So fuckin' cute. I mean the whole aspect of this movie's "villain" was a disaster, but what a delight it was to watch Paddington go.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

**Keeps getting funnier each time I see it.**
The kind of perfect family film that has something for all ages, not just kids. There is plenty of sly adult humour that isn't dodgy, and enough slapstick so the kids will laugh at the silly bear's antics.
On top of that it is well animated, and full of heart.
8/10

**Rather poorly edited and cut, this film is downright forgettable.**
I've seen this movie twice, and I honestly can't believe it. It was truly the same as burning money. After being impressed by the poor quality of the film, I went to read and research about it, and discovered the eventual cause of this disaster: from the beginning, it was a project doomed to failure. Badly planned, it was filmed in a place where the weather conditions would cause problems. The ambition to do more and better is healthy, but in this case it caused an escalation of costs. To make things more difficult, the production was guided by Kevin's disagreement against Kevin, since the director, Kevin Reynolds, was contradicted several times by the main actor, Kevin Costner. The most blatant disagreement may have happened during post-production, with the actor and the studio demanding a straight cut of the film, which was lame and poorly edited. It had everything to go wrong...
I know, now, that there are extended versions of the film, but I haven't found a "director's cut" that would be able to reverse the changes and give us the version that Reynold initially envisioned. What I saw is the “canonical version” of about two hours, and I hated it. The script is based on a very apocalyptic and poorly explained future, where the entire world is flooded, and a myth has been created where, somewhere, there would be land, but which no one has actually been able to confirm. The few surviving people live on atolls and artificial islands, and on boats. The film never shows us a storm, a hurricane or anything that threatens the lives of those survivors, nor does it explain how they survived, or why no one properly explores the world to discover signs of earth. There are a lot of loose ends and absurdities, and the film will only work if we avoid thinking about it too much.
The cast rests solidly on Kevin Costner's back, and even those who aren't particularly fans of the actor will have to agree that he makes a good acting exercise, and is charismatic enough to ensure the role that is expected of him, especially if we're considering how indigestible and unsympathetic his character can be. Dennis Hopper is a likable villain, more cartoonish than truly menacing. Jeanne Tripplehorn is decent and satisfying.
Technically, the film stands out for its commitment to excellent production values, with the effort and financial expenditure applied being clear: the choice of filming locations is very good, despite having brought many practical and logistical difficulties to the production; the cinematography takes every opportunity to make the film beautiful and elegant. The sets and costumes, made extremely realistically, are excellent, and you can see that they were expensive and detailed. The action scenes were well-thought-out and executed, and could have been better had the film not been structured for such a low rating. Good effects and a soundtrack that satisfies without enchanting make up the overall picture of a rather forgettable film.

You're a fool to believe in something you've never seen.
Waterworld is directed by Kevin Reynolds and jointly written by David Twohy, Peter Rader and Joss Whedon. It stars Kevin Costner, Dennis Hopper, Jeanne Tripplehorn, Tina Majorino, Michael Jeter and Gerard Murphy. Music is scored by James Newton Howard and cinematography by Dean Semler.
It's the future and the polar ice caps have melted and the Earth is practically covered by the sea. As civilisation is forced to live on the water, their only hope is to one day find the fabled place known as Dryland. A Mariner drifter may hold the key to Dryland's whereabouts...
It was by definition a troubled shoot, with sackings, difference of opinions, cost overruns, production set backs (hurricane destroying a hugely expensive set) and bad word of mouth generated by a film press intent on giving Kevin Costner a good kicking. Facts are, now that all the water has evaporated over the years, Waterworld is neither the flop or the bad film that many believed it to be. Should it be a better movie considering the gargantuan amounts of cash spent on it? Absolutely, without question! But Waterworld turned a decent profit in spite of its problems and mixed reviews, and now it firmly has a fan base willing to love it for the great sci-fi escapism that it is. Now readily available in 3 cuts (Theatrical, TV Edit and Ulysses), you can sample each to find the pros and cons of home format film tampering.
Even in its theatrical form the film is still a rollicking water based adventure, full of spectacular stunts (oh my those jet-skis rock), amazing sets (whoosh, the sci-fi grandeur of the floating atoll) and blood pumping scenes (the eerie journey and subsequent revelation of a city under water). Sure it's far from flawless as the pace is uneven at times and as plot narratives go it's pretty thin, but Reynolds and Costner have crafted an impressive world submerged by water. The cast, too, are delivering knowing performances. Costner's Mariner is indeed one note, unsympathetic and moody, this guy is a loner and a mutation after all, his sombre persona neatly playing against Hopper's cartoonish, satirical and maniacal villain. Tripplehorn (a porn star name if ever there was one!) beautifully shines in a film populated predominantly by males (there's another flaw for you), Michael Jeter scores favourably as a highly strung elder, while young Majorino is suitably winsome, neatly playing it as a device to mellow the Mariner's cold fishy heart. Take that and fill it out with the detail of the definitive cut (Ulysses) which showcases Reynolds' vision and it's fan nirvana all round.
If it was meant to be a serious picture in the first place, a sermon on topical destroying of the Earth, then it fails a touch because the characterisations are bound by cliché manacles. Yet collectively the inhabitants of this Waterworld share a common goal of survival, played out to the backdrop of Reynolds' excellent futuristic setting. When thrust together to make a good versus evil action movie, the characterisations work handsomely within that framework. That is ultimately the best way to enjoy Waterworld, let it wash over you (hrr hrr hrr) in a wave (hrr, OK I'll stop now) of water based action and heroics. It's a world where soil is currency and smoking is a marker for being a bad guy. From the opening shot of the Universal World logo becoming submerged in water, to the bittersweet finale, yes! Waterworld is indeed escapism in its purest cinematic form and becomes a high definition must in the process. 8/10

Jessica Chastain is really quite good in this biopic of Molly Bloom, a would-be American skier who ended up running some seriously lucrative poker games in the USA. An injury curtails her Olympic aspirations so she heads to Los Angeles and is soon helping "Dean" (Jeremy Strong) run his successful, if somewhat low-brow, poker games. Seeing an opportunity to upscale the whole set-up, she branches out on her own and soon has many of the city's elite turning up to her plush hotel suite to play for millions. The film follows her ups and downs as she treads the line between what's legal and not; what's ethical and not - as well as dealing with the FBI and a few mobsters who fancy a slice of her cake. When, finally, the Feds swoop it falls to Charlie Jaffey (Idris Elba) to get her feet out of the fire. It's not the paciest of films, I have to say. Her narration does rather slow the whole thing down a bit too - as do the frequent retrospective scenes of her rather complex relationship with her parents (Kevin Costner plays her dad) and Elba really only has a chance to shine in one or two scenes towards the end. Still, it offers a fascinating insight into just how millions can be won/lost by otherwise reputable people; and just how ruthless that business and the US Government can be but Aaron Sorkin's usually quick-witted, sophisticated writing is distinctly lacking. It is worth watching, but I expected more.

**Overall : Fantastic performances and excellent writing further enhance an absolutely fascinating true story.**
Based on the intriguing true story of Molly Bloom, an Olympic athlete turned underground poker organizer. The story in and of itself is fascinating, but it’s accentuated even further with Chastain’s incredible portrayal, the fantastic fast pace of the story, and Sorkin’s clever script. Taking the time to Google and discover who each of these characters really were makes this compelling tale all the more riveting. Add Molly’s uncompromising code and sprinkle in some Kevin Costner and Idris Elba and you end up with a gripping biopic that you can’t believe is actually true!

Hinges completely on Jessica Chastain's performance (which thankfully is pretty great all around) but Idris Elba in his supporting role cannot be understated. The two of them quickfire dialogue in true Sorkin fashion, and while _Molly's Game_ will probably not top anybody's lists for 2017, I do think most people will at the very least gain something from the movie, be it insight or enjoyment. Hopefully? Both.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

"Therese" (Rooney Mara) is pretty unfulfilled, clerking in a department store that's frequented by the far more interesting "Carol" (Cate Blanchett). Their first meeting ignites a spark, and that spark quite quickly takes over both of their lives as the story unfolds and there develops an inter-dependency between the women. The latter is married to the wealthy "Harge" (Kyle Chandler) but it's an hollow arrangement that is coming to an end in the divorce court - their daughter together proving to be quite an important pawn in those proceedings. "Therese" has a long-term boyfriend "Richard" (Jake Lacy) who wants to settle down and get married - so both have much to lose as their relationship becomes more important and intimate. "Harge" has shrewdly inserted a morality clause into their proposed shared custody arrangement and is none too shy of resorting to some fairly underhand methods of tracking his wife's activities to prove that she isn't fit to have any access at all to their child. We also have to consider the closeness of the friendship between "Carol" and her best friend "Abby" (Sarah Paulson) and by mid way through the internecine complexities of their lives they risk leaving everyone with nothing. It's a romance, this, but largely devoid of sentimentality. A love story that is more visceral in nature, where one love is essentially climbing on top of another for supremacy over the heart and the head! It's Mara who does most of the heavy lifting, her character seems the more plausibly conflicted; but Blanchett delivers well as the desperate mother increasingly hemmed in by circumstance little of her making. The film looks great, the production design and Carter Burwell's period score adding a richness to a theme that offers us some intricate characters and scenarios that are anything but straightforward. It's maybe just a little too dialogue heavy - there's a lot of verbiage - but that's incidental. It's still a classy piece of cinema.

'Carol' is beautifully shot and very maturely made. The acting was very class all around the film. The whole thing seemed like it was taken from the 40s. I loved how fine it all looked and felt and it deserved a lot more awards than it got.
★★★★

> Just when it can't get any better...
The first thing I noticed was after seeing the movie is there's some kind of mistake in the Oscars nominee. Rooney Mara should have been on the lead role list, while Cate Blanchett in the supporting character's. Maybe the Academy people misunderstood that the title role must be the lead character. Theirs switched place actually does not make any sense. Anyway the Oscars never made sense at all.
This story was okay, but adapted screenplay and direction, especially the music was excellent. For the ending scene alone, you will be tempted to raise your rating than what you initially thought it deserves. I was not expecting the movie to be awesome, so I'm not upset for the overall movie.
Believe me, the last thing I want in this movie is to see Cate Blanchett in naked. Maybe out of respect or her age or she's not attracted to me, there are plenty of reasons that I can't figure it out which one, but after knowing what this theme is, I was only praying for that not to happen. And obviously that is unavoidable, otherwise the movie will lose its soul and strength.
Well, it was better than I thought, both the actresses were good, but Rooney Mara dominated. Whatever category she's in for the Oscars, I'll be happy if she wins. It is not a must watch, but a decent movie and betters in some parts.
7/10

Not all Germans supported that madman
RELEASED IN 2008 and directed by Bryan Singer, "Valkyrie" is a World War II crime thriller based on the true story of the last German plot to assassinate Hitler in the Summer of 1944, although it wasn't a crime, of course, but rather an act of heroism.
Tom Cruise resembles the protagonist, Colonel Claus Von Stauffenberg, but he lacks his height. Despite this, Cruise is solid in the role and the story works up some quality suspense. Even though we know the plot will fail, you can't help but root for the dissenters' success. Almost 5000 Germans were subsequently executed on grounds of treason for the failed attempt, although not all of them were connected to this specific conspiracy.
The film is both entertaining and educational. It shows that there were thousands of Germans who were willing to risk all to get that lunatic out of office. And they almost succeeded. "Valkyrie" is reminiscent of 1976's "The Eagle has Landed" in some ways so, if you liked that one, you'll probably appreciate "Valkyrie." I like the '76 film a little better.
THE MOVIE RUNS 2 hours, 1 minute and was shot in Germany, Czech Republic and California. WRITERS: Christopher McQuarrie & Nathan Alexander.
GRADE: B

I wonder how many people watch this nowadays and sympathise immediately with Chaplin's unskilled worker trying to keep up with the relentless march of technology? It starts with him being an unwilling guinea pig for a gadget that appears as useful for cleaning teeth as it is for feeding him - a cunning invention which allegedly saves time, money and increases productivity... Needless to say, it's a crock of the proverbial - but that's just the start with these wacky, frequently absurd, ideas that sees our hapless hero expend considerable energy and quick-wittedness trying to stay one step ahead of these "advances" - oh, and of just about everyone else he encounters as he struggles, comedically, along! Meantime, a starving, homeless, orphaned woman - Paulette Goddard - is caught pinching a loaf by a rather snooty passer-by, she bumps into Chaplin on the street whist effecting her getaway, and the pair are soon in cahoots together for more engaging escapades. Chaplin is outstanding in this film - his agility, timing and visionary direction - not just of the film, but of the portents for society at large - resonates just as soundly today as when audiences started watching it 85 years ago. It swipes at modernity, but not just for the sake of it , it's not luddite in outlook - just evaluative of what/who gets left behind - and that isn't just the blue collar workers either... The scenes on the ice skates in the department store are a delight to watch; charm, humour and agility all rolled into one - and I love his style consuming the rum! Definitely one for a big screen, there is so much going on...

Really good movie from visionary and fun Charlie Chaplin in which industry literally swallows the human being.

I got more enjoyment from 'Mad Max 2'. It's a good watch!
Everything felt a bit more fleshed out to me personally. Mel Gibson's titular character is improved, as are his sidekicks and their antagonists. The action is still at the same high level, there's plenty to gain entertainment from in regards to that along with the more amusing aspects; but disappointing to see that the wacky eye bulge gag did not reappear! I will say that final sequence overruns, not a big deal though.
Most importantly, the story is more interesting. It is, in my opinion, much better befitting of the movie's dystopian setting and is, just generally, a more noteworthy watch compared to its predecessor's plot. Gibson puts in another solid showing, as do Bruce Spence and Michael Preston in this entry. Honestly, mind, across these opening two flicks the cast don't really stand out to me all that much - it's all about the action!
Intrigued to find out what 'Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome' had to offer!

The first film did us the favour of establishing the character, so this time we can cut quickly to the chase. "Max" (Mel Gibson) is now a fully fledged drifter. He still has a semblance of decency, comparatively speaking, as he travels the Australian wastelands trying to stay alive and keep himself fuelled. Along the way he meets up with the slightly wacky "Gyro Captain" (Bruce Spence) but it's when he encounters a besieged oil facility that things start to hot up. He agrees to try and help them fend off the menacing, mask-wearing, "Humungus" (Kjell Nilsson) and his menacing sidekick "Wez" (Vernon Wells) who has a distinctly Achilles/Patroclus style relationship with his cute, blonde, friend. These bandits are ruthless, violent, and determined to seize this most precious of assets so "Max" proposes to his allies a straight swap - in return for enough gas, he will deliver them a large truck for use to travel to the coast and safety. What follows are a series of quickly paced, perilous escapades that culminate in a cracking chase with what looked very much like the front of a snowplough (in the desert?) playing a crucial role as they try to force their way out. Emil Minty is pretty effective as the aptly named, boomerang-bearing, "Feral Kid" and once we see why Spence has his moniker, the whole thing quite literally takes off. This is so much better than the original. The story is much more substantial, it has plenty of gore yes, but there is also some dark humour and Gibson has loads of charisma as his character develops. Director George Miller offers quite a potent lesson to other film makers too - ninety minutes is quite long enough to pack in plenty and keep the attention of the audience.

Really great sequel that surpasses the original. While short on character moments, the action sequences were fantastic culminating with an adrenaline-filled finale. All in all highly entertaining with just enough weidness to make it stand out all the more... **4.0/5**

***Fighting for fuel in the post-apocalyptic wasteland of the Outback***
In the years after a global holocaust, an ex-lawman (Mel Gibson) in remote Australia befriends people at a refinery compound and helps them escape a band of ruthless punk bikers who want their resources. Bruce Spence plays the Gyro Captain while Vernon Wells is on hand as a subordinate leader of the bikers.
"The Road Warrior,” aka “Mad Max 2” (1981) shows a grim, bleak, brutal future, but it's too comic booky and sometimes goofy to truly disturb because it screams exaggeration. A truly disturbing movie debuted fifteen years earlier, “The Wild Angels” (1966), which is shocking because it’s realistic rather than cartoonish. But “The Wild Angels” was an outlaw biker drama whereas “Mad Max 2” is an action-packed adventure. There’s a lot of motorhead thrills if that trips your trigger.
The movie’s an Australian production and avant-garde bordering on surrealism. The protagonist is aloof and laconic while the antagonists are bizarre, even psycho, which makes sense in that people would become a little mad in a desperate post-apocalyptic environment. It’s a strangely detached film about cartoonish people surviving in the wastelands of Australia, but the characters and images are often iconic; and there IS some human interest, like the Gyro Captain’s developing relationship with the cute blonde, the so-called Captain’s Girl (Arkie Whitley). Meanwhile Virginia Hey is striking as the Warrior Woman.
The film runs 1 hour, 34 minutes and was shot in the Outback of New South Wales, Australia.
GRADE: B

The last of the V8 Interceptors and the battle for gasoline!
It's post nuclear war Australia and the precious commodity is gasoline, all the varying degrees of survivors pursue it in anyway they can.
Director George Miller is here armed with considerably more cash than was available for the first cult hit offering in the series, and boy does it show as we get more destruction, even more outlandish stunts, and a fully realised apocalyptic vision of the future. It's incredible to note that there is no CGI here, this is pure raw stunt work, the film plays out as a standard good versus evil tale, but it's the realisation of the crash bang wallop sequences that lift it to being one of the most important sci-fi action movies of modern times.
The baddies are a seething mass of leather, masks, and mohawks, they scowl as they rape pillage and plunder anything in their path, they will stop at nothing to get the craved gasoline that is so important in this world. The good guys are joined by the road warrior himself, Mad Max Rockatansky, a former police officer who turned to being the angry lone warrior of the road after his wife and child were murdered. Can these honest folk survive the onslaught of the crazed plunderers?.
Well it's high octane entertainment finding out, and the pace is relentless. The direction is first rate, the scenes are put together with breath taking exhilaration, and the sound mix is incredible for those fortunate enough to own home cinema. Pic may be guilty of having little to no dialogue for the most part, yet it really isn't needed since the story unfolds via the smartly stitched together action sequences. So just strap yourself in and enjoy the ride given to you by a film that's still a benchmark for the genre. 9/10

W.C. Fields said you should never work with children or animals. Thanks to CGI technology, you don’t have to anymore – at least not with animals. Buck, the main dog in The Call of the Wild, appears to be a cross between Beethoven and Roger Rabbit. Like the former, Buck destroys or eats everything in his path, and like the latter, it’s painfully clear that the human actors are interacting with an animated character – the difference being that Roger Rabbit is actually supposed to be a cartoon.
Buck’s not alone, though. In the Yukon, he and a husky have a fight that plays like the doggy version of 300. The advantage of using computer generated animals – not only the dogs but also wolves, rabbits, etc. – is that you don't have to worry about ASPCA or PETA. The downside, however, is that the audience doesn't worry either about what happens to these creatures, because it’s blatantly obvious that they're not real; moreover, not only are they not there, but there isn’t even a ‘there’ for them to be, since the entire world around them – snow, trees, rivers, even the horizon – is equally fake-looking. This should have been a fully animated movie; it still would have looked awful, being computer-animated, but at least it would have been consistent.
Buck’s problem, of course, goes beyond appearances; on top of not looking like an actual dog, he doesn’t act like one either. For example, he takes Harrison Ford’s whiskey bottle away from him and refuses to give it back – pray tell, how exactly does Buck know that drinking’s bad for ya? In general, Buck is as good a judge of character as dogs usually are in the movies – and only in the movies; if that were also the case in real life, Hitler and Blondi would not have been as happy together as they indeed were.
If a dog looks like a dog, behaves like a dog, and is in fact a dog to whom things happen that would realistically happen to a dog, we can’t help but care about him the same way we care about Bresson’s donkey in Au Hasard Balthazar. You don’t have to actually put the animal in harm’s way – that’s why they invented animatronics, after all –; just make sure we can believe that there’s something tangible at stake, and suspension of disbelief will do the rest.

Harrison Ford makes for quite a decent, hardy, pioneer in this rather engaging tale of a dog and master relationship. "Buck" is pinched from his comfortable life in warm and cosy California, taken north to Alaska (without John Wayne) and sold as a sled dog. Initially on the postal run life becomes one hell of a shock to his system; hard work, meagre meals - but he soon settles down and becomes a beast of great resilience and value. When the postal service is scaled back, his position becomes precarious, he briefly falls into the hands of the nasty, unlikely cast Dan Stevens ("Hal") before a massive feat of strength and endurance finds him his new owner, the rugged loner "Thornton" (Ford) who takes him deep into the lonely wilderness where adventures (and romance) lurk... It's a good story, this. Jack London's original imagination is well captured and the Canadian Yukon makes for a perfect substitute as the cold and harshness of their environment is brought home to us. Stevens is not particularly menacing as their gold-pursuing nemesis, however, but Ford is effective and makes for quite a convincing old curmudgeon. It's for a family audience, so much of the grittiness is left out but I still quite enjoyed it

While 'The Call of the Wild' is ultimately a weak adaptation of the novel - it may be impossible to ever adapt it faithfully - it's still an okay family flick hampered by an over-reliance on CGI.
- Jake Watt
Read Jake's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-the-call-of-the-wild-a-mild-journey-into-the-uncanny-valley

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @ https://www.msbreviews.com
I couldn't catch The Call of the Wild when it premiered. Therefore, I didn't remember a single thing about it when I went to watch it yesterday at an empty screening (yei). Once again, I stayed away from trailers, but a few images popped up at the time. The CGI dog didn't look good at all. With reviews coming out and weeks passing by, I couldn't avoid concluding that most of the negative opinions are due to the "distracting animation". Knowing that the visuals would probably be disappointing compared with the story, I still watched it with moderate expectations.
I'm genuinely surprised by so much negative feedback. I really enjoyed it, and it's one of my favorite films of the year, so far. Yes, it doesn't mean much, having in mind it's only March, and it will very likely not even receive an honorable mention by the year's end. Nevertheless, the supposedly distracting CGI dog (Buck) didn't bother me in the slightest. Buck might not be a perfect animated animal, but as long as people go in with the right mindset, the chances of enjoying the story are much higher.
It's an animated dog. Accept it, move on, and everything will flow a lot easier. I believe it belongs in that "uncanny valley" category. Something weird might work well for some people, and horribly for the rest. I didn't mind it at all, and I go as far as saying that a few moments are elevated exclusively due to the dog's expressions. I also defend that this movie needed the CGI dog instead of a real one. It's not an ordinary dog: Buck is stronger, bigger, taller, and he has a special wild instinct that home dogs lack.
To be clear: Buck isn't visually perfect. Sure, there are a few scenes where the CGI becomes too overwhelming and awkward. However, it doesn't detract from the heartfelt narrative. Buck is undoubtedly the main character. He has emotional conflicts, personal motivations, a distinct personality that changes along with his adventures, and a part of him that he needs to explore. The first half of the film is packed with action, fun, and a clear purpose. It's extremely captivating and entertaining, even if it follows the usual, predictable storylines. Good performances from Omar Sy (Perrault) and Cara Gee (Françoise) during this portion.
The second half is when Harrison Ford's character (John Thornton) finally comes in (he scarcely shows up until then). From now until the end, the movie employs a slower pace, focusing on Ford's reflection about his life, and Buck's journey to find the place where he ultimately belongs. Harrison Ford delivers such a subtle, emotional performance. I can't remember the last time I saw Ford so committed to a role. John possesses a devastating, tragic past, and Buck is able to bring some joy and fulfillment into his life. For a dog lover like myself, it's such a tear-inducing, genuine, heartwarming story.
The only aspect I truly dislike is, unfortunately, Dan Stevens's character (Hal). He's just an incredibly cliche, despicable "villain", who doesn't fit with the rest of the film. I love the actor, but his over-the-top display doesn't always work, and Hal suffers a lot from his exaggerated manners and expressions. In my opinion, he could have been completely removed from the movie, and it would have been a lot better. Totally unnecessary, and lazily written subplot, to be honest. Oh, and Karen Gillan (Mercedes)? I literally just discovered she was in the film as well...
The Call of the Wild is one of those movies that suffer from bad trailers. People either skip it or go in with a pre-defined negative mindset. It proves that the best (and only) way to judge a film is to simply watch it. CGI Buck isn't an animated work of art, sure, but he's far from being distracting or annoying. To be honest, I feel that he elevates a lot of emotional moments. Buck is exceptionally well-written, standing out as a complex and emotionally compelling protagonist. I laughed, I cried, and I felt entertained by all of his crazy adventures. Harrison Ford delivers his best performance of the last couple of years in a slower-paced second half of the movie, after a frenetic, action-heavy first half. Dan Stevens' character is definitely the worst aspect of the story. An unnecessary, cliche, horrible "villain" with no place in the narrative. All in all, I highly recommend giving this film a chance! Avoid its trailers, accept the fact that Buck is, indeed, an animated dog, and try to enjoy the genuinely heartfelt story at its core.
Rating: B+

With his son off galavanting around Europe, the wealthy "Greenleaf" (James Rebhorn) happens upon the eponymous character (Matt Damon) whom he charges with travelling - first class - to track down "Dickie" (Jude Law) and bring him home. He manages an introduction to his quarry, and his girlfriend "Marge" (Gwyneth Paltrow), on an Italian riviera beach and suggesting they'd both gone to Princeton, manages to inveigle an invitation to lunch. Now "Tom" has done his research here. he knows "Dickie" loves jazz, and so by feigning a recently acquired interest in the music he manages to comprehensively ingratiate himself into their lives. The arrival of their mate "Freddie" (Philip Seymour Hoffmann) manages to unsettle the wealthy man who concludes that he wishes to be rid of his newly acquired parasite. Next thing, well "Dickie" appears to have done his best Greta Garbo "want to be alone" and "Tom" is providing an initial shoulder to cry on for "Marge" before they part company. Now we know what happened, so are not too surprised when we see "Tom" start to live the life he'd always wanted to, he hooks up with "Meredith" (Cate Blanchett) whom he met on the boat over, and a life of fraudulent frolics ensue. As ever, though, one lie is never enough and the reappearance of "Freddie" and a chance meeting with "Marge" at the opera starts to cause problems for "Tom" that only increase when "Greenleaf" arrives wanting to know what the hell is going on... This is one of these characterful mystery dramas that hits the ground running and uses a solid cast to keep the momentum going until a denouement that i felt was just a little too serendipitous but that still works well. Damon is on good form and it's not hard to see why Jude Law made it initially either. Paltrow is underused at the start but does come into her element more as the the plot thickens and by the end there is an enjoyable will he/won't he uncomfortableness about the ending. The photography is classy and stylish illustrating well the scenarios in which these spoilt and malevolent folks find themselves, there's a bit of humour and some cracking jazz to pepper this superior thriller.

Talk about the best laid plans! This is a cracking, sexy, thriller set in Korea during the Japanese occupation of the 1930s. It centres around the charming, butter-wouldn't-melt "Sook-Hee" (Tae Ri Kim) who takes a job attending the wealthy "Lady Hideko" (Kim Min-hee). She lives on a grand estate with her cantankerous uncle "Kouzuki" (Cho Jin-woong) and is frankly rather low maintenance for her new maid. Pretty quickly, though, we begin to smell a rat! Is she what she seems, and what has the obviously duplicitous "Count" (Ha Jung-woo) got to do with things? Well gradually, we find out that there are schemes afoot to rob the lady of her fortune, her liberty - even her mind. What the plotting didn't take account for, though, was human nature. A bond gradually starts to build between the two women, a bond of friendship, of trust - of love! What happens next...? This benefits hugely from having a tightly-knit cast who work well together; a solid and intriguing story that marries the Machiavelian with the mischievous, the sexy with the sordid - and, it looks great too. The characters vacillate from being likeable, kinky, and often pretty loathsome in equal measure, but somehow there is always a sense that right will be done! I loved the ending, and the performances from the two women are engaging and captivating. Some of it isn't for the squeamish, but it flew by, is expertly crafted, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

**In the circle of romance, deceive and defraud.**
Those who are into the world cinema, particularly the Korean, knows Park Chan-wook very well. But if you don't, then you must. His films are definitely for the grown ups. Like everybody else, my admiration for his work has started a decade ago with the film 'Oldboy'. He had tried his luck in Hollywood with 'Stoker'. Despite a good entertainer, it was criticised. I love Park Chan-wook doing hundred masterpieces like this in Korea than trying to do one in Hollywood. His ability to turn the good book into a great flick was phenomenal. Here it goes another one. This was based on the British novel 'Fingersmith' by Sarah Waters. The story of an orphan woman who assigned to be a maid for a young rich woman who is living under the shadow of her uncle since she has no parents.
Yeah, I was expecting it, but I did not think it would be another masterpiece from the director. I even thought the ratings could be exaggerated, and the reviews from his die hard fans like Nolan's or QT's fans does. The timeline of the story was prior to Second World War Korea under the Japan rule. A perfect setting for such theme. The film opened like it is an average film. That's where all I got wrong. Or probably I judged it too soon. The storytelling was split into three parts and the first part was a bit mix of fun and like any film, introduction, the platform for the rest of the narration filled with surprises.
The young orphan Sook-hee was recruited by a thief who is planning to trick a young woman named Lady Hideko with all the wealth left behind by her parents. The only obstacle for him is her uncle, a guardian. So Sook-hee becomes close to her. More than she had expected, but their plan is working. Now they have to wait for the perfect moment for a perfect strike. When it arrives, an unexpected twist takes the tale to go back to where the film originally had started. But even further earlier and this time, the perspective of the story was from the Lady Hdeko.
> ❝So even if my love for you leads me to ruin, don't pity me.❞
So, with that flashback, the second part begins. But literally it was a series of twist, that keep explaining us in another angle of the whole scenario I had witnessed in the previous part. Believe me, I have never seen such a long twist before. I was like unmoved for that entire segment. One of the best things I have ever in a film. The praise must go to the author, but the director and his actors as well did a fine job. There's a twist in every scene. So, for that one must pay close attention to the first part, despite slow moving story.
But above all, what I'm surprised was I did not know it was a lesbian film. Moreover, I did not think it could have bold scenes for such theme. Everything seemed perfect. I mean the erotic parts are sensual, but very artistic than unnecessary disturbance. Mainly because of stronger hold of the story narration than anything else. Even the pace picks up, like a crazy speed. Everything about the film you would learn in this section. All the secrets of the past revealed and what might comes are still kept under mysterious for the third and final part.
The most awaited, the conclusion part begins forth. For everything we saw so far, what might come after makes this film at its best. Just like the mid part, this is also full of twists. Because it will going to tell who ends where and what they get. Over two hours long film, and every frame are worth. The casting was best and so the setting of the 1930s Korea. Especially I must applaud the filmmaker's effort to turn the original setting from Europe to East Asia. It was great, but still now and then you can see the influence of the original source. I mean western culture, names, architect references which might have come from the book.
Not just the lesbian or a love triangle story, but something like a circle of love with deceive and defraud. You can notice that in the film poster with four main characters. So when it has a multiple strings attached, you could expect surprises/twists from each angle and it gives that more the convincingly. Put this into your must see list. This is not the first screen adaptation, but surely the best so far. Now we can expect a European or a Hollywood project in a big scale soon. Believe me the Oscars would pour in, because it's that kind of story. Highly recommended!
_8/10_

"Vicky" (Rebecca Hall) is the more sensible and realistic of the friends. "Cristina" (Scarlett Johansson) tends to fly more by the seat of he pants - and both have come to the lively and vibrant city of Barcelona for an holiday. Almost immediately then encounter the typically mischievous painter "Juan Antonio" (Javier Bardem) who invites them for a weekend at his. Initially this story rather goes as we might expect, but the emergence of his ex-wife "Maria Elena" (Penêlope Cruz) and "Doug" (Chris Messina) who's the rather nice but dim boyfriend of "Vicky" now provides us with all the ingredients for a sexually tense maelstrom set amidst the temperamentally unsound worlds of art, wine and sunshine. I think this is Woody Allen's writing at it's best here. It's funny and poignant whilst at the same time light-hearted enough to allow the actors to develop the characters in a natural and engaging fashion. Bardem is great as the painter but it's Cruz who really shines here. Her portrayal of the highly-strung "Maria Elena" is at times embarrassing, then hilarious then - when she has a gun, well that's just downright dangerous (even if she couldn't hit a barn door with a shovel). It's a great looking film using the beautiful city and it's Gaudi architecture as a fitting backdrop for a drama that Christopher Evan Welch narrates (sparingly) in an almost sarcastic fashion. It packs plenty into ninety-odd minutes and is a strong example of an ensemble cast working well together.

'Vacation' is a poor final film (for now, you know they'll make another some day) of this series. It is officially a sequel to the previous films, though it's practically a reboot of sorts - one that, evidently, didn't lead to much. All of this just feels lacklustre and forced.
Ed Helms and Christina Applegate aren't the best pairing, their performances aren't anything to shout about either. Helms particularly feels ill-fitting for his role. Skyler Gisondo and Steele Stebbins, the kids, are actually fairly decent, better than the adults for sure.
Chris Hemsworth's part is a little amusing, though very quickly gets repetitive; despite minimal screen time. Another two who also appear for only a short time are Chevy Chase and Beverly D'Angelo. Good to see 'em return but again, forced. D'Angelo is super sidelined, barely has a line iirc.
Some of the 'supporting cast' are at least interesting to see involved, namely Charlie Day, Ron Livingston, Keegan-Michael Key, Regina Hall and there's a small cameo from a certain 'The Walking Dead' star - I didn't expect it, but welcomed all the same.
Anyway, yeah... glad this was the last movie. This 2015 flick is very short of laughs. 5/10 it is, for me.

As one theres has seeing the originals, I have feared it was a complete rip-off, but yes there is many smilarities, but they have actual succefull made a movie with so much fun and new spins.

**When the family vacation turns into a nightmare!**
Having not seen any previous films in this series, I had nothing to compare with it and to blame for. Though I have seen many similar films, but it was not as bad as they say. In this kind of theme, the basic storyline always remains same, the remaining parts like the characters, locations and the diversions in the story developments are the key. I think they did that decently, the two new directors who also penned the screenplay.
Well, this is the story of the Griswold family of a couple and their two teen sons. After realising his family is spiritless with the normal life, the husband surprises his wife and the children to go a vacation. The trip is supposed to have fun, but they find hard to come along in a single mood as a family. Meanwhile, their journey begins to face many hurdles, though they are not giving up. So how memorable their adventure becomes is what unfolds in the remaining section.
The cast was good. Both, Ed Helms and Chritina Applegate was impressive, though the film is not laudable. Not all the jokes, but some of them were really cool and most of them were adult stuffs. Yep, this is an R rating film, not a family film, despite the impression you get from its posters. So for the grown ups, this is not a bad film to give a try. I can't suggest or reject on the merit of its previous installments, because I've already given the reason. People like me can definitely have a good time with it.
_6.5/10_

I honestly don’t know if I loved this movie or hated it.
I would describe it as _beautiful_ and _emotional_, which would match my description of a piece of art.
This probably calls for another screening…