Is it offensive? Very much. Is it worth watching? Absolutely. Is it funny as hell? Hell yeah!
This classic OUTRAGEOUS comedy caper is the perfect holiday film to watch in between Christmas and New Year's Eve.

Seen this one numerous times over the years, not quite a laugh-out-loud riot or anything but still pretty funny throughout with great performances all around. Although their screen time together was mostly limited to the last 30-minutes, Dan Aykroyd and Eddie Murphy were great as were Denholm Elliott and Jamie Lee Curtis (hot as hell). Also appreciate Ralph Bellamy and Don Ameche as the pompous and terrible villains. **4.0/5**

The Prince and the Pauper with Eddie & Dan on sparkling form.
Mortimer & Randolph Duke are two repugnantly rich brothers, they make a bet that sees the role reversal of top toff yuppie, Louis Winthorpe, and wise cracking street hustler bum, Billy Ray Valentine. That's about the strength of the films plot, yet it makes for a very funny film that crackles with glee due to it's excellently written script. Watching the respective characters rise and fall respectively creates laughs aplenty whilst asking the question of how we all would cope in similar circumstances?
Sure the film does beat one over the head with its social message, we are in no doubt from the off about the gap between the rich and the poor, and yes the colour of a persons skin also rears its ugly head here to make this one of the more braver comedies of the 80s. Billy Ray Valentine (a brilliant dual performance from Eddie Murphy) is elevated up the social ladder, he becomes a force in industry, but as the progression enthrals him it also makes him aware that the things at the top end of the ladder aren't exactly stand up doings. Winthorpe (a perfectly casted Dan Ackroyd) drops further down the social ladder and resorts to behaviour that nobody from the upper echelons could ever have dreamed he would be capable of - it's only an encounter with prostitute Ophelia (Jamie Lee Curtis at the peak of her sexiness), and her good heart, that starts to see an upturn in his now dead bottom fortunes.
The gags come thick and fast, both verbally (Murphy on fire) and visually, as the film sees the whole cast fusing together to create a cracking comedy. Come the denouement on Wall Street we are privy to a joyous and savage turn of events that ice the clever Christmas cake we have just digested. It does have an 80s sheen about it, and viewing now in post 9/11 times it's got a tint of nostalgia value to it, but really it's all about the script, the stars and a kick in the eye for those who think nothing of treading on the people below them, enjoy. 8/10

Great movie. It's a pretty raunchy movie. It has a great storyline. Very sad as well.

The first one was way better. I didn't like part 2 that much. There were some funny parts. Part 1 was way funnier.

A bit rubbish, this.
There are some parts of 'Horton Hears a Who!' that I don't mind, though for the most part I found this 2008 flick to be very boring. Jim Carrey, who I am a fan of, is a let down in this role, the whole side of the story involving Carrey's Horton became so uninteresting to me.
The bits with (the also underwhelming, just less so) Steve Carell's Mayor hold the most intrigue, though the barrage of Horton (also you'd expect, in fairness) meant that I couldn't even get into that part of the story. The rest of the cast, despite some well known names, aren't good either.
I evidently do have an iffy history with Dr. Seuss film adaptations, with only 'The Cat in the Hat' - I know, I'm in the heavy minority with it but don't @ me 😂 - being a film that I truly enjoy. This one is a disappointment, unfortunately.

The opening scene from this film has been parodied umpteen times, and I think that just goes to show just how impactful Robert Wise's adaptation of the Rodgers and Hammerstein story has been on cinema. The idea that one could have seven children is, frankly, quite terrifying (I have none) so I can readily empathise with poor old Julie Andrews "Maria" as she is despatched from the safety of her nunnery to be the governess to this extended brood in the home of Captain von Trapp (Christopher Plummer). After an initially hostile reception from both father and youngsters alike, "Maria" soon ingratiates herself with all concerned - except, perhaps, for the Captain's beau Eleanor Parker who is wonderfully elegant and aloof as the "Baroness" - and romance gradually takes firm hold. The anschluss injects some seriousness into the fluffiness of the plot - the family must adjust to their new Nazi "protectors", but when the Captain is invited to take up a commission in the Navy they realise that they must act. Though a little cheesy at times, Andrews and Plummer are terrific, the songs are the stuff of musical legend, and I suspect one of the things that makes this more enduring is the fact that it is based on truth. The happiness tinged with the peril of the enveloping ruthlessness of the Nazis gives this an authenticity that would have been felt by many in Europe as Hitler was in the ascendancy and Wise manages to capture a little of that feeling. It's got some classy supporting performances from Peggy Wood (the Mother Abbess), a super Richard Haydn as the charming, if slightly opportunistic "Uncle Max" and even the ordinarily upstanding nuns get in on the act. There is definitely a chemistry between the two stars as their love story enfolds with the help of the children, a rather lavish puppet show - and a bit of Strauss! It looks great, too - musical cinema at it's best, this...

Heard great things, got great things.
I've said it before, but musicals aren't my favourite genre - I don't dislike them at all, but if I were to rank my favourite genres they would probably be down low. Therefore, I always feel uncertain before watching them, knowing they could go either way.
'The Sound of Music', though, is a delight. As alluded to, I have obviously heard countless positive things about this film down the years so I'm glad it didn't disappoint. Despite a potentially damaging 175 minute run time, it absolutely flew by - superb pacing. I will say the last 30-40 minutes do feel like a possibly unnecessary add-on, but it all still makes for entertaining viewing.
How about that soundtrack? So many songs that have seriously passed the test of time in terms of relevance, I had practically heard of them all before despite never setting eyes of the film until now. "My Favorite Things" is the standout in my opinion, but all the music is excellent.
Julie Andrews is terrific in the role of Maria, I will say early on I thought she might've been annoying given how excitable she is, but she quickly becomes great to watch throughout. Christopher Plummer is impressive, also. Those two are the clear stars of this, but all the other cast members do worthy jobs too.
It's, so I read, not completely true to the real life story of Maria von Trapp & Co. However, all I care about is whether it's an entertaining film - which this undoubtedly is. A must-watch!

One of cinema's most enduring family classics.
What can one say about a film that now, as it gears towards its next anniversary of a 50th birthday, is loved and adored by so many? It feels, to me at least, kind of redundant trying to even write a review of it now. So really I just want to say that as a mid-forties cinema loving man I revisited the film recently for the first time in about 15 years and found it still had a magical kind of hold over me. Yes I still think it's too long, but ask me what I would cut out of the film and I'm at a bit of a loss to answer.
Over the last thirty years or so it has become something of a focal point for parody, somewhat diminishing the actual film's first time appeal. Then there are the charges of it being hackneyed, but they are misplaced and very unfair for The Sound Of Music is an ode to life and music, nothing remotely hackneyed there me thinks. Bookended by stunning Salzburg scenery {seriously the opening helicopter sequence is breath taking}, the rest in between is a series of brilliant set pieces and some unforgettable Rodgers & Hammerstein tunes. Led by Julie Andrews & Christoher Plummer, the cast delight throughout. Yes, not everyone is note perfect, but it's a moot point really. As a guy it's at the one hour ten mark where I get something to hang my coat upon, from there on in the Von Trapp family, and their gorgeous governess, have me hook, line & sinker. The Sound Of Music, one of the greatest screen musicals ever. 9/10

Arguably works as an example of the sort of red flags one might want to look out for if they suspect that a film's director is (like Brett Ratner) a sex offender.
But as a movie? Nah, not so much.
_Final rating:★ - Of no value. Avoid at all costs._

Lee I got a big problem man this guys on steroids! His head is as big as Barry Bonds!
Ah look, as you have most likely heard by now, this is not as good as the first two films and it's just a little bit tired in formula. However, it's still a bunch of fun if you already buy into the fastest mouth/fastest hands pairing of Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan. The plot is incidental, thus simple, and the emphasis here is more on fun than electrifying action. Though the finale here is edge of the seat exciting and laugh inducing in equal measure. There's some truly good one liners thrown out and the chemistry between the two actors is still very much evident.
Undemanding it is for sure, even disposable if it was to be judged as a single action/comedy entry, but it closes the trilogy down safe enough and the smile should rarely leave your face upon viewing. 6.5/10

_**Leaving the fast lane of greed for friendship, love and… loyalty**_
A quick-talking big-time sports agent (Tom Cruise) has an epiphany and swiftly loses his job with a big sports management corporation, but retains one loyal colleague (Renee Zellweger) and one outrageous NFL client (Cuba Gooding Jr). Can they rise from the ashes? Kelly Preston, Bonnie Hunt and Regina King are also on hand.
Jerry Maguire” (1996) is equal parts spirited drama, romantic comedy and sports flick. It effectively illustrates how the fast-paced cutthroat world isn’t interested in inspiring, well-meaning truth, but that doesn’t negate the value of honest friendship, genuine love and, most of all, loyalty.
It’s all-around ‘hip’ and entertaining, slowing down for the mid-section. But the last act drives everything home and is moving. It pretty much represents the best of the sometimes dubious genre (romcom).
The film runs 2 hours, 19 minutes, and was shot in the Los Angeles area as well as the Phoenix/Tempe region of Arizona, including Lost Dutchman State Park just east of there.
GRADE: A-

On the face of it, this is just another sublimely drawn Ghibli effort about a cursed creature - this time a pig - that flies a seaplane around the islands of 1930s Italy chasing air-pirates. Once you get in to it, though, it develops into a really cleverly woven story that offers us layers of characterisation from even this simplest of it's characters. The "pig" is sagely, cunning and adept as a pilot, frequently coming to the rescue of those kidnapped... He has a rival - the handsome American "Donald Curtis" who is out to steal not just his crown, but his gal! What ensues is an adventure film with loads of action; an healthy and lively dose of what might loosely be described as romance; plenty of pithily written dialogue and some beautiful animation. The story can be straightforward, but there is plenty of depth to the plot if you feel like looking for it. We are never explicitly told why he has been cursed, nor does the ending necessarily offer us complete satisfaction either - though it does come at then end of quite a fun duel between the two fliers. A lot of what we get from this film will depend on what we notice - there are plenty of subtleties to be had that are probably more obvious and/or meaningful on the second or even the third time of watching. "Howl's Moving Castle" (much later from 2004) is still my favourite from this studio, but this is a close run second and really well worth a watch - on a big screen if you can, this brings out the vivacity and vitality of this superior animated feature.

good film one for the family deffo thumbs up👍👍👍!!!

When “Jeffrey” (Kyle MacLachlan) finds a severed ear as he walks through a field, he takes it to the police who advise him to keep schtum! Maybe if he had, he wouldn’t have become embroiled in the nefarious activities of the violent “Frank” (Dennis Hopper) nor his girlfriend “Dorothy” (Isabella Rossellini) with whom he soon becomes infatuated. Together with the cop’s daughter “Sandy” (Laura Dern) they pair try to get to the bottom of the mystery but this is a perilous affair, exposing them to a dark and dangerous societal underbelly, but for him it’s also quite an addictive one too! It’s the oxygen-mask wearing Hopper who steals this for me, mixing a toxic blend of angry, maniacal and erotic engagingly, but I’m afraid the rest of this rather fell a bit flat for me as the story ran out of steam and the sexual tensions became all too repetitively staged and the overacting from Rossellini failed to convince. It addresses issues of sadomasochistic tendencies entertainingly at first, too, but there’s only so many times you can peep through the louvre doors of a wardrobe before even that cinematic prurience becomes dull. Dern has never been my favourite actor, and she adds little here until perhaps at the end when the denouement brings things to an head. Like most Lynch films, I felt I was on the sidelines - I’m not a fan of surrealism or excess for the sake of it, and that’s what I found here. I know I’m in a minority but even with a fine soundtrack, this just didn’t do it for me, sorry.

No. I told you. I don't want to hurt you. I want to help you. I think I know some of what is happening to you.
Blue Velvet is written and directed by David Lynch. It stars Dennis Hopper, Isabella Rossellini, Kyle MacLachlan, Laura Dern, Hope Lange, George Dickerson and Dean Stockwell. Music is by Angelo Badalamenti and cinematography by Frederick Elmes.
The discovery of a severed human ear found in a field leads Jeffrey Beaumont (MacLachlan) into a vortex of troubled mysteries involving a beautiful nightclub singer and a group of crimninals led by the psychopathic Frank Booth (Hopper).
Such is the diversity of David Lynch, you will find many anouncing this to be his last accessible piece of genius, others that it was merely the start of his shift into mainstream majesty. Personally, I just find it a fine movie, easy to follow, even if it's nightmarish at times and brilliantly off kilter at others.
From the off we are in no doubt that Lynch is setting out to show what crawls beneath the happy facade of suburban small town Americana. We are pitched into a detective story with a difference, one that is fronted by the naivety of a young man aided from the sidelines by the young girl who is falling for him. Both of them stumble into a world of adult pschosexual murk, flanked by the outrageous malignant menace of Booth and his merry band of odd balls. One of the joys to be had here is observing the things and reactions that Booth's group do in the background, splendidly weird. Superbly perfomed by the cast, most of them daring and real for their director, Blue Velvet did earn Lynch a Best Director Oscar nomination. Which considering it was 1986 and the controversial themes at work are troublingly biting, makes the nomination something of a surprise.
Frederick Elmes also photographed the equally controversial "River's Edge" this same year, and once again he considerably pumps Neo-Noir textures acrosss the pic. While Angelo Badalamenti's musical compositions are lush and pin sharp for scene accompaniments. Main music tracks are Bobby Vinton's title tune and Roy Orbison's "In Dreams," both certain to never let you forget this film whenever you hear them again. Lynch's film is plot conventionality, yet disturbing in the blending of beauty and violence, both visually and orally - and of course there's some sly humour to be found as well. To me it's not the masterpiece some claim it as, for there's more style than substance, more shock and awe as opposed to character depth, but it is a great, clever and unforgettable film. 8/10

_Johnny English Reborn_ takes what we got from the first film and then firmly places an even better cast into an even worse movie.
_Final rating: ★½: - Boring/disappointing. Avoid if possible._

Some unaccuracys: He goes to Honk Kong and ends up in Macau.. Mozambique President making a speech in english for is people?!

I know, I know, this movie is rather superficial and simple. More effort has been spent on cool action than on depth of the story. Well, you know what? I do not care! I quite liked this movie. Agent 47 is cool and kicks ass. The bad guys gets plenty of ass whooping. The action is good. There is quite a lot of high tech and gadgets. What is there not to like?
The movie starts of with a quite cool sequence introducing Agent 47. I have to say that I got into quite a bit of “wow” mode right a way there. The movie continues with plenty of action sequences with just a wee bit of slowdown in between. Actually the first-half, at least, of the movie is pretty much one long chase.
Perhaps I should point out that I have not played Hitman and do not really know what the original story is about. From a lot of the comments I have read it appears That this might be to my advantage when it comes to enjoying the movie.
Some people are probably complaining about bad acting since Agent 47 do not really show much in terms of facial expressions or emotions. Well, news for you, he is not supposed to! He is supposed to be a cold emotionless killing machine so stop whining. Personally I found Agent 47 to be an excellent character. the re is on scene in particular that I liked where Agent 47 intentionally allows himself to be caught in a embassy. Once inside he, to no one in the audience surprise starts to tear the place apart. You have to see it to know what I mean.
The second part, or perhaps just the last third, of the movie turns into more of a search and destroy for Agent 47 and his new “partner”. this part is of course as action filled as the first part of the movie. Naturally it all leads to a big show down between the Agent 47 & Co. The end itself did not really deliver any surprises but was satisfying.
The one thing in the movie that annoyed me was this subdermal armor stuff. The idea was not a too bad one but they really overplayed it. Come on! Just shoot him in the head or an eye or some other “sensitive” part for Christ sake. Bulletproof my arse!
I honestly do not understand the low rating this movie has received. 5.7 at IMDb is really a bit harsh. Rotten Tomatoes rating is, not very surprisingly, abysmal. Rotten Tomatoes and their “critics” ratings must be the worst of any ratings site. When these dickwads rate down a movie, that’s when I start to get interested. First step is to drill down into the real audience ratings which more often that not gives a different picture.
Any way I digress. Bottom line is that, for me, this is a simple, straightforward, high octane action movie and I quite enjoyed it.

**A film that was enough for more than one review: dream, nightmare, utopia and reality.**
It was in 1939 that composer and singer-songwriter Ary Barroso released the iconic song “Aquarela do Brasil”. This samba became an icon of Brazilian music and was sung and disseminated by such noble voices as Francisco Alves, João Gilberto, Tom Jobim, Caetano Veloso, Tim Maia, Gal Costa, Erasmo Carlos, Elis Regina and, in English versions, Frank Sinatra and the Portuguese Carmem Miranda. Ary Barroso, however, never imagined that the mere sight of an elderly man, sitting on a beach on a rainy day while listening to his song, would end up inspiring Terry Gilliam to make a film. But, before these words can mislead anyone, and especially any Brazilian, it is necessary to clarify that the film has nothing to do with Brazil.
The film takes place in an unnamed country that lives under a dictatorship (okay, Brazil was a dictatorship when the film was released, but the similarity ends there). The government, obsessed with controlling information, has created a monstrous and highly ineffective bureaucratic system that makes fatal mistakes. It is because of one of these mistakes that a citizen is arrested and killed as a revolutionary, mistaken for the real fugitive. And so we meet Sam Lowry, a government official with a conventional life who is plagued by dreams where he flies like a bird and saves a damsel in distress. His life changes precisely when he meets a woman like the one in the dream and finds that she, too, is in danger of being arrested for another mistake.
I haven't seen both movies, but I believe the critics who said there were similarities between this movie and "1984". I myself could see the similarities with “Metropolis”, either in the narrative or in the bizarre and exaggerated visual aspects. As in those films, we have a dystopian, totalitarian society, where the individual is stripped of his humanity and becomes a cog in a larger gear, serving the State. Of course, the film weaves a long and judicious critique around this, and the bureaucracy that the country sustains, and which is of little practical use. It also offers us some sharp criticisms of the futile needs and vanity of today's society. The big problem is that all this seems to have no meaning. In fact, the main plot ignores these issues: Sam, the main character, is not a revolutionary nor does he seem to have political ideas. In fact, if you look closely, he seems to act almost on instinct, living his life as if it were a dream. The main plot is underutilized and poorly harmonizes with the rest of the film, as if it conflicts with the visuals and the other points of the script.
Gilliam made an original film. Where he failed was in the harmonic conjunction of the pieces in his work. And of course, in the relationship with the studios, which almost forced him to accept a radical cut in the film, considered excessively long and expensive. In fairness, I can understand both sides: the studios were trying to monetize an investment and rationalize expenses; for his part, Gilliam did not want his creative work done in pieces, although it is clear where the money was spent: just look at the incredible visuals, the dreamlike way in which he expresses himself as a director. Jonathan Pryce is the featured actor playing Sam. He gives us a work of great quality and is very well assisted by Katherine Helmond, in a very interesting sarcastic role, and Kim Greist, his romantic partner. The film also features the participation of great actors of the time, namely Bob Hoskins, Jim Broadbent, Barbara Hiks, Ian Holm, Michael Palin and Robert De Niro. This perhaps shows the prestige and consideration that the artistic world already had for Gilliam: the actors, more than having a good salary, wanted to work with him.
All of this is very nice, but why is the film called Brazil, and why did I mention it in a song? I was also thinking about this for some time, it really is something that does not seem understandable at first glance. I saw the film and nothing seemed to give me the answer to the choice of title, except the insistence on the song, which is the skeleton on top of which the film's soundtrack was assembled. But perhaps Gilliam was trying to show us, through this song, the dreamlike utopia of Sam's dream compared to the fantasies of others and the dystopian reality of his life.

One of my all time favourite sci fi movies. Set the bench mark for modern sci fi, should be considered a great like Blade Runner.
Great acting, story, soundtrack! 5/5

Okay, what to say? It's not the worst I've seen, and I think it could have been better. The Resident Evil chick is a consistantly above average action star. I put her up there as a female Bruce Willis or Jason Statham. And she delivered in this movie the same pazazz as her other action flicks.
The Story, like the budget, was not that deep. And if there was significant money put into this movie, then I don't think it measured up to expectations; producer nor fan. Again, the movie was not terrible, but I didn't exactly move to the edge of my seat either.
The fight between her and her soon to be friend, was a bit...contrived. To me, it was his world, she wasn't an elite soldier, and he was an experienced hunter, so while their fight was well coordinated, I had an especially difficult time believing she could keep up with the hunter in a fight; had to mark it up as movie-magic or "it's in the script."
Special effects were good for what they were and the actors did a good job of acting. I don't think the star spent enough time interacting with the Monster Hunter world. I get they were out in the middle of nowhere, but having her go through a city or market to find a 'macguffin' to help with getting her home, might have added a bit more submersion for the audience. But just putting her in a set of Monster Hunter armor and spending 5 minutes on their sand-ship felt like what it was, cheap or 'shot-on-a-budget.'
The ending was okay too. I like how the dragon took out the modern aircraft, and was impressed how they were able to shoot everything in the daytime and still make it look feasible to the action. If there is a sequel, then I hope they get a bit more Conan-ny with the overall feel; i.e., more Monster Hunter world & residents. (no pun intended)
The movie is not terrible, but I won't be rushing out to get a copy, nor looking for it online. It's entertaining for a Netchix n' Chill night.

Good watch, could watch again, and can recommend.
I'm not a real fan of the video game, so I think I can safely say that you don't need to know anything from the game other than it has "big monsters".
The only thing I really see from the video game world is that the characters sort of "level up" as the movie progresses. I guess it sort of does world building in the same way by having "levels" or areas, but that's much more subtle.
The movie uses isolation in several different ways and has some clever uses of limited resources to solve problems, but it is quite a bit of just fighting big monsters.
I can't say that you'll enjoy this if you're into Kaiju movies, even though it has quite a bit of creature feature aspects to it.
Worth the watch, but not exactly the most substantial story.

It appears that this movie is either quite hated or quite liked. I guess it is not that surprising though given that it is based on a video game with a very strong following so if the movie is deviating from canon, and I understand that it does, it will not matter how good or bad a movie is.
Well, I have never played the game so I am not burdened with Monster Hunter canon so I have to say that I very much liked this movie. It does not really hurt that I quite like Milla Jovovich as well of course. Ron Perlman is also a favourite of mine and I really wish that he would have been in more of the movie. As it was he was only present briefly at the beginning and then a little bit at the end.
Anyway, this is a fantasy, action movie of my liking. Clash of cultures, huge monsters and lots and lots of shooting, slicing, kicking and stabbing action. The story is rather simple but not really bad at all. The ships navigating the sand was a bit weird and those huge weapons they were dragging around a bit silly but then those are part of the canon.
At first I got a bit annoyed by Artemis and Hunter starting to fight each other and thought, oh no, not another one of those silly, illogical stories again, but that sorted itself out rather quickly. And the bait jokes were rather funny actually.
The CGI and the monsters were great, as far as I am concerned. When I first saw the diablos I thought that they had kind of copied the sandworms from Dune but when they, or it rather since we only got to see one actually emerge, it was quite different.
The part where Artemis is thrown back to Earth and followed by the big fire breathing beastie is probably not liked at all by the fans of the video games since it is probably not very canon but I definitely liked it. I whish they would have done a bit more surprise, what the f… and mayhem scenes there actually.
The ending didn’t really leave that much of a conclusion but, unlike what some people seems to feel, I didn’t think it was a bad ending. It certainly prepared the field for a sequel and I for one really hope one will come.

Now you might assume that I'm probably not the kind of person predisposed to like this film. Daniel doesn't have fun. He writes pages waxing lyrical on a film like 'Roma' that starts with a five-minute sequence of someone cleaning up dog poo, or 'A Hidden Life' that's 60% glorious shots of landscapes. But hey! I can have fun! I loved 'The Meg'! I lost my mind in the first Transformers film! When The Rock rode up a tsunami, avoiding an oil tanker that then took out the Golden Gate Bridge in 'San Andreas', I was on my feet in the cinema cheering! This film though? This isn't fun. It's too loud, too hard to follow, too bonkers to be appealing, and not anywhere near bonkers enough to be charming or good for a laugh. It's a film that basically yells at you for an hour and a half in the most aggressive, hyper-masculine way, and leaves you feeling like you've been stuck in a corner at a party for three hours having some guy tell you all about the screenplay he's going to write that will finally, finally be a good video game adaptation and never taking the hint you want a drink or a pee or a change in conversation or to run screaming from the room. I went into Paul W. S. Anderson's latest film (the guy who made 'Mortal Combat' and 'Death Race', not 'Boogie Nights' and 'Punch-Drunk Love') totally prepared to have a blast, but it gave me no time, space or inclination to do so. And then this stupid film that doesn't know whether it wants to be a bad 'Godzilla' or a shitty reimagining of 'The Dark Tower' has the audacity to set itself up for a sequel! (But hey, we're in the End Times, so it only makes sense that we would get a sequel to this trash instead of another season of 'Mindhunter'). I'm sure some people are going to get a kick out of this saga about Artemis (Hunter, of Monsters, titular) fighting big asshole spiders and being the saviour white woman to a far more impressive person of colour and crying over some ring (it was for “forever“, remember). For me? The whole thing is too loud and aggressive and dull to be the best kind of dumb fun.
- Daniel Lammin
Read Daniel's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-monster-hunter-a-meandering-mundane-monstrosity

**Caught in the rebirth-loop!**
I might a bit overrated it, but it's well deserved that. It has been a long time since I wetted my eyes for a film. Especially for being a tearjerker fan in the early days. This looks like a sequel to 'Fluke', though it justified to be an independent film. Based on the book of the same name, directed by the one who made 'Hachi: A Dog's Tale'. A perfect family film, but entirely a fictional account.
Do you remember those films about a human being trapped in the time- loop, not knowing why and takes a quest to find the purpose? Yep, this is same, but with a dog and not a time-loop, instead, the rebirths. The tale was told from a dog's perspective, his life from puppy to growing old with his owners. The lives he enjoyed, struggled, loved, and not understanding why the life circle keeps repeating. After all the things film wanted to tell us, the story ends with an explanation. Just a simple one.
The dog's the hero, he's found in every frame. The rest of the characters were well designed. Especially the sub-stories to blend with the dog's. All the dogs who acted in the film were awesome. This is one of the best dog films. As I said, it is not great, but surely enjoyable by everyone. Especially in the today's CGI dominated and/or superhero flicks, this is something close to our heart, despite a fantasy tale. So, go it!
_8.5/10_

Utterly brilliant!
I haven't watched 'Mary Poppins' itself in many, many years but still have memories of it as a kid. That meant I had the desired knowledge of the key parts about that film, which I'd say is probably wise to watch before this - though not a requirement, at least in my opinion.
Ironically, Travers' complaints about the animation segments to the 1964 film are justified on my end - I've been on a Disney marathon since May, but to "shorten" the watch load I decided to only watch the studio's productions that are straight up animation or straight up live-action, so MP missed the cut given it's a combo. If she had her way, I'd have watched it again relatively recently. Damn you, Mr. Disney!
Anyway, 'Saving Mr. Banks' is an outstanding film! One that's filled with so much heart and some rich storytelling - loved the back and forth between Travers' early and later years. They entwin the two films together very well, while the Disney stuff - while in your face - adds humour as well as meaning.
Then you have Emma Thompson and Tom Hanks. Two actors I adore already. Hanks plays Walt Disney very good, he's top notch in this. However, it is Thompson that steals the show. She's superb as Travers, who isn't the most likeable character but Thompson ensures you stay invested in her. She's great in 'Treasure Planet' and 'Nanny McPhee', but this is the best I've seen from her so far.
Elsewhere, shoutouts to Colin Farrell, Ruth Wilson and Paul Giamatti for what they bring - especially Farrell. Jason Schwartzman and B. J. Novak are good as the Sherman Brothers, also.
A charming and very nicely made film. Can't recommend it more.

Nicely done movie with great performances from Thompson and Hanks. Also Farrell, which a role made perfectly for him.
The story is well threaded, letting us walk through Travers childhood and the birth of the main characters in Mary Poppins' books.

In my opinion this is the only good one out of the entire series. I was cracking up throughout the whole movie. The other 2 sucked compared to this one.

**Despite Mike Myers' efforts, the film is nothing new, has a stupid, poorly written story, and isn't funny.**
After a great success with the first film, the sequel became quite easy to predict. It was obvious that they were going to try to make a second movie that continued the story, and tried to raise some more money from the box office. I'm not a fan of this kind of humor, too scatological and sexual, but I think this movie was frankly worse than its immediate predecessor.
The biggest problem with this film is not even the dirty, stupid jokes and zero sense of humor, but a poorly written script, without original ideas and quite tiring. The film's story is very simple to summarize: Austin Powers, single and free again, finally realizes that Dr. Evil, years before, used a time machine to steal his manhood while he was frozen. For a man as perverted and quinky as Powers, being without what he calls a “mojo” is simply catastrophic. So he has to use another time machine, go back to the 60s and try to stop Dr. Evil in order to regain his masculinity. Sound really stupid? Maybe because it is! And I prefer not to mention the ending, where we have two versions of the main agent, and we came to the conclusion that it was never really necessary to recover his virility. In addition to being stupid, the movie is also pointless.
Myers continues to assure the main characters of the film, that is, the protagonist, the great villain and a deformed criminal who is nothing more than a bunch of Scottish lard (do Scots feel offended by such a caricature?). He is a good actor, I have no doubt that he is committed to his work. However, the rest of the cast is uninteresting, tiresome and doesn't seem to have any ideas or even try to add anything else to the production that can increase its quality. Heather Graham is beautiful, but not very good as an actress, and the film saved her from spending the rest of her career making adult films. Seth Green also tries to do something witty and interesting, but he's short on time and quality material. Finally, a note of praise for Verne Troyer and Mindy Sterling.
Technically, the film is quite weak. It plays a lot with the colorful and flashy look of the 60's, and that's the most beautiful and elegant aspect of the whole movie. I liked the costumes, the sets and the characterization, in particular Myers, chameleonic and skilled in the various characters he plays (in fact, the film was nominated for an Oscar in the Characterization category). The cinematography also seeks to take advantage of and emphasize the visual beauty that exists here, while the editing sought to give the film a rhythm that was not tiring. I can't say that the efforts were in vain, the film would be unbearable if it were slower.