I liked Smile.
It’s a solid horror movie that kept me engaged, but I couldn’t help feeling like it was missing something. The premise is really strong, and it teases a deeper psychological exploration that I was excited for, but it didn’t fully deliver on that front. Sosie Bacon gave a good performance as Dr. Rose Cotter, and the film did a great job building tension and delivering scares, but the direction and script felt like they held back from something greater.
Interestingly, the movie was made on a $17 million budget and ended up grossing over $217 million worldwide, which is seriously impressive. It was originally planned for streaming, but after strong test screenings, it got a theatrical release, and I can see why. The cinematography and atmosphere work so much better on a big screen. I appreciated the effort Parker Finn put into creating a creepy, unsettling vibe, especially for his feature debut, but I wish the story had gone a bit deeper into the psychological themes it hinted at.
Overall, it’s a decent horror film that does enough to entertain and has some genuinely tense moments.

Suitably creepy, even if it does lose effectiveness as its progresses.
2022's 'Smile' is still, all in all, a good movie. The premise ought to bring entertainment and I'm pleased to say that it does, at least for me. I like the trajectory of how and why the thing works the way it does, the scene with Rob Morgan is particularly well done in that regard.
Sosie Bacon gives a fairly strong performance in the lead role, with Kyle Gallner supporting ably. Caitlin Stasey naturally steals the show a bit with *that* face - certainly unsettling! As noted, it does become less and less unnerving as the run time ticks on. However, thankfully, the film wraps up before it gets tiresome or anything close.
Eager to see what the sequel brings.

First thing that I like about this movie is that, it's unique. It's not like a copy of another copy like we usually see these days. Story's unique. Second thing that I liked about this movie is that it's scary, it's quite scary. If you're horror fan, you should definitely watch this. I suggest you to watch it in the dark, preferably alone. Also, the actress playing the main character does outstanding job. Overall, I'm going to put this movie in my favorite horror movies list. It surely deserves its place there.

After witnessing a bizarre, traumatic incident involving a patient, Dr. Rose Cotter (Sosie Bacon) starts experiencing odd occurrences that she can't explain. As an overwhelming terror begins taking over her life, Rose must confront her past in order to survive and escape her horrifying new reality.
I really enjoyed this movie; it’s well-acted, and nicely shot, and the dread and suspense maintain throughout.
Recommended.

Some creepy moments for sure and a decent performance from Sosie Bacon, this is just another supernatural-horror film that I didn't find terribly entertaining and is pretty predictable. I suppose there are worse ways to spend two hours and since it's on Paramount+, maybe it's worth the time especially if you're a fan of these sorts of films. **3.0/5**

Jebus! 😱 This is the most effective horror experience I've had since The Ring. Possibly ever. Holy. Crap. Glad there's still time to watch an animated family movie before I need to sleep. 45 years old, didn't think I could ever be this scared again from a horror movie 😂 This is sublime. I wouldn't change a single thing about it. Fire up that OLED, turn off the lights, and do yourself a favor and put on those earphones.

MORE SPOILER-FREE MINI-REVIEWS @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/mini-reviews-2022-edition
"Smile deserves the praise it has received since its release.
Parker Finn's feature directorial debut contains haunting levels of suspense, consequently creating surprisingly effective jumpscare sequences. Sound design generates an immersive atmosphere rarely seen in horror films, but it turns out to be the moving, character-driven narrative that truly captivates viewers.
The impact of past traumas is excellently addressed by a screenplay that glaringly fails to conclude the story at the most appropriate, thematically correct time - one of the most damaging endings of the year.
Regardless, it's definitely a personal recommendation."
Rating: B

"Dr. Rose Cotter" (Sosie Bacon) is a dedicated clinical psychologist who witnesses the gruesome suicide of a young woman in her hospital consulting room. Traumatised, as you might expect, she gradually starts to suffer from unexpected goings on in her own life. Her relationship becomes unstable and soon she appears to have but a tenuous grasp on reality herself. What's going on? Is she doomed to a similar fate? This has something of the "Azazel" theory to it, and as the story develops director Parker Finn manages to build quite a degree of mystery and suspense. The malevolence of her haunting spirit is well captured by those working the audio - the sound effects and the score contribute well to the overall feel of this film. The acting though, well I am sorry - I found that to be a terrible let down. Initially, Bacon owned the film but after a few moments she just hadn't the weight to carry the thing in what is, essentially, a one-hander. Her support comes mainly for her ex-boyfriend/cop and all round sceptic about the whole thing "Joel" (Kyle Gallner) after her boyfriend "Trevor" (Jessie T. Usher) and her own erstwhile psychiatrist played by an indifferent Robin Weigert give up the ghost with her. Sadly, they offer little to add depth to this rather superficial horror effort. There are jump moments, but they lose their potency as this actor fails to capitalise on the tensions being created around her. Perhaps had the story spent less time on her character development, and the pace been tightened up a bit then we might have had less time to worry about that; but the style of the photography with too many lingering images merely serves to sterilise the whole thing for me. I was really disappointed, and after a while just wanted to go watch "Fallen" (1998) instead.

As an avid horror fan, I can genuinely say that Smile unsettled me beyond belief. In many horror films of today, directors rely solely on jump scares to create this sense of shock and horror. But in Smile, Parker Finn is able to build suspense and tension throughout a scene to then crescendo into a jump scare that the audience knows is coming but are so tense that they cannot help but to release into fright.
While this movie does not break major ground in terms of plot and storytelling there is some depth that is added with mental health and the feeling of isolation during manic episodes. I felt for Rose throughout this entire film, as she used to be the one helping patients through mental crisis and now that she is having one of her own, she is met with the same doubts even though it is a genuine fear. The sense of hopelessness grows throughout the movie as hope drains from our lead actress.
Speaking of our lead actress, Sosie Bacon is fantastic in this movie. She carries every single scene she is in, which is just about every one. Her minor facial movements and eye expressions were so sad and realistic to that of someone experiencing trauma. I loved everything about her performance and will be excited to see her moving forward. The other performances were average across the board, but they didn't really have a lot to work with and filled their roles well. Jessie Usher felt a little out of place though, I feel like he did the nice and charismatic husband role well but when he had to display genuine fear and anger he overacted quite a bit.
Finally, I wanted to touch on the ending. I am not going to spoil anything for the audience, but this is exactly what I wanted throughout the entire film. I kept asking myself, are they going to do it? But second guessed myself and when the payoff happened, I left the theater with a big Smile on my face.
**Score:** _75%_ |
**Verdict:** _Good_

**Smile’s creepy trailers and clever marketing were the best parts of a movie with a meager plot drenched in uneasy sounds, and way too many jump scares.**
Smile obsesses over saturating every moment in unsettling dread. The score and sound effects make every moment uneasy and uncomfortable, and not in a good way. Smile’s premise bore many similarities to It Follows with much poorer execution. Smile stumbled from jump scare to jump scare. I started closing my eyes because the jump scares were so predictable, and I was tired of having disturbing images screamed in my face. I will say that Sosie Bacon did an excellent job with what she was given, with her performance being the only bright spot in the film. Unfortunately, the movie was unimpressive and tried to cloak mediocrity in a fountain of jump scares, stressful noises, and unpleasant moments.

One of my favorite movies of all time again. Love this movie! I love movies that have a storyline that's not common in a lot of movies. Thus is also really hilarious.

The colors, right? Was the the draw in for you too, because this movie popped. Outside of Dick Tracy I don't think I've seen color used to well in a film, both for entertainment and for pure wow.
It popped... and, yeah, there was a story here too.
This was the 90s, it was that time where they could make a children's movie that was still a little dark, a children's movie that was still entertaining for adults to watch. In other words, they made a FAMILY movie, and that hasn't been done lately has it?
You can watch it as an adult and love it because it has a real plot, it has jokes that are above the low brow children's fair, and jokes that cater to them as well. It takes an effort to be appealing to ALL age groups.
And, as I said, it has a plot that you can follow, which again is new for the modern family film which are more or less a series of scenes loosely linked together.
It's entertaining, it was entertaining when I was 13 and my little sister was 7, it was entertaining for my parents that took us, and it's still entertaining. Only now that I'm 40, I'm old enough to look at it and appreciate the color... because man does it pop.

What ever happened to Omri Katz? Here he is the young "Max" who moves with his sister "Dani" (Thora Birch) to the small, history-laden, town of Salem where he soon gets the hots for "Allison" (Vinessa Shaw). Out on a Halloween trick 'r treat session with his sister, they arrive at the her rather posh home where they discuss the famous "Sanderson" witches who were famously hanged there three hundred years earlier. It seems that their house was converted into a museum, so all three head to this dilapidated home where "Max" does the unthinkable - he light the wrong candle and whoosh - back come these three wicked harridans. Led by "Winifred" (Bette Midler) these women must use a secret potion to rob all the children of their youth so they can use it themselves and attain eternal beauty. Fortunately, our intrepid (and increasingly loved-up) trio have one ally from the days gone by in the form of the cat - formerly "Thackery" who was punished by these self same witches centuries ago. Can their combined efforts thwart the witches' dastardly plan? It's great fun, this - with Ms. Midler on good form supported handsomely by Sarah Jessica Parker and a slightly under-used Kathy Najimy. It's got one enjoyable set-piece musical number - "I Put a Spell on You", of course, too. The visual effects are more Hammer than ILM, but that all just adds to the quirky, almost pantomime, entertainment value as the story heads to it's amusing denouement in the graveyard. Thirty years on, it's still a characterful and enjoyable family adventure that had me wracking my brains for where I had seen "Thackery" (Sean Murray) before...

This is an odd family movie, as I saw it called. There seemed to be a few incidents around death that might be to mature for younger kids, but a lot of the story and action seemed too simplistic for older kids.
There is a lot of shrieking in lieu of acting, no real character development, and how many times to we need to hear the same lines and actions from the three witches?
We decided to watch this as a preview to watching the 2022’s sequel, but alas we aren’t motivated to do so after swing the original.

Bad watch, probably won't watch again, and can't recommend.
Sometimes it is fun to get in the way back machine to visit "classic" movies, but they don't always hold up. And in some cases, like this, it is a wonder they EVER worked at all. Especially that it is a 1993 Disney movie and focuses on sex, plus a lot of witch lore being based on women being sexual in a time where it was so inappropriate they would be burnt at the stake. I digress.
While the Sanderson sisters are a compelling premise, if sloppy, and an interesting metaphor for the desires of power, hunger, and sex, it goes to an almost cartoonish levels of ridiculous for next to no reasoning.
All the non witch cast do a fine job, and I especially liked Thora Birch's performance, I can see why she took off so well. As for the witch cast, I have no doubt they did was in the script very well, but the script is overly ridiculous, and even just trying to relax there are jokes that make no sense and just aren't all that funny.
Ultimately it comes down to being a Halloween themed sub-par Babysitter's Club, or your choice of child adventure groups.

Good.
'Hocus Pocus' is a fairly amusing film about witches from the Salem trials era, not that it hasn't any real connection to those events. It's very much a fun fantasy film, which looks pretty neat by the way.
Bette Midler (Winifred), Kathy Najimy (Mary) and Sarah Jessica Parker (Sarah) play three witch sisters. They are main reason why the film is as enjoyable as it is, all are entertaining but Midler is definitely the pick of the bunch. The trio of younger actors in Omri Katz (Max), Thora Birch (Dani) and Vinessa Shaw (Allison) are OK, nothing special but passable.
I didn't fully connect or like the plot itself, but it's one that suits everything else on screen well so it kinda works to be honest. All in all, for me, this is a solid, mid-range production from Disney.

I imagine most of the love for Hocus Pocus comes from people who re-watch it with nostalgia goggles. Even as a child of the 90's I had never seen Hocus Pocus and knew little of it, so I had no prior attachments to this film. If you have seen any of the Disney Channels terrible made for TV movies, Hocus Pocus is like a particularly bad one with some questionable language and sexual innuendo. The acting is really bad from the entire cast, which is a little surprising considering the witches (who I had always assumed you the heroes of the story, but are clearly not) are two D-List actresses (Bette Midler and Kathy Najimy) and a C-lister (Sarah Jessica Parker) who aren't exactly known for their acting abilities, but are actual professional actresses. The CG effects are bad, even considering this is a 1993 movie and the practical effects aren't even an honest effort. All of this could be forgiven if it was part of a fun, campy family movie, but Hocus Pocus can't even pull that off. The plot is lame and full of inconsistencies and just unreasonably unrealistic moments. The witches have been "dead" for 300 years, but will be brought back if a virgin lights the black flame candle. In 1990 a high school boy says multiple times publicly that he is a virgin. Let me just say that again, they think a high school boy would go around announcing himself to be a virgin repeatedly to his peers. This is a public high school in Massachusetts in the 90's, not a Mormon town or a private Catholic school. When the witches return, they have been gone for 300 years and don't even know what the paved road is, thinking it to be a river or what a bus is; they have no knowledge of any of the advances since the 1600's. Having established this, one of the witches flies up to the side of a car on their broom and asks him for his license and registration. So, they don't understand asphalt, but they know motorist jokes? The movie is littered with inconsistencies and a wild lack of understanding of how teenagers and children think and act. Even the three witches can't maintain a consistent character. Bette Midler is supposed to be the smart older sister, but she acts the most irrationally and whines like a child. Sarah Jessica Parker is a horny dumb blonde and Kathy Najimy is a mentally challenged woman who barks an talks out of the side of her mouth, but they are always the ones to reason and plan. Najimy is the worst, with her constantly swinging from offensively stupid the brains of the operation. This was an actual movie released in theaters. Had it been a cheap Disney Channel original, it would still be terrible, but excusable. As a real theatrical film, Hocus Pocus is embarrassing. Unless you grew up with this film, I can't imagine you getting much out of this. It's fairly unoffensive children's drivel, with some questionable language if that's all you need, but it's not a good film. It wasn't fun or interesting and it was probably best left in '93.

_Babylon_ is a visually stunning and stylish film with it’s share of pros and cons. On the one hand, the performances by Brad Pitt and Margot Robbie were outstanding. They truly brought their characters to life and added depth to the story. However, I found that the storyline didn't flow smoothly, and at times it felt disjointed and confusing. Additionally, some of the more grotesque scenes were overly exaggerated, which detracted from the overall experience. Another downside was the length of the movie, which at over 3 hours, felt excessive.

Some great production and costume designs and the performance from Margot Robbie was great while Brad Pitt was good but seen better from him, and the opening 30 minutes were wild but otherwise this was far too long and nothing terribly memorable. **3.0/5**
I did forget this was the movie that proved Margot Robbie and Samara Weaving are indeed different people... :p

It's a sort of triptych of stories of Hollywood, this. A tale that starts off with all the excesses and hedonism of the cocaine fuelled, sexually lascivious antics where even an elephant isn't too much for a party hosted by a movie mogul. It's here we meet the three characters who provide the thread for the rest of this maelstrom of a movie. Firstly we have the young, naive, but quick-thinking "Manny" (Diego Calva) who manages to attract the attention of the much-married, established and former silent screen star "Jack Conrad" (Brad Pitt) all whilst Margot Robbie's ambitious and outrageous "Nellie LaRoy" is sniffing, snorting, dancing and generally sexifying everything she touches as she bids to get into the acting business. What now ensues is a really well crafted and thoughtfully entertaining tale of the rise and fall and rise and fall of these three characters and of how their success brings failure as surely as the sun comes up. Robbie is on excellent form, a truly convincing performance as a character ill-equipped for the journey she is so determined to undertake. Pitt, likewise, plays well here. His character has less in the way of shock factor to deliver, but that storyline offers us a rather more effectively stolid appreciation of just how fickle success can be: there, then gone - in what might seem like a blind of the eye. Finally, the aspirational but (initially) more measured, head-screwed-on Calva who falls in love, and ends up trying to fight the inevitable like King Canute! There's a quirky effort from Tobey Maguire, an alligator and a rat-eater; and a rather scene-stealing contribution - especially at the end - from Jean Smart's Hedda Hopper-style gossip journalist "Elinor St. John" - possibly the only honest character in the entire thing! It's a pastiche and/or an homage to all things cinema at a time of the gradual emergence and then dominance of sound pictures, and we are frequently exposed to the car-crash lifestyles as everyone adapted, re-adapted, and continued to stay on their toes as their industry and their audiences did not always want to take everyone with them - and at break neck speed too - as tastes changed. It's got everything from Cecil B DeMille to Baz Luhrmann to it, takes a swipe at the pompous-thinking stage theatricals (from the East Coast), the shallowness of the whole industry - and yet, it never loses a sense the these are still people. Human beings! It is not difficult to imagine Kenneth Anger advising on the script - it "could" all be true". Maybe a bit on the long side, it certainly sags now and again - but it's definitely a big screen experience that delivers solid, engaging performances that are not over reliant on - even, rather comically (and dangerously) illustrating just how films were made before - CGI! No point in waiting for this to come to television - it's a must for the cinema around which it's story is told.

Babylon is debauchery at its finest. It encapsulates an era like no other and dares to be so different, yet so appealing. On the surface this film is a very straightforward plot, following our three leads and their attempts at success in the ever-changing world of cinema. But deep down, there is another message that is so relevant to everyone's life: accepting death/irrelevance.
Just as fast as our characters achieve their dreams of being stars in the industry, these dreams are quickly whisked away by the brutality and cutthroat nature of Hollywood. This is juxtaposed with Brad Pitts character, a man already on downward spiral of his career, trying to desperately hold on to what remains. These arches are so honest and vulnerable, I found very compelling.
The performances were top notch all around, and I would expect nothing more from a stacked cast of actors including Margot Robbie and Brad Pitt. But the surprise of the bunch was Diego Calva. He was fantastic and stole many scenes he was featured in with both Robbie and Pitt. He is the true lead of this film and does an excellent job bearing the load.
I really enjoyed almost aspects of the film, but towards the end there are some sequences that I feel got away from Chazelle. They are so over the top and kind of feal out of place in this somewhat grounded story. The tension is there in these scenes, but it just doesn't fit. This whole subplot could have been shorten tremendously helping reduce the bloated runtime of the film.
That being, I never really felt the length of this picture with it being quite well paced. Overall, this movie was real treat, and it is quite a shame that marketing was jumbled up so poorly because this film deserves viewership.
Score: 88%
Verdict: Excellent
Theatre Verdict: See It

A fecal, anal honking, and vomit-infused tale revolving around orgy-driven slaphappiness and punchdrunk intoxication as the silent movie era disjointedly stumbled into sound and talkies. Channeling the likes of Michel Hazanavicius’ _The Artist_ and _Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas_ with a rhythmically chaotic boogie seemingly torn right out of Gasper Noe’s _Climax_, _Babylon_ is an aggressive assault of the senses loosely thread together by cinematic evolution and dwindling fame.
**Full review:** https://boundingintocomics.com/2022/12/15/babylon-review-requiem-for-the-silver-screen/

Terrence Mallick is just making movies, and probably my favorite director among all, and he is responsible for the direction and screenplay. One characteristic of Mallicks movie is the dream-like essence on his way to approach the direction and cinematography and here were are not far from this: many of the acne narrations are like phrases resonating inside the (many) characters minds, and the paradisiac movie beginning sequence with a soldier AWOL into a melanesian tribe, played by Jim Caviezel (Pvt. Robert E. Lee Witt) in a scene that correlates with one of the final scenes of the movie.
With a Budget of $52 million and Box office of $98.1 million, it has been nominated for 8 Academy Awards, winning none. One factor maybe is the bad decision of the year for the release: the same year that “Saving Private Ryan” by Steven Spielberg was going on the big screen (it had 11 nominations and 5 wins).
An incredible assemble of actors, many in minor roles, the movie doesn’t have only one protagonist, although it revolves by the character based on the author of the books played by Adrien Brody (as Cpl. Geoffrey Fife). The cinematography by John Toll (Braveheart, Vanilla Sky, The Last Samurai, Cloud Atlas) is just suburb it is a beautiful yet haunting movie to see, the way it focused on the wildlife and vegetation while carnage rolls on the background - it was shoot 100 days in Australia Daintree Rainforest and Bramston Beach, 24 days in Solomon Islands and 3 in US.
The edition work is by Billy Weber, Leslie Jones, Saar Klein (team that had previous works with Mallicks and knows of his habit of lining up the right movie in the edition room). The music is by Hans Zimmer (Lion King, Dune, Gladiator). The use of the Malaysian chorus in some scenes is just awesome.
Story-wise it is the soulful version of the 1962 book “The Thin Red Line” by James Jones (already made into a movie in 1964) , based on his real experiences in the Battle of Guadalcanal in WWII, when he was around 20yo. I watched the 2:50h version and then the Criterion restored version, the one that has the 18 min of cut out scenes that didn't make it on the final theatrical cut version, with some actors parts completely out. I wish someday those scenes could be seen in any way.
The story tells about the men of C Company, 1st Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division, who have been brought to the island of Guadalcanal as reinforcements in the campaign to secure Henderson Field, seize the island from the Japanese, and block off their route to Australia. As they wait in the hold of a Navy transport ship, they contemplate their lives and the upcoming invasion.
This may be one of the few times I disagree with Roger Ebert's vision of a dissociative movie between what the director wants and what the actor plays. I totally understand the version for a realistic action / drama movie but understand what the director made - on how many such dramatic moments in our lives snes pass like a dream or flow of thoughts? But on one aspect I agree the phrases are totally disconnected from what the characters are, too educated and less worldly.
Still with this defect I can say that I enjoyed the movie a lot, but it isn’t just for everyone. One of the few movies that I gave a 9.6 score out of 10.0 / A+.

This is a captivating and stunningly photographed depiction of the horrors of jungle warfare. Jim Caviezel is "Witt" - apprehended from some unofficial leave by his Sergeant "Welsh" (Sean Penn) and is interned aboard a troop ship pending court-martial. All of that due process is soon abandoned as their squad is assigned to take an important hill position from an entrenched Japanese force on Guadalcanal. It is a very untypical film, this - whilst there is certainly plenty of action, pyrotechnics, bullets (and limbs) flying all round, this is a much more cerebral look at the impact of war. The claustrophobia - even in the open air - of people who neither lived nor slept in peace or safety for weeks on end; their weariness and exhaustion, their dedication, bravery and - it has to be said, moments of fear and doubt is presented to us using some strong and potent characterisations. Even the moments of victory are tempered with sorrow and reality - the opposing forces are humanised to an extent that makes this whole thought-provoking story more poignant. Penn is good, as is their overbearing CO "Col. Tail" (Nick Nolte) and a strong ensemble cast of faces - famous and less so - sustain this well for much of the almost three hours it is on screen. What struck me most about the settings were just how inherently hostile they were to human beings at the best of times, and yet there we were fighting over them - palm tress and beautifully coloured birds!

Yeah, this is pretentious. And what makes it worse is that in all of it's art house pomp, it doesn't come across so much as anti-war as it does anti- stopping the Japanese and Germans from their genocidal bid for world domination.
It was like they were saying that they are devoutly on the left... so much so that they support the axis powers if only because the alternative is the United States and Democracy and that is somehow more... fascist(?).
I don't know, the film suffers from schizophrenia and the message gets lost when you realize that it's a World War II story and not a Vietnam story and that it is kind of taking the wrong side of WWII in it's effort to call America a fascist nation.
But, you get pointless meandering diatribes and A-list actors in a horrible movie.
The good news is that it looks pretty... but I don't think the final product is what the writer of this and From Here to Eternity had in mind.

As war movies go, this one sucks. I'm pretty sure (although I didn't read it, that the novel (and maybe original screenplay) must have been fantastic, but Terrence Malick really bungled this: no clear vision, no character investment, a ridiculous amount of stupid jump cuts. I was willing to quit 40% into the film but my wife wanted to see the rest (as almost kind of a challenge to see if she could spot another of the many famous that wanted to work with him (and probably regretted it later).

The circumstances around Terence Malick's The Thin Red Line are sometimes more talked about than the film itself. The reclusive director had made a big splash in the Seventies, but there followed two decades of silence. When he finally reappeared in 1998 to direct this adaptation of James Jones's novel about the Battle of Guadalcanal in World War II, many actors were desperate to work with him and he was able to gather a large ensemble cast. He shot over five hours of footage but had to cut it down to three, leaving out many actors entirely from the finished version.
The Thin Red Line tells of the American battle against Japanese forces on the island from the landing on its beach to the time the initial troops are relieved and sail off for some new, unknown deployment. But it actually begins shortly before this when Private Witt (Jim Caviezel), who has been AWOL and living with the local Melanesian people on a nearby island, is discovered by a patrol and brought in before his sargeant. The battle itself involves the men of C Company, 1st Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division: besides Caviezel as Witt, major roles are played by Sean Penn, Woody Harrelson, Adrien Brody and Ben Chaplin. Elias Koteas is Capt. Staros, who tries to look out for his men, while a hyperbolic Nick Nolte plays their commander who sees the infantry as nothing but cannon fodder to wrecklessly throw at the Japanese.
For most of its 3-hour length, the men are torn apart by Japanese machine gun fire as they try to take a hill, but the enemy is never directly seen. Between scenes of great violence, there are portentous voiceovers by various characters as they meditate on what war says about the larger human drama. Eventually US forces are able to overcome Japanese positions, and the Japanese side of the offensive is depicted with more fairness and equanimity than in most American films on the Pacific Theatre of the war.
While the realistic depiction of battle might touch viewers -- and its hard to knock any World War II film since they spur one to read more about this crucial event in history, this is not a great film. It has obviously been cut heavily from its original length. John C. Reilly appears several times at the centre of shots, clearly meant to be a major character, but most of his scenes and all of his back story were cut. The philosophic voiceovers come across as pretentious instead of insightful. Furthermore, I find this a very "Hollywood" film, with the acting often exaggerated. Woody Harrelson doesn't play a WWII grunt, he plays Woody Harrelson. George Clooney appears at the end and all realism goes out the window: there's no way this suave, handsome leading man has been fighting a war for some time now. Hans Zimmer's musical score too obviously pulls the audience towards prescribed emotions.

First minutes announce bad direction.
The script isn't too original; well, it can be still entertaining. But two things you'll notice right at the start:
1.The scenes between the protagonist and his fiancee are long, so viewers can connect emotionally. Does it work for you? And why not?
2.When killers appear and try to shoot you, how do you move? Look at the milling crowd. Does that look like they are fleeing?
When your actors do not perform convincingly enough, it is your job as director to tell them what to do and repeat the scene.
**If** you are doing your job.
Not much more to say. Old plot, OKish action, some seasoned actors doing a solid job, but paycheck-level, nothing special. Half-bored.

This starts off with shades of the real Tunisian beach attacks from 2015, when "Rapp" (Dylan O'Brien) and his girlfriend find themselves caught up in a shooting that ends in tragedy. Determined on revenge, he attracts the attention of the CIA with whom he ends up working before being sent to the ultimate ninja training camp under the auspices of veteran "Hurley" (Michael Keaton). Working with local intelligence, they identify their target and after a few predictably failed attempts, they are soon on the trail of the criminal who has plans of his own to exact revenge on the American imperialists. O'Brien is easy enough on the eye but the rest of this is about as derivative as it comes. Set piece action scenes ensue as day follows night, peppered with who to trust issues and the introduction of an unlikely enemy in "Ghost" (Taylor Kitsch) who has his own axe to grind with "Hurley". This is genre-fodder, and kills just short of two hours effortlessly enough (though the CGI at the end is really poor for 2017!). You are unlikely to recall it afterwards, and the plot has virtually no jeopardy so don't expect much here.

This movie has been sitting on my unwatched shelf for quite a while and yesterday I finally got around to watch it.
I actually found this movie to be not too bad actually. It is far from a cinematic masterpiece but it is a pretty solid action/revenge movie. Dylan O’Brien is, unfortunately, pretty meh as the main character. Michael Keaton on the other hand is quite good in his character.
It is a reasonably action filled movie and I really like that they didn’t try to turn it into some PG-13 crap. It is sometimes fairly brutal. The story is okay. It works. It is not overly complex and some people are probably moaning about it not being original enough. Well, I say, so what? It is a good concept so why screw with it? I do like revenge movies and although this one is far from the best, it is not at all shabby.
I wonder why some people seems to be claiming that this movie is just crap, one star out of ten and so on and so forth? Is it maybe because it dares bring up the subject of Islamist fanatics killing innocents? Or maybe because it doesn’t try to sugarcoat things and explain these “poor misunderstood” psychopaths but lays the blame straight on said lowlife as well as on Iran? Or maybe because it doesn’t try to blame certain of today’s political retards’ preferred boogieman Russia?
I have not read the book so I guess, if it doesn’t do the book justice, I can somewhat understand not liking it. However, to me, this was a decent, not spectacular but decent, two hours of entertainment. Decent action, decent speed and (with the exception of O’Brien) decent acting.