Awesome up til the climax. Goes from a guts-deep analysis of 1) narcissism and its development, 2) the horrors of fashion culture to a by-the-numbers "wow figure out the mystery wow" thriller. Turn it off when there's 30 minutes left and it'll be your film of the year

**It's not anymore a competitive world, but jealousy!**
It started off very well and in the half mark, it completely lost. In the initial part, it looked like a normal film and then I think even the writer does not know what could happen, they just improvised with whatever they had. Writing was totally messed up. When they had the great characters, it becomes nothing in the end. I'm not a fan of this director, and all his films are average, but this one is the worst among them.
I'm not an art film hater, though I hate wasting scenes without any developments and this one had many like them. If you trim them all out, the overall film is around 45 minutes. The rest of the film was just music, colourful lights, and sometimes totally idle, which definitely drag the viewers to the boredom.
Whenever there was a scene with the story, like dialogues and developments, I thought it was going well. But then those useless, dialogueless segments turned me off. Especially the conclusion was absolutely crap. Elle was good, like a character made for her. Keanu Reeve was useless, his addition was just a marketing strategy that did not click.
This is the story of a teen girl aspiring to be a model, but surrounded by the jealousy people because of her fast growth. How it all goes between them and in the fashion world is what the film talks. The film is watchable, but mostly the second half onwards it gets boring. In the end, I don't think anyone would be satisfied completely with their watch, maybe very, very few, but if you consider the majority, this does not deserve to be suggested.
_3/10_

I don't really foresee _The Neon Demon_ becoming my personal all time favourite film, but from a purely aesthetics point of view, it might just be the best movie I've ever seen.
_Final rating:★★★★½ - An all round great movie and a whole lot more._

A SCREEN ZEALOTS REVIEW www.screenzealots.com
LOUISA SAYS:
What…did I….just watch?
Not for the uninitiated or those with weak stomachs, everyone’s favorite polarizing surrealist director Nicolas Winding Refn is back with the lurid, gory, sadistic, and horrifyingly beautiful “The Neon Demon.” This film makes a bold statement about the shallowness of Hollywood and the fashion industry in the most violent, brutal, bloody and disturbing way possible.
The film’s strength is in its breathtaking visuals. Refn once again establishes himself as a true auteur at the top of the visionary food chain. Even if you are one of the many who see him as pompous and pretentious, there’s no denying that few have quite the mastery of the craft of the visual arts as he does. This film belongs in a modern art museum.
It doesn’t matter that there’s not much of a plot: teenage ingénue Jesse (Elle Fanning) moves to Los Angeles to chase her dreams of becoming a model. She soon finds herself living in a sketchy motel with lecherous landlord Hank (Keanu Reeves) and surrounded by the seductive Ruby (Jena Malone), Gigi (Bella Heathcote) and Sarah (Abbey Lee), a pack of shallow, jealous, beauty-obsessed women. It’s hard to evaluate the performances since most consist of nothing more than striking and holding a pose or staring longingly into a mirror, but I do think that Reeves has one of the greatest (if small) roles of his career.
There’s no escaping the true debate this movie presents: is this a shrewd feminist manifesto or is it grossly misogynistic? It’s taken me three days to reflect on this and I’ve decided that it sways towards the former rather than the latter.
First, the film celebrates the female form; the women in the film are beautiful set dressings, designed to be admired (and not treated solely as sexual objects). Yes, the women are one-dimensional but at the same time, that works as a harsh criticism of the narcissism that’s so prevalent in the fashion industry. Refn also artfully expresses the malice that is sometimes deeply hidden in the female psyche. The film is insightful too: women have a dark side and sometimes we do feel like we are in a girl-eat-girl world (a phrase that the film takes a bit too literally).
Refn’s hypnotic signature is all over this stylish, elegantly violent film. Cinematographer Natasha Braier adds a disturbing hallucinatory effect while Cliff Martinez lends a thumping, ear-splitting, ominous score that reflects the overall atmosphere of insanity.
As with the director’s other films (“Drive,” “Only God Forgives“), there are plenty of scenarios that seem to be present with the sole intent to shock, offend or disgust. (Do we really need an extended scene of lesbian necrophilia? I guess you can argue the point, but the scene goes on a bit too long to make it seem relevant to the plot or characters). The extreme last act feels more like a pointless gross-out than a thoughtful commentary think piece. I think this is a good place to mention that this film is a very, very hard ‘R’ rating; I am surprised it’s not NC-17.
“The Neon Demon” isn’t your run-of-the-mill art house film; it’s so far beyond the art house that it’s in another dimension.
MATT SAYS:
A teenage runaway from Sandusky, Ohio steps off a bus into the glittering lights of Hollywood. All of her friends back home tell her that she’s destined to be a star, and she believes them. But Hollywood does not bestow fame and fortune without a price. First it will take her innocence, then it will take all that remains.
So is the story of “The Neon Demon,” the new film by auteur Nicolas Winding Refn (“Drive,” “Only God Forgives”). Elle Fanning is Jesse, the underage runaway that has been lured to Los Angeles by the whispered promises of becoming a famous model. She meets up with another innocent who was been lured to the city: photographer Dean (Karl Glusman), whose attempts at emulating the art he sees in Hollywood through pictures are met with sneering ridicule as “amateurish.” Dean hasn’t sold his soul, and those who have have nothing but contempt for him.
Jesse, on the other hand, makes the bargain readily: after being paraded before harshly appraising eyes and being judged a piece of meat worthy of notice, she willingly trades her virtue for empty glamour and attention. After having reborn on the runway, Jesse quickly learns that she has still not given enough: people continue to want more from her, and what they want she isn’t willing to give.
“The Neon Demon” is not for everyone. It’s not even for most. Even if you enjoyed “Drive,” you may find yourself frustrated and your patience tried by this movie. There is much to appreciate, but you will be challenged in doing so. In this film, Winding Refn has made an art piece that must be assessed, considered, and deconstructed. Those who are literal-minded will likely find their patience tried: the story isn’t about what’s happening on the surface, it’s about what’s happening underneath. You must watch, listen, and observe carefully.
One additional word of warning: “The Neon Demon” is highly disturbing and will upset many casual viewers. Apart from its gore and physical violence, the film pushes boundaries HARD. Terrible things are either shown or implied. I can’t for the life of me understand why the studio and theater chains thought that this was an appropriate film to release in nearly 800 theaters nationwide. One can imagine that of the few audience members who didn’t walk out during the first 20 minutes ran for the exits at its offscreen implication of child abuse.
If you’re still reading this review and haven’t been dissuaded yet, I recommend that you see this movie. It’s one of the most interesting discussion pieces in recent memory and it’s not one that I will soon forget.
**A SCREEN ZEALOTS REVIEW www.screenzealots.com**

"Phone Booth" starts off a bit slow in the first act, but it quickly picks up the pace and becomes more intense as it goes along.
Colin Farrell and Forest Whitaker deliver fantastic performances that really bring the intensity to life. Kiefer Sutherland, who I know and love from 24, is chilling as the voice on the phone, adding a menacing layer even without much screen time.
What’s also impressive is that the whole movie was shot in just 10 days, with two extra days for some additional shots. It’s amazing they created such a suspenseful film in such a short time. Overall, I really enjoyed it!

.

Phone Booth dials up its millennial tension through suspenseful confined calls. Joel Schumacher is a rather inconsistent director. Unusual, yet capricious. From ‘The Lost Boys’ to ‘Batman & Robin’, his career has been considerably scattershot in terms of quality. Phone Booth, whilst quintessentially being a product of its time, happens to be his most simplistic. An arrogant publicist is held hostage in a phone booth by a mysterious sniper who offers him an ultimatum.
A hyperbolised exercise in absolution from an absurdist’s perspective, Schumacher delivers a nail-biting thriller from the confinement of one besmirched public booth. Unscrupulous sex shops on one side of the grubby New York street, and a religiously inclined series of posters dictating “who do you think you are?” on the other side. It may just be a lightning paced disposable techno thriller to many, but if you divulge into the finer details you’ll notice it is overwhelmed with morality. The repentance of sins. Cleansing the soul from immorality. The harsh tones of Sutherland’s antagonistic voice, likening himself to a higher (or lower...) entity, offering Farrell’s Stu a chance for redemption. A surprisingly thematic endeavour for Schumacher, whether intentional or not, the religious symbolism in its subtle visuals or literary narrative were certainly profound.
It smooths out the neo-noir roughness that forces this thriller to be nothing more than disposable entertainment. Aside from Farrell’s strong performance as the arrogantly unlikeable Stu and Sutherland’s menacing tone, the supporting cast were mediocre at best. Whitaker, Mitchell and Holmes rarely had an opportunity to shine within the mucky street and had a tendency to overact. The act of forgiveness, whilst being a pivotal point to the whole ordeal, seemed incredibly vacuous without much deliberate intervention. All too easy, considering how long Stu kept his unfaithful behaviour up for. Cohen’s script was sharp and concise, occasionally stagnating in moments of desperation when not knowing how to progress the hostage situation further.
Stevens’ editing was swifter than Sutherland cocking his sniper rifle multiple times. On screen graphics to display scenes running simultaneously, such as police officers tracing the encrypted phone call, keeping the pace consistently tight. Some of visuals, such as the red dot from the sniper, obviously smelt of fakery as well as the space effects showcasing the satellite sending communications to mobile phone chips etc. Y’know, common tropes from films created in the early naughties.
As I said, it’s very much a film of its time. Yet despite the rough disposable nature of Phone Booth, it’s a much more entertaining call then being on hold for an hour and a half. I can tell you that from experience...

**The modern day Rapunzel tale!**
There are lots of films to compare with. 'Tangled', 'The Space Between Us' to all the cancer themed films. Yet it is still unique with the reasons it reveals. But highly influenced by Rapunzel tale. Well written and directed, along with the performances. It was not your regular teen romance. It had depth in romance, but the balance between the main two characters were lacking. That did not do any bad for the film. Since it was told from the girl's perspective.
A teen girl with SCID had never left the house almost all of her life. But that is going to change when a new neighbours moves in. The new boy shows interest in her, and so she's. So they develop a friendship through texting. In the next stage of their relationship, things changes and makes them go crazy. Regarding the medical condition of the girl, how the love perspective of this young couple shapes was told in the remaining.
Going by trivia, I think I've missed so many things from the original source. So I'm thinking to read the book now. Because to learn more from the boy's perspective. Yet the film was nice and cute, made nothing wrong to dislike it. Being simple and/or altered to cinematic version is always welcomed by me. There young actors were awesome. It is definitely an under-rated film. Like usual forget the film critics and follow what the film fanatics says. Especially if you are a youngster, you should watch it.
_8/10_

Flush with the success of winning their high school basketball tournament and now suitably loved up, "Troy" (Zac Efron) is offered a summer job at an exclusive country club. He's keen but wants "Gabriella" (Vanessa Hudgens) to join him. A quick chat with the manager and it seems the entire class now have jobs there... Except, of course, "Sharpay" (Ashley Tisdale) and brother 'Ryan" (Lucas Grabeel) whose folks just happen to own the place. Smell a rat, yet? Well it seems that the spoiled "Sharpay" has designs on "Troy" - well on his voice, anyway - and so she uses her wiles, her money and her parents to promise him a lucrative scholarship, some nice Italian golf shoes and a great deal of effective flattery. His gal and his friends start not to recognise him and it looks like she has him on a plate... Can he come to his senses before he is subsumed into a life of pink poodles? What this really misses is Alyson Reed's over-the-top teacher "Ms. Darbus" who hardly features, and also a killer song. There's still plenty of ensemble choreography numbers and more cheese than you can ever fondue, before a denouement that is really rather predictably flat. Again, I think Grabeel is the man with the talent here - he can dance and hold a note way better than the star of the show, and by the time it ended I did wonder if this already weary franchise had any more legs. Not very good, sorry.

Loud and brash but ultimately entertaining thanks mostly to Jason Statham and some decent racing sequences (well, when the camera wasn't jittery or quick edits). Also some love for Joan Allen making for a fine villain and never a bad thing with Ian McShane even in a supporting role. Nothing great but pretty much well within Paul W.S. Anderson's wheelhouse. **3.5/5**

A massive departure from the original, _Death Race_ keeps the cars and kills and forgoes virtually everything else from _2000_. Fun in a very different manner, but still fun, and that's what counts.
_Final rating:★★★ - I personally recommend you give it a go._

Decent watch at best, probably won't watch again, and can't recommend.
This is a Dreamworks animation at a time when Disney was still doing strong 2d animations. It does look like Dreamworks attempted a shift to digital cell animation around the same time (based on this movie), so at least the animation is smooth and of a good quality.
As with most Dreamworks products, I don't enjoy the same art style they seem to love, which always makes it a little hard for me to watch regardless of if the movie is actually good. I also didn't care for the voices, not saying the actors did a bad job, but the direction was of my taste.
The story itself is based on El Dorado being a big deal, but as worthless as gold actually is, it is really hard for me to personalize with it. They're also criminals, and not the redemptive kind. They don't become good people until they start actively going against the head priest. Thinking about it, I also have a lot of issues with the European-god confusion, so there may be a lot of me not enjoying the premise more than anything.
I'm honestly struggling to find things that I enjoyed other than it was a well produced animation, and I can't say much else that the story is at least structured well so there is something you could enjoy.

two children changes the fate of 4 families from 3 different continents.
The events of the film begin with a man named Hassan arriving at the house of Abu Abdullah's friend in the desert of Morocco in order to sell him a rifle he received as a gift from a Japanese person. Abu Abdullah was in dire need of a gun in order to hunt the foxes that were eating his sheep
Abu Abdullah has two children, one of whom is called Youssef, and he is very good at shooting a gun. What happened was not taken into account, which is that Youssef and his older brother wanted to conduct an experiment to see if the rifle could be used for long distances, and one of the rifle bullets hit an American tourist by mistake, and America considered it an act of terrorism. This is the summary.
I felt that I was spinning in three continents when the director was changing between one shot and the other, so the film would go from one continent to another. Giving the Japanese tourist the gun to Hassan Al-Maghribi changed the fates of the attitudes of people and countries, so America went to consider the shooting incident of the American tourist as a terrorist act, despite The smoothness of events.
I felt that the game of fate is like Biango, which is the probability that you will be exposed to it 1 percent, but it may happen to you, as it happened to Cate Blanchett through a gift from a Japanese person.

Decent watch, probably won't watch again, but can recommend.
I grew up watching The Smurfs, the CG Smurf animation is actually pretty good, but there is something about how they're personalized that rubs me the wrong way. Either the delivery is just different enough from the cartoon, or there is something about the Smurfs being in a modern world that I entirely disapprove of, or both.
This reminds me a lot of "Yogi Bear" where in a movie, the title character(s) should be the main focus and the most enjoyable characters. It might have actually worked against them to put Neil Patrick Harris and Jayma Mays in this. I don't think they "upstaged" the little blue creatures, but they were, by far, the best parts of this movie, and their story was strong enough it could have been a movie to its own...in fact, I'm sure if I looked hard enough, I could find a "work is hard, I'm about to get fired, and we're about to have a baby" movie.
For something as unique as the Smurfs, the movie puts a lot of money into it not being anything special. They could have saved a lot of money by making it a "girl running from her angry boyfriend" movie. They also have NPH specifically degrading the Smurfs for their general positivity in the same manner as the villain: this makes the audience villainize the lead protagonist in this movie, as the Smurfs are relegated to little than hostages in the human movie.
Now, it's not to say that there isn't a certain level of charm to the Smurfs, but it's definitely not the Smurfs I remember, and having such a goofy villain is really all that saves the movie, and even then they go too far with some of the situations he is in.

I use to be into goosebumps as a kid. Love the show too. I have to admit this was an awesome movie.

I loved the _Goosebumps_ books (and less so, but still, the TV show) when I was growing up. I think if a kid watches this weird interpretation now, at the age that I was then, they might enjoy it. But for me? It didn't work. I actually did appreciate more than I thought I would, but based on the trailers my expectations were **abysmally** low, so that's not exactly saying much.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

She's locked in this house and her dad's a psychopath.
I have to say that being British born and bred I'm not at all familiar with Goosebumps, either the books or TV series etc, so I was going into this film blind as it were. With that in mind I'm not really able to review to fans of the original works.
I went in with the hope of a good time, I liked the sound of the concept, I like Jack Black and I knew it was going to be well produced and no doubt heavily laden with the latest technological effects (ironically I had watched the splendid Jason and the Argonauts prior to Goosebumps, from one extreme to another or what?!).
I got everything I expected and had fun without any frame of reference. If I wanted any more I could dig out some questions that would need to be answered, but why bother. I left at the end, as a middle aged film lover, contented. I would for sure keenly watch any sequel if it surfaces.
Didn't do much for my Automatonophobia though... 6.5/10

> Not a unique concept, but the rest were completely surprised me.
Technically, this was a another version of 'Jumanji', but a different universe. Originally it was not meant to be like that, because it was adapted from a series of children's book of the same name into a single movie. All the characters from the different books (book series) brought into one place, thus 'Jumanji' effect.
When the fictional book characters come into the life, a group of youngsters team up to save the town from invasion. A tale that takes place in one day, especially most of the narration was a one night adventure. Totally an unexpected movie, but still not a masterpiece than just entertaining product. Maybe the actors were the reason, especially inclusion of Jack Black was the turn out. His second collaboration with the director after 'Gulliver's Travels'. And not to forget the CGI work was very acceptable for a little production like this.
This theme was a very old, but the characters were unique. Maybe it was a box office lucky, but people won't simply acknowledge for useless things. This film's success was the effort of hard work. I won't surprise if they decide to make a sequel. I meant the same team, not the lower grade filmmakers and actors.
6½/10

Well the Halloween season 2015 is upon us now and what better way than to cozy up to the youngsters at the box office than offering the innocuous tingly treat Goosebumps? The goofy-minded family-friendly frightfest does have the ingredients to muster up some interest for the little goblins out there looking for hearty rounds of boos and bumps. The question remains: does Goosebumps have the mindless macabre-related mayhem to sell its scatterbrained scary tactics to the trick-or-treat tykes looking for off-the-cuff jitters on the big screen?
Director Rob Letterman has armed the frivolous Goosebumps with aimless zaniness anchored on the nutty shoulders of the film’s leading kinetic kook Jack Black. Unfortunately, the loose presentation of combined live action and animation imagery put forth in Goosebumps seemed rather strained and misplaced. Sure, it is noted that Goosebumps reinforce a wackiness rooted in nonsensical hilarity…something considered safe and suitable for the kiddie crowd. Nevertheless, Letterman’s breezy kiddie creepy caper–even with the free-spirited Jack Black at the helm–registers with a lameness that would have some demanding youths rolling their eyes for something more hip and edgy.
Goosebumps is from the imaginative mind of R.L. Stine who has authored the vastly popular children book series while selling millions of copies worldwide. Stine’s aforementioned Goosebumps book collection for young adults (YA) have led to a successful Saturday morning cartoon series as well. Now Sony Pictures Entertainment wants to capitalize on the craze and tap into the youngsters’ consciousness with outlandish Pied Piper Jack Black heading up the charge in this toothless tale of juvenile high jinks.
One would think that Goosebumps could up the ante a bit with the backers involved such as screenwriter Darren Lemke (“Jack the Giant Slayer”) from a story by Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski. Both Letterman and Black collaborated on the dud Gulliver’s Travels thus corrupting the Jonathan Swift literary masterpiece with their big screen bomb. Black, who stole the show with his mini-sized co-stars in School of Rock, would be an ideal choice to appear in another children-themed entry mired in outrageous fortune. Unfortunately, Goosebumps merely chalks up its sketchy existence in being a jumbled ball of flimsy foolishness while never really connecting solidly with a cohesive story that brings the frenzied proceedings together. Besides, what could Goosebumps the movie offer in freshness that the countless Stine books and animated program had not touched upon before in its adventurous skin? The answer: not very much.
For teenager Zach Cooper (Dylan Minnette, “Prisoners”) the transition in moving to the bedroom community of Madison, Delaware from the hustle and bustle of New York is quite a letdown. Zach’s recently widowed mother Gale (Amy Ryan) relocates for a new job offer and Zach has no choice but to accept his new less-than-stimulating surroundings. However, the one discovery that is about to make Zach a little more accepting of his new home is the pretty neighboring Hannah (Odeya Rush). The main obstacle that stands in the way of getting to know Hannah, sadly, is her over-protective father in stand-offish writer R.L. Stine (Black). The flustered Stine has some major issues with the creativity process when conceiving his characterizations.
Soon Zach would have to join forces with the Stines and nerdy best buddy Champ (Ryan Lee,”Super 8″) when he accidentally unleashes R.L.’s monstrous creations onto the small unsuspecting town (it turns out that Stine’s fictitious beastly book protagonists are in fact real menaces come to life). Can Zach and company save the day as these bothersome pests roam the unprotected streets at will? Will Zach earn extra brownie points in winning Hannah’s heart as well as her reclusive father’s approval?
It is a mixed bag reception for the scattershot Goosebumps. On one hand many of the ardent followers of Stine’s written work will recognize the inclusion of some familiar notable villainous visitors that feature The Abominable Snowman of Pasadena, Revenge of the Gnomes and Werewolf of Fever Swamp (let’s not forget Slappy the evil ventriloquist too). Plus, some would consider it a bonus in having Black’s unflappable voice-over work earmarked for some of the standby monsters wreaking havoc in random fashion. The CGI special effects register with some semblance of awestruck momentum. Still, the manic moments piggyback one another and the cheap giggles, sight gags and punchy predicaments feel needlessly forced.
Strangely, Black seems somewhat restrained as Robert Lawrence Stine. In fact, Jillian Bell’s off-the-wall Aunt Lorraine is more of an energetic comical force than the usually high-strung Black. Both Minnette’s Zach and Rush’s Hannah are somewhat serviceable as the Romeo-and-Juliet tandem but they could have played up their on-screen chemistry more charmingly than what was presented by them in inexplicable blandness. As for the supporting adult players they arbitrarily pop in and out without a chance to fully realize their contributions in this flimsy farce geared at the indiscriminate pee wees.
Perhaps the tots will get a decent rise out of the jolly emptiness that is Goosebumps. As for the rest of us we will probably get a better result in sucking on last year’s recycled stale Halloween candy.
Goosebumps (2015)
Sony Pictures Entertainment/Columbia Pictures
Starring: Jack Black, Dylan Minnette, Odeya Rush, Amy Ryan, Ryan Lee, Jillian Bell, Ken Marino, Halston Sage, M.L. Stine (cameo)
Directed by: Rob Letterman
MPAA Rating: PG
Genre: Children’s Horror and Fantasy
Critic’s Rating: ** stars (out of 4 stars)

Rewatching Jennifer's Body reminds me why it left such an impression the first time around. The opening narration paired with the "before and after" sequence was a brilliant way to introduce the characters and set the tone for what was to come. It strikes a balance between ominous and quirky, pulling you into the strange, twisted world of Devil’s Kettle.
Megan Fox and Amanda Seyfried’s chemistry is one of the highlights. Their dynamic as Jennifer and Needy feels authentic, charged with tension, and full of layers. Megan Fox, often criticized for her emotional range, really brought something extra to this role. She captures Jennifer’s dangerous allure and underlying insecurities in a way that makes her both menacing and fascinating. And let’s be honest—Fox’s charisma and screen presence are off the charts here.
What I like is that the movie has more going on under the surface. Sure, it’s about a demon-possessed cheerleader eating boys, but there’s also stuff about friendship, jealousy, and even how women are underestimated or exploited. There’s a lot of deeper meaning if you take the time to think about it (or look it up online, let’s be honest).
The production overall was pretty good. The locations were well chosen, and the cinematography had some cool details, like those subtle shifts in perspective with handheld shots and close-ups. It really added to the tension without being too flashy.
For me, Jennifer’s Body is one of those movies that just works. It’s fun, has great performances, and leaves you thinking a bit more than you’d expect from a horror-comedy. It’s not perfect, but it’s definitely worth a rewatch—and yeah, Megan Fox totally owned this one.

PMS isn't real Needy, it was invented by the boy-run media to make us seem like we're crazy.
Jennifer's Body is directed by Karyn Kusama and written by Diablo Cody. It stars Megan Fox, Amanda Seyfried, Johnny Simmons, J.K. Simmons, Andy Sedaris and Adam Brody. Music is by Stephen Barton and Thodore Shapiro and cinematography by M. David Mullen. Plot finds Fox as a High School cheerleader who gets possessed by a demon and starts eating the boys from school. Seyfried is the homely best friend who tries to stop her.
Women impacting on the horror genre from the directing or writing chairs is in short supply, sadly the team-up of Diablo Cody and Karyn Kusama has barely made a stain on this issue. The intentions, you feel, were honourable from the outset, an attempt to blend hip pop culture comedy with demonic horror, wrapped around the perils of High School sexual learnings, unfortunately the final product is decidedly tepid. Neither funny, bloody or scary, and with weak CGI into the bargain, film feels confused in trying to cover so many bases. The High School setting is lazy, Kusama isn't able to build suspense and Cody's writing misses the required emotional beats. Cast are fine, the odd gag scores some giggles and the film is often sexy, while the score literally does rock, but all told it's just too messy, too studio safe for its own good. 5/10

I thought to myself, finally someone out there is making a movie on something which is an incredibly common phobia, this is going to be AMAZING! How wrong was I.
After watching this movie I asked my partner what would she do in the females position of having to look after the porcelain Momma’s boy, she replied “shave him and put lipstick on him” - I found this response better than watching the entire movie. I don’t recall one part of this film which I sat an thoroughly enjoyed. So if he had been shaved and made up, maybe then I would have had that slight bit of entertainment.
So we start off and the obviously attractive babysitter girl rocks up at obviously isolated house and an obviously good looking guy is there to greet here, what a fucking groundbreaking start! She walks into the strangers house even though they haven’t even came down to greet her which in my opinion is just damned bad manners so I’m already sat hoping potfingers fucks her up a bit for being so stereotypical.
The couple she’s working for come downstairs and lo and behold as if the title didn’t give it away, it’s not a child……….it’s a fucking doll. I have to say as well the creepy doll bears resemblance to an 8 year old peadophile. She gets a set of rules which you can see her already disregarding inside her head as she’s taught how to put a doll in PJs and tuck it up for the night, at this point I would have been ordering Dominos and a truck tonne of movies on the sly for the easy time ahead.
There’s an attic. As if this movie couldn’t be anymore fucking original - we now have a mysterious attic where the audience is supposed to wonder what happens beyond the ladder! I did not, I wondered when is this going to end as I can feel my mind thinking about going back to the Indian takeaway I’ve left downstairs for morning. I mean she ends up going to explore the attic NAKED, as if I couldn’t be more frustrated at how unoriginal this is, like a lot of other current horrors it has quickly gone down the road to try and make you focus on the potential tits rather than how fucking bored you are by the plot.
I’d wrote a decent amount of things to comment on for after the film but truth be told - all I can say to truly summarise it would be Hollywood horror. The jumps are cheap, the twists are obvious and Brahms (child) just turns into more of a pervert as the movie progresses. If the girl was feeling that fucked up by what was happening surely you’d just get a heavy object and smash his porcelain face in? Well, being quicker about doing this anyways. (OOPS spoiler alert, but if you hadn’t seen that coming then I’m going to guess you’re someone who watched this and thought it was pure golden).
If you ask me, all Brahms wanted was a bit of action judging by him acting like a randy teenager during the movie, even encased in a pot shell there was no stopping the lad from trying to scope her in the shower. Gotta give it to him for that I guess.
Terrible. Avoid. Stay clear.
2/10

Takes the tired old "Living Doll" premise and does okay with it by adding in a couple little spritzes of originality and a cast up to task. These two factors, as well as a pretty compelling third act almost salvage a good movie from this worn-out, boring premise.
Almost.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

One of the best horror movies I've watched in the last decade. Watch my full review here.
http://www.hweird1reviews.com/allreviews//the-boy-review

> When a nanny meets a boy who is a weird toy.
So this is the other 'The Boy'. The last year film was a thriller-drama, but this is a horror-mystery. It feels like watching a classic horror film, especially because of the English atmosphere and the house where it was shot. A young American woman named Greta, takes up a nanny job in England to escape from the troubled relationship with her boyfriend. She discovers the boy she has to look out is a doll and later she observes a series of strange events that leads her to find out the truth. The dark secret comes out and that's the film.
A limited cast film. The suspense was the key to the story narrating successfully. So I expected a big twist at the end, but it was a decent one and the overall film was just above average. The atmosphere was creepy, and then it weakened as the development was decelerated going to the second and the final act. Until the twist, it was good and after that a bit disappointing. Not because of the bad conclusion, but comparing it with the rest, especially after the anticipation it created in us, that end part looked so small and simple. Good film to watch for once, but like the most of the horror films, it's fallen short to get my thumbs up.
6/10

Let’s face facts…it is inevitable that bad horror films and the new beginning of a movie season go together as systematically as skeleton bones to an unmarked grave. In either case, both scenarios are routinely realized and does not look to change at any time in the immediate future. Director William Brent Bell’s (‘The Devil Inside’) latest banal boofest **‘The Boy’** is basically business as usual in terms of registering as a flaccid fright fable pitted in the dumping ground of released duds in the relatively new year. In essence, ‘The Boy’ is one stillborn terrorizing tyke born out of artificial and tired creepy conventions.
Sure, **The Boy** has its share of atmospheric chills and, as a production, it exudes a tension-filled anxiousness courtesy of the polished Gothic-induced vibes in gives off in its sinister-looking set designs. Nevertheless, **The Boy** fails to hold our attention where it truly counts in structured, solid storytelling and viable psychological thrills. Instead, Bell’s pat knee-shaking narrative spends its time focusing on the familiar and flawed cliches involving meager melodramatic plot developments, recycled unnatural occurrences, the movie’s harried heroine and her beleaguered backstory and annoying jolts and tiresome false jump starts in manufactured suspense. Of course, ‘The Boy’s panic playground for its horrific happenings takes place in a spacious and darkened manor populated by eccentric occupants and their devoted, demonic doll (hence, ‘the boy’ in question).
American Greta Evans (Lauren Cohan, ‘The Walking Dead’) travels across the pond to start over in the quaint English countryside as she leaves behind the fragments of a bad relationship back the States. Greta looks to pursue a job opportunity as a nanny for the Heelshire couple (Jim Norton and Diana Hardcastle) at their expansive estate. The Heelshires need Greta for tending to their son Brahms’s personal affairs. The unusual discovery from the newly hired nanny, however, is that Greta’s task is to watch Brahms, a porcelain doll and NOT a human little boy. The Heelshires, out of touch with reality, treats the inanimate tot as a real son. Nevertheless, a job is a job so Greta minds the toy tyke when his ‘parents’ decide to go away for the holiday.
Thankfully, Greta learns about the histrionics pertaining to the Heelshires and Brahms through their deliveryman Malcolm (Rupert Evans). The Heelshires’ disillusionment originated nearly two decades ago when the original and real-life Brahms died in a tragic fire. This, of course, reveals the questionable quirks about the boy’s maturing parents’ behavior and denial mode in substituting the doll conveniently for their belated and beloved son Brahms. Greta is determined to do right by the Heelshires and treat Brahms with the compassion they imaged her duties would entail. Importantly, Greta must make a good impression on the unassuming boy doll as the Heelshires warned that Brahms has had his troubles with past nannies.
At first Greta is pensive to react to Brahms and leaves him sitting idle in the corner. The Heelshires had given specific instructions on how to handle their precious “boy” as they have naturally spoiled him with amounts of attention. Greta eventually finds the nerve to cater to Brahms’s every caretaking whims and soon expresses a fondness for him in the process. So far, so good, right?
**The Boy** certainly has its moments of shock value but the sluggish story feels lukewarm for the most part. Bell and screenwriter Stacey Manear cobble together a mysterious and moody horror thriller that is somewhat old-fashioned as it relies on tension-building tactics involving shadowy hallways, dim-light rooms and innuendo scares that suggest more meat to the bone when spotlighting everything from Brahms’s aura of the present to the deceased Brahms’s existence of the past. Both Bell and Manear arm **The Boy’s** leading lady Cohan/Greta with personal issues meant to carry over to the English landscape but the malaise she possesses comes off as matter-of-factly. And who really did not telegraph Greta’s ex-main squeeze Cole showing up in England to claim his woman’s heart only to meet some static concerning the clingy Brahms?
It is such a shame that The Boy could not capitalize any further on its strange and hypnotic inclinations. After all, this off-kilter narrative had the makings for a psychological masking of paranoia and possessiveness but never quite taps into the underscored hedonistic hold that exists between Greta and toyish tot Brahms or Brahms and the salacious spells of the manor where his dubious presence exists. Sadly, the slow burn effectiveness of The Boy stutters especially when revisiting the titillating genre of disturbing dolls and the mayhem they spin towards their hapless human counterparts (yeah, at least **Chucky** and **Magic’s** dummy Fats had some genuine gory gumption to bring to the terrifying table).
What is maddening about **The Boy** is the wasted potential of what perhaps could have been a whacked-out gem that exploited the surreal circumstances of mental and emotional loss and elusive reality. Instead, the intended suspense is as solitary and stiff as the bratty Brahms’s compact body.
**The Boy** (2016)
1 hr. 37 mins.
Starring: Lauren Cohan, Rupert Evans, Diana Hardcastle, James Russell, Jim Norton
Directed by: William Brent Bell
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Genre: Horror/Thriller
Critic’s rating: ** stars (out of 4 stars)
(c) Frank Ochieng 2016

A violent and vulgar distraction.
Indeed, British magazine Radio Times reviewed Crank and called it a violent and vulgar distraction, maybe so if you be a little prudish and timid of stomach for high octane thrills. Crank is utterly bonkers fun, and it knows it, star Jason Statham knows it, directors Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor know it, and quite frankly any action movie junkie fan knows it.
The tongue is planted so firmly into cheek it is in danger of breaking skin, it's a film that lives to take you on a most improbable thrill ride and succeeds admirably in doing so. Plot is kind of incidental, but Statham has been injected with a Chinese drug that will kill him if his adrenalin levels drop. So off he goes in search of vengeance and maybe an antidote? He runs, he jumps, he snorts drugs, has sex with Amy Smart in public, rides a motorbike like Evel Knievel, flashes his arse a lot and gets a major league erection.
He, much like the film, never pauses for breath, it's all very breakneck and kinetic. The makers are guilty of acting like kids locked in a sweet shop, with all the flashy tricks of the action movie trade used wherever possible, but so what? Sit back with a good drink and some movie snacks and enjoy one of the best action movie rides of 2006. 8/10

This is cracking serial killer drama from Bong Joon Ho - with some superb performances - that tracks a police investigation trying almost every technique known to man to trace a rapist/murderer who is terrorising young women (especially if it is raining and if they are wearing red). Kang-ho Song, Sang-kyung Kim and Roe-ha Kim don't exactly see eye to eye as they set about their task, adopting some scientific and not-so scientific approaches to their detection. The stylish and witty writing allows the characters to develop at a slow, but steady and interesting pace - using humour, pathos and violence - and at times it is the methods and attitudes of the police that appear under more scrutiny than the perpetrator of the crimes! Sadly, though, it does sag towards the end. The sharp pace of the writing and the intensity of the performances having reached a pretty high plateau, comes off the boil a bit and I found the ending annoyingly self-defeating: the identity of the criminal being less important to me than the collapsing integrity of those charged with his discovery. We never quite get back to that high standard of storytelling achieved in the first 90 minutes and as the quirkiness of the plot becomes more subsumed into the increasing frustrations of the investigators, the film becomes more and more a generic crime thriller losing much of its uniqueness. Certainly well worth watching, but perhaps it could have been shaved a bit to maintain the jeopardy.

Doch eines ist sicher, alle die sich auf das koreanische Kino einlassen können werden bei „Memories of a Murder“ mit einem Film belohnt, der nachwirkt, der nach dem Abspann nicht nur ein weiterer gesehener Film ist. Man liest es vielleicht aus dieser Rezension raus, dass „Memories of a Murder“ überzeugen konnte und genau deswegen sollte auch klar sein, was Ihr nun tun solltet. Genau! Schaut Euch „Memories of a Murder“ an. Überzeugt Euch selbst davon, wie vielschichtig und spannend dieser Film ist. Fiebert selbst mit den Ermittlern mit und rätselt wer die Taten begangen hat. „Memories of a Murder“ ist sicher kein einfacher Film und auch kein „Feel Good“-Film, aber ein mehr als sehenswerter Film. [Sneakfilm.de]

Private detectives "Patrick" (Casey Affleck) and "Angie" (Michelle Monaghan) are drafted in by the mother of a missing girl to try to find out what's happened. This is pretty much virgin territory for the pair, but they are local and so might be able to unearth sources unwilling to discuss with the police efforts being led by "Doyle" (Morgan Freeman). Now it's fair to say that the child's mother "Helene" (Amy Ryan) is probably not the most attentive of parents, but she is determined to be reunited with her daughter. What now ensues follows this investigation into their Boston suburb - one that takes them into contact with crooks, drug dealers and an whole fraternity of dangerous hoodlums. Their searching does, however, start to bear fruit - and not a kind of fruit that they really want to discover. The plot thickens and twists and evidence of just who did what and, as importantly, why emerges that causes quite a moral dilemma for the pair. There is a strong dynamic here between the very much on-form partnership of Affleck and Monaghan and the former's brother (Ben) directs this film with consistent pace and a plausible degree of menace. Serendipity takes just too much of an hand in the ending for my liking, but it's still a compelling and thought provoking story that ends up by asking us all a question - the answer to which is not necessarily straightforward. Freeman really only features sparingly, but there are solid supporting contributions from Ed Harris and, to a lesser extent, from Titus Welliver that all help deliver a taut and intriguing drama that is well worth a watch.