If you fancy yourself a big swingin' dick yank, then I'd recommend you watch _13 Hours_, but of course, you already have.
I can move past the xenophobia and jingoism pretty easily, even the typical Bay tropes don't ruin a movie for me, but what I find difficult to abide is boredom, and with _13 Hours_, I personally found that in spades.
Though it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, though I didn't care about any of the characters, and though I am giving this film a negative review, I can still say it's Michael Bay's best work in years.
_Final rating:★★ - Definitely not for me, but I sort of get the appeal._

> In an unfriendly environment they got 13 long hours to survive and resist the attack.
It is an action-thriller-war version of the 'Argo'. Based on the true story where the most of the film was the 13 hour long armed battle event took place in Libya, 2012. I remember the middle-east's protest over the western films, this story is set in the same time when the islamic terrorists targeted the American diplomatic compounds in Benghazi, but six brave men stood and fought against the uprising.
It is an American patriotic film, but because of the hatred over their own countrymen Michael Bay, they're surely missing a nearly a war masterpiece. The rest of the world saw it as a fine film and appreciated that. If you haven't seen it yet, I say just don't ignore it. It was a well made realistic war film, the actors were amazing and the scenes were suspenseful to spectacular. Definitely one of the best in this theme.
It was simply focused on the armed conflict between the two forces, so it won't reasons out us how and where it all began, because that might take another film to tell the tale. That's really a very clever writing. In this 150 minute long film, the first act was full of characters and story development. Then begins the gun fight that commences from the dust hours till the dawn breaks out. With many twists in the narration during confrontation, surely not a film to be missed.
8/10

Butler's movies are not hard to watch at all. And hello Izzie.

Good watch, could watch again, and can recommend.
It feels like this is after all the uproar with Katherine Heigl ("27 Dresses") and she was trying to come back with a smile on her face, but she took the role because it gave her the opportunity to act the awful person she was accused of being.
Gerard Butler ("Bounty Hunter") acts up a storm to keep up with her, with both equally playing off each of wonderfully.
I can't tell the better actor here because Gerard is clearly acting, but he might be acting a character that is acting eccentrically, but I'm still aware regardless of how good it is, versus Katherine who is so natural and seamless that you don't realize she's acting until she over acts per the character following another character's prompts badly.
It doesn't make for the best movie, but it sure is interesting. And I'm sure if you can look past all that, then you can appreciate this veil metaphor of the sexes and a very well written story.
Nothing about this is fantastic, but it's a solidly good romantic comedy.

Such a crap movie for babies. The Lorax is literal orange crap color. Boring garbage made by money hungry pigs.

Good watch, will probably watch again, and can recommend.
Despite the "Despicable Me" / "Minions" franchise, Illumination seems to do good work, and they really brought the zaney world of Dr. Seuss to life here, regardless of how much sense it may or may not make at the time.
It's been a while since I read "The Lorax", but I'm pretty sure the motivation to plant a tree wasn't to get a girl. For all I remember the Onceler's story was the original storybook with a couple of catchy musical numbers thrown in.
That aside, there is a lot of fun in this movie with a (ultimately) positive message about environmental conservation, thought it's not as strong as it would like to be, but as palatable as necessary. While I won't bored you with the details necessary to convey my view on environmental education, there is an odd bit to the "conducting business" scene series where there almost seems to be a subtle message for capitalistic business during the moments we're being told this is bad, or maybe that was the point: there is a struggle and balance necessary. I just thought it was funny. At least the put message out there for us not to underestimate the elderly.
The world / character creation is very well done, and I'm humming one of the songs as I write this, but there is one problem I have with the writing: that the Onceler breaks the story up across multiple days. Once he has his audience (oh, play with in a play: a Shakespearean device), and the movie has its audience, just tell your story through. I'm not a fan of break up a story into multiple stories if it's not necessary (if you've ever binged a tv show, you know what I'm talking about). At least he didn't flip it all around and tell it out of order (see "Pulp Fiction").
While the Lorax itself is an underwhelming, if subtle, character itself, I can imagine most people will enjoy it.

The Lorax thneedn’t have shoved its colourful environmentalist message so brutally. Well, the live-action ‘Cat in the Hat’ adaptation was a *cough* massive success *cough* so it was only a matter of years before another Dr Seuss family-friendly book would have its zany vivid world transferred onto the medium of film. Then comes the introductory title screen. A despicable minion pops up next to the bold cancerous studio name “Illumination”, and instantly all hope was diminished.
Aside from their initial franchise, they seem to be unable to create animated flicks without treating the audience like simplistic Neanderthals, and The Lorax takes the biscuit. Patience was running thin just from the introductory musical number alone. A young boy journeys outside the walled plastic city of Thneedville to find a living tree so that he can impress a girl, but soon relives a tale that would change his way of life.
This is a mess. Perhaps unadaptable due to Seuss’ imaginative wordplay that inspiringly illustrates a creative warning against corporate greed and destructive deforestation. Illumination on the other hand, whilst consistently producing colourful and vibrant animations, shoved the morality down the throats of its audience. Within two minutes, the civilians are singing about their perfect plastic bubble and capitalistic functionality. The main character, not the titular creature, has yet to be seen. A Kim Jong-Un lookalike imprisoning his people in a miniature North Korean world fuelled by propaganda. Taylor Swift refusing to sing any of the forgettable songs. And an underdeveloped insight into consumerism by showing one advertisement for canned air.
Then the narrative shifts to flashback mode when “The Once-ler” retells his past mistakes. That being the termination of candy floss trees to manufacture his new invention. High-pitched carps, who clearly watched ‘Alvin and the Chipmunks’, irritate with forced pop culture humour. Cuddly cubs scratching their hairy walnuts on display and devouring slabs of butter. Finally, the spirit of the trees gracefully descends from the clouds by awkwardly hoisting his orange derrière in your face. The Lorax.
Danny “Rule Number 95 Kid, Concentrate!” DeVito. A legend if I’m being honest, but terribly mismatched with the moustached beast. In fact, all of the voice acting was generic and forgettable, never truly matching the wide mouths of its unmemorable characters. The, what is essentially two narrative strands, inadvertently produced an underdeveloped arc that had sole intentions on pushing its well-intentioned morals instead of genuine character development and emotionality.
Illumination aren’t known for their subtle storytelling, and it’s evident in this adaptation. Aside from ‘Hop’ (which we shan’t talk about ever again...), this is by far their weakest mess. Understandably I’m not the target demographic, but children will only be hypnotised by the entrancing colours. I guarantee they shan’t remember it after a few days. What a thneed-fest!

Just not for me. This _Lorax _is almost all filler. The message is still there, but it's lost under a tidal wave of meh.
_Final rating:★★ - Definitely not for me, but I sort of get the appeal._

Maybe not quite the movie of the year I had been led to believe, but hey, it's better than the movie it's about the making of. As much of a chore as it is, I would recommend watching _The Room first_, not as a necessity, just for a better perspective.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

This is and forever will be my favourite Bond film of them all.
It has everything iconic lines, iconic villians, iconic car, iconic gadgets, Goldfinger is a while loud of fun and is extremely enjoyable.

This has got to be my favourite "007" outing. Shirley Bassey gets the ball rolling as our secret agent enters the murky world of bullion smuggling. It's end-to-end stuff with Sean Connery crossing swords with the best Bond baddie of all - "Auric Goldfinger" stylishly portrayed by Gert Fröbe. Honor Blackman has got to be the best Bond girl, she has oodles of sex appeal and panache, but is also much more sophisticated than the pretty "bimbo" character usually associated with this role. Harold Sakata must have done wonders for the sale of bowler hats and I'm sure we all wanted an Aston Martin (ideally with a passenger ejector seat) by the end of this cracking adventure film.

I have a special affinity for this 007 film.
I was born in Louisville in 1956, and I actually have vague recollections of much of the scenery.
That scenery didn't last long. Louisville is an ever changing city in scenery.
The story seems to be more of a story of 007 against one man, Goldfinger, but there is a connection to the Specter group, and to all the mobs in the U.S..
The tragedy of Jill Masterson is something 007 wants to avenge, because she helped him and was killed by Odd Job, Goldfinger's insane top man.
While Goldfinger is labeled as insane, Odd Job is twice as insane. He's totally kill crazy.
I read this book, and the alterations are fairly minor in my opinion. The biggest alteration is the alteration of anti heroine Pussy Galore and Jill Masterson's sister Tilly.
Goldfinger wants to pull a "job" on Fort Knox, Kentucky.
This is a very fun film, and I don't think there is any lull in it for more than a few seconds.
as usual, Bond shows great humanity. Some say he's cold, but I differ. In almost every movie, he has great affection for humanity and for human life. He kills people who are trying to take away human life.
I rank this as about the fourth greatest Bond film, but that's because I was born in Louisville, where much of this is set, and much of it takes place in Fort Knox.

Yeah... I'm solidly in the "From Russia With Love is the greatest Bond Movie" camp. And if there was ever a point of contest in the Bond franchise, it's not really who the best Bond was (Roger or Sean) it's which is the best Bond film, From Russia with Love or Goldfinger.
Goldfinger isn't the best... It's the SECOND BEST. What it is is the most unique. And it's the most fun.
Bond sort of Pooches it in this one and still manages to Forrest Gump his way to victory, and you haven't seen that in any 007 movie since. This is the movie about a mission that SHOULD have been in the lose category. At the time of this release, by the end of the movie Bond's record should have been 2 and 1... only he still manages to claim victory.
And he kind of does it through no fault of his own. Sure, the final battle he comes out on top, but all the events that come before it go horribly wrong, he should have died, Goldfinger should have won, and the only reason he didn't was because of the cunning of other people who are NOT James Bond.
I know, it sounds like I'm ripping into it, but really, seriously, I'm not. All of that is what makes it such a loveable and memorable and unique Bond film, one like you have never seen before and probably never will again.
The only other one that comes remotely close to it is Skyfall, and even then Bond isn't as bumbling as he is in Goldfinger... and of course it's Sean Connery, so he's still dapper, still suave as he sort of stumbles to victory.
It is all probably why this is so hotly contested as the Best 007 film among die hard 007 fans, the pure uniqueness of this particular outing, the fact that you will never see Bond in such a light again. The fact that ONLY Connery can pull off a suave and confident almost failure in a way that makes you think he's anything BUT a failure despite nothing going his way.
And then, of course, it is absolutely fun. It is absolutely entertaining. And those are two reasons why people watch movies.

_**Iconic 60’s Bond film**_
Released in 1964 (or January, 1965, in the USA), "Goldfinger" was the third Bond film in three years. This was the film that pushed 007 over-the-top and is rightly considered a classic. It's very iconic of mid-60's cinema -- the title song, the gold-painted woman, Oddjob's deadly hat and the breaking into Fort Knox. The next two films in the series are just as great and IMHO better -- "Thunderball" (1965) and "You Only Live Twice" (1967). "Thunderball" made more at the box office than any other Bond flick from the Connery era and "You Only Live Twice" upped the ante with the action & spy stuff and is just all-around entertaining.
Yet "Goldfinger" continues to be the Bond film that's most highly regarded of the 60s and this should be respected. But don't expect the wall-to-wall action that was introduced with "You Only Live Twice" and remains to this day. Yes, "Goldfinger" has some quality action sequences, but less than what you'd typically get from a 007 flick post-"Thunderball.” In fact, one clash in the film is a simple game of golf between James and Goldfinger (Gert Fröbe). An earlier scene involves Bond forcing Goldfinger to lose a card game. This doesn't make "Goldfinger" bad, of course, just different. "A View to a Kill" (1985) is notable for the same reason.
Other positives include a fairly long sequence in the magnificent Swiss Alps, where it was shot, and quality Bond women like Shirley Eaton (the ‘golden girl’) and brief appearances by Margaret Nolan (Dink) and Nadja Regin (Bonita); Honor Blackman is cool as Pussy Galore, but she never tripped my trigger.
Despite all the good, there are some negatives. For instance, the gas fly-over by Pussy Galore's girls and the falling-over of the troops comes off lame. There's also a little too much "down time" in the second half that's not all that interesting.
Nevertheless, "Goldfinger" is a James Bond classic, full of iconic imagery and scenes. When it was released it was extraordinary, but it may now strike some viewers as tame or even lame in ways. Regardless, it's definitely a worthy Bond flick and has its unique charm.
The film runs 1 hour, 50 minutes, and was shot in Miami Beach, Florida; England; Switzerland; and Kentucky.
GRADE: A-

Bond, Bowler Hats, Galore and the Man With the Midas Touch.
Goldfinger is directed by Guy Hamilton and adapted to screenplay by Richard Maibaum & Paul Dehn from the novel written by Ian Fleming. It stars Sean Connery, Gert Frobe, Honor Blackman, Shirley Eaton & Harold Sakata. Music is by John Barry and cinematography by Ted Moore.
Operation Grand Slam.
Connery's third outing as James Bond sees 007 investigating the movements of wealthy gold dealer Auric Goldfinger (Frobe). Little does 007 or MI6 know, but Goldfinger is hatching a master plan that will spell disaster for the world's financial climate.
Undeniably the turning point in the James Bond franchise, Goldfinger is also one of the most fondly remembered by the cinema loving public. Here is when Bond not only went go-go gadget crazy, but he also impacted on pop culture to the point the waves created are still being felt today. Bond traditionalists are often irked by the mention of the change Goldfinger represents, and with just cause, because this really isn't Fleming's core essence Bond. Bond has now become a gadget using super agent, a man who laughs in the face of death, a quip never far from his lips. Yet the hard facts are that this Bond is the one the world really bought into, ensuring for the foreseeable future at least, that this type of Bond was here to say. Marketing was high pitched, fan worship became feverish and the box office sang to the tune of $125 million. Toys, gimmicks and collectables would follow, the Aston Martin DB5 would become "The Most Famous Car in the World", in 1964 Bond truly became a phenomenon.
Purely on an entertainment front, Goldfinger delivers royally, the sets, casting and the high energy set-pieces all seep with quality. This in spite of the actual plot being one of the weakest in the whole franchise. As great a villain as Auric Goldfinger is, with a voice dubbed Frobe simply joyous in the role, his motives are rather dull and hardly cause for some worldwide Bondian panic. But the film rises above it to the point it only really registers long after the end credits have rolled. We have been treated to Odd Job (Sakata instantly becoming a Bond villain legend), that laser, the DB5 and its tricks, the delicious Honor Blackman as Pussy Galore (still an awesome name today and still sounding like a character from a Carry On movie), the golf match, Shirley Eaton's golden girl and the ticking time bomb finale played out during the chaotic scenes involving Ken Adam's brilliantly designed version of Fort Knox.
Bond staples also serve the production well, the title sequence is neatly strung together as scenes from the movie play out over a writhing golden girl, who was model Margaret Nolan and who briefly appears in the film as Dink. The theme tune is a blockbuster, sang with gusto by Shirley Bassey and the locations dazzle the eyes as we are whisked to Switzerland, Kentucky and Miami. Stock characters continue to make their marks, with M, Moneypenny and Q (setting in motion the wonderful serious v jocular axis of his "to be continued" relationship with Bond), starting to feel like old cinematic friends. Only let down is Cec Linder's turn as Bond's CIA counterpart, Felix Leiter, gone is the swagger created by Jack Lord in Dr. No, and while Linder is no bad actor, he doesn't sit right in the role, he's looks too world weary. A shame because he is integral to how the plot pans out.
Director Guy Hamilton was helming the first of what would end up being four Bond movies on his CV, he made his mark by bringing more zip and quip to the Bond character. Connery was firmly ensconced in the role of Bond, he was a mega star because of it, but cracks were beginning to appear in how Connery viewed this gargantuan success and the impact it was having on his hopes to be viewed as a serious actor. However, he was signed up for Thunderball, the next James Bond adventure, and Terence Young would return to the director's chair, could they top the success of Goldfinger? 9/10

**James Bond wears a strap on plastic seagull hat**
This entry is widely recognised as the template for all the Bond films that followed - and we can see why in the opening sequence. James Bond ( Sean Connery) in disguise wearing _a strap on plastic seagull_ on his head.
It's a Roger Moore Bond movie nine years before Roger Moore! I love the ludicrous Bond movies such as Goldfinger and Octopussy - two of my favorites. Octopussy has Roger Moore _riding a plastic crocodile_ and Goldfinger has _Sean Connery wearing a strap on plastic seagull hat!_
_Thunderball_, a year later, continued the ludicrous fun with Connery's Bond riding a jet pack and fighting cross dressing assassins.
It's a shame that in 2006, the franchise died and became something utterly bland with the advent of the Craig era.
- Potential Kermode

On this face of it, this ought to be rubbish... a testosterone-fuelled story of beautiful people who rob banks to fund their hedonistic lifestyle that largely revolves around anything that causes their adrenalin to rush, but it isn't rubbish. Kathryn Bigelow keeps the pace end-to-end, and both Keanu Reeves ("Johnny Utah") and Patrick Swayze ("Bohdi") are clearly having fun as the FBI agent pursuing the gang of rubber mask clad "ex-president" beach-bum robbers. Reeves is easy on the eye, but pretty wooden and sure, the plot has more holes than a string vest but the story isn't meant to be deep and meaningful. This is just a fun adventure escapade that sees our hero go surfing, sky-diving and the cinematographer is clearly in his element, too. The ending, though cluttered up with some lovey-dovey nonsense, is actually quite exhilarating as the pair seem to develop just a little bit of a bromance... It's an updated variation on the traditional cops 'n robbers affair that offers much by way of escapism on a wet, wintry evening and ought to be judged accordingly.

**Katherine Bigelow creates a beautiful complex action blockbuster with magnificent depth and chapters.**
Wow. Just wow. Point Break is a deep character-driven film full of top-notch action, mind-blowing stunts, and incredible performances. These actors made you fall in love and deeply care about each character and moment in the film. Each actor's portrayal was thoughtful, dedicated, outstanding, and worthy of much more acclaim and awards than received. This film transformed Keanu Reeves into an action hero, with Point Break only being the first of many 90s action movies he led, including Speed and The Matrix. Gary Busey nailed his mentor role as Agent Pappas. But the stand-out performance was Patrick Swayze as the cool and captivating Bodhi. His performance was shown brilliantly through his eyes, which said much more than any dialogue. Unfortunately, the real crime was Swayze didn't even get a nomination for this astonishing role. The complex relationship between Reeves and Swayze's characters as their friendship develops and their conflicting sides of the law is the focal point of the movie, providing an excellent foundation for the fantastic action sequences. Point Break is an incredible movie about friendship and justice, with skydiving action fight sequences, robbery heists, and chase scenes. Katherine Bigelow's film remains one of the greatest action and heist movies of the 90s and the inspiration for the Fast and the Furious franchise.

**_The fast and the furious on the beaches of Southern California_**
A young FBI agent (Keanu Reeves) is sent by his superior (Gary Busey) to investigate a surfer gang to find out if they’re a notorious group of bank robbers. Patrick Swayze plays the guru-like leader of the gang while Lori Petty is on hand as a surfer companion. John C. McGinley appears as the FBI chief.
"Point Break" (1991) is an action/crime thriller set mostly on the beaches of SoCal that obviously influenced "The Fast and the Furious" (2001) plot-wise. This is the better movie due to Swayze’s charismatic character and the interesting dynamic between Utah (Reeves) and Bodhi (Swayze), not to mention the relationship of Utah and Pappas (Busey) as well as Utah and Tyler (Lori). So, while this is a snappy, action-packed flick, it doesn’t forget to provide human interest.
In some ways it’s even great with certain seeming plot holes easily explained if you think about it; others maybe not so much.
Since it was made in 1990 it has an 80’s vibe (in a good way) with a pre-grunge soundtrack. Nirvana’s NEVERMIND wouldn’t debut until 2.5 months after its release.
The film runs 2 hours, 2 minutes, and was shot mostly in greater Los Angeles (Malibu, Culver City, Santa Monica, Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach and Venice). The surfing scenes were done in O'ahu, Hawaii; the skydiving scenes at Lake Powell, Utah; and the closing Australian sequence at Cannon Beach, Oregon.
GRADE: B+

Julianne Moore at her's Peak & and also all of em.
**What the Frogs!**

I remember seeing this in the theater with one of my friends, during our first year in college. We had all found our way back to town and... given we lived in the sticks... we ended up going to the movies out of habit and for lack of anything else to do.
And I'll be honest, at the time, I walked out of the theater kind of blown away. I hadn't really seen a movie like that before.
I mean, the closest thing that came to it was American Beauty, and we had only seen that a few months prior... and that had more of a plot.
At the time, I'll admit, I thought it was pretty good.... and then I returned to it and now, honestly, I just think it's pretentious.
Pretentious really is the best way to describe it. When you first see it, it hits you one way because it's an odd movie that you really haven't seen before.
And then, when go back to it, knowing a little more about it, you realize that the plot, the characters, the entire premise of the film is about as thin and transparent as a white chiffon shirt in a wet t-shirt contest.
The presentation was there, but that's really all it was. Presentation and vapidness. It's show and tell with no real tell and the hopes that frogs might get the audience thinking enough to distract them away from the fact that there's no substance beyond the presentation.

Been a long time since I last watched this but even though this was 3 hours long, never felt the length and I was pretty much captivated throughout (although I did pause a few times to get refill on my drink or grab a snack). The performances all around were great, most notably Tom Cruise, Melora Walters, John C. Reilly and the young Jeremy Blackman (Stanley). It does get heavy-handed and while I "get" the raining frogs scene, that took me out a bit (albeit it was towards the end). **4.0/5**
As a side, the other two kids (Julia and Richard) were hacks, counting on Stanley to carry them. Something that irked me the first time I saw this, lol.

**_Scream 3’s_ lackluster screenplay and unimaginative kills leave a film that is a bore to watch.**
The meta-narrative of trilogies throughout the film does not make up for how abysmal the plot was. This film creates so much lore for the past movies seemingly out of the blue, muddling up the continuity for shock value. It added very little to this film and felt forced. The entire plot point of Sidney’s mother being a former Hollywood actress was pretty lame, especially with the added plot point of her being sexually assaulted by a movie producer. It may be personal taste, but I absolutely despise when films add that plot point, as it feels incredibly hypocritical since it is something that genuinely happens to an industry, they are involved in. The love triangle between Gale, Dewey, and the Gale actress was pretty dumb and felt undeserved, as we have not seen Gale and Dewey actually together in any of the films.
In horror films, you can have a good movie with a terrible plot as long as the kills are great. Unfortunately, Scream 3 continues the trend of having boring kills with no imagination. There has been only one truly unique kill throughout the entire franchise, and the rest are unbloody stab kills. I understand the meta being about stabbing with a knife, as the in-film movie is called Stab, but please add some gore to it. There is nothing, no blood squirts or body horror, and it caused the entire movie to be boring.
Our performances were exactly how I would describe Scream 2, with both Neve Campbell and Courtney Cox being the standouts and David Arquette being average at best. All of the new characters were pretty uninteresting, all of the actors in the film were annoying, and the movie producers felt generic.
The direction of this film felt pretty uninspired. I am not sure if Wes Craven was forced to make this movie by the studio, but nothing about it felt unique and creative. It felt like he was phoning it in for a paycheck.
Overall, there were not a lot of redeeming qualities for this film, and it left me feeling unfulfilled as the final credits rolled. Hoping Scream IV has more in store for me than this lackluster film.
**Score:** _45%_
**Verdict:** _Poor_

Not even a brief cameo from "Princess Leia" herself - passing lively comment on George Lucas's casting techniques, can save this entirely derivative trequel. Amidst the filming of "Stab 3", people start to drop like flies almost exactly as they might following script of this soon to be completed masterpiece. The new slasher starts as he/she/it means to go on, by dispatching poor old "Cotton" (Liev Schreiber) and his girlfriend before turning attention to the old guard of "Sidney" (Neve Prescott), Courteney Cox ("Gale") - and their movie-star doppelgängers whilst the indomitable "Dewey" (David Arquette) laudably, but ineffectively, keeps a look out as the corpses pile up. This is a really poor rehash of the original with almost exactly the same plot with the same red herrings, screeching hysteria and audio-induced jump-points. Although the structure of the story is marginally different, the ending is just as ridiculously left field and reminded me of something Agatha Christie might have drafted before she tossed it on the fire. This gift has stopped giving for Wes Craven, time to stop!

Oh the irony of it all...
After surviving the second wave of ghostface killings, Sidney Prescott has retired to the mountains to live in peace and work as a phone call therapist. Sadly for her she is about to be dragged back into the nightmare because the production of Stab 3 is rocked by murder and the killer is leaving pictures of Sidney's dead mother at the crime scenes.
I have to admit that I once never gave this film much love, I loved the first two to such a degree that I felt this third and final instalment was way off being a fitting closure to what was at the time a trilogy. Yet as time has wore on I have really grown fond of the film, Parker Posey no longer annoys the hell out of me, the once jarring itch of watching the makers kill off a fave character of mine in the opening sequence is something I now view as a masterstroke, and the twisty ending that was once an irksome pest has moved on to be the perfect "trilogy" closure.
Scream 3 has its tongue firmly in its cheek, it's aware of its number and it's aware of its formulaic root, so in spite of treading familiar ground (I mean come on gang, have you not learnt nothing from your previous experiences), the returning characters still have our undivided attention. While the transporting of the story to Hollywood, with its movie within a movie structure, is fresh and adds a new dimension to proceedings. New additions to the scary fun are Patrick Dempsey, Emily Mortimer, Lance Henriksen and the afore mentioned Parker Posey, and all of them add greatly to the mysterious plot unfolding.
The death quotient is still high, and the Wes Craven school of whodunitry is well and truly open, and I personally feel that this one is easily the funniest film of the three, witness Jay & Silent Bob turning up, a Carrie Fisher sequence that once heard will never be forgotten, and a video appearance by passed on geek god Randy Meeks. Scream 3 closes the "trilogy" just fine, it's got bags of energy and a glint in its eye, now if only I could get a copy of the uncompleted Stab 3 off the internet - and if only there wasn't to be a part 4 further down the line... 7/10

Noticeably not as commanding as its predecessor, but 'Sicario: Day of the Soldado' is still a good time.
It's pleasing to have the returns of Benicio del Toro and Josh Brolin, the former isn't as great as before though the latter is basically the same. Isabela Merced, meanwhile, makes for a positive addition. Some parts of the story are more interesting than others, e.g. the bits directly with Elijah Rodriguez's Miguel aren't all that noteworthy.
It does set the atmosphere really well, sound-wise it's good - except for that one amusing (unintentionally, granted) use of 'girl screaming' stock audio, which I'm fairly certain is the exact same sound effect used in 'RollerCoaster Tycoon' back in the day - whatta game, by the way.
One (real) criticism I do have, mind, is the lighting. I saw a few reviewers noting that for the 2015 original too though I didn't see it (or I guess I did, ha) there. Here, however, it's obvious... especially early on. Once the plot gets moving it gets less and less noticeable, but still.
I can't say a sequel was needed, though at least they did an acceptable job with it. Time will tell if they do so again for 'Sicario: Capos'.

**_Not as good as the original, but still pretty decent_**
> **_Sarah Sanders_**: _We have a completely broken immigration system. We have a national crisis, not just of safety and security, but a humanitarian crisis. We have drugs, we have human traffickers, we have terrorists that come across our border and there has to be a stop to that and we want to do - not just the wall; certainly that's one of the most important factors. We know that it works; we know that in the places that it's been, it's 95 percent effective. We want to be effective across the board and that includes the wall an__d other technology._
> [...]
> **_Chris Wallace_**: "_Special Interest Aliens" are just people who come from countries that have ever produced a terrorist. They're not terrorists themselves. And the State Department says that there is, quote, their words: "no credible evidence of any terrorist coming across the border from Mexico_."
> **_Sanders_**: _We know that roughly, nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists come into our country illegally, and we know that our most vulnerable point of entry is at our southern border._
> **_Wallace_**: _Wait, wait, wait - I know the statistic; I didn't know if you were going to use it. But I studied up on this. Do you know where those 4,000 people come - where they're captured? Airports._
> _**Sanders**_: _Not always._
> **_Wallace_**: _Airports._
> **_Sanders_**: _Certainly a large number_ -
> **_Wallace_**: _The State Department says there hasn't been any terrorists that they've found coming across the southern border with Mexico._
> _**Sanders**_: _It's by air, it's by land, and it's by sea. It's all of the above. But one thing that you're forgetting is that the most vulnerable point of entry that we have into this country is our southern border, and we have to protect it. And the more individuals that_ -
> **_Wallace_**: _But they're not coming across the southern border, Sarah. They're coming and they're being stopped at airports._
- White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders speaking with Chris Wallace; _Fox News Sunday_ (January 6, 2019)
_Sicario 2: Soldado_ [released in North America as _Sicario: Day of the Soldado_] is a sequel to Denis Villeneuve's _Sicario_ (2015). And if ever a film didn't scream "sequel", it was that one. Apart from the fact that it was only a modest box-office hit (grossing $84.9 million against a $30 million budget, in an era when the only films that become franchises must gross $800 billion in the first five minutes of their release), the storyline was carried to a fairly natural conclusion – Alejandro Gillick (Benicio del Toro), protected by his CIA handler Matt Graver (Josh Brolin), successfully manipulated naïve and idealistic CIRG officer Kate Macer (Emily Blunt) into helping him exact revenge for the murder of his wife and daughter at the hands of drug baron Fausto Alarcón (Julio Cesar Cedillo). The film concluded with Graver getting what he wanted, Gillick getting revenge, and Macer in possession of a more realistic, if bitter, understanding of how the US conducts its affairs in Mexico.
A sequel felt wholly unnecessary. But a sequel is what we have. When a suicide bombing in Kansas kills fifteen people, the US government authorise Graver to adopt "_extreme measures_" to combat Mexican drug cartels, who are suspected of smuggling the terrorists across the border. Deciding to instigate a war between the two major cartels, Graver recruits Gillick to assassinate a high-profile lawyer for the Matamoros cartel while Graver and his team kidnap Isabel Reyes (Isabela Moner), the daughter of the kingpin of Matamoros' rival. Taking her to Texas, Graver and Gillick then 'rescue' her in a false flag operation, making it appear she was kidnapped by her father's enemies. As they transport her back to Mexico, Gillick begins to bond with her. However, after they cross the border, the Mexican police escorts double-cross them, and Isabel flees into the desert, pursued by Gillick. Meanwhile, the US government determines that two of the suicide bombers from Kansas were domestic terrorists, and thus were not smuggled into the country. With this mind, to help quell tensions with Mexico, Secretary of Defense James Riley (Matthew Modine) orders the CIA to abandon the mission, much to Garver's disgust.
With the first film wrapping up so neatly, the announcement of a sequel seemed like a typical Hollywood cash grab, one which would most likely crap all over the legacy of the truly excellent original. However, as bits and pieces of info regarding the sequel began to filter through, it started to feel less and less like the usual Hollywood knock-off we're all used to seeing. For starters, Taylor Sheridan would return as sole-writer, in a script that would not go in what, for many, might seem the only real direction in which to take the story - Macer getting revenge for Graver and Gillick using her. Instead, Macer wouldn't even appear, as the script would instead focus on pseudo-antagonists Gillick and Graver. To this end, the only other actors who would also return would be Raoul Max Trujillo as Rafael, one of Gillick's contacts in Mexico, and Jeffrey Donovan as Steve Foraing, Graver's number two. The big concern for a lot of people, however, was who would replace the irritatingly talented Villeneuve in the director's chair. And so it was another welcome bit of news when the man chosen was Stefano Sollima, the Italian director of _A.C.A.B. – All Cops Are Bastards_ (2012) and _Suburra_ (2015), as well as most of the episodes in the first season of _Gomorra: La serie_ (2014).
Okay, so first things first. _Soldado_ isn't a patch on _Sicario_. Not even close (and, needless to say, there's nothing here to come anywhere near _that_ dinner table scene). And there are some problems which were largely absent first time around. For example, the narrative suffers slightly from the absence of Macer, not insofar as she herself is irreplaceable, but more in the sense that the audience no longer has a surrogate. Because we know who Graver and Gillick really are this time around, there is obviously no point in the film playing its cards close to its chest, and so it adapts a more balls-to-the-wall, damn-the-torpedoes approach. This renders the narrative more morally simplistic than the first film. In tandem with this, perhaps wisely, Sheridan has written _Soldado_ as a more conventional action-thriller than _Sicario_, but this has the knock-on effect that when the bullets start flying, as they do on several occasions, all the political/moral back-and-forth is made to seem nothing more than the material that gets us from one shootout to the next. Additionally, there's an element of repetition, as Isabel is traded off from one group to the next, and one definitely gets a sense of _déjà vu_, as she becomes a metaphorical cog in the screenwriter's machinery. Also, although Solima's direction is good (with that resume, how could he not get the gritty tone right), it's not as sharp as Villeneuve's. Finally, and this is a small point, the title of the film translates as _Hitman 2: Soldier_ [or _Hitman: Day of the Soldier_ in North America]. This makes not a lick of sense, and instead sounds like a 90s action movie starring Michael Dudikoff.
However, for all that, I thoroughly enjoyed it. The script is sharp, relevant (references to a spineless POTUS undermining intelligence operations will be sure to please at least half the audience), gruff, and cool. With the two _Sicario_ films, _Hell or High Water_ (2016), _Wind River_ (2017), and _Yellowstone_ (2018-), Sheridan is fast becoming one of Hollywood's most accomplished writers. The film also stars two of the coolest men on the planet being masculine and suppressing their emotions. Del Toro never so much as even hints at cracking a smile, whilst Brolin has lost some of the sardonic dismissiveness he possessed in the first film, but none of the bluster or self-confidence. All things considered, for a film that never seemed to have any real reason to exist, this is a cracking piece of storytelling, and has me already looking forward to the next instalment.

Of the two _Sicario_ films, the first is most certainly the better, though, in my opinion, not at all by the margin that I have seen many others imply. These are both great movies, not great in an identical way (even if their formula **is** identical) but both great. I don't know that _Sicario_ **had** to be a film series as opposed to just the one movie, but the best experience I've had at the cinema for the past couple of months was with _Day of the Soldado_, so I'm glad it became one.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

**An excellent film, which deserves the time we can give it, but which has a group of poorly conceived characters and a terrible protagonist.**
Personally, I really like courtroom dramas, it's a genre of cinema that I enjoy and that generally works very well for me. I also have a certain tendency to like films based on the military environment. This film, combining both things, seemed like the best of both worlds and perfect for me.
Actually, I really liked it. Directed by Rob Reiner and written by Aaron Sorkin, the film focuses on the team of lawyers who will defend two US Marine Corps soldiers in a military justice case in which they are accused of having killed a fellow soldier in the wake of a barracks prank, that is, an informal punishment for something done wrong. They claim that they did not know the comrade's health status and that they received discreet verbal orders to take that action, with the tacit knowledge of the unit commander, stationed in Guantánamo. But the evidence is completely non-existent, everything indicates that it is a completely lost case, and that they will have to make a deal to avoid a conviction and a harsh prison sentence.
The film, overall, is excellent and highly recommended. It wonderfully entertains the audience and time passes so quickly that we don't even notice it. The direction is pragmatic and effective, the editing is quite correct and, technically, it presents us with cinematography with magnificent colors, impeccable sets and costumes, convincing realism and a sense of credibility in which not even the story seems exaggerated or stilted.
However, the film has a huge problem, called Tom Cruise. I don't know the actor personally, I don't know how he is when dealing with people, but the idea that Mr. Cruise conveys of himself to others is that of someone who is deeply arrogant and a little rude. I'm not saying that he is like that, but that this is the image he conveys in interviews, in public appearances, when dealing with fans, etc. and that this perhaps has a certain impact on the type of works that are presented to him, and which almost always end up being boastful, arrogant characters, with little respect for others and egoic. That's what happens in this film, where his character is terribly irritating to everyone and everything for no reason and adopts behavior that is completely unacceptable for a military officer, even deserving of an internal disciplinary process. The character is unlikely and very difficult to swallow, considerably ruining the film.
Demi Moore is also not one of the actresses I like to watch, but she is frankly more palatable than Cruise. The actress does what she can with the character she was given, and her biggest problem is the character's weakness, which is terrible. She is an officer who does not have the firmness and authority that a superior officer should have, regardless of her gender: she is publicly disrespected by a lower-ranking soldier, she does not immediately take action to demand the respect she is due and, later, still acts like it's her fault. What kind of officer is she? In addition to this, the flirting scenes between her and Cruise should never have been included in the final cut. They are an absolute shame.
To add to all this, we have Jack Nicholson, who played the Marine commander in Guantánamo. The actor does not deserve criticism, especially because he offers us the best and most complete dramatic exercise in this film. He is one of the great actors of the 20th century, capable of shining even with unpleasant characters. And there is no doubt that this is an unpleasant character: a arrogant, arrogant officer who seems to forget that there are duties inherent to the burden of command, which always include respect for all subordinates and care for their health and safety. your needs. The mission is fundamental, discipline is essential, but humanity cannot be left behind, much less for an officer commanding troops on campaign.

I've actually been in a military court room a couple of times... not because I ever served, not because I was testifying or charged with anything... but mainly because historian. Sure, the court wasn't in session at the time but. Wow, A Few Good Men found the nicest, prettiest, and best decorated courtroom on Earth.
Top Gun actually did it better.
But, it was based on a true story that everyone that watched Unsolved Mysteries would become familiar with. And the acting is excellent, right down to Tom's impersonation of Jack.
The story is compelling. In fact, it kind of draws you in from start to finish. The message is strong.
You wrap that all up and it makes for one heck of a memorable film.