I usually do the thing where I just give films 10 stars if they are fun and 1 star if they aren't...but Pets was just OK, so I'm taking the middle path.
And really, it's getting 5 instead of one because of Rooster, who gets the only real laughs in what are scenes that are basically ripped straight out of City Slickers... only with dogs. He even has a few stories that will be infinitly quotable.
Otherwise you have the laser gag and that's really it as far as laughs.
The animation is smooth and has a nice sort of Gershwin feel to it, but otherwise the Pets 2 is nothing to write home about. It doesn't really win with the comedy vibe or the adventure vibe, it all feels rehashed, like we've seen it all before when it was better.
And honestly that's because we have.

‘The Secret Life of Pets’ is a weird franchise; I don’t see kids really walking around with Max plushies, nor do I see stories filled with toys from the movie. The original unexpectedly made all this money and so now we have this generic film. There are many, many worse films you could show you children if they like animals - it’s a harmless 90 minutes and its not like their aren’t laughs. I just wish the film was a whole lot more creative.
- Chris dos Santos
Read Chris' full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-the-secret-life-of-pets-2-crowd-pleasingly-generic-again
Head to https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/sff for more Sydney Film Festival reviews.

**One of the most Jason Statham-y Jason Statham movies to exist**
In this movie Jason Statham wears a wig, pretends to be a priest, pretends to be a cowboy, does an outlandishly hilarious Texan hee-haw accent that Jennifer Lopez's character somehow finds believable (and is shocked when she hears his British accent).
This movie is dumb, ridiculous, hilarious, and as always with Mr. Statham, action packed to the brim. Statham's character, Parker, is practically unkillable, and while his moral code seems to be slightly questionable, ultimately, he is a mostly likeable good-ish bad guy.
While it may not be the most clever movie ever made, there's just something about watching Jason Statham kicking butt and doing a goofy Texas accent (even if it's short-lived) while wearing a cowboy that that can never get old.

Jason Statham once again proves to be very dangerous fella to double cross. This time, "Parker" meticulously plans a heist that nets him and his gang a million bucks. They are greedy, though, and when they want to use their ill gotten gains to stake an even bigger robbery - which our man "Parker" isn't so keen on; they dump him on the roadside, left for dead. Bad move! Once he is back on his feet, he works with the frankly annoying realtor Jennifer Lopez to thwart their proposed robbery. As you would expect, there are loads of fisticuffs, gun battles and plenty of bloody noses in this action-packed crime thriller. It will not challenge your little grey cells in any fashion; nor will the dialogue stimulate a heated debate over coffee and cigars afterwards - it is a fun outing for Statham, aided by Patti LuPone and Nick Nolte on occasion and is precisely what you should anticipate it being...

Where to start with this wonderfully evocative interpretation of seven timeless pieces of classical music that accompany perhaps not Disney's most detailed, but still wonderful animations. It is essentially a series of short stories - each as different from the other as you can imagine. I think that's the most important principle when enjoying this - you must use your imagination. The representations try, with varying degrees of success, to put more defined, ambiguous and occasionally abstract imagery alongside the music - some with humour (frequently using animals, birds, insects etc.) through to far more sinister and challenging imagery, that at times reminded me of something Fritz Lang might have produced in the 1920s. It is a little too episodically presented - and the intermission needlessly robs it of flow but as a colourful introduction to classical music it takes some beating. (Mickey Mouse as the Sorcerer's Apprentice was my favourite!)

5 stars ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
My personal icon for classical music and the source of famed 20th Century conductor Leopold Stokowski being my idol due to his shadowy leading image!!!

It might seem a bit petty, but as a Scot watching a film about a Canadian conflict in which half the characters - "Munro", "Campbell", "Cameron" et al are all Scottish, I found the constant interchangeability in the script between English and British really quite irritating. They are not synonymous terms - is it just lazy writing? Anyway, the rest of this is a great looking adaptation of a solid boy's-own story that tells of the war in North America between the French and the British. The former under the command of "Montcalm" (Patrice Chéreau) are laying siege to the fort held by the latter under the command of "Munro" (Maurice Roëves). To add to the woes of the besieged, his two daughters are being escorted to what he hopes will be safety with him, when they are the victims of betrayal at the hands of the duplicitous "Magua" (Wes Studi) and are only saved by the timely intervention of "Hawkeye" (Daniel Day-Lewis), his father "Chingachgook" (Russell Means) and brother "Uncas" (Eric Schweig). "Hawkeye" - indeed the whole colonial farming community - is viewed with mistrust by the military and when it becomes clear that the elder sibling "Cora" (Madeleine Stowe) is beginning to take a shine to our hero, they also incur the enmity of the conniving "Maj. Heyward" (Steven Waddington). It's a story of romance, certainly, but that's kept very much under control as the warring and scheming takes front and centre making sure the adventure keeps moving along apace. DDL is on good form here, nimbly skirmishing in the forest and proving extremely adept at reloading a musket in ten seconds flat! Waddington never was a very convincing actor, but he's adequate here as our story concludes with violence, sacrifice, honour, vengeance and a sense of the futility of war. Some of the siege photography and the more general cinematography is wonderful at creating some of the claustrophobic aspects of this hitherto densely forested, virgin and perilous, territory and even though they were always at war with each other, it also highlights just how little the indigenous population actually needed our presence on their continent. Big screen if you can - it's well worth the price of the ticket.

Death and honour are thought to be the same, but today I have learned that sometimes they are not.
The Last of the Mohicans is directed by Michael Mann who also co-adapts the screenplay with Christopher Crowe from James Fenimore Cooper's novel of the same name. It stars Daniel Day-Lewis, Madeleine Stowe, Russell Means, Eric Schweig, Jodhi May, Steven Waddington and Wes Studi. Music is scored by Trevor Jones and Randy Edelman and cinematography by Dante Spinotti.
1757 during the French and Indian War, Hawkeye (Lewis), a white man who was adopted by the Mohicans, finds himself on a perilous journey to escort a couple of British sisters to their father's fort. This journey brings him, and his companions, into conflict with Magua (Studi), a sadistic Huron warrior seeking revenge on the girls' father.
Inspired by the Randolph Scott film of the same name made in 1936, Michael Mann gives his all to create a stirring classical epic fit to sit in the company of the historical greats of old. Visually it's a treat of some magnitude, where aided by Spinotti, Mann frames his characters in the glorious vistas provided by the North Carolinas. For those with a bent for historical narratives, Mann's film also is not found wanting, in fact it's a cerebral delight. There's romantic strands that sit right in the colourful quilt, action expertly staged and handled by the talented director and the cast, led by a superbly athletic and serious Day-Lewis, are impressive and doing justice to the requisite characters written on the page, and the musical score enhances mood with swirling beauty coupling with primitive potency that wraps itself snugly around the story.
Mann gets all the key ingredients right, but it's his ability to balance the human drama with the energised action that is most impressive. The film is also thankfully devoid of boorish filler, this is a troubled time in history, with much political activity and complex racial manoeuvres, but Mann doesn't need to fill the screen with political posturing and drawn out speeches. We know all we need to know about the period in question, but the story is kept intimate, the focus on a small group of people, of whose fate we most assuredly have interest in. While on the edges of the frame we know we are witnessing the death of an era, for better or worse on different sides of the coin. Also pays to note that Mann's well known penchant for the meticulous is evident as well, for he details the native characters with considerable care.
It's not flawless, accents fluctuate, the odd fake look slips into the production design and the director does what many American directors do, they come dangerously close to caricaturing their British officers, but this is still great heroic escapism tinged with romanticism. Something for everyone who loves classical cinema in fact. 9/10

**_Great filmmaking, cast and locations, but strangely inert (overlong) story_**
Released in late 2016 and directed by Martin Scorsese based on the novel by Shûsaku Endô, "Silence" chronicles events in 1640 when two Jesuit priests (Andrew Garfield & Adam Driver) journey to Japan to check on the persecuted church and find out what happened to their mentor, whom it is rumored fell from the faith (Liam Neeson). Issei Ogata is on hand as the sadistic, but seemingly reasonable Japanese inquisitor.
The Jesuits were a society of Catholic missionaries started in 1540 in response to the spreading evangelism of the Protestant reformers. They were an essential part of the Roman counter-Reformation. With this in mind, the seeming Christianity portrayed in the movie is decidedly Catholic in nature, with the requisite unbiblical stuff, like confessions to priests, icons, rosary beads, etc.
In tone and theme, "Silence" is reminiscent of movies like the excellent "Black Robe" (1991), the solid "The Mission" (1986) and the surprisingly great "Black Death" (see my review). There are also elements of "The Bridge on the River Kwai" (1957). If you appreciate any of these films you might appreciate "Silence," but it didn't work for me. Sure, Scorsese is a great auteur and so the filmmaking is top-of-the-line – the cinematography, the cast, the costuming, locations and score. Unfortunately, the story's not compelling and I never connected with the main character, despite Garfield's quality performance.
There's some worthy mindfood (or spiritfood) to glean from the proceedings, however, like: Why does God allow the excruciating persecution of His faithful? Why is He silent? IS He silent? Can a believer be restored after cowardly denying the Lord in the face of torture/death? Can a Christian hide their faith while living in a thoroughly hostile culture? But I didn't buy for a second that the Japanese couldn't conceive of a Deity that transcends physical nature, like the sun, sea or mountain. While the idea may have been alien to their communal mindset at the time, it's absurd to think that no individual man or woman could discern the obvious (see Psalm 19:1 & Romans 1:20).
Although I'm sorta glad I saw it, "Silence" is curiously dull and overlong; and so I never care to see it again. There are far superior movies that tackle similar topics. Those who give it the highest possible rating must be fanatical devotees of Scorsese.
The movie runs 161 minutes and was shot in Taiwan and the Cathedral Of Saint Paul In Macau, China.
GRADE: C-

Another very underrated Bond film that is actually quite loved by the fandom.

An ordinary 007 film.
Which still puts it in a better light than about ten others.
Unfortunately, this one is very "formula". A mogul wants to take over the way the media of the world works, and that's a bit of a foreshadowing of today, but it also makes it perhaps the most "dated" Bond movie ever made, because the media today is a mess of hob goblins that act like chickens with their heads cut off.
For the sake of the movie, though, everything is typical Bond, with evil assassins wanting to kill James Bond, only this time the stereotypical assassin is also out for revenge.
The action is good. Bond is still likable and is an "okay guy" so to speak. It works.
It's just a bit ordinary. I doubt there will be much you remember about this one.

There is some hate on this one, but, honestly, it's one of my favorites and certainly my favorite Brosnan 007.
We get a lackluster opening (as far as 007 openings go) but that is followed by a theme song by Crow who, well, she nailed it didn't she? Tomorrow Never Dies sounded like the jazzy intro to a Connery Era 007 didn't it? It was probably the best Bond song since The Spy Who Loved Me.
Brosnan is a little more cold blooded in this, you catch glimpses of 007 being Connery/Dalton/Flemming Era 007 again. He doesn't shy away from executions with a cunning quip.
But, honestly, it's Michelle Yeoh's Wai Lin that really puts it over-the-top and makes it the best of the Dalton Era 007's. He has met his match with this Chinese counterpart who, and he has certainly done it before, but this time she comes across as clearly being as good as Bond himself. And that was a delight.
And then the plot, media manipulation, probably far more relevant in 2020 than it was in 1997, but watching it now rings true as completely believable ala Spanish American War this has happened before, but this time it could go nuclear sort of story.
All in all, it is one of the best 007 films ever made.

Solid second entry for Brosnan who still is charming. Not a great story but still timely with news and manipulation. Does make me appreciate the slower, more character driven nature of the Craig run, that this one was lacking, That said, Pryce made for a fun Bond villain. **3.5/5**

Pierce Brosnan wasn't my favourite James Bond by any means, but somehow I think that might be as much to do with the fact that he was given some really weak storylines to deliver. This one centres around megalomaniac media mogul "Carver" (Jonathan Pryce) who manages to engineer a deadly conflict between the Royal Navy and the Chinese military over a mis-directed destroyer. Next thing we know, "007" is drafted in to find out just what happened before the world finds itself facing an international conflagration that seems designed to ensure that "Carver" gets media rights in the hitherto unwilling China. They, too, are suspicious at the turn of events, so despatch their top agent "Wai Lin" (Michelle Yeoh) and together they must combine their resources to combat the menacing henchman "Stamper" (Götz Otto) and the quirkily engaging "Dr. Kaufman" (Vincent Schiavelli) whose film-stealing scene as the dapper, yet lethal, assassin does raise a smile. Teri Hatcher provides the short-lived love interest. An unremarkable actress at the best of times, she brings a little glamour but very little else to this frequently rather (contrived) dialogue-heavy enterprise. Dame Judi Dench and Geoffrey Palmer renew their long established partnership for a few scenes, and Desmond Llewellyn gets a few extra ones which is nice to watch. Otherwise, this is just another fairly charm-free, factory produced instalment of a franchise that is struggling to make impact amongst an increasingly more competitive genre that is out-writing and out-impressing this tried looking series.

_**Serviceable but forgettable Brosnan installment**_
After a British warship is inexplicably destroyed in Chinese waters, the planet teeters on the brink of world war. Agent 007 (Pierce Brosnan) traces the rising pandemonium to a powerful media baron who manipulates vital data and news to his own diabolical ends (Jonathan Pryce). Teri Hatcher plays the industrialist’s wife while Michelle Yeoh is on hand as a Chinese agent with whom Bond teams up.
"Tomorrow Never Dies" (1997) is a competent enough Bond flick with loads of action highlighted by the opening terrorist arms bazaar on the Russian border, a melee at a newspaper factory in Hamburg, an underwater investigation of a wreck near the South China Sea and a wild motorcycle chase in Saigon with 007 handcuffed to the Chinese agent. Hatcher is another highlight in one of the best “whoa, mama” moments in the franchise’s history, albeit brief. I also enjoyed the entertaining banter for the first two-thirds of the movie.
Unfortunately, the picture lacks the colorful dynamic of pre-Brosnan installments, hampered by a muted grey pall throughout. Then there’s the eye-rolling sequence in a parking garage where Bond operates his BMW via remote control while lying in the back seat (Why Sure!). Plus the showdown on Carver's stealth ship in dark waters is curiously dull despite all the “exciting” thrills; in other words, it’s overkill action garbage.
Still, it’s a serviceable Bond flick; it’s just forgettable and the least of Brosnan’s 4-film stint.
The film runs 1 hour, 58 minutes, and was shot in Bayonne, Pyrénées-Atlantiques, France
(Arms bazaar opening sequence); many locations in England; Hamburg, Germany; Thailand (standing in for Vietnam); and Rosarito, Baja California Norte, Mexico (naval scenes).
GRADE: B-/C+

Well, as the blurb says, Lawless is the true (hmmm ?) story about the Bondurant brothers. This is one of the movies that my dear wife picked up. I had no clue concerning this movie until we watched it. It turned out be an enjoyable movie evening. This is a well done movie indeed although I felt like it could have been an even better movie at the end.
Acting, scenery, general story is all quite good. Well the story is okay. It is not exactly ground breaking but rather a standard bootlegging kind of story. The new deputy is a real asshole to the extent of being somewhat unbelievable. Guy Pearce plays the role well though. That goes for the rest of the main cast as well. It is a well-acted movie.
It kind of drags on a bit though. The real action where they finally take on the asshole deputy is not until the very end of the movie. Okay, that is perhaps understandable but until then the movie is quite slow. I would not have minded to see both the older Bondurant brothers being a bit more into the action but instead we mostly follow Jack (Shia LaBeouf) on his various more or less silly escapades and romantic adventures which, not very surprisingly, ends up with him leading previously mentioned asshole deputy right to their illegal booze factory…sigh! I am not 100% convinced that you can survive having your throat cut by the way. I think that was rather silly.
It is a good movie and of a lot higher quality than most although perhaps not exactly my style of movie and I have to say that I thought the ending, with Forrest blundering into the frozen lake, was rather meh. Still, it is worth 6 out o10 stars but not more as far as I am concerned.

I've always had a soft spot for time loop movies since *Groundhog Day* (1993), and I'm happy to say that *Palm Springs* delivers a fresh and funny take on the genre. It's a well-crafted comedy that not only entertains but also leaves you with a few curious questions by the end.
The cast does an excellent job of making us care about the characters, which is crucial for a time loop movie. The challenge with this type of plot is keeping the repetition from becoming dull, and *Palm Springs* handles that with excellence. Each loop feels engaging, and I found myself enjoying the ride over and over again. Honestly, I wouldn’t have minded if the movie ran a bit longer—I was that entertained.
That said, I could have done with a bit less romance. The shift in tone was a little abrupt at the third arc, but at the same time, it’s hard to complain when the love story plays such a central role in the narrative. After all, love has a way of sneaking into even the most unexpected places.
Overall, *Palm Springs* is a standout time loop movie that keeps you hooked until the end. While I think the final act could have used a bit more development, it’s still a solid film that’s definitely worth watching.

Palm Springs puts a new spin on the old time loop story, and I am surprised at how well it works. Andy Samberg is fantastic as ever and shows off a little more acting chops than I give him credit for with the more emotional scenes in the film. The chemistry that he and Christin Milloti share is spectacular and felt so incredibly genuine. I felt so many things during this movie ranging from happiness, sadness, and laughter, it really takes you for a ride and it is such a fantastic one at that. This is such an underrated film and I cannot recommend this enough.
**Verdict:** _Excellent_

The multi-genre “Palm Springs” is an oddball, sci-fi rom-com about loneliness and love, a thoughtful story of existential consternation with a sharp-witted joke library. The film, written by Andy Siara and directed by Max Barbakow, is a weird hipster version of “Groundhog Day,” with a story about two semi-dorks stuck in an infinite loop where they must relive the same sunrise to sunset over and over again.
November 9th is the perfect date for a Palm Springs destination wedding, and Sarah (Cristin Milioti) is there for her younger sister’s big day. The elder sibling has a real chip on her shoulder, reluctant to serve as the maid of honor and not a big fan of formal events. At the reception, she meets Nyles (Andy Samberg), a carefree dude who is trapped with his shallow, cheating, bridesmaid girlfriend Misty (Meredith Hagner).
Sarah and Nyles hit it off with their shared offbeat sense of humor, and the duo sneak off into the desert for a late-night rendezvous. Something really, really weird interrupts their plans, turning the two into a powerhouse of cynical anarchy when they discover they’re able to endlessly reprise that day.
It’s a fun idea that’s given a refresh with smart-aleck humor from Milioti and Samberg. They’re a charismatic pair, even if they’re not the easiest couple to root for. The film has a jaded, “too cool for school” angle that may turn off some viewers, but it tries to remain lighthearted. An all-too-brief supporting turn from J.K. Simmons adds a bizarre but unexpectedly touching side plot, lending a lot of heart to the story.
As is the case with many films that premiere at Sundance, “Palm Springs” doesn’t come close to living up to the initial film festival audience reaction. The dark comedy is entertaining, but it’s not as funny as it could be, and it’s not as clever as it wishes it was.

This is a reimagining of Groundhog Day, but I think it stands pretty well on its own merits. Groundhog Day did not attempt to explain what was going on, but in Palm Springs, some talk of physics and what might happen if they tried - well, never mind. Who am I to give anything away?
The plot is more complicated than it seemed, and that is a good thing. There is humor, of course, and good chemistry between the two leads, I thought. There was enough difference between each of the replays of the day that it didn’t feel like, here we go again with 90% of the same stuff happening with a slight change thrown in.
So it was an entertaining movie overall. It isn’t one that I will watch multiple times, but if the opportunity arises to watch it again, say with someone who hasn’t seen it, I wouldn’t hesitate. We all love to spoil movies for people by telling them what is coming up! (Just kidding. I don’t like it when it is done to me, so I just sit and let them experience it the same way I did.)

Great watch, will watch again, and can recommend, especially for fans of "time shifting" tropes.
Time shifting is where your mind goes back in time, but not your body. Essentially everything resets like a save point, except your have all this knowledge.
"Time shifting" was made popular by "Groundhog's Day" and there have been several movies that mainly consist of dying / sleeping and repeating like a video game, and this isn't THAT different with a few exceptions that make all the difference in the experience.
Andy Samberg (Brooklyn Nine-Nine) finally steps up and shows everyone that he can do a somewhat serious role, and not just a straight man. Cristin Milioti (How I Met Your Mother) does an excellent job in her lead role, with a great supporting cast, to include J.K. Simmons (Cave Johnson) leading a wonderful supporting cast, except for Tyler Hoechlin (CW Superman: "Supergirl", "Flash", etc.), who I might just not like because he was Superman, but it's supposed to be an disliked character...so....good job?
The medium of the transfer being shown is an interesting option as we saw in the "Happy Death Day" movies, but it does allow for a reasoning of how it works, can it be broken / manipulated as opposed to divine will. Most importantly, it allows for more than just one subject being affected, which is really where it gets set apart.
The trope bleeds a little when you have multiple people trapped in the loop: you have multiple people trapped in a thing: you have multiple people trapped in a prison. When multiple people are trapped in a environment together, they tend to get a little strange, and we get that sort of thing a plenty. Because we have multiple story threads to follow, we're almost seeing 3 stories all overlapping, and the movie does a great job of showing those, whether or not their in chronological order, or happening at the same time.
Whether you see it as a prison break movie, or a time loop movie, this movie has a lot of fun in it, along with deep metaphysical philosophy, so there is something for everyone.

If you're looking for a wholesome heartwarming movie, This is the movie you're looking for.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
If you've been following me for a while, you know I'm not the biggest fan of rom-coms. It's not that I don't like the genre (I appreciate and enjoy every single one), but I find its movies tremendously difficult to *really* love. The massive majority follow the genre's formulas and cliches to such an extent that I rarely end up truly loving one of these films. Some are way too cheesy. Others are way too unrealistic and dream-like. But the aspect that throws me off the most is the lack of originality. I can't remember the last rom-com I watched that didn't borrow from countless other installments. I didn't know a thing about Palm Springs: no trailers, no knowledge of critics/audience's opinion, nothing... And I'm extremely happy about that!
I usually watch the main trailer for every film I review *after* I've seen the actual movie. I ignore all other trailers, clips, images, and so on. I do this so I can have some sort of knowledge regarding how far I can take my spoiler-free reviews. This way, I'm sure that I don't write about something I shouldn't. The official trailer for this film doesn't ruin the experience in any way, but it does tell its viewers the most relevant aspect of its screenplay. So, I could address it in this review, but I won't... because I enjoyed this movie a lot more, not knowing a thing about it than if I knew how it developed its story.
Therefore, I'll keep it really vague, and just write that Andy Siara's first feature-film screenplay can easily snatch a couple of nominations when the awards season comes around. This is a rom-com like no other due to its refreshingly unique concept. It's true that it's not an entirely new method of storytelling. Many other movies also employ this idea, but Siara holds so many surprises within his narrative and so few of the genre's common traits that the whole film is elevated by his outstanding writing.
It's one of the most entertaining movies of the year. With a short runtime and a fast pace, Palm Springs is constantly being genuinely fun, engaging, and even mysteriously intriguing. Its original plot makes the viewer think and remember previous lines that take a whole different meaning a few minutes later. There are no predictably dumb narrative decisions, and its characters escape the cheesy and forced relationships that these films usually insert them in. The dialogues are hilariously captivating. Almost every single plot point packs an emotional punch, a jaw-dropping revelation that never crossed the viewer's mind.
Andy Samberg and Cristin Milioti share such great chemistry. Their characters are exceptionally developed, and their relationship feels incredibly real. I'm rarely that viewer who requires the main characters to be together, kiss, fall in love, and all that, but Nyles and Sarah are two wonderful protagonists I can definitely root for. Both carry an interesting "baggage", which is also explored at a deep level. They deal very differently with the "situation" that the story puts them in, and it's so much fun to watch them go through it and evolve as characters. Oh, and J.K. Simmons (Roy)... this man doesn't know how not to be utterly remarkable!
Max Barbakow (directorial debut) demonstrates his talents as well, by allowing Siara's screenplay to shine under impeccable direction. Tonally, it never loses its balance. It keeps its comedy pretty grounded, considering the craziness of its premise. It never relies on the genre's formulas, cliches, and cheesy outcomes. It really separates itself from the majority of modern rom-coms. I don't really have any flaws to point out... The ending does have a "just accept it" narrative component, and there are a couple of unnecessary scenes, but I'm nitpicking here.
I can't believe I'm going to write this, but Palm Springs is not only one of the best rom-coms I've ever seen, but it's also one of the best (if not *the* best) movies of 2020, so far. With the help of their first-time director (Max Barbakow), Andy Samberg and Cristin Milioti spread their extraordinary chemistry all over the innovative, original narrative, written by the also debutant, Andy Siara. The latter is undoubtedly the main responsible for such an entertaining film. Siara takes an imaginative concept and develops it in the most captivating, fun, hilarious, and even intriguing way possible. A surprising screenplay packed with emotionally impactful plot points, revelations, and twists that keep the enjoyment levels extremely high. The two protagonists are exceptionally developed, as well as their compelling relationship. With a fast pace and a perfect balance of its tone, Palm Springs sets itself apart from the other movies of the genre, staying away from all of the cliches, formulas, and stereotypes associated with it. J.K. Simmons also lends his awesomeness because why not? Whether you're a fan of rom-coms or not, I definitely suggest giving this one a look. You won't be disappointed!
Rating: A

I didn't turn this movie off after the beautiful sex scenes only because two others were watching it with me. The mere fact that "Germans" were speaking English totally destroyed the whole "suspend disbelief" for me. This film is an awful rendition by Brits of an award-winning German book. Perhaps, only someone from the Nachgeborenen (to coin Bertolt Brecht's meaning of German post-Holocaust generations) should have made this film. The two stars are for Winslet and Kross. The rest sucks.

David Kross is really effective in this tale of a young boy ("Michael") who encounters "Hanna" (Kate Winslet) as he shelters in her doorway from a rainstorm. In fairly short order, this fifteen year old boy becomes her lover; in return she gets him to read to her. He is soon infatuated and devastated when he turns up at her apartment one day to find her gone. Skip on thirty years or so and he - now Ralph Fiennes - takes over a retrospective of her story as we discover she was tried for being a particularly nasty Nazi prison camp guard and she is sentenced to life imprisonment. Throughout her internment, the two continued to correspond - he would send her tapes to aid in her learning to read... Stephen Daldry has created a delicate masterpiece here, I think. Winslet is very much on form as the story goes from a bit of sexual fantasy for the young man, through to a far darker, more horrific, second part. There is something unnervingly natural about Winslet's performance; from the playful and generous - though temperamental - lover for this naive young boy, then the odious and distinctly unrepentant, almost belligerent, woman at her trial. Despite that, somehow, Daldry manages to elicit just a grain of sympathy for her. Was she inherently bad or just inherently weak - or both? Did she crave for affection just as much as the young "Michael" did when they met? His story is one of emotional barren-ness growing up in a large family where his relationship with his father was distant and chilly and the young Kross really does shine in the role. There is plenty of sex at the beginning, but it's not gratuitous; it's exploratory - for both of them and that intimacy also adds richness to what is ultimately quite a sad tale that, though thought-provoking when it comes to the whole concept of forgiveness and reconciliation, did make me realise that so many people caught up in the Nazi machine were ill-educated and frightened. It's also worth noting the subtle role played by Bruno Ganz as his legal professor "Rohl". This is a character who proves to be a crucial conduit for the young man as he has to come to terms with what he thought she was, and what he now knows she became. The pace of this production is measured, the photography frequently intimate and lingering and the attention to the detail from the production designer also adds potency to this visceral and touching story that I really did find well worth a watch.

**Visually grandiose and made with true technical and artistic mastery, it is a film with difficult and indigestible themes, which will scare the audience with its slowness and tiring atmosphere.**
There are films that are made for some audiences and not for most people, the general public. This film is one of them: being what it is, it doesn't even try to capture our sympathy or attention. The film did very well on the festivals circuit and even won the Palme d'Or at Cannes, in addition to being acclaimed by critics and intellectuals. However, it was not understood by almost anyone but them, it seems extremely cryptic in its message and script, and it was not able to please the mass audience: the proof is in the fact that it received three Oscar nominations without, however, winning any, and not even have been considered by the Globes or BAFTA.
The film revolves around a middle-class Texan family between the present and the 1950s, and focuses particularly on the figure of Jack, the couple's son. The film shows how he lives his childhood, the unequal relationship he has with his parents (a more tolerant and good mother, and a more authoritarian and disillusioned father) and the way both, each in their own way, they try to prepare and educate him. In between, we observe the way they react to the death of one of the youngest members of the family. The film seeks to relate all this to the search for a meaning for human life, showing us images of the planet's history, and others that refer us to various spiritual and metaphysical meanings. We even got access to the characters' prayers and thoughts.
All of this is very beautiful and interesting, and I even liked the characters because they are believable, genuine, well-built, with a rich psychology and manage to capture the audience's sympathy. The problem is that this audience may not even be able to handle the first half hour of film! When cinema deals with philosophical and spiritual themes, it tends to make very meditative and slow films, which drag on and seem heavier than would be desirable. And this movie didn't even try to get away from that and make something minimally palatable. And as if that wasn't enough, director Terrence Malick decides to use a non-linear narrative that confuses us even more!
Overall, the cast did a very good job, within what was asked of him: Brad Pitt is a strong actor, who draws fans to the cinema by himself. He seems quite mature and aged in some scenes, but I think the character demanded that from him, as if visually conveying how old and world-weary the character felt. Sean Penn is just as good at what he does, even if the actor doesn't seem aware of what he's actually doing! Young Hunter McCracken, at this point, managed to untangle himself just as well and with more of a sense of direction and focus. Jessica Chastain, for her part, is stunning, and the visual beauty and costumes were particularly sympathetic to her.
On a technical level, the film really deserves to be named as one of the most significant of the year 2011, given its visual and aesthetic quality. The cinematography is some of the best and most beautifully executed I've seen in a long time, and that's all the more remarkable considering that director Malick tried to restrict the use of CGI and adopt other more conventional visuals to achieve the same results. We saw something similar in scenes from “The Fountain”, a film that came to my mind several times while watching this film, either because of the elaborate visuals or the spiritual and metaphysical theme. I also liked the sets, costumes and props, which were able to accurately recreate the atmosphere of the American middle class of the 1950s. The music and sound effects also do a very good job.

Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life is an attempt to inject some cosmic wonder into the most mundane American story.
In the 1950s, two parents bring up three boys in an American white middle-class, small-town existence. The mother (Jessica Chastain) radiates love and warmth, while the father (Brad Pitt) feels the obligation to be cold and distant in order to prepare his sons for the cruel world that awaits them. As we are informed at the beginning of the film, sometime during this mid-century upbringing, one of the boys would eventually die. We are also shown flashfowards to the present day, when the eldest son Jack, now a successful architect working in New York City, reflects on the death of his brother decades ago. There is very little conventional spoken dialogue in this family drama. The story is told through voiceovers on top of a rich series of images, these monologues representing the inner thoughts, doubts and fears of the characters.
But Malick adds something on top of this, one of the most controversial turns in Hollywood filmmaking in recent years. Early on we are treated to a depiction of the creation of the universe and of life on Earth, from the initial clouds of gas right after the Big Bang to small nebulae, then big galaxies like our own Milky Way, the Earth as an inchoate ball of lava, life arising in tidepools, and then into the era of the dinosaurs. These special effects were created by Douglas Trumbull, best known for the cosmic visuals of 2001: A Space Odyssey. The titles of the film quote from the Book of Job: "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth, when the morning stars sang together?"
I get what Malick is trying to do here, that is, to show that the trials and tribulations of an individual human life are part of some vast unknown plan. Nonetheless, while I can understand this on an intellectual level, the film does not seem to reconcile the two layers into a single coherent plot. The film is indeed a visual feast on a first viewing (a high-definition release watched on a projector is nearly as stunning as 2001), but the The Tree of Life is much harder to sit through on a repeat viewing when one knows that it doesn't quite hang together. Furthermore, as thought-provoking as the story of the boys' 1950s upbringing is, the last part with its scenes of petty delinquency goes on forever and should have been cut. Finally, the ending which I won't spoil here is a total trope, not at all a fresh take on the meaning of life.
At a time when Hollywood is widely regarded as stagnant, I can appreciate a director like Malick who seeks to do something unexpected, but I find The Tree of Life to be rather a noble failure.

A movie that wants to mean more than what is actually telling.
Taking a lot of things borrowed from 2001, it doesn't even come close to have such a deep an interesting meaning.

X by Ti West is definitely a unique take on the slasher genre. The story feels fresh and unlike anything I’ve seen before, making it a solid introduction to something new. The acting by all the characters was good, not perfect, but strong enough to carry the film. It didn’t blow me away, but it worked well with the story.
The plot itself is very straightforward and easy to follow, but it takes a bit too long to get going. The first act feels stretched out, with not much happening until later, and it’s a little unclear when the first act transitions into the second. That pacing could’ve been tighter, but once the story picks up, things really start moving, and the payoff is worth it.
Visually, the film nails the 1970s vibe with gritty yet polished cinematography that draws you in. An interesting choice is the use of the 1.37:1 and the 1.90:1 aspect ratio, which enhances the viewing experience. Overall, it’s a solid horror movie with a unique spin, even if it has its pacing flaws. It’s definitely worth a watch if you’re into stylish, slow-burn horror.

I will be doing a combined review for the two films, "X" and "Pearl."
Upon seeing the high ratings given by both the general public and critics to these movies, I am left puzzled about what truly makes a good film.
Let's start with "X," a movie that I found to be absolutely terrible. The film revolves around pornography rather than a cohesive storyline, resulting in a disjointed and atrocious viewing experience. The cinematography, acting, storytelling, and writing were all subpar, yet critics inexplicably praised it.
The attempt to elevate the film with Jenna Ortega fell short, as she had minimal screen time amidst excessive male and adult nudity, making it unsuitable for general viewing. This is a movie best watched in private, not recommended by me at all.
Moving on to "Pearl," I was equally disappointed as it also relied heavily on sexual themes. The film took a bizarre turn, culminating in a scene that made me walk out of the theater in disbelief.
It's baffling to see these films receive acclaim, especially when performances like Mia Goth's are lacking. It seems that the current focus is on titillation rather than genuine storytelling.
As we await the verdict on the third film, it appears that the world may be more interested in gratification than meaningful narratives.