Another good all stars ensemble movie were everything is perfect, the actors and the script.
A greate court room drama. Having an enjoyable time of entertaining nobody needs bright colors and super CGI to have a good story, just good acting and a great story, but as a Graphic Designer, i can say the photography is great.

I think this my favourite outing for Tom Cruise. He is the cocky young navy lawyer "Kaffee", who usually plea-bargains and as yet has never seen the inside of a courtroom. Surprisingly, he is drafted in to investigate the death of a young soldier at Guantanamo Bay. Two marines have been arrested for his murder, but they claim that they were ordered to administer a "Code Red" - a fairly brutal form of discipline used on their fellow soldiers deemed to have broken their code of honour. Teamed up with his pal "Sam" (Kevin Pollak) and with the more by-the-book "Galloway" (Demi Moore) the three face a subtle, but definite, hostility from the commanding officer "Jessep" (Jack Nicholson) and his enforcer "Kendrick" (Kiefer Sutherland). Soon their search uncovers evidence that not only was this attack authorised but that the instructions might have come from the top. Cruise is at his most natural here; his character comes across as arrogant and selfish, but also quite likeable and engaging - and he plays ball with Moore and a slightly over-played Nicholson really well too. The courtroom drama elements are kept tight and intense - thanks to a stronger than usual effort from Kevin Bacon ("Ross") and though I thought the ending rather flew in the face of the whole point of the narrative, it is still a well structured and delivered evaluation of trust and of the nature of human behaviour when faced with abusive authority figures. Rob Reiner resists any temptation to introduce any sloppy romance into film, and though there are the odd distracting sub-plots here and there, for the most part this stays on track as a strong and enjoyable thriller.

“You can’t handle the truth!”
RELEASED IN 1992 and directed by Rob Reiner, "A Few Good Men” is a military drama about a smart-axx young Navy Lawyer (Tom Cruise) who’s never seen a courtroom because he lazily arranges plea bargains. Perhaps this is why he’s assigned to defending two young Marines stationed at Guantanamo Bay who are accused of murdering a fellow Marine. They maintain that they were ordered to enact a “Code Red,” which took an unforeseen turn. Demi Moore and Kevin Pollak co-star as the lawyer’s partners while Kevin Bacon heads the prosecution and Jack Nicholson plays the arrogant commanding officer of Guantanamo. J.T. Walsh is on hand as the Colonel’s weak subordinate.
The movie does a good job of depicting the honor code of hardcore Marines, particularly in the sequence where Lance Cpl. Dawson (Wolfgang Bodison) refuses to confess to something he didn’t do in order to get a minor sentence. The characters are well written and casted, e.g. Kaffee (Cruise) and his penchant for baseball. The story is dialog-driven and maintains your attention without action/thrills.
Nicholson is commanding and intimidating as the pompous colonel. Kaffee discovers his talent as a courtroom lawyer and realizes that the only way to take him down is to use his egotism against him. Other than the cringe-inducing “A Ten Hut” scene at the end, this is a gripping drama.
THE FILM RUNS 2 hours, 18 minutes and was shot entirely in Southern Cal (Point Mugu, Crystal Cove, etc.) and Washington DC. WRITERS: Aaron Sorkin (play) and Aaron Sorkin (screenplay).
GRADE: B+

Boring, decent ending though.
'The Other Woman' just failed to entertain me for practically 90-95 minutes, with only the final few minutes sticking out in my memory; even a short time since watching it.
Cast-wise it's solid. Cameron Diaz (Carly) would be the one who I'd class as the most standout, closely followed by Nikolaj Coster-Waldau (Mark). I like Leslie Mann, while Kate Upton (Amber) and Nicki Minaj (Lydia) are serviceable if not all that good in their more minor roles. Don Johnson (Frank) appears, also.
Too uneventful, in short.

Didn't really like this. It is a very depressing movie. A rebellious college kid finds the love of his life. Then once things are going good tragedy strikes.

Honestly, I wanted to watch this movie because of Robert Pattinson. I think most people did. I think his acting was great. I felt like his character is how he is in real life a little. Pierce Brosnan. Handsome as always. Although I really didn't like his character at first, I have to say, paid off in the end. Robert's sister in the movie was great. You just gotta love her character. How can you not?
This is not a heavy drama movie. It's just right. Of course I didn't really like the love interest of Robert in this movie. I mean she kissed him, made love to him (even if it's fake but still!!!), she's a lucky girl and I don't like it. I don't like the ending. It's not really what we call a very happy ending. But even if it's a not-so-happy ending, it still turned out to be a good ending with the things that happened to the characters in the end.
My grade for this movie, B. I recommend it to all Robert Pattinson fans (which I think you've all seen this movie already), people who like love stories, family stories, not-so-heavy-drama movie.

It's the journey of ordinary men who accomplished remarkable successes and left an indelible mark on history. It spans the training period that commenced in 1942 and culminated in the American triumph in World War II. What struck me profoundly was the cinematography, particularly the exquisite quality of the visuals, which allows viewers to experience the intense emotions of soldiers bracing for the next engagement. It brings you amidst the battlefield, with adrenaline and fear coursing through their and your veins. The music and sound effects are so immersive that they evoke a palpable sense of anxiety about the possibility of being shot. The Band of Brothers made significant sacrifices to forge a better world, and although they succeeded in their mission, our generation has likely fallen short in honoring their legacy. The narrative includes minimal references to the political landscape, leaving the viewer uncertain about the moral standings of the opposing sides. However, the primary focus remains on the lives of these heroes and the grim realities of war. It is conceivable that Germans and Americans could have formed lasting friendships absent the influence of their politicians. It is imperative that we do not allow our governments to stray from their intended purposes; it is our responsibility to safeguard our freedom and democracy. It's a must-watch that serves as a poignant reminder that the "freedom" we enjoy today was purchased at the cost of countless lives lost due to the folly of political leaders. A tragic lesson that we seem unable to learn.

An amazing series which is incredibly harrowing to watch. Even more so when you consider this is based on real events and real people. This thing will turn you inside out, and it should. An excellent reminder of what so many seem to pay no mind to these days. "Lest we forget."

There are a few haters....and I mean FEW. And mostly they are of the political bend, and lets be honest, people that see politics in everything are going to hate everything.
For the rest of the world it's a really great story, very well done, very well directed, and it's segmented enough and switches focus enough to allow everyone a taste of the different characters while still focusing on the leads.
And of course the reveals the people that the actors are portraying, at the end of the miniseries, is worth all the time you devoted to it.

Click here for a video version of this review: https://youtu.be/fO2DgMc97Q8
It's almost hard to believe, but it has been nearly 20 years since _Band of Brothers_ was released on HBO. _Band of Brothers_ is one of those rare examples of near perfection in a television series. In fact it to me this is not really a TV series, it's more like an incredible ten hour movie.
Based on a book of the same name written by Stephen Ambrose, this follows the real life exploits of the men of E Company, 506th Regiment, 101st Airborne. We go from their formation and training to their jump into Normandy on D-Day and stay with them right through to Germany's surrender. Over the course of ten episodes we get to know several members of the Company, and experience the horrors and brotherhood of war all the way through.
Apart from the movie level budget, cinematography, visual and make up effects, what makes it so good is that it’s not just a birds eye view of each step of their journey. In each episode we get that wider view but we also get to spend some time with a member of the Company. Whether it’s Bull getting stranded in an occupied village, Doc Roe scrounging for medical supplies in Bastogne, or Lipton narrating an entire episode, each episode brings some sort of variety from the one previous. Likewise not every episode is full of combat, across all of it there is a good balance of personal moments, tension, and all out combat action. Each of those three aspects are skilfully executed too, so the show never gets boring, there aren't any lulls.
I recently watched the movie _Midway_ and in my review of it I said that part of its downfall was trying to do too much by jamming seven months of war into two hours. _Band of Brothers_ is the perfect example of what can be done when there is more time to tell the story. It never feels rushed, it's paced perfectly and its pretty easy to keep track of who's who all the way through.
Speaking of "who's who" this has so many “OMG it’s that guy” moments. Given that this was made 20 years ago there are a whole bunch of now-established actors making early forays into their careers, or whom you recognise now for completely different work. Of course there's Damien Lewis and Ron Livingstone front and center, but there's also Michael Fassbender, Tom Hardy, James McAvoy, David Schwimmer, Simon Pegg, Jimmy Fallon, Colin Hanks, Donnie Wahlberg, and Michael Cudlitz. There are of course many more, and each episode I found myself looking up online to see if that person I spotted was the person I thought it was.
I could go on and on and on about this show. I absolutely love it, it's a masterpiece and may well be my favourite mini-series of all time. Even now, 20 years later this remains a stunning achievement in television history and it is, in my opinion, must see TV.

One of the best TV-shows of all time.
This war series is one of the most realistic, accurate, detailed and comprehensive I've ever encountered.
The show is overwhelming, intriguing and some episodes can squeeze a couple of tears from you.
One of the few series that stuck in your head even a week after you've finish them.
Highly recommended.

This was really enjoyable. I know I over-rate Anderson films but it's because I highly enjoy both his visual sensibility and the quirky style of humanistic humour that's pervasive in his work. I also greatly admire Adrien Brody's acting--so taken together, even though this isn't considered one of his better efforts, it was 4.5/5 or 9/10 for me.

Non stop violence in a post apocalyptic earth, this is so much more anime than Ghibli. It isn't actually a true Ghibli film but is often marketed as such. It's style is very different to that usually associated with Ghibli. If you're expecting 'My Neighbour Totoro', you'll be disappointed. I like Ghibli films but this falls into an anime spiral of - attack the armies that control the power and release the monster driving army2 into the acid sea who must retaliate by killing more people and raising a demon etc.
All very well for that genre but I don't tend to rate those films well. I'm really reviewing this film for Ghibli fans hoping for, "Howl's Moving Castle" so they can find something more appropriate

Lewis Pullman is the best actor in this movie. In every single scene in this movie, he shines. He has very expressive eyes. His acting is the best part of this movie. There are moments in this movie where it looks like it's a good movie but the exact moment Chris Hemsworth`s character shows up at EL Royale the movie goes to shit!! Every scene of Chris Hemsworth`s in this movie is a cringe. he was the worst part of the movie. I was massively disappointed with Jon Hamm`s character. What a waste of such a good actor! Cynthia Erivo singing was beautiful. she was the second-best actor in this movie.

**_Tarantino-esque flick about one rainy night at a dubious motel in Northern California_**
In 1969, four strangers spend the night at the El Royale hotel on the border of California & Nevada, near Lake Tahoe. These visitors consist of a priest (Jeff Bridges), a singer (Cynthia Erivo), a vacuum cleaner salesman (Jon Hamm) and an edgy young woman (Dakota Johnson). They’re going to have an unforgettable night. Lewis Pullman plays the meek manager of the motel that used to be a bustling business while Chris Hemsworth and Cailee Spaeny have key roles.
“Bad Times at the El Royale” (2018) is a crime thriller that takes the milieu of the “Psycho” flicks and combines it with the dialogue-driven style of Tarantino. The later “The Virtuoso” (2021) is comparable, although this is more colorful, not to mention half an hour longer. Not only is it superior to that film, it’s also superior to the movie the writer/director is most known for, “The Cabin in the Woods” (2012).
To appreciate “El Royale” you have to be prepared for a flick that has the confidence to take its time as the characters are fleshed out and their secrets revealed. Some don’t like how things pan out in the last act revolving around Hemsworth’s character, but it worked for me and fit the times in which the story is set. Meanwhile Dakota Johnson looks great in jeans.
Fans of “Pulp Fiction,” “Jackie Brown,” “Inglourious Basterds” and “The Hateful Eight” should eat this up.
The film runs 2 hours, 21 minutes, and was shot in areas east of Vancouver, British Columbia, including Pioneer Avenue in Agassiz and Mammoth Studios in Burnaby. Additional bits were done in California.
GRADE: B+/A-

Ok, Wow, I don't think I've seen a movie like that since the 90s. Some have gotten close, but this one absolutely stinks of clever 90s independent film...
...at least in that era where studios were putting serious bank behind indie films in an effort to score awards and produce something new that audiences would eat up.
The wow sort of starts with the soundtrack, which is brilliant found music that not only fits the era, but fits the film like a globe.
The casting is perfect, with a special shout out to Cynthia Erivo who sold her role as an R&B singer as if, well, she is one, but the delivery was absolutely brilliant on her end, despite the fact that she is one in real life. I guess it's where basically playing yourself pays off in spades.
She was brilliant, but then, so was absolutely everyone else.
And this is all put together with a plot that twists and turns and situations that just move from bad to worse in the best possible Hollywood way.
It's a movie you have to see.

Although the first half presents a smart and mysterious blend of, say, ‘The Hateful Eight’ and ‘Identity’, the plot lacks the puzzle pieces to grow towards a grand solution in it's ending.
7/10

**_Derivative, predictable, and dull_**
> _There is something about hotels that I find very romantic. You get to try on a different life in a hotel. You're usually in a new place when you're staying in a hotel. There's something about the experience that allows you to be a different person. You can think to yourself: "Oh, this is what it would look if I were in Paris. This is what it would look like if I were in New York." There's something about it that transports you somewhere and that, I suppose, has always been good for creativity and imagination. I love the entire spectrum of hotels, b__ecause for a creative person, it's about trying on a new life. For the El Royale, I liked this idea of a hotel that had a shadier side to it._
- Drew Goddard; "Exclusive _Bad Times At The El Royale_ Interview With Drew Goddard" (Simon Gallagher); _WhatCulture_ (October 9, 2018)
Following the genre-bending, utterly insane, and extremely funny _The Cabin in the Woods_ (2011), _Bad Times at the El Royale_ is the second feature from writer/director Drew Goddard, who has also accrued writing credits for Matt Reeves's _Cloverfield_ (2008), Marc Foster's _World War Z_ (2013), and Ridley Scott's _The Martian_ (2015), as well as TV shows such as _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_ (1996-2003), _Angel_ (1999-2004), _Alias_ (2001-2006), and _Lost_ (2004-2010). In short, he has an impressive résumé. As it stands in relation to _Cabin_, _Bad Times_ is a similarly stylised cine-literate genre mash-up. However, whereas in _Cabin_, the twist upon twist upon twist had a cumulative effect, with the story getting better the longer it went on and the weirder things got, in _Bad Times_ it's a case of ever diminishing returns. By the time we reach the end of the lengthy 141-minute runtime (more on that later), with everything and everyone shoehorned into neatly explained niches, the film has been shorn of its vitality, leaving one with an overriding impression of "meh". If _Cabin_ was a genuinely new spin on a clichéd old story, playing with and subverting genre at every turn, _Bad Times_ is singularly unable to free itself from the most oppressively derivative of its generic constraints.
Set in 1969, the film takes place almost entirely in the titular El Royale Hotel (actually a motel, and obviously inspired by the Cal Neva Lodge & Casino), a once popular but now fading novelty spot situated half in Nevada and half in California, with a line literally running down the centre of the property to delineate the border. To say too much about the plot or characters would be to ruin some of the twists (which is ultimately all the film really has going for it), but the basic set-up is that over the course of one night, seven people will encounter one another but not all seven will leave. There's Fr. Daniel Flynn (Jeff Bridges), a Catholic priest on the way to see his brother; Darlene Sweet (Cynthia Erivo), a singer travelling to a job she doesn't want; Emily (Dakota Johnson), an intensely private woman who wants nothing to do with any of the others; Laramie Seymour Sullivan (Jon Hamm), a slick vacuum cleaner salesman; Rose (Cailee Spaeny), who appears to be Emily's kidnap victim; Billy Lee (Chris Hemsworth), a cult leader obviously based on Charles Manson; and Miles Miller (Lewis Pullman), the motel's receptionist/bellhop/maid/barman/manager. As the night wears on, it becomes apparent that not only are few of these people who they claim to be, but the motel itself is hiding its own dark secrets.
If that set-up reminds you a little of James Mangold's _Identity_ (2003), you're not completely off course. _Bad Times_ shares very similar DNA, at least up to the point where _Identity_ goes totally batshit crazy; both are set in an out-of-the-way motel where a group of strangers are trapped overnight, and all, or some of them aren't who they appear, with the audience slowly filled in on their backstories via flashbacks. However, whereas _Identity_ failed because the last half-hour is patently ridiculous, completely undermining the excellent build-up of tension and mystery, _Bad Times_ has the exact opposite problem – the conclusion is decidedly underwhelming, failing to build on an excellent set-up, with the last twenty minutes or so lapsing into utter mundanity, and, most unforgivably for a mystery film, twists for twist's sake. The structure also somewhat recalls _Lost_ (a disparate group of strangers forced together at a mysterious location filled with secrets, whilst a flashback-heavy narrative fills us in on who these people are), and, perhaps more obviously, the high-concept, perspective-shifting, often achronological _Pulp Fiction_ (1994) imitators of the late 90s; films such as John Herzfeld's _2 Days in the Valley_ (1996), Peter O'Fallon's _Suicide Kings_ (1998), and Troy Duffy's _The Boondock Saints_ (1999).
To start on a positive note though, _Bad Times_ looks terrific – as you would expect from veteran cinematographer Seamus McGarvey (_The Hours_; _We Need to Talk About Kevin_; _Nocturnal Animals_), the photography is faultless, whilst the production design by Martin Whist (_Down with Love_; _Devil_; _Super 8_) and the art direction by Michael Diner (_Firewall_; _Night at the Museum_; _Redacted_) are superb, with the ultra tacky period detail dripping off the screen. Directorally, Goddard also has his moments with some eye-catching compositions, locked-off cameras, POV shots, and lengthy single-take Steadicam sequences. However, it's in relation to this last point where one of the film's most immediate problems is to be found – the solid directorial work is completely out of step with the vapid writing, as if a screenplay intended for Michael Bay ended up being directed by Michael Mann (although Goddard is certainly no Mann). The barely-there storyline seems to be nothing other than a hangar onto which to drape a tone and style, rather than generating that style.
Perhaps in relation to this disparity between style and story, the film's second strongest sequence is the opening scene. Shot entirely from a fixed camera position, and looking for all the world like a stage play, the scene is completely wordless, and charts the course of several hours in one of the motel rooms, as a man whose face we never clearly see checks in, moves all of the furniture to one side of the room, pulls up the floorboards, hides a bag under them, places them back, puts all the furniture back, relaxes for a while, and is promptly shot dead. The scene is a masterclass in slow-burning tension – we know something bad is going to happen, but Goddard refuses to pull the trigger prematurely, so when the violence does erupt, it's a pseudo-cathartic moment for the audience (incidentally, the film's best sequence is similarly abstract, slowly plotted, and mostly _sans_ dialogue, but as it involves the discovery of an important and unexpected location within the motel, to say any more would be a spoiler). The problem is that the heavily stylised and brilliantly directed opening is so good, it spoils the audience, establishing a tone to which the rest of the film mostly fails to live up.
In direct contrast to the opening, the ending is both narratively and directorally formulaic, predicable, and trite, with the least compelling and well fleshed out character taking centre stage, mano-a-mano good guy/bad guy dialogue aplenty, and even a ludicrous shoot-out. The whole things smacks of "been there, seen that a million times." Additionally, whereas the opening is effortlessly enthralling and distinctive, as the film lumbers on, and Goddard begins to run out of directorial tricks, there are sequences which scream "look how cool I am." For example, Billy Lee whirling toward the camera, eating pie, shirt agape, hair soaking wet, dancing to the sounds of Deep Purple's cover of "Hush" (1968) is so desperate to become iconic that it instead comes across as self-parody.
Another significant problem is that the characters all feel like generic archetypes ripped out of other films, with none giving the impression of being a real-person, with their own agency and interiority. They are, in essence, walking plot-points. The script is also exceptionally weak in how it handles exposition (of which there is a significant amount). There seems to have been little attempt to organically introduce heavily expositional scenes, or integrate them with the surrounding material. Instead, on several occasions, the plot literally stops whilst characters explain things to one another. A particularly bad example of this is when Flynn and Sweet arrive at the motel reception. Sullivan is already there, and begins to tell them the inner workings of the establishment, having stayed there numerous times in the past. Then Miller turns up, and begins to recite a rehearsed sales pitch. Simply trading exposition from one character to another doesn't mean it's not exposition – the scene is painfully slow, dull, and pointless, telling us precious little that we actually need to know. Indeed the entire issue of the motel being bi-state is strangely pointless. Aside from the novelty value, it is never factored into the narrative, and one wonders why Goddard set the film in such a specific location if he had no plans to use that specificity thematically.
A final problem which must be discussed is that 141-minute runtime. Padded, and massively self-indulgent, there is enough narrative content to barely fill a 90-minute duration. One of the most egregious missteps in this respect is Goddard's tendency to ponderously play out the same scene from multiple points of view, but in such a way as to give the audience only a smidgeon of additional information, so by the third time we're seeing a scene (which was too long even the first time around), it becomes an endurance test. Also, with this runtime and so little content, needless to say, the bottom falls out of the film entirely during the middle section, as things become unrelentingly slow and contrived. Goddard seems to equate curiosity about who the characters are with filmic suspense, meaning things take a decided turn for the mundane long before the underwhelming _dénouement_. The interesting set-up earns him a fair bit of wiggle room in relation to this, but he abuses it, pushing the audience far beyond the point where they simply give up caring about anything on screen. And when he finally does get around to wrapping things up, the last few twists are nowhere near enough of a reward. Personally, I was left feeling that the mysteries were more rewarding than the explanations.
Part 1930s-style pulp fiction, part 1940s and 50s-style film noir, and part 1960s-style paranoid thriller, the film flirts with a few themes (redemption, forgiveness, karma, political corruption, the seductive nature of power), but none get off the starting grid, and ultimately, _Bad Times_ isn't really _about_ anything. Hyper self-aware, and attempting to both subvert and celebrate generic conventions, Goddard seems to think he has a bonafide epic on his hands, a portent piece of celluloid mastery which samples the best of hard-boiled crime fiction, and imparts valuable lessons in the process. He doesn't. It's more self-indulgent folly than paean of universal truth. And it's painfully dull.

More often than not, the fragmented, time-jump-y form of storytelling (a la Tarantino) doesn't do it for me. But _Bad Times at the El Royale_ nails the format, and just about everything else while it's at it.
_Final rating:★★★★ - Very strong appeal. A personal favourite._

_Bad Times At The El Royale_ was exceptional. Through its preview period, I was hooked from the teaser trailer to the 24th TV Spot released. Drew Goddard knew how to make a wonderous and exciting thriller through its magnificent casting and so much more. All these trailers set high expectations which made me worry a little bit as I don’t like getting myself too excited for movies because sometimes, I get very disappointed. But with this, it exceeded my high expectations. _Bad Times At The El Royale_ just crushed it and it felt riveting the whole time which is something that is hard to find in films nowadays.
The casting was incredibly on point for this with Dakota Johnson, Jeff Bridges, Jon Hamm, Lewis Pullman, Chris Hemsworth, Cailee Spaeny and Cynthia Erivo delivering Oscar-worthy performances. Both Lewis Pullman and Cailee Spaeny deserve a lot of recognition. They just both developed so well throughout and it just astounded me at the level that they could deliver. The best thing about all these wonderful and exciting characters were the connections they all had with each other whether it be a love/hate relationship. To avoid spoilers, I will not highlight who my favourite connection was but _Bad Times At The El Royale_ knew how to deliver excellent performances and wonderful connections.
The story was captivating in itself but what really accompanied this well-made film was its soundtrack which really packed quite a punch. Songs like This Old Heart Of Mine by The Isley Brothers, which was featured in the trailer and sung incredibly well by Cynthia Erivo, and Can’t Take My Eyes Off You by Frankie Valli just fit in the most perfect ways. Movies like _Baby Driver_ and _Shaun Of The Dead_, both coincidentally directed by Edgar Wright, wouldn’t have been what it was without its soundtrack, and it’s unfortunate to say that _Bad Times At The El Royale_ would have suffered a bit without the ‘60s music.
Fortunately, nothing disappointed me at all with this movie because the height of intensity was just there without doing to much to establish it. Jon Hamm was most of the reason, along with Chris Hemsworth, that really helped make this such a great film. Drew Goddard produced beautiful camerawork and outstanding set design. It is truly one of the most brilliant films ever created and I’ve only ever been astounded this much by _Searching_ as I kept feeling like I didn’t know what was going to happen. And honestly, I didn’t. But the big thing that would keep certain audiences away is the level of gore that I’ve only ever seen in Tarantino films and _Brawl In Cell Block 99_. _Bad Times At The El Royale_ is a lot like Tarantino’s _The Hateful Eight_ but it was done 10x better. Everything just seemed to click with me throughout the long runtime and I’m glad I didn’t give this a miss.
_Bad Times At The El Royale_ is wonderful with unpredictable plot twists, exceptional casting and chemistry, a smartly written script and high intensity levels. I expect to see a lot of Oscar nominations for this movie as it deserves a lot of recognition whether it be surprising performances from the likes of Dakota Johnson and Lewis Pullman or fantastic costumes and design. _Bad Times At The El Royale_ just clicked with me 100% and could not lose my attention from the second I saw Nick Offerman walk into his hotel room. I paid attention to every second and enjoyed it so _Bad Times At The El Royale_ deserves a thrilling 10/10.

Romance novelist Loretta Sage (Sandra Bullock) gets kidnapped by billionaire Abigail Fairfax (Daniel Radcliffe). She is taken to an island where her archaeological skills are needed to find a treasure hidden in a lost tomb. Sage's cover model Alan (Channing Tatum), mercenary Jack (Brad Pitt), and Sage's publisher Beth (Da'Vine Joy Randolph) try to come to Loretta's aid. This riff on "Romancing the Stone" and a few other Hollywood projects about writers shouldn't work this well. The screenplay credit is messy, but Bullock uses her impeccable comic timing to deliver. Tatum brings more to the "dumb guy" role than was required, Pitt should have had more fun with his pretty boy/mercenary role, and Radcliffe doesn't get lost in the shuffle. Harrison, as Sage's social media ambassador, steals her scenes from the name performers. Randolph is good, but like Pitt, I wanted more from her character. The Nee brothers' direction is heavy on technology. The color correction and lighting are harsh, and some of the special effects aren't convincing. The pacing has more fits and starts than my first used car, so when a running gag or set-piece lands, it's more successful than it should have been. Alan has a great scene with Loretta after she refers to her romance fiction as shlock, and he sets her straight about disrespecting the audience who loves her stories. I wish a few hundred Hollywood types, some of whom are in this film, would watch that scene, and then watch the scene again. Content Warning: Physical violence, gun violence, gore, profanity, nudity, some sexual references, adult situations, alcohol and tobacco use.

So this is Romancing the Stone, only it's Romancing the Stone where Wilder shows everyone all the time to make a statement that is really the same statement that every other movie has been making nonstop for the past 6 or so years, flopping as a result about, and then blaming the people who didn't go see it after they were told it wasn't made for them and thus realized it was going to be just like all the others.
And it was. We have seen this so many times it spawned a cliche about going broke.
The characters have no chemistry because they aren't supposed to be real people, they are supposed to be checked boxes interacting with other checked boxes.... yawn... like every other movie and TV show made in the past few years.
The plot is boring because people have seen the movie it is blatantly ripping off of, and because of that, they have seen the plot work in a far better movie that doesn't put political statements above entertainment.
In the end, it's another movie made to be another lecture about what you are supposed to think.

**The Lost City is a good time full of laughter but feels like a typical rom-com adventure that hits all the tropes.**
The Lost City is a goofy adventure with shades of romantic comedy, much like Romancing The Stone back in 1984 but with the absurdity and the laughs cranked up to 10. The movie basically revolves around Channing Tatum’s hilarious reaction to every peril and danger. Sandra Bullock charms as always, and Daniel Radcliffe’s kooky villain entertains but the best part of the film is Brad Pitt’s over-the-top hero. His character is a gut-busting foil to Tatum’s attempts to impress Sandra Bullock. The Lost City has plenty of funny moments and laughs but feels overly familiar like I have seen it all in other movies. I enjoyed The Lost City and recommend it, but I wish it did more to feel unique than rely on Tatum’s wacky antics and Pitt’s uproarious cameo.

My grandpa wanted to do something with me to celebrate my graduation, so we went to the theater!
Some of the jokes miss, and it can feel scattered and repetitive, but the performances and pacing make up for that in a pretty substantial way. Definitely one of the better comedies I've gotten the chance to see on the big screen. I had a great time :)

It was... okay. Had some charm and Sandra Bullock shows she still has star power. Not sure I completely bought her and Channing Tatum but they were fine together. Story isn't the best and Daniel Radcliff made for a lame villain but I guess I was entertained for the duration. Not sure if I'd ever really revisit, however. **3.0/5**

_The Lost City_ is an action-adventure rom-com combo that has more action than comedy. While there are plenty of laughs to be had throughout the film, a large percentage of them missed the mark completely. There were scenes that had me laughing aloud and others that were a little cringe at times, so the humor levels will for sure vary per viewer. The overall plot was somewhat standard but entertaining enough as comedy plots are concerned. The beginning starts off strong and then slowly fades as the plot becomes more unbelievable. The acting is excellent, as it should be with this type of star power. Sandra Bullock and Channing Tatum had spectacular comedic chemistry and bounced off each other nicely. Daniel Radcliffe’s over the top villain antics were fairly decent as well, nothing groundbreaking. Brad Pitt was a standout, and I wish we saw more of him in this film, but his scenes by far were the most memorable. Even though this movie has its ups and downs, it understands what it is, and does not take itself seriously. This translates to the audience not taking it seriously as well, which results in a fairly fun viewing experience.
**Verdict:** _Decent_

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/the-lost-city-spoiler-free-review
"The Lost City is one of this year's surprises, managing to vary the well-known formulas of the genre in a creative, fun manner.
By making the most of the hilarious, chemistry-filled performances from Channing Tatum and Sandra Bullock, the Nee brothers explore the distinct protagonists, Alan and Loretta, beyond what's expected in generic rom-coms, developing their misleading appearances through a genuinely exciting adventure.
Unfortunately, only the main character arcs receive this level of care, as everything secondary lacks the same interesting treatment and better entertainment. Still, a thematically rich ending compensates for any cliches.
Definitely, a family viewing party recommendation."
Rating: B

Dr. No is one of the most iconic and best Bond films. If it wasn't for this we wouldn't have Goldfinger or The Spy Who Loved Me or Casino Royale or GoldenEye, this film needs more love and appreciation.

This first cinema outing for James Bond is actually quite lucky it managed to spawn any sequels at all... Sean Connery is suave and debonair as the British Secret Agent dispatched to Jamaica to investigate a mysterious murder with potentially far more serious repercussions. Ursula Andress is great as the first "Bond girl" but the film itself is a bit short on substance. It's pretty light on action, the script a little too innuendo-ridden and Dr. No hardly features at all - when he does he hardly sets your teeth a-chattering with fear. It has no theme song, either.... It's passes the time OK, but not the best.

Dr. No finds Sean Connery as a heroic spy named Bond.
James Bond
007 to his comrades.
While this is in the stage of Bond movies being spy movies, there is a hint of the extravagant classic films that follow.
We don't quite get too many exotic locales, but we get a hint of them, and a hint of the beautiful women and of Bond's morality in a world of hate.
Bond kills to stop killers. There's actual morality in his violence.
Ursula Andress is quite striking. She isn't the hottest of the babes who appeared in Bond movies, but she is the hottest blonde woman. It helps that they sprayed a deep tan over her body, because in those days, lighting was the enemy of the fair complexion people.
Unlike most Bond villains, we rarely see Dr. No. He's more of an enigma, but an evil one who must be disposed of for the good of humanity.
Can Bond eliminate him? Hmm?