This is one of those movies that takes you in a certain direction but in the end changes course and brings you somewhere else. It was entertaining but the ending was not the one I was hoping for and I felt diminished the rest of the movie.

I don’t really get why this movie got an Oscar nomination. I mean it’s watchable but I don’t think it’s Oscar-worthy. I think this movie is too simple to be nominated. There were some funny parts but it’s more of a “LOL” than “LMAO”. Script wise, it’s nice. It’s kind of real in a way since a lot of people are losing their jobs because of recession. I think that’s one of the reasons why people liked this movie because it is what’s happening right now in the USA.

Tom Hanks is "Mike" - enforcer for the "Rooney" family headed up by patriarch "John" (Paul Newman) with his wayward son "Connor" (Daniel Craig). When an interrogation goes fatally wrong, the father is furious with the son, who then attempts to have "Mike" and his entire family murdered. He manages to save himself and his teenage son "Mike Jnr." (Tyler Hoechlin) but his wife and his other young son are killed - so he determines on revenge. This is probably my favourite film from Sam Mendes and it is certainly my favourite featuring Hanks. Though a bit slow off the mark, the tension builds well as the fleeing pair develop their bond whilst fleecing the mob, exacting their revenge and the youngster learns to drive. There are a few undercooked efforts, however - not least Jude Law's almost comic-book "Maguire" and Newman features but sparingly, but in the main the characters develop and grow and the father son relationship matures engagingly until a last fifteen minutes that I felt rather disappointing. The writing is a shade pedestrian, and the narrative a bit too predictable, but it looks great: the attention to detail, the cars, the costumes and the whole style of the film give it an authenticity that I really enjoyed.

One should bear in mind that this is basically a mafia movie. I say that because it is presented almost as a dramatic coming of age story, which implies a different sort of story altogether. I mean, there is the coming of age element to it, but it is a brutal, violent film true to its mafia roots. For example, father and son feature strongly throughout, with details, backgrounds and character development. Mom and the brother are more like undeveloped pawns in the story.
The settings and photography are excellent, nearly worth watching the movie all by itself. I am not sure Tom Hanks is quite up to his usual high standard here, but it may be exactly what the director was looking for.
I must day that once father and son stopped at a house for assistance, I knew how the movie would end, being a mini-morality tale and all, but I write novels in my spare time, so I am used to thinking about ending variations. The film would not make any of my top 10 lists, but I am glad to have watched this focused, atmospheric slice of noir.

**Overall : With so much going for it, The Road to Perdition is surprisingly disappointing.**
After hearing Road to Perdition referred to as a classic multiple times, I was interested. Then seeing that it boasted a cast of Tom Hanks, Daniel Craig, and Stanley Tucci and that Sam Mendes directed it, I was even more intrigued. Finally, after seeing the trailer and its promise of some cool action scenes, I was excited to watch this movie! But sadly, The Road to Perdition greatly disappointed. I will be honest and say that this isn’t a typical movie I enjoy, but the film was long and very slow. The action scenes were few and far between, with almost every second of action showcased in the trailers. The ending didn’t surprise and left me even more frustrated as I watched the entire film. Not a fan.

Damnation Alleyway.
When his son witnesses him enacting a hit, mob enforcer Michael Sullivan finds that the man whom he likened to a father has ordered a hit on him and his family. Too late to save his wife and youngest child, Sullivan goes on the run with his eldest boy and plots revenge along the way.
How refreshing to find a gangster movie in the modern age, more so, how refreshing to find a gangster movie set in the early 1930s and not involving foul mouthed Mafioso types. Directed by Sam Mendes and starring Tom Hanks, Paul Newman, Daniel Craig and Jude Law, Road To Perdition is an adaptation of the Graphic Novel that was brought to us by Max Allan Collins & Richard Piers Rayner. The film deals with themes of violence and its consequences and fathers and sons, set to a watery back drop during the Great Depression. It's also a pulse pinging treat of visual magnificence thanks to cinematographer Conrad L. Hall (his last film before he passed away).
Comparisons with great gangster film's of the past are inevitable, but Mendes' film has more in common with something like "Eastwood's Unforgiven" and "John Ford's The Searchers", the journey of the lead protagonist is fraught and telling, and motivated by circumstance. Yet the trick for first time viewers that Road To Perdition has up its sleeve, is that we don't know how it will work out for Hanks' Sullivan. It makes for a riveting experience with many transcendent rewards along the way.
As regards the cast, Hanks is a touch miscast, but his play off relationship with the quite terrific Newman gives the film some solid ground from which to launch the sombre story. Daniel Craig does a nifty line in weasel and Law convinces as a mouldy toothed hired killer who enjoys taking photographs of his victims. Pic has almost philosophical mediations on good and bad, and it's elegiacally drawn by Mendes. The melancholic mood is enhanced by Thomas Newman's musical score, where he reworks his "Shawshank Redemption" score for narrative tightness.
The film thrives as a poetic and atmospheric piece. The story might be basic, but it manages to rise above that because it be a superbly directed and well acted picture. One that just happens to be beautiful in spite of the bleakness that lingers on the main protagonist and the journey he undertakes. 8/10

No idea why the rating for this flick is hovering just above 50"%. As far as prequels go this one is brilliant. The first movie left a lot of gaps in the story, where did Lucian come from, what started the war, how did he get to be the lover of the King's daughter in the first place. While there is a lot of epic battles with the gore that goes with, this movie is easily the best movie in the franchise, which is minor heresy on my part since Kate Beckinsale is the quintessential vampire in my book. Rhona Mitra throws down hard as the rebellious daughter of the King, and her haughtiness and disdain are completely believable to the point we think that Lucian's love for her is unrequited. I can't go into it any more without spoiling the movie but if Evolution let you down a bit, Rise of the Lycans will restore you faith in the franchise.

I should have crushed you under my heel the day you were born.
Underworld: Rise of the Lycans is the prequel to the previous two Underworld films. It tells the story about what led to the werewolf/vampire feud, with bloody energetic results.
In core essence this is Braveheart/Spartacus, only in CGI laden horror/action form. Michael Sheen buffs up into Karl Urban, who as Lucian (bad ass Lycan) leads his species to a bloody revolt, and Kate Beckinsale has made way narratively for Rhona Mitra, who sexes things up. The action is pulse raising and the Gothic designs and atmospherics are first rate, while the battle royale finale is fit to crown any genre film of its type.
Problems are evident, though. The constant flow of CGI blood becomes irritating after a while, and Bill Nighy (in spite of being a franchise regular) is still looking miscast! But it has proved to be a series with hairy legs and fangs that refuses to die, a popcorn munchers dream. So enjoy the spectacle and the screenplay homages, and I'll have a bag of tortilla chips and a choc ice please. 6.5/10

Mickey Rourke is on top-form in this depiction of fading wrestling star "Randy". Once the talk of the tour, he has fallen on hard times. His body hasn't the strength or stamina it once had and after one fairly convincing pasting in the ring he decides it is time to hang up his loincloth. Whilst his professional life was full of glamour, testosterone and showbiz, his retirement is much less so. Still needing to work, he takes a job in a supermarket and all so he can eek out a living and hopefully establish a relationship with his long estranged daughter "Stephanie" (Evan Rachel Wood). When we are in the ring, this is an action-packed and entertaining film that illustrates well just how brief these folks' moment's in the sun can be, at how fickle the audiences can be and at just how little a dilapidated body (and soul) can be left with when injury and age impose themselves. I was much less interested in the slightly contrived, and predictable, familial melodrama into which this sinks in the middle, though. I found myself really disinterested in his love life - with the unconvinced "Cassidy" (Marisa Tomei), or in his attempts to repair his torrid relationship with "Stephanie". Luckily, that is but an intermission before the grand denouement that sees him in the ultimate grudge match against his equally aged foe "the Ayatollah" (Ernest Miller). The script is lively and frequently quite witty, the direction of the fight scenes captures well the physical endurance required by these athletes, but it also shows us that their job is to entertain us - not to actually kill each other! Rourke flips from the wrestler to the tortured father well here, and the film is well worth a watch.

“The Wrestler” (2008)
Twenty years past his glory days in the mid/late 80s, a wrestler (Mickey Rourke) struggles to make ends meet in New Jersey while wrestling on the weekends, taking illegal pain-meds, pursuing a dancer at the local strip club (Marisa Tomei) and trying to reestablish a relationship with his estranged daughter (Evan Rachel Wood).
This is an engrossing, but gloomy drama about the grim reality of celebrities from practically any field who are long past their prime; it just happens to be a wrestler in this case. People mock how fake wrestling is, but those talented guys bend over backwards to entertain the audience with incredibly painful stunts. The film was shot in the winter in New Jersey and this augments the bleak pall.
On the female front, Marisa is absolutely stunning as Cassidy (aka Pam) and Wood is convincing as the embittered daughter. Their relationships with the protagonist are a mixture of sweet, agonizing and moving.
The soundtrack features several quality songs from the 80s: "Bang Your Head," "Round and Round," "Balls to the Wall," "Animal Magnetism," "Dangerous," "Don't Know What You Got (Till It's Gone)," "Sweet Child o' Mine" and more.
The movie reminded me of 80’s metal star Jon Mikl Thor and the excellent documentary “I Am Thor” (2015) and, to a lesser extent, “Anvil: The Story of Anvil” (2008). While neither of these is as melancholic as “The Wrestler,” and “I Am Thor” is sometimes laugh-out-loud amusing, they both effectively show the grey reality of former real-life celebs well past their halcyon days.
The film runs 1 hour, 49 minutes.
GRADE: A-

## Not about the guy
This movie isn't about the main character, William 'D-Fens' Foster. He does some crazy things and I guess that what some people remember, but if you really watch the movie you see that it puts society's erosion of the U.S. "normal guy" on display.
People who "do everything right": get a degree, marry, make babies, work for a corporation. They feel disillusioned, cheated out of the promise of the American dream.
Class divides, racism, toxic masculinity, coroporate greed, urban decay, breakdown of interpersonal connections and flat, sloppy hamburgers that look nothing like the picture on the menu. They are all present in Joel Schumacher's chronicle of the late 80's and early 90's. Even the inaction of police under the strain of declining budgets.
His ex-wife that dodged a bullet by getting out before D-Fens got violent, is almost ridiculed for being oversensitve, instead of rewarded for her insight and protective instincts.
There are so many things we can see through D-Fens' interactions, but also his wife and the excellent portrail of Prendergast by Robert Duval.
In essence, Falling Down is less about D-Fens as an individual and more about the society that shaped him and countless others like him, not coming to terms with the weight of systemic failures. It’s a film that leaves viewers with questions rather than answers. Even decades later people will recognise themselves in the characters, the neighbourhoods and the way they navigate life in the shadow of the American dream.

Having just watched this movie I can say that I enjoyed it, not overly so. Its not really a tale of urban reality more that the everyday annoyances that we do nothing about and this guy turns them into a personal insult. Its starts normally enough, stuck in traffic, beep noises and drilling on a hot day, his AC is broken, the window is broken. Instead of just shrugging it off with that Monday feeling he just abandons his car and goes for a walk, to start with its a shop owner with overpriced drinks that gets his shop smashed up a bit, later only when threatened with violence himself does he defend himself against 2 gang members. This is where things start to suddenly go weird, the gang members drive round and stumble across him somehow, (I'm British but I think LA is a little too big for that) then spray bullets in a drive by 20ft away and miss him completely but hit everyone around him and then they promptly crash. He walks over to the car, collects a bag of guns from it then goes and shoots up a burger bar because they are not serving breakfast, which he then changes his mind to lunch anyway and it continues from there. I don't know if this was meant to show some sort of mental brakedown due to his previous life choices but his empathy just disappears. At the start you could relate to the character but the more you watch the more you begin to distance yourself from that notion until you realise you just watched a movie where a guy went round killing people for no reason other than anger at himself for destroying his family life. It leaves me wondering if that was the directors intention or a happy coincidence to push that prospective on the viewer.

Decidedly more electric than Murder on the Orient Express, but much sloppier. Can’t believe the “enough champagne to fill the nile” clip was unedited from the movie for the trailer, wild stuff.
Had a good time at the theater 🥂

Death on the Nile has a prologue set in World War I, where a young Hercule Poirot is played by a digitally ‘de-aged’ Kenneth Branagh. Et tu, Kenneth? If you must do this, why not get a younger actor who looks likes Branagh? Or even one who doesn’t look like the Northern Irish writer/director/actor, so long as he looks like an actual human being; it’s safe to say that Branagh looks neither like himself nor like a member of the human race (he actually looks less grotesque after an explosion disfigures one side of his face). Again, this is only if you must do this – but then, you mustn’t do it, especially considering that this prologue exists only, and I kid you not, as an origin story for Poirot’s mustache.
In order to catch up with Branagh’s current appearance, the character then ages some 40 years in the space of about two decades, and in the interim it’s the world around him that has received a digital facelift – in particular Egypt, whose entire topography and everything in it, including flora, fauna, bodies of water, architecture, historical landmarks, etc., etc., has been computer-generated, and very crudely at that. They should have called this Death on Denial, because based on the evidence of this movie, the Nile isn’t a river in Egypt – or a river at all, nor Egypt a place that bears any resemblance to any known landscape that can be found on planet Earth.
As for the actual plot, who cares? It's impossible to believe in the existence of these characters as real persons because they're all clearly actors standing in front of green screens, and the "Death" of the title is rendered meaningless because it takes place in a lifeless world. Even an Agatha Christie murder mystery – nay, especially an Agatha Christie murder mystery demands a plausible backdrop, and in that sense a matte painting, rear projection, miniatures, any number indeed of practical special effects would offer a much more tangible setting for this story – the next best thing, as a matter of fact, to actually shooting on location (which admittedly is not always feasible).

**For a movie with death in the title, it takes way too long for the mystery to begin. Bore on the Nile.**
Death on the Nile waits almost an hour into the movie before there is an actual death... a murder mystery that is focused much more on the shallow lives of its wealthy aristocrats rather than solving the murder mystery. The mystery is fairly stereotypical and easy to figure out. The film is dreadfully slow, making the 2 hour run time feel more like 3 hours. If you enjoyed Murder on the Orient Express, you would probably enjoy the expanded characterization of Kenneth Branagh's Hercule Poirot amidst the spectacular set pieces and wardrobe of the 1930s. Mix in superstar Gal Gadot and some other up-and-coming talented actors and Death on the Nile rises from absolute bore to tolerable.
_As a total bonus - Kenneth Branagh's mustache in this movie is a work of art in and of itself! That thing is amazing!_

I honestly did not expect much out of this movie given how Branagh’s Murder on the Orient Express turned out.
Now, Hercule Poirot together with Sherlock Holmes are my two favourite fictional detectives and I’m obviously having strong opinions about the subject. If you liked the movie then fine but this is my personal opinions so… here we go.
Just as with Murder on the Orient Express it could have been a decent mystery/crime movie if it had not pretended to be a Hercule Poirot movie but again this was a miserable attempt to make a Americanized version of Hercule Poirot.
The movie starts off with black and white scenes from World War I trying to make him out to be some war hero. There was no reason for that and it is not Hercule Poirot.
One good thing I can write about the movie is that there are some lovely scenery, especially at the beginning. Unfortunately that is about it as far as the good parts go from my point of view.
Apart from the good scenery the film goes overboard trying to get fancy with the camera. Like the ridiculous revolving scenes on the boat, bizarre perspectives and quite a few too dark and gloomy scenes.
The worst part of the movie is that it is totally disrespectful of the Hercule Poirot that Agatha Christie created. Poirot does NOT run after criminals while shots are being fired, Poirot may scream but with dignity, not soap opera like outbursts. He was not the only one having unbecoming outbursts by the way. And do not get me started about how the movie ruined the famous end scene where Poirot traditionally exposes the criminal by having Poirot waving a gun and appearing totally dishevelled. Even the hideously large moustache is just all wrong.
Death on the Nile is a British mystery novel by one of the most famous mystery writers ever, not some pulp fiction that you can put your own spin on but Kenneth Branagh does not seem to realize this.

From a technical standpoint it's not bad and does feature a good cast and fine performances, but it's also rather predictable (kind of called the twist early on) and it's fairly slow to the point it I was losing interest (even though it's less than two hours long sans credits). Only glad I watched this for free on HBO Max as this was a one-time viewing for me (as was Branagh's Murder on the Orient Express, which I found only mildly entertaining but also overlong). **2.75/5**

It's probably best to start by saying that this adaptation of the Agatha Christie novel has virtually nothing at all in common with the 1978 Ustinov/Niven iteration (which I really like). Sir Kenneth Branagh starts off by giving us a little of the somewhat tragic WWI backstory to the famous Belgian detective before we are introduced to the newlywed "Doyle" couple Gal Gadot and Armie Hammer, his disgruntled ex girlfriend "Jackie" (Emma Mackey - whom I could have sworn was Margot Robbie) and an assembled cast aboard the luxury Nile paddle steamer "Karnak" where murder and mayhem ensue. A great deal of care has been taken with this production, and it looks great. That said, though, I found the characterisations pretty sterile; there are stars here but not (Annette Bening notwithstanding) big stars, and we get to know little of the personalities or grudges of the suspects. Tom Bateman reprises his role as "Book" from Sir Kenneth's other, equally flawed, "Poirot" outing back in 2017, but that stretches coincidence just a bit too much! There is little, if any humour, and though I did initially enjoy the 1930s Blues music it started to intrude a bit as the film progressed. Patrick Doyle's rather bland score reminded me of "Kingdom of Heaven" (2005) and though there is a fair degree of location photography, there is an equally fair degree of pretty obvious CGI too. Somehow, Sir Kenneth just isn't "Poirot" for me. His performances are always just a little bit too theatrical - he always has to be centre stage. The whole pace of the film really does lack any accumulating sense of menace and though it is certainly better seeing it on a big screen, I was really somewhat underwhelmed.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/death-on-the-nile-spoiler-free-review
"Death on the Nile retains the problems of its predecessor, containing an even less mysterious central mystery and even less interesting multiple storylines. Kenneth Branagh is the great savior, offering a distinctive directing style and an iconic performance as Hercule Poirot.
Despite some good displays and a couple of pleasant arcs, Michael Green's screenplay relies too much on its heavy exposition, not managing to escape the forced, dull, redundant dialogues. The audiovisual environment surrounding the entire film reeks of digital deception, sweating its green screen throughout the runtime.
A whodunnit is worth more than merely finding the criminal, but the resolution literally being the first option that the first act suggests leaves an inevitable taste of disappointment."
Rating: C-

_Death on the Nile_ crawls towards a resolution you don’t feel invested in. Poirot’s backstory is interesting and there are some solid performances especially from the female cast, but the film otherwise feels like an unwanted game of Guess Who after you unwillingly chug two bottles of NyQuil and are asked to predict who the killer is after two long hours of tediousness.
**Full review:** hubpages.com/entertainment/Death-on-the-Nile-2022-Review-A-Drowzy-Whodunit-Loaded-with-Mediocrity

Originally set to release in December of 2019; the long-delayed cinematic retelling of Agatha Christie’s “Death on the Nile” has finally arrived in cinemas. The last cinematic version of the classic book arrived in 1978 and this time; Director and star Kenneth Branagh beings his version of Master Detective Hercule Poirot to Egypt after a chance encounter with his friend Bouc (Tom Bateman) while on vacation; Poirot attends the wedding of wealthy socialite Linette Ridgeway (Gal Gadot) and notices that she has married a man named Simon Doyle (Armie Hammer).
The wedding is a bit of a shock to many as just six weeks prior Doyle was engaged to Jacqueline de Bellefort (Emma Mackey), and Poirot observed the two of them in a London club and how Ridgeway was introduced to Simon by her friend Jacqueline.
The wedding reception is disrupted by the arrival of Jacqueline and Linette and Simon confides in Poirot that she has been following them around the world and asks the Detective to encourage her to leave them alone so they can get on with their life.
Jacqueline is highly disturbed and pleads her love for Simon and shows a gun which leads Poirot to encourage the newlyweds to abandon their overseas plans and go home. Simon and Linette press on and decide to take their wedding party on a cruise of the Nile in an attempt to get away from Jacqueline.
The plan seems to be working well until Jacqueline shows up as a ticketed passenger at a stop along the way. When a near-fatal accident occurs followed by a murder; Poirot must investigate the guests to find the killer. Naturally, there is plenty of motivation to go around, and as the deaths mount; Poirot must use his genius to find the killer.
The movie takes its time getting started but the CGI-enhanced scenery and the strong cast are very compelling and set the pieces in place very well. While I was able to solve the mystery about halfway into the film, some of the details around it were cleverly concealed and there were plenty of twists that had me consider other possible suspects.
Some may find the film a bit slow but that is the nature of a good mystery as time is given to developing the characters and their motives which adds to the suspense of the film.
In the end, the film is an engaging mystery that recalls the classic movie mysteries of old and it will be very interesting to see if audiences will embrace the film in the same way as they did with “Murder on the Orient Express” and audiences will get more Poirot adventures from Branagh in the near future.
4 stars out of 5.

Mike Flanagan has absolutely bowled me over, yet again. We've had some good Stephen King adaptations in 2017 (and some bad ones, lookin' at you _Dark Tower_), but _Gerald's_ _Game_ gives Andy Muschietti's _It_ a run for its money as the best one of the year. The core story of _Gerald's Game_ is enough to earn it a passing grade, but everything surrounding it (and after it) elevates it to the next level.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

**Crazy Rich Asians doesn’t reinvent the rom-com formula but adds rich characters, cultures, and locations taking this rom-com to the next level.**
Crazy Rich Asians is an incredibly well-done rom-com that follows the typical rom-com blueprint but diverges by exploring cultures other than the frequent American setting. Learning more about Singapore and its people and customs added an intriguing layer to the film. Crazy Rich Asians boasts an absolutely stacked cast with Constance Wu, Henry Golding, Michelle Yeoh, Gemma Chan, Awkwafina, Ken Jeong, and more. With all that talent, it’s no wonder that Crazy Rich Asians is a top-notch romantic comedy with beautiful locations, hilarious laughs, heartfelt moments, and more.

Crazy Rich Asians expends its expensive mahjong skills to produce a hilarious heartfelt insight into a familial cultural clash. Romantic comedies. The amalgamation of two genres that exercise the very worst tendencies of Hollywood’s mechanical repetitions. Modern romcoms follow the same formulaic narrative structure and embed the same interpretive clichés. Y’know what I’m talking about. Boy and girl fall desperately in love, something/someone comes between them, they fight, break-up and embrace each other again, to the accompaniment of Coldplay or Ed Sheeran, when they realise that “they are the one”. All the same mundane clichés that fail to exert the writing capacity to take those mechanisms and overload them with ferocious energy.
Well, Chu’s adaptation of the eponymous best-selling novel battles that. He consumes the cliché-ridden narrative structure of a romcom and transforms it into a cultural depiction of Asian traditions, juxtaposing the values of American immigrants, whilst still bashing the familiar beats of “boy meets girl”. And let me tell you now, this is without a doubt, the best romcom since ‘Bridesmaids’. I loved it! Rachel is invited by her new boyfriend Nick to Singapore to meet his family who are attending a wedding, but without realising Nick’s family is one of the wealthiest, infamous and superficial in the country.
Chu tackles several poignant themes and morals within this two hour romantic comedy, whilst retaining a sufficient amount of investable character development and hilarity. Yes, the underlying story between Rachel and Nick is a predictable ordeal, but much like any film within the genre, acts as the backbone for the additional qualities. One of them being the exploration into Asian culture, particularly the continent’s cuisine, highlighting the traditions that contrast with the typical audience member. I cautiously read somewhere, that Crazy Rich Asians was the “whitest romcom featuring a non-white cast”, which is an absolute barbaric statement to form. The predominant cast and crew were all of Asian descent. Just because the film was confounded within the Hollywood system, does not discredit the contents of its insight. Overtly politically correct viewers bumbling about a non-issue. I’m sure ‘Black Panther’ didn’t receive the same criticism from them. Anyway! I digress.
The point is, Chu allows the illustration of traditions and values to be accessible for everyone. However it’s not just a cultural clash. Wealth and public image are two contributing factors to the spiky relationship between Rachel and and Nick’s family. Yet neither one of them are viewed as the antagonistic force of the plot. Every character is treated as a delicate human, with sufficient back story and development, to warrant their choices and actions. A sub-plot involving an affair could’ve been a “how dare you!? We’re over!” situation, but Chu manages to present the reasoning of the immoral act and add that subtle layer of empathy. You understand. You feel. You reflect. And there are several poignant moments throughout, like this, that elevate the contextual values that are insightfully divulged.
Of course though, Awkwafina provides the majority of laughs, demonstrating the creative humour of writers Chiarelli and Lim whilst showcasing her own excellent comedic timing. Conversely, Wu and Yeoh focus on levelling the comedy with romance and drama respectively. They do so with blinding results. Expressing a variety of emotions, participating in tantalising chemistry and bringing their A-game (their...acting game...).
The lavish ‘Great Gatsby’ parties and genuinely beautiful weddings, that performed a rendition of my all-time favourite romantic song “Can’t Help Falling In Love With You” by Elvis “Hound Dog” Presley, nearly brought a tear to my eye with the astounding production design. Minor nuances such as the pop soundtrack, including Coldplay, sung in Mandarin, dumplings being everything and my eternal yearning for marriage, rounded off the rough edges of Crazy Rich Asians smoothly.
It is absolutely refreshing to see a high-ticketed American produced romcom have an entirely Asian cast and crew, granting several new opportunities for those involved. It is absurdly reassuring to witness a cliché-ridden and formulaic narrative of the genre be fully exploited in a wonderfully entertaining story that harnesses every angle available. Yet most importantly, it’s a colossal piece of entertainment that can legitimately be enjoyed by everyone. Crazy fun, rich in characters and quintessentially Asian. More please!

_Crazy Rich Asians_ is not really my type of movie, I don't go in much for romcoms, and I don't think I'm fully on board with some of the messages it's trying to put out there. But I can appreciate that it's very well made, culturally very important, and even kind of endearing.
_Final rating:★★½ - Not quite for me, but I definitely get the appeal._

So pointless, so bad.
The one solace of praise I have for 'Dolittle' is that it at least mixes things up compared to the Eddie Murphy remake, as well as potentially the 1967 original - though I haven't seen that, but this sounds a little different based on '67's synopsis.
This film wastes a fantastic cast list. Robert Downey Jr. is of course the lead, but there are also notable appearances from the likes of Antonio Banderas, Michael Sheen and Jim Broadbent - as well as voice roles for the likes of Emma Thompson, Rami Malek and Octavia Spencer. Yet, all of those talents are completely wasted - I didn't even recognise some until the end credits.
Downey, as the main man, merits the most attention. He is kinda awful, especially with his dreadful attempt at a Welsh accent - which is, I'm sure, ADR'd in places. It never feels like Downey fits as Dolittle, a role which comes across as perfect for Johnny Depp; though I'm glad it didn't fall to him, given how poor this is.
The special effects are passable, but not as great as you'd expect from a 2020 (2018? 2019?) film with this budget and production company. The plot is OK, but it's all just a bit limp unfortunately. It needed strong humour, which it didn't get.
No idea why they chose to remake this but here we are. Very poor, in my opinion anyway.

A weird watch, probably won't watch again, and can't recommend.
I'm not sure if this is supposed to be closer to the books, or if Disney was just fed up with having wonderful magic in their products, but having Dolittle act out animal behavior in order to communicate to the them really ruins the vibe, as well as making it something you can learn makes it incredibly unremarkable. It should just be something people teach in this movie's universe.
Robert Downey Jr., despite claiming he wants to play new characters, basically just played Sherlock Holmes that can talk to animals, to include uncovering a plot to kill the queen.
The only real saving grace in this is the pure technical detail in the CG. The cast and voices were all fine, but the animal CG is over the top good, if a little goofy at times.
Most of the movie is "what are they doing now?", or more of "why are they doing this now?". It really seemed they had to add a lot to the story of Dolittle, the doctor who talks to animals, to make it worthy of a movie. They also had to shift the focus away from him quite a bit, and while previous iterations have chosen to focus on the togetherness of the family, this movie has chosen to go with the "dead wife so I hate the world" cliche, which is always uplifting.
They just made a lot of dark, and weird choices for this movie that did not improve it.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
We have all watched the Dolittle movies starring Eddie Murphy. I'm not going to lie, I was never a fan of these films. Yes, they're purposefully dumb, innocent, and feature that basic level of comedy. They never annoyed me, but they also never did anything remarkably surprising. 2020's version of the known tale is the first post-MCU role of Robert Downey Jr., it boasts an A-list cast, and… it's one of the worst movies of the year, without a single doubt. A complete disaster in every area of filmmaking.
I don't even know where to start. Maybe with RDJ since he's the most significant negative surprise. I can't believe such a charismatic and now iconic actor like him could deliver a performance this awful. His Welsh (?) accent is not only a terrible choice character-wise, but I doubt that any children can understand what he's saying. RDJ acts like a baffling caricature of himself, not helping an already flawed film. The voice work from the remaining cast might be the only positive of the whole movie, but the CGI animals are way too unconvincing.
However, as always, the most impactful issues belong to the actual story. Instead of being an entertaining and fun adventure, it's an incredibly boring, nonsensical, structure-less journey into one of the most ridiculous third acts of cinema. Even placing myself in a child's mind, I don't think I would be able to enjoy this mess of a screenplay. Like I wrote above, not even the animals look great…
Certain characters possess these unknown relationships that the audience is supposed to care about, but no background is given to any of them. Tons of plot points lack a logical explanation. The entire narrative is void of any creativity or uniqueness whatsoever, looking simply like a lazy, unimaginative piece of work. The "young queen who falls gravely ill" is just a woman sleeping in bed, not looking ill at all, which proves that not even the makeup department was interested in making an effort.
But all of the issues above are nothing compared to the film's climax. I don't want to spoil anything, so I'll just write that I still can't believe what I witnessed. Around ninety minutes of build-up lead to the most shocking, hilarious, utterly absurd moment. The humor is a level below childish. Dozens of fart jokes (including one during the climax), over-the-top reactions, and I don't even know what else. Between Bloodshot, Fantasy Island, and The Grudge… Let the devil come and choose!
All in all, Dolittle is a massive fail at all levels. It was meant to be one of the worst movies of the year, and it undoubtedly accomplished this goal. From the surprisingly awful performance from Robert Downey Jr. to one of the most shockingly terrible climaxes in the history of cinema, Stephen Gaghan delivers a structure-less screenplay, filled with nonsensical narrative decisions, and featuring an extremely dull adventure. The CGI animals are far from being remotely impressive, the characters lack personality (bringing an A-list actor doesn't guarantee anything), and the comedy is so astonishingly basic that I doubt kids will laugh at some of the jokes, and they laugh at everything. With a budget of 175M (!!!), it's not understandable how and why a studio would waste this much money on such an obvious flop. The voice work from the cast is good… and it genuinely could have been worse. This is the closest I can get to a positive.
Rating: D-

Wesley Snipes ("Simon Phoenix") is deep frozen in 1996 for heinous crimes - as is the police officer who apprehended him (Sly Stallone) who also managed to kill 30 innocent folks in the process. When Snipes is thawed out for his parole hearing 35 years later, he discovers that his former playground is now a crime-free utopia, designed by Sir Nigel Hawthorne ("Dr. Cocteau") and the new citizens have no way to combat the crime spree his can easily inflict upon them all... What to do? Well, they defrost Sly ("John Spartan"), of course, and together with Sandra Bullock ("Lenina") they set about tracking down and stopping the destruction. It's got a few twists and turns - all is not as it seems in this peaceful, law-abiding city - and Snipes is actually quite good, with his tongue firmly in his cheek and his 90's style dyed blonde coiffure as the baddie, but the dialogue is pretty ropey and the film frequently suffers from a lack of imagination as it rumbles along for almost two hours.

_Demolition Man_ may not exactly be the perfect movie, but the core idea behind the plot is something I've never ever seen done before or since. It's pretty mindless and fairly hammy, but it's fun and enough of an experience to get me across the finish line, no worse for the experience.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._