I get the movie. The movie is just not that good. It's pretty much a soft core bad porn movie.

**Finally, Roth gives us something of value: even with its flaws, this film entertains its audience and works nicely.**
Many years ago, a film came out where a pair of young seductresses managed to sneak into the home of a middle-aged rich man, seduce him and torment him: “Death Game” is one of those films that almost no one will remember now. I haven't seen it yet, but having seen this modern remake, I'm curious to see the older film.
Eli Roth gives us a very simple film. What I said above fits this film perfectly: Evan Webber is a conventional husband and family man who makes the mistake of giving shelter to two really attractive girls who, after a shower and clean clothes, decide to repay him with a night of adulterous and totally sinful sex. However, what seemed like an erotic dream come true turns into a nightmare when they begin to terrorize Evan.
This is not a brilliant, surprising film, it will never join a pantheon of great films, whatever genre or subgenre it may be, but it works and gives us what it promises: a sense of menace and pleasant tension, entertainment and a decent story. Of course, there are problems. For example, how would those girls know so much about Evan and his family without having spent a good deal of time spying on him? They showed, at various times, that he had not been chosen at random and that there was an intention in what they were doing with him. This is weird because the movie wants to explain it, but it doesn't do it very well. Personally, I think it would have been better if the film didn't exploit their intentions and just played with all the information they could get from Evan on that short night visit.
Be that as it may, this is, as far as I've seen, Eli Roth's best film to date: "Cabin Fever" was a decent effort, but very campy, and "Hostel" turned out to be simply unpalatable in its ambition to imitate the worst of “Saw”. Roth seems to have finally learned that what scares us most is what is beyond our sight or foresight. Liters of fake blood and human bodies being hacked to pieces only serve to ruin the theater popcorn vendor's business.
Keany Reeves is the film's big star and the highest rated, and perhaps highest paid, actor here. He did a good job, with a character that, in other hands, could have been more limited, one-dimensional or sketchy. Over time, Reeves gives us a simple, down-to-earth, credibly authentic man, someone we can like. Someone who makes mistakes, but who still elicits sympathy by being punished far more severely than could be justified. Reeves never lets the character be just a puppet. However, the film is entirely dominated by female performances: slender and dangerous, Lorenza Izzo – the director's wife – and Cuban newcomer Ana de Armas deserve our full attention.
Technically, it is a film that stands out for its simplicity: everything takes place in a unique environment, and the scenery and costumes are reduced to the simplest, but effective and functional. Cinematography does not bring surprises or innovations, it bets on conventional formats and solutions and on pragmatism. The soundtrack isn't especially notable either.

Just say no!
Eli Roth directs and co-writes the screenplay with Nicolás López and Guillermo Amoedo. It stars Keanu Reeves, Lorenza Izzo and Ana de Armas. Music is by Manuel Riveiro and cinematography by Antonio Quercia.
Reeves plays Evan, a devoted husband and father of two, who while he is left home alone, is visited by two young women soaked and apparently lost. Letting them in to his home as an act of kindness, things quickly spiral out of control.
You do wonder if Eli Roth sits at home looking at the reaction to his movie and giggles like a schoolboy. It's invariably a distinctly average film, but it does get a reaction from the audience, something which Roth is gleefully aware of. Pic is actually a remake of Peter S. Traynor's 1977 movie, Death Game, which starred Sondra Locke and Colleeen Camp, both of whom lend their names to production for this release.
At times it feels like we are part of one of Roth's wet dreams, or conversely one of his sick jokes. Yet as the cast struggle to instill acting gravitas (the girls actually become more annoying than frightening), and Roth chooses psychological themes over blood and guts, there's a deft whiff of a moral fable hanging in the air. While also of note is the nods to film noir, both in story and visuals. It isn't enough to save the piece, but it's interesting enough as an aside to the chaos inside the house. 5/10

> Be cautious of the two slices of the free pizza delivered to your doorstep.
Another flick that sets in an isolated place with the limited cast. A low budget film, which was a remake of the 'Death Game'. After playing a strong character in his previous film, Keanu Reeves is back exactly opposite to that one. Yep, remember what happened to the two men who break-in into his house in 'John Wick', but here it is like what if he's not able to handle them or to do anything about it kind of Circumstance.
He played a normal family guy, a father of two children with a beautiful wife and a big house. The trailer itself revealed half of what the movie's. But the rest of the film is not bad at all, and that does not count as I'm praising it. The movie was average because of the writing was too loose. Not only predictable, but aimlessly moved and the motives were never explained. So the mystery remains mystery.
It was one of those films that leaves behind us to suspect the possibilities. A broad open for a sequel, but likely there's very less chance for another film. The girls were so good looking and performed well. The theme aimed for erotic-crime-thriller, but did it achieved? I don't know, the original was released in the 70s, which might have been too sexy for that time, but in the present world, it is not that special or effective, just like 'I Spit on Your Grave'. You could watch it to enjoy your moment, but it would be a cinematically impressive with the great writings, actings, with twists and turns and all.
5/10

Julia Roberts is at her best here as the eponymously feisty woman who is struggling to keep her three kids fed and watered whilst holding down a decent job. An accident sends her the way of attorney Ed Masry (Albert Finney) who makes some damages promises that don't prove forthcoming - so she decides that she is going to work for him - whether he likes it or not! Admin ensues and during some routine filing she starts to notice a prevalence of medical records contained in property transaction documentation. A little further investigation and a few conversations with some local people soon suggests to her, and her still sceptical boss, that a large corporate enterprise has been systematically poisoning the water supply and misleading the residents about some pretty ghastly illnesses that had befallen them. Needless to say, the lawyers for big business and the system itself lobs quite a few obstacles in their path, but as this true story unravels we receive an entertainingly focussed and well written objective lesson in tenacity and dedication. There's an increasingly effective chemistry here between Roberts and Finney, and with Aaron Eckhart providing the babysitting services - and allowing us all to come up for air now and again, this turns out to be a compelling drama, peppered with some lovely dark humour, that still works well.

Not that bad of a movie. Honestly there's all kind of plants around the world that pollute a lot of different things that are harmful to us. I wish they would have had trial in this movie and make them sweat. Would have been nice to see.

Very good film. Julia Roberts is terrific.
It may go on for 10-15 minutes too long, but even so 'Erin Brockovich' is a fascinating biographical film. The dialogue is pretty sharp, there are a few good lines in there for Roberts. She herself is terrific here, I enjoyed her whole performance.
Away from Roberts, you have Albert Finney and Aaron Eckhart involved, as well as a few minor roles for recognisable faces from television - namely Michael Harney and Wade Williams. Finney and Eckhart are more than decent, but Roberts is most definitely the one that keeps the film moving forward.
Well worth a watch.

For the first time in my life, I got people respecting me. Please, don't ask me to give it up.
The film is based on a real case and is about real people so to that ends it is obviously simple in structure, and nagging away as you watch it is the fact that the ending is never in doubt, it "is" all too predictable. However, what made Erin Brockovich the success it was is that the title character is not only interesting but also, importantly, intriguing. A foul mouthed hard bitten, twice divorced mother of three has to fight her corner just to get an honest days pay. It's a fabulous story backed up by a simply incredible performance from Julia Roberts. Here Roberts has let her hair down, puts on a push up bra and a short skirt, she is clearly enjoying the freedom of the role, and the results are real effective.
I have no doubt that working alongside Albert Finney helped Roberts no ends, but it is her show all the way, and she alone masks over what really is an ordinary film, there is nothing we haven't seen before here, it's just a more modern take on the good versus evil corporate company scenario. It's steadily directed by Steven Soderbergh, emotional scenes are not overstretched to treacle point, and all in all it's good solid story telling. Repeat viewings prove to dilute the uplift factor of the finale, but Roberts' performance certainly holds firm for evermore.
8/10 for the film, 10/10 for Roberts' ballsy show. If only we could have had more of these performances from her.

Better then the original I think. Was pretty funny. I thought the comedy was better then the original too.

At the heart of Rocky V, there is a really intimate story about living in the past and being blinded to your present, but unfortunately that gets muddled with its somewhat convoluted screenplay.
The decision to take away Rocky’s wealth with a cheap plot device is one that was not needed. Rocky has already hit rock bottom in his life, and ripping away all of his accomplishments makes his story feel like it’s going backwards. The entire plot could have been just as effective if he was still at the top of the world.
I think the decision to focus on Rocky’s age and sudden loss of relevance is what really intrigued me with this installment. Rocky is no longer in fighting shape, and the one thing that made him Rocky was this fighting background. He gradually loses control of himself, not only as a professional but also as a man. This causes him to lose sight of everything in his life by focusing on gaining that fighting relevance back. This creates some really emotional conflicts with his son that feel impactful.
This film was on its way to getting 3.5 stars from me until the final twenty minutes of the film. It takes a somewhat grounded story, very reminiscent of the original, and turns it into a cheap gang action flick with a bar brawl. This felt incredibly out of place, and I think a more satisfying ending would have been Rocky leaving the fighting all behind without this physical conflict.
John Avildsen’s direction is back, with this film being the most reminiscent of the original. The acting is good all around, with standouts being Sylvester Stallone, Talia Shire, and, surprisingly, Sage Stallone, who was excellently cast across from his real-life father. Tommy Morrison was decent, but Richard Gant was just awful. He had such a campy presence in the film that was really out of place. I hated every time he was on the screen.
Overall, I enjoyed this installment more than most due to its more serious tone and interesting look at a post-boxing Rocky Balboa, but it definitely could have been much better with a tighter script.
Score: 60%
Verdict: Decent

From II to III they changed the emphasis away from Rocky's family and friends and the characters and moved it into straight boxing, but it was still inspirational, it was still fun.
Here I don't know what they did. It was like they changed the focus back on the characters but somehow butchered it in the process. The result was just horrible.
It wasn't the lack of Rocky fighting or the fact that Tommy Gun was kind of an evil traitorous friend that used him and then walked away... it was how they handled it.
It could have been the start of a good story of Rocky as a trainer, but it ended up just being awful. The dramatic family dynamic was shot and it turned into a mess with a convoluted story that hinted at being decent, but always missed the boat.
It should have been the more personal story, but it stopped being personal the moment Tommy Gun walked on screen and it turned into a mess that didn't seem to know which way it should go.
However... the same basic concept was used with Creed, and this time (despite it's FORGIVABLE faults in the script, it was done right). Partially due to the fact that Jordan is a far better actor than Morrison, but mostly due to the fact that it kept what it promised to deliver and the story was more coherent from start to finish.

Whoopi Goldberg and Dame Maggie Smith are on top form in this engaging comedy thriller. Goldberg "Deloris van Cartier" witnesses her gangster boyfriend commit murder. When she is drafted in by the police to testify against him, she is put into a witness protection scheme with a difference. She is to hide out in a convent under the tutelage of Dame Maggie's "Mother Superior". After initial clashes on just about everything, Goldberg - "Sister Mary Clarence" - finally finds a sense of purpose with the choir - and soon that choir is attracting global attention, even the Pope is coming to hear them sing. Of course, the publicity isn't all good - and her boyfriend "Vince" (Harvey Keitel) soon tracks her down. Can she be rescued from his evil clutches? This is an enjoyable film to watch. Once it gets going, there are plenty toe-tapping musical numbers and both women at the top of the bill, as well as the feisty Mary Wickes ("Sister Mary Lazarus"), are clearly having some fun having a funny and well paced script to work too. The conclusion is pretty much as you'd expect, descending just a little too much into slapstick for my liking before a rousing Papal audience! To be honest - there is nothing here not to like. Good fun!

**One of the great comedies of the decade.**
We are facing a film that was a huge success when it was released and continues, even today, to have a vast legion of fans. It's one of those light, friendly comedies that doesn't age, is always current, and is a pleasure to revisit from time to time. The expertly written screenplay tells the story of Deloris, a casino singer who must be protected by the police after witnessing her lover, a married gangster, kill a police snitch at close range. The authorities' solution is to hide her in a convent, where she will have to assume a false identity and pretend that she is a nun. Of course, most of the film's jokes come precisely from the difficult adaptation of a showgirl to a strongly strict environment, where obedience and discipline are taken seriously.
The film works wonderfully well, and despite the years that have passed, it remains an amazingly up-to-date film that doesn't show its age. It's one of those films that we can watch and rewatch without getting tired, from time to time, and that is still fondly remembered by many people today. It's not a great film from a technical point of view, with average cinematography and editing, good sets and decent costumes, but no big fights and other challenging technical elements.
The cast is lavish and full of talent. The protagonist is the great Whoopi Goldberg, who was at the time experiencing one of the highlights of her career (shortly before, she had received the Oscar as Best Supporting Actress for _Ghost_), becomes, with this film, truly an icon. Next to her were the grandiose Maggie Smith and the funny Kanthy Najimi, Wendy Makkena and Mary Wickes, who bring to life the most significant nuns of that convent. The villain, in turn, is very well done by Harvey Keitel.

Mary Clarence? Like Clarence Williams III from The Mod Squad?
When a worldly singer witnesses a mob crime, the police hide her as a nun in a traditional convent where she has trouble fitting in.
Whoopi Goldberg is the sister act of the title, and boy does she have a great time with the characterisation. It's hardly pulling up any trees, and it holds few surprises, yet it's so warm and gentle with its humour it's near impossible to dislike.
The laughs obviously come from Goldberg's street wise gal trying to adapt to life in a convent. The big message that unfolds, as she gets more at ease with her surroundings, is that not only can earthy girls come to be honourable by learning new fortitudes, but also that they can positively affect those around them in a perceived stuffy environment.
The trajectory of the nunnery choir under Goldberg's tutorship - from wailing cats to cherubic angels - is the film's highlights, while Maggie Smith as the prim and proper Mother Superior is class unbound. Harvey Keitel as the gangster who is after our sister's blood is wasted, and the ending is never really in doubt, yet this is a good pick me up movie, undemanding fun for those after a quick smiley fix. 7/10

Julia Roberts looks like she is having some fun here in this re-versioning of the timeless "Snow White" story. She is the rather sarcastic, wicked, queen who has managed to somehow get shot of the king (Sean Bean - so no bad thing) and rules the frosty kingdom with the aid of her sidekick "Brighton" (Nathan Lane) whilst the princess (Lily Collins) grows to womanhood. Whilst out walking in the woods one day, the young girl comes across the half dressed prince "Alcott" (Armie Hammer) and his pal "Napoleon" (Jordan Prentice). Taken to the palace the queen takes a bit of a shine to the prince but he takes a shine to the princess and, well pretty soon it falls to "Brighton" to dispose of the queen's rival. The rest of this follows, loosely, the established fable as she encounters the seven horizontally challenged men (their names have been changed) and who agree to help her to regain her kingdom and her man. Lane and Roberts work quite well together - in an almost pantomime fashion, but the rest of it is pretty mundane. Neither Collins nor Hammer set the story alight, the dwarves have a rather aggressive, slapstick, nature to their characters and though an attempt to keep it light-hearted has gone into the script, it's all just a little too wordy and frankly rather plodding. The effects are good, but as the queen never tires of telling us - snow ought to do what it does best - fall! It does that ok.

Resident Evil: The Final Chapter (2016) finally delivers a proper conclusion to the franchise, packing in all the plot threads that were scattered throughout the previous movies. The story is actually there this time, and while it feels rushed and crammed into a single film, it at least attempts to tie everything together. The pacing is relentless, barely giving time to breathe, which works in some areas but also makes it feel like Anderson had no choice but to dump all the remaining plot into this last installment. At least the climax feels satisfying, providing closure in a way that previous films never managed to do.
The directing leans into chaotic action, but the editing is out of control. The number of cuts per second is absurd, making some sequences impossible to follow. While the cinematography has moments that could have been great, the rapid-fire editing ruins a lot of it, turning what should be intense action into a dizzying mess. Character changes happen, some expected, some odd, but they mostly serve the story. Ruby Rose is a fun addition, even if her role is small, and Milla, as always, keeps the momentum going with her energy and commitment.
The script is functional, prioritizing action over depth, and the dialogue does just enough to move things forward. The soundtrack is fitting, blending industrial and electronic beats to match the high-speed pacing. Overall, The Final Chapter is flawed but delivers what it set out to do—end the franchise with a bang. If you can get past the chaotic editing, it is a wild ride with plenty of action and just enough closure to make it feel like a proper send-off.

For the final chapter, Alice has escaped to racoon city. Now the umbrella company is going to try to take down the last safe haven they have.

Liked it a tad better than the first time, however still a bit convoluted conclusion and the biggest knock is they completely ignored any potential left from Retribution, that being the zombie siege on the White House with our heroes (and villain) taking one last stand. Instead, Jill Valentine is killed off-screen (I guess) as was Alice's "daughter" and instead we get a Dr. Isaac being a religious fanatic (well Dr. Isaac's clone of course) and a band of misfit characters (including Ruby Rose before she became famous I think), plus the return of Claire (Ali Larter) after being MIA in the last film.
There were some elements that weren't too bad, and the fight and stuntwork was alright, but as with the previous FIVE movies, nothing terribly memorable. And they leave it open-ended because, of course. Have to think any future installments will end up on whichever streaming service Sony makes a deal with... **2.5/5**

**Time to bring down the remaining of Umb Corp.**
The series never meant to be story based. Well, at the first it was fine, but then it turned out be more a video game style than the normal commercial films. So if you are going to watch it, your expectation from it should be the action-adventures. Of course, nothing happens without a reason, that's where the story was born. This is the sixth film in the series and they are saying it is the final, but have to wait and see in a couple of years, whether another film will be made or they are going for television as hinted out.
The main character is long dead, that's what they say to us every time. And then a new sequel with the same character and their explanation is, clone. That's seems okay, but that being a regular thing is what annoying. This film is enjoyable, like I say, watching a game played by someone sitting next to us. But not the best of the series or the year, nor its kind. Just to enjoy the action sequences. All the top, knowing about Olivia Jackson made me almost to cry. She's the real hero, hats off.
As I said, the film was not necessary if you go by the story. It was just another mission, a fight to bring down the last remaining Umbrella Corp and possibly to reveal more secrets about it and everything so far happened. I always wondered how this franchise survived this long. Yeah, every time a decent box office pushed the filmmakers and actors to go for another one. The film's main ingredient, graphics were acceptable, and performances too. So, it is only for the selected audience, but you can ignore it if you are not that interested in it.
_4/10_

I would say that my expectations for this movie was pretty much spot on. I expected a visual action feast with a fair amount of gore in it and that is pretty much what I got. Things like a well developed script and stuff like that, well obviously the producer thought asking for such things would be nitpicking.
It currently holds a 5.6 rating at IMDb and 60% user score on TMDb which is fairly well deserved. Of course there are always reviewers giving it single star ratings and saying it is the worst film ever. That is just bullshit. These people have obviously never seen a really bad movie.
Milla Jovovich is again playing the hot zombie killing chick from the previous movies and although she tragically lost her superior T-virus strength in one of the previous installments her capacity for dealing death and mayhem as well as absorbing hits still borders on being super hero stuff. Unrealistic but fun to watch.
Despite my comments on the script earlier there is actually one with a paper thin thread intended just to bring the story from point A to B with a maximum of violence and special effects in between. I do think the tanks that they had cooked up looked cool although they were just visual candy a’la Mad Max. I mean come one, a tank with ventilation shafts all over the place so all you had to do was pour some gazoline over it and light a match? Stupid to say the least.
There were a few other things was more designed for looks than realism. For instance a certain ventilation fan that were used to drag out some of the events. Who the f… designs a ventilation fan with a dozen or so rings of blades? It is a ventilation fan for Christ sake, not a jet engine turbine. Oh, yes of course, stupid me, otherwise they would not have to spend so much time crawling through it.
I did like the various mutated zombies as well by the way. The flying thing at the beginning and the end was quite cool. Some people seems to have had an issue with the fast, sometimes very fast, clipping of scenes. I have to say that it did not disturb me that much. Not that it added much either though.
Speaking of the end. Well, I guess it was okay. The end itself was not too surprising. It was dragged down by the stupid nonsense with Dr. Isaacs though. The only time an exploding grenade resulted in anything less than a semi-atomic eruption of flames was of course when the director had decided that he needed the bad guy for a few more scenes. Lazy and stupid script writing.
On the whole I enjoyed the movie as much as I expected to. It was an okay movie. Good for a evening fix of zombie splattering and Milla Jovovich (okay so what, I am a male of traditional sexual orientation you know). It could have been a lot better but it was not really horrendously bad either.

I was scared by "previews" which said the editing was too chaotic. My experience is mixed. In the first 1/3 of the film, there is a ridiculous number of cuts in the action scenes (didn't like it), but afterwards this wasn't a problem. So yeah, chaotic filming at the start, but much more enjoyable/conventional for the middle and end.
(P.S. There is at least one VERY scary scene in the first 1/3... despite the chaotic cinematography!)
This film TRIED to tie up all the loose end of the franchise, but it didn't do very well. At least we get to see Claire Redfield again... she looks hot as always, but we don't see her much, and she doesn't have anything to say about K-Mart or her brother, Chis Redfield!
The biggest disappointment for me was the lame death of the "big bad" ... that is, Wesker. I won't spoil his demise here, but let's just say it was Dues Ex Machina... (for those without a Latin background, it means an ass-pull by the writers!)
I guess Wesker was too awesome to defeat in a fair fight! Anyway, the final battle of Alice was against *SPOILIER* Dr. Isaacs! Actually the final battle was against Dr. Isaacs and his clone!!
I have mixed opions about this film... it tried, and in some sense succeeded in giving a finality to the movie franchise. But it also failed in many ways. The 3D was pretty crappy compared to the last two films ( I just learned they filmed this one in 2D and then up-converted it to 3D in post-production... unlike RE 4 and RE 5 which were REALLY filmed in 3D... so yeah, the human eye [at least my eye] can spot the difference between real art and AFTER-THE-FACT-POST-PRODUCTION cinematography).
Also, they completely skipped what happened in Washington DC (the end of the previous film). There is one line in the movie which referenced this... basically "Wesker betrayed Alice and didn't REALLY give her back full power of the T-Virus". As a fan, I found this lame 1-liner very dissatisfying for the series finale! :(
So now you may think I am an RE hater, but that isn't the full truth. I felt this film was *literally* too dark, and the 3D was merely acceptable (not fantastic like prior films), but it did give a conclusion and explored upon things like clones of Alice...
I guess the only/biggest fault is the plot in the final scene... an air-borne virus, which will literally take years to work (according the movie itself!) manages to kill hundreds of thousands of zombies IN AN INSTANT... at the movie's climax... this is too convenient/stupid to be believed by anyone... even an RE Fan like me. I'm sorry, but can you say EPIC FAIL?
== EPILOGUE =This film tries, and in a few cases succeeds, to tie up the Resident Evil franchise. But the fake-3D *FAILS* compared to the real-3D of the prior two films. The horror factor REALLY IS much better than the last 3 or 4 films... but is it enough???

Some cool ideas but Anderson brings a new level of visual incoherence to the action scenes that is confounding and irritating rather than thrilling. It's as if he hasn't watched a single action movie in the last decade.
Not to mention so many stupid jump scares I had to wonder if he was trying to get a job with Blumhouse.
Still, Milla Jovovitch retains a steely charisma that remains compelling, but deserves far better material. Hopefully with this being the 'final' film she will be free to go and find it.

_Triple Frontier_ seems to want to say some important things about the way the US simultaneously uses its soldiers to enforce its will on other nations, yet also completely fails to take care of said soldiers, especially after they've retired. But that really seems like an afterthought in a pretty baseline classic heist formula. Nobody fails _Triple Frontier_ particularly, it just gets lost trying to pick between a brodown and a message.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

Trying to follow what is happening in this movie is just not gonna happen, but the visuals are so bright and fun I don't think anyone will care.

Decent watch at best, probably won't watch again, and can't recommend except for younger audiences (possibly with bad taste in humor).
Every line in this movie is awful. I'll admit that I got pulled in a couple of times just because we went from horrible to average only to have it punchline in awful again.
Don't get me wrong, when I say "awful" it is a just a lot of bad, cringey humor. But it really is like, "okay, they gave us a sequel, but there is NO WAY we're getting a 3rd, let's go ham."
I wasn't a big fan of the first one, and creating sentient food is cute, but weirdly problematic from a biological or large-scale morality standpoint.
Ultimately the concept of a "potatopotomus" is cute and slightly amusing, but quickly loses steam as part of a story.
If you are able to get in a helicopter and get far enough away from everything, there is actually a good story structure there, but just the worst execution.

Much more effort involved than your typical "animated kid's movie sequel made in the 21st century". The story might not be quite as straightforward as the first _Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs_, but it ups the fantastical quality, making me appreciate it even more. Such a great hangover film.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

Really funny. I die laughing everytime I watch this movie. It's become a new favorite of mine.

> Step-dad versus stepped-in dad.
In the past for an action movie, Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg came together and now for a comedy, once again the unusual combo returned. Surprisingly the movie was more hilarious than what I thought after listening to those who saw it already. Being a comedian, Will Ferrell was as usual awesome, but Wahlberg contribution had an equally advantageous.
The story was a one liner, but individual comedy scenes made an impact for its grand scale success. Generally, the scenes from the comedy films are easy to predict, so in this I felt similarly, but in the many parts it kept turning in another direction. Tried its best to avoid cliches, but we know that's impossible. Either way, it carried out some decent laughs.
The movie was all about the dad versus the step-dad. When a man thinks he's finally getting along with his step-kids, then comes their real dad who threatens to take aback his wife and children. So they go head-to-head and followed by a chain of life changing events comes a suitable conclusion. But there's a loop in the end, so possibly we can expect a sequel. Knowing it was not the best comedy of the year, I was not upset either for overall movie. I can even suggest it if you are looking for a simple entertainment.
7/10

The Jigsaw Killer may be dead but the murders still continue...
So where were we at now then? Detective Hoffman (Costas Mandylor) is still continuing to do the bloody work of the dead John Kramer/Jigsaw (Tobin Bell). In his sights is William Easton (Peter Outerbridge), an unfeeling insurance head who turned down claims by Kramer and a myriad of others on pathetic technicalities. Cue more elaborate traps, painful decisions and some twisty devilment. Yep! It's another Saw movie.
Somewhat surprisingly, part 6 is a step up in quality of writing and ingenuity of gore/trap factors from the previous two installments. It's still very much old hat as a formula, and once again the sequences of Bell used in flashback show him to be the franchise's strength. However, the makers put at the core an insurance issue that everyone can identify with, whilst piling on mystery and suspense by way of Jigsaw's left envelopes and the FBI closing in on an increasingly overt confident Hoffman. 7/10

I have wanted to see this movie for a while, and it did not disappoint. Beautifully shot. Not for the timid. My wife had a hard time with a couple of scenes.
Granted, it is a bit of a "gross for gross sake", but I loved every minute of it.