As a 50-something man who worked in television for thirty-odd years, I wondered what all the fuss was about. So these gents have only just discovered what we've all known for aeons - a modicum of alcohol, administered responsibly and frequently enhances cerebral efficiency. No S**t Sherlock... Well, in this case these Danish teachers decide that their careers - and lives in general - are in need of a little pepping up, so they embark on an ostensibly "scientific" programme to measure enhanced (?) performance against increased blood alcohol levels. What ensues is a thoroughly enjoyable watch with a truly on-form Mads Mikkelsen and his colleagues pushing their new found challenge to the limits - challenging and compromising just about every relationship - both personal and professional - in their search for an improved life/career. As with most successful drama, the effects of their frankly reckless behaviour are exaggerated from time to time and the underlying dangers of their new-found philiopsphy are not ignored (well, not entirely, anyway) but this is essentially a feel good film that does touch on the effects of alcoholism and of addiction more generally, but is still a jolly enjoyable watch that allowed me to (s)wallow in a pre-kale smoothie nostalgia that facilitated a collegiate and collaborative way of working that has now, largely, gone the way of the dodo or zoom. I am certain that many in the medical profession will have many, many good reasons why this film may be irresponsible or guilty of glorifying alcohol, but it worked for me - and I think the last few scenes on the harbour are as joyous a piece of cinema as I've seen in a very long while. Skol!!

'Another Round' reminds us not to ignore our youthful dreams and encourages us to soar. A supremely charming effort by Thomas Vinterberg, I weep for the inevitable American remake that reunites the cast of 'Old School' or 'Tag' or something.
- Jake Watt
Read Jake's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-another-round-what-a-beautiful-beautiful-ride

Just as slow as the original, but I'd argue it's a better film overall.
There isn't much between the two films, I admit. However, I found 'The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement' more enjoyable than 'The Princess Diaries'. The plot is probably just as interesting, but there's less cringe in this one and the villains are a big improvement.
Anne Hathaway (Mia) is very good once more, while Julie Andrews (Clarisse) does solid things again. John Rhys-Davies (Mabrey) and Chris Pine (Nicholas) are top additions, great casting on the latter by the way given it's Pine's feature film debut.
I also said in my review of the 2001 film that I don't like fictional places in live-action, non-fantasy productions. That's still the case here, but I didn't actually mind it all that much to be honest. "Genovia" is way more believable here, thanks to us actually getting to see it for real - as opposed to it just being referenced.
As noted, there are still a few cringey moments and it does run too long. There are some sweets parts, though. It's also kinda weird that, technically, Mia and Nicholas are related; a number of generations back sure, but still...
A sequel that (minorly) improves on its predecessor, that's always a positive in my book.

Good watch, could watch again, but can't recommend unless you just really liked the first one.
Of all the boring premises, a legal requirement is a really boring choice. Forcing a marriage is not only not relatable for America (Mia's country of origin), but also not exciting to watch Anne Hatheway reject guys and have to settle. And all the while they ignore the obvious solution.
There is a lot of fun with the idea of a American princess just having fun with a lot of resources, and touching bits with her using her power for good.
Sadly, again, the movie doesn't feel like it does anything special, despite all the "pizazz" they layer on.
Again, it's good, but it is weaker than the original, and unless you have the background of that movie, you're not missing anything by skipping this one.

Decent watch, might watch again, but I don't feel it's a confident recommendation.
I know it's based off a (1936) vigilante hero that actually pre-dates Batman (1939), and that means there is a long, rich history there, but....I don't care. I'm not sure why it started, and I don't feel like researching it.
This movie, looks like it just lifted part of Seth Rogen's life and put a Green Hornet skin on it. I'm sure he pays some asian guy to perform martial arts for him while he parties. Jokes aside, it was nice to see Rogen hit his limit on a believable action front: which does involve someone else (in this case, Jay Chou) doing most of the work.
Rogen fits right into the role of a spoiled, obnoxious party boy, but even though he's supposed to be the funny one, Jay Chou is just as funny with Cameron Diaz putting out some humor as well.
I'm clearly not a Seth Rogen fan, and I don't think I'm a Green Hornet fan: I'm realizing I'm not even a Batmobile fan just now. I guess I'm not into cool cars, and a firefight is a firefight, having a gas gun isn't interesting.
All said and done, it's a good experience, there are just a lot of other movies, even "super" hero movies to watch before this.

My what a disappointment! I was kind of looking forward to this movie. I had read a few of the magazines as a kid and I think I might even have had a Green Hornet toy car. A masked hero with a martial arts expert and mechanical genius as his side kick and a really cool car. Not one of those ridiculous wimpy ones but a real old-fashioned American car having a large V8 engine with the proper sound and everything. So what could go wrong?
Well a lot! Half way through the movie I was wondering how bloody stupid the producer really thought the audience was. The bad guy was a total joke. Completely wacko in a very stupid way. Not fun at all. But the worst thing was that the hero, played by Seth Rogen, was even more stupid. He was nothing but a dumbass, loudmouthed, idiot throughout the entire movie. Even when he wasn’t directly screwing up just the fact that he was in the scene and opened his mouth was enough to ruin it.
And what about these ridiculous slow motion scenes with the targets flashing red just before some action taking place? The guys where not supposed to have real superpowers so stop making it look like they had for Christ sake! Seth Rogen had a part in writing the script as well and that was probably a huge mistake. Scripts should be left to professionals and not wannabe comedians.

Disclaimer: This Reviewer Knows Nothing About The Origin Shows Whatsoever!
You kinda feel as an amateur reviewer that you need to spell out that you have no affinity with a comic book/TV/film franchise. For the venom and bile that gets spewn by fans of said franchises when filmic adaptations don't meet expectations - can get quite scary at times!
The Green Hornet was released in 2011 and I remember how poorly it was received by the fans of the origin productions. Nothing new there in reality, Green Lantern, that was also released this same year, received the same treatment. So how does something like The Green Hornet stack up to someone who's just after a mindless couple of hours of high energy thrills and witty repartee?
Is it funny? Is it packed with action? Is it showcasing some nifty set pieces, some nifty set design and some bonkers escapism? Well the answer is yes to all of those. The writing away from the gags is nothing to get excited about (Cameron Diaz gets short shrift on the page), while if you have an aversion to Seth Rogen this is a film to make you choke on your own vomit, but to the standard super hero/crime fighting frolics fan, this has it all. Including Christoph Waltz having a great time as the villain and Jay Chou being simply wonderful.
Fart gun and disco santa, bromance and car carnage, delightful. Sorry Hornet purists, it's a riot. To me at least... 7.5/10

At last an opportunity to see Timothée Chalamet doing something a little grittier. Sadly, t'was not to be. His portrayal of this great character from early 15th Century British history left me cold. He looked like a good meal would have killed him, never mind a bloodthirsty foe clad in iron armed with an axe. The accent held up reasonably well, but he still struggles to shake off the winsome, "butter wouldn't melt" image and as he has to pretty much carry this film en seul, it just doesn't really work. The rare appearances by Robert Pattinson border on the hammy; with his final appearance reminding me of the first few steps taken by "Bambi" back in 1942. It is great that Netflix are prepared to fund projects like this, but the plain truth is that no amount of money can compensate for a poor screenplay - think Shakespeare "light" - supplemented with a few high-profile cameo contributions and some, admittedly, fantastic battle scenarios.

It’s a fine half-adaptation, but suffers from the compromise it makes.
On the one hand, it is not simply another adaptation of Shakespeare - it has the advantages of taking a fresh look at the material, but for whatever reason still somehow carried across much of the fictional elements of Shakespeare’s plays. At the same time, whilst the writing is good, it lacks the poetry of a more straight adaptation (e.g. the Hollow Crown).
I do find the performances to be compelling, and in particular, find it interesting to see Henry V as a contemplative humanist rather than a victorious warlord. It’s an interesting idea (if perhaps ahistoric) and does perhaps act as a medication on more modern conflicts.
In particular, the film diverges significantly from Shakespeare’s plot significantly towards the end. It seems to try to this to change to modify the original 16th century propaganda of the play to a discussion of Realpolitik. This is a good idea in principle, but is somewhat undercut from having just watched an hour glorifying Henry.
It is also technically impressive - both the art and cinematography departments have outdone themselves - standards we have perhaps come to expect from Netflix productions.
On the whole, I admire the attempt to give a fresh take on the source material, but would rather they took inspiration from the history, rather than from a play written centuries after.

Just finished The King, a modern interpretation of parts of Shakespeare's Henry IV and Henry V, seemingly targeted at millennials.
It's common knowledge that much of Shakespeare's Henry V is based on hearsay, yet his pre-battle speeches at Barfleur ('Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more.') and Agincourt ('We band of brothers') have become the stuff of legend and remain the most stirring battle speeches of our time. In The King, Henry's pre-battle speech at Agincourt is neither stirring or inspirational due to being a watered-down, 21st-century, politically correct rendition, which I found hard to stomach.
The King portrays Henry (Hal) as a pacifist and reluctant leader, a fop to Catherine of Valois and I found Timothee Chalomet's (an American) performance as Hal to be too 21st century and not in the slightest bit convincing. In fact, he seemed reluctant to carry out any of the deeds that the real Henry V actually carried out.
The battle scenes were very realistic and the cinematography was superb, but...
This is yet another nod to the PC millennials, diluting and revising both Shakespeare and history into easily digestible snack bites for the sensitive of our era.

Really good movie. Really funny and not your typical romance movie. Very raunchy comedy.

**The young women's attempts to get the life they wanted.**
Another novel based film from the director of 'Love, Rosie'. About the four young women that tells how to enjoy the life by balancing the men and the parties. Very interesting cast, hot ones like Dakota Johnson, Alison Brie and even she's in her 40s Leslie Mann looked so fantastic. The narration had layers to focus on these different people and their different attempt to get the life they wanted. In that, I kind of like Leslie's, maybe the age fact and to be touched by her love tale with decency. But Dakota and Alison led it with their glamorous way and theirs each tale as well not bad, particularly depicting the present world's youngster's culture.
From the all, the biggest surprise was the Rebel Wilson, who I never liked much as I did for in this, definitely she was at her best. The story was good, seems it was squashed with the too many contents, but awesomely managed to bring them all in one direction by linking them to the main characters. So that makes the stories of everyone take place within the circle and delivered a good entertainment, Lots of fun, even though it is a pure commercial film, there are many things from it that makes us to think seriously. Particularly thinking them from the youngster's perspective about the current world status in the entertainment segment.
I don't know those who are complaining about it had they watched the same film, Because it is a fine entertainment, even though it is chick film, anybody, particularly adults can have a great time. In a thin margin, there was about men as well, how they're caught between the women they are in love and those women what they believe in. I'm being a man, I really enjoyed it despite target audience is women. I know this is not a masterpiece, but definitely not the worst film of the year or decade. In the film, everyone wanted to be in the relationship, so I did not get it, but the end clarifies decently about the title. Surely worth a watch, if you want a good entertainment.
_7/10_

Some things never change. This can be good and also bad. Bad like Audibly Sharp knives (i.e., blades that make a sharpening noise when being whisked through thin air), or like when former deputy Dewey Riley (David Arquette) says “You have to shoot 'em in the head, or they always come back.” Of course, the very existence of the new Scream is irrefutable proof that they will come back regardless. This movie is slasher history repeating itself in more ways than one; in addition to revisiting this particular franchise, it borrows a key plot point from Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare – that I will not reveal but which you may have inkling about if you are, like me, a student of the genre.
All of the above notwithstanding, Scream ‘22 is overall more good than bad. True to its roots, this iteration serves as a deconstruction of the current state of mainstream horror cinema. Specifically, it is a textbook example of a “requel” – like the last couple of Halloweens, or the recent Texas Chainsaw Massacre –, and by ‘textbook’ I mean that it actually includes a scene where a character literally explains what a requel is and how it works. I also like that it lampshades one of my least favorite tropes, which I call Chekhov's Inhaler.
I just compared it to Halloween and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but the fact is that Scream ‘22 comes to join the much better company of Wes Craven’s New Nightmare and last year’s Candyman (suitably, the movie is dedicated to Craven’s memory and gives Jordan Peele a shoutout). This Scream’s oft-repeated mantra is “always go back to the original,” and that’s sage advice because, like Nightmare on Elm Street, this franchise is a brainchild of Craven that began life as thinking man’s horror only to get progressively dumbed down with each new entry – unlike, say, Friday the 13th, which was born stupid.
Thankfully, this film has been made by people with knowledge of and respect for their source material, and who don’t underestimate the audience’s intelligence. Consequently, when characters send text messages, the words appear on their phone screens as opposed to our movie and TV screens, and when a someone is stabbed, they spill real fake blood instead of a stream of red pixels (and in an age where CGI is the norm, any horror movie that uses practical effects instantly doubles its visceral impact). I will only add that, also like New Nightmare and Candyman ‘21, Scream ‘22 is as much of a return to form as it is a fitting farewell, so here’s hoping that it will live up to its promise that “After tonight, no more books, no more movies, no more f***ing Ghostface.”

**One of the best slasher flicks since 1996!**
I loved the first Scream - the surprise, the shock, the self-awareness, the humor. It reinvented horror and launched a franchise of sequels of varying quality. And this newest one is the best since the first! It captured all the fun of the first. It kept the stakes high by bringing back the original cast and proving that no one is truly safe. The directors had fun baiting the audience with every slasher trope they could. Tense music would rise every time a character walked past a dark doorway or opened a cabinet to hide the view from the hall - naturally, that is when the killer is standing on the other side but not in Scream! Playing with the tropes in a fun, self-aware way is what Scream is all about, and Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett nailed it.

I've watched every scream since scream was invented. I like the first two okay but after that the kind of got a little iffy. This one really goes back to what screen was intended to be by Wes Craven. I really like the flow of this movie and how they put the twist on Samantha's character. It starts like the first scream and it ends like the first scream. I'll have to say out of all the scream movies this was one of the most decent and hardest to figure out.

Scream is a self-aware thriller that doesn't try to be more than it is. The kills are great, the violence is there, and the comedy is good enough that is doesn't take away from the movie.
**Verdict:** _Good_

Okay addition to the franchise has some good kills and the acting at least was serviceable and nice seeing the legacy characters again. The killer's motivations did feel a bit 5 years ago (to me, though I don't do reddit or really other social media platforms) but fine I guess and similar to the social commentary from Scream 4. I'd rank this third in the franchise I suppose, behind the original and Scream 2 (for all that movie's flaws, it has a soft spot for me). Not great but worth watching once. **3.25/5**

Decent movie with a nice balance of meta / references to the original without overdoing it.

Ghostface is my favorite cinematic serial killer and I love the first four films (yes, even _Scream 3_ and Gale’s terrible bangs) despite their flaws and fluctuating factors of entertainment. I’ll see and support any new _Scream_ film or TV series that comes along because of it. I know this new installment was successful ($88.4 million worldwide box office gross as of this writing) and some enjoyed it, but it is honestly my least favorite in the franchise.
This new film feels like it’s trying too hard to be one of the original _Scream_ films when it should have just been more of its own thing. This is something the film addresses, but originality should always triumph over retreading familiar territory; especially when it seems like its kills are being plunged into the same stab wounds.
Full review: https://hubpages.com/entertainment/Scream-2022-Review-Movies-Make-Psychos-More-Imitative

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/scream-2022-spoiler-free-review
"Scream (5) is a brilliant "requel" with cleverly fascinating meta commentary on the horror genre, toxic fandoms, social media, and much more, ultimately becoming a strong contender for this new year's Top10.
Boasting a continuously entertaining screenplay filled with exceptionally captivating, relevant dialogue and some of the goriest, bloodiest murders in the famous saga, the directors (Matt Bettinelli-Olpin, Tyler Gillett) and writers (James Vanderbilt, Guy Busick) pay a beautiful homage to the influential creator Wes Craven.
The whole cast - both newcomers and icons - delivers remarkable performances, portraying characters who unapologetically address admittedly cinephile-driven topics that some occasional moviegoers might not fully understand but will still receive pure entertainment on the big screen.
As a horror-mystery flick, it keeps the viewers on the edge of their seats, laughing and getting jumpscared for the entire runtime. I couldn't recommend it more."
Rating: A-

It is hard to believe it has been 25 years since “Scream” premiered and in doing so; brought new life into the slasher genre which had become stale due to an abundance of direct to DVD and cable releases combined with many uninspired and stale theatrical releases.
The movie was a massive success and launched a very successful trilogy and made the Ghostface killer and many moments from the series Pop Culture mainstays.
After a hiatus; “Scream 4” arrived and continued the series and in 2022; “Scream” has arrived which continues the story to the eager anticipation of fans.
When a young girl named Tara (Jenna Ortega); is brutally attacked in a fashion very similar to the Ghostface Killer; her sister Sam (Melissa Barrera); returns to Woodsboro to be by her side while Tara recuperates.
Sam is joined by her boyfriend Richie (Jack Quaid), who has no idea about the history of Woodsboro nor the popular “Stab” film series that is based on the events of the murders that have plagued the town.
Sam’s past troubles makes her return difficult and when Ghostface strikes again; she and Richie seek the help of Dewey (David Arquette); who has fallen on hard times and has split from Gayle (Courtney Cox). Despite his reluctance; Dewey gets involved and tells Sam the “rules” which would indicate the killer might be someone she knows and soon everyone in her and Tara’s circle becomes suspect even as the deaths start to increase.
This allows for some of the best moments of the film as the characters make references to several other modern and past horror franchises and discuss things from online Trolls, rabid fans, and other Pop Culture references which provides some tongue in cheek humor about the series and also establishes the world of “Scream” as one where people are well-versed in horror films old and new and have modified the rules based on sequel, prequel, and “Requel” rules for films.
As tensions and body count mounts; Gayle, Dewey, and Sidney (Neve Campbell) must face their fears to stop Ghostface before it is too late.
While the final act of the film is very over the top and at times absurd; it does provide plenty of the elements that fans have come to expect from the series. I was able to accurately see and predict almost all of the twists very early in the film and did not have many surprises as the film unfolded; I think many will still find enough enjoyment watching the tale unfold as after four films I have a pretty good idea of the formula for the series and also have many years of this as I saw the twists in “The Sixth Sense” and “The Village” very early in the films so I just seem to have a knack for this sort of thing.
While it does not break much in the way of new ground; the film does deliver what fans have come to expect and I did find in more enjoyable than “Scream 3” and there was more than enough to keep me entertained. There have been rumors that a sixth film has already been planned and if so: I will be more than ready for more.
3.5 out of 5

The same story all over again, in almost every episode. Tedious, yet there are some great jokes. You would hope it will get better in the next season, it doesn't.

Good thriller with a round script and a performance to suit Matthew McConaughey.
Nothing to object, just enjoy!

.

**Tremors forges a new path with a new monster that entertains while the body count rises.**
Tremors is a fun creature movie that doesn’t take itself seriously and creates a clever, gross, fun new monster franchise that lasted several decades. While the plot of Tremors is the typical small band of survivors trying to survive the hungry monsters, Tremors innovates with a creature unlike anything that had come before - the Graboid. Subterranean beasts that stalk their prey from underground and spring from the earth to swallow their unfortunate meals whole. Kevin Bacon leads the survivors and nails the cheesy vibe of the film without overplaying the part. Sure, Tremors isn’t an Oscar-worthy film, but its creative creatures are groundbreaking 😜 and force characters to find clever ways to overcome and survive while keeping their feet off the ground. Tremors is a quality creature flick with an entertaining new monster and a lovable cast of misfits.

Kevin Bacon is clearly having some good fun in this daft family sci-fi story. He and his pal "Earl" (Fred Bass) make a living doing odd (and unsavoury) jobs around their small community until they discover that something - subterranean - is lurking and it's hungry. What ensues now are a series of entertaining escapades as the two, with newly arrived seismologist "Rhonda" (Finn Carter) and the townsfolk try to stay one step ahead of their voracious pursuers. It's a bit of a slow burn at the start, but once we get down to the nitty gritty, Ron Underwood keeps the action flowing well with a lively script and some personable efforts from all concerned. It's enjoyable, this film, with some engaging performances - especially the "Gummer" pairing of Michael Gross and Reba McEntire who have enough weaponry to start and win WWIII - and it doesn't rely overly on complicated visual effects. On that front it is more reminiscent of a Hammer film! Everyone looks like they enjoyed making this, and that's contagious, so sit back and watch it bring a smile to your face.

Fun and entertaining horror-comedy that's light-hearted and features a great cast. For whatever reason never got around to seeing this one but can see why it's endured all these years (and spawned several sequels). For its time, good special effects. **3.75/5**

Tremors is a surprisingly appealing movie and I am not attributing it to the creatures in the film. It starts off giving a westerns vibe and then quickly turns into a survival horror movie with the added novelty of an unknown creature. Being a fan of 'creature features' and having watched most popular films in the genre, Tremors took me aback as it continued to impress me with its casting, plot, and the sheer horror of characters being hunted by a strange-looking mystery. There's just a positive, fun vibe to the film and that works wonders here. Gets all my points for being extremely funny too. **Grade A-**.

"Tremors" joins "Gremlins" as one of a handful of family friendly creature features. Kevin Bacon and Fred Ward have great chemistry as two bickering handymen in Perfection Nevada, population 14 when an invasion of subterranean "graboids' (I know, I know ... that sounds ridiculous, but in the context of the movie it clicks).
Spawning an abundance of bad sequels, "Tremors" solid cast, story and excellent practical effects stands the test of time.

_**Underground monstrosities in the desert prey on the folks of a remote town**_
Two handymen working in a Southwest town (Kevin Bacon and Fred Ward) team-up with a seismologist (Finn Carter) and the townspeople (e.g. Michael Gross & Reba McEntire) to take on huge creatures that live underground and like to eat people.
“Tremors” (1990) is a desert creature feature similar to “Gargoyles” (1972), but with a less grave tone; there’s a somewhat light air, but it’s not a comedy. The cast is spirited and likable while the creatures are inventive and interesting. Unfortunately, they’re also unbelievable since the hard desert ground would have to have the texture of thick mud for these behemoths to so easily travel through.
If you can overlook this, however, it’s a fun monster flick with magnificent desert cinematography. Yet it’s nothing more than that and so plays tediously on repeat viewings. “Gargoyles” is all-around superior because it’s more cryptic, grave and streamlined.
Finn Carter is a highlight in a girl-next-door kind of way, particularly her brief de-panted scene (lol). Meanwhile Gross is reminiscent of Dennis Weaver while McEntire is a natural as the gun-toting hick woman.
The film performed modestly at the box office, but eventually became a cult hit, followed by several sequels.
It runs 1 hour, 35 minutes, and was shot in Olancha & Alabama Hills, Lone Pine, California.
GRADE: B-