Ok, this is a pretty ridiculous movie, but aren't all action movies? It's Harrison Ford doing what Harrison Ford does but in the confines of a plane in midair against a bunch of gun-toting terrorists. So just switch off your brain and enjoy.

**Harrison Ford for President!**
Is this a typical action flick with the only significant differentiation being the hero's name is led by the word President? Yes indeed. But with the great Harrison Ford playing the hero and the always brilliant Gary Oldman as the antagonist, this impressive cast raises this movie from an action rehash to a classic. If you love 80s/90s action, then Air Force One is for you.

It’s a quite nice action flick. Some people on Rotten Tomatoes and other sites have been moaning that it was too much American patriotism. Well, that’s a load of bullshit! Sure it was very American but given the name and the cast, what the hell did these morons expect? If one cannot enjoy a good American action movie because of some patriotism in it, well then do not watch them! Incidentally there are some countries in Europe, no names mentioned cough cough, that could do with some more patriotism in the first place. Anyway, for us it was two enjoyable hours and hey, it's Harrison Ford after all! It is a decent enough transfer to Blu-ray although the choice of sound codecs is a bit unusual in that it has a Linear PCM 5.1 English track on it.

It's a good family movie to watch. Other then that it's pretty dumb. Inherits some penguins and gives them to his kids for there birthday and tries to hide it from his landlord.

I don't get why everybody hates this! Okay, Alan Alda's character showed his true colours little too soon, but the rest of the film paid homage to your 80s-90s comic caper. Ben Stiller and Eddie Murphy were terrific.
And for me, this is a kind of film I would watch on Thanksgiving. It is a holiday special.

A fabulous movie.
I know some would say it's stupid and empty of any sense. I say: I don't care I liked it very much and I've watched it seven times. It must be seen.

Good film.
'Hustlers' makes for satisfactory viewing. Jennifer Lopez (Ramona) is accomplished in one of the two lead roles, I've previously enjoyed her in 2013's 'Parker'; which is the better film, but individually she's best here for sure. Credit also to Constance Wu (Destiny).
Solidly told story, a few decent song choices in there too. All in all, it's a pleasant film to watch. Recommended.

When the eponymous coach (Samuel L. Jackson) arrives at Richmond High School, he inherits a disparate group of guys who play basketball as they take life - casually with little responsibility. Their grades are low and so their futures unlikely to break the cycle of poverty and lack off opportunity. He decides to try and break that by insisting that they sign contracts before they can play. These require perfect attendance, no late-coming and grade averages that will ensure they graduate. There's resistance from the team and from their parents, but thanks to a bit of help from the principal (Denise Dowse) he sticks to his guns and they have to accept his ultimatum. The remainder of the film follows his attempts to mould something cohesive from these young men as they, themselves, deal with issues that impact on their own lives. Carter's dream is not a forgone conclusion here. Though there is an element of predictability to the development of the story, his charges do not routinely conform to his grand design and as he gradually builds a functioning (and winning) team, he also realises that their academic focus is what's lacking. That's his biggest challenge. They can't make a living playing ball, but it can be a conduit to an education that can stand them in good stead in the future - and that's the real message here. As with so many people growing up in an environment devoid of opportunity, sport can prove to galvanise people. It can offer hope, introduce the benefits of team building and inter-reliance and ultimately help to prioritise for what's to come. Jackson puts in a strong effort here, and the writing also helps succinctly tell a story that Rick Gonzalez, Rob Brown and Anton Tanner also contribute well to as they represent the men who just initially want to play with little appreciation of the profound chance being offered them. It is too long, and towards the end the story does rather run out of steam, but as a real-life coming of age story it still works well.

**Coach Carter allows its powerful true story to shine through Samuel Jackson’s performance and the focus on the lives of the young men Coach Carter coached.**
Coach Carter is the inspiring true story of a coach that cared much more about the lives and future of his players than winning a game. Samuel Jackson was the perfect choice to play no-nonsense but compassionate Coach Ken Carter that believed in his players while holding them to standards that changed their lives. While the movie is about basketball, the focus is much more on the relationships and development of its characters. The actual basketball scenes of the movie are decent but less compelling than the rest of the story. Coach Carter is an excellent film for those that want to see how their choices and willingness to fight compromise can change the lives of others.

Loved Chucky I watched this movie a lot as a kid. It was only creepy to me after he was burned up. That was the only part I remember getting scared from.

Young "Andy" (Alex Vincent) is obsessed with the "Good Guys" cartoons on the telly. Of course there is loads of accompanying merchandise, but his widowed mother "Karen" (Catherine Hicks) has to make ends meet so the newly released doll is just too expensive for the young lad's birthday. Luckily for her, her pal "Maggie" (Dinah Manoff) finds a street pedlar who has one for a mere $30 and so she takes it home to the delight of the youngster. Unbeknown to everyone though, this rather ugly looking lump of plastic has been possessed by the demonic soul of "Charles Lee Ray" - a pretty brutal strangler who ended up being blown to bits in an explosion at a toy shop whilst being pursued by detective "Norris" (Chris Sarandon). When an unfortunate accident befalls poor old "Maggie", the boy discovers the truth and tries to explain the malevolence of his new toy to the grown ups, but they are sceptical. Until, that is, the mum discovers that "Chucky" manages to function remarkably well - without his Duracells - and soon she and the police officer are on their own toy- hunt! Despite only being about a foot tall, this doll is remarkably effective with a knife as he seeks vengeance on all who have betrayed him, and to involve "Andy" in his plan to stop himself becoming mortal and vulnerable. It's quite entertaining this, but not in the least scary. I found the young Vincent really got on my nerves after a few scenes and the story really doesn't have much substance to it. The camerawork tries hard to introduce a sense of menace, but the late 1980s synthesised soundtrack put me constantly on the lookout for "Crockett" or "Tubbs". It is short and the action, once we get going, comes thick and fast - but I found this all rather comedic and the ending, frankly, rather daft. Still, I can't say I hated it. It is quite a fun watch.

I'm a big fan of the _Chucky_ franchise. Throughout all of its ups and downs, Don Mancini and the gang have never failed to bring forward a watchable movie. Even the most recent entry, _Cult of Chucky_ (which was kind of a fuck-up) provided me great enjoyment as a series-long fan. But no subsequent movie has ever matched the original for me. That first _Child's Play_ didn't just birth a classic character, it is, in and of itself, a classic. The first time you see Chucky open his mouth and hear the words of the real Brad Douriff... I've seen it twenty times over, and I'm still floored every single one of them. Absolutely floored, and floored with a massive grin on my face to boot.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

**It's a film for a fairly narrow audience and is very slow paced... too slow.**
Honestly, I expected more from this movie. A certain strong dramatic spark that really justified the time spent watching it. Unfortunately, it seems the only motivation for seeing the film is its criticism of the Church of Scientology, a criticism that, if you read a little about the church and pay attention, is not even implied.
Paul Thomas Anderson is a respected director, especially after the films “Magnolia” and “There Will Be Blood”. I'm not going to discuss that, not least because he's not a director I'm comfortable with (I think, counting this one, I've only seen two of his films). What matters is this film, and here, the director did a good job. It probably not the best of his career, there are very debatable options especially in terms of editing and rhythm, but it's enough.
The cast's work is even better. Joaquin Phoenix gives us an impeccable, intense and very dramatic work, even if it is totally surpassed by the charisma of Philip Seymour Hoffman, a totally accurate choice for the character, who required not only charisma but also leadership, affirmation and authority. The actor, who left us suddenly and quite prematurely, was rightly nominated for an Oscar here. Laura Dern and Amy Adams ensure the main presences in the feminine, and they do it safely, even if in a more discreet way.
On a technical level, the film has some very good points and others not so well developed: if on the one hand we have an excellent collection of sets and costumes, a good recreation of historical periods and places, an excellent cinematography and an enviable filming work, we also have a badly done edition, incapable of giving the film greater drama and some rhythm. I don't know if that was on purpose or not, what I do know is that the movie is disgustingly slow, dull and boring, with tons of lamely written dialogue and a lot of wasted time in between. I was left with the feeling that it would have been perfectly possible, in editing, to cut about half an hour of film without rigorously altering the meaning or running the risk of ruining the story.
And talking about editing invariably leads us to talking about the script. I am not and have never been a member of the Church of Scientology, so I feel free to see a film that openly criticizes it, and also a film that criticizes it more covertly, as is the case. What the film makes clear is the weight of a great leader's charisma for the growth of a cult, but that was something that seemed clear enough to me. There are also some passages in which the film suggests that Scientology (like the “Cause”) is a great hoax, but this is also apparently consensual among the common public, and is based to some extent on testimonies from former members of the church. Regardless, it is not a film that is capable of attracting the masses to cinema, it is a topic for a niche of people already interested in it and not for the general public. And that doomed the film to a tremendous financial failure, considering the capital the production spent on it.

Modern self-indulgent rubbish. Too long. I gained nothing from watching this. It's nicely photographed, but that is a given in the 21st century. The acting is fine, but this is a review of the movie as a whole. Don't waste your time.

Next (2007) starts with an exciting premise that immediately hooks you. Nicolas Cage plays Cris Johnson, a man with the unique ability to see a few minutes into his future. The first act delivers on the concept, balancing intrigue and action with some fun moments where his abilities shine. It sets the stage for something big, and you can feel the potential brimming as the story begins to unfold.
However, as the second act progresses, the movie starts to lose its way. The momentum slows, and while there are still moments of brilliance, like a few thought-provoking quotes about beauty and perception, it feels like the film is more focused on reaching a predetermined conclusion than fully exploring the depth of Cris' abilities or the psychological impact they have on him and others. The performances from Cage and Jessica Biel are enjoyable, and their chemistry works well enough to carry the more personal scenes, even when the script feels underdeveloped.
Despite its flaws, Next still has moments that stick with you, and the ending adds an unexpected twist that makes you reflect on what came before. While the movie doesn't quite deliver on its full potential, it remains an entertaining watch if you enjoy high-concept sci-fi thrillers. It's the kind of film that leaves you wondering how much better it could have been with a stronger focus on character depth and the world-building around its unique concept.

Ok, yes, this is a pretty bad movie, and no movie ever matches up to the Philip K Dick book it's based on, and yes that does go for Blade Runner too. The script is lazy, the plot holes are a mile wide and the technical inconsistencies are eye-roll-inducing. But you know what, it's an entertaining little adventure. Nicolas Cage is always worth a watch and I'll watch anything featuring Jessica Beil. It looks big, beautiful and colourful onscreen. Not everything has to be Shakespeare people, and thank the Gods for that fact.

Someone here has been watching too much "Dr. Who"!. Sadly, though neither the acting nor the writing can really capitalise on the quirky theme of this sci-fi thriller. Nicolas Cage is "Cris" (the man clearly has an issue with the letter "h"). Anyway, he has the ability to see two minutes into the future and he uses his skill to best effect as a low-key magician in Las Vegas. He is coasting along fine until FBI agent "Ferris" (Julianne Moore) alights on a plan to use his unique quirk to thwart a plan by some unscrupulous Russian terrorists to detonate a nuclear bomb in California. Things take a turn for the more dangerous for poor old Cage when his girlfriend "Liz" (Jessica Biel) becomes a pawn in the game too. To be fair, it does move along swiftly enough, but there isn't even the merest hint of jeopardy. The dialogue and the action scenarios are straight out of the Janet and John book of join-the-dots disaster thrillers, and Moore is distinctly out-of-sorts trying to hold this derivative and disjointed story together - getting little help from a terribly wooden leading man. It's got straight to video written all over it, and even the most die-hard fans of the genre and these actors are bound, surely, to leave disappointed.

Entertaining if not uneven sci-fi thriller. Nic Cage was fine but it was weird having a guy in his mid-50s (adding black hair coloring didn't make him look younger) wooing a woman in her early 30s, and given the romance was a good part, that is a big strike against. Another strike was some shoddy CGI, seems like they didn't have the budget that would match the action sequences. All that said, found it to be an okay time-waster and an interesting idea that probably would work as a TV series. **3.0/5**

Great watch, will likely watch again, and do recommend.
While I wouldn't normally consider clairvoyance "time travel", the way it is implemented in this movie is essentially time shifting. He "thinks" himself forward in time, and then essentially time shifts himself backwards to a time before he witnesses the consequence.
It's such an interesting concept, but potentially un-cinematic. They honestly do an amazing job of displaying Nicholas Cage standing in place to "see" and making it seem interesting.
Juliane Moore helps by being a badass lady in charge, but Jessica Biel (a proven entity herself) just doesn't have the opportunity to be little more than a damsel. Cage carries most of the movie, but is a lot less "crazy" than he is in other movies, if that is any comfort.
Definitely check this out next time you're looking for an "out of the box" action flick.

I don't really know how to put the thought that came to me while watching _Next_ in a way that makes any actual sense, so I'm just gonna out myself as kind of an idiot and tell you all what that thought literally was: "I'd like to see this movie in a different movie".
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

As sequels go, this one is really quite good fun. The arrival of baby "Pubert" doesn't exactly thrill "Wednesday" (Christina Ricci) nor "Pugsley" (Jimmy Workman) and they determine that he has to go! Meantime, parents "Morticia" (Anjelica Huston) and "Gomez" (Raul Julia) decide that they need to get him a nanny - and they alight on "Debbie" (Joan Cusack) who immediately sets her sights on "Uncle Fester" (Christopher Lloyd). The children are sent to one of those horrible summer camps run by the kumbaya brigade where they don't quite fit in with the curriculum of the nauseatingly gloopy "Becky" (Christine Baranksi) and her abundance of twee students straight out of "Little House on the Prairie". Scene set for some deliciously dark antics as the kids must escape from the monstrousness of their retreat - causing a maximum of damage and delivering quite a potent assessment of the plight of the native American en route - and deal with their domestic interloper. Speaking of interlopers, it's also clear that nanny has quite a malevolent streak of her own - and "Fester" might soon be destined to join her long list of deceased spouses. As ever, it's Huston who steals the show here - she barely features, but when she does she imbues the whole thing with a certain menacing dignity. The rest of the ensemble work well together and the story is peppered with plenty of daft (adult) humour, a little bit of gentle slapstick and "Lurch" (Carer Struycken) is there to keep order. There's plenty of attention to the detailed look of the film and in the end I was was probably with the siblings about the young "Pubert"!

Almost thirty years after their first on screen appearance, and more than **fifty** after their creation, The Addams Family proved itself still relevant in the 1990s. _Addams Family Values_ specifically though, might be my favourite part of the whole franchise.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

***Silly satire based on Star Wars***
Released in 1987, Mel Brooks’ “Spaceballs” parodies the Star Wars flicks and includes jokes based on Star Trek, “Lawrence of Arabia,” “Alien” and “Planet of the Apes.”
Some people hate this film, but it works for what it is: a totally goofy spoof. It’s consistently amusing with several laugh-out-loud bits and memorable lines.
The cast is notable, highlighted by John Candy as Barf, Daphne Zuniga as Princess Vespa, Rick Moranis as Dark Helmet, Brooks as Yogurt, and Joan Rivers’ voice as Dot Matrix. The rest are good too (Bill Pullman as Lone Starr, George Wyner as Colonel Sandurz, etc.).
The film runs 1 hour, 36 minutes.
GRADE: B

From Russia with Love has always been a favourite of mine since I first seen it 2 years ago and since then I have gained more love for it and enjoy it more each time.

We used to have a maths teacher at school who was small in stature. When the class got a little unruly, she used to stamp her foot on the floor like a petulant child. We called her Miss "Klebb"! I don't think that she ever had a poisonous spike that protruded from her shoe, but I wouldn't have been surprised. In that role, Lotte Lenya is up there in the league of deadly protagonists faced by 007 in this franchise. Robert Shaw - always underrated, I feel - is superb as "Grant" and Pedro Armendáriz is entirely convincing as the urbane "Karim Bey". The story here is a bit of a stretch, but Terence Young keeps it moving along as Sean Connery vies with SPECTRE to pinch a secret decoder from the nasty Soviets with a lethal briefcase of gadgets and gizmos. It's great!

This is an early Bond movie, and more of a spy movie than the later hay day of 007.
It's a pretty good spy movie. We do begin to see a lot of what makes 007 with the hot women, the two hottest being minor characters in a catfight scene. We see some nice locales, nice scenery, and we have some interesting gadgets on both sides.
We also have the diabolical Specter leader whom I always call "Blowhard", who seems to kill more of his own employees than his opponents do.
There is much going for this, but it's not as spectacular as later Bond movies, and we don't get as much exotic scenery as later movies give us.
Still, it is just good enough to be in the upper half of 007 films. There isn't a lot of lull in this.

I love this one... surprise, surprise, surprise. Everyone loves this one.
I think if there were a true point of contest amongst die hard Bond fans it is From Russia With Love v Goldfinger for the best Bond film.
Clearly I'm in the From Russia With Love camp, because it works as a serious spy thriller, it works as a Bond movie, it works as a dramatic thriller and it works as an action movie.
It has enough character to be an extremely well made Bond film, and, for a second outing, nobody has done it better.

_**SPECTRE agents, Istanbul, Gypsies, beautiful women and the Orient Express**_
Agent 007 (Sean Connery) is sent on a dubious mission at Istanbul to possibly acquire a Lektor cryptography device from the Soviets via their consulate. Bond meets a naïve Russian beauty (Daniela Bianchi) that SPECTRE agent Klebb (Lotte Lenya) recruits to carry out their assassination plan with the help of a brawny Irish Assassin (Robert Shaw).
"From Russian with Love" (1963) is a solid sequel in the franchise highlighted by the Istanbul locations, the Gypsy sequence where two women have a catfight (Aliza Gur & Martine Beswick) and, later, a serious train scrap. In addition, Eunice Gayson returns for another cameo as Sylvia Trench and the flick closes with a thrilling clash with a helicopter and a boat chase.
Unfortunately, the story’s just not as compelling as “Dr. No” (1962). It’s my least favorite in Connery’s run, although it’s still a solid entry.
The film runs 1 hour, 55 minutes and was shot in Istanbul, Turkey; Pinewood Studios near London; and Crinan, Argyll & Bute, Scotland (finale helicopter and boat chase scenes).
GRADE: B-

There's a saying in England: Where there's smoke, there's fire!
From Russia With Love is directed by Terence Young and adapted to screenplay by Richard Maibaum & Johanna Harwood from the Ian Fleming novel of the same name. It stars Sean Connery, Daniela Bianchi, Lotte Lenya, Robert Shaw & Pedro Armendáriz. Music is by John Barry and cinematography by Ted Moore.
James Bond's second cinematic outing has 007 sent on a mission to Istanbul to try and acquire a Russian cypher machine known as Lektor. It's a trap set up by SPECTRE, who formulate a plan to upset the world order whilst murdering Bond in revenge for his killing of their agent Dr. No.
Spy Hard! A certain JFK had announced From Russia With Love as being one of his favourite books, thus making the minds up of producers Broccoli & Saltzman to make Fleming's Cold War thriller the follow up to Dr. No. It's a favourite of many a Bond aficionado because it represents one of the few occasions where Bond was still down to earth as a person, a hard working agent forced to do detective work. The adaptation is very literate as well, with a high fidelity to the source material a major bonus to Fleming's fans. The story is tautly told, often with dark tints the deeper Bond gets into things, and a number of excellently constructed set pieces fill out the latter half of the picture. It's not hard to understand why Connery cites this as his favourite Bond film.
Though it is mostly free of the gadget excess that would become a trademark of the franchise, it's still very much a quintessential Bond movie. Exotic locations and exotic foes, eye poppingly gorgeous ladies (Bianchi smouldering like few others can), pre-credits sequence, the snazzy title credits (here on a dancing lady), title song crooned by a big name (Matt Munro), Barry's blending of the Bond theme into the score, Blofeld (a faceless Anthony Dawson) and an impressive cast list. One of the film's big strengths is the cast assembled, Connery (firmly moving into iconic realm) is aided considerably by the presence of Lenya, Shaw and Armendáriz, while the first appearance of Desmond Llewelyn as Boothroyd (latterly to be known as Q) is a telling point in the series.
With a $2 million budget in the coffers, the makers were able to really push the boat out technically, and so they were rewarded as the pic went on to gross nearly $79 million Worldwide. Crucially it became apparent that James Bond was popular outside of Britain, the template had been set, what would they do with the next Bond outing we all wondered? 8/10

First of all, the acting in this film just perfect. In every scene, you can see and tell that all the actors and actresses were giving it their one hundred and ten percent. Mark Wahlberg and Rose Byrne played compelling characters that seemed like real people. I think any parent will be able to relate to them in one way or another. The kid actors did great, especially Isabela Moner who plays Lizzy. Just like how Mark and Rose played characters parents can relate to Isabela played a character that a majority of teens can relate to. I know I could easily relate to her. The pacing in the film was surprisingly great. I thought for a film like this they would want to rush some scenes but no. All the scenes seemed to have the perfect pacing in them and only a few of them were cut a bit too short but that didn’t bother me too much. The humour in this film was placed in the right places and didn’t seem forced. This film will take you on an emotional rollercoaster. At some parts, you’ll be happy and laughing while in others trying to hold back tears. I also really enjoyed how the film felt like you were a fly on the wall during all the scenes. I think my only big problem with this film is when they tried to throw more conflict into the film. I won’t say what they did but it was unnecessary and could have just been cut out of the film altogether. Also, the few scenes that should have been longer but weren’t also kind of bugged me but didn’t ruin my enjoyment of the film. In the end, this film is an excellent film for the whole family to go and see. I give Instant Family a 9.5/10.