 'Suspiria' is one of those films that you either love or hate. Both feelings are equally respectable and I can understand why some people don't really appreciate it. But if I have to recommend or 'sell' this movie to someone, I would definitely highlight the dream-like imagery and the creepy music composed by The Goblins, that go perfectly well with what is seen on the screen. Enjoy this dark fairy tale about witches and childish girls.

Not really that fused on this, it's quite silly.

This begins the total collapse of Bond films.
We have the usual formula of beautiful women and lots of action, but here the action is very unmotivated.
Bond finds himself a body guard to a spoiled beauty queen, and we figure out early that the real heroine is the more matter of fact educated woman.
That's fair enough.
Still, everything that happens just looks contrived to make it end a certain way, with as depressing an ending as is allowed. That's the Hollywood formula, to make the world depressing for young men, and that's all they set out to do in this movie.

So Goldeneye wasn't great, but it wasn't bad either and it was a solid entry into the 007 franchise. Tomorrow Never Dies was fan-freaking-tastic....
... and then this.
Yay, it's 007.
What the heck happened? I'm thinking Goldeneye (N64) happened. I'm thinking that they made close to as much money off the FPS as they did off the film and wanted to emulate it by making a movie that would transfer well into that genre of video game, but didn't realize that Bond (N64) was only legendary because it was the first time that four of your friends could gather around a television and kill each other.
And then... the Bond Girl, as much as I love the final joke about her name, she did NOT come across as a believable nuclear scientist. John Cleese was fun, but a horrible replacement Q.
We started to see more Moore style silliness come back in a Brosnan Era Bond who was getting pretty close to Flemming and Connery and that just didn't work.
Moore style silliness with a Connery style plot.
It just didn't fit well together and, though it is not totally unwatchable, it's also not a good example of a Bond film

**One of my favorite Bond films with surprising villains, more profound character development, great action, and a fitting farewell to a beloved character.**
The World Is Not Enough's massive box office success resulted from its excellent villains, beautiful filming locations, great characters, and endearing send-off of Desmond Llewelyn. This Bond film surprised with a masterminding, manipulative, and powerful female antagonist (the first in the Bond franchise since From Russia with Love in 1963). Sophie Marceau's portrayal of Electra King was innocent and vulnerable while cunning and ruthless - one of the best Bond villains of the last 30 years. The World Is Not Enough develops its female characters much more than a typical Bond movie by spending time exploring Elektra's complex character and introducing a confident, guarded, and beautiful nuclear physicist, Christmas Jones. Denise Richards' Dr. Jones isn't a helpless damsel but partners with Bond to stop catastrophe rather than immediately falling for his charms. Pierce Brosnan returned to his iconic role balancing his suave charm with icy brutality. Without a doubt, Brosnan is my favorite Bond. The action stands out as one of the best action offerings of the 1990s, and the pacing keeps the movie thrilling and engaging. The World Is Not Enough is a great Bond film with an exceptional villain and a friendly farewell to a series great.

Love Brosnan as Bond but man was he straddled with a bad script and even worse casting with Denise Richards playing a nuclear scientist. I get pre-Craig Bonds always had a tongue-in-cheek streak to them and ridiculous scenes (the opening boat chase was laughable once it went to the street) but this was a bridge too far (only to be outdone in a scene in Die Another Day). That said, there are some decent action set pieces and Brosnan still has the charm. **3.0/5**

I am afraid I struggled with this film right from the get-go. Not that Pierce Brosnan doesn't turn in a decent enough effort as "007", it's the supporting cast that are pretty average and the story - it is just so weak. Arch-baddie "Renard" (Robert Carlyle) has been shot in the head so gets stronger every day until he dies (any physicians please explain how a bullet near your brain can make you nigh-on immortal?). Robbie Coltrane is ordinarily excellent as a comic actor, but somehow his performance here as Russian hard-man "Zukovsky" is the wrong kind of funny and we see way too much of "M" (Dame Judi Dench) and the woefully cast John Cleese as "R" - luckily because Desmond Llewellyn was still round to amiably, and briefly, fill the role of gadget master "Q". To her credit, Sophie Marceau tries hard in the spirit of the old "Bond" girl role, delivering a feisty and adequate performance that is sexy but also pretty potent, too, as she tries to get to the bottom of who killed her industrialist father and is now trying to hijack her oil pipeline through some pretty lawless terrain. That plot, though, lurches from the silly to the ridiculous before an ending that took for ever to deliver what we all knew was bound to happen. There is plenty of action, car chases and pyrotechnics but sadly, the characterisations are what makes the "Bond" franchise stand out. Here they needed much better writing and a stronger hand at the tiller than was delivered by Michael Apted.

_**The oil pipeline in central Asia episode**_
After a British oil tycoon is assassinated, agent 007 (Pierce Brosnan) traces the hit to a crazy ex-KGB terrorist (Robert Carlyle) and travels to the Caspian Sea/Black Sea area to protect a sultry oil heiress, the daughter of the murdered mogul (Sophie Marceau). Denise Richards is on hand as a nuclear physicist working at a Russian ICBM base in Kazakhstan while Robbie Coltrane returns from “Goldeneye” (1995) as Valentin Zukovsky, the former KGB agent turned gangster.
“The World Is Not Enough” (1999) is Brosnan’s third installment in the series with the opening featuring an absurd-but-fun boat chase on the River Thames in London and a great title song performed by Shirley Manson & Garbage. Other highlights include a paraglider-snowmobile assault in the snowy mountains, underground mayhem at the ICBM base in Kazakhstan, a wild sequence inside a pipeline to deactivate a bomb and a thrilling climax in the Bosphorus strait near Istanbul.
Many complain about Denise Richards as the nuclear physicist, Dr. Christmas Jones, but she does a fine job and looks great, especially in those short shorts at the ICBM base in the high desert. Meanwhile Sophie Marceau as Elektra King is alluring in a classy way. Also on hand in the feminine department are Maria Grazia Cucinotta as the opening femme fatale, Serena Scott Thomas as Dr. Molly Warmflash and Samantha Bond as Moneypenny. Judi Dench of course returns as ‘M.’
This is a competent Bond flick with all the requisite staples; it’s just kinda unmemorable in the grand scheme of the franchise. Like the previous “Tomorrow Never Dies” (1997), the colors are muted, which casts a grey pall over the proceedings, although not as pronounced.
The film runs 2 hours, 8 minutes, and was shot in Bilbao, Vizcaya, País Vasco, Spain (opening scene); London, England, & areas nearby; Baku, Azerbaijan, & the Azerbaijan Oil Rocks; Chamonix, Haute-Savoie, France (ski scenes); Bosphorus River, Istanbul, Turkey; and Eilean Donan Castle, Scotland (new MI6 headquarters).
GRADE: B-

Revenge is not hard to fathom for a man who believes in nothing.
The World is Not Enough is directed by Michael Apted and adapted to screenplay by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Bruce Feirstein, using characters created by Ian Fleming. Music is scored by David Arnold and cinematography by Adrian Biddle.
Bond 19 and 007 is required to protect a female oil magnate from potential assassination, but it soon becomes apparent that something far bigger and sinister is around the corner.
Pierce Brosnan returns for his third turn as super suave secret agent James Bond and all the crucial elements for the franchise are firmly in place. From the exhilarating pre-credit sequence down the river Thames (14 minutes worth) to the glorious over the top explosive finale, this is a Bond film for those that enjoy the cheeky action led mania over thought and depth. Into the Bondian mix are the usual stalwarts; Judi Dench as M, Samantha Bond as Moneypenny, Desmond Llewelyn as Q (bidding a sad farewell to the franchise with a poignant moment) and Robbie Coltrane joyously returns as Zukovsky. Bond girl duties fall to Sophie Marceau (beautiful and solid) and Denise Richards (sexy, elfin like, but out of her depth) and the psycho for hire role lands at the considerably fine feet of Robert Carlyle, even if the latter is badly underused.
The World Is Not Enough (the Bond family motto) is a whizz bang entry in the series and finds Brosnan well settled in the role; nailing the multitude of traits that make Bond a man that women want to bed and a man that men want to be. Locales are lovely and interesting (Turkey, France, Spain, Azerbaijan), the plot carries some intelligence (with a decent mystery element for a change), characterisations are high end and Arnold's score is a safe accompaniment; as is the title song by Garbage. It is, however, all too aware of wanting to appease Bond fans across the spectrum. Thus the comedy moments come off as saggy and the more scientific aspects (as gloriously ridiculous as they are) feel more like auto-pilot plotting. Still, you get what you pay for with 90s Bond, and the action sequences are terrific. After the mixed Tomorrow Never Dies the makers were clearly intent on taking the fans on a ripper of a ride, and no doubt about it, they achieve that in spades; with the two hour running time just flying by.
Eon of course would take things one step too far three years later with the nadir that was Die Another Day, thus making this the last good Bond film before Daniel Craig's fabulous re-invention arrived in 2006. 7/10

'Bridget Jones’s Baby' is a good sequel, a much better movie than the 2004 follow-up without a doubt. This one has an actual plot, for one, and is a much more rounded effort - the ending is rather cute too. Despite being the longest entry of the trilogy, this is paced well.
Renée Zellweger and Colin Firth reprise well, while Patrick Dempsey is a good addition. The films merges the new characters with the old (minus one obvious absentee) positively, e.g. Sarah Solemani is one of the better supports from any of the three flicks. The musician cameo is amusing too.
You have to wonder where they are going to go with 2025's 'Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy', kinda mad they've managed to create four of these to be honest - two (one?) would've sufficed. Still, this 2016 release is, all in all, a good one; if still narrowly shy of the original, naturally.

**This is a two-man job!**
Unlike the first two films, this was not based on the book. Instead, it is an original screenplay that fills the gap between the second and the third book. So reading the third book before watching this film is a spoiler. Most importantly the fourth film is on, only officially have to be announced.
The original director returned to this, but I appreciate the story and the screenplay and people behind it. I did not think this sequel would work, but it exceeded my expectation. A simple story and very familiar settings, but developed so well. There's no Bridget's diary in this, instead an iPad.
Renee Zellweger was totally unrecognisable. Actually, I said that in my 'The Whole Truth' review. But she was good to return as Bridget. Colin Firth looks too older than his actual age, but was great in his part. No Hugh Grant, but a new competitor was introduced which is none other than Patrick Dempsey.
This is not the same kind of narration that we saw a decade ago. Because all the characters are aged, so according to the situation this story takes place. It's a two hour long film, but it had some good jokes. Those who enjoyed the first two would surely enjoy it as well. So choosing it to watch is not a bad idea.
_7/10_

OUTSTANDING

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)
This is the third canon (or official if you’re not familiar with anime terms) Dragon Ball movie, after Dragon Ball Z: Battle of Gods and Dragon Ball Z: Resurrection ‘F’. So, unless you kept up with the anime, this film isn’t for you. Just letting you know right off the bat.
I would love to be able to describe in words what Dragon Ball means to me, but I can’t. It’s impossible to create a sentence that seamlessly lets you know how nervously excited I was right before the movie started. Yesterday, it was my first time watching my favorite anime on the big screen, and oh my God, it was AWESOME! Finally, I watched a film that I was highly anticipating, and I actually enjoyed it. Finally! I was tired of expecting big things from movies I really wanted to become a huge success, just to get ultimately disappointed. Broly is everything I wished for and more. Nevertheless, I must advise you: this animated flick is NOT for a casual moviegoer!
If you stopped following Dragon Ball after Z or you don’t even know what DB is, you’ll basically be lost. You won’t recognize certain characters, you won’t understand how and why some guys are still alive, and you’ll have no clue about how strong our warriors became. This is for the fans. I’ve seen critics bashing this film to shreds, and they start their reviews stating “I’ve never seen the anime.” Then why would you watch a movie that clearly follows the anime’s story and review it? Just leave it alone! It’s like watching Avengers: Endgame without ever watching a single one of the 21 previous installments. It’s just nonsensical. So, with that out of the way, and assuming I’m writing for fans of the anime …
This is the best Dragon Ball film ever, by a long shot. Yes, the track record wasn’t that good to begin with, and most of the movies released aren’t even canon. Still, Battle of Gods and Resurrection ‘F’ were pretty great, especially the former. Broly easily surpasses these two, in almost every aspect. Of course, I need to be fair to those first films. Dragon Ball Super elevated the anime once again and brought it back to the mainstream, so obviously, Broly had a lot of advantages since the studios offered everything they could so that the movie would be a major success. When the first two films were released, Super didn’t exist yet. Basically, these first movies were trying to bring back Dragon Ball to life while Broly is all about keeping it alive and showing it still has tremendous potential.
Thankfully, it all worked out perfect. The box office results are mind-blowing which will surely guarantee the continuation of Super (I’m waiting every single day for the news of the series renewal), and the film is, in fact, astonishing. The animation quality is absolutely jaw-dropping. You know when you go with friends to watch a movie and something so awesome occurs that you just look at each other in awe of what just happened? That’s Broly every single minute from the moment the fight begins. Super gave the fans a glimpse of what the animation level could be if time was not an issue for the animators. The Tournament of Power arc is undeniable proof that when the production leaves the animators work with no pressure, the end result is outstanding.
It’s just so freaking awesome. This is the only word in the dictionary that can reflect how crazily good the animation is. Awesome. There are so many long sequences of choreographed fights, with the animation always on-point, and with exceptional editing. The aspect I love the most is probably how fast it all is. Finally, I can understand Krillin when he says “how are you following that?!” Everything flows in such a flawless style: the characters, the blasts, the environment, everything. The sound design is incredibly powerful, as well. From the get-go, you know you’ll feel every punch, kick, “Kamehameha” and “Galick Gun.” Goku, Vegeta, and Broly provide so many amazing action scenes, and I know I’ll constantly rewatch them once they become available. God, Super ended a year ago, and I still find myself watching the final fight with Jiren every week or so.
However, Dragon Ball isn’t about the fights. Yes, everyone loves them, and there are a lot of fans who only care about the actual moment when our heroes fight their enemies. As a hardcore fan of the saga, it’s so much more than that. If characters like Goku and Vegeta, but also Piccolo, Gohan or even Frieza didn’t exist, their battles wouldn’t have the same impact. They mean something because these characters are important to me. I care so much about them because they were beautifully-developed throughout hundreds of episodes. I know that fillers can be a bit boring, but for me, they were just another way of getting to know these characters. Give me twenty minutes of banter between Goku and Vegeta, and I’ll be the happiest man on Earth, right now.
I’ll put it this way: if you enjoyed Battle of Gods more than Resurrection ’F’, you will love DBS: Broly as much or more than I do. If it’s the other way around, the first half of this film might leave you a bit disappointed. If you’re one of those fans who only care about the fights, you can leave the first 45 minutes with barely any Goku or Vegeta to me and the other fans who care about the story. I heavily praise Akira Toriyama‘s screenplay. This is the big difference to the other non-canon movies: they weren’t written by someone who really understands the characters at their disposal. Toriyama knows exactly who Broly is, where he comes from, and how he lived through his young years.
He wonderfully flushes out Broly by giving him an emotionally captivating backstory, filled with parent abuse, violence, and isolation from the rest of the universe. The history of Saiyans and Planet Vegeta is (finally) told entirely, by showing us characters that we all know and love, but that we were never able to see for more than a few minutes. Nevertheless, the standout character of the film is Broly. He has more screentime than any of the other warriors, precisely due to the reason I mentioned above: for us to care about him. Truth is, when they start fighting, I don’t want anyone to win or lose, because I genuinely care about all of them. Toriyama wasted half of the movie to develop this “new” character, and I 100% support his decision. Not only it generates more build-up to the inevitable climax, but it offers more layers to it. It stopped being “just a fight.”
Obviously, there were going to be nods to the past adventures. I almost dropped a tear when Goku and Vegeta show up for the first time due to the soundtrack alone. You’ll love every single “flash” regarding previous moments of Dragon Ball history, including the latest series and arc. Toriyama also does a remarkable job in helping fans that never watched Super trying to understand what happened after Z, even if he didn’t need to. The comedy bits are hilarious, as they have been with the latest series. From Vegeta yelling at Goku for doing or saying something dumb, to Bulma‘s interactions with Beerus and Whis, every joke lands in one way or another.
As much as I love this film, it does have some issues regarding its mixing of CGI with animation. One of the things I didn’t like at all in Resurrection ‘F’ was how some sequences felt like a video game. Unfortunately, there are a couple of moments like that in Broly. In order to keep the scenes flow without any cuts, CGI is necessary so the camera can change to another angle, and sometimes there’s this feeling that you seem to be playing one of Dragon Ball games. However, my biggest gripe has to be with the overuse of visual effects. Using VFX to build rich environment and help the battles have more impact, not only doesn’t work well but it’s just not Dragon Ball.
As we reach the climax, the VFX overpower the animation, and that is never a good thing. The fight loses its animated essence, and it becomes something that I don’t even know how to describe, except that it isn’t what it was supposed to be. In addition to this, even though I stated that this movie is about Broly and Broly alone, I would have loved to see more from Frieza. He acts purely as a plot device, and there’s barely anything for him to actively do, but he’s still important to make the plot move forward. Finally, the pacing could have been more balanced. Since the ending is predictable from even before the fight begins, it feels that the film was a bit stretched to try to reach the two-hour runtime.
Also, if you’ve seen all the trailers, you basically know the entire movie. That’s why I keep advising my followers to stop watching trailers or at least all of them. If you really need visual confirmation that the film deserves your time and money, watch the first trailer and decide from there. Dragon Ball Super always gave spoiler-heavy previews of the next episode, and the movie literally shows everything. Even without watching a single clip from it, I couldn’t escape the spoilers regarding the appearance of specific characters, which pretty much ruined any surprise the film could have offered me. Even with that in mind, I still think the ending felt a bit rushed, contradicting the somewhat slow pace during the first two acts.
In the end, there’s no doubt about it. Dragon Ball Super: Broly is, by far, the best Dragon Ball movie to date, and it’s really freaking awesome! It beats any other installment of the franchise, including the latest films. Akira Toriyama working together with a phenomenal team of animators is a match made in heaven. The story is remarkably well-written, with a full half dedicated to introduce and develop Broly as a mentally troubled child who had to deal with so much pain during his life. The animation reaches its peak quality-wise, demonstrating that when time is given to the animators, their work can be a visual masterpiece. With such an intriguing backstory on the history of Saiyans and a brilliantly structured build-up to an epic fight between Broly, Goku, and Vegeta, there was still time to cherish the nostalgia with some nods to previous moments in the beloved saga, as well as some hilarious comedy bits.
With more control over the use of CGI and visual effects, this could very well be one of 2019’s best movies. It still can be, but the climactic final battle lost of a bit of its impact due to the overwhelming VFX which completely overcame the animation itself. The ending is predictable before we reach half-runtime, and the spoiler-heavy trailers didn’t help to keep surprise as a factor. I have to repeat what almost every critic has been saying: if you’re a fan of the saga and you kept up with Super, this will give you everything you want and more. If you’re just a casual moviegoer or if you stopped watching after Z, it’s better if you don’t “poison” social media with opinions on a film that simply wasn’t made for you.
Thank you, Toriyama! Thank you for giving me the chance to see my favorite anime on the big screen for the first time, and for making it epic. Can’t wait for the announcement of the series continuation …
Rating: A-

"Epic" in so much as Emmerich films always are, but that's not to be confused with "good". If you want to learn something true, or feel an emotion, look elsewhere. But if poking a mammoth with a stick is more your thing, you could probably handle _10,000 B.C._
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

The Grudge begrudgingly latches onto croaky jump scares without logical cohesion. This, is an unusual horror to review. It’s rather uncommon for the same director, in this case Takashi Shimizu, to remake his own original film for an entirely different audience. Most would push their original creation onto the masses and convince them, with glorified persuasion, to withstand subtitles and invest the time into the chilling ghost story.
Yet Shimizu thought it would be apt to direct his own film again. Admirable? Yes, it ensured he received total creative control over the studio and producers. Necessary? No. Somehow, by remaking the exact story with essentially the same spine-tingling sequences, Shimizu downgraded the atmospheric aura of ‘Ju-On’, resulting in nothing more than a Japanese ghost boy releasing his inner cat and his ethereal mother croaking the life out of anyone who visits the cursed house. That’s the plot synopsis, right there.
Well, there’s a tad bit more to the mystery, however Shimizu’s insistence on haphazardly fracturing the narrative between present day and the past week consequently confused audiences rather than enthral. There’s no logic behind the structure. No foundational development. And certainly no characterisation. So the abrupt switching back and forth held no purpose, other than to illustrate a host of jumpy death sequences. Some effective apparitional imagery heightened the tension, particularly the surveillance footage sequence and bedroom scene that made me frightened of my own bloody duvet when I was an innocent boy, yet negated by the bland acting from every single actor.
Buffy has no more vampires to slay or Daphne has solved all remaining mysteries (take your pick...), and so she’s left wandering aimlessly around Tokyo with just one facial expression. Confusion. Pullman contributed nothing. And even Kayako herself, Fuji, was grossly misused during moments of tension-raising buildup. The final expositional flashback sequence, revealing to us why the house is now essentially cursed, was rushed and overwrought. Then concluding the entire feature on a frickin’ jump scare that looked cheaper than Kayako’s mascara. By the time the credits roll, you’ll be thinking to yourself “...why are these Americans in Tokyo anyway?”.
I just...don’t understand how Shimizu can make his remake so unprogressive in terms of quality. He had another shot at bettering his original, overcoming previous criticisms, yet failed miserably. I’m open to the idea that The Grudge is a product of its time, comprising of several horror traits that the previous decade had commonly exploited. And I appreciate it stuck to its J-horror roots. But damn, this has not aged well in the slightest. The core is there. I can visibly see the contents. Yet, either due to Shimizu’s inability to improve in directorial control or studio interference, The Grudge growled like a ghoulish kitten instead of exhuming a ghostly lion’s roar. Y’know, because Toshio opens his CGI mouth and a cat noise comes out? Urgh, whatever. Couldn’t think of anything...

Well acted and pretty well made romance-thriller with two charismatic performances from Costner and Houston. A little far-fetched at the end but I still enjoyed this, especially for the music from Houston. **3.75/5**

This film is a bit like a political speech. It promises much but rarely delivers. Channing Tatum is the eponymous male stripper who complements his roofing job with some entertainingly provocative dancing with his “Kings of Tampa” at the club of “Dallas” (Matthew McConaughey). Meantime, “Adam” (Alex Pettyfer) is down on his luck and so being easy on the eye and willing, “Mike” drafts him in to show off his wares to the baying hordes of gals up for a good time! Turns out they like him, and quickly he’s making decent money and hopeful of helping his mentor get a club of their own. His isn’t the wisest head, though, and a combination of east cash and easy drugs soon starts to risk everything all of them have striven to achieve. To be fair to Tatum he really does put some effort into his characterisation here, and sets about the role enthusiastically. McConaughey is also fairly convincing, too. It’s Pettyfer that lets it down. He’s a good looking man but delivers in body rather than in spirit. He has all the charisma of a wet tea bag. The dance routines work well enough but Steven Soderbergh doesn’t seem to have the courage of his convictions when it comes to delivering the goods. For a film that’s supposedly about the sexualisation of the male body, we see way more female nakedness and that I felt rather defeated the purpose. I don’t mean we needed dangly bits all over that place, but to tell a story about sexploitation - both the good and the bad elements of it, well - you need something more natural. If it doesn’t make your eyes water to think about it, then yes - it needs less strategic cutting! What humour there is is all a bit clichéd and as it rumbles on into the realms of “I love you bro’!” melodrama, it simply runs out of steam. Pity, it had potential, but in then it’s just a glitzier but more feeble version of the far more authentic “Full Monty” (1997).

Decent watch, probably won't watch again, but can recommend.
Expecting this to be a Dreamworks picture, I was surprised to see Sony heading this one up.
Watching this robo-apocalypse story, it feels like just a weird amalgamation of other movies that happen to be cg animated, involve robots, dysfunctional families, and corporate hostilities.
While all these are great elements, their combination, with the movie's special flare just falls short for me.
While my disbelief is fully suspended, it just broke off after a bit with some of the goofy stuff the humans end up doing contrasted with some of the amazing things the robots are doing that actually makes some sense.
The movie looks great, and is technically great, but the characters and story just fall just short for me.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
When it comes to deciding if a certain film is added to my watchlist or not, I consider various factors. From genre and synopsis to cast, directors, and screenwriters, sometimes just a familiar name can convince me to give that movie a go. Producers and/or executives are far from being remotely influential in this type of decision. However, Phil Lord and Christopher Miller have directed/written/produced some of my favorite animated films of the last decade (The LEGO Movies, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse), so obviously, I needed to watch The Mitchells vs. The Machines, previously known as Connected. Mike Rianda has his debut as a director, screenwriter, and voice actor (Aaron Mitchell, son), accompanied by Jeff Rowe, the other writer.
2021 is shaping up to be a phenomenal year. It truly is. I absolutely loved Soul and Wolfwalkers, but if this Sony Pictures Animation flick came out last year, I genuinely don't know which one would I put higher on my Top10. Rianda and Rowe deliver a brilliantly original screenplay, packed with incredibly relatable characters and beautifully handled themes. I can't quite remember the last time I laughed out loud when watching an animated feature by myself. Every joke about technology is hilariously clever, making fun of ridiculous yet realistic human behaviors regarding malfunctions, low speed, and even lack of Wi-Fi. I cried of laughter, but I was also close to dropping a couple of tears due to the main narrative.
I'll start with the protagonist, Katie Mitchell. As a young, aspiring filmmaker, Abbi Jacobson's character follows a well-known arc about not having friends, being the so-called weirdo, and having parents - in this case, more her father - who simply don't understand who she is, what she likes, or why she loves something they simply don't understand. While it's true that this storyline isn't exactly new, it doesn't mean it's not captivating and emotionally powerful when written and developed properly. Rianda and Rowe make Katie an extremely relatable character in such a seamless manner that it's harder to not connect with her than the contrary.
Anyone has at least once in their lifetime felt left out or alone. Obviously, since I share the exact same passion as Katie, it's easier for me to feel precisely the same as her once she discovers new friends with whom she can talk about the art she loves the most. I still have no circle of friends who I can meet daily to discuss the latest movie news or newly released films (in-person), so Katie's journey does have a more significant impact on me than it might have on other viewers. However, it doesn't have to be about art or a specific subject. In a general analysis, Katie just feels lonely and wants to follow her dreams, but feels unsupported by her father, Rick Mitchell (Danny McBride).
One of the most compelling aspects of The Mitchells vs. The Machines is the fact that Rick and Katie share the same arc, just going in different directions. While Katie feels like getting out of the house and going away forever is the best solution to all her problems, Rick believes that her staying with the family is the safest route, one that features no failures that could hurt her emotionally - something that Rick learned from his past, hence the necessity of overprotecting her daughter at all costs. Since they're on opposite sides of the spectrum, constant fights, lies, and hurtful comments drive them apart, leading to a wonderfully written story about family, love, friendship, and understanding the other side of the argument.
Katie's mother, Linda Mitchell (Maya Rudolph), and brother, Aaron Mitchell (Rianda), serve more as triggers to heartfelt conversations with the two main characters, but they also have their own personal journey. While Linda feels jealous of her Instagram-perfect neighbors and embarrassed of showing off her own family photos, Aaron deals with his bizarre love for dinosaurs in a lighter, funnier way than Katie's dramatic arc. Both storylines carry their own lovely messages to transmit to the audience, but Katie and Rick's confrontational relationship embodies sensitive issues that tons of families across the globe never find a solution for.
Another remarkable characteristic of this screenplay is how Rianda and Rowe never take a definite stance on any topic. They always try to follow one of the movie's main messages and present good points for both sides of the conflict. For example, The Mitchells vs. The Machines could easily be misinterpreted as an attack on the Internet and technology in general, but every dialogue is exceptionally balanced. While comments are made about using our phone at the dinner table or during family moments, as well as excessive screentime and overreliance on social media, new technology can give birth to the most inspirational, motivational, and influential works of art. Without it, Katie's dreams would be totally different.
Transitioning to the more technical elements of the film, it's impossible not to tackle the new animation style. Into the Spider-Verse was an experimental movie, and its success might have changed the future of animation forever. The mix of a more illustrative, hand-painted approach with another focused on the CGI realism seen in most films today offers - just like the movie itself - a seamless balance between the two supposedly opposing styles. This blend allows keeping the expressiveness and extreme level of detail of the classic method while also maintaining the realistic environment of the 3D/CGI design. The action sequences are extraordinarily energetic, riveting, and quite impressive, to say the least.
The film's soundtrack (score by Mark Mothersbaugh) is on-point, elevating dozens of scenes with excellent music choices that most viewers didn't even remember already. Exquisite editing (Greg Levitan) and outstanding voice work across the board. I genuinely can't find a single issue with this movie, and I'd be extremely surprised - and disappointed - if it doesn't end up being a frontrunner for next year's awards season. Both kids and adults will have tremendous fun with this fast-paced, highly entertaining film while also getting a few valuable life lessons along the way. And who knows? Maybe this movie will inspire families to make that road trip they've been planning for ages…
The Mitchells vs. The Machines might not have the catchiest title, but it's definitely one of the best animated feature films of the last years. With a beautiful blend of two animation styles - that may impact the future of this type of movie - Mike Rianda and Jeff Rowe deliver an emotionally resonant story about family, love, and more explicitly, placing ourselves in someone else's shoes. Featuring incredibly relatable characters, the remarkably written screenplay strikes a perfect balance in every topic it approaches by presenting arguments for both sides without ever defining something as right or wrong. The character arcs might be well-known storylines, but the exceptional writing elevates every personal journey, especially Katie and Rick's, daughter and father. Boasting great voice work from everyone involved, the fast-paced narrative still holds impressive, colorful, screen-popping action sequences filled with energy, excitement, and fantastic song choices. It's one of those uncommon films where I can't find a single flaw with it. A must-watch, *hilarious* film for both kids and adults.
Rating: A

Air Force One is a well-crafted action thriller that keeps the stakes high from start to finish. The plot is straightforward but effective, delivering a tense and engaging story without unnecessary complications. It establishes the characters and conflict efficiently, setting up a strong foundation before diving into the action. The pacing is well-handled, keeping things moving while allowing room for character moments. While some parts require suspension of disbelief, the movie never drags or loses momentum.
The directing by Wolfgang Petersen is sharp, maintaining a balance between intense action sequences and character-driven moments. The cinematography is dynamic, making excellent use of tight spaces inside the plane to heighten tension. The action sequences are shot cleanly, making every moment easy to follow without relying on excessive cuts or shaky cam. The visual storytelling helps reinforce the high-stakes nature of the plot, keeping the audience engaged throughout. The special effects hold up well for the time, though some sequences, particularly involving the plane, push realism a bit too far.
The acting is one of the strongest aspects of the movie. Harrison Ford delivers a commanding performance, bringing both toughness and sincerity to his role. Gary Oldman, as expected, is a standout, making for a memorable antagonist with just the right amount of menace. The supporting cast does a solid job, with Glenn Close and others adding weight to the political side of the story. The script is functional, not overly complex, but with enough strong dialogue to keep things engaging. The score by Jerry Goldsmith enhances the experience, delivering a powerful and heroic theme that fits the tone of the film perfectly. While the movie has its implausible moments, it remains a well-directed and exciting action thriller that holds up as a classic in its genre.

This is all about Harrison Ford and his ability to almost single-handedly carry over 2 hours of cinema. The plot is ridiculous - Air Force One is hijacked by a group of highly trained terrorists led by Gary Oldman, who quite easily commandeer the plane and hold the President hostage - except, that is, that he too is an extremely highly trained man who dupes them into thinking he has been ejected in a life pod. Soon we have a cunning Mexican stand-off at 35,000 feet with just about everyone else being a casualty. Thank heavens for the sanity of VP Glenn Close holding things together on the ground while our airborne adversaries battle it out. It's probably fair to say that the CGI has been at the drink, too - it is all over the place at times. All told, it's an OK action movie, just don't think too hard whilst you watch it.

**_When the President’s plane is seized by Communist radicals_**
After a Russian terrorist (Gary Oldman) hijacks Air Force One with his cronies, the President (Harrison Ford) is intent on saving his wife & daughter and the other hostages (e.g. William H. Macy). Glenn Close plays the Vice President while Dean Stockwell is on hand as the Defense Secretary.
“Air Force One” (1997) is a political suspense/thriller that combines “Under Siege” (1992) with “Executive Decision” (1996). While I prefer those two, this one’s in the same league.
The Russian prison sequences were shot at Mansfield Reformatory, Ohio, which is where “The Shawshank Redemption” was shot.
The movie runs 2 hours, 4 minutes, and was shot at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland (Presidential palace, Kazakhstan), Rickenbacker Airport, Columbus (Ramstein AFB in Germany), Mansfield Reformatory and Los Angeles International Airport (Moscow airport scenes).
GRADE: B-