Don't bother watching, plot line has been so many times before. Turn off your TV and do something more productive instead !

_American Assassin_ might be the most nothing movie of the year. I was sold on the trailer, I though Michael Keating looked great (and to be fair, he kinda was), but watching the movie itself, I felt completely blank. I can't even recommend _American Assassin_ as background noise.
_Final rating:★½: - Boring/disappointing. Avoid where possible._

Bombshell - The scandal tells the true story of the terror and harassment experienced by several women on FOX NEWS, the story of how the truth was slowly seeking the light of day, of how a group of women got together and tried to overthrow one of the biggest names associated with the FOX brand.
Before the explosion of the #metoo movement, the first sign of a paradigm shift in Hollywood began with the fall of TV titan Roger Ailes. The film, by director Jay Roach, follows Ailes' last days as CEO of FOX NEWS, before Gretchen Carlson sued him and Megyn Kelly himself reportedly harassing him.
The film is heavy, especially given the type of material it deals with, and maintains a tense atmosphere from start to finish, raising the bar with each passing moment. There is great care in building tension, each scene slowly contributes to an unpleasant feeling in the audience. The truth is that it is sad to understand that this type of deplorable behavior is real, it is horrifying to know that certain men with too much power try to take advantage of it to use people (in the case of this film, and in reality, power is used specifically to harass and molest women).
There is a scene, in particular, that depicts the harassment experienced by several women (in this scene a character was created specifically to incorporate all the women who suffered these horrors), a scene so uncomfortably real that it will leave anyone feeling dirty. It is really impressive how the film portrays all this tension, all this horror and all this uncomfortable feeling in such a realistic and frightening way.
The performances are also really incredible, Charlize Theron is splendid like Megyn Kelly, in a performance that is so real that we almost forget who interprets it. Margot Robbie and Nicole Kidman also give their all in the film, and this trio really takes this film to a higher level of cinema.
Although not a perfect film (the film tries to imitate the style of “The Big Short”), with some subjects that could have been further developed, I think it is mandatory to view, as it is essential to understand that this type of horrors still happen against women. It is really impressive the realism experienced with this film, the way it dramatizes a real event and still manages to convey the discomfort and terror of the situation. I strongly recommend that you see it.

I was hesitant at first to watch this movie. I couldn't imagine watching anything nearly two hours long about the Fox Network. Plus I saw a lot of negative buzz on the film. I am a progressive and have been glad to see wealthy men being held accountable for sexual harassment finally, but I wasn't anxious to watch a hit job either. I researched the actual story and it seemed to be about two old white guys in a privileged position, and if their conservative wealthy boss fired them, how unfair could it be?
I found it to be entertaining. I gather one of the main characters isn't a real person, but rather a sort of amalgam of many women who were sexually abused and either left Fox or were disposed of in other ways. I liked the husband who supported his famous wife so loyally, and got a kick out of the shenanigans the lesbian character had to go through to stay hidden in plain sight. I never expect a documentary with these films, so small changes and artistic freedom doesn't bother me.
if you are conservative and a Fox news devotee, and don't like to see anything negative about it, you might want to give it a miss. But for the rest of you, if you want to see some of the behind the scenes of a part of the Me Too movement, here you go.

**_A well-acted film about the human cost of bullying and sexual harassment_**
>_11.On or about September 3, 2009, Carlson complained to her supervisor that one of her co-hosts on_ Fox & Friends_, Steve Doocy, had created a hostile work environment by regularly treating her in a sexist and condescending way, including by putting his hand on her and pulling down her arm to shush her during a live telecast._
>_12.Doocy engaged in a pattern and practice of severe and pervasive sexual harassment of Carlson, including, but not limited to, mocking her during commercial breaks, shunning her off_ _air, refusing to engage with her on air, belittling her contributions to the show, and generally attempting to put her in her place by refusing to accept and treat her as an intelligent and insightful female journalist rather than a blond female prop._
>_13.After learning of Carlson's complaints, Ailes responded by calling Carlson a "man hater" and "killer" and telling her that she needed to learn to "get along with the boys."_
>[...]
>_20.On those occasions when he spoke directly with Carlson, Ailes injected sexual and/or sexist comments and innuendo into their conversations by, among other things:_
>_a. Claiming that Carlson saw everything as if it "only rains on women" and admonishing her to stop worrying about being treated equally and getting "offended so God damn easy about everything."_
>_b. Describing Carlson as a "man hater" and a "killer" who tried to "show up the boys" on_ Fox & Friends_._
>_c. Ogling Carlson in his office and asking her to turn around so he could view her posterior._
>_d. Commenting that certain outfits enhanced Carlson's figure and urging her to wear them every day._
>_e. Commenting repeatedly about Carlson's legs._
>_f. Lamenting that marriage was "boring," "hard" and "not much fun."_
>_g. Wondering aloud how anyone could be married to Carlson, while making sexual advances by various means, including by stating that if he could choose one person to be stranded with on a desert island, she would be that person._
>_h. Stating "I'm sure you [Carlson] can do sweet nothings when you want to."_
>_i. Asking Carlson how she felt about him, followed by: "Do you understand what I'm saying to you?"_
>_j. Boasting to other attendees (at an event where Carlson walked over to greet him) that he always stays seated when a woman walks over to him so she has to "bend over" to say hello._
>_k. Embarrassing Ms. Carlson by stating to others in her presence that he had "slept" with three former Miss Americas but not with her._
>_l. Telling Carlson that she was "sexy," but "too much hard work."_
- Extract from Gretchen Carlson's sexual harassment lawsuit against Roger Ailes (July 6, 2016)
>_Some of the women that are complaining, I know how much he's helped them. And even recently. And when they write books that are fairly recently released, and they say wonderful things about him. Now, all of a sudden, they're saying these horrible things about him. It's very sad. Because he's a very good person. I've always found him to be just a very, very good person._
- Donald Trump; _Meet the Press_ (July 23, 2016)
>_Today America lost one of its great patriotic warriors. Roger Ailes. For Decades RA's has impacted American politics and media. He has dramatically and forever changed the political and the media landscape singlehandedly for the better. Neither will ever be the same again as he was a true American original. Few people in this life will ever reach the profound level of impact that Roger Ailes had on the country every single day. As his opponents played checkers in life, Roger was always the strategist, playing Chess 5 steps ahead at a whole other level._
- Sean Hannity (via Twitter; May 18, 2017)
>_I was asked to do the spin. God help me, I did it. I know people think it's like, "Oh, you had to spin around", but I remember feeling like, "I put myself through school. I was offered partnership at Jones Day, one of the best law firms in the world. I argued before federal courts of appeal all over the nation. I came here. I'm covering the United States Supreme Court. I graduated with honours from all of my programs and now he wants me to twirl?" And I did it. If you don't get how demeaning that is, I can't help you._
- Megyn Kelly; "Megyn Kelly Presents: A Response to _Bombshell_" (January 9, 2020)
I've seen _Bombshell_ described as a docudramedy – a portmanteau if ever there was one, that essentially refers to a true story (docu) that's half drama (dram) and half comedy (edy). It's a relatively new subgenre that a lot of critics seem to be tracing back to Adam McKay's _The Big Short_ (2015) and _Vice_ (2018). And whilst Bombshell definitely takes inspiration from McKay's work, I think the real antecedent is Oliver Stone's 90s films. Granted, Stone never made what could be called a docudramedy – _The Doors_ (1991), _JFK_ (1991), _Heaven & Earth_ (1993) and _Nixon_ (1995) are docudramas, whereas _Natural Born Killers_ (1994) and _U Turn_ (1997) are dramedies. However, what all six films have in common, and this is where they're important to the modern docudramedy subgenre, is stylistic snappiness, unrelenting energy, visual hyperactivity, and editing rhythms that could give you seizures. And so too _Bombshell_. At least initially. And although it shares a lack of subtlety with McKay's _The Big Short_, and a lack of factual insight with _Vice_, _Bombshell_ is entertaining, brilliantly acted, and paints a horrifying picture of workplace bullying and sexual harassment. Sure, it'll be yet more evidence for the right that leftist Hollywood is incapable of partiality, but really, if you're the type of person prone to believing the propaganda machine that is Fox News, what are you even doing watching the movie in the first place?
The story begins in August 2015 during the first Republican presidential debate. Co-moderating the debate is Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron completely disappearing into the role), the host of Fox News's _The Kelly File_, who asks candidate Donald Trump (then considered a highly unlikely winner), about his history of misogynistic comments. Pointing out he has called women whom he dislikes "_fat pigs_", "_dogs_", "_slobs_", and "_disgusting animals_", she asks, "_does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president_". The following day, Trump proves her point during an interview with CNN by throwing a tantrum and claiming, "_she gets out there and she starts asking me all sorts of ridiculous questions, and, you know, you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever_". And so, much to her chagrin, Kelly finds herself the focus of the headlines. Initially, Fox News president Roger Ailes (a superb John Lithgow), supports her, telling her that the exchange was "_great TV_", but as time goes on, and Trump's popularity continues to rise, Ailes's begins to grow concerned about Kelly's attitude. Meanwhile, in June 2016, after saying that she supports the assault rifle ban, Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman), is fired from her show _The Real Story_. Carlson had been a co-host on the highly-rated _Fox & Friends_ until 2013, when she complained about sexist treatment by her co-hosts, and was demoted to a show in a less desirable timeslot. Fully expecting to be fired, she had already contracted a legal team, with the intention of filing a suit not against Fox, but against Ailes personally, who she claims sexually harassed her for years. However, she's told that the suit can only be successful if she can find others willing to corroborate his behaviour. But with the women of Fox urged to support Ailes (including wearing t-shirts proclaiming their loyalty), will anyone stand with Carlson? Elsewhere, the young and idealistic "_millennial evangelical_" and "_Jesus influencer_" Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie playing a composite character) is hired as a research assistant for _The O'Reilly Factor_. Determined to rise through the newsroom, she engineers a private meeting with Ailes, but is horrified when she discovers exactly what he means when he says he will need evidence of her "_loyalty_".
The film also features Pospisil's (fictional) mentor Jess Carr (Kate McKinnon); Ailes's wife, Beth (Connie Britton); Kelly's husband Douglas Brunt (Mark Duplass); Kelly's (fictional) producer Gil Norman (Rob Delaney); Ailes's lawyers Susan Estrich (Allison Janney) and Rudy Giuliani (Richard Kind); Fox News founder and owner Rupert Murdoch (Malcolm McDowell); Murdoch's sons, Lachlan (Ben Lawson) and James (Josh Lawson); Carlson's lawyer Nancy Smith (Robin Weigert); Kelly's (fictional) research assistants Lily Balin (Liv Hewson) and Julia Clarke (Brigette Lundy-Paine); Fox general counsel Gerson Zweifach (Andy Buckley); former Fox correspondent Rudi Bakhtiar (Nazanin Boniadi), who accused anchor Brian Wilson (Brian d'Arcy James) of sexual harassment in 2007 and was subsequently fired; Ailes's (fictional) secretary Faye (Holland Taylor); and, often in the form of single scene cameos, Fox News employees Bill Shine (Mark Moses), Dianne Brandi, (Amy Landecker), Martha MacCallum (Elisabeth Röhm), Ainsley Earhardt (Alice Eve), Alisyn Camerota (Tricia Helfer), Geraldo Rivera (an unrecognisable Tony Plana), Sean Hannity (Spencer Garrett), Bret Baier (Michael Buie), Neil Cavuto (P.J. Byrne), Kimberly Guilfoyle (Bree Condon), Bill O'Reilly (Kevin Dorff), Abby Huntsman (Ashley Greene), Chris Wallace (Marc Evan Jackson), Juliet Huddy (Jennifer Morrison), Julie Roginsky (Ahna O'Reilly), Harris Faulkner (Lisa Canning), Irena Briganti (Brooke Smith), Jeanine Pirro (Alanna Ubach), and Greta Van Susteren (Anne Ramsay).
Written by Charles Randolph (_The Life of David Gale_; _The Interpreter_; _Love & Other Drugs_) and directed by Jay Roach (_Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery_; _Meet the Parents_; _Game Change_), _Bombshell_ is the third major retelling of the Ailes saga in the last couple of years, following Alexis Bloom's documentary, _Divide and Conquer: The Story of Roger Ailes_ (2018) and the Showtime miniseries _The Loudest Voice_ (2019), which might go some way to explaining the film's disappointing box office (although I'm sure some will throw around the ridiculous "_get woke, go broke_" phrase). None of the principal characters, including Kelly and Carlson, were involved with the filmmaking at any point, and neither Theron nor Kidman consulted either woman. Carlson has not yet seen the film, and although Kelly originally said she might not watch it, in January 2020, she posted a video to her YouTube channel featuring herself, her husband, Rudi Bakhtiar, Juliet Huddy, and former Fox News producer Julie Zann, recorded immediately after a screening. Kelly praised the film's general accuracy, although she also noted that on occasion, it veered toward victim blaming, suggesting that certain scenes screamed out they were "_written by a man_".
The fall of Roger Ailes preceded the first accusations against Harvey Weinstein (October 2017) and the birth of the #MeToo movement by over a year. When Carlson first files her suit, not a single woman comes forward to support her (although, ultimately over 20 would), and one imagines that had this happened _after_ Weinstein, the situation would have been markedly different. Indeed, the film shows people such as Jeanine Pirro (perhaps the most militantly insane of Fox's cabal of instability) organising a kind of reverse picket line that seeks to discourage women from accusing Ailes (or Bill O'Reilly) of anything inappropriate, and isolating them if they do so (the "I stand with Roger" t-shirts are her idea). This depiction of the nature of sexual harassment in a male-dominated and female-enabled corporate arena is chillingly effective. In one particularly disturbing scene, we see a young female journalist go out for dinner with her male boss, and when he offers her career advancement in return for sex, her reaction is to pretend she doesn't understand what he means, then pretend it's not happening, and finally to apologise to him ("_I'm sorry if I've given you the impression that our relationship could be anything but professional_"). In this environment, women are the victims whether they resist or submit – resist, and they risk their job; submit, and they lose their self-respect. A more toxic environment is hard to imagine.
With that in mind, _Bombshell_ is certainly not a subtle film, but it doesn't try to be. Roach is not trying to engage in an even-handed examination of partisan politics, nor even look at the monolithic political ideology of Fox News itself. Sure, it features lines such as Ailes claiming, "_news is like a ship, you take your hands off the wheel and it pulls hard to the left_", whilst Carr states the main goal of Fox News is to "_frighten and titillate_" rather than report facts, but these are the exceptions in a reasonably apolitical film. Roach knows that 99% of his audience will already agree that Fox News is a dangerous, hate-filled, xenophobic, propaganda machine, so he makes little effort to depict the network's political leanings. Instead, the film is about self-loathing, fear, and anxiety – it's about workplace bullying and the human cost of sexual harassment.
This is a crucial point, because the three women at the film's centre (Kelly, Carlson, and Pospisil) are not a left-wing sisterhood. They're not even friends (the trio share only a single scene, and it's without dialogue); they're not a rebellious group of bra-burning feminists, they're right-wing conservatives who helped create the toxically boorish system under which they now find themselves oppressed. True, the film is probably a little too silent on their politics, especially Kelly (more on this in a moment), but the point is that politics are fairly irrelevant – sexual harassment is sexual harassment, and your politics, religious beliefs, race, and gender are all beside the point (unless, of course, you're the type of moron who believes a woman who dresses sexy is "_asking for it_", in which case you probably feel Carlson and women like her got what they deserved). At the same time, the film doesn't portray Ailes as an irredeemable monster, at least not at first. Indeed, when we meet him, he's commending Kelly for her handling of Trump, and the impression is that the relationship between the two is one of respect and genuine fondness, with Ailes even going as to say, in a fatherly way, "_I'm proud of you, Megyn_". The point is, this is not an anti-Republican diatribe. It's the exposé of a man who was a Republican.
Aesthetically, _Bombshell_ is something of a strange creature. The rapidly edited, stylistically hyperactive first half-hour or so is vintage McKay; a deeply self-reflexive almost meta-comedy. For example, one of the earliest scenes sees Theron break the fourth wall and address the audience as she gives us a tour of Fox News. Another moment sees Carr telling Pospisil that some people watch the channel so much, the logo has burnt onto their TV screens, at which point the Fox logo appears in the corner of the screen, remaining there for the rest of the scene. However, once the groundwork has been laid, Roach shifts tones completely and moves into fairly standard factual drama territory, which has the effect of making the first act feel somewhat isolated and incongruous, setting us up for a film which never arrives, particularly concerning the fourth-wall break (the only scene of its kind in the film).
On the other hand, the film's triptych narrative structure works very well. It's not an even divide (this is Kelly's film before it is Carlson's or Pospisil's), but it does allow Roach to dramatise just how much Ailes looks on his female staff as commodities. Carlson is the washed-up former beauty queen who no longer holds his interest; Kelly is the current flavour of the month, still beautiful, still popular; Pospisil is the future, young, vital, keen, and in awe of the man himself, as all women should be – for every Carlson, there's a Kelly to replace her, and for every Kelly, there's a Pospisil waiting in the wings, ready for grooming.
From an acting perspective, there's not a weak link, with Theron especially impressive. Normally, she looks nothing like Kelly, but through posture, mannerisms, wardrobe, a scratchy voice, and the subtle prosthetic genius of Kazu Tsuji (who turned Joseph Gordon-Levitt into a young Bruce Willis for Rian Johnson's _Looper_, and Gary Oldman into Winston Churchill for Joe Wright's _Darkest Hour_), the actress disappears into the character, who she plays as steely and often remote, but fiercely passionate and intelligent. Is it as good as her work in Patty Jenkins's _Monster_ (2003)? Not quite. But it's still a deeply impressive performance that transcends mere imitation.
The other standout is Lithgow, whose performance is fascinatingly modulated. Introduced in a scene designed to show his fatherly protective side, Lithgow initially portrays Ailes as a flawed human being – all too aware that he's losing a battle with age, but ironically resigned to his physical appearance not being what it once was. It's only later that the actor lets the monster out of the box. One particular scene, which is both his and Robie's best, and the dark heart at the centre of the film, sees him asking an increasingly uncomfortable Pospisil to hike her skirt higher and higher, to the point where her underwear becomes visible, as he becomes increasingly aroused, indicated by nothing but his breathing. It's an exceptionally well-staged and nauseating scene which gets to the film's core – the humiliation aspect of sexual harassment. Like rape, it's not about sex (at least, not entirely), it's about power, dominance, and submission. It's about ego. Ailes knows that if women like Pospisil value their job, they'll submit, just as they have done for men like him throughout history. As he sees it, ambitious women will always need powerful men, and he behaves as he deems appropriate within that paradigm.
As for problems, I mentioned earlier that the film might be too silent on some of Kelly's history. I understand where Roach is coming from on this; to feature scenes which seem designed to depict her in a less than favourable light could run perilously close to victim-blaming – kind of a "_who cares if she was harassed, she's a racist_" argument. So whilst I agree in principle, I think that in practice, Roach errs in the other direction. If you knew nothing about these events, you'd be forgiven for thinking the only controversy Kelly ever encountered in her time at Fox was asking Trump about misogyny. There's no mention, for example, of her infamous "_Jesus was a white man_" comment from 2013. Granted, it doesn't have much to do with the story at hand, but my point is a general one. The film's Kelly is almost virginal, without blemish. Making her character more rounded, more flawed, more (dare I say it) right-wing, would have served both the character and the story, and actually helped rather than hindered Roach's argument that politics don't matter in relation to sexual harassment. On the other hand, the film _does_ address the fact that Kelly knew about Ailes for years before Carlson was fired, and it takes her to task for not doing anything with that knowledge, with one character rightly pointing out that if she had done something earlier, other victims would have been spared. Interestingly enough, this was the scene Kelly herself felt crossed the line into victim-blaming – make of that what you will.
Another issue is that the tonal shift at the end of the first act is very strange, as Roach abandons the hyperactivity of the opening and settles into a far more conventional style – a transition he doesn't entirely pull off. He also makes the strange decision to mix archival footage of the real Ailes with Lithgow's performance during this first act, which somewhat shatters the film's performative universe.
Ultimately, _Bombshell_ will probably anger some for its refusal to really comment on how Ailes's accusers were part of the problem for a long time, propping up, excusing, and validating the system behind which he operated. However, to take this route is to suggest that because they elected not to rock the boat earlier in their careers, they don't deserve much sympathy. And anyone who knows anything about feminism or #MeToo will tell you that is absolutely _not_ the case. Certainly, in the case of Kelly, the opportunity for her to explain why she stayed silent for so long is available, but is never availed of. But is that a fault of the filmmakers or a reflection on the actual person's reluctance to take that particular journey inward? Sure, the film is at pains to avoid showing either Carlson or Kelly as in any way complicit in creating the hideously outdated patriarchy at Fox (as opposed to many of the network's other female employees, who seem to be fair game). But this is by design. Were _Bombshell_ a story about Fox News, such things ought to be examined. But it isn't. It's a story about humiliation and bullying, a story that says people do not deserve such treatment, no matter their race, religion, or politics.

The best way to sum up ‘Bombshell’ is that it's a story that needs to be remembered and told, yet the film we got is good but not great. While all the acting is phenomenal - especially the leads - and makeup fantastic, the story, filmmaking and editing are uncreative and thus fail to hit the home run that this should have been. Having said that ‘Bombshell’ is still one to watch, if only to be reminded of what is still happening to women today - not just in Hollywood, but all around the world.
- Chris dos Santos
Read Chris' full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-bombshell-an-important-yet-uninspired-look-at-fox-news-sex-scandal

Set during the later reign of Engand's Queen Elizabeth, this joyful drama sees poor old William Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) having a bit of a creative drought. Lacking ideas and cash, and being pursued by both Richard Burbage (Martin Clunes) and the wonderfully dead pan Geoffrey Rush as Philip Henslowe for work he's supposed to have already penned, things are looking a bit bleak. When Gwyneth Paltrow, an ardent theatre fan prohibited from taking to the stage by virtue of her sex, dresses as "Thomas Kent" and auditions for a part, he sees through the disguise quickly and his creative juices once again begin to flow... Snag is, she "Viola de Lesseps" is engaged to the poverty stricken "Lord Wessex" (Colin Firth) and Virginia bound - as soon as he can raise the dowry from her father... What ensues is a rapid-fire, lightly comical, romantic drama that sees quite a collection of acting talents contributing well to the ensemble effect of this story. Fiennes shines as the playwright in trouble - frequently - as do Paltrow, Rush, a surprisingly effective Ben Affleck, Imelda Staunton as her worldly-wise nurse with Jim Carter as the onstage version of that persona and Barnaby Kay as the mischievous little "Nol". The costumes and sets are magnificent; the writing from Marc Norman and the newly knighted Sir Tom Stoppard is witty and stimulating - cleverly incorporating quite a bit of the original bard's efforts into their screenplay as they go. It would have been easily possible for this embarrassment of acting riches to have overwhelmed this story, but John Madden keeps all pulling well in the same direction. The film will doubtless be remembered more as Dame Judi Dench's consolation Oscar (for not winning for "Mrs. Brown" the year earlier), and as far as they go her performances are fine - but there is much more to this story of the trials and tribulations of a bard in love. A wee bit long, it seems to end more than once, but it is still a story the eponymous writer himself might well have enjoyed.

Does anyone remember this? I do, but only because its what turned me off of the Oscars. Haven't watched them since. It was the rude awakening that they were fixed, the quality of the film didn't matter as much as the bribes.
It beat Saving Private Ryan for best picture.
And then it beat Bulworth for best screen play.
That was sort of enough to turn my head. Both of them? Bulworth was far from best picture worthy, but best original screenplay seemed as much as a shoe in as Ryan for Best Picture.
And then it went on to win Best score over Mulan, A Bug's Life, and Prince of Egypt which is curious because it didn't really fit the criteria for Musical or Comedy Score as much as it's competition.
And then now, looking back, who remembers it? If it's remembered at all, it's remembered for beating Saving Private Ryan, which has become a classic.
Shakespeare in Love is just remembered for it's sweep of the awards, both at the Oscars and beyond, but not for its quality.

This has got to be in my top ten movies - it is an almost flawless exercise in marrying fantastic photography, casting, writing, costumes and a score into three hours of wonderful entertainment. Rumour has it that Albert Finney was offered the lead role and suggested Peter O'Toole instead. If that is true (or not) then clearly serendipity was already on hand to guide this rendition of the story of TE Lawrence, who inspired and led an Arab uprising against the Ottoman empire. The iconic scene that introduces us to Omar Sharif as Lawrence heads to meet Prince Faisal (Alec Guinness) starts us on a journey mixing adventure, politics, superstition, ambition and cruelty. Anthony Quinn is superb as are, in lesser capacities, Claude Rains, José Ferrer and Jack Hawkins as his somewhat cynical, but opportunistic GOC. Arthur Kennedy helps take Lawrence's story to the world and through his eyes we see how his character is changed by all the violence around/instigated by him. Peter O'Toole conveys the emotional rollercoaster of a journey from naive, optimistic officer to war-weary veteran in a dazzling fashion. This is a true treat of a film.

227 minutes of greatness!
I've always wanted to watch 'Lawrence of Arabia' given its standing as being one of the greats, though that rather long run time always put it on my subconscious back-burner. At last, I rooted out some time for it and man it was a well spent near four hours! I'm not going to say its length is ignorable, though it truly doesn't feel like a 3hr 47min movie - so every credit to all involved.
Peter O'Toole's performance is undoubtedly outstanding, I can't really add anything more to what I'm sure many, many others have noted down the decades - he is, put simply, brilliant. Other strong performers are Alec Guinness, Anthony Quinn, Omar Sharif and, albeit more minorly, Claude Rains. No-one on the cast puts a foot wrong, as expected.
The cinematography throughout is also absolutely exquisite, the entire look and feel of the film is just stunning. There is much more to say about this but I'll leave that to those that have already said such things. I'm just here to watch great movies and this 1962 picture is unequivocally one of those. Quite evidently a classic, no doubt about it.

This is obviously an epic film, lasting nearly four hours with the wide, sweeping desert vistas and huge cast. It describes a fairly brief period of time out of a remarkable man’s life. I wonder how modern viewers handle the length of the movie, accustomed as they are to movies this lengthy featuring superheroes with humor and almost constant action.
I don’t even remember how long ago I originally watched Lawrence of Arabia —quite possibly forty or more years ago. It has aged pretty well overall. The only negative thing that struck me when I recently re-watched it may well be due to my age. But it can be a talkative film at times, which is fine, but they sometimes talk fairly softly, and if such a scene transitions to music, I found the music to be so loud in comparison that it lifted me half of my chair. I had to have remote in hand to be ready to adjust the volume. A minor thing.

Recently I saw a restored version of "The Black Pirate" - made in 1926 and that was in far better condition that the print I saw of this 1986 iteration of the cracking Umberto Eco novel. Set amidst the fear that beset the Christian world during the Holy Inquisition, we find ourselves at a remote abbey run by Michael Lonsdale. There is to be a gathering to facilitate a theological debate between the Franciscans and the Vatican. To that end, "William of Baskerville" (Sean Connery) and his novice "Adso" (Christian Slater) have travelled to this rather bleak location. Their arrival is tainted with sadness and mystery, though: a young monk has mysteriously died. "Baskerville" asks permission to look into it and is soon inveigled in a complex investigation that is proving distinctly perilous for almost all at this abbey. What is the secret? Can they deduce that before the arrival of the dreaded "Bernardo Gui" (F. Murray Abraham), the powerful instrument of the church who thinks nothing of burnings at the stake? This is a great story of medieval intrigue that is well enhanced here by a strong supporting cast - notably an almost unrecognisable Ron Perlman as "Salvatore"; Feodor Chaliapin Jr. is really quite intimidating as the Venerable "Jorge" and Michael Habeck's "Brother Berengar" has something creepy and distinctly un-Christian about him. As the story progresses we realise that this is actually a story about not just fear of the Inquisitors - but of the very power of the written word. Of the power of education and enlightenment - and the lengths some will go to keep the poor - potently exemplified here by Valentina Vargas - in their place. The cinematography of this dark, cold and unforgiving place adds richness and a malevolence to this film that really does resonates an effective eeriness - an evil, almost. Connery and Slater? Well perhaps not my first choice here - but they are not terrible and the former does bring a little gravitas to the role that just about works. Given all the dross that's getting 4K upgrades these days, surely this one has to merit a bit of TLC.

**_Murder mystery at a gloomy abbey during the Dark Ages with Sean Connery_**
In 1327, a Franciscan monk and his pupil (Connery and Christian Slater) arrive at a monastery in northern Italy to attend an important theological Roman Church conference. When monks are found dead in mysterious ways, William (Connery) winds up being the Medieval version of Sherlock Holmes. While he seems to figure the mystery out due to the evidence, a mirthless inquisitor is called in and sees things differently (F. Murray Abraham). Ron Perlman plays a hunchback and Michael Lonsdale the Abbot.
Based on Umberto Eco’s 1980 book, “The Name of the Rose” (1986) is outstanding as far as locations, sets, costumes and make-up go. Anyone interested in a shadowy drama with the dreary Gothic ambiance of the Middle Ages, this is the film to see. It’s helped by Connery’s towering performance, marked by his nonchalant confidence. Slater is also excellent as the inquisitive novice. Meanwhile Valentina Vargas as the feral peasant girl is yet another highlight (there’s some nudity, just a heads up).
The murder mystery is decent enough and there are interesting theological debates, but this is mostly a commentary on the good, the bad and the ugly of Medieval Catholicism. Remember, there was good reason for the Protestant Reformation that started less than 200 years later. I advise using the subtitles, as this is a dialogue-driven piece filled with mumbled Latin words and unusual names; it will help you understand the convoluted goings-on.
Speaking of which, the film seems weighed down and needed a rewrite to make the story more compelling. Yet it’s still well worth checking out for those interested and it influenced many movies, like “Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves” (1991). Fans of "Black Death" (2010) should appreciate it, although it’s not on that level of greatness; the contemporaneous “Season of the Witch” too. Those films, however, are more conventionally entertaining. This one’s more along the weighty lines of “The Bridge of San Luis Rey" (2004), which most people hated, but I appreciated.
The flick runs 2 hours, 11 minutes, and was shot at a replica of the monastery on a hilltop outside Rome (exteriors and some interiors) while most interiors were done at Eberbach Abbey, Germany, over 700 miles to the north; the mountain scenes were shot nearby in Taunus Mountains, Hessen, Germany.
GRADE: B-

Bookish or Boorish?
The Name of the Rose is directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud and based on the novel of the same name written by Umberto Eco. It stars Sean Connery, Christian Slater, F. Murray Abraham, Helmut Qualtinger, Elya Baskin & Michael Lonsdale. Music is scored by James Horner and cinematography by Tonino Delli Colli.
Sean does Sherlock the Monk.
It's one of those film's that I just can't get into, three times I have tried but it's now consigned to the recycle bin, never to be unearthed again. I see there is great artistry there, it's very literate and the mystery element is strong, but it saps my strength to the very last. Connery is miscast because he plays it as nudge nudge wink wink detective fare, and film strains too hard to be some intellectual medieval musing on inquisitional power, berserker religion and the search for truth. Now I like gloomy moods, especially when part of some Gothic architecture, but even with the delightful weirdness of this monastery and the even weirder haircuts, I find it hard to sit still, such is the haphazard directing of the plot. In all honesty, the makers really would have been better off just making another Sherlock Holmes movie and setting it in a monastery. Now that would be fun...
This wants to be a paean to Arthur Conan Doyle, a brain teaser and an observation on some tricky subjects, but the mix doesn't work, sadly, for me anyway. Because I don't like it doesn't mean it's a bad film, clearly it is loved by many and has things of value to a discerning viewer. But to me, no, leaves me cold and frustrated. 5/10

At first I was like "Hah, this is some kind of Sherlock Holmes but a priest thing!", and then I was like "Oh, this **is** some kind of Sherlock Holmes but a priest thing!"
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

Better than expected remake from 2005 with some decent gore and the effects during the finale looks pretty good. The cast was alright, reminder Elisha Cuthbert's time starring in movies (courtesy of 24) but she was fine and even Paris Hilton wasn't... awful I suppose. Nothing I'd really revisit anytime soon but all in all found it to be entertaining. **3.5/5**

Engrossing and imaginative modern Mystery/Horror with Elisha Cuthbert
RELEASED IN 2005 and directed by Jaume Collet-Serra, "House of Wax" is a horror/slasher about six college students (4 dudes and 2 gals) who drive from Gainesville to Baton Rouge to attend a crucial football game. They end up camping in the woods somewhere off I-10 where some of the party discovers a mysterious town in the sticks that has a curious House of Wax. Horror and death ensue.
This is not a remake of the splendid 1953 Vincent Price cult flick of the same name. The only thing these two films have in common is their title, their genre, and the fact that they both involve a wax museum. It's therefore pointless to compare them as they are two totally different stories. Plot-wise, "House of Wax" is an obvious mixture of the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (1974) and the 1953 film of the same name, along with elements of more modern flicks like “Wrong Turn” (2003) and torture porn.
Although the first 12 minutes or so are unimpressive with too much annoying shaky cam, the story starts to capture your attention at the camp-out sequence. From there their encounter with a horrible stench, a local hick, and the mystery of the isolated town & wax museum gradually pulls you in. The fairly slow initial 50-minutes are a crucial character-building and mystery-developing foundation to the final horrific hour.
The major protagonist of the story is Carly, played by Elisha Cuthbert, who was only 22 during filming and never looked better with her curvy cuteness. The glamorous and infamous Paris Hilton also stars and does a commendable job, but Elisha basically blows her out of the water as far as all-around beauty goes.
Speaking of Ms. Hilton, in light of the ads to “Come see Paris Hilton die,” it’s no secret that her character does indeed buy the farm and, the way it happens, is pretty amusing. The film's worth checking out for this scene alone, especially if you despise her.
The picture was shot in Queensland, Australia, of all places, but it works alright as a stand-in for the Deep South, although I don’t recall any hills along I-10, as depicted in the background of the town. Speaking of the town, it doesn’t look like a Deep South town, but rather a contrived set. Nevertheless, the filmmaking is top-notch in all categories with the rest of the no-name cast doing a fine job. As a matter of fact, the six college kids are all rather likable; even Nick (Chad Michael Murray), Carly’s supposedly 'black sheep' twin, once he shows his true colors.
"House of Wax" works fabulously for what it IS, a mystery/slasher flick. The unlikely story is played straight and serious by all involved; there's no silly "comedic relief" or camp to be seen. Everyone knows going in that this isn't going to be "Gandhi." But if you're in the mood for an entertaining and imaginative mystery/horror picture, look no further. "House of Wax" has practically everything you’d want in such a film. Why do I describe it as imaginative? See the conclusion's spectacular melting wax museum and you'll understand; this is F/X at its finest.
THE MOVIE RUNS 1 hour, 48 minutes. WRITERS: Chad Hayes & Carey W. Hayes.
GRADE: B+

They Live is a great movie that delivers an exceptional story with a dystopian vibe that is both thrilling and terrifying.
John Carpenter's screenplay was ahead of its time in terms of its social commentary on American capitalism and the class divide. The film's story explores how a small group of people has taken control of the world by using subliminal messaging and manipulation, making it a unique sci-fi tale that is still relevant today. I particularly loved how the film built tension and hysteria in many scenes, such as the protagonist's discovery of the truth behind the hidden messages.
The performances in the film were okay, with some being better than others. Keith David and Meg Foster's performances stood out as impressive, bringing a sense of intensity and authenticity to their roles. On the other hand, Roddy Piper's performance was pretty corny, but it worked well for the film's B-movie style. Of course, nothing beats the iconic line "I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass, and I'm all out of bubblegum."
John Carpenter's direction was top-notch as always, with the ten-minute fight scene between John and Frank being a standout moment. The choreography was fantastic, and the lack of cuts made it a thrilling and believable engagement. The film's score was pretty basic, but it added a subtle tension to the entire movie and had a distinctly 80s feel to it. Carpenter's vision on analyzing American capitalism and the rich was very refreshing, and it's clear how he felt about the American way, which is still very relevant 35 years later.
In conclusion, They Live is a great movie that combines a unique sci-fi story, impressive direction, and memorable performances. Its themes and message remain just as important today as they were when the movie was first released.
Score: 80%
Verdict: Great

Life's a bitch and she's back on heat!
They Live is directed by John Carpenter who also adapts the screenplay form the short story Eight O'Clock in the Morning written by Ray Nelson. It stars Roddy Piper, Keith David and Meg Foster. Music is by Alan Howarth (and Carpenter) and cinematography by Gary B. Kibbe.
Unemployed drifter Nada (Piper) wanders into the city looking to find work, but upon finding a unique pair of sunglasses he sees a different world to everyone else. It's a world frequented by an alien race who are using the Earth for their own nefarious means.
See The Truth!
Carpenter does subversive sci-fi and it's a whole bunch of fun. Stripped back it's evident that They Live is Carpenter's wry observation on the politico posers who endorse the rich getting richer and everybody else sliding down the pole; to where they stop nobody knows! It's also a blatant paean to the glorious years of the 1950s when paranoia based sci-fi schlockers and creaky creature features ruled the air waves. It's also a wonderfully macho driven action movie, laced with comedy as well. You can rest assured there will be plenty of shooting, punching, dodging and spoken lines to make you smile.
Piper is no Kurt Russell, but we shouldn't hold that against him because he fills the role nicely. With muscular frame, 80s hair and a quip on the tongue, he is most assuredly a Carpenter leading man for the 80s. Alongside him is the reassuring presence of Keith David, himself a beefcake and also one of the coolest muthas on the planet. It's easy to believe that these two can save the planet, even after nearly beating each other to a pulp during a prolonged side-alley fight sequence, where Carpenter doesn't miss a chance to parody professional wrestling. While away from the beef, Meg Foster gets the lead lady role, with those amazing eyes nestling in perfectly with the world Carpenter has created.
Carpenter does political? Yes, but it's not the be all and end all of his intentions. He wanted to make an action sci-fi schlocker with sly politico undertones as motives. And that's exactly what he did. Joyously so. 8/10

I have to admit up front to liking every single, John Carpenter movie. They are works of art in there unique style and quality. This is actually my favorite of all of them. There could be a criticism that this movie is didactic and sends some sort of clumsy political or philosophical message but I'd have to reply that you simply don't get it. Unlike the modern propensity for movies to try to hammer home some political point or perspective, the message here is only window dressing. The message may (or may not) be important but instead of getting caught up in some sort of self-important moralizing, let's remember this is a movie - and a SciFi action movie at that. (that is the approach in my opinion) If I would compare movies to literature or movie makers to authors I'd compare Carpenter to Hemingway - although Carpenter specializes in anti-heroes and sometimes over-the-top characters, while Hemingway is understated. They are analogous for their own medium. This is action, sci-fi but like Hemingway's stories, this is a man's movie. Straight forward. Fun at times, brutal at times and even funny at times. Keep a watch out for one of the great one-liners in movie history when the star is in the bank - only peripherally related to "bazooka." A+ to Roddy Piper as well. When I first saw this movie I had zero expectation from him. Now I wish he'd have made a lot more movies...

Johnny Depp is near his best in this devilishly demonic detective story. He is an unscrupulous, but knowledgable, New York rare book dealer who is charged by the millionaire Frank Langella to authenticate a text. "The Nine Gates of the Kingdom of Shadows" may or may not be able to summon the devil - or, at least, bestow the owner with some semblance of Satanic power. His search for the truth involves deceit, lust, many murders and a cat and mouse game with deadly consequences. Emmanuelle Seigner is suitably enigmatic as "the girl" - a sort of angelic person with ninja skills and Lena Olin hams it all up nicely as the sex-kitten (with claws) baddie. I enjoyed this; it is a complex supernatural thriller that doesn't try to impress with cheap special effects (though the music can be a little annoying at times); it's well written with a strong cast. At 2½ hours, however, it is too long; there are plenty of establishing shots that could have been trimmed/dumped to up the pace a bit more.

This is a beautiful masterpiece. Mysterious, dark and occult. Everything is great about this movie - the soundtracks, the story, the atmosphere... The sets are Gothic and gloomy, the music is aptly fitting, the acting and scripts even more so; nothing breaks the persistent, unshakable scene and tone that is set by Polanski, who has obviously taken into careful consideration every possible factor to create a deeply immersive, memorable experience for the viewer. There's not a single part in the movie which would bore you. I can't think of a single thing wrong with this movie. I can't find any plot mistakes. Actors are delivering superb acting, especially Johnny Depp & movie is very well directed. This movie is a good example that proves that you don't need a ton of action to make a good thriller. I thoroughly enjoyed it from beginning to end. This movie has so many hidden gems that you need to re-watch over and over to fully grasp the craftsmanship of Polanski's epic movie! And I have seen it more than ten times. That's how great is this movie.

Good watch, probably won't watch again, but can recommend.
This kid definitely isn't Macaulay Culkin, but Alex D. Linz was able to carry this movie, and he did it again in "Max Keeble's Big Move".
I'll be honest I re-watched this because "Hot Ones" mentioned Scarlett Johansson was in it, and I couldn't remember that. She has a bit role, but even back then (possibly unrefined, the role didn't have a lot to work with) she was a big personality in a small role. She has one, brief, powerful scene that would really be worth remembering: most of it is the messing up the burglars.
This has a very different vibe than the first 2 movies. While Kevin was isolated and unable to get help, Alex starts by doing everything right to get help, but no one believes him so he feels forced to "do the right thing". However it manifests in almost a psychotic fashion.
Of course, almost everything that happens in this movie should kill someone, but doesn't. It also had a very easy out: at any time Alex could give the chip up, and it would be over, the bad guys leave the country: he's heavily volunteering for this carnage. Kevin was being targeted, he saw their faces and was actually defending himself and his home because the "wet bandits" were coming for HIM.
Ultimately it's fun and charming, and interesting what the limits of technology were back in 1997 with cellphones and pagers, RC cars with block long range, but not wireless cameras, but remote control gizmos that can turn on the neighbors tv.
The biggest problem I have with it is that his brother's bird is basically as smart a person, having conversations, and taking bribes (or insisting on being paid at least), and the worst bit is that I know there are people with birds as smart as that. I'm not sure if it would be a Conure, but I don't deal in parrots.
That said, it's not overly hilarious, it's not bad, but it's just not great either.

**It deserves to be forgotten.**
I don't read the book on which this film is based, I've never seen it for sale, I have doubts if it will exist in Portuguese bookstores. I'm not particularly fond of fiction set in space, but I recognize the quality when I see it. And I didn't see any quality in this film.
The script is totally idiotic: we have an evil galactic empire (someone has been watching “Star Wars” too much), ruled by a tyrant (really original) and a war of resistance in which there is a hero fighting for democracy and freedom on a sandy and inhospitable planet. The problem is that this planet is the only one where it is possible to cultivate a kind of hallucinogenic drug that is vital in the economy and functioning of that empire.
Films directed by David Lynch are not to everyone's taste, and although I liked what he did in other works ("Blue Velvet" and "Mulholland Dr." are, for me, the director's best works), I don't think he was cut out for making sci-fi movies. He has a very visual and stylized style as a director, and mixing that with special effects, a bizarre setting and an even stranger story was a bad marriage. I also have my doubts regarding the collaboration of Dino de Laurentiis… with very rare exceptions, I didn't really like the films in which this director was involved… at least the ones I've seen so far.
Even so, I have no doubt that the potential of the project and the union of efforts of these two names allowed access to a good budget and attracted actors to the cast. However, Lynch doesn't seem comfortable with the material and, aside from some very visual scenes where his signature is present, he doesn't give us much more and isn't able to direct the cast in the best way. I think the director himself is aware of this. Moreover, the weak critical reception and the bad box office results helped to bury the project, which today is conveniently forgotten.
The cast is, in general, quite weak, especially considering the budget involved and the names of the director and producers. Sting, the rock singer, appears in the project, but he's not an actor, and he never gives us a real interpretation: he just says what he needs and shows off. The scene where he appears almost without clothes is, to say the least, idiotic. Patrick Stewart and Max Von Sydow are totally out of the limelight and given minor characters in a movie where they could have possibly done more. Virginia Madsen is ineffective and doesn't convince us, Kyle MacLachlan was a casting mistake, and all other actors settle for mediocrity.
The film has stylized cinematography and many gimmicks, which would have worked better if the film itself weren't already too unrealistic and imaginative. The visual and special effects don't always work well, and the sets and costumes are, to say the least, of questionable taste. The soundtrack is quite epic, but given the general lack of quality, it sounds too pompous for the movie that it is.

I read Frank Herbert's book, _Dune_, when I was in high school and really don't remember it much except that it was great and a little scary. At that age, I probably didn't get the subtext message.
I never saw any movies of it so I decided to watch both the 1984 Dune by David Lynch and the 2021 Denis Villeneuve version sequentially. I review Lynch's version here and both versions in my 2021 Dune review.
This may not be a popular opinion: Lynch's version (this one) is **brilliant** and the Villeneuve Dune is absolute **shit**. Here's why:
Are the character's in David Lynch's version kitschy and over the top? Yes! That's one reason it's so much better! It's Sci Fi, duh! You watch Marvel movies and suspend disbelief for super powers? All of Lynch's characters are downright gritty and believable within this particular surreal fantasy.
By the end of the Lynch Dune, I had sympathy for nearly every character in the film. Even the villains caught my emotions. Paul Atreides character development was realistic and attractive.
But here's the clincher: the screenplay. David Lynch gave us a complete story. Sadly, he didn't have the final cut and disowned his film when the critics panned it. Despite the fact that Lynch is a true artist and genius, the studio took 45 minutes out of the film. 45 minutes! I would LOVE to see the original cut!
Even ruined by the studio, even 40 years later, Lynch's film has a clear vision and carries the timeless message that Frank Herbert intended. I can't say that for the Villeneuve version. Do yourself a favor and see David Lynch's version.

I know this one has a decent fanbase (both of the novel and movie) but as someone who never read the novel, this first viewing, I found it to be... okay. I can appreciate some of the effects both practical and visual (for its time) but the story and characters never really grabbed me. I was never bored however wasn't engaged and thought, and perhaps this is how it was with the novel), the main character played by Kyle McLaghlan didn't seem to face much conflict outside of a knife-to-knife fight at the end with Sting, which was anti-climactic and underwhelming considering he already got his revenge on his father's murderer.
Not sure I have much interest in coming back to this but have some interest to see what Denis Villeneuve does with his adaptation. **3.0/5**

Crowe got second billing and they gave the limelight to DiCaprio instead...that's a great idea. that means that, as usual, DiCaprio is going to shine doing his "this is how you become a different person" thing and Crowe is going to actually act and not just try to hog the limelight.
The result is a tense and very well acted film.
It should have been a Masterpiece but...it was released in 2008 and America wanted pure escapism then, not tense spy thrillers that reflect the reality of two long endless wars...and it was released a little too close to The Good Shepard.
In fact, it felt a lot like the Good Shepard set in the modern era.
It was the Good Shepard with more action.
It was The Good Shepard with better acting, but only just.
So, if it waited another 2 years, we would have had a great film in a time when we were slowly starting to relax a little again.
If it waited 4 years, The Good Shepard would have been a distant memory and the shady CIA boss character would have seemed fresher.
Don't misunderstand, Crowe actually acts again and DiCaprio shines as usual, you will totally enjoy this movie.
The flaws are not its own, but rather a result of bad timing, pure and simple.
It should have been more, but the zietgiest wasn't there yet.

My dad, rest his soul, really liked this and at the time it came out I was a pretentious college student that had forsaken all things fun and couldn't understand what my father could possibly like about it.
And now I'm living in a world where someone makes a tweet with the president's head morphed onto Rocky Balboa's body and people are freaking out and screaming "How am I supposed to take it, if not totally literally!"
And I'm sitting off to the side, mumbling that it was just a joke, and seeing my old self that hated A Knight's Tale reflected in those people and thinking "I was a real humorless prig for about four solid years, thank every god that has ever been worshiped that I grew out of that."
When I first saw it I thought the part where the smith added the Nike swoosh to the armor was horrible because, well, I was pretentious and took life far too seriously.... blatant product placement!... sweatshops!...child labor!.... Corporatism! Whatever!
And now that said phase in my life has melted away, it's just a joke and honestly kind of a cute one.
And then the same can be said about Chaucer.... and literary genius, how dare they slander such a.... and now that I'm older he was absolutely the best part of the movie wasn't he?
Classic rock music in movie about the dark ages and... pandering... unrealistic... blah, blah, blah, and now that that ill informed phase in life wore off, it works on multiple levels and most surprisingly they succeed in using it to make you laugh.
I guess the point is that now that I learned to actually enjoy things and not take everything so seriously, so literally, and understand a joke is just a joke, it's a super fun and hysterical comedic romp and to watch it is to love it.

Great watch, will watch again, and do recommend.
What a fantastic cast: I honestly don't know if you could have cast it better. Just thinking about Alan Tudyk, Heath Ledger, and Shannyn Sossamon makes me smile.
Everyone plays their roles fantasticly, taking their stock characters, and spinning the writing to the 9th degree: the jerks are hate-able jerks and I can't help but love the leads and supporting characters.
Part of what makes this movie disctinct is that they forces some modern (for the time) music into it when it very did not belong with medieval England / Europe. There are several scenes where if you squint, you could mistake the movie for "10 Things I Hate About You" or some other teen rom com of that time period.
Fortunately they found a way to balance the jousting content with personality stories, which are by far more entertaining, but unless you're Kevin Smith, you can't exactly cut jousting out of a movie set in competitions for jousting.
This is a fun movie with some positive messaging in it about women and class rights, please give this a go.

"Interstellar" is easily one of the best movies I’ve ever watched, definitely in my top 5 of all time. It’s a masterpiece that feels like every scene matters. Each moment carries an important message, whether it’s about love, sacrifice, or the endless curiosity of humans to explore the unknown. It’s not just a movie, it’s an experience.
The performances by the actors were amazing. Matthew McConaughey as Cooper really made me feel every bit of his emotions; his love for his kids, his struggle, and his determination to save humanity. Anne Hathaway also nailed her role, and Jessica Chastain, as adult Murph, was just perfect. Even the smaller roles added so much depth to the movie. It felt like everyone gave their absolute best.
Christopher Nolan’s direction? Flawless. You can see how much thought and care he put into every part of the movie. The production was top-notch, and the visuals of space were breathtaking. Even the robots, TARS and CASE, felt real and practical, not just fancy CGI. Fun fact: those robots were real models controlled by an actor, which is crazy to think about! The black hole, Gargantua, was also scientifically accurate thanks to physicist Kip Thorne, and it looked stunning on screen.
The soundtrack by Hans Zimmer deserves its own shoutout. The way he used the church organ and ticking sounds created a mood that’s unforgettable. It felt like the music was alive and part of the story, pulling me deeper into every scene.
The movie also taught me things. I love how it’s based on real science, like time dilation and wormholes, but it doesn’t feel boring or like a science lesson. Instead, it made me curious and left me thinking long after it ended.
One thing that stood out for me is how the movie shows the power of love and connection. The relationship between Cooper and his daughter Murph was the heart of the story for me. It reminded me that even in the vastness of space, what truly matters are the people we care about.
"Interstellar" isn’t just about saving the world; it’s about what it means to be human. Watching it makes you think about big questions: Why are we here? What’s our purpose? And how far are we willing to go for the ones we love? It’s rare to find a movie that’s this entertaining, emotional, and thought-provoking all at the same time.
This is the kind of movie I could watch over and over again and still find new details to appreciate. It’s honestly hard to put into words how much I love it, but if you’ve seen it, you know what I mean. It’s a masterpiece that stays with you.