'Twister' makes for fun viewing.
There's a good chance that this was one of the (if not the) first films that I ever watched, it was released a mere few months after my birth and I have a faint memory of watching it on video as a young kid, I remember my mum had taped it and it was recorded back-to-back with a random music concert that was also on TV at the time - I can still picture myself seeing it switch from the film to the music.
With that said, if I did indeed watch it at that time and it wasn't just a memory of actually checking out the concert itself or perhaps someone else doing either/or, I don't recall anything about this movie - not one jot. I did know the general gist of the film though (hard not to, rather self-explanatory!) and that Bill Paxton was in it.
The movie itself is entertaining, if naturally not perfect. The special effects have aged, for 1996, rather well, there's a couple of goofy looking moments but again, for its time it's more than adequate. The score is pleasant too. I didn't overly like the lover's quarrel, in fact it kinda annoyed me in parts; Melissa is written weakly, there's kinda no need for Jami Gertz's character to even exist given what (predictably) happens.
Helen Hunt puts in a strong showing, probably the standout of the near two hours. Paxton, of course, runs her close in that regard too. Lois Smith and Philip Seymour Hoffman are the ones who stick out most away from Hunt and Paxton. Cary Elwes features too, albeit quite forgettably.
Eager to see what they do for this year's standalone sequel with Glen Powell & Co. Based on snippets of the trailer I've seen, I reckon it'll be just as good - if not slightly better - as this original. Time will tell.

**_Bill Paxton and Helen Hunt chasing tornadoes on the prairie_**
When atmospheric conditions are conducive to tornadoes, a weatherman (Paxton) tracks down his separated wife (Hunt) and inadvertently joins their storm-chasing team in the Midwest because he can’t resist seeing his sensor invention finally put to use. Jami Gertz plays his new love, Cary Elwes a pompous rival and Philip Seymour Hoffman a wild team member.
“Twister” (1996) could be categorized as a disaster flick, but with the distinction that the protagonists are constantly chasing the potential disaster. The entire film takes place in the prairies or forests of the Midwest with ominous skies and intermittent destructive tornadoes. It’s called “Twister” and that’s what you get.
The writers keep things interesting by adding human interest with the, admittedly contrived, love triangle and the rival storm-chasing team that has corporate sponsors (the horror, the horror). I didn’t mind the love story. When two people belong together, they belong together. Perhaps the fiancé will realize this. Speaking of which, I’m glad they didn’t make her (Gertz) out to be an unreasonable biyatch, like in “The Parent Trap.”
At the end of the day, “Twister” gives you what you pay for. It’s not rocket science, but it’s entertaining and full of tornado-oriented thrills, which explains why it was a huge hit at the box office.
The movie runs 1 hour, 53 minutes, and was shot in Oklahoma (Guthrie and Ponca City), Iowa (Boone and Ames) and Bolton, Ontario.
GRADE: B

The animated '89 version of _The BFG_ was a staple of my youth, so naturally I was excited for a Steven Spielberg redo. Unfortunately, I don't think the tale lends itself well to the live action format. That, or the hands making this piece were unable to concentrate the narrative to where it went. In either case, the end product is a film with many tiny endearing moments of nostalgia that at no point come together to create a laudable whole.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

**Little Sophie's giant adventure.**
I did not dislike it, but I thought it was not creative enough. I had seen the British animation and this one retained the same story. Of course, which was originally from the book, but nothing new other than a decent computer graphics. I liked the performance of the little girl who had played the Sophie. She was the only live character until the final stage where more joins her. So she was wonderful along with Mark Rylance's CGI role.
Straight to the point, the adventure begins right away. Sophie, the ten year old orphan girl was snatched by a giant named BFG after she witnessed him wandering on the street through her dorm room window on one midnight. Fearing she might expose the giant's existence, so he had to take her with him to his country. Then there they become very close, but a new threat arises when the other giants suspect of a human's existence in their enclosure. So fighting them, followed by a permanent solution to menace caused by them is what narrated in the rest.
It was like Peter Jackson's 'The Lovely Bones' for Steven Spielberg, I mean the films that did not work for them. I anticipated a major surge in this by the family film specialist Spielber. Because I usually love his film, tell me who won't. From children to adults, his films targets all ages. But if you had seen the old version, then you will lose half the interest. That's definitely won't be the same for the kids, they will love it. There's no harm for watching it once, so go for it.
_6/10_

"The only element of the entire production that inspires any kind of wonder is just how far from a satisfying adaptation the film proves to be..."
Read the full review here: http://screen-space.squarespace.com/reviews/2016/5/15/the-bfg.html

**_European adventure/spy thriller about a real, um, super girl_**
In the wintery wilderness of northern Finland, an ex-CIA father (Eric Bana) has been training his teen daughter, the titular character (Saoirse Ronan), to survive in a harsh world of cutthroat government agents. When the girl's ready, she's introduced to the real world where she's ruthlessly hunted down from North Africa to Germany by a mysterious intelligence operative, Marissa (Cate Blanchett), and her heavies.
What I like best about "Hanna" (2011) is its uniqueness, stylishness and picturesque globetrotting. This is top-of-the-line filmmaking with a hip, kinetic, quirky tone and superlative score, comparable to "Lucy" (2014) and Tarantino thrillers like "Kill Bill" (2003/2004). It's not a great film because there's not enough depth or mindfood, but it contains a few elements of greatness and is overall entertaining enough.
We learn Marissa is preoccupied with Hanna for unknown reasons; so, while she's an expert agent, this obsession is her kryptonite. Subtext-wise, the movie's an obvious metaphor for a child reaching adulthood and the agonies of being a loving parent (preparing them for the world, teaching them necessary skills to survive, giving them increasing freedom, being candid about the callousness of life). It's also somewhat of a fairytale about the relationship between a father and daughter. Later in the film Marissa asks Erik, "Why now?" and he simply replies, "Kids grow up."
I liked the dichotomy of the so-called normal banality of the civilians compared to the single-minded cold-bloodedness of the agents. If you object to the sometimes unwieldy fight scenes, go parent a child, wait eighteen years, then view it again and see if you feel the same. The film's often thrilling, but don't approach this as a straight action flick or you'll probably be disappointed.
There are low-key things that are clumsily explored, like the RV family perking Hanna's curiosity about life (remember she grew up isolated in the northern wilds), but this was an obvious mechanism to make us feel bad that she was on this life-or-death mission, and different than these "normal" kids, yet at the same time special and more exciting, which is how the daughter & kid brother viewed Hanna. The individual used as a tool is hardly innovative, but I nonetheless appreciated this take on it.
The film runs 1 hour, 51 minutes and was shot in Finland, Morocco and (mostly) Germany.
GRADE: B+

SAIRSE RONAN IS THE ONLY PERSON TO PLAY THIS COMPLEX LONELY YET POWERFUL CHARACTER. ONE OF THE MOST INTERESTING FEMALE ASSASINS EVER TO BE PUT INTO FILM. SO YOUNG, SO SCARY. HERIOC

Hanna-Barbera More Like.
Hanna is directed by Joe Wright and written by David Farr and Seth Lochhead. It stars Saoirse Ronan, Eric Banna, Tom Hollander, Olivia Williams, Jason Flemyng and Cate Blanchett. Music is by The Chemical Brothers and cinematography by Alwin H. Kuchler.
Hanna Heller (Ronan) is a 16 year old highly trained assassin on the run from the CIA...
Heralded by some British critics as original and thrilling, Joe Wright's Hanna is neither. It's a gimmick movie dressed up as cool for the kids fodder that is both boring and cheesy. Taking the gimmick aside, that of a 16 year old crack assassin girl slotting all who come in her way, it starts off promisingly enough as we meet Hanna and her father Erik (Banna) out in the wilderness. There's training, a believable bond (both Ronan and Banna don't disgrace themselves) and the wintry landscape bites hard as we wonder what is in store.
Then the film shifts to Hanna being on the run, where the back story guff is just, well, guff, and the pace crawls to a standstill. Blanchett's (badly miscast) CIA operative is in pursuit, with that back story guff tattooed on her forehead, and it tries to gain momentum for the inevitable showdown between the big bad bitch and the little china doll killer. The Chemical Brothers drip their brand of techno beats over it, which is OK if you like that sort of thing. How cool?!
In the middle passages Hanna rides along with a Hippy family, with Flemyng also badly miscast, and there's some cack-handed attempt at humanising poor Hanna as she comes alive in the big old world. It's derivative in premise, boring in execution and designed to make teenagers think they are watching a masterpiece for their generation.
The amusement park finale is well staged, location photography is pleasing enough in that hip-euro way, and Banna and Ronan work hard to keep it from total damnation. But for much of the near two hour run time it's a butt numbing bore that has ideas far above its station. Joe Wright should stick to making Keira Knightley look good. 4/10

This is a very cool movie. I wasn't totally sold on the premise based solely on the overview but there is a lot more to Hanna than just your run-of-the-mill assassin story. I didn't necessarily pick up on the "fairy tale like elements" while watching it but in hindsight, they were definitely there.
Saoirse Ronan is really, really good.
I also really enjoyed the soundtrack. The Chemical Brothers style fit perfectly with the pace and theme of the movie and got me bumpin' on more than a single occasion.
Overall, I give this movie an 8/10. I'm super interested to see what Seth Lochhead does next.

You might not want to watch this film if you've ever dated anyone called Pasternak! It seems in the best traditions of Agatha Christie, this persecuted, unloved and jilted character has managed to assemble just about everyone in his life who has irked him onto an aircraft and guess who's flying the plane? That's the first of six segments that illustrate human nature, usually at it's comically worst, over the next two hours. A roadside diner sees a plot amongst the staff to rid themselves of a nasty loan shark. Then my tip for the best of these sees a ridiculous contretemps on a remote road between a man with a puncture and a local he insulted earlier on his journey. The next takes a pop at red tape as a demolition expert gets a parking ticket whilst laying tons of charges to safely demolish a building. He is either going to get the ticket annulled or he's going to do some annulling of his own. The weakest vignette, I found, involved the son of a wealthy man whose parents are trying to get him off a charge of murder. Corruption and extortion are rife and everyone wants their cut to ensure the lad doesn't swing! Finally, a groom rather stupidly admits to an infidelity as he dances with his new bride on their wedding night. Chaos ensues, tempers fly, the chef gets a dish he wasn't bargaining for... What each of these illustrate quite nicely are flaws in human nature. It could have been renamed the "seven deadly sins" as we address greed, anger, lust - you name it. It's well written to, at times, be quite funny, whilst at others equally cringe-making - making you shift a bit in your chair. My personal favourite character was the cook in the second episode (Rita Cortese)!

"Charlie" (Chris O'Donnell) is a hard-up student at the posh Baird prep. school where his bursary-funded status sees him looked down upon by many of his fellow, silver-spooned, colleagues. Their rather pompous principal "Trask" (James Rebhorn) is the victim of a rather messy and humiliating prank, and convinced that "Charlie" and his rather spineless pal "George" (Philip Seymour Hoffman) know whodunit, he decides to convene a meeting of the entire school to force confessions from the boys. Meantime, and always hard up for cash, "Charlie" is offered a job babysitting a blind man. Boy, is he in for a shock! His introduction to "Lt. Col. Slade" (Al Pacino) certainly opens his eyes. This man is a bully, not really any other word for it. He lost his sight fighting for his country, and initially appears as little better than an intolerant and foul-mouthed thug with quite a superiority complex and a penchant for bourbon. "Slade" and his new helper are destined for a luxury trip to New York for Thanksgiving. First class flights, a suite in the Waldorf and a $28 burger turn the young man's head but no so much as the confession his employer makes as to the purpose of the trip. What now ensues does follow a rather predictable path, but it's really the two characterisations that shine here. Pacino has, arguably, the easier part to play. His being the stronger, more forceful role as the epitome of the obnoxious. It's O'Connell who has to tread on the eggshells as he must reconcile his need for the cash, his dread of what awaits him back at school and a growing interest in this man of contradictions. By going to extremes so often, "Charlie" (and the audience) are introduced to a man who has standards he feels are long gone. Loyalty, dignity and maybe most of all - integrity. It's those virtues that he hopes to see in his companion - but will he? We are treated to a well written and delivered tour-de-force from Pacino here in what I think is easily his most emotional and visceral performance, and O'Donnell works well as the shy, introspective foil with whom he fences on an increasingly less one-sided basis. A disastrous trip to his family for turkey lunch is tempered by one of the best performed tangos you're ever likely to see on screen - and I found 2½ hours just flew by in a compelling and enthralling fashion. New blood in old veins, or vice versa, or both?

Another one of those movies that I watched after it first was released but have only recently watched again. I must say I probably thought more of it some 30 years ago. Nothing against the actors. I think they all did a credible job. I just think two and a half hours was too long to spend with the Colonel (oops, sorry, Lieutenant Colonel).
Even Slade himself admits that he has always been a screw-up, and it seems since the incident that led to his blindness he has gotten much worse, and suicidal to boot. Fair enough, at times he did seem to be a waste of skin, so suicide was a viable option.
Lt. Colonel Frank Slade can be casually insulting or verbally abusive to any person that enters his orbit: friend or foe, family or stranger, it doesn’t matter. And he can be physically abusive for provocations that we mere mortals learn to swallow in silence or with some modicum of class. Yes, that is his style, but wait. That applies to men only, it seems. With women, whom he magically knows are attractive by their smell despite his blindness, he is courtly, charming, respectful with only occasional lapses of lewdness.
So if he can be a normal human with attractive women, what is his problem with everyone else? Well, of course it doesn’t matter, because he is larger than life and the centerpiece of the movie. All of his moods and actions lead up to a speech he delivers at the end of the film, words that prove he is the hero of the movie. I would like to think that his time spent with Charlie was transformative for him and led to real character growth, but really, I don’t think that anything short of miraculously regaining his sight would have achieved that happy result.

From the start, I was expecting the scenario would shift to another character, instead it went back to the main one from the first film.
Plus, when I heard this sequel was in development, I assumed the plot would focus on Lori trying and failing to kill Tree through the same hilarious scenario.
Still, this was an entertaining sequel.

A notable step down from the first _Happy Death Day_ but I was still pretty happy with this. There are some problems though. Calling it repetitive seems like a no-brainer, given the content, but it's not so much that _2U_ is doing mostly the same thing as the first one, as that it's doing the same thing as the first one, and that all of the things that are changed are **worse**. I didn't need an explanation or really much of anything that I saw in _2U_. But I guess something had to give if _Happy Death Day_ was going to get a sequel, and as I said, I didn't dislike this. I actually actively did like it. I just don't think it was up to the standard off the first, which even then, was good but not great.
Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)
Jessica Rothe leads the follow-up to Blumhouse's surprise 2017 smash hit of riveting, repeating twists and comic turns. This time, our hero Tree Gelbman (Rothe) discovers that dying over and over was surprisingly easier than the dangers that lie ahead. Jason Blum once again produces, and Christopher Landon returns to write and direct this next chapter.
I don’t have a Happy Death Day review online, but I agree with the adjectives above-mentioned. It was one of last year’s surprises, and I genuinely had great fun with it. Overall, I would have rated it a B/B+, in case you’re wondering. But let’s get to its sequel and find out if it stood up to the original’s level…
Short answer: no. Not even close. Honestly, it even diminishes what the first one accomplished. The 2017 original flick was a refreshing surprise because it took a different concept and mixed a bunch of genres in an unexpectedly entertaining way. It was funny, imaginative and Jessica Rothe proved to be a star in the making. 2U just has Rothe. That’s it. Its comedy bits only worked a couple of times throughout the whole runtime, and there wasn’t a single scary sequence that didn’t remind me of thousands of other familiar scenes done better in other films.
This movie is simply an easy money-grab, and BlumHouse doesn’t mind if it doesn’t stand up to the original as long as it succeeds in the box office, which it already did. Unfortunately, that’s how Hollywood and the world of cinema works nowadays. If an unique and even risky film, one that was only planned to be a single installment, becomes a box office hit, chances are that a sequel is going to be produced, even if it has to wrongly retcon what happened in the original movie, consequently taking some of its value. This rarely works quality-wise, but I can’t deny that, as a marketing strategy, it’s very profitable for studios.
My main issue with Happy Death Day 2U is that it risks too much with no reasonable payoff. Story-wise, it has tons of logical incongruencies, and I don’t buy the ending, at all. Christopher Landon asks too much of the audience since we have to accept so much nonsense in order to actually enjoy the film. In the original movie, the only thing we needed to “go with” was the actual concept, but that was pretty clear from the get-go. In 2U, there’s a compelling and captivating moral dilemma at its core, but that same dilemma becomes less and less like one by the end of it. It’s still a complicated situation, but it’s like they forgot what was really important and went with other poorly explained route.
It doesn’t matter the genre from which you analyze this film. If you look at it as a comedy, you’ll barely laugh. If you think of it as a scary movie, you’ll never get scared. If you want to be intrigued by who the killer is this time around, you won’t be because the mystery is pretty straightforward. I really don’t want to rant on this film because I do love its cast and I really enjoyed the first movie, but it’s really hard not to be upset since it damages an eventual second viewing of the first one now. When the original installment doesn’t have an open door to other adventures, just don’t try to make a sequel for the sake of it. I know, I know… Money. Bah.
I don’t want to end this review on a sad note, so I left the brilliant cast to the end. Everyone is fantastic, and I hope that at least this film can catapult some of these actors into the spotlight, especially Jessica Rothe. She has a tremendous range of expressions and incredible ease in changing between emotions. She can look scared, sad and happy in a matter of seconds, with tears and all. She’s a full package. I hope that she can grab either a major role on a big TV series or a supporting role in a blockbuster or Oscar-bait movie in the next couple of years. Surely, Jason Blum has some plans for her.
All in all, Happy Death Day 2U does not deserve the box office success that it is having. It’s receiving a lot of credit due to the 2017 original’s surprise hit, and that’s unfair to the first installment. This sequel not only wrongly retcons unnecessary plot details of its predecessor, but it makes that correction its main plot, continuously reminding the audience that we just have to accept it. It’s not as funny, scary, unique or surprisingly entertaining as the original, and if the returning cast didn’t deliver strong performances, this would be one of the worst films of the year. Fortunately, there are a couple of good moments here and there, and Jessica Rothe alone saves the movie from a much more negative review.
Oh, and please, do NOT make a third one! Just leave it alone.
Rating: C-

**Overall : A fun popcorn sci-fi blockbuster with fun characters, scary aliens, and great action that far outweigh its minor faults.**
The Tomorrow War is a fun fighting alien creatures, time travel, sci-fi action flick that thoroughly entertains despite its flaws. The film's premise lends to some confusion with trying to change timelines, leading to moments of disjointed logic and confusing plot points. But let me be honest, if you don't take the science seriously, you will enjoy the movie. The aliens are super creepy and overwhelming. Transporting soldiers to the future to help try to overcome a failing war for survival provides a fresh take on the alien battle trope. I enjoyed the parts of the movie that took place in the future where the risk and danger were higher than the present-day parts that were more focused on exposition. Because The Tomorrow War was released straight to streaming, I had low expectations that were undeniably exceeded. I will be back to watch this one again.

This thing doesn't just have regular plot holes or logical inconsistencies, it has scene hole, moment to moment holes, blink and you'll miss it holes. It is in fact entirely made of holes! My teenage cousin got frustrated while watching it and he likes robot dinosaurs!
This might, by some stretch of imagination, be okay if it weren't clear - from so many self-important pop-up references to personal enterprise and industry, attempts at did-you-get-it political issues critique and just awkward piggybacking on all the current popular social issues from the pandemic, war on insert-noun, veterans, STEM, disenfranchised youth, patriarchy, feminism - that somebody thought they were making a CLEVER action flick. As is to be expected, these moments and attempts summed up also contradict and nullify each other.
There once was a time when this couldn't even pass for public access cable, that time was before the reign of the tech mogul gnomes. It turns out that the only thing that kept nerds smart and hard working was the absence of social recognition.

Great watch, will likely watch again, and do recommend.
It's usually a good sign when the worst part of a time travel movie is the time travel.
I could probably make an hour long video on the time travel in this movie, especially compared to "Looper", but I'll forego that enough to say that it's well leveraged for the purposes of the movie.
The "White Spikes" are amazingly well put together, though I think projectile spikes are an odd biological evolution.
The story is far from perfect, but the cast, the acting, the situation, and especially the action are all executed wonderfully with a high production value to back it up.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/the-tomorrow-war-spoiler-free-review
"The Tomorrow War is one of the biggest surprises of the year, boasting an impressively creative creature design, entertaining action sequences, and a contender for the most beautiful shot of 2021. Chris McKay demonstrates all of his undeniable talent behind the camera, delivering brilliantly directed action scenes featuring excellent camera work, a chill-inducing score, and exceptional VFX - the Whitespikes look stunningly scary. Zach Dean doesn't avoid the formulas and cliches of the genre, offering a generic story with no real surprises but still possessing remarkable character work. Chris Pratt is great as the protagonist, but Yvonne Strahovski is on a whole other level, delivering one of her best performances ever in a feature film. With an overextended runtime, the last act is mostly unnecessary and less exciting, ultimately making the ending a tad underwhelming compared to the epic conclusion of the second act. I wouldn't be surprised if it gains a cult following, though. Tremendous replay value. Highly recommend it."
Rating: B

Amazon Prime’s purchase of The Tomorrow War from Paramount was a bold move as the FX-laden film starring Chris Pratt reportedly cost around $200 million to purchase and follows prior purchases of Paramount films by the streamer.
Pratt stars as an ex-soldier named Dan Forester who has just been turned down for a research job he has been seeking and must remain teaching science to less than enthusiastic students.
While watching a Soccer match with his wife, daughter, and friends, the world is stunned when a group of armed individuals appear in a flash of light and tell the televised audience that they have come from thirty years in the future and are seeking help to save humanity.
It is soon learned that an Alien threat they call the White Spikes suddenly appeared and has humanity on the verge of extinction. The nations of the world send forces into the future to help fight the war but with a very high casualty rate; a worldwide draft is soon instituted to replenish the numbers.
Dan is eventually drafted and told he has 24 hours to get things in order before he is deployed for seven days at which time he will be returned. Dan contemplates running and seeks out his estranged father (J.K. Simmons); who has a deep disdain for governments and conducts himself in a shady fashion to the point where Dan will not let him anywhere near his daughter.
Dan eventually deploys and finds a nightmare version of the future where cities are in ruin and the deadly and very tough enemy is everywhere.
As the tension mounts; Dan must team up with the leader of the resistance to develop a way to fight the aliens and save humanity before it is too late.
The film features some good FX and action and while there were many times I questioned why a different course of action was not attempted; the film eventually attempts to address many questions later in the film.
While the final act may seem overblown and too convenient; the film works as an enjoyable and action-filled escape as long as you are willing to just go along with the ride and not ask too many questions along the way.
While there are elements of prior Science Fiction and Horror films evident; the cast and premise work well and the movie is a step above most offerings that are sold to streaming services and is well worth a watch.
3.5 stars out of 5

Part 5 has a lot more interesting ways to have people killed. There getting wiser and smarter with every killing.

***One of the best of the franchise, if not THE best***
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 youths, 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 a highway pile-up, in the third a rollercoaster mishap, in the fourth a racetrack calamity. In this fifth and most recent film (2011) it’s a spectacular bridge collapse and it’s probably the best opening tragedy of the franchise.
All of the movies in the series 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.
"Final Destination 5" features Nicholas D'Agosto as the main protagonist with Emma Bell as his blonde girlfriend. Tom Cruise lookalike, Miles Fisher, is also on hand while Ellen Wroe plays the gymnast. Meanwhile Tony Todd returns as the creepy coroner who seems to know more about the situation than he should.
While it’s true that you know exactly how this film will play out if you've seen the first four installments, or any of them, there are some highlights beyond the females. For one, this movie has a superb score and soundtrack, at least on par with the previous installment. Aside from featuring the most thrilling opening tragedy, there are several creative death scenes involving a gymnast accident, an Asian spa, eye surgery, a factory mishap and a restaurant altercation. This entry also throws in a unique twist that I’m not going to give away (but if you’ve seen the trailer you already know what it is). There’s an additional surprise at the end, which nicely wraps up the five-movie franchise.
The film runs 92 minutes and, like the first three films, was shot in the Vancouver area (the fourth film was shot in the East).
GRADE: B+

You spin me right round baby right round like a record baby.
Hee, no surprise to find great division among horror fanatics, whatever the film or franchise, hot debate - even furious anger - can be found. FD5 has unsurprisingly garnered mixed reactions, but even allowing for the fact that as an idea it's a series that can't get better, part 5 is a considerable step up from the very poor part 4. It also boasts a neat trick of the tail, where some ingenuity is used to bring the series full circle, with a glint in the eye and a bloody tongue in the cheek.
Once again the opening and closing credit sequences are superb, doffing its cap to what is undoubtedly a very popular horror franchise. The disaster that underpins the formula is one of the best to be staged, a mighty bridge collapse that terrifies and thrills in equal measure. Then of course it's same old same old, which you would think anyone venturing into watch would expect anyway. Acting is as usual mixed, but the deaths are up to the ingenious standard set throughout all the other films, and then a narrative twist at the finale arrives to seal the deal for a rollicking good time. We even get a welcome return of Tony Todd - Bonus! If it proves to be the final Final Destination then it's a fitting closure, because there is thought here. Anyone taking on another will have to come up with a whole new idea to appease the horror hordes.
Enough Now. 7.5/10

Walt Disney's classic film, 101 Dalmatians, may not be completely original as it is based on a previous book, but it has turned its characters into beloved favorites, especially Pongo and Purdy. The movie will make you fall in love with all the adorable puppies like Lucky, Penny, Patch, and Freckles.
The animation is superb with just the right amount of music that doesn't overwhelm the storyline but does give us the memorable song of Cruella Deville. Speaking of the villain, Cruella is an iconic and fantastically over-the-top character, with Horace and Jasper adding to the trio's incredible dynamic.
The film is a delightful experience from start to finish, a complete classic that has been a box office success and is one of Walt Disney's triumphs. Moving forward, the live-action films, 101 Dalmatians and 102 Dalmatians, are based on the cartoon and offer a fresh take on the story with Glenn Close's portrayal of Cruella Deville being particularly outstanding.
While the movies may have a few plot holes, they are still top-notch entertainment. The sequel, 101 Dalmatians Part 2 in the Animated Series, focuses on Patch's adventures in London, adding a new dimension to the beloved story. Although the animated series may not reach the same heights as the original or the movies, it is still worth a watch for fans of the franchise.
Overall, the four films together create an enjoyable and incredible experience. They are definitely worth checking out, with Patch's story adding an extra layer of fun to the beloved Dalmatian universe.

Disney plumbs the depths of their classic animation and creates a one hundred minute commercial for their Dalmatian products. Glenn Close perfectly embodies Cruella DeVil. She is the fashion designing boss of Anita (Joely Richardson). Roger (Jeff Daniels) has a Dalmatian, like Anita, but he is unsuccessful as a video game designer- living in that hotbed of video game designing- London. Anita and Roger meet overly cute, and their dogs Pongo (his) and Perdy (hers) fall in love, too. Anita and Roger marry, and get pregnant. Pongo and Perdy marry, and get pregnant. Poor Perdy squeezes out fifteen puppies, under the watchful, slumming eye of Joan Plowright, playing Nanny. Cruella returns and offers to buy the puppies. Inspired by one of Anita's designs, she plans to make a giant fur coat out of them. She and her henchmen have been collecting puppies, and these final fifteen will give her her frock. Anita and Roger do not sell. The puppies are dognapped by henchmen Jasper (Hugh Laurie) and Horace (Mark Williams), who look exactly like their animated counterparts from the better Disney film. The very long finale is one giant rescue scene, as the puppies are helped by other animals to escape, with Cruella, the henchmen, and a psychotic mute taxidermist named Skinner (John Shrapnel) on their collective tails.
Screenwriter John Hughes apes his "Home Alone" ingredient of having grown men injured by cute creatures so often, I though I was watching an unofficial sequel. Director Stephen Herek is no Chris Columbus, however. While Columbus can direct (usually), Herek is all over the place, not quite sure what he should be capturing in order to double over the audience with laughter. The scene where Anita and Roger meet after wrecking their bikes thanks to their runaway dogs is milked for all it is worth and runs way too long. The editing is not tight, as Herek switches back and forth between multiple cameras, and capturing extreme close-ups of "funny business" instead of just letting the actors be funny. Daniels and Richardson get lost in the shuffle, making no impression on the audience whatsoever. Glenn Close is just right for the part, with some amazing costumes and hair, but she seems reined in as well. The film makers cannot decide if their audience is innocent children or their tired parents. Some of the dialogue is harsh, like the villains' plans for the puppies, but that is offset by sugar coating too many scenes, including the finale. There are also a couple of clips from other Disney films in the movie, but this does not seem like an inside joke so much as free advertising for other Disney videos. In the end, "101 Dalmatians" fails to deliver on its intent. Close almost breaks free from the shackles of marketing mediocrity, but the real loser here is the audience. The puppies are adorable, though.

Unfortunately, this is really just a vehicle for a wonderfully sinister Glenn Close as Dodie Smith's aptly named "Cruella De Vil". She has a penchant for fur; and the finer and more rare the better. When she discovers that Jeff Daniels and Joely Richardson have a whole 101 Dalmatians, she reckons a new coat beckons and dispatches a couple of her crazily inept henchmen to carry out the simple task of dognapping them. At times it is quite funny, but all in a rather predictable way. A solid British cast help to keep this simmering along but it's really just one for the kids and not really a patch on the animation.

A true classic. Who doesn't like this movie. If you haven't seen it, I really recommend it. Especially for kids.

***Intriguing, Spiritual, Insightful, Moving***
"The Day the Earth Stood Still" (2008) is an intriguing, powerful and even moving modern sci-fi blockbuster. I particularly like the symbolism: Klaatu=Christ, GORT=YaHWeH, as well as the numerous biblical references: Noah's Ark, the death plague, human beings trying to put God in a box literally, the sacrificial nature of agape love, etc. In other words, the film tackles subjects of great depth that every human being can relate to whatever their belief system. This itself separates it from the usual idiotic blockbuster fare.
Now let me address some common criticisms (please see the film first before reading further due to **SPOILERS**):
The kid is initially quite annoying but this is understandable as he's an archetype for what humankind is: an annoying, untrusting, simpleminded child-race. His sudden change into "maturity" represents how humanity needs to "grow-up." This helps make sense of the kid's repeated statements about killing Klaatu, which were magnified by the media's slander of Klaatu as a dangerous escaped convict. Klaatu's strange actions helped feed this negative mindset. As for the kid's dead father, the boy was only 9 years old and understood his father to be a soldier. Why wouldn't he have a mythical impression that he killed 'bad guys' for a living, likely with his bare hands?
The judgment of mass human destruction was already set for the earth after hundreds of years of observation, including an Asian scout who lived with humans for 70 years. Klaatu was sent to activate the judgment UNLESS he observed some clear indication that the harsh judgment wasn't necessary yet. Klaatu didn't change the original plan UNTIL very late in the story, which is why he stated to Helen that he wasn't sure if he could overturn it. Although Klaatu was the primary agent, he wasn’t necessarily alone. Gort was there and he was only partially robotic, as well as Mr. Wu. There were probably hundreds/thousands of other aliens involved in one way or another.
The military attacks because their modus operandi is to defend the nation, which was augmented by the destructive nature of humanity in general.
When Bate's character finally decides to send Helen out to talk with Klaatu she was the government’s proverbial last hope. All other governmental attempts to prevent the judgment failed abysmally up to this point, not to mention the judgment of mass destruction was ALREADY well into motion. Other national leaders were concerned with saving their own.
The biggest sphere was the central command orb. Klaatu didn't possess the power to stop the swarm himself; he had to get to the central orb to attempt to stop the mass destruction. Even then, he wasn't sure if he could do it. In fact, it cost him dearly.
The alien swarm only destroyed humanity and all human imprints (like the stadium, the the installation and the semi); I saw no evidence of the swarms destroying trees or animal life. The animal ark-orbs were obviously precautionary in nature; in other words, the aliens knew there would be collateral damage due to the nature of the swarms so they snatched away all manner of animal life as a precaution.
Klaatu made it quite clear what he was doing: saving the earth by destroying humanity and their intrinsic bent toward destruction. The way he put it was: If humanity lives the earth will die, but if humanity dies the earth will live.
The Aliens are powerful, but it's inaccurate to call them careless. They monitored the planet for centuries and their decision was carefully decided.
To write-off humanity's destructive bent as "minor-league carelessness" is shallow and un-enlightened, as well as wholly inaccurate.
The aliens' actions had nothing to do with "might makes right" but everything to do with saving a planet from the infection that would wholly destroy it (people) if they failed to act. Their celestial judgment was that the cancer HAD to be cut out and time was of the essence.
Really, the only "detestable characters" are the government as a whole, which is displayed as a cold machine. Helen (Jennifer Connelly) is a character of beauty, reverence and wisdom while the professor plays humanity's wise intercessor. Kathy Bates' character is unlikable because she represents the government and comes off as an arrogant machine-like biyatch. After she's completely humbled, however, she changes her tune. Meanwhile the kid is only 9 years old and lost both of his biological parents; cut him some slack. Besides, he also changes his tune and Klaatu takes on the role of his spiritual father. How can you NOT feel for Jacob when he falls on his face at his dad's grave?
So none of the common gripes hold water. The insane bashing of the film is simply the result of an unjust critical feeding frenzy. If people would disregard the monkey-see-monkey-do panning and view the film with an open mind they might actually enjoy it and possibly discover something worthwhile.
The film runs 1 hour, 43 minutes.
GRADE: A-

Terrible remake, original vastly superior

**This Means War has some good elements overshadowed by a story that left me aggravated and disappointed.**
This Means War frustrates me. It has three excellent leads who all give great performances and pretty solid action and stunts, but the story failed this movie altogether. This Means War establishes Hardy and Pine as two inseparable friends that are even closer than family but spend the rest of the film easily dividing and pitting them against each other over a girl they just met. It makes Witherspoon's character feel like she is really hurting these guys' lives, but it's all played as not that big of a deal. And when she ultimately chooses one of them over the other, the guys forgive each other like nothing happened and then jump to characters talking about marriage. I'm old-fashioned regarding loyalty and romance, so this movie irritated my pet peeve. It's not as bad as my rating might imply, but I'm irked.