I'm sorry for the loss of what could have been an excellent show. But some things bother me. But first positive things. Most of the main actors are very good, the landscapes are beautiful, and the period is also something that I personally just like to see.
The first problem that I have is with bashing Christianity and the catholic church, which is in my mind completely exaggerated and takes too much space in this show. In this show nuns and priests are portrayed worse than the mafia or KKK. I'm not religious, it's just portrayed misleadingly bad over the top. I'm not American and I have great respect for the Indigenous people of America (whom we just call Indians) and the great loss of life, land, and culture they suffered but blaming the Catholic church for that is just a lie. Also, the actress playing Teonna is very unlikable and irritating.
The second problem with the show is that some scenes are prolonged too much, like most of the love scenes. I just had to fast-forward such scenes because I became bored.
Third is a skewed view of right and wrong created in the show by the creators of this show. The main character hanging five people is OK, he just had to do it, killing a bunch of nuns and priests is OK to do as it is "eating the soul" of one priest (which is just cannibalism). Worse than all that is beating those girls in Catholic school are getting? I agree is horrible, but no worse than what 'good' guys and girls in the show are doing. But even that is not the point. The point is that that whole segment with the Indian girl and her reason for running away from school is too long, a lot too long, and unnecessary. Not to mention that in the whole season we didn't see even a hint of why is she and her story important. Everything that was happening with her could have been explained in 5 minutes. And that is the same problem with this show as stated before. Everything is too slow and the viewer gets bored often.

Give it time! This show is a slow burn and I have to admit, it almost lost me a couple of episodes in. I was feeling like there was too much back story and at the same time we knew nothing. Wow, was I wrong.
It is an original idea that keeps you guessing. The mood, the tone, the writing, the cast, everything is just perfect. I seriously can't wait for Season 2!

A family of German settlers in Chile engage the services of the young "Rosa" (Valentina Véliz Caileo) to keep their home for them until one morning, they discover that all of their sheep have died. With a rope loosely tied about each one's neck, "Stefan" (Sebastian Hülk) immediately concludes that this is the work of the indigenous population and starts to take it out on the girl. Her father intervenes only for the farmer to set his dogs on the man. Now rather brutally orphaned, she leaves to seek justice from the mayor (Daniel Muñoz). He proves worse than useless, but the priest suggest she try to find a roof with "Mateo" (Daniel Antivilo). It turns out that he is a decent man, surviving on subsistence fishing and well versed in the more mystic arts of their traditions. "Rosa" wants to avenge her father's murder and now, more and more absorbed into the "Brujería", events in their small village causes consternation for her previous employers as their two sons go missing - just as two young, and fairly docile, cubs arrive! What now ensues sees the Christian community react with a combination of fear and militarism, but will that be sufficient to combat the power of the sorcery that is clearly at work demanding restoration of the equilibrium with both nature and amongst the divided and bigoted people. It's quite slowly paced, and it might have been filmed in the wettest place on the continent, but that works quite well to illustrate the timelessness of a way of life that thrived before the colonists arrived. The symbiotic relationship between people and nature and faith is quite potently, yet delicately, demonstrated by some charming acting and the design of the production looks good and earthy too. It's not your traditional style of horror film - indeed it doesn't really fit into that genre at all, but it's still quite an eerie and creepy exercise in leaving the forces of nature in peace and doing unto others...

Red One, starring Dwayne Johnson and Chris Evans, had all the ingredients for a holiday blockbuster but missed the mark on nearly every level. Despite its star-studded cast and massive $250 million budget, the movie fails to live up to expectations, leaving both critics and audiences disappointed.
The first act feels rushed, skipping meaningful character introductions, and the story quickly falls into a predictable and uninspired plot. Dialogue lacks wit or charm, with most performances coming across as forced, almost like actors reciting homework. While Chris Evans and Lucy Liu offer the best performances of the bunch, they still don't elevate the movie much. The cinematography, sadly, doesn't help either, with over-reliance on weak CGI and clumsy action sequences that fail to impress.
Ultimately, "Red One" lacks the holiday magic or the action-packed excitement it promised. While it might work as a background movie for casual laughs at its script or acting, it’s hard to recommend for any other purpose. A major missed opportunity for a festive crowd-pleaser.

**_Best Christmas Movie Ever!_**
After a key figure is kidnapped from the North Pole city of Myra, the commander of security (Dwayne Johnson) teams-up with a mercenary black-hat hacker (Chris Evans) to locate the victim (JK Simmons). They go to sunny Aruba for answers before entering the creepy lair of Krampus, Santa’s estranged adopted brother. Could the one behind the nefarious plot be the Christmas Witch, Grýla (Kiernan Shipka)?
“Red One” (2024) mixes the Santa Claus mythos with Marvel’s Thor movies for a totally kick-axx Christmas flick. For verification, there’s something similar to the Bifröst Bridge in Myra; Grýla is akin to Hela; there’s the similar technologically advanced flying crafts; trolls, ogres; and so on.
The creativity scores out of the ballpark with one amusing bit after another, such as the Mythological Creatures Protection Agency (or whatever it’s called), the portals in the backs of toy stores, E.L.F., how Santa is able to make it down small chimneys, etc. Then there’s how the movie effectively appeals to both kids and adults, as well as the kids IN adults.
Kiernan Shipka as the antagonist turned 23 during shooting. I knew when I saw her in “Totally Killer” that she was something special. Lucy Liu is also on hand in a fairly beefy role as the security director of Myra.
It runs 2 hours, 3 minutes, and was shot in Georgia (Atlanta, Savannah and Jekyll Island) and Hawaii (Honolulu and Oahu).
GRADE: A

Pretty solid festive fare, this.
'Red One' is perhaps slightly overlong and I didn't sense much chemistry between the cast, though those onscreen still give enjoyable performances and the plot is suitably entertaining whilst giving the necessary Xmas vibes. I was quite impressed with the special effects, I personally thought that side of this flick looked pretty neat.
Dwayne Johnson and Chris Evans are fun enough in this. Johnson is a bit more serious than usual and I liked that, while Evans' character ends up being the heart of the movie. J. K. Simmons, more than Johnson, plays against type, it's actually unnerving seeing him portray a true good guy - was almost waiting for him to shout down someone's neck, as per.
Kiernan Shipka is decent, as is Kristofer Hivju - I rate their characters. Lucy Liu is underused, mind. Bonnie Hunt too, I guess. I can't really fault anyone from the cast though, they all do solid work. If I'm honest, I don't see this film having much of a lifespan in the old memory bank but, nevertheless, I'd still classify it as something worth viewing.

The star-studded cast, featuring J.K. Simmons, Kiernan Shipka, Chris Evans, and Dwayne Johnson, brings a decent level of chemistry to the screen, which is one of the movie's few strengths. While the actors clearly enjoy playing off each other, the story itself is expectedly generic, relying heavily on predictable holiday tropes. The script fails to inject enough fun to offset its cliché formulas, and despite its festive intentions, the film feels stuck in cruise control, never quite capturing the magic or excitement one might hope for from a Christmas blockbuster.
Technically, RED ONE falters with its visuals. Almost every scene feels confined to a studio setting, and inconsistent VFX work makes it difficult to stay immersed in the story. The action sequences, though admittedly frequent, are mostly dimly lit, which diminishes any potential impact they might have had. None of these set pieces stand out, leaving viewers with little to savor beyond the familiar faces on screen. While it's not as terrible as some have claimed, Jake Kasdan ultimately delivers just another forgettable holiday flick, weighed down by formulaic storytelling and overshadowed - quite literally - by its murky, dark aesthetic.
Rating: C-

I thought this came to the cinemas about a month early, but it's still an amiable adventure showcase for Dwayne Johnson and Chris Evans. It all starts on Christmas Eve when Santa Clause (J.K. Simmons) is kidnapped from his North Pole home. It's retirement time for his head of security "Cal" (Johnson) so he's not best pleased after hundreds of years - and working with "Zoe" (Lucy Lui) he has to find out just how his boss's security was compromised in the first place - and then get to the rescuing bit. That search leads them to tech whizz "Jack" (Chris Evans) but he hadn't any idea whom his client actually was. After a rocky start, the two men must pull their resources and save Santa before Christmas really does start to deal with all of us on the naughty list. It's got bits of "Elf" in it, mingled with some "Harry Potter" elements and to be fair to all concerned, they all look like they are having some fun amidst a surfeit of CGI and very tightly choreographed action scenes that mix the modern and the mythological entertainingly enough. Simmons and Liu don't really feature so much and the moral of good vs evil isn't lost in the delivery but it isn't laboured either. Perhaps it's not a movie you will ever remember seeing, but as far as it goes it's a fun vehicle for it's stars to cheer us up as the festivities approach without too much sentiment or cheese.

This takes for ever to get going and once it does, it’s really an unoriginal semi-comedic horror drama centred around yet another not-so-menacing puppet. This time, it’s squabbling brothers “Hal” and “Bill” who discover an old hat box after their father dies and in it is what looks like a toy monkey. They wind it up and next thing, their babysitter is no more and that’s the just the start of it’s malevolence. Putting two and two together, they decide it’s best to drop the thing down a well and get on with growing up. Scoot on years later and now “Hal” (Theo James) has a son of his own “Petey” (Colin O’Brien) and is trying to rebuild some bridges with him after his marriage collapsed. Equally estranged is his twin, so he’s not impressed when, out of the blue, he is called and told their aunt has died. He now has to drag the reluctant lad along to the home they grew up in and guess what is in the wardrobe? At times it’s quite funny, but I’m not sure how intentional that is as James delivers a seriously flat performance and the epitome of sibling rivalries involves a frankly risible degree of menace. It’s not that the idea is rubbish, though it is derivative, it’s that the acting and writing are poor and the scenarios - familial discord, new stepdad (Elijah Wood) etc. are all just too predictable and it provides virtually nothing new over a lacklustre one hundred minutes. I could certainly think of a few good uses for the chimp, though!

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://movieswetextedabout.com/the-monkey-review-a-chaotic-blend-of-tones-and-genres-that-misses-the-mark/
"The Monkey teeters between ingenuity and frustration. Osgood Perkins crafts moments of inspiration and gets the best out of a solid cast, but the lack of a cohesive identity prevents its erratic blend of tones and genres from reaching its true potential.
For some, this chaotic, blood-soaked mix of horror, satire, family drama, and comedy will feel refreshing and daring; for others, it will be simply exasperating and disorienting.
Personally, it didn't work... at all."
Rating: C-

In a television landscape where medical dramas have been less about medicine and more about steamy romance, The Pitt delivers the uncut reality of emergency medicine through a sharp lens polished with a vivid sense of humanity not seen since ER.
Noah Wyle draws on his many years of experience playing Dr. John Carter on ER, but doesn't settle for a copy-and-paste approach with his character here. There's an evolution and depth to his Dr. Robby that separates his two extraordinary characters and makes this show a new experience rather than a papered-over retelling of ER. The Pitt delivers the experience of a shift in a busy urban Emergency Room by cutting out nothing; each episode is one hour straight of these doctors and nurses' experience during one day. Only partially through this first season and I'm hooked.
Quickly growing to love (and hate) the many characters. There's a humanity to them and an authenticity to their motivations, their emotions, their skills, and their mishaps. The characters have a heroism to them that is driven by simple actions and the normalcy of a shift, rather than forced/unrealistic drama. Real onion-peeling character development is occurring and while some of it may seem like it has a clear end point based on standard television tropes, you're still not so sure.
This is the medical drama that rights the ship back to course of reality rather than steamy romance medical drama. A love note and honor roll for the medical professionals who struggle, triumph, suffer, and heal in our country's most challenging healthcare environments.

This show is horrible! It is like AI was asked to use Goosebumps titles to make a cliched, DEI, uncomfortably LGBT show. The show cares so little about the script and story that by the 3rd episode they have 90's kids literally saying "toxic" and "hill you want to die on." Nobody said those phrases in the 90s. Likewise, they layer on clichés of the 90s too with every character just making broad cultural references for no reason. No, people didn't walk around talking about Nirvana in 1994, that ended several years earlier. Likewise, "hey, I'm going to go get some Sunny D," was never said by any teenager during the decade unless they became 5 years old again.
Aside from the lazy writing and pushing "the message," the show literally made no sense. Some alien landed in 1969 and froze people, until it left because the "heroes" turned on a machine randomly? Yea, that's the actually 8 episode pay off. This is why people have left Disney.

When it's brought to the attention of First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt (Susan Sarandon) that the soldiers fighting in Europe aren't getting their morale-bolstering mail, she convinces her husband (Sam Waterston) that something has to be done about it. Meantime, a regiment of African American women is festering away at a fort awaiting, in vain, orders that will get them meaningfully employed. Well! Now they have a task, and under the command of their newly promoted Maj. Adams (Kerry Washington) are posted to Europe. They are unaware of the sale of their project until presented with half a dozen enormous hangars full to the brim of rotting envelopes, packages and their fair share of rats. Chief amongst the newly arrived soldiers is "Lena" (Ebony Obsidian) who joined up after her beau "Abram" (Gregg Sulkin) went off to war as a pilot and was reportedly killed in action. She, and her determined colleagues, are determined to make a difference and the remainder of this drama depicts their struggles against their own side rife with bigotry and sexism whilst the bombs are never far away and the task is quite literally Herculean - only they can't just divert a river to solve this one. It's a fact, so the conclusion isn't in doubt, and the story is quite an interesting one as it not only challenges stereotypical attitudes, but quite poignantly illustrates how downright counter-productive these were. The execution, though, is all rather bland. Washington is competent but nothing more, indeed that's true of almost all of the acting talent on display here - aside from a lively and earthy effort from Shanice Shantay as the the engagingly rough-around-the-edges Johnnie Mae; and the writing takes a sledge hammer to the racial undertones that, once it's made it's bleedin' obvious point, just proceeds to labour that a bit too heavily. It's fascinating to see glimpses of the "intelligence" these women used to repatriate the post with the person and at times it's quite funny too as their intuition and common sense proved astonishingly effective but that's all rather swept under the carpet as the story focusses too much on the soapy elements of their travails. Indeed the ending, and the significance of their achievement, is all just a bit too rushed. It's a film that might have made for a better documentary celebrating the dedication of these ladies. As a piece of cinema, it's at best an high-quality television movie and an over-long one at that.

Written and directed by Scott Beck and Bryan Woods (65, Haunt, writers of A Quiet Place), Heretic is a so-called psychological horror that is disappointing on all fronts. After only seeing the trailer once months ago, I initially thought that Heretic was a film about a serial killer (Hugh Grant) who used his crazy mouse trap-contraption house to lure in religious, door-to-door service people and kill them.
While that is partially the case, Heretic follows two missionaries from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; Sister Barnes (Sophie Thatcher, The Book of Boba Fett) and Sister Paxton (Chloe East, The Wolf of Snow Hollow). The two women go to the house of Mr. Reed (Grant) who has expressed interest in hearing more about their religion.
As Sister Barnes and Sister Paxton make their way inside, they soon find themselves trapped in Mr. Reed’s bizarrely intricate home featuring electricity on a timer, a front door that supposedly won’t open again until morning, and that the house being made of metal blocks cell phone signals.
Reed, a theology major with vast knowledge of all religions, claims to have found the one true religion. Whether the two women will escape or if Reed knows what he’s talking about is factors into the cerebral aspect of the film.
Martin Freeman constantly looked miserable and bored out of his mind when he appeared in films like The Hobbit trilogy or the Sherlock TV series. He suddenly looked like he was having the time of his life when he shifted film genres, plunged into horror, and starred in the 2017 film Ghost Stories.
It seems to be the same case for Hugh Grant. While this isn’t his first horror film, Heretic is his first film in the genre in 36 years (Grant starred in The Lair of the White Room in 1988). Grant is noticeably lively in his performance in Heretic though and seems downright giddy to be torturing people.
With cinematography by Chung Chung-hoon (Last Night in Soho, The Handmaiden), Heretic has two visually memorable sequences thanks to how they’re shot. When Sister Barnes and Sister Paxton first arrive, Mr. Reed leaves the room to check on his “wife.” While he’s gone, Barnes turns the candle he blew out and discovers what the scent of the candle is. As she slowly turns the candle, the camera turns with it.
Reed has a miniature duplicate of his house complete with little figures that represent Sister Barnes and Sister Paxton. In a sequence when Sister Paxton is trying to run away from Mr. Reed, we’re following her movements in the miniature but it seamlessly transitions from the model to the real thing when she enters the room and slams the door.
The method in which Heretic is written is somewhat odd. Not quite horrific enough to be scary with its religion-defying dialogue taking center stage, Heretic is essentially a two-hour sermon attempting to destroy your faith with some splashes of blood and a raggedy woman or two dying in a blueberry pie.
It feels like if you walked into Heretic devoted to the Mormon religion, you’ll walk out of the theater a different person. Mr. Reed’s arguments regarding all religions stemming from the same concept are portrayed in a way that is believable and convincing.
He somehow rambles about Monopoly and board games, music, and vinyl records to demonstrate similarities between certain board games, how some songs are essentially the same tunes with different lyrics, and that all religions are more similar than dissimilar.
While the dialogue-driven film can be interesting, it’s also fairly boring. There’s an unsettling aspect to Mr. Reed’s behavior that capitalizes on the tension in the film. But there are also these long stretches where nothing happens besides the next topic of conversation or a weak payoff where someone’s throat is cut with a box cutter or something.
Heretic is beautifully shot with a stellar performance from Hugh Grant, but its intriguing concept is drowned out by the desire to deconvert the audience and have a lukewarm reveal regarding whatever the one-true religion is. Watching the film is like being trapped in a church of a religion you don’t believe in with an overwhelmingly passionate pastor trying to dissuade you from ever coming back.

No matter what anyone might say, putting lipstick on a pig doesn’t change the fact that one is still dealing with a pig. And that’s very much the case with this dismally failed attempt at smart horror from writer-directors Scott Beck and Bryan Woods. When two naïve Mormon missionaries (Sophie Thatcher, Chloe East) visit the remote home of a creepy, loquacious middle-aged loner (Hugh Grant) in an attempt to convert him, the trio launches into a protracted conversation about the nature of “the one true religion.” To a certain extent, it’s an intriguing philosophical discussion – at least for a while – until it gradually descends into a series of longwinded fits and starts characterized by disjointed, unrelated, unresolved segments that try viewer patience. The dialogue increasingly amounts to a series of overwrought contrivances undermined by implausible character development, particularly among the two supposed innocents who begin spouting lines that are difficult to accept in light of their supposedly gullible, unsophisticated nature and narrow worldview. But then, in a desperate attempt to retain fading audience attention, the picture degenerates into little more than a meandering slasher movie, albeit with better production design than one typically finds in such fare. What’s more, this offering’s exasperating script heavily “borrows” from an endless stream of religious, philosophical and cinematic sources, one even suggesting that this could turn into the second coming of “The Butterfly Effect” and “Matrix” franchises. And, while Grant and his co-stars genuinely deliver more than capable portrayals of the three principals, even their performances aren’t enough to cover the inherent weaknesses of this material, no matter how much lipstick is applied to it. Considering the foregoing, I’m truly mystified by the much-celebrated response this offering has been accorded given its tiresome narrative and pretentious, largely pointless overall direction, an experiment that just doesn’t work. As a fan of the smart horror genre and its aim of elevating the content of more classic releases in this area of cinema, I’m seriously disappointed that the inspired creators of “A Quiet Place” (2018) haven’t come up with something better here, an outcome that’s definitely heretical in itself.

In the new film “Heretic”, two missionaries named Sister Barnes (Sophie Thatcher) and Sister Paxton (Chloe East) spend their days in fellowship and looking to bring new members into their faith. Sister Paxton is the more sheltered of the two as Sister Barnes comes from the East Coast and joined the church through conversion and appears much wiser in the ways of the world to her colleague.
Eager to get her first new member for Sister Paxton; the two venture to visit Mr. Reed (Hugh Grant), who had earlier expressed interest in their church and as such; made his way onto the contact list for the girls.
A storm arrives at the same time the girls do but unable to enter the home of Mr. Reed without a female being present; they are assured that his wife is baking in the kitchen and accept his offer to come in out of the weather.
They find Mr. Reed charming and very well-versed in theology as he says that he has been studying religions for over a decade and his knowledge is very impressive to the girls yet his questions, answers, and tone start to become disturbing to the girls as does the absence of his wife whom he claims is just in the other room.
Looking for a chance to leave, the girls discover that they are locked in and the house has a metal overlay that blocks their cell signals. Further complicating matters is the increasingly odd behavior of Mr. Reed who insists that they are free to leave at any time yet confronts them with all manner of theological questions, theories, and challenges at every turn.
What follows is a chilling exercise in faith for the girls in a gripping film that keeps you guessing all along.
The cast is solid and Grant is very good playing against type. This is not the usual psycho slasher that audiences often see in films of this type but a deep psychological game of terror and manipulation as he believes that he is helping the girls see the truth amongst all the dogma.
The film does play a bit to Hollywood for my taste in the final act as certain revelations and outcomes went away from the clever premise that had been established in favor of more traditional situations, but the vast majority of the film was chilling, engaging, and captivating and was powered by strong performances all around.
Directors Scott Beck and Bryan Woods who also wrote the film; are no strangers to Horror and Suspense as their resumes are filled with some very tense films and have crafted a film that works as an intense thriller.
4 stars out of 5

This is a gruesome, bizarre, preposterous, and utterly watchable film. It is a twisted cocktail made surprisingly digestible thanks to Grant's impeccably dapper portrayal of pure malevolence. His performance brings a sinister charm that tempers the madness, making the film's more outlandish horrors feel almost refined.

I suppose that many of us have had the god-squad on the doorstep trying to peddle their philosophising but I doubt many are quite as prepared, or as tempting, as the butter-wouldn't-melt "Reed" (Hugh Grant) when the enthusiastic sisters "Barnes" (Sophie Thatcher) and "Paxton" (Chloe East) arrive at his door. Promises of a meeting with his wife and some blueberry pie lure them in and soon they are having a meaningful debate that rather puts the girls on edge. That anxiety only gets worse as there's no sign of the wife and the scented candle proves to have a most unusual, and illuminating, aroma. They conclude that getting out of his home is the best plan, but that isn't going to be straightforward. He has other plans, and they are going to have to play a game of belief/disbelief if they are to have any hope of getting back to their church. The horror aspects of this are not especially interesting - it's a sort of competent hybrid of "Escape Room" meets "Cluedo". What helps this stand out a bit more is a subtly menacing effort from Grant and the standard of the writing. The conversation between the three for the first half of the film is quite thought provoking in itself. It asks questions that are truly valid and worthy of consideration amongst those of or without organised faith. The assertions around "iterations", burgers and games of "Monopoly" also raise a few solid questions about carts and horses that I rather appreciated as we are invited to question or evaluate the whole scope of monotheistic religions and their role in our lives. The two women gel well together here too, realising that they are in some sort of peril - both intellectual and physical, and that latter threat is well demonstrated by some creepy settings and creatively used audio. I didn't love the conclusion - I actually found it really quite disappointing, as if Scott Beck had just run out of ideas or didn't quite have the courage of his earlier convictions, but this is the most substantial part I've seen Grant play in a while and he holds it together well. Not your typical psychological drama and worth a watch, I'd say.

Simple but decent enough legal thriller features great talent though no real standout performances (JK Simmons and Kiefer Sutherland have less than 10 minutes of screen time each). Direction is fine but nothing special. This isn't one I'd watch again. **3.0/5**

"_Maybe... I didn't hit a deer._"
I have so many questions, but can say this did keep me entertainined until the very end. And then it ends in a way that has me asking even more questions!

"Juror #2" unfolds in an unhurried yet absolutely fascinating way and it is utterly spellbinding to watch Justin Kemp (juror #2) as he slowly begins to realise he is becoming increasingly trapped with each passing moment and he has no clear options open to him to effect an escape from his predicament and no way to avoid ruination. The film really manages to achieve moments of quiet excitement, especially when more damning pieces of evidence begin to emerge like so much debris rising to the surface of a lake. It is engrossing as the film gradually begins to narrow the focus down to concentrate on Kemp and Faith Killebrew. They both know the true set of circumstances surrounding the night in question and now one of them must step forward and sacrifice the other in order for justice to be done or else the consequences of inaction will be the terrible and corrosive burden of guilt surrounding the crime in question which will eventually and inevitably consume and destroy them both. This is a uniformly excellent film on every level which is gripping, interesting, and extremely impressive throughout.

'Juror #2' is very, very good!
Clint Eastwood just keeps pumping out movies, gotta respect the hustle. As someone who has seen every film of his, evidently now including this 40th (and final?) directorial piece, I'd say that this is one of his best works. He has done much better too, of course, but this 2024 release is impressive enough.
It's a clear Eastwood picture, so obviously made by someone from the old days as opposed to something that is undoubtedly made by today's market. It's supremely crafted in most areas, it relies of its fair share of convenience and isn't perfect (e.g. some, only some, of the dialogue is iffy). However, the attention-hooking plot means things never get dull.
It does feel like a two hour movie, but I don't necessarily mean that negatively - again, I was never uninterested in what I was watching. The cast are excellent. They are spearheaded by Nicholas Hoult, someone I've found quite meh in other productions but here he merits praise.
Chris Messina and Toni Collette are enjoyable in their respective roles, while in more minor parts the likes of J. K. Simmons, Amy Aquino and Cedric Yarbrough are solid. Another plus, away from the faces, is the very pleasing score, so credit to Mark Mancina for the music.
*insert joke here about how I missed Juror #1, yet anticipating Juror #3*

Expectant father "Justin" (Nicholas Hoult) is slated for jury duty and so duly sets off for the selection hoping that he doesn't get picked and that he can return to his wife to await the arrival of their bundle of joy. Sadly, though, they like the cut of his jib and selected he is. It's a murder trial with a man accused of brutally killing his girlfriend after a bar-room brawl. Prosecutor and aspiring DA candidate "Faith" (Toni Collette) thinks it's all in the bag, but defence attorney "Resnick" (Chris Messina) isn't so sure. As the proceedings commence, our second juror gets a bit of a shock. Some of this evidence is proving startlingly evocative. The more he hears of the incident, the more he begins to realise that his job as a juror might prove to be much more personal than he anticipated. With pressure from his wife and his fellow jurors to get it all over with, he has to fight to try and find a way to more fully explore the evidence and luckily he manages to convince one of their number "Harold" (J.K. Simmons) to help him. As the they dig deeper, what might they find and what might they incentivise the prosecutor to find too? I think Hoult holds this together well, and as the audience becomes better briefed on just who did what to whom, director Clint Eastwood still manages to keep the film engaging and tensely paced leaving the audience with quite a moral dilemma as truths start to out and sympathies become severely tested. Simmons supports well, as do Collette and Messina but Kiefer Sutherland appears too sparingly to make much impact on the story so it really is left to us and "Juror #2" to come to terms with what happened and with our own consciences.

This film deserves nothing ... nothing more than to be an Oscar nominee!

Cinematic masterpiece 👌

What is quite clear from this fantasy adventure is that being behind thick stone walls is scant protection from the menacing "Jaldaboath" who is bent on destroying the Sacred Kingdom. Fairly easily, it has to be said, he manages to capture it's Sacred Princess and it falls to the young page "Neia Baraja" to work with what's left of their army to elicit the help of the undead Sorcerer King - the only creature who might be able to counter the powerful magic they face. Luckily, he agrees to help out and with the enthusiastic young "Neia" as his attendant, he must strive to rally the kingdom and face their nemesis and his maids. Yep, it's all a bit procedural, this, but it's still pretty much end-to-end action with loads going on and with the possible exception of the annoying "Remedios Custodio" - the Grand Master of the army, the characters are well suited for a slowly bubbling tale of good versus evil. The animation is very linear, the backgrounds have no movement at all and the characterisations rely very heavily on the facial features, but the episodic nature of their escapades marries the mysticism of ancient culture with the action scenarios quite entertainingly. It does dip a little towards the end - and some of the editing isn't the best, but I found it flew by for two hours and quite enjoyed the stand-alone nature of a narrative that has it's basis in a game but that doesn't impact at all on the plot.

I really did quite like the concept behind this film. A sort of house-bound version of the "Truman Show" where a residence provides the continuity for the lives and loves of it's occupants over multiple generations. Our perspective comes from only one side of the room, looking out of the window at a grand Colonial mansion that once belonged to a Jefferson somewhere along the line. Right from the construction of this residence, we follow the lives of three distinct families, and the timelines are intertwined to avoid it just becoming a chronology of the place. It's also all interspersed by some native American imagery to remind us that this whole process of being born, breeding and dying is nothing new. The latter part of this film pulls the threads together of the mainstay of the storyline. The family of "Al" (Paul Bettany) and "Rose" (Kelly Reilly) who bring up their family and end up sharing in adulthood with their son "Richard" (Tom Hanks) and his wife "Margaret" (Robin Wright). It's this partnership that proves to the more turbulent as they find themselves trapped by his dead-end job, their dependancy on his parents for a roof over their head and as age overcomes all of these characters, the growing realisation that perhaps life is just passing - or has passed - them by. Robert Zemeckis has tried to construct something different here, and I did like that he didn't just trot a diary according to... The use of visually defined boxes to indicate to us that we are about to change timeline or storyline also, once you get used to it, works quite effectively, as does the use of the soundtrack to use music as a sign of changing attitudes. Sadly, though, the acting isn't really the sum of it's parts and the temptation to sink into the melodramatic seems to prove too much for all concerned. It is funny at times and the observational nature of the presentation can be poignant, too, but the flighty nature of the narrative is almost theatrical in style and doesn't allow us to really get our teeth into any of the characterisations. Wright increasingly underwhelms as an actor these days and here her pairing with te unremarkable Hanks comes across as all a bit shallow as we head a denouement that's rather clumsily telegraphed to us in the final fifteen minutes. It is an intriguing version of lives through a lense, and is certainly worth a watch. It's just a bit one-dimensional.

'Here' is one of the most original movies that I have personally seen, I can't say I've watched one that does anything like this. To tell such a story from (basically) a single camera angle is a brave choice, but it is one that Robert Zemeckis & Co. nail tremendously. I loved it.
I would've predicted some slow moments and that the sole vantage point might've gotten repetitive/boring, happily neither of those two things occurred. There are plenty of events that keep it all interesting and the unique angle ensures freshness. Those on the cast are, of course, helpful too.
Tom Hanks is as great as always, Robin Wright is also very good. Paul Bettany is, though, the one that stood out most to me, he is excellent at every moment. His character is most attached to all the more serious parts of this, most notably alongside Kelly Reilly's Rose.
I saw this at the cinema as part of a double bill with Pablo Larraín's 'Maria'; randomly chosen due to the showtimes matching up with my schedule, but what a great four hours or so in front of the big screen it turned out to be. Quality viewing!

There's something about the use of the monkey to characterise Robbie Williams that makes this quite a visceral watch at times. The film tells the story of the fairly turbulent rise of this "Take That" singer from boyhood exponent of Gilbert and Sullivan to a man on the right end of an £80 millions record deal. His dad (Steve Pemberton) went off to a football match whilst he was a child and never came back, and that left him with his mum "Janet" (Kate Mulvany) and adoring nan (Alison Steadman) living a pretty much hand to mouth existence and leaving him with a pretty solid foundation for his later emotional and trust issues. Unless you've lived on the moon these last twenty years, then you'll know much of what happens next. What does make this stand out a little more is the fact that Williams himself is behind the project and is in no way afraid to portray himself as a complete ass. His drink, drugs, tantrums and generally spoilt brattishness are laid bare with little, if any, attempt to sanitise. In some ways it reminded me of the recent "Amy" biopic and came hot on the heels of a recent viewing of "Easter Parade" (1948) with both serving, for completely different reasons, to augment the thrust of this story of a person who attained great stardom, success and wealth - and ultimately ended up with addictions galore and few, real, friends amidst a sea of hangers-on and parasites all too eager to selfishly cash in on the fame of a lad who started aged just fifteen. Of course it's not exactly balanced, and I'm sure the gospel according to Robbie might not be quite how others see their own behaviour (or his) but there is an honesty to this that brings home just how ruthless the music business is and at just how fickle fame can be when those we idolise lose their lustre. It doesn't do it any harm that many of his solo songs work well through big screen audio with some classy string arrangements and powerful vocals to remind us that, unlike many of the largely forgotten "Take That" singles, his music - especially the stuff he made with Guy Chambers - is the stuff we will really long remember. It's not for the faint hearted, but still well worth a watch.

This is quite a fascinating documentary following the fate of a cinema that even John Waters said "shocked him". It wasn't always on the same site in Central London, but the "Scala" name quickly became a magnet for all those who didn't conform to the more mainstream - with their own behaviour and/or attitudes and/or taste in films. Using an astonishing amount of well researched actuality and some interviews with the folks who worked there or attended over the years, we learn of a place that offered a venue for any combination of the Bohemian, the decadent, the drugged up, boozed up, gay - and, yep, even the serious film goer as it originally opened and closed many years later with "King Kong" (1933)! I did live in London in the late 1980s and King's Cross was a dump - full of hookers, rent boys and you never strayed far from an heroin needle. The "Scala" thrived amidst this alternative and hedonistic environment and though I don't know that I quite qualify for the groups that regularly used the place after midnight, my two visits were fun and never intimidating - the sound system there was not the best! Porn, horror, martial arts, cartoons - nothing was off limits until the local council took exception to "A Clockwork Orange" (1971) and the subsequent legal fracas pretty much put paid to the place as a cinema. It's split into parts that illustrate the rise and fall of what was essentially an establishment that didn't really matter in which building it was located. Sticky floors, sticky seats, dark "back massages" offering a range of facilities from a sleeping berth to a shagging one. It can't resist the usual bit of Mrs. Thatcher-bashing at the end which adds a bit of authenticity to a cinema that existed precisely because it was so anti-establishment and pro free-spirit. It reminded me a little of the "Studio 54" (2018) documentary. A place that was legendary and fun and necessary - probably still is. Very watchable on a big screen if you can.