This valley is just one long smörgåsbord.
Finally deciding to break free of their small town existence, handymen Val and Earl find that it's easier said than done. The reason? Giant underground worms are attacking the place and they are now needed more than ever.
The 50s ream of sci-fi schlockers and creaky creature features are, depending on your persuasion, either genius fun or tacky nuisances. Since I belong to the first group, Tremors is possibly one of the finest homages to a most wonderful time in cinema. What is often ignored is that those 50s film's deal with the paranoia of the time, with nuclear testing and a wondering appertaining to Roswell like alien visits being very prominent in honest Joe's thoughts. So it be that Tremors is ideally set out in the desert, a place from where all manner of terrifying things have come forward to announce a threat to the American way of life.
We are in the small town of Perfection, a place that may be small on residents, but very much large on character. We have dim wits, annoying kid, cutesy single mom types, Mr and Mrs Rambo and courtesy of Finn Carter's seismologist Rhonda LeBeck, a romantic and charmingly fun filled thread. Containing dashes of gore and reams of cheeky suspense, Tremors proudly wears its "B" movie heart on its sleeve. While in Fred Ward (Earl) and Kevin Bacon (Val) the genre possibly has its greatest pairing. As male buddy buddy combos go, these pair take the cake. Funny and full of devilish derring do, Tremors deserves to be watched for this partnership if nothing else - yes they are that good! The creatures are well designed and prove to be a scary and enjoyable foe, whilst the Alabama Hills, Lone Pine, California location is perfectly utilised by cinematographer Alexander Gruszynski. Directed by Ron Underwood on his feature film debut, Tremors also sees Reba McEntire, Michael Gross and Victor Wong also along for this fun packed ride. 8/10

I've always been a fan of the baddie in films - and this film really belongs to Alan Rickman's "Sheriff" with a good supporting effort from Geraldine McEwan as his harridan witch cohort. They bring almost all of humour and menace. The bulk of the rest of the film is a pretty run-of-the-mill vehicle for Costner, Freeman and Mastrantonio - and moves along well enough as a pretty formulaic, very freely adapted, costume drama. Brian Blessed hams marvellously in the few scenes he has and the score works well into the fabric of the movie. Sadly, the writing and direction are nothing special. Errol and Basil have little to worry about.

***Iconic Medieval adventure of the early 90s***
Released in 1991, "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" stars Kevin Costner in the title role. While some have argued that Costner was too humorless and brooding for the part, this is a cinematic myth. There are quite a few places in the film where he can be seen smiling and having a good time, like when he makes it back to England after the Crusades or when he's spending time with Marian in Sherwood Forest. Thankfully, he's more three-dimensional than this and so you also see him desperate, angry, grieving, vengeful, strategizing, contemplative, etc.
To be honest with you, Costner was in his prime at the time and towers in the role; whether or not you like him is a matter of opinion. Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio as Marian is memorable with her unique facial features and odd hairstyle even though she doesn't trip my trigger. Morgan Freeman as the Moor Azeem is an excellent partner for Robin Hood while Alan Rickman and Michael Wincott are effective villains as the Sheriff of Nottingham and Guy of Gisborne respectively. Christian Slater, Nick Brimble and Michael McShane are also on hand as Robin's sometimes merry men, the latter two being Little John and Friar Tuck.
I've always had mixed feelings about this movie due to its mixed tone and the fact that it loses its mojo in the last 45 minutes. Concerning the first, the flick is often serious and brutal, but it's also sometimes cartoonish and over-the-top. Rickman particularly hams it up, entertaining though he is. Another good example is Geraldine McEwan as the ee-vil witch Mortianna. Her portrayal is spooky and Gothic in a comic book horror kind of way, but it detracts from the many parts that establish the story as believable quasi-history. Still, she's excellent as the hideous witch. Another example is the semi-goofy, overly heroic action scenes, like Robin & Azeem being catapulted over the castle wall. Why sure!
Concerning the second criticism, the movie is overlong by about 25 minutes. When the Celts attack the camp at the 95-minute mark I always start to lose interest and the rest of the movie is a tedious blur. But there’s a lot of medieval action, if that’s your thang.
As far as medieval films of the British Isles go, I prefer the more serious and consistent tone of "Tristan + Isolde" (2006) and "First Knight" (1995). Nevertheless, “Prince of Thieves” is an entertaining Robin Hood adventure and is iconic of early 90's cinema. The entire first act is the best part followed by the many Sherwood Forest sequences. And the climatic cameo by a certain famous actor is a nice touch. I enjoy seeing “Prince of Thieves” every five years or so.
The film runs 143 minutes and was shot mostly in England, but also France. My wife loves the end credits’ song “(Everything I Do) I Do it for You” by Bryan Adams.
GRADE: B/B-

The Mechanic is unable to fix its mechanically mundane plot. “Amat Victoria Curran - Victory Loves Preparation”. Foreshadowing words engraved on the glossy barrel of Sutherland’s powerful pistol. Euphemism aside, West presents a remake of the Bronson-led action thriller that coincidentally features no vehicle mendings. That’s because, for those of you who aren’t subjugated to criminal organisations (hopefully all of you...), “mechanic” is slang for hitman. Despite Statham being bald and able to glue a fake tattoo of a barcode on that shiny cranium for a “propa laugh!”, unfortunately West was unable to title the feature “Hitman”. And so, he grabbed a wrench and proceeded into remake territory.
For what it’s worth, this is one of his more moderately tolerable features from the past decade. “Mechanic” Arthur Bishop is assigned the task of assassinating his mentor, subsequently taking his troubled son into training as a well-intentioned gesture. Naturally, Statham is slaying men in his wake with any object his eyes glisten towards, most notably a suitcase handle in this one. It’s clumsily edited, instantly forgettable and rarely hones in on the “making hits look like accidents” speciality. Expositional narration throughout, one or two plot twists that uphold no kinetic energy whatsoever and an incredible waste of Sutherland. Not to mention another “mechanic” having a weakness to young boys and small dogs. The two just don’t relate.
Interestingly, the film works when it’s divulging into the life of McKenna’s self-tortured son Steve, portrayed by the enigmatic, under-appreciated and consistent Foster. A reckless individual succumbed to illegal substances and a sleazy lifestyle to suppress his negligent upbringing. Undergoing cathartic vengeance in a bid to soothe the soul. His internal suffering forces his character to be the human component in what is otherwise a mechanical action thriller, packed full of explosions and rapid gunfire. It’s a battle of professionalism between the experienced Arthur and the inexperienced Steve, making for a surprisingly well-executed duel of wits.
The actual assassinations themselves were simple, although somewhat unimaginative, yet realistic. A few questionable moments, including a dumbfounded man glancing over at the tiniest of nuts (calm your mind...) that fell out of a grating, but nothing too outlandish. The utilisation of Schubert’s legendary piece Trio No. 2 in E-flat Major was revelatory, I must confess.
Having said that, The Mechanic is your standard Statham affair. Powered by a sensational supporting performance but weighed down by a mundane plot. Functional if immediately forgettable.

When Jason Statham is good he is very good. In this movie I think he is very good as the silent, deadly killer for hire. It is a straightforward killer/action/thriller. The story is nothing new but it is a well working story which is nicely executed.
The story is, as I wrote above, not very original. Killer for hire finds out that his next target is his mentor and friend. As the professional he is he executes the job anyway but later discoverers that not all is as is should be. Time for revenge. A simple, straightforward and well working story.
Things are complicated a bit by Bishop taking his friend’s son under his wings. Of course he wants to walk in his fathers footsteps. He is inexperienced but also undisciplined. Something that, not surprisingly, is causing problems.
I do like that Bishop stays a no bullshit hardass killer throughout the entire movie. No whining or silly emotional outbreaks or breakdowns. I also like the unemotional, silent and deadly impression of a professional assassin the he radiates.
There are quite a few fairly well done action scenes in the movie ranging from silent assassinations to the obligatory blow things up scenes. The parts where Bishop and Steves goes after the big bad guy is quite well done with some quite cool stunts without being over the top.
The ending was probably the only thing in the movie that was a bit unexpected. Unexpected in a good way that is. I quite liked the little surprise there.
Overall I as well as my son liked this movie quite a lot. I hope that Mechanic: Resurrection is as good as this one.

For being a Hollywood attempt at ancient, non-American, drama this is a decent enough piece of entertainment. Unfortunately, as is too often the case when Hollywood tries to make these kind of movies these days, it is also underdeveloped, shallow and somewhat cheesy.
The movie have a decent enough cast and I have to say that their performances are generally good. At least as good as the script allows for. The story is pretty straightforward. Young slave is forced to become a gladiator and he is good at it. Beautiful woman enters the scene and Amor gets to work. Bad guy enters the scene and does what bad guys usually does to screw things up. It is a simple story which allows much freedom and which of course is spiced up quite a lot by being set against the backdrop of an exploding volcano.
However, the movie could have done a lot more with the story. Even though the special effects are miles more advanced than movies like Ben-Hur with Charlton Heston or works by Cecil B. DeMille it somehow fails to achieve the same impression of awe and grandeur. If you cut out the volcano a lot of the scenes felt just ordinary somehow.
Well, it is still a decent enough piece of entertainment. I quite liked the character of Atticus and the gladiator parts are not bad. Some of the volcano effects are reasonably impressive as well. However, why is it that Hollywood producers and directors totally lack any form of knowledge of the subjects they use in their movies? You take an exploding volcano, which in itself should be enough, and then all of a sudden you throw in a tsunami wave which movies towards the volcano. What the f…? That is just so ignorant. I do not expect historical accuracy of a movie like this but Christ, you do not have to slap the faces of the thinking part of the audience like this. The scenes where the ships were coming floating through the streets of Pompeii was also the worst special effects of the movie, regardless of the ridiculousness of the entire tsunami thing.
The end? Well, anyone who has read a few of my reviews knows that I am a sucker for happy endings so you can probably guess that I am not overly happy about this one. I guess one have to say that, at least, it was realistic though given that, once the eruption had started, there would be little way to get away from the volcano by any means available at that time.

**One of the best and most fascinating horror movies ever made.**
Just as the title says it, it is wihout any doubt one of the best and most influential horror films ever made. Its production history is also quite fascinating.
If you are into horror or slasher movies, you simply have to have seen and experienced it. Nuff said.

It's maybe not fair to appraise a film 50 years after it was made too harshly, but I found this really quite over-rated and annoying. Five travellers pick up an hitch-hiker in their van but quickly discover that he has a penchant for knives and, well he isn't quite the full shilling. Anyway they manage to get shot of him and arrive at a garage that has no petrol near the grave of the grandfather of the wheelchair-bound "Franklin" (Paul A. Partain) and his sister "Sally" (Marilyn Burns) who are travelling with her boyfriend "Jerry" (Allan Danziger) and friends "Kirk" (William Vail) and his girlfriend "Pam" (Teri McMinn). It's the latter two who set of for a swim and never come back. Concerned, "Jerry" goes off in search before, yep - the other two head off into the desert in the dark to see what's what. Pretty early on, we know just what has happened to the first pair and so fully expect the expected... Except, it doesn't quite pan out quite how we might anticipate - else how we could we ever have known about this story? It's all about the last twenty minutes and even then I found it all rather flat and noisy. Way too much of the sense of peril here comes from endless screaming, running about in the bushes in the dark and the behaviour of visitors who just haven't a clue about basic self-preservation. Who would set off into unknown terrain in pitch dark pushing a bloke in a wheelchair after three of their friends had gone missing? Once we meet the perpetrators, again it all just comes across as something that wouldn't look out of place in a Carry On film made in the Hammer House of Horrors - there isn't an hint of menace at any point amongst the faux gore and crescendo hysterics. It's clearly been made on a tiny budget and the production standards reflect that - the continuity is a bit of a joke with wounds that are there then not or windows that self-repair... Nope, perhaps I just wasn't in the mood but I found this really quite disappointing and funny - but not really in a good way.

***Disturbing iconic slasher about a demented family in rural Texas***
After a van of young people picks up a psycho hitchhiker in east Texas they stumble upon a farm house of crazies, including a burly mute man with a mask made of human-skin.
Tobe Hooper’s "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (1974) is a seminal, iconic slasher that’s genuinely disturbing and horrific because it plays out in a gritty, realistic manner. While some viewers might find a couple of scenes amusing, like Franklin in his wheelchair accidently rolling down the hill and, later, having a hammy fit in the dilapidated building, it doesn’t change the fact that this is a serious, unsettling horror flick.
By contrast, Rob Zombie’s homage (or rip-off), “House of 1000 Corpses” (2003), wasn’t disturbing or horrific at all because he opted for an over-the-top, cartoony approach. It was colorful and amusing, yes, but not unsettling or horrifying.
Other positives include the rural locations, cool nighttime sequences, e.g. the thorn bush, and the effectively photographed women with no raunch: Teri McMinn (Pam) and Marilyn Burns (Sally). They’re girl-next-door types, but alluring enough.
So this is a standout film as far as serious slasher horror goes and I can understand those who give it a high rating, but horror movies are about more than just scaring & troubling the viewer. For me, the last act is overly one-dimensional, focusing too much on the eye-rolling demonic dirtbag family and a girl fleeing & screaming. It’s thoroughly manic, indeed, but also vacuous and uninspiring.
The film runs 1 hour, 23 minutes; there’s also an 88 minute unrated version. It was shot in east Texas as follows: Round Rock (house), Bastrop (gas station/BBQ shack), Leander (cemetery) and Watterson (slaughterhouse). The house has since been moved to Kingsland and refurbished as a restaurant.
GRADE: B-/C+

This movie has a sweet into too. A race car disaster like no other. Bet that would look sweet in 3D.

***More of the same, but with one of the better ‘final girls’ and superior music***
The first "Final Destination" movie in 2000 was a rather innovative 'Dead Teenager Movie' in that the killer was Death itself, an invisible spirit. A group of people, mostly teens, escape a great tragedy due to a premonition of one of them and the rest of the movie involves the Grim Reaper systematically slaying the kids who cheated Death in various creative ways, usually an unlikely chain of events. The opening tragedy in the first film was a plane crash, in the second it's a highway pile-up, in the third it's a rollercoaster mishap while in this fourth entry it’s a tragedy at a racetrack. The fifth film (2011) features a bridge collapse.
All of the movies in the five-film franchise tell the same basic story with different characters and minor nuances; all of them are of the same high quality of technical filmmaking. Whether you prefer one or another depends on your preference for cast members and the death sequences (and the locations). Other than these factors they're all basically the same.
Released in 2009, "The Final Destination" (aka “Final Destination 4”) has a quality redhead heroine in Shantel VanSanten. The director wisely showcases her beauty in a tasteful scene, which none of the previous movies managed to accomplish. Haley Webb and Krista Allen are also on hand in the feminine department. The previous film arguably has the best assortment of women in the series.
While it’s true that you know exactly how this film plays out if you've seen the first three installments, or any of them, there are some highlights beyond the females. For one, this movie has the best music yet, whether score or soundtrack. The opening tragedy is thrilling as usual and there are several creative death or near-death scenes involving a tow truck, a pool, a car wash, a cinema and an escalator.
The film runs 93 minutes and is the only installment that wasn’t filmed in the Vancouver area. The entire movie was shot in the East as follows: The speedway sequences were filmed in Mobile, Alabama; the closing mall scenes in McKinley, Pennsylvania; other scenes & studio work in New Orleans/Harahan, Louisiana; and reshoots in Orlando, Florida.
GRADE: B-

For some reason this one is named The Final Destination instead of Final Destination 4. Almost looks like they expected this installment to be the final in the series but since the 5th one is about to come out on Blu-ray that was obviously a wrong assumption in that case.
A positive surprise. Most people have said that the second third and fourth film slipped compared to the first one and it wasn’t until the fifth film that the series took off again. Well they’re wrong in my opinion.
This installment was a lot better than the third one. Sure if you do not like gory horror movies then you wont like this film but then why did you even bother with it? Me, I like these kind of films so I was quite happy to see it.
The special effects was much better than the previous film and not so silly and stupid as they sometimes where in the third one. I liked the ending as well. Classical horror movie style ending and really cool touch with those x-ray shots.

It's not actually final...
You can just imagine the suits sitting around their big round table discussing how to churn out another financially beneficial Final Destination movie and get away with it. Big suit number one puts forward that they obviously need more inventive mouse trap like deaths. Big suit number two has the genius notion that 3D is again taking off so why not utilise that option too. And that's pretty much all that it took, with the end result being a movie that is very self aware of its roots, but still plays out as the runt of the Final Destination litter.
Just as the director of the first one, James Wong, was brought back to direct part 3, the makers here bring back the director of part 2, David R. Ellis, to direct part 4! Which ultimately proves to be nothing more than some sort of nepotism like factor because The Final Destination is basically just over 82 minutes of poor acting, bad writing and a series of kills weaved together by the odd 5 minutes of barely relevant characterisations (the exposition as painful as the gory deaths!).
The kills entertain as they pretty much always have throughout the franchise, with the opening disaster sequences (here set at a speedway stadium) continuing one of the series' great traditions. While the opening and closing X-Ray/Skeletal credit sequences are superb and a credit to those involved. Yet it all feels so tired, where in spite of the willingness to upgrade the technology, it's still lazy and has nothing to really justify its very being other than that to make easy money.
The makers of part 5 would have to come up with something special to not turn this franchise from being one that was once bright and inventive, into that of a money train joke. 4/10

I had low expectations when I entered the theater to see the 5th installment of the FD series, because the 4th movie was such a disappointment. But after watching it, I was surprised. First off,this movie was way,( and I mean), way better then the last two movies were. It was darker and had a lot of elements from the first movie, which I loved. I don't want to give away too much, but I do want to say that the last scene of the movie will leave you speechless. It had me thinking, "OMG, that was AMAZING how they came up with that twist." One last thing I loved about this movie was that it was well planned out and thought of, unlike the forth movie which was a joke and in my opinion, shouldn't have never been made. The deaths weren't rushed as opposed to the deaths in the forth movie, and it gave more screen time to introduce us to the characters. Note: I will say that there is one death scene in the movie that I didn't see coming, besides the ending. I recommend you see this movie. It might have the same theme as the first four movies, but unlike the first four, it's on a much higher scale.

"Big Daddy," starring Adam Sandler and the Sprouse twins, is a timeless classic that continues to captivate audiences with its humor and heartwarming storyline.
Adam Sandler shines in his role as a goofy and over-the-top character who unexpectedly finds himself in a fatherly role, displaying both comical antics and genuine love for the child in his care. The film's blend of humor and heart makes it a truly memorable and enduring piece of cinema.
"Big Daddy" has proven its lasting appeal, consistently ranking among the top movies on streaming platforms like Netflix and earning a spot in movie lovers' hearts. Sandler's performance in the movie is hailed as one of his best, with memorable lines that leave a lasting impression, such as the iconic "I wipe my own ass" moment.
Unlike many modern films, "Big Daddy" has a rare quality that keeps audiences laughing out loud throughout the entire viewing experience. It's a film that tugs at heartstrings, captures attention, and delivers genuine moments of laughter and joy. Overall, "Big Daddy" is a true gem that continues to bring smiles to viewers of all ages.

One of my favorite Adam Sandler movies. This movie is hilarious. My daughter loved this movie as a kid as well. Now that she is a teen she loves Adam Sandler but always calls him big daddy. She says that's the only way she could remember him.

Good watch, could watch agian, and can recommeond.
While it's a typical Happy Madiosn / Adam Sandler, the importance of the child's welfare kind of balances it out as far as "seriousness" goes.
The humor stands up, even if some of it is problematic, but even then that was the point, to push boundaries.
It's a funny, charming movie that reminds of a time when I didn't like Leslie Mann, mostly because she got written into to some jerk roles, more than just being a straight man, like "vengeful woman" jerk, and even with her being "in the right" about it, she still comes off a a villain, in place of an antagonist other than "life".
The movie is exactly what the premise is: by horrible circumstance some kid gets stuck with Adam Sandler, comedy ensues. Nothing really special, but it's not bad even after 20 years.

When British intelligence sends some photographs to CIA analyst "Jack Ryan" (Alec Baldwin) he immediately races to his boss (James Earl Jones) with what seems like a fantastic tale about a submarine that uses a hydro-dynamic drive. That renders it almost silent to traditional sonar and therefore a threat to NATO. Next thing we know, the Soviet's have mobilised their Atlantic fleet and it occurs to "Ryan" that they could have a defection on their hands. He now has to convince his sceptical superiors that this isn't just a wild goose chase, and that "Ramius" (Sean Connery) has a plan to bring his state of the art warship to the USA. Meantime, onboard the "Red October" we discover a complex plan that will test the mettle of the crew - officers and men alike, as they ostensibly conduct routine sea trials and missile drills - but with an ulterior motive that the audience knows all about, but the crew - well they're very much in the dark as the peril grows. This is a solidly entertaining story of political intrigue and deception and the claustrophobic settings of the submarines work well to give both Connery (who makes no attempt at all to disguise his thick Scots accent) and the much better than usual Baldwin room to manoeuvre. The supporting cast isn't the best - Scott Glenn, Sam Neill and Courtney B. Vance could have been cheerfully fired from a torpedo tubes early on, but they feature only sparingly as the adventure builds to an excitingly paced denouement. Could it really have happened?

**_Submarine strategies with Sean Connery, Alec Baldwin and Scott Glenn_**
Just before Gorbachev’s rise to power in the USSR, a notable naval commander (Connery) takes a technologically advanced submarine on its maiden voyage to conduct missile drills off of America's east coast. Something happens to draw the ire of the Soviet brass while a CIA analyst (Baldwin) believes the captain might be defecting. James Earl Jones, Sam Neill and Courtney B Vance are on hand.
Based on the 1984 Tom Clancy novel, “The Hunt for Red October” (1990) is a well-done Cold War thriller and the first of currently five movies involving the character of Jack Ryan. The next two are “Patriot Games” (1992) and “Clear and Present Danger” (1994) featuring Harrison Ford in the role. Then Ben Affleck would take over for one installment, “The Sum of All Fears” (2002), before Chris Pine’s “Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit” (2014).
To appreciate this movie, you have to be in the mood for military-oriented drama/suspense rooted in global politics and an all-male cast (except for a cameo by Gates McFadden). Like “Ice Station Zebra” (1968), the scenes mostly consist of men dialoguing & strategizing in the cramped quarters of submarines or vessels; as well as political rooms/offices. A saboteur is no doubt lurking nearby.
The movie runs 2 hours, 15 minutes, and was shot in America, e.g. Port Valdez, Alaska (opening sequence); Lake James, North Carolina (closing scene); the state of Washington (Port Angeles & Keyport); naval bases in Los Angeles and Connecticut; USS Blueback; San Diego; as well as Liverpool, England (standing-in for Moscow).
GRADE: B

Like Prometheus in 2012, this was a serious disappointment. The characters' decisions are bizarre, motivations are unexplained. The science is bogus. The horror elements are not horrifying. The whole thing lacks style, originality, humour or any kind of spark.
The movie fails to establish any meaningful personality for the crew members, so the only question becomes which one will die next. OK, there's one potentially interesting idea: have each character speak in their own national language (except the Brazilian guy: not sure why he doesn't get to?!) but the movie fails to take it anywhere.
Similar but much better films include: Europa Report, Event Horizon, Solaris (original and remake), Cargo, 2010.

It's fine sci-fi schlock. There's a likable cast, a few tense body horror moments, and an interesting idea with a disembodied arm. The mostly generic hodge podge of a script doesn't live up to the potential of the rest of the elements. However, the most glaring flaw is the B-plot, Earth scenes added thanks to test audiences, which doesn't have any bearing on the principal story that happens in space. Thanks, test audiences.

Putting Roy on a space station might sound like a bad idea, but making this movie was even worse. The Cloverfield Paradox is a rushed copy/paste job with not enough time to glue the events together. A bit of Alien here, a splash of The Philadelphia Experiment there and a handful of other classic sci-fi flicks sprinkled on top. Oh, that bit in Evil Dead was funny, lets have some of that too! Wrap it up with a title that attracts the horror people too and it is time to cash in the mockbuster it is.
Netflix. Don't go down this road. Let it end here.

So for the sequel, we swap an actual jungle for an urban one, and Arnie is replaced by Danny Glover. At least the baddie is the same - only this time, we immediately know what's going on and what to expect. Therein lies the problem: there is no suspense. A seriously B-list group of talent - Gary Busey ("Keyes") and Adam Baldwin ("Garber") amongst them, really help this descend quickly into a pit of mediocre special effects tinged with Glover's rather typical way of playing cop. It doesn't hang around, to be fair - there are plenty of combat scenes; and Sylvia Saunders ("Ruth") looks like she could be lethal with a broom, but by the end, I was fairly sure I was in the visitor's camp because this just isn't very good.

When I was younger I always hated _Predator 2_. Rewatching it as an adult, I don't think it was fair how bad I thought it was. It's not that _Predator 2_ is crap, it's just that it's **so much worse** than the original (one of the 5 best movies ever made), that it comes across as such a massive disappointment. With fresh, or I guess more accurately, with more experienced eyes, I don't mind _Predator 2_ at all, there's actually a lot of stuff I like about it. It's still not a great movie to me, but I don't skip it when I'm doing a marathon like I would have once upon a time. It expands upon the Predator lore in some pretty cool ways, and the Jamaican Voodoo Posse inspired my Escher Necromunda gang, so I've wound up pretty 50/50 on the whole thing.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

Very undervalued sequel suffering because of the first films success.
Los Angeles is imploding with mayhem as gang wars fill the streets, an under pressure police force try to restore order, but both parties have another foe to worry about, a Predator is in town, and he's about to up the ante.
Gone is Arnold Schwarzenegger, gone is John McTiernan, and gone is the jungle setting, so following in the foot steps of the ultimate beefcake movie that was Preadtor 1987 was an unenviable task it seems. Yet I personally feel that Predator 2 stands up to scrutiny as a fine entry into the sci-fi/action genre. Locating it among the urban decay of L.A. works real well, and pitting the Predator against a tough grizzled (but hardly giganticus beefcakeus) cop (Danny Glover) gives us a smart brains against brawn story. Also cutely is that director Stephen Hopkins and writers Jim & John Thomas have actually got the Predator cleaning up the streets of L.A., in fact another two hours of Predator hunt and kill tactics and crime in L.A. would have been completely eradicated! There is plenty of bloody snotty gore to appease fans of that persuasion, and it's nice to report that the characters on show do actually impact as part of the story.
Voodoo magic man!
It has a fine cast that reads like a who's who of action films, Danny Glover (Lethal Weapon), Bill Paxton (Aliens), Robert Davi (Die Hard), Gary Busey (Under Siege), Rubén Blades (Once Upon a Time in Mexico) & Maria Conchita Alonso (The Running Man), whilst Kevin Peter Hall dons the Predator suit and suitably kicks arse again. It's not genius, it's not even ground breaking, but Predator 2 is a fine and entertaining genre piece that sadly seems to forever be undervalued on internet forums.
Who's Next? 8/10

Opinion on this film seems to have been hijacked somewhat by the definition and appropriateness of the relationship between Alexander (Farrell) and Hephaestion (Leto). It seems daft to try to apply 21st century social morals onto a society in which same sex relationships were simply unremarkable. Whether or not it was about sex, or love, or both isn't really that important - I think Oliver Stone was trying to involve us in a much more complex story of human nature. It may also be more of an Anglo-Saxon thing - men on Continental Europe from Scandinavia to the Mediterranean (and their N. American descendants) have a completely different, relaxed, view towards tactility amongst men. What this discussion does do successfully, however, is distract us from a pretty lacklustre effort at an epic. The film has grandeur and style but really does lack substance. It has all the grit of a beauty pageant. The script is wordy and weak, and characterisations way too shallow given we have effectively a blank canvas from which to work and an almost unlimited timeframe in which to tell the story. Inevitably, it does draw comparisons with Richard Burton and Frederic March's version from 1956 but not favourably; the all star cast here just doesn't really gel in the same way and the CGI isn't anywhere near as convincing as the real photography of the earlier iteration. Overall, a very well resourced missed opportunity to tell the tale of one of history's most enigmatic characters.

_**Alexander’s conquests from Greece through Persia into northwestern India**_
After being tutored by Aristotle (Christopher Plumber), Alexander (Colin Farrell) takes over the Macedonian throne in 336 BC at the age of 20 after his father is assassinated (Val Kilmer). Over the next 13 years he, amazingly, conquers the Persian Empire and heads into India before finally turning back. Anthony Hopkins narrates as Ptolemy in his old age while Angelina Jolie plays Alexander’s snake-loving mother. Rosario Dawson plays his wife acquired in Bactria (in what is today part of Afghanistan).
Oliver Stone’s “Alexander” (2004) was a challenging undertaking and has many attributes despite not being as compelling as the contemporaneous “Troy.” It’s a colorful, entertaining epic with a great cast, awesome battle scenes, exotic locations/sets and a fine score by Vangelis. Naturally the storyline is not as one-dimensional as “Troy” seeing as how it involves a movable empire traveling across western Asia.
Historically-minded critics complain about the sequence where Alexander's fatigued soldiers request not to push further into India in favor of returning to Macedonia to see their families again. Alexander denies their request and does something that paints him as an unreasonable tyrant. In real life Alexander pondered their demands for a few days before agreeing to turn back and didn't execute anyone, which showed what a compassionate, merciful leader he was. However, this dubious sequence was simply Stone’s amalgamation of several mutinies during his conquests, which was placed at that particular point in the story for dramatic reasons. Besides, the movie certainly illustrates how Alexander brought the light of civilization to his foreign subjects and was accepting of their cultures, wanting to unify the many tribes under one banner, so to speak.
The scenes with Val Kilmer as Alexander’s father are entertaining while the ones with Angelina Jolie get boring after the first two or three. We get it: she loves snakes, hates her husband and thinks Zeus was Alexander’s father. Half of the sequences with Jolie could’ve been cut with no harm done, which would’ve helped momentum.
I didn’t have an issue with Alexander’s relationship with his childhood friend, Hephaistion (Jared Leto), since it’s clearly depicted as platonic in the sense of David and Jonathan in the Bible (see 2 Samuel 1:26). In the film the two are depicted as having a loving friendship wherein they occasionally hug and that’s it. I occasionally hug my best friend too, but I only sleep with my hot wife.
As far as Alexander being bisexual, there’s zero historical proof of this. Yes, the kiss between Alexander and Bagoas (Francisco Bosch) was mentioned by Plutarch who lived in the Roman Empire 200 years later but, assuming it happened, it doesn't mean much. Some cultures in history kissed on the mouth when greeting, like Russians; it’s a social tradition and has nothing to do with sexual desire. To put it in perspective, imagine a filmmaker saying Trump was gay 2327 years in the future even though he had numerous women, marriages and children in his life. It's slanderous and can be attributed to Stone's catering to Liberal propaganda as opposed to historical reality. In short, he played the homosexual card to be ‘hip’ and give his movie Lefty ‘edge,’ but it backfired because it bombed at the box office. Still, the scene in question is brief and all it suggests is that Alexander experimented with homosexuality once after partying which, let’s face it, is something Greeks are known for (although Alexander would argue that he’s technically Macedonian, lol).
If you can ignore that glaring flaw, there’s a lot to appreciate in “Alexander” since Stone is unquestionably a top-of-the-line filmmaker. And the flick certainly inspires viewers to look up the real history.
The film was shot at Pinewood Studios & Shepperton Studios, both just west of London, as well as Morocco and Thailand (it’s pretty easy to figure out which scenes were done where).
There are no less than four cuts of the film available: The theatrical cut runs 2 hr 55 min (175 min); the 2005 Director’s Cut runs 2 hr 47 min (167 min); the so-called Final Cut from 2007 runs 3 hr 34 min (214 min); and the 2013 Ultimate Cut runs 3 hr 27 min (207 min).
GRADE: B-

Alexander Revisited: The Final Cut.
Alexander is directed by Oliver Stone and Stone co-writes the screenplay with Christopher Kyle and Laeta Kalogridis. It stars Colin Farrell, Val Kilmer, Angelina Jolie, Jared Leto, Anthony Hopkins, Rosario Dawson, Jonathan Rhys Meyers and Christopher Plummer. Music is by Vangelis and cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto.
Alexander is an historical epic based on the life of Alexander the Great.
Off the bat I have to say that this "Final Cut" version of the film is the only one I have seen. Upon its initial home format release - the first theatrical version - I lasted an hour and 15 minutes before growing restless and sought enjoyment elsewhere. Consequently as a massive fan of historical epics through the years, it has been a constant nagging itch for me to see Alexander in its entirety. So with Oliver Stone tinkering away with versions - convinced he has made a worthwhile epic - I finally delved in.
The Final Cut, as far as I'm aware, is a vast improvement on that savagely received theatrical release, well that is said by those who tried again instead of calling quits at the first production. Straight away I could see the difference, where once was a plodding first hour, now sits a vibrancy, with Stone seemingly saying that he can do great action and drama, just please hang around during all the historical chatter, sexual connotation, family strife and conquering machinations, and I will enthral you as a whole.
By his own admission, Stone reveals he took on a most complex historical character and in his eyes has made a film to befit such complexity. We get a splintered narrative, as we kick off with the crux of Alexander the Great, the leader, while Alexander's childhood and family forming is interspersed at various junctures. The battles are high in intensity and blood letting - exhilarating at times - but more crucially they let us engage with the tactical "ahead of their time" manoeuvres of Alexander the Great. This version mostly flows alright, and I got to feel how Alexander's mind was working in the process, even if come pics closure I didn't fully know the man.
Epically cast of course, some of them work, others not so much. Farrell's looked odd, in the way that Pitt's was in Troy (released this same year as Alexander), but apart from the accent issue he grows into the role and is fiercely committed. Jolie is just wrong for the role of domineering Olympias, worse still the scenes she does with Farrell are damp and threaten to derail the drama already built up. This latter point is more annoying given a great thread involving Dawson as Alexander's wife Roxanne is built up superbly, only to not be pulled until some drama very late in the play. The rest of the cast come through as ok for period flavours (expected for Hopkins, Plummer and Meyers, interesting as regards Leto).
This is not the life ambition masterpiece Stone wanted to make, even if he proclaims on the extras that he's happy and content with The Final Cut version. This cut still shows some cracks, but these are not seismic enough to hurt the film. For there's a lot of grandeur, blood stirring and thought gone into the production, and there's a lot to be said for that in this day and age of soulless cash making filmic exercises. Honourable failure then? Yes for sure, but a better film in this form than some may have thought possible back in 2004. 7/10

My wife picked this one up together with the weekly TV magazine. Luckily we didn't pay full price. I hoped for a film about one of the greatest warlord of all time but what I got was something about a crying homosexual wimp.

I am not really a fan of Eddie Murphy, but with the help of Ralph Bellamy and Don Ameche doing their own version of a more manipulative pairing akin to "Stadler and Waldorf", he delivers well here in this rather punchy comedy. Our two elderly gents are wealthy and employ "Winthorpe" (Dan Akyroyd) to run their business empire for them. He does well for them, makes them a fortune and himself lives the life of a millionaire in a mansion where he is pampered by butler "Coleman" (Denholm Elliott). Meantime, street-wise "Valentine" (Murphy) is constantly on the make and during an altercation with "Winthorpe" during which he is arrested, the two old buzzards come up with a wheeze to see if the think-on-your-feet merchant could do a better job than their incumbent. A bit of sleight of hand now sees the epitome of a reversal of fortune as "Valentine" unwittingly assumes the job of managing their business whilst his ill-equipped predecessor finds himself driven to some increasingly slapstick desperation. It's only when "Valentine" overhears the conspiring old goats reveal their true purpose that he decides that it's time for some more permanent reversal of fortune - only this time, well it's all about oranges and pork bellies. Murphy is on good form here, but for me it's Akyroyd - and his unlikely ally "Ophelia" (Jamie Lee Curtis) who steal the show as the writing delivers quite a few laugh out moments as well as swiping at some fairly odious attitudes of snobbery, bigotry and racism. Though he doesn't feature so much, Elliott also fares well as the butler - very much in the vein of Sir John Gielgud, and as the story gathers pace it becomes an entertaining character study of worms that turn, and turn again all set to a classy mix of old and new from the soundtrack.