_Donnie Darko Lite™_ by way of _Groundhog Day_.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

**Not about a second chance, but infinite!**
Even if you are not that into the films, you probably have seen at least a couple film related to 'time loop'. For me, this is like hundredth. When I first saw the trailer, I said 'not again'. 'Time loop' is just a concept, but the storyline for it drawn differently. It tells the story of a high school girl on the Cupid's Day, a special day for her since she has a big for it to remember. Like usual her day goes on and at the end of the day something goes wrong and then she wakes again on the same day in the following day which keeps repeating. Now how she's going to find a solution or the reason for it is covered in the rest of the film.
Familiar them, but well designed storyline around it. In some way, it is same as 'Groundhog Day', though it is about a teenager and more serious and tragic tale. We sometimes wish for a second chance, that's how this film was developed, but even bigger scale with a small message for teenagers.
Awesome performances, particularly Zoey. Predictable scenes, so I had thought of couple of ending that did not happen. And I also disappointed how it concluded. Not the best solution, yet an unexpected twist. Originally the film was based on the book of the same name. This is a small budget and a quality film. The direction was good, very rich in presentation. Definitely not bad for once viewing.
_6/10_

**Johnny English is a dumb, fun, feel-good comedy that perfectly celebrates its spy theme while simultaneously having a good laugh.**
Johnny English never fails to make me laugh. I have watched this movie so many times, and every time I laugh like it’s the first time I have seen it. Rowan Atkinson takes his typical goofball character and thrusts him into the serious world of sophistication and espionage, making his ridiculous antics much more hilarious because of the highly dissimilar juxtaposition. Despite bumbling his way through the film, English’s confidence never wanes as he dives into danger again and again, needing the help of his assistant and femme fatale ally to save him from certain doom. Unfortunately, the sequels fail to live up to the excellence of the first installment, never getting the right balance of goofiness and fun. But the original Johnny English film brings it all together, from the stunts to the laughs to the characters. Johnny English might not be a master spy, but he is a master entertainer.

Last seen this several years ago, probably when it was released in 2003, and pretty funny thanks to Rowan Atkinson. Not great but makes for a fun watch on a weekend when it's too hot to do anything outside. **3.5/5**

A stunning performance, to be sure, but unfortunately, plagued by the same demons that apparently Woody Allen himself embraces.

**Good but lacks flashback method**
It smells like a (cast away 2000) movie. The film was directed by Miguel Sapochnik, and the majority of his works were series that had wide fame, one of the best of them being directed by 6 of Game of Thrones, and the best episode he directed was Battle of the Bastards.
The story of the movie is about a man who lives alone on the planet with a dog, where he invented a robot to take care of the dog if he died or something bad happened to him.
The film talks about humanity and respect for whoever you talk to, even if you are talking to a robot made of iron sheets. Tom Hanks' performance was brilliant and the dialogues with the robots were entertaining.
I liked the dog's relationship with Tom Hanks and the robot was an influential character. His performance was different from the robots that appeared in other artworks. He was argumentative, talkative, and had a strong personality. Yes, he regrets anything that Finch doesn't like, but does what he likes and then say sorry to Finch.
The negatives of the film could have added additional dialogue sentences that attract the viewer. It would have been better if the flashback method had been used. I wanted to know Finch's old lifestyle, what he was doing, what happened to the world and the people.

OK, first things first - original this isn't. It is an amalgam of many road trip and robot movies that we have all seen many times before. That said, it is maybe the first actual robot road movie I think I have ever seen, and Tom Hanks and his metallic sidekick "Jeff" - along with their dog, make quite an entertaining fist of it. The world has been exposed to massive radiation and he appears to be the sole survivor. With an incredible storm approaching his home, he constructs his new friend and the three make for San Francisco in his heavily adapted motorhome. It's a well paced affair, this, and Hanks (who is definitely not my favourite actor) turns in quite an engaging performance as gradually he and "Jeff" begin to learn from each other - for better or worse. There is the sparing use of flashback to give us an indication of what happened to his family, and of how he ended up in his predicament, and as their journey progresses the film offers us a perspective on just what being "human" might mean as he gradually realises that all is not well. It is probably twenty minutes too long, the establishment scenes are unnecessarily extensive but, though not a great film, Tom Hanks invests just enough to keep it in the right gear most of the time.

Full Analysis at Spotamovie.com - **Intro** - Finch is a journey to discover life and the essential elements of it. Finch brings relevant topics on the screen, including just one actor (Tom Hanks), a dog and two robots. It may look like a simple story or static because of the apparent lack of characters, but, trust us, it’s engaging and let us think about our life and purpose. So let’s dive into the story. **The Story** - We are in a post-apocalyptical world. A solar flare destroyed the ozone, making life almost impossible on earth. Finch is one of the few survivors, and he struggles to take care of his health, his dog and his robotic friend Duwei. Finch’s skills as an engineer are good. Therefore he spent his time building a robot to take care of his dog Goodyear once he will be gone. Tornados, storms and the dangers on earth push Finch to move from its forte and find a new, safer destination. So, the journey begins for them and us. There is a lot to discover, even after an apocalypse. How will the new robot behave? Will Finch succeed on his mission?And how is life living during the night? - **We recommend you to read our analysis** at https://www.spotamovie.com/finch-2021-movie-movie-review-and-analysis/

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/finch-spoiler-free-review
"Finch is far from being the most impressive, imaginative post-apocalyptic, survival film, but it's still a captivating, character-driven story that boasts an emotionally resonant, meaningful personal journey.
Tom Hanks proves to still be in shape by delivering a genuine performance as a man who teaches and learns about companionship, human bonding, and perseverance of love and life.
Focusing on the relationships between Finch, the adorable dog, and the witty robot (excellently voiced by Caleb Landry Jones), Miguel Sapochnik takes good advantage of stunning cinematography (Jo Willems), exceptional VFX, and one of the year's best scores (Gustavo Santaolalla) to elevate an otherwise generic, somewhat slow movie.
Despite some world-building elements being foreshadowed and not receiving a satisfactory outcome, I still highly recommend watching this subversive take on the world's ending."
Rating: B

Much like the previous two entries, Rocky Balboa has a lot going for it, but is held back in many key areas.
The entire process that fuels Rocky to fight again is great. It is incredibly heartbreaking to see Rocky so down in his life, coping with the loss of his wife and his estranged relationship with his son. He is broken and needs an outlet for his pent-up anger and to gain a connection with his past life. This part worked excellently, but the online simulated fight gimmick that sparked the bout was ridiculous. The main villain was very underbaked and generic, causing the final fight to have very limited stakes.
The final fight was pretty average as well. I felt as if they tried to replicate an actual boxing match in terms of presentation instead of delivering a true cinematic experience. This led to it being pretty difficult to watch with the bland presentation and terrible editing.
I think the addition of Marie was pointless. It was nice to give Rocky a character from his past to fill the void left by Adrian, but the script was written in such a way that it felt more like a pseudo-love story. This was really awkward because Rocky’s true love was Adrian, and his connection to Marie was filmed in a romantic light, which took me out of the film entirely. Not to mention the fact that it was a child that he used to look out for in the first film, which felt kind of predatory. In my opinion, Marie's screen time should have been replaced by his son, giving them more time together to develop and mend their relationship. It would have worked much better.
Overall, I think this film has one of the stronger plots since Rocky II, but I can’t help but feel it was wasted. The pacing was extremely slow, and some decisions that were made really limited my enjoyment of the film. I still think it is a decent entry, but one of my least favorites of the franchise.
Score: 56% |
Verdict: Decent

**_Rocky as a has-been and, maybe, still-is_**
It has been over 20 years since Rocky’s been in the ring. He runs his Italian restaurant in Philadelphia named after his wife while trying to get closer to his distant son, a corporate lawyer, and reacquainting with Marie (the troublesome girl he escorted home in the first movie). When the surprising opportunity arises to return to the limelight, the fading boxer must discover if he still has his fighting spirit despite his age.
"Rocky Balboa” (2006) was the sixth Rocky film, appearing sixteen years after the previous installment. Also known as “Rocky VI,” this is a fine way to end the proper series, although Sylvester Stallone says a seventh film, an epilogue, is being considered (and I hope materializes).
To be expected, this one sticks to the tried-and-true Rocky formula, effectively showing where the key characters are at three decades after the original flick, plus introducing a few new faces, including an old canine named Punchy. Sure, it’s predictable, but it’s entertaining as it continues Rocky’s story in his mid-50s.
Of course, the successful spin-off series, Creed, brought Rocky back in 2015 and 2018 with a third installment to be released this year.
The film runs 1 hour, 42 minutes, and, was shot in Philadelphia, Los Angeles and Las Vegas.
GRADE: B

You know this was the story that SHOULD have been told in Rocky V, or at least this is the kind of story that should have been told.
Unfortunately it is a story told sans Talia Shire, who along with Burt Young and Carl Weathers are Rocky staples... of course Creed was dead in the timeline, so his absence is excusable... but we all kind of wanted to see Adrian, and wanted another story that developed her especially since they kind of stopped developing her as of Rocky III and relegated her to the sidelines.
But, you got to see a typical Rocky story. You got to see Rocky dig in and be inspiring again... and that is why we all love Rocky stories isn't it? Rovky V lacked the inspiration, Rocky Balboa came back with full force and it has continued though Creed, and, hopefully, when I get around to watching it, it will be there in Creed II as well.
The magic is that it comes back to the Rocky I and II dynamic, where it's not just about boxing, it's about Rocky and his story. And that is what we all missed in III and IV, and was attempted but failed miserably in V.
It felt like an early Rocky film, it felt like both an end and a rebirth of the franchise, and it was a very satisfying film to watch... especially given didn't really pull the punch we were all dreading and hit us full force.

Rocky Balboa, much like the titular character, throws tired punches within the constraints of its clichéd boxing ring. Thirty years since Rocky, the underdog from Philadelphia, graciously climbed into the ring and gave Apollo Creed a run for his money. Then a sequel was commissioned. And another one. And another. Until the negligently produced ‘Rocky V’ was released with its disappointing conclusion, leaving fans underwhelmed. Stallone too, discontent with the final product. Thus, the sixth title in the series was conceived, with Stallone starring, writing and directing the feature. Throughout the sequels, many tropes were repeatedly utilised to capitalise on the resounding success of the original instalment, after all it received the Best Picture award of ‘76. The training montage to “Gonna Fly Now”, the awkward conversational exchanges between Rocky and a potential love interest, the old optimistic monologue and Stallone attempting to demonstrate he isn’t just a masterpiece wax work by shedding one tear. All culminating into an emotional boxing match where it doesn’t matter who wins, “it’s about how many hits you can take, and still keep moving forward”.
The narrative difference in all these thirty years? Rocky is older now. Fine, that was somewhat harsh. Stallone implements some note-worthy additions to the linear storytelling. The brooding aura of melancholy that envelops Rocky and Philadelphia, struggling to move on from the passing of his wife Adrian. This sorrowful force restraining Balboa to a mere relic within the sport that he fought so viciously in. Guests visiting his restaurant (aptly names “Adrian’s”) to intently listen to his tales, as if a museum piece for all to reminisce. Struggling to retain his symbolic status within boxing.
The problem is, Stallone never progresses the plot. In fact, he maintained the narrative to be a simple yet dull nostalgia trip that relied heavily on sentimentality. A wearisome derivative of the original that, unfortunately, felt fatigued in terms of homaging certain plot points. The entire first act was Balboa moping around, despite Adrian passing years ago, embodying remorse. Stallone, as Rocky, nailed the consistency of his character. From the awkward dialogue to his emphatic mannerisms, he constantly reminded us that he is the only actor available to play this legendary cinematic character. Whilst Stallone’s performance was commendable, others not so much.
There’s an underlying issue with insufficient chemistry between the actors. Stallone and Hughes, reprising the character of Marie, were decent if undercooked. Stallone and Ventimiglia on the other hand, who portrays his son, had nothing. All dialogue exchanges between them felt forced and lacked emotionality, particularly when Ventimiglia was “supporting” his father outside the ring. Young was passable as Paulie, although acting talent has diminished considerably over the years with his constant shouting.
The third act boxing match was filmed concisely, with Stallone taking a distant approach in order to exploit the energy within the room. The corny punching sound effects were removed, with Stallone and Tarver actually throwing real punches. It certainly exhumed realism, if a tad pedestrian. However, Stallone then opted to embed unusual visualised effects within the fight to indicate Rocky’s thought process as he remembers past fights in search for vigour. Far too cheesy and cumbersome, breaking up the flow of the match with unnecessary slow motion. Rocky’s opponent Mason Dixon was severely underdeveloped, lacking strength within his motives as he yearns to be taken seriously as a heavyweight champion.
Rocky Balboa will entertain fans of the franchise. It encompasses several vital narrative elements that many have learned to adore. However, for the casual audience who are neither here nor there regarding the series, it’s a drained formulaic story that depends too heavily on paying homage to its predecessors. Ultimately exhausting itself before the penultimate fight commences.

I really don't get the comedy here.
Curtis and Lemmon dress up as showgirls to avoid the mob.
That's good for a five minute sketch, but not a full length movie.
And that's the problem. It is stretched out to be an ordeal. For some reason, some guy likes Lemmon as a woman, and Lemmon avoids him. And for some reason, Curtis likes a relatively plain showgirl (Marilyn Monroe was always a "woman's woman", not in the league with the beauties of Hollywood, which was her appeal, being the "girl next door" instead of "the girl you wanted next door" Dawn Welles or Raquel Welch.
But who is lucky enough to get Dawn Welles next door to him? Which is why we get the more down to earth looks of Marilyn to be popular in movies.
The "comedy" was "dated" even in the sixties. I'm not sure it was even funny in 1959, but it appears to have a designated target audience of people who like super dry humor disguised as slapstick, or whatever you call this vain attempt to be funny.
It isn't a "terrible movie", and it isn't depressing, but it is quite dull. Not good news for a comedy.

**One of Curtis' best films... and an effective and enjoyable comedy.**
For many, this movie is simply one of the greatest comedies of all time. However, I have serious doubts about that. In my personal opinion, it's a good comedy, it entertains its audience very well, and there's no doubt about its status as a movie classic. Starting from this reasonable basis and placing the film at the heights as the best or one of the best already seems unreasonable and exaggerated. But that's just what I think.
The script is set during the Prohibition, a time when speakeasies were one of the biggest sources of financial income for mobsters. The script starts from this context and creates an interesting and reasonably well-written story, where two jazz musicians end up becoming witnesses to a massacre, in which a group of mobsters kills a rival group in Chicago. This, of course, was inspired by a true, very famous incident, the Valentine's Day Massacre. Persecuted and in life danger, they decide to dress up as two women and hide, like members of a female jazz orchestra that takes a train to the coast, to perform in a hotel. Of course, then the funniest part of the movie begins, with the characters trying to keep the cover-up amid the romantic shenanigans that unfold.
In addition to a good script and good dialogue, the film has very good performances by Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon, the two great male protagonists. For me, this is one of the most interesting films of both their careers, and it's great to see the way they both played together. I also liked the works of George Raft and Joe E. Brown, which gives soul and grace to the end, very famous and funny. Pat O'Brien also does a good job, even if he doesn't follow his peers closely. But the film was probably better known to audiences thanks to the female star, Marilyn Monroe. But I don't like her work here. She was an extraordinary singer, and her best scenes are the ones where she sings... but I never thought of her as a good and talented actress (she couldn't even memorize what she had to say, and the director practically swore that would never work with her again): and, really, her performance in the film is irritating, turning the character into a sly young woman and something of an idiot.
The film doesn't make a big bet on the technical aspects, but it offers us high quality sets and costumes, good effects and an effective soundtrack. From the beginning, it takes on a pleasant rhythm that allows the two hours of duration to pass without us noticing. It also features good cinematography, with a regular filming job that makes the best use of selected filming locations.

Ridiculous plot, but very enjoyable nonetheless.
'Some Like It Hot' is good, unserious fun. Tony Curtis (Joe) and Jack Lemmon (Jerry) are the stars of the show, with amusing performances from start-to-finish. Marilyn Monroe is pleasant too, this is actually the first film of Monroe's I've seen. A good'un!
The pacing isn't perfect but that doesn't hamper things at all really. It's a bonkers 122 minutes, filled with entertaining shenanigans - the ending is particularly wacky. Don't think I would've liked it as well without Curtis & Lemmon, admittedly.
Worth watching, without question.

_**Provocative psychological drama**_
Peoples of differing ethnicities and social-economic levels 'crash' into each other in Los Angeles over a day or so at Christmas time. These people include:
A white cop who's angry over the downside of affirmative action and so abuses his authority (Matt Dillon); his young white partner who objects to the abuse and actively tries to counteract it (Ryan Phillipe); a black TV director who feels emasculated over the racism he experiences and ultimately blows up (Terrence Howard); his light-skinned wife who doesn't know when to shutteth up (Thandie Newton); an Hispanic locksmith (Michael Peña) and his young daughter with an ‘impenetrable invisible cloak’; a Persian shopkeeper who needs a scapegoat after his store is horribly vandalized, not to mention his daughter and wife; two black car thieves (Ludacris and Larenz Tate), the latter the younger brother of a detective, Graham (Don Cheadle); Graham's beautiful partner and girlfriend, Ria (Jennifer Esposito), and her mother, a maid to the District Attorney (Brendan Fraser) and his wife (Sandra Bullock); an Asian man who’s hospitalized and his frantic wife racing to see whether he's alive or dead.
"Crash" is reminiscent of another L.A. drama, the 1991 masterpiece "Grand Canyon," but has enough nuances to stand on its own. For one thing, "Crash" is even more serious and dark.
This is an involved story with several interwoven story lines; it ain't no mindless popcorn 'blockbuster.' A casual viewing won't cut it. It's not that kind of picture. Most of the negative criticisms about the film are by people who didn't watch closely and then lambaste it with criticisms that aren't even legitimate.
For one thing, the film is about more than racism; it's about stereotypes, hypocrites, abuse of power, the capacity for good or bad in every human soul, second chances, passive correction and shame, self-sacrifice, redemption, forgiveness, the last straw, manhood & emasculation, giving someone a break, true friendship, misunderstandings, favoritism and more.
*** SPOILER ALERT ***
Not every character is racist as some critics insist. Brendan Fraser's character never shows any racism and the only reason his wife (Bullock) blows up with racially-charged statements concerning the locksmith is because she just got robbed and shoved to the pavement at gunpoint by two young black guys. How would you or I react after such an experience? Also, the cop partner of Matt Dillon's character never displays racism in the truest sense; why else would he radically come to the defense of the director who has a fit or pick up a young black male hitchhiking? (What happens later is a misunderstanding not real racism). What about the detectives Graham & Ria and Ria's housemaid mother? (Yes, Graham makes one derogatory statement about Hispanics, but that's it; he's hardly racist). These are all main characters.
Then there's the criticism that all the protagonists are "essentially one-dimensional racial stereotypes." This is completely untrue. Graham and Ria (black and Latino) are successful detectives; Cameron is a successful black TV director; and the Hispanic locksmith is a family-oriented working man, not a criminal or gangbanger. Yes, there are some people who fit the stereotypes, like the two young black male thieves and the racist/abusive white cop, but one of the thieves becomes shamed for his lifestyle & hypocrisy and the racist cop is willing to risk his life for a woman of color, thus redeeming himself (from the guilt he felt over abusing his power the night before), besides his white partner is anything but a white racist who abuses his authority.
One critic criticized the film with this multiple-choice question: "You are involved in a car accident on a busy street. The other driver is Asian. Do you: (a) Wait for the police to arrive and see if the other driver is okay; (b) Exchange insurance information with the other driver; (c) Scream and yell, "damn chinks don't know how to drive!"
"If you picked ‘c’ you'd love Crash."
This car-crash scenario DOES take place in the story, but he's leaving out some important details: A woman & man are rear-ended by an Asian lady. Why don't they call the cops? Because they ARE cops and there are other cops on the scene. Why does the lady detective talk back to the Asian woman? Because the latter is having a fit and throwing racial slurs at her. This is WHY she talks back to the Asian woman, not to mention she's a cop and therefore in a position of authority. Why does the Asian woman have a fit anyway? Because she's rushing to the hospital to see if her husband's alive. So, you see, the witty little multiple-choice question doesn't actually fit the reality of the film.
*** END SPOILER ***
Another criticism is that the racism in the story is not subtle like it is in real life. Well, haven't you ever seen anyone blow up like in the movie? I have. In a city as big as L.A. how many such blow ups happen over any 36-hour period?
There's a lot of raw emotion and hard-to-watch scenes, but there are undeniable glimpses of love, hope, redemption and forgiveness as well. If you're in the mood for a well-made psychological drama with numerous insights to the human condition, don't miss out.
The film runs 1 hour, 54 minutes, and was shot in the Los Angeles area.
GRADE: A

If you are expecting Martin Scorsese or David Lean, then you can safely stop now. This is not a film that the critics need to get their pencils sharpened about. It's a pretty run of the mill shoot 'em up with special agent Gerard Butler out to prove his innocence after being framed for the attempted murder of the US president (and just about everyone else). He doesn't know who to trust and must combat both friend and foe to realise his goals. Morgan Freeman turns in a likeable performance as the President (again) in this fast paced action-drama, but it hasn't an original bone in it's body.

Not that this was a bad movie but I would say this the worse one out of the series. It's only about himself being framed with less action again and even less drama just wasn't the best compared to the other 2.

Better than _London Has Fallen_ at least. Seems like it's stealing most of its ideas from better franchises, most notably _Bourne_ and _Punisher_, but it was still a pretty good time. And nice to see the script sort of flipped after the last two, and have Butler facing up against the Secret Service (even if the reason why is made painfully obvious from the opening sequence).
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

one of my best films of the year, what an emotional ending. thank you for this masterpiece. 10/10

Some decent action, especially the one in the explosions in the forest, but the CGI was bad (I understand they wanted to keep the budget low, but they seem to overextend themselves) and the plot and in particular villains were predictable; I knew one of them and at least didn't string it out before the reveal, but the second one was too obvious and the motives had shades of Murder at 1600 which came out 22 years ago. But still like Gerard Butler, even though he seems to be getting... um, puffier lately, Morgan Freeman as always was good and Nick Nolte had a couple fun scenes. Shame, for whatever reason, they couldn't get Radha Mitchell back as Banning's wife, she at least wasn't as a stark difference from when Rachel Weisz was replaced by Maria Bello in that third Mummy movie... This was a serviceable enough action-thriller but nothing special on the whole. **3.0/5**

Daniel Day-Lewis, Lesley Manville and Vicky Krieps combine to deliver a work of great style and delicacy in this story about a London couturier to the rich and famous. "Reynolds Woodcock" lives with his sister "Cyril" in the disciplined and controlled environment he demands in order to be able to do his work as the leading creative dressmaker of his time. Enter "Alma" an aspiring, awe-struck apprentice with whom he falls in love - despite his own controlling instincts. The story evolves with purpose and depth; this isn't a straightforward love story by any means. Jonny Greenwood's score is brilliantly complementary to the gentle but dynamic pace of the narrative and, of course, it's great to look at too.

Probably the best, least biased documentary criticism of Jordan Peterson made thus far

I saw _Phantom Thread_ as part of a trio. We began watching this Oscar nominated movie at staggered intervals. I, from the beginning. The second, a half hour in. Then her partner, just past the half-way point. But all of us came to the same reaction when we'd been watching for what seemed like days only to realise there was still 30 minutes left: Lying on the cold, dirty floor, begging for it to end.
Prepare for the most heterosexual thing I have ever said: We had to watch YouTube clips of Arnold Schwarzenegger movie-kills and then the whole original _Robocop_ as a palette cleanser after being forced to endure _Phantom Thread_. That's not hyperbole either, it felt genuinely necessary so that's what we did. I fear that we live in the world where something this pretentious is considered one of the best movies of the year.
_Final rating:★ - Of no value. Avoid at all costs._

Should you decide to visit your local cinema to take in a showing of Phantom Thread, Paul Thomas Anderson's latest offbeat character study, you might want to make a bit more effort with your wardrobe than you're accustomed to for such outings. After spending 130 minutes totally immersed in the world of 1950s high fashion, I felt like an utter rube walking out of the cinema in my jeans and hoody combo.
Phantom Thread is as immersive as cinema gets. From its opening sequence, which takes us inside the House of Woodcock, a London fashion house run in quietly tyrannical fashion by renowned dressmaker Reynolds Woodcock (Daniel Day Lewis), Anderson's film dismisses any thoughts we might have of our own world of 2018. As we witness Reynolds go about his daily grooming routine it becomes clear we're watching a movie about a perfectionist, one made by a perfectionist, and starring a perfectionist in what is reputedly his final acting role.
Set in his ways like a tree set in concrete, Reynolds knows what he likes, and he likes what he knows. As such, his relationships with the many admiring members of the opposite sex (the film is set at a time when no man was more attractive than one who made things; and if those things happened to make women feel beautiful, like Reynolds' gowns, all the better) rarely get past the following morning's breakfast, where idle chit chat and toast buttering irritate him to a laughably over the top degree.
It's during breakfast away from home, in a small country café, that Reynolds meets Alma (Vicky Krieps), a pretty Eastern European waitress who is won over by his flirtatious charm and accepts his invitation for a dinner date. The relationship blooms quickly and Reynolds invites her into his home, teaching her the ways of his trade.
It doesn't take long for Alma's ways to begin annoying the fiercely independent and somewhat narcissistic Reynolds, and her presence begins to disrupt his work - she's become an anti-muse! Reynolds' assumption that she will follow the other women in his past and leave quietly once exposed to his spoilt brat boorishness couldn't be more wrong however. Alma is determined to make the relationship work, even if she has to take extreme measures.
Read the rest of Eric Hillis's review at http://www.themoviewaffler.com/2018/01/new-release-review-phantom-thread.html

It's final year at High School and "Troy" (Zac Efron) and "Gabriella" (Vanessa Hudgens) are a definite item together. Don't worry - the hormones have all been suitably Disneyfied so there's nothing beyond the briefest peck on the cheek as they cheese their way through the start of this final term before, yep, nemesis "Sharpay" (Ashley Tisdale) starts stirring again. They all have to face the prospect of post-graduation life and that means that they might not remain together. When "Gabriella" is accepted at Stanford university - quite a distance away from "Troy" who wants to continue to play basketball at the University of Albuquerque - the pair have to deal with the thought of a long-distance relationship and all the precariousness that entails. Meantime, there is trouble in the "Evans" camp as "Sharpay" and long suffering brother "Ryan" (Lucas Grabeel) have a parting of the ways. She sees solo stardom looming and he has other, more collegiate, plans. The story advances using some rather unmemorable songs and dances towards a conclusion that is actually quite funny, but only because there are a few just desserts dished out that have been a long time coming. There's much more of the savvily enthusiastic teacher "Ms. Darbus" (Alyson Reed) to return this more to the academic environment but by now I'd had enough of these precociously annoying youngsters and their increasingly unimaginative characterisations. At least, this time, the talented Grabeel gets a bit more of the spotlight but it lacks a hit song and without it, is all just sort of dwindles away.

If you're good at anticipating the human mind, it leaves nothing to chance.
Jigsaw is dead. Does he have another apprentice to carry on his brand of bloody judgement? Will there be more elaborate traps to test the human condition to the max? You betcha.
If you are a fan of the series, and chances are that if you have sat down to watch this latest part then you must be, this one has enough about it to tickle the senses. Yet there's no getting away from the familiarity breeding contempt factor, narratively it offers nothing new, and irritatingly it becomes quite evident that it's obviously setting up the next film in the series. It's a sad state of affairs when the flashbacks involving Tobin Bell (Jigsaw) prove to be the film's only strengths, well there is the death traps to keep us awake I suppose... 4/10

Ben Stiller's "Goodman" is the epitome of a big time corporate America obsessed with keeping the country fit. "Peter" (Vince Vaughn) is pretty much the opposite as his small time local gym is on the brink of collapse. If he can't find $50,000 in double quick time then it's curtains. The only way they can maybe raise the money is to win a dodgeball tournament but when "Goodman" discovers this plucky plan, he establishes a team of his own and battle lines are drawn. Of course one team has unlimited resources whilst the other can barely afford to turn the lights on. They do have a secret weapon though - and that's the legendary "Patches O'Houlihan" (Rip Torn) who agrees to come and turn his enthusiastic collection of misfits into a cohesive and winning unit. Now there's not the least jeopardy here: it's just a rehash of the David and Goliath story with some dangerous looking ball skills thrown in. Fans of Stiller will probably love it, but I never really was one of those. I found his style of comedy way too in-your-face and not in the least subtle and after a few games with this big red weapon of body-mass destruction, I got a bit bored. It's tempered with a tiny bit of romance thanks to "Kate" (Christine Taylor) who'd also like to see "Goodman" with some egg on his face but the predictability of the whole film made it quite a long ninety minutes for me with Vaughn adding little to enliven the proceedings. It's very quickly paced and is obviously trying to be screwball but once we've met the characters it just becomes too processional. Nah.

**Dodgeball knows it’s a ludicrous nonsensical laugh fest and embraces all its ridiculous charm to become one of the best sports comedies of all time.**
Dodgeball is one of the funniest, most outrageous movies in existence and is one of my favorite comedies (and sports movies?) of all time! This movie just had every actor in their sweet spot. White Goodman is peak Ben Stiller. Vaughn, Long, and Taylor each feel at home in their roles, and Alan Tudyk’s Steve the Pirate steals the scene every time. Each and every moment of this movie is zany, goofy, and insane, making Dodgeball a quintessential 2000s comedy. Dodgeball gifts the world with hilarious lines to be quoted repeatedly, Chuck Norris gifs, and laughs that keep going long after the movie ends. Plenty of people might disagree, but Dodgeball will forever be one of the best movies of the 2000s and maybe eternity… ok, let’s stick with the 2000s.