Christ what kind of bum did they get to write and/or produce this one.
I really, really liked the first Ghost Rider movie. This one is nowhere near that one. Sure, Nicolas Cage is doing Johnny Blaze again and they even got Christopher Lambert to play an old priest but the movie is just poorly implemented. The Ghost Rider is actually not really appearing that much and when he does, the special effects look cheap and not at all as cool as in the first movie.
It doesn’t help that, when he first appears in the movie, he gets shot down by a simple “human” gun and ends up in hospital. This nonsense about, first trying to hide out in some obscure place a ’la The Hulk (been there done that), and then trying to get rid of his powers and afterwards taking on Satan without them is just ruining the fun. The film totally lacks the spirit of the first one.
As I said, I’m rather disappointed. It’s really a shame that they screwed this one so badly because now we probably won’t get another one even though they made a lame attempt at the end of the film to leave a door open for that.

**Loved the first Ghost Rider, this one was TERRIBLE**
To be honest, i was really looking forward to see this movie, the trailer itself was eye-candy and highly exaggerated.The story is as bad as the actors' performance. Nicholas Cage is going a very , very bad road, his lasts movies , ''season of the witch'' and ''drive angry'' were as thin and dreadful as this one. The action in this movie was unjustified and plain crazy bad, the way ''Blaze'' was written, the laughable dialogues and dumb facial expression of Cage didn't helped at all. The 3D effect on this movie is overrated, everything is too much and fake. Idris Elba was probably the only reason why i went to watch this but even then his role was thin and futile, On the whole, it's messy , funny and plain bad, i pray to god there is not a third one

Unlike with 'The Parent Trap' films, there is a fair gap in favour of the original for 'Freaky Friday'.
This 2003 remake is still very good, I definitely enjoyed it. It just feels a little hollow in some areas, at least until the sweet ending. Lindsay Lohan is great as the daughter, giving Jodie Foster a solid match. Jamie Lee Curtis gives a fairly strong performance, though Barbara Harris' portrayal of the mother is superior in my opinion.
There's fun to be had here for sure, it's just not on the same level as the excellent original for me.

Really good watch, will watch again, and can recommend.
I'm not sure what it is about this movie, but it's just an easy, fun watch. Jamie Lee Curtis is a seasoned actress, and Lindsey Lohan had finally built enough experience to be reliable in this role where she's basically doing an impression of Jamie Lee Curtis being her mom. I'm not a huge fan of either one, but I'm not going to deny their acting "chops" and they bring it here, giving the audience a natural and fun atmosphere to the dilemma.
There are several very good improvements on original movie in this: cutting a lot of the thought narrative, adding a medium for the swap magic, having them wake up different instead of insta-switching, and several of the added plot lines really help fill out the world better. A career woman is more interesting to follow than a housewife (not that it's necessarily more important), the romance line(s) in this are surprising and slightly less creepy, and swapping a sports game out for musical show not only allowed for the cross competition between character events, but also allows for some great alt rock music throughout the movie: I'll admit to enjoying a movie more when I can relate to the music better.
There are several good supporting actors (big and small), to include the Chinese restaurant family which, I think is a very nice cherry on top of the story. By having the source of the magic be an outside party, I think it helps the complexity of the story without causing confusion.
It's a fun watch, give it a go.

'All Quiet on the Western Front' is a hauntingly brilliant epic anti-war picture. The only things I knew coming into watching it (aside from the obvious) is that it won many awards, particularly for its sound and visuals - both of which are indeed of very high quality.
There aren't many noteworthy criticisms I can really level at this movie, that's not to say it's absolutely perfect of course - e.g. that one 'Transformers'-esque piece of the score is ill-fitting. It is, though, simply a film of high calibre. Everyone of the cast merits props by the way, particularly Felix Kammerer and Albrecht Schuch.
One to recommend, without question.

All Quiet on the Western Front by Edward Berger is an intense, unfiltered look at the brutal reality of World War I.
The movie follows a young German soldier, Paul, who goes from eager and full of hope to completely changed by the horrors he faces on the battlefield. It’s heavy, and it doesn’t shy away from showing just how brutal trench warfare was.
One thing that really hit me was how the film makes you feel trapped along with the soldiers. The cinematography is amazing but also relentless, capturing the mud, the cold, and the constant fear of death. Edward Berger does an incredible job pulling you into that world. It’s not an easy movie to watch, and it doesn’t try to glorify anything. Instead, it shows the cost of war on a personal level, especially for young soldiers who were basically kids when they signed up.
Perfect if you want a movie that’s powerful, thought-provoking, and leaves you a little shaken.

This movie has nothing to do with the original book. It was created by the order of German politicians in attempt to make the world believe that Germans didn't want war and justify WW2 by humiliating peace treaty Germans were "forced" to sign. It is disgusting that country responsible for not one but TWO wars that ruined millions of lives wants to make everyone believe that they're pacifists and victims. If you don't believe me find out how they teach history in German schools. Millennials don't even know that Germans were killing Jews and even if some were killed, it was not more than in other countries of that time.
To sum up, it's not a movie, not adaptation of the book but simply propaganda, waste of time and brainwash that you paid for.

**Demonizing war leaders VS angel soldiers**
One of the most beautiful and simple moments in the life of a person who loves cinema is watching this movie without any expectations and he comes out of this movie with a very high fascination. I was related to war events, especially World War I and World War II. Naturally, this thing made me related to war movies.
From the beginning, simply this movie that we are talking about entered my list among the best movies I have seen in my life, and the reason is because it is different from any other movie.
It is very ironic from the beginning of the film, and you see to what degree the name of the movie doesn't at all indicate that things are calm between the Germans and the French, but it is important that through the events of the film we will live the quiet and deadly events of the soldiers on the Western Front between the Germans and the French.
You will live the events of this war from the perspective of young Germans, and you will see and discover that this giant evil devil in Europe, who is always blamed for all wars, whether World War I or World War II, is made up of young human soldiers in the prime of their lives, coordinated behind policies and resounding slogans. The most important point is that in every A war has victims and perpetrators on both sides.
One of the most important advantages of the film is the German side, because you will live the events of the movie through German actors, and this is a precedent in war films for me, which will increase the realism of the film’s story. Despite my lack of knowledge of the German language, I decided to bring subtitle of the movie.
We will live with multiple personalities from the moment German youths register for the army, through their entry into the battlefield, and you will see the long nights of war and many German youths who have simple aspirations and dreams, in addition to how true friendship will be formed between members of the army in this lonely place.
The impact of losing friends during the battle in a sudden, brutal and realistic way. What I liked the most about the movie is the war aspect. My body shivered many times while watching it, because you usually see in traditional war movies you often find plans, strategies, battles and heroic stances, but this movie is like (1917 movie at 2019). We live with simple soldiers in the battle. The movie tells us the details of the horrors of the battle experienced by every soldier.
The film succeeded in demonizing wars and war leaders, and at the same time humanizing all the soldiers present in wars.

This is the first major film that I have seen where the undoubted atrocities of the Great War trench battles were presented from the side of Germany. More specifically, from the young "Bäumer" (the thoroughly convincing Felix Kammerer) who finds himself along with comrades "Müller" (Moritz Klaus) and "Albert" (Aaron Hilmer) enlisting into the army. Full of enthusiasm and optimism they arrive at a front that very quickly saps them all of both. Food is in short supply, as is sleep, water, safety - indeed just about everything that could terrify these young men is delivered upon them as, meantime, we (the audience) see a parallel storyline that shows just how close to armistice we are at this stage of this most egregious conflict. If you've ever been to the Somme, you will probably conclude just as "Bäumer" does, that there is an immense degree of futility in men fighting for a few yards of bombed out, muddy and corpse-ridden ground. The toing and froing between these equally matched, tired and disillusioned troops demonstrating the pointlessness of it all. Edward Berger marries the strife and struggles faced by those at the front well with the diplomatic efforts being made by those whose discomfort was of an entirely different cut. Daniel Brühl and, to a lesser extent, Thibault de Montalembert go some way to illustrating this parallel game of chess with one side determined to salvage some semblance of honour in defeat, the other determined that victory will be complete and absolute. The visual effects are not quite "1917" (2019), but they still convey excellently the peril and squalor in which these soldiers endured. The audio mixes add perfectly to that sense of menace, and the whole cinematography strikes a chill. The screenplay is sparing; we do not have loads of dialogue - much of the imagery and the facial expressions of the young men, scared out of their wits for much of the time, is left to do almost all of the heavy lifting. It is brutal and graphic at times, but that adds enormously to this frankly terrifyingly authentic look at warfare that pits man against the elements and, ultimately, the politics superbly. Big screen must, if you can. Netflix it may be, but for television this certainly isn't.

All Quiet on the Western Front is a dark, gritty, and depressing look at what the effects of war and propaganda have on the soldiers who enlist.
Our main characters enter the front all bright eyed and bushy tailed excited to fight for Germany, mainly due to them being naive about what war is truly like. That optimism is soon destroyed in the first minutes of reaching the battlefields as they are hit with mortar strikes that kill countless numbers of their comrades. This is where we first get to see the incredible emotion portrayed in this film. The actors do so much with just their facial expressions to demonstrate their mental decay as the turmoil of war inflict their damage.
There is a constant theme of the destruction of peace throughout the entire film, whether be the peace of Germany as a whole due to the lackluster treaty they are forced to sign or the disturbance within the troop themselves. Every time our main characters have a sense of calm, like having a pleasant chat while on guard duty or stealing chickens from a local farmer, that calm is interrupted by more death and destruction. These lulls in action provide a sense of comfortability for the audience that gets ripped away in a second's notice. This juxtaposition occurs throughout the entire film, and I found in incredibly effective.
The tension of war is aided with a brilliant score. The subtle piano keys mixed with loud bass crashes create an uneasiness that spells impending doom for our main troop. It was quite excellent.
As previously stated, the performances here are downright incredible. Felix Kammerer was brilliant in his leading role. His evolution from an absolute wreck of soldier, crying and panicking on the battlefield to grizzled vet who is able to run headfirst into battle without a second notice was fantastic. But he still kept the sweet and genuine attitude throughout, having moments of clarity during the battle where he realizes the brutality of what he and his other soldiers are doing. These complex emotions are carried over to the majority of the cast and was one of my favorite parts about this film.
Overall, All Quiet on the Western Front was a major surprise for me. I am not super experienced nor am interested in many war films, but this may have changed my tune because I genuinely believe it is one of the best movies of the year.
Score: 94%
Verdict: Excellent

All Quiet on the Western Front is as beautiful and poetic as it is brutal and blunt. Historically accurate, emotional, and raw, this film is easily the best war drama to arrive since "Saving Private Ryan". Although available in English over dub, watching the film in the native German language with English subtitles is the way to go. Somehow, hearing German commanding officers shouting in English doesn't have the same dramatic effect. The cinematography is amazing. Go watch it.

A fascinating film with potential that was never fully achieved. “All Quiet on the Western Front” does not rely solely on shock value to disturb its audience; instead, it uses the horrors of war to sober them with facts and dismal realities. The film's story was worth telling; it left an impression long after the credits rolled. It dealt with many weighty themes, including a young man's journey through war, the difficulties of combat, the cruelty of desperation, and the value of friendship and camaraderie, all of which were handled with grace and artistry. Furthermore, it boasted first-rate production values, breathtaking visuals, a terrific score (although maybe a tad bit over the top), and stellar acting. Although there is much to praise about the film, “All Quiet on the Western Front” is ultimately hampered by its drawn-out length, the plot dragging in spots, and several confusing moments. All the pieces were in place for “All Quiet on the Western Front” to be the best picture of the year, and in some respects, it is. Fans of the genre, or anyone who appreciates a well-made film, should not miss this film despite its limitations.
___
Rating: ***7.5/10*** *(Impressive, yet it doesn't quite hit the mark in every respect)*

Winona Ryder is on great form here in this rather brutally frank look at a girl struggling with mental health issues. "Susanna" had been rushed to hospital by her worried parents after an apparent attempt at suicide. Diagnosed with a potential personality disorder, she is admitted to the "Claymoore" facility under the care of "Dr. Wick" (Vanessa Redgrave) and nurse "Valerie" (Whoopi Goldberg). As you'd expect, this place has a multitude of characters inside and she (and we) are introduced to a mixture ranging from the pathological liar to the anorexic, the sociopath to the schizophrenic. Some are friendlier to her, others ignore her altogether. It's "Lisa" (Angelina Jolie) whom she seems to relate to her best. She is a controlling character who swings between munificence and malevolence at the drop of an hat whilst giving the staff a constant stream of headaches. On the outside, her recently drafted boyfriend "Tobias" (Jared Leto) is trying to coax her to return to the outside world, but she seems to thrive on the institutionalised nature of her new life, addicted to it even. Gradually, though she begins to appreciate that "Lisa" is a toxic influence on her life - evidenced by a tragedy that really brings things home to her. The ensemble of patients - Clea Duvall, Brittany Murphy and Elizabeth Moss all work well with the sparingly appearing Goldberg and Redgrave to create a really affecting atmosphere here, but it's Jolie who delivers best with a career-defining effort as a creature that it's impossible to like but equally difficult not to feel sympathy for too. It's intensely scripted, occasionally funny and pretty perfectly paced and though not a easy watch, is certainly a powerful one.

Sometimes you see them as crazy or mentally ill, but they are the cure that keeps you from going crazy if you love them. The movie touched my feelings when I realized that we were the disease that penetrated their bodies and made these angels crazy

Back in the late 1990s, when it was announced that Susanna Kaysen's 1993 memoir _Girl, Interrupted_ would be turned into a movie, many actresses were reportedly fighting to join the cast that included a number of strong female leads.
In the end, Winona Ryder was chosen to play Susanna Kaysen, a teenage girl who overdoses on aspirin and is admitted to psychiatric hospital. While in the 1960s institution, she meets and befriends many of the other patients, including sociopath Lisa (Angelina Jolie) and schizophrenic Polly (Elisabeth Moss), and nurses including Valerie (Whoopi Goldberg).
It is difficult to believe that at the release of _Girl, Interrupted_ Angeline Jolie was barely starting in her acting career. This was a time before Tomb Raider, and even further before Changeling and Mr and Mrs Smith. Rather, Jolie had a handful of acting credits and one notable film (Gia). So, it is perhaps with huge credit that she was picked to handle such a complex character as Lisa.
And it is Lisa who really keeps _Girl, Interrupted_ moving forward, earning Jolie a well deserved Oscar for Best Supporting Actress - her only Academy Award to date.
Susanna, while the protagonist and perhaps more together mentally, spends most of the film going with the flow, at one moment grateful for the support of her roommate and then the next swept up in Lisa's chaotic whirlwind of destruction, never really offering much to the story other than a set of eyes to view it through.
The final act is the explosive conclusion that the film's initial promise deserves, but overall _Girl, Interrupted_ can't shy away from the fact that not a lot really happens over the course of its runtime.
Each of the girls are in the institution through no fault of their own, and their personalities are intrinsically linked to their conditions, so it is difficult to follow exactly what their redemption arcs are.
Perfectly watchable, especially for Jolie's performance, but by no means a must-see.

Did Michael Cimino ever make another movie? I wouldn't be surprised if not after this harrowing and intense look at the human psyche after it's exposure to the brutalities of war. The war was in Vietnam, and the protagonists here are those who survived - to varying degrees - to return home to what they hope will be some sort of normality. To some semblance of what they left behind. To some humanity. The three men all come from an Ohio sawmill town via some Eastern Europe antecedence, and they willingly enlist to fight for their country "Michael" (Robert De Niro), "Nicky" (Christopher Walken) and "Steven" (John Savage). It's the latter man who has just got married and so who feels a great wrench when they are almost summarily deployed. That deployment sees them captured, tortured and exposed to the most deadly game of Russian roulette you're ever likely to witness. The narrative now splices a little so we can follow the three character's individual experiences in escaping and trying to get home. The way the threads weave here is hugely impactful on the presentation of the story to the audience. The characterful efforts - especially from Savage, and a really taut and considered direction allow us to observe the impact of the conflict not just on the men - physically, emotionally and psychologically; but on those left behind. Those epitomised by "Linda" (Meryl Streep) whose needs are torn between loyalty to those absent and need for comfort from those not. It's not meant to be an history, cinematic licence abounds. This is essentially a darkly written observation of the consequences of war, or trauma and of loyalty. It could be about any war. These are not soldiers, they are barely-trained young men in uniform and the plot could just as readily apply to any other people drafted in to fight for a cause they didn't understand in a place they'd probably never heard of. Does it need to be three hours long? My jury is out on that. It does allow itself to meander at times, but the more I watch it the more I wonder if Cimino hasn't built in some necessary steam valves for us to rest from the intensity of the characterisations here. The intensity of the photography and Stanley Myers score - with some almost incongruous help from the guitar themed "Cavatina" by (the other) John Williams makes this as must for a big screen, makes you think a bit and certainly offers career best roles from Walken and Savage.

The Deer Hunter (1978) — Excellent character war drama that showcases some great performances, mainly De Niro and Walken. Directed by Michael Cimino, this 3-hour film takes its time developing these characters and shows the psychological side of the horrors of Vietnam, and war in general. Probably makes a good companion film with Apocalypse Now, released only seven months later (in the U.S.). **4.5/5**

With director Cimino's recent death and his reputation in tatters since the debacle of 'Heaven's Gate', I decided to visit 'The Deer Hunter'. Though over three hours long, it's astonishing, paced so achingly right and I can see why he rightfully earned the 'carte blanche' that would unfortunately lead to his downfall (as well as an entire studio's) as soon as he made his next film. But to reach such heights and to have such ambition--as well as undeniable talent--is a victory in and of itself. Just armed with the main five actors alone, at the zenith of their craft, a fine script (really the first interesting and well-deliberated Vietnam film to hit the big screen) and Vilmos Zsigmond behind the camera meant that this would prove something special. Scenes that will haunt you forever. My favourite shot is the incredible 360-degree pan shot around Linda's bedroom when she realizes she's given up on Nick and is going to declare her love to Michael--extraordinary stuff. What's YOURS?
Many film lovers who despise Cimino's work instantly clam up when 'The Deer Hunter' is mentioned...and there's a reason for that. It's deservedly considered one of the finest American films of the 70's--a decade that was chock-full of great ones.

Slow pace movie which nicely depicts the life of worker class Russian inmigrants in USA and the impact that its young generation receives from Vietnam's war.
The actual shock cause being the crazy game of the Russian roulette only helps from the artistic point of view of the film but it is well blended into the actual story.

I think this might be my favourite role from Faye Dunaway. She is "Evelyn", a woman who suspects that her husband "Hollis" (Darrell Zwerling) is playing away from home. She engages the services of the cynical PI "Gittes" (Jack Nicholson) and pretty soon people are dead and he is embroiled in an internecine story of adultery, corruption and manipulation that proves pretty perilous for a detective who is working with one women he suspects is being a bit frugal with the truth and another whose identity he is desperately struggling to discover. Nicholson is also on super form, his performance is natural and engaging with a solid chemistry between his and Dunaway adding a richness to this rather quirky plot. Roman Polanski has assembled a strong supporting cast - notably John Huston who features sparingly but effectively as her wealthy, untrustworthy, father "Noah" and the photography does a great deal to help generate a sense of accumulating intrigue as we gradually make some headway through this complicated and interesting character study. The production looks great - the 1930s costume and motor cars alongside a smattering of the simmering attitudes that prevailed at the time are encapsulated well too. It's a shade over two hours, but it hits the ground running and never really stops until the ending that though not entirely unexpected, still has enough elements of surprise to keep it compelling.

**Great.**
I can't say much about Roman Polanski because I feel I've seen too little of his work to make a more global analysis: I have only seen _The Ninth Gate_, _The Pianist_ and, now, this film. It's not much… but the truth is that they are three films that I really liked, and about which I have a very good opinion. This film is very good, fitting into a style that we can call “neo-noir”, insofar as its visual aesthetic is heavily inspired by noir, with the caveats that are due, as it is a color film and not black and white. Polanski is an attentive and meticulous director, who provides the audience with quality work, in which every detail has been thought of.
With a story set in San Francisco during the 1930s, the film is very similar to the gangster movies that came out in the 40's and 50's. The story revolves around a private detective, an ex-cop, who is hired to watch a man in what appears to be just another case of adultery. Everything changes when he discovers that the woman who hired him is not a jealous wife. The search for answers will lead him to a web of intrigue and crimes that involves an important Californian company and a public works contract that can be decisive for the city's water storage. It's an excellent story, capable of holding us in the first few minutes and that harmoniously combines tension, romance and suspense, in the right measures.
In addition to an excellent story, with a very well written script, the film presents us with a high quality cast headed by Jack Nicholson, at a time when he was still young and elegant enough to play heartthrob roles. The actor is very good and leaves in this film one of the most interesting works of his career. Faye Dunaway is not far behind and is simply wonderful, dignified and elegantly seductive, as a “femme fatale” should be. John Huston (Nicholson's father-in-law in real life, at this time) also appears in the film and makes a very positive and interesting participation.
In addition to these qualities, the film also has superb production values: impeccably shot, with great angles and sharpness, it has very good cinematography, beautiful colors and light and shadow effects, in addition to excellent sepia tones that are called reinforcing the dominant "vintage" ambience. The film was a very detailed production, in which special attention was given to the creation of the sets and the choice of filming locations, so that everything fit well into the historical period. The choice of cars (which are important in the course of the plot) and the design of the costumes and props was also very careful. Last but not least, a note of praise for the excellent soundtrack, which was conceived by Jerry Goldsmith.

He nose you know!
Chinatown is directed by Roman Polanski and written by Robert Towne. It stars Jack Nicholson, Faye Dunaway, John Huston, Perry Lopez and John Hillerman. Music is by Jerry Goldsmith and cinematography by John A. Alonzo.
Private investigator J.J. Gittes (Nicholson) is working on an adultery case but quickly finds himself embroiled in murder and corruption.
The gathering of Polanski, Towne, Nicholson and Robert Evans (producer) put their respective skills together to craft one of the most lauded neo-noir films of all time. It's a searing picture awash with the staples of the film noir and gumshoe detective movies that graced cinema in the 40s and 50s. From the characterisations (suspicious femmes - mouthy coppers - sleazy kingpin - tough protagonist in a whirlpool of unravelling layers), to the hard boiled script, violence, sex and brutal revelations, it's a noir essential that only lacks chiaroscuro and expressionistic swirls to seal the complete deal.
Allegoraries unbound, iconography assured and dialogue now in the lexicon of legends, Chinatown is not to be missed, not just by fans of noir, but fans of cinema, period. 9.5/10

Decent watch, probably won't watch it again, but can recommend.
I'll be upfront, while it's not really for me, I think most people will enjoy this movie, if for nothing else, then the idiot banter.
Franco's a good actor, but sometimes he and Seth put too much of themselves in the movie, and it gets worse when they're together on screen. This basically looks like they just took what they do hanging out on a Friday sometimes and put it on screen in places, basically anytime the action dies down and they start to lean into the lull.
The first story that gets interrupted by the main plot, could easily have it's own movie, romantic comedy or drama: an older man, legitimately and legally dating a high school girl has a LOT of situations to it, and has amazing potential. Once it gets interrupted by the "on the lamb" trope, I would have honestly thought it would disappear as it would in most movies, or at worst, she would show up looking for him or to get something from his place and get abducted.
The re-return to the original story line is almost funny enough itself in concept, but in actuality I just end up waiting to get back to the movie, and they do things like that throughout the entire movie.
It is conceivable when things are happening to the main characters that derail them, but when they're actively derailing themselves, then it just gets sad. You start to question things that you shouldn't, and it's not even because they're high, as they directly have a conversation about how the weed is really bad for them, given everything that is happening.
I'm not a fan of drug humor, or abuse humor (usually), and everything that isn't that is so ridiculous that it's hard to like.
There are good jokes woven in here, but a lot of this is "I wanted to make a movie with my buddy while we act like idiots", and as a fan of Kevin Smith, I respect that, but that should put you in the frame of mind that this isn't a top tier movie, and Kevin Smith writes better dialogue.

When it comes to comedy, I'm like a patchwork. My favourite kind is the one I grew up with which is the Looney Tunes cartoons. I can watch them over and over again, and I will always laugh. I also love dark British humour, slapstick, and wait for it.... American.
American humour (especially these days) gets derided, most often due to it being "dumbed down" so the collegiate set can understand it, often using toilet humour as its best punchline. I somewhat disagree, I say that the humour people use between themselves is what drives movies made by Judd Apatow & co.
Take Pineapple Express for example, this movie seems on some level to be fairly realistic. I use that term very loosely, because of course many things that happen in this film, could, and should never happen. Anyhow, the comedy, the dialogue, the fight sequences, and other interactions between the characters are the reasons I think make it feel this way.
The fight sequences aren't ones that I could say seem all that choreographed, of course there are "X" spots they need to hit, but for the most part I think it is done on the fly, or like much of the comedy, improvised.
Pineapple Express follows the story of a process server Dale Denton (Rogen), & his pot dealer Saul Silver (Franco), as they avoid henchmen (Robinson & Corrigan) of Ted Jones (Cole), Marijuana kingpin of L.A. after Dale witnesses a murder Ted commits. With a corrupt cop on the take (Perez) also on the hunt, staying alive for the buyer & supplier turned stoner buddies becomes an adventure of friendship as well as appreciation of the relationships built by people in this lifestyle.
The name Pineapple Express comes from the name of the variety of weed Saul introduces to Dale.
I enjoy this movie because of the old fashioned approach taken to deliver the laughs and the story, and the characters feel very relatable to almost anyone on some level.

This is a fairly unremarkable family drama that sees "April" (Kate Winslet) staying at home with their two children whilst husband "Frank" (Leonardo DiCaprio) goes to work in his office each day - and has the occasional fling with his secretary. "April" is probably best described as a frustrated actress and her last stage performance went down a bit like a lead balloon which caused the latest in this couple's fiery rows. She decides that they need a profound change, and so suggests that they decamp to Paris. She will get a job and he can spend his time, reading, writing - generally lolling about looking after the kids. They announce this plan to the world, but no sooner than they they do, their lives become even more unsettled and a maelstrom of turmoil, resentment and loathing starts to emerge - one that clearly illustrates that all is not well, psychologically with "April. The story really only comes alive when Michael Shannon takes centre screen. His performance as the emotionally charged "John" delivers well as the man who has an insightful ability to call a spade a spade - regardless of whom he hurts with his typically near the mark observations. It's all a bit long, slow and there's a great deal of dialogue that doesn't seem to advance the story nor the characters especially. Indeed at times this is really just a series of a good looking and stylishly photographed mid-life crises that is set in 1950s America, but could easily be anywhere else. A few familiar faces pepper the undercast, and the intimate scenes with DiCaprio and Winslet are effective at times, but I found this a little too much like a soap for me. Worth a watch - I'm not certain what the revolutionary element was, though.

Can you change your life for love? What’s the border between craziness and frustration? Are we really living our lives? This fantastic movie won 20 awards and 73 nominations. It’s an incredible story and let’s discover why.
The movie is set in Connecticut during the mid-1950 and inspired by the book “Revolutionary Road” written by Richard Yates. It’s a story of love, marriages, families and abortion, ambitions and frustrations, of dreamers and conformists. It’s the daily tale of all of us, on the road of our lives. Looking for an often unachievable and unknown happiness.
You will ask yourself “what’s the purpose of this life”? It is just about having a good job, a great house, a wife, children? Or there is something more? Like the love for yourself, for your talents, your passions, your desires and dreams. But to find the right answer requires painful choices to be made, and this where this masterpiece guide us.
Frank and April Wheeler are the protagonists and to give them voice and action, we have two of the most talented and incredible actors in Hollywood: Leonardo Di Caprio and Kate Winslet, directed by Sam Mendes, in one of his most successful films. It’s not a movie for everyone. It’s very sophisticated, well-crafted, a masterpiece, in my opinion.
You can read my full analysis for free at this url: https://bit.ly/2HxJTJq

***What if Jack & Rose married and settled into the conventional American grind?***
The Wheelers are a couple with two kids living in the suburbs of Connecticut in the ’50s. Frank (Leonardo DiCaprio) marches off to the big city five times a week, ten hours a day, to a job he hates whereas April (Kate Winslet) takes care of things on the home front, including their hardly-seen children. April's dream of being an actress has failed and she vents her frustrations on Frank. Emasculated, he has a meaningless affair to prove his manhood to himself. Meanwhile April suggests a wild idea for them to move to Paris because Frank's war tales describe it as a place of exhilaration and April desperately wants him to regain that aura of vitality he had when they first met. Will they escape the comatose corner they've painted themselves into or will they join the masses of (supposedly) living dead in their midst?
Eleven years after their mega-hit "Titanic" (1997), Kate and Leonardo reunite for "Revolutionary Road," released in January, 2009. Kate has shed her unappealing baby fat and is now a curvy beauty whereas Leonardo is a man and no longer has that boyish vibe.
I enjoy a good drama now and then, like the excellent "Snow Angels" (2007), the potent "Grand Canyon" (1991) or the masterpiece "Dead Poets Society" (1989), but "Revolutionary Road" fails to achieve the greatness of those films, mainly because the characters and their story are fairly boring. The film's just not that engrossing, which is my core criterion for evaluating any flick. In quality and theme, it’s reminiscent of “Joe Versus the Volcano” (1990).
Like “Joe,” it’s a slyly offbeat drama despite being about American conventionality. The best parts involve Michael Shannon as John, the mentally disturbed son of the real estate lady (Kathy Bates), a fascinating character. Everyone else in the Wheeler's lives thinks their plans to give up their suburban paradise are crazy (big surprise). But John sees the brilliance and necessity of the plan. In other words, the only person who 'gets' the plight of the Wheelers is this nigh-insane dude. But he's not really crazy. John is gifted at seeing through a facade to get to the core of a matter, the awesome or awful truth. And he has no inhibitions about speaking his mind, good or bad. At heart, John is a beatnik, the 50's precursor to the hippie. He represents the first wave of the 60's counter-culture, a generation of youth who discerned the cracks in the post-war "paradise," and rebelled, for better or worse.
Some important questions are raised: Is life just having a marriage, a family, a well-paying job (you loathe) and a nice home in the pleasant suburbs, plus cigarettes and drinks without end? Or is there more? What about love? What about genuineness? What about unrealized, unused or ignored talents and dreams? What about (gasp) God?
"Revolutionary Road" has some other positives: it's expertly made, has a good score by Thomas Newman and evokes some haunting moments.
Some have suggested that the film is one POSSIBLE outcome if Jack had survived the end of “Titanic” and married Rose: The once spirited, carefree Jack settles into the robotic grind to pay the bills while Kate is left frustrated at home in suburbia. Regrettably, it’s overall mediocre due to the unengrossing characters and their story, which of course links to the theme its espousing.
Yet it does have flashes of greatness and it makes you reflect on its points. In some ways, the same message is addressed in "Dead Poets Society" (and "Grand Canyon," to a lesser degree): rejecting the box society tries to confine you, throwing caution to the wind, and going after your dreams. The difference is that "Dead Poets Society" (and "Grand Canyon") accomplished this with absorbing stories whereas "Revolutionary Road" doesn't. Generally speaking, that is. Yet it's still worth catching if its themes trip your trigger.
The film runs almost 2 hours and was shot in Connecticut & New York City.
GRADE: C+

Brian De Palma's Carrie (1976) remains an iconic adaptation of Stephen King's novel, blending psychological horror with deeply human themes of alienation and vengeance. The film’s portrayal of high school life, social cruelty, and supernatural terror is deeply affecting, resonating with audiences even decades later.
From its infamous opening locker room scene to the chaotic prom climax, De Palma's direction demonstrates a masterful control of mood and pacing. The visual style, characterized by long takes, slow motion, and the daring use of split-screen during the prom sequence, creates a cinematic experience that is both intimate and expansive. These techniques pull viewers into Carrie’s inner world while amplifying the horror of her ultimate revenge.
The production itself is a marvel for its time, achieving a balance between the surreal and the real. The careful choreography of the prom scene, where chaos is unleashed in a ballet of destruction, reflects De Palma’s meticulous eye for detail and his ability to innovate under pressure. It’s worth noting that some of the film's most memorable sequences, like the split-screen prom massacre, arose out of budgetary constraints—proving De Palma's ability to turn limitations into creative triumphs.
The performances elevate the material further, with Sissy Spacek's portrayal of Carrie standing out as both vulnerable and haunting. The supporting cast effectively embodies the oppressive social dynamics of high school, creating a believable and suffocating environment for the protagonist.
Understanding De Palma’s personal history adds another layer to the film’s intensity. His exposure to the visceral realities of his father’s work as a surgeon shaped his comfort with the graphic and the grotesque, evident in the film’s bloody moments. Additionally, De Palma's own experience trailing his father to uncover an affair—an event he later described as formative—infuses his work with themes of voyeurism, psychological tension, and human frailty. These personal elements lend Carrie a raw authenticity that transcends its horror genre trappings.
Despite the controversy surrounding its explicit content, Carrie avoids gratuity in favor of storytelling. De Palma’s bold choices underscore the film’s central themes rather than overshadow them, making it as much a character study as a tale of terror. The film's success helped cement his reputation as a provocative yet deeply skilled filmmaker, unafraid to explore the darker corners of human experience.
Revisiting Carrie highlights why it remains a classic. Its blend of compelling performances, innovative cinematography, and psychological depth sets it apart not only from other adaptations of King’s novel but also from modern horror films attempting similar themes. De Palma’s ability to channel his personal experiences into his art gives Carrie an emotional resonance and cinematic flair that continues to captivate audiences.

Sissy Spacek is really good in this as the socially inept, psychologically tortured, girl living in the shadow of her overbearingly Christian mother, with few friends and some remarkable telekinetic powers. What ensues is a complex, at times convoluted, angst-ridden horror film that sees the best and worst of human nature - of all ages - depicted, as thoughtless pranks and humiliation become the order of the day with some chilling consequences. Piper Laurie is superb as the zealot mother, as is John Travolta as the odious "Billy" and the combination of Brian de Palma and Stephen King make for a compelling, multi-layered critique on many different aspects of intimidation, bullying as well as adding some genuinely scary moments too!

Carrie had been included on a list of great films to which my mother had taken my older brother and me to see upon their theatrical releases decades ago. And the memories of that long ago time will forever remain with me. Back when the Chicago Theater had still been a movie house, Carrie was the first film that my family and I had gone out on our weekly "Movie Date Night" to see. Good times. Gooood times. Carrie is an undisputed horror masterpiece. I still...get chills.