Really good watch, could watch again, and can recommend.
I forgot how well this movie holds up. Now, I'm not a fan of Vince Vaughn or Ben Stiller (most of the time), but, being objective, this is a pretty funny movie with a good plot to it. It has problems besides casting, but most of those are over in a blink and we're back to the movie.
This is a movie that leans on ridiculous humor, and everyone pretty much stays in their lane with quirks and motivations, and while the abuse humor of Justin Long pushes my boundaries of entertainment, Vaughn's lazy character work breaks it. I'd say it was a problem with the writing, but the delivery is sloppy even for someone playing a lazy character: the character is someone who knows what needs to get done and can't be bothered to do work, not someone who is too lazy to do what he can do.
Ben Stiller is over the top, but that's a combination of how the character is written and Stiller's delivery: I clearly don't like the character concept, but without him being an overly nice / secretly evil guy, I'm don't have a real suggestion there.
I'm sure you can make similar arguments for any given character, but the movie is actually so well produced, overall well written, and the performances are funny enough to distract from "problems" that if you just relax and watch this movie, you'll probably be laughing all the way up to "My Milkshake By's All the Boys to the Yard".

Saw this, recently up-converted to 4K at the London Film Festival and, apart from the clear improvements to the quality and detail of the image, I was reminded of just how good it is. Anthony Hopkins and Anne Bancroft play their roles with engaging sincerity - very ably supported by Sir John Gielgud and Dame Wendy Hiller. Prosthetics aside, John Hurt captures both the despair and optimism of Merrick with empathetic style; and Freddie Jones is just downright evil as "Bytes". His son Toby was at the screening and I couldn't help but wonder when he watched this portrayal by his father whether the pride in the performance must have been tempered by a disgust in the character, itself!! This film doesn't seem to do the rounds very often, nowadays, but it holds up very well after almost 40 years and is really a gem.

_**The ultimate outcast**_
In 1884 London, a doctor (Anthony Hopkins) meets Joseph Merrick, aka The Elephant Man (wrongly called John Merrick in the film) who was being exploited as a freak show attraction. Treves (Hopkins) tries to help Merrick (John Hurt) for the last six years of the latter’s life wherein he becomes cultured, but he inevitably remains an object of curiosity, to high society as well as low society. Anne Bancroft plays a winsome entertainer who is warm toward Merrick.
Directed by David Lynch and shot in B&W, “The Elephant Man” (1980) is a melancholic biographical movie, and understandably so, but Merrick’s story is worth checking out despite the fact that it inspires pity. It calls into question the concept of beauty: Natural beauty is something one is born with and did nothing to acquire, but so is physical unattractiveness. Then there’s inner beauty. The charismatic actress (Bancroft) displays both. Of course there’s also inner ugliness, like the carnival huckster.
A myth developed about Merrick’s disfigurement that his mother was raped by an elephant, probably started by sideshow hawkers. The opening conveys this in an artistic manner, but it’s not to be taken literally, which is why it’s surreal. Meanwhile the factory scenes with the pipes and corresponding dangers exhibit the reality for workers in Victorian times.
The score by John Morris is noteworthy with one piece being ripped-off for the moving parts of “Platoon” (1986), e.g. Elias’ melodramatic death scene.
The film runs 2 hours, 4 minutes, and was shot entirely in London and nearby Shepperton Studios, just west of the city.
GRADE: B

Denzel Washington really didn't have to get out of bed for his performance here as "Lincoln"; a now-quadriplegic forensics expert who is prone to dangerous seizures. Not wishing to risk surviving one of these in a vegetative state, he has elected for euthanasia. Before he can implement his plan, though, his former colleagues alert him to a series of grisly murders with folks in taxis being hijacked and left to die in the most horrific, sadistic fashion. Intrigued, he hooks up with rookie Angelina Jolie ("Amelia") to try to suss out who's behind these apparently unconnected crimes. It doesn't take them long to discover that their protagonist is leaving clues and when a man and his kid become the latest victims it becomes a race against time to get to them before the tide does. The suspense here is very much in the first fifty minutes, and the performances from Washington and Jolie are strong, but it can't sustain the menace and by midway through has become a rather procedural cop drama with an inevitability about it that really robs it of any real punch at the end.

Denzel Washington, he used to be all that didn't he?
He single-handedly saved "Malcolm X" from being another Spike Lee disaster flick
He played the ultimate and most loathable villain the world has ever seen in "Training Day" and in the process delivered one of the best performances we have ever had the pleasure of watching.
And then he settled back to play "the smart cop." In "Fallen" he was the smart cop up against the paranormal. In this film he is the smart cop that is disabled....and from here on he's going to do pretty much the same role over and over and over again.
And each one is going to merge into the other leaving us to wonder what happened to that great actor that is hiding behind all those cop roles?
For the mystery/thriller genre, it's not bad...but unfortunately, you're left wondering how many great movies you could have seen if he kept picking other roles.
The talent is there...and its there itching to come out...unfortunately you have seen Washington play this role far too often to enjoy it.
Go back to acting, Denzel, we miss you.

**A sinister killer and ominous tone cement The Bone Collector as one of the best crime thrillers of the 90s.**
The Bone Collector is one of the best thriller mystery movies out there! This eerie game of cat and mouse captivates its audience with its fast and foreboding pace and incredible performances from Denzel Washington and a young Angelina Jolie. Despite being over 20 years old and the flashy technology showcased as cutting age being very dated, The Bone Collector this thrills to this day thanks to its horrifying kills, surprising twists, and gripping tension. Critics weren't fans, and even user reviews are split, but I have no shame in recommending this dark atmospheric mystery to anyone looking for a creepy crime thriller.

Entertaining enough crime-thriller with both Washington and Jolie giving fine performances. Nothing outstanding and the dark mood doesn't always work (did like Craig Armstrong's score which I still listen to on my iPod). The ultimate reveal of the killer was a tad weak but otherwise it was okay. **3.25/5**

Probably my least favorite Denzel move. Nevertheless, both him and Angelina Jolie deliver a better than average performance in an interesting crime thriller. Nothing else to praise here.

'Annabelle Comes Home' is snooze central. It asks the question: What would happen if Lorraine & Ed Warren's artifacts room turned into 'Night at the Museum'. The answer? Boredom. We oddly end up largely following a babysitter's friend (yes, really).
Aside from one or two moments at the very end, I don't even remember anything interesting happening in this - needless to say, the 106 minute run time dragged real hard. We get Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson in this side of the franchise at last, though so brief it's barely worth it.
Mckenna Grace, Madison Iseman and Katie Sarife are the main character in this and they themselves are alright, I didn't find any watchability in the people they were portraying but I have nothing against the trio. They star in what isn't this franchise's worst, but it sure is close to being so.

...and the moral of the story is: stop with these third rate sequels! This is derivative in almost every conceivable way and is presented in the most clumsy, cack-handed manner. "Judy" (Mckenna Grace) really ought to have known better than go into a locked room full of her parent's (Vera Farmiga & Patrick Wilson) ancient gismos in the first place, let alone start interfering with things locked in sacred glass cases. So much for the defence against the dark arts blessing, too - as "Annabelle" goes a-terrifying. Scary? Well no, The only thing frightening for me was the price of the Maltesers on my way into the cinema! Please God they never open that cabinet again.

This movie is easily my favorite out of the series. Cause not only are they dealing with annabelle but they have to deal with multiple ghost and haunting.

Hopefully this brings an end to a dreadful trilogy. Not as terrible as the first one at least but this had nothing to offer and yet another one of these movies where an evil supernatural entity seems more intent on f'ing around with the characters rather than actually harming them. One upside was the acting at least wasn't terrible and, albeit they were only in it for 10-minutes, I did like seeing Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga. **1.75/5**

I was a little less worried about a third _Annabelle_ movie than I was the second one, because, well this came off the back of that second one, and that second one was okay. But that second one came off the back of the first _Annabelle_ movie... And that was a fucking disaster. Lots of people say that the whole Conjuring franchise is a cool thing, but nothing has come close to the quality of that first _The Conjuring_ movie. Respectfully, I disagree. The franchise as a whole is okay, but not only is has something better come out post-_The Conjuring_, furthermore, I'm gonna go ahead and say that the first _Conjuring_ movie isn't even really that good. The only entry I've given a favourable review ("favourable" here meaning "more than a 5 outta 10") iissss *dramatic pause* THIS O- no I'm kidding it's _Conjuring 2. Conjuring 2_ is the good one and everything else ranges from "alright" to "dumpster fire", and the first _Annabelle_ is firmly at the bottom of that dumpster fire. What's the next best entry? The crème de la compètènt? It's... Oh my God I think it actually is this one... You guys is _Annabelle Comes Home_ the closes thing we've got to a second good movie? ...Fuck... I'm pretty sure it is.
_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 :)
I went to this movie not expecting much, but it never crossed my mind that I would be watching a film as bad or worse than The Nun. Honestly, going back, I was too easy on the latter since I didn’t exactly give it a massively negative review, which it surely deserves. However, Annabelle Comes Home really tries its best to be even worse. I hate it. I truly do. The horror genre has been exponentially growing, and it’s one of the two most popular genres right now (comic-book movies are the other), but this cheap, bland, cliche, predictable, and forgettable class of horror films is genuinely starting to annoy and frustrate me. The Conjuring Universe became just a set of silly spin-offs with entities that have no interest whatsoever and filled with extremely under-developed characters.
This is the third movie about Annabelle. Three films that address the powers of a freaking doll. Three! Very few people liked the first one, the prequel was admittedly a pleasant surprise, but this one is just atrociously bad. There’s not even a story. The whole movie is based on repeating almost laughable jump scares sequences. Literally, it’s all some sort of variation of the following:
Character walks down the hall -> A strange noise occurs-> Character slowly follows that noise -> Score starts to become louder -> Character checks something and camera closes in on the actor’s face -> Score becomes heavier and louder with the introduction of bass -> Another noise occurs behind the character -> Camera pans with the character and nothing happens -> Character continues to check on something -> Another noise, another pan, nothing again -> Score is reaching its climax -> Character continues doing the same thing -> Final noise, pan, and then one out of the two predictable jump scares happen: BOO! or Fake! … BOO! -> These are accompanied by a ridiculously loud sound that everyone in the theater is already bracing for because, guess what, everyone knows it’s coming -> Cut -> Repeat.
Except for the first 15-20 minutes, which are used to solely provide backstory to the three main characters, every single scene is an uninspired, unimaginative, anticipated, and tedious build-up to a jump scare that heavily relies on an exaggeratedly loud sound, and someone screaming. There’s no real narrative besides some character backstories which also have their own issues, especially one that involves an attempt at the start of a silly romance. Gary Dauberman tried to insert comedy in order to balance an otherwise monotonous film, but he failed miserably. Every supposedly funny moment is astonishingly cringe-worthy. It was his directorial feature-debut, and it shows.
It just feels like another cheap horror flick, filled with nothing but jump scares. One after the other. Every director in Hollywood could have done this, there’s no distinct style or a trademark shot. Nothing. I do believe that every movie takes a lot of work, and there are tons of people behind a film that genuinely give it their all every time. But Annabelle Comes Home feels so much like a pure cash grab, and I hate writing these words because every movie ever is ultimately an attempt to win money for the studios. However, this sequel never feels like it’s actually serving any purpose for the expansion or improvement of the universe it represents. It’s a horror flick filmed in just one location, something that I usually love because you can do so much with it, but this time it really seems that it was filmed entirely at a house because it was cheaper, hence more probability of profit.
There are two clear areas in the horror genre: the zone with films like Hereditary, Get Out and Us, where the story and its characters are what’s more important and scarier; and the other with movies like The Nun, The Curse of La Llorona or Annabelle Comes Home, where the only goal is to cyclically produce jump scare sequences with no narrative significance or impact. If you enjoy this latter type of films (which is absolutely okay, everything is subjective to personal preferences), then you’ll probably enjoy this movie. At least, people in my theater screamed and laughed pretty hard with no respect for the moviegoers that were trying to watch the actual film. However, if you’re sick of watching the same thing over and over and over and over again, please, for your own sake, skip it.
If it wasn’t for the truly amazing performances, this could very easily be the worst movie of the year (Serenity still holds that spot). McKenna Grace is phenomenal as Judy! Madison Iseman and Katie Sarife are also pretty good at their roles. Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga barely have any screentime, but when they do show up, they definitely elevate the scene. Everything related to the production design is quite good, but technicalities will never save a film from misery if the two pillars of any movie (story and characters) are thrown down the sewer. Also, I was shocked when I discovered that this is Rated R. There’s barely any blood or anything that justifies that type of rating. It’s another aspect that makes this film an even bigger disappointment.
In the end, Annabelle Comes Home is as poor or worse than The Nun. I can’t really decide which one I would watch instead of the other because I truly don’t want to watch any of these ever again. A brilliant cast might save this movie from a completely negative review, but it’s still an atrociously cheap addition to the horror genre. Everyone knows why this film doesn’t work: continuously repeating predictable, loud, and hollow jump scare sequences is not a story. I can’t feel invested in any of these scenes if they lack narrative impact or a minimum level of scariness. The fact that I barely even instinctively flinched (something I can’t really avoid) is a sign of how horrible this movie is. My expectations for The Conjuring 3 just dropped tremendously. Good luck, James Wan. You’re going to need it.
Rating: D

Ha! Rarely can a film have a more appropriate title nor can any marriage get off to a less auspicious start. Firstly, after a beautifully photographed and scored series of images of real planets colliding, we are presented with a loved-up couple "Justine" (Kirsten Dunst) and "Michael" (Alexander Skarsgård) stuck in an eighty-foot white limousine trying to navigate some country lanes to get to their own wedding. Arriving, eventually, on foot and very late we proceed to enjoy a brief speech from her mother "Gaby" (Charlotte Rampling) who declares that she has no time for marriage at all - a state of affairs largely arrived at due to some fairly irreconcilable differences with ex-husband "John" (Kiefer Sutherland). That does rather set the scene for an at times extremely potent look at just how depression sets in, takes hold and rules ruthlessly the lives of those it touches. This is most certainly not a joyous piece of cinema, but it most certainly an honest one - and both Dunst and Charlotte Gainsbourg as her new mother-in-law "Claire" deliver strongly and quite compellingly as we begin to appreciate the rather prophetic nature of the opening few scenes. Conflict is never far away, tempers flare - especially when "Justine" speaks her mind to best man and employer "Jack" (Stellan Skarsgård) and it's really only in the second part of the film - dedicated to "Claire" that a sort of calm befalls the proceedings, aided by the presence of the young "Leo" (a stabilising effort from Cameron Spurr!). Be prepared for a slow burn, nothing happens quickly - though it does happen quite powerfully - and I think this may well prove to be Dunst at her very best. Like most Van Trier films, it improves with viewings so I'd give it two or three goes and then I think you'll get more from these nuanced and well constructed - if deconstructed - characters.

this is nice movies and then best part of the the movies story is good.

At the start, I thought this was a sort of hybrid between "Quantum Leap" and "Guardians of the Galaxy" and that it was just going to be derivate nonsense. It's actually quite a bit better than that as we discover the malevolent "Operative" (Chiwitel Ejiofor) is on the trail of a priceless asset. It's not a jewel or a gadget, it's "River" (Summer Glau) and as he closes in on their ship "Serentity", things are starting to get hot for it's captain "Mal" (Nathan Fillion) and the others in this disparate crew. There's plenty of dissent amongst this bunch, not least because nobody actually knows why this unassuming woman is so valuable to their determined pursuer - but can they keep together and focussed long enough to evade capture and maybe even find out? None of the acting here is really worth mentioning, but the dialogue is quite entertaining, the visual effects deliver well and there's loads of high-octane cosmic adventure with choreographed fisticuffs, zapping lasers and an excitingly created denouement that the CGI lads can be proud of. I didn't see any of "Firefly" (2002) on which this is based, but as a stand-alone sci-fi adventure it still works well.

This is the captain. We have a little problem with our entry sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and then - explode.
Serenity is written and directed by Josh Whedon. It stars Nathan Fillion, Gina Torres, Alan Tudyk, Morena Baccarin, Adam Baldwin, Jewel Staite, Sean Maher, Summer Glau, Ron Glass and Chiwetel Ejiofor. Music is by David Newman and cinematography by Jack N. Green.
When the captain Mal Reynolds (Fillion) of the space craft Serenity takes on board Dr. Simon Tam (Maher) and his troubled sister River (Glau), it thrusts the entire crew into a world of conspiracy and galactic despots.
Coming at it as a complete novice as regards "Firefly", the short lived TV show that Serenity is spawned from, I personally have no frame of reference to work from. What I found was a hugely enjoyable sci-fi Western hybrid that deserved a better box office than it got. The cast are all comfortable with each other and very watchable, which isn't surprising since Whedon has transported them all over from "Firefly", good move that, while the action quota is high and the black comedy rich.
Where the itches start to appear for newcomers like myself, is that it does feel like an extended TV episode. With a twisty plot that sees Whedon cram much into the 2 hour running time, it demands the utmost attention. Which is fair enough to a degree, but many go (or more pertinently would have gone) into "Serenity" for a sci-fi action adventure, not for a tickle of the cranium. If this contributed to the poor show at the box office? I'm not sure. But you have to think this really was only made for the die-hard fans of the show.
Galling really, because the last third is a ripper of a blockbuster. The action sequences are expertly crafted, the story explodes still further and the principal characters really let loose, particularly the excellent Fillion. Biggest plus of all, the finale doesn't cop out by insulting those who have stayed the course chartered by the good ship Serenity and its crew. It's smart genre film making, a very enjoyable film without doubt, but really it's not got mainstream appeal. Which might suit those die-hards in a selfish kind of why, but that also means we are unlikely to get a sequel. And that's a shame because a newbie like me could easily stand some more of this whizz bangery. 7/10

This was an extremely poor movie. The weakest character during the TV series, River Tam, confusingly became the story focus in this movie.
Despite never exercising and having a small frame, River fought and K.O.ed a room full of bar patrons.
The crew, mysteriously, were devoted to going to the planet River wanted to visit to help her discover her past despite showing various degrees of hostility toward her during the series ranging from open contempt to advocating her murder.
The main villains do not make sense. They are, supposedly, so wild that they regularly sack planets and cannibalize its inhabitants, but can still work together well enough to fly space ships. The entire population of these wild people came from the planet River wants to visit and from a single research facility. I'd guess about 1,000 research and support personnel were initially infected. They have no way of infecting further individuals, the facility was shut down, and yet their current population is many times the original amount. How?
The plot does not make sense. It is not engaging. None of the characters are interesting. The characters die without emotional impact. Pass on this movie. Like the TV series, this is a waste of time.

A nice wrap-up to Firefly, unfortunately far too condensed. In may ways it felt like they took the major events that would have spanned the next 2 or 3 seasons and crammed it all into a 2 hour movie.
Nonetheless, it provides a decent sense of closure to the series.

When I first started watching the movie "Big Eyes" starring Amy Adams, I didn't have high expectations. I assumed it would be another typical older film that had its time in the spotlight. However, I was pleasantly surprised as the story unfolded.
The film follows a wife who decides to leave her husband, realizing he's not the right match for her. She finds solace in a painter who she admires, leading to a fast-paced romance. Both characters are artists, with the wife painting children with big, expressive eyes that reflect deep emotions and turmoil.
The movie boasts exceptional acting, a compelling storyline, and a captivating plot. As the narrative progresses, it's revealed that the husband is a fraudulent artist, taking credit for his wife's work and financial gains. The twist adds depth to the story and keeps viewers engaged.
What truly impressed me was discovering that "Big Eyes" is based on a true story. This revelation added a layer of credibility and authenticity to the film, making the ending even more satisfying. The actors' performances were outstanding, bringing the characters to life in a remarkable way.
Overall, "Big Eyes" exceeded my expectations with its powerful story, excellent delivery, and conclusive ending. It was a film that left me feeling excited and fulfilled by the time the credits rolled.

Film making could be the windows of the soul...
Directed by Tim Burton and written by Scott Alexander & Larry Karaszewski, Big Eyes brings to the screen the story of artist Margaret Keane (Amy Adams), who was producing a number of paintings of waifs with big eyes that captured the art world's imagination. Unfortunately her charlatan husband (Christolph Waltz) manipulated the interest in her work to claim it as his own, leading to Margaret having to front up to the lie and take the case to court.
Quite often the beauty of filmic cinema is that it can bring notice to the public about certain topics in history. The story of Margaret Keane is a story well worth telling, it may not be all encompassing as a biography since it is just about the key part of her life, but getting the story out there is to be applauded. I myself knew nothing about the Keane case, but I'm glad I do now, this film adaptation forcing me to seek out further reading on the subject.
It actually doesn't matter if you have a bent for art on canvas (me, but I do find those paintings beautifully beguiling), this is more about the human spirit, the crushing of such and the birth of. However, sadly to a degree the film often seems at odds with itself via tonal flows. There's whimsy where there shouldn't be, the drama should be front and centre, whilst Waltz's performance is awfully cartoonish, way too animated, and these problems are laid firmly at Burton's door, an odd choice of director for the material, it's like they felt the off kilter look of the paintings marked Burton as a shoe-in to direct.
Conversely he gets a sparkling turn out of Adams, she plays Margaret as being so vulnerable but radiant, yet she's perfectly infuriating as well, tugging our heart strings whilst troubling our anger senses. It's the strength of Adams' turn that steers Big Eyes away from choppy waters, for even as the court case that makes up the finale is given too little time to breath and make the ultimate mark, Adams as Margaret holds her own court and seals the deal for a big uplift - which in turn marks Big Eyes out as a film of great warmth and importance. 7.5/10

Planet Terror failed to terrorise with its blood-bubble bursting infestation. The first feature of Rodriguez/Tarantino’s homage to the “Grindhouse” exploitation genre, is one that exercises the practical magic of independently produced B-movies. No dramatic theatricality to be seen here, on the misty darkened roads of rural Texas where “Fergalicious” Fergie screams the countryside down whilst being devoured by infected military units. This is Planet Terror, baby. The only quality that matters is the amount of bloodshed that splatters onto the screen. Rodriguez may have directed, produced, written, scored, edited and shot the entire feature, he seemingly tried too hard in replicating the exploitation aesthetic that, if you strip away the grainy filter, comes across as a mildly engaging experiment. A one-legged Go-Go dancer, her legendary ex-boyfriend, and a plethora of other survivors, make battle with a zombie horde that have been infected with a biochemical agent known as “Project Terror”.
I saw it in the poster. You’ve seen it in the poster. We’ve all seen it in the poster. McGowan, with the stance of a badass, equipped with an assault rifle as a leg. That’s the level of awesome stupidity we are dealing with here, and to say I craved it would be an understatement. Rodriguez had the freedom to construct a feature so devilishly fun, that it could’ve been absolutely non-sensical and still be thoroughly entertaining. This is the genre where all rules are broken. Literally! Yet I found myself restrained to the confinement of my sofa. Why? Well, Planet Terror barbecued itself by never letting go. Something was constantly weighing down the feature, and I just can’t put my finger on it. The acting smelt of mild cheddar as opposed to stinking bishop. Aside from a few quotable lines, mostly from El Wray, Rodriguez’ screenplay was forgettable and largely an unfocused mess. For example, the sub-plot involving Brolin’s stern doctor character failed to inject any characterised purpose other than to pad out the runtime. But as soon as McGowan acquired that machine gun, catapulted herself into the air (beautifully terrible green screen and all...) and decimated the zombie horde ahead. Bam! That’s when Planet Terror worked! Piloting a helicopter at a slant so that the propeller decapitates the infected? Yes! Tarantino attempting to be a rapist? God no! Turn it off! It was unfortunately too late before it manifested the pure qualities of its genre.
Aesthetically though, Rodriguez was able to imitate that exploitation feel. The mass amount of blood spewing from the practical makeup design was exceptional and eloquently highlighted the visceral power of pragmatic effects. Limbs torn off like a family tucking into a KFC bargain bucket. Delicious. The grainy filter that imitated a film reel, “missing reel” included, had authenticity despite its occasional annoyance when infecting the entire screen with black marks everywhere.
However, strip away those aesthetic qualities, and the B-movie shine that Rodriguez aimed for suddenly dims. It’s too serious in execution to be considered full “grindhouse”, and that’s a shame. Had it embraced the sheer lunacy of its climactic ten minutes throughout the entire feature, Planet Terror could’ve been bloody special.

***Black comedy/thriller/horror about biochemically-birthed zombie outbreak in central Texas***
Created by writer/director Robert Rodriguez, “Planet Terror” was originally part of the double feature called “Grindhouse,” released in 2007. The other movie was “Death Proof” by Quentin Tarantino. Both were standalone stories, although vaguely connected. They were a deliberate attempt to recreate the experience of a double feature at a B movie house in the mid/late 60s-70s with the prints intentionally marred by scratches and blemishes or, in this flick, a whole reel supposedly missing. Trailers for fake movies, like “Machete,” were also part of the package.
The plot of “Planet Terror” involves a biochemical outbreak in central Texas that (big surprise) turns people into zombies and the ragtag group that teams-up to fight ’em, led by Freddy Rodríguez and Michael Biehn, the latter a sheriff. Hotties Rose McGowan and Marley Shelton are on hand, the former acquiring a machine gun implant in replace of her amputated leg. (How exactly she pulls the trigger to massacre zombies is anyone’s guess).
The movie comes across as a melding of “Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!” (1965), “Night of the Living Dead” (1968) and “Dawn of the Dead” (1978), but with the modern tone of “Slither” (2006) with its gross, deliberately offensive black humor. McGowan is a highlight throughout, especially her opening go-go sequence whereas Freddy Rodriguez is surprisingly formidable. Their romantic arc is kind o’ touching. Another point of interest is the quality cast, rounded out by the likes of Bruce Willis, Josh Brolin, Naveen Andrews and Fergie.
At the end of the day, though, “Planet Terror” fails to rise above the low-budget sorta-genius of Syfy schlock like “Flu Bird Horror” (2008), “Wyvern” (2009) and “Sasquatch Mountain” (2006) even though it cost literally twelve times as much. Go figure.
The film runs 1 hour, 45 minutes and was shot in central Texas (Austin and Luling, which is 22 miles south of Austin) and Tulum, Quintana Roo, Mexico.
GRADE: C

Naught terrible about it, but 'Rio 2' is a boring - if colourful and well meant - follow-up to the 2011 original.
The whole plot is basically just a typical family drama fest, filled to the brim with the clichés of relative and love quarrels. It's also entirely predictable, which doesn't help. A few of the characters from the first film are shoehorned in too, especially Nigel (Jemaine Clement).
Jesse Eisenberg (Blu) and Anne Hathaway (Jewel) reprise their roles, Eisenberg is the better of the two. Bruno Mars joins the cast, I actually liked his voice for Roberto but unfortunately his character is forgettable.
I'd guess the younger viewers will like this, as well as a number of others. For me, it's just very average.

You know how I said The World Is Not Enough was silly, that doesn't mean much if I like this.

The last of the "very good" 007 films.
It isn't spectacular, but it works.
There's intrigue, and lots of action, and the dynamics of the heroine-villainess and hero-villain are very good.
The "gadgets" are a bit sillier than usual, like the visible invisible car(?) but who cares?
The "over the top" action is always in every Bond film. Some films just don't try to lie about it. This one doesn't try to lie about it, so that also works.
This one has a lot of "people aren't who they appear to be", and there's a bit of detective work involved.
Still, it isn't a "classic" movie, but very watchable and entertaining, and very 007 with lots of action, scenery, women, and some attempts at wit, although wit is being crowded out in modern Bond films.

This STANK.
The Fx were horrible for a Bond movie, especially one made in 2002... and that isn't even getting to the theme song yet. Madonna set the record for the all time worst Bond song in the history of Bond songs.
And she set the record for one of the all time worst Bond villains in franchise history.
It doesn't really feel like a Bond movie, it feels like a movie that was trying to make a mockery out of past Bond movies.
Nothing comes together, everything is just flat out horrible, and, in the end, you want it all to be over.
It's honestly worse than Moonraker

Without a doubt, the worst James Bond theme song ever - and it tees up quite possibly the worst James Bond film ever made too. The trail features that now iconic shot of Halle Berry coming out of the water and thereafter there is quite literally nothing at all memorable about this long and meandering espionage thriller. I did find Pierce Brosnan to be a more engaging "007" than Timothy Dalton, but here he struggles to make any headway with this particularly, and quite violently, ludicrous plot. It all starts off quite well, actually, with an exciting pre-titles scene that sees our hero stuck in a Korean prison, seemingly abandoned by all. It's only via a prisoner exchange that he finds his freedom and then by way of some diamond smugglers and a bit of sword play with the least intimidating baddie this franchise has ever produced - "Gustav Graves" (Toby Stephens), we build to a denouement set amidst an Arctic wilderness. The early films included the roles of "M", "Q" and "Moneypenny" as foils to the star and to his character. Here, we start to see these parts being embellished to fit the status of their actors. Judi Dench is adequate, but dear heaven - what is John Cleese doing here? Another divorce settlement to fund? Rosamund Pike rarely shines for me in a film and she doesn't generate an ounce of menace here - a task left solely to the broadly competent Rick Yune's all but indestructible "Zhao". Certainly, there are gadgets - including a nifty Aston Martin with an invisibility cloak. Had I had one at the cinema whilst this was showing, I may well have availed myself of it and skulked out. Time for a change methinks.

_**One of the top two in Brosnan's stint**_
Agent 007 (Pierce Brosnan) is sent to North Korea to investigate a colonel illegally trading weapons for African blood diamonds. The trail eventually leads from Hong Kong to Cuba where Bond meets Jinx (Halle Berry) and infiltrates a gene therapy clinic in a veritable fortress off the coast. Next, Bond has a thrilling fencing match at a swank club in London with the main villain (Toby Stephens). The final act switches to an incredible ice palace in Iceland and back to Korea. Rick Yune is on hand as the secondary villain, Zao.
"Die Another Day" (2002) was Pierce Brosnan's fourth and final performance as James Bond and it has the most pizazz of his four movies by far. Its heightened comic book-ness gives it a bad rap, but that’s what makes it stand out from the previous two installments, which had a muted palette and were somewhat forgettable (although entertaining enough). The villains are more memorable in this one and the Bond women are certainly acceptable. The best part of the film, for me, is the over-the-top sword fight at the manor. Although it's so overdone it's somewhat goofy, it may very well be the best sword fight in the history of cinema.
The second half, which mostly takes place in Iceland, has several good action sequences as well, even goofier than the sword fight, like the iceberg tsunami on which Bond surfs (Why Sure!). But it's not like this is the first time an action scene was totally ludicrous in a Bond picture (Remember the ‘Bat Boat’ in the opening of “The World is Not Enough”?).
The first time I saw Brosnan my initial thought was, "He'd make a great Bond,” and so he does; but it's a different Bond than Connery or Moore and it takes time to get used to him.
Madonna sings the title song (and has a cameo).
The film runs 2 hours, 13 minutes, and was shot in Maui, Hawaii (opening surfing scene); England (including as a stand-in for Korea); Andalucía, Spain (Cuba); Austurland, Iceland, and Norway (ice car chase and ice palace environs).
GRADE: B+/A-