Just read the Book, it's so much better. If you have read The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy there is a series to read, get to it!

Confined during Uncle Sam's pleasure, "John Rambo" (Sylvester Stallone) is offered a chance of freedom by his former CO "Trautman" (Richard Crenna) but that means his return to Vietnam where he must try to rescue some POWs. It's not exactly a sanctioned operation, so he knows that it's risky - he will have little support from his own side and can expect a great deal of peril as the jungle, the VC and brutal megalomanic "Podovsky" (Steven Berkoff) stand in his way. Although it is quite well stitched together, and it doesn't hang about, I found the jeopardy of this film completely lacking. The usually reliable Berkoff is just too much of an ham right from the start of his sparing appearances and neither Crenna nor Charles Napier's "Murdock" add much to the mix either. The predictable ending as our agile, bullet-proof strongman strives to free his colleagues and deal with a bit of betrayal/duplicity from within his own camp - though accompanied by plenty of stealth, rocket-fire, pyrotechnics and explosions - is all just a bit jaded. The photography and action scenes do benefit from a big screen, if you can, but neither the acting nor the really stilted dialogue are going to have you gripped. Sorry - not a patch on the original film.

_**Comic book action flick about Rambo going back to Vietnam**_
The imprisoned Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) is offered a mission by Col. Trautman (Richard Crenna) to go back to his old stomping grounds in ’Nam to see if there are any living American POWs. Charles Napier, Martin Kove, Julia Nickson and Steven Berkoff are included in the peripheral cast.
“Rambo: First Blood Part II” (1985) contains what you would want from a Rambo flick: A muscular protagonist, a one-man-army scenario, a noble cause and loads of action, particular of the jungle warfare variety. It also has a quality cast, fabulous locations and a moving score.
Unfortunately it’s marred by a glaring comic book vibe that spurs chuckles throughout, which is disappointing for fans of the outstanding first film. However, if you can acclimate, “Rambo II” can be enjoyed as a serious adventure, albeit thoroughly comic booky. It’s entertaining for what it is, but it’s my least favorite of the franchise. The next movie (1988) is more-of-the-same, albeit set in Afghanistan.
The film runs 1 hour, 36 minutes, and was shot in Mexico (Guerrero, Sierra Madre del Sur de Chiapas & Sierra Madre del Sur de Oaxaca).
GRADE: B-/C+

Not Expendable!
Rambo: First Blood Part II is directed by George Pan Cosmatos and collectively written by David Morrell, Kevin Jarre (characters), Sylvester Stallone and James Cameron. It stars Stallone, Richard Crenna, Charles Napier, Steven Berkoff, Julia Nickson and Martin Kove. Music is by Jerry Goldsmith and cinematography by Jack Cardiff.
The sequel to 1982's First Blood, this finds Vietnam Veteran John Rambo released from prison on proviso he undertakes a special mission back into Vietnam to find proof of American POWs still being illegally held captive there...
OK! It's all very implausible and cartoon like, and of course now it's very un-PC, pulsing with stereotypes and indicative of the Reagan era 1980s. It also lacks the character depth of the first film, reducing Rambo, the scarred and bitter war veteran at the iconic core of the franchise, to merely being a robotic killing machine. However, it's an action fan's dream, where even as the flag waving patriotic fervour hangs heavy, it's an explosive pic that thrills and excites from first frame till last. 7.5/10

The two problems I have with this highly intelligent experience is that John Hambone keeps leading the enemy soldiers in pursuit through populated areas. He is putting innocent Vietnamese villagers at risk from gunfire.
Why did he not consider the safety of the innocent villagers?
He also killed a chicken. _What gave him the right to slaughter the chicken?_
Other than these minor gripes - this highly intelligent film will please most intellectual viewers seeking something more than a basic, gung ho action film.

Sylvester Stallone is in his element as the eponymous Vietnam veteran who has retreated to a rural community where he acts as a tourist guide for visitors on his ramshackle old PT boat. When he is approached by some human rights folks who want to charter his boat to seek out some missing Christian Aid missionaries up-river in strife-ridden Burma, he eventually acquiesces and they are soon in a world of pain at the hands of the brutally sadistic "Maj. Tint" (Muang Muang Khin). It's an end-to-end action movie, pyrotechnics galore with some seriously graphic - thereby authentic - scenes of violence that have their roots in a plausible storyline based on well documented abuses from South East Asia in the 1970s. The dialogue is a bit gung-ho, but this is about characterisations and Stallone, Graham McTavish ("Lewis") and Julie Benz ("Sarah") help create a suspenseful drama that is light on message and heavy on delivery...

_**Intense with more depth than you might think**_
John Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) is alone, bitter and living hand-to-mouth in Thailand when a group of Christian missionaries enlist him to take them into Burma (aka Myanmar) to aid a village. Rambo discourages them in light of the political instability, which includes persecutions and mass slayings, but they insist. Weeks later he learns that the missionaries are missing so he goes back with a group of mercenaries.
"Rambo" (2008) is the fourth installment in the franchise after "First Blood" (1982), "Rambo: First Blood Part II" (1985) and "Rambo III" (1988). I'm a huge fan of the first one, which I think is an action/adventure masterpiece, but the next two films are too comic-booky and the characters are cardboard, although Stallone never looked better and the locations are fabulous.
This third sequel makes up for that because it's not comic booky at all and there's quite a bit of depth, albeit not much in dialogue form. It combines elements of "Apocalypse Now," "The Killing Fields" & the first two Rambo films and is grim & intense from beginning to end, not to mention it's one of the most violent films ever made. The picture powerfully illustrates the best and worst in humanity. The Christian missionaries are willing to risk everything to help the villagers, whereas the Myanmar militarists revel in slaughtering scores of unarmed people for "fun"; they're also shown abusing/raping women and boys. Obviously they've given themselves wholly over to the darkside of their natures. Such reprobates are only worthy of one thing: Utter annihilation.
Several important themes are addressed in the picture besides the main one:
* BITTERNESS/DESPAIR AND DELIVERANCE. The beginning of the film shows Rambo in a state of utter bitterness: He's just existing. He has no friends. He doesn't talk much and, when he does, it's few words laced with expletives. The male leader of the missionaries is completely unable to talk him into helping them. Two Biblical proverbs state "a gentle answer turns away wrath" and "a gentle tongue can break a bone." The female missionary (Julie Benz) knows this and skillfully talks John into helping them. Yet there's more going on here. This woman with a heart of gold is Rambo's "golden connection" out of the rut of bitterness. Despite his gruff exterior, she sees something in him, something in his eyes – a good heart, even greatness, a genuine glimmer, however faint. Is Rambo helping the missionaries or is she the one helping him? John instinctively realizes the rope she's throwing him and takes hold of it. There's nothing sensual about their relationship, despite her attractiveness; it's solely spiritual. She stirs in him the hope and faith he's been longing for.
* VIOLENCE IS NOT ALWAYS NECESSARY. Although this is a very violent film it skillfully shows when pacifism _is_ appropriate. Note the incident on Rambo's riverboat when the lead mercenary continually insults John and tries to provoke him into a fight. Rambo just ignores him, not even saying a word. In other words, he refuses to allow someone to victimize him and draw him into a conflict that has no positive purpose. It takes true strength to do this and Rambo has this strength. Indeed, John treats the guy as if he's a bothersome gnat. What do you do when a gnat bothers you? Do you break out a machine gun or merely ignore it? This is the "turn the cheek" principle.
* TOTAL PACIFISM DOES NOT WORK. The New Testament does not support the idea of absolute pacifism, but rather limited pacifism (only resorting to violence when justified). For instance, Christ’s ministry team had a treasury box with loads of money and some of his workers carried swords for protection from thieves & murderers. Also, Romans 13 clearly states that the righteous laws of human governments are God-ordained for the purpose of punishing criminals, including the right to execute when appropriate. The vast majority of sane Christians realize this, but there are a few extremists who refuse to be BALANCED with the Scriptures on this topic and insist that conflict, and especially armed conflict, is never appropriate. The lead male missionary represents such a person, but perhaps he'll learn the error of his ways. The simple fact is: Some people are so degenerate and evil that execution is the only just ultimate reaction (notice I said "ultimate").
* RAMBO’S SPIRITUAL REBIRTH. The first two sequels show Rambo searching for truth and flirting with religion and spirituality. In the second film he gets a Buddhist necklace off the Asian woman he befriends and at the beginning of "Rambo III" he is shown living & working at a Buddhist temple helping the priests; later, he meets and wins the hearts of moderate Islamic villagers and gives his necklace to a Muslim boy who helped him. In this movie the female missionary is key to John's positive transformation; at one point she gently asks him whether or not he has any family in the USA. He mumbles that he might have a father, he wasn't sure, and didn't seem to care. Shortly later she gives him a cross necklace for helping them (he wouldn't take money). Anyway, the end of the film shows Rambo walking to his family ranch in southern Arizona. Obviously John had a positive spiritual metamorphosis in the story that leads to a decade of peace & love before the next film, “Last Blood” (2019).
"Rambo" was written & directed by Stallone and shot in Thailand (and Arizona). It’s short & sweet at 1 hour, 32 minutes.
Grade: A

Kick-ass action all around and although the story is on the basic side and has minimal character development for Rambo himself, just a bloody, albeit too much of it CGI'd, entertaining especially an action-fest finale. Amazing, especially being the fourth entry into the series.

'Blade: Trinity' makes for a weak finale to this trilogy. I actually wasn't overly bothered by it whilst watching, though with the end credits I was kinda left wondering what I had just seen - as in it is all quite forgettable. Wesley Snipes remains the star, albeit not as great as before.
The cast is the most fascinating aspect to this film. Jessica Biel, Dominic Purcell, Natasha Lyonne, Patton Oswalt, James Remar and even Triple H show up, and that's not even mentioning the obvious: Ryan Reynolds. A beta test of 'Deadpool', really. That style doesn't quite fit here.
This is also one of those movies that has tasty behind the scenes stuff to read about, who doesn't love that?! It does have the feel of a film that caused disagreement. At least Snipes & Reynolds reconciled for 'Deadpool & Wolverine', because that was cool - even for someone like me who had evidently not seen 'Blade'.
I do hope we get that MCU reboot at some point in the future, if only because I reckon Mahershala Ali would kill it as lead; of course he wouldn't at all be able to replicate Snipes, but that's OK. It'd be interesting to see a fresh take on it with a larger budget et al.

"Blade" (Wesley Snipes) is now alone - surrounded by enemies bent on his destruction. Then, as luck would have it, he meets up with the "Nightstalkers", led by former vampire "Hannibal King" (Ryan Reynolds) and "Abigail" (Jessica Biel) who might just have developed a virus that could rid the world of vampires forever. To combat this threat, the vampires raise their king "Drake" (Dominic Purcell) and the battle lines are drawn in the ultimate fight for survival. Snipes is OK as a our leather-clad, mean, moody, hero but actually doesn't seem to feature so much - most of the action is driven by Reynolds who, whilst initially quite sarcastic and witty, rather overplays his hand and soon becomes just a bit too attitudinal; and Biel who appears to be on remote-control for much of her efforts. Purcell makes for quite a decent baddie, as does Parker Posey as "Danica Talos", though at times you do wonder if you should be shouting "boo, hiss" at the telly. There is plenty of fast-paced action throughout, but all in all this is just one, really pretty derivative sequel too many.

All 3 Blade movies are awesome in my opinion. This one is my favorite out of the series. It introduced at the time a different type and kind of vampire. This is movie is freakin' awesome.

TRINITY is not a good movie, instead it is a solid "Blade" movie -- meaning, if you are not already a fan, don't bother. Snipes no longer plays Blade for humor, as he did in the first Blade

Blade: Trinity completes the Blade trilogy in cinematic grandeur, and brings about Dracula, an inevitable source in almost every Vampire franchise ever conceived of.
It was refreshing to have the "Elder" ruling-class/vampire-nation-lord/shadow-council thing dropped, since they were in both Blade and Blade II, and in both movies they were completely killed off, and ignored the existence of each other. Instead we have a group of happy-go-lucky vamps, who have one way or another made a mark in the world. You never find out how they managed to buy a skyscraper and a museum's worth of ancient art, but I'd imagine they had quite a lot of time to get their finances in order.
Anyway, deal is these vamps, right? Danica Talos (Posey "Queen of the Indies" Parker; Scream 3, A Mighty Wind), her brother Asher Talos (Callum Keith Rennie; Case 39, The X-Files: I Want To Believe), Jarko Grimwood (wrestler Paul "Triple H" Levesque), and their offsider vampires go to Syria in order to dig up the slumbering Dracula (Dominic Purcell; Straw Dogs, Blood Creek)... Or Drake... Or Dagon... They keep changing their mind. Anyway, after Dracula kills a bunch of them, he eventually agrees to join the team after he hears about the defender of humanity Blade (Wesley Snipes; New Jack City, Chaos) whom he believes may be a worthy adversary. Blade in turn gets together with the vampire hunting cell called "Nightstalkers", led by Abigail Whistler (Jessica Biel; the The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Cellular) and Hannibal King (Ryan Reynolds; Waiting..., Buried) and together they continue the war for humankind.
With me so far? No? Well you should be, because this plot is about as run of the mill as they get. While I'm on that, it's worth pointing out that where Blade's saving grace was this awesome mythos and story, and totally failed at character-ing, Blade: Trinity had fantastically written characters, in a sort of non-event storyline. Where Blade II blended them, making it the best in the series. Trinity was okay, but it lacked a lot of the engaging elements from the previous two films.
I think in part this is because the film is meant to sort of cater to the cinema audience. After the success of Blade II, it's like they knew that people were going to go to the theatre for Trinity so they tailored the film accordingly. You know, just little things, cheesy lines come across in a way more badass way on the big screen. Montages can get tedious on the computer, but can often blow you away in theatres. Explosions and action and CG backflips always translate better in cinema than on DVD. Unfortunately, I own the DVD, not a cinema. Maybe the goddamn vampire pomeranian they threw in would've seemed less ridiculous if I'd seen Trinity when it came out in theatres, but I doubt it.
I'd like to bring up the issue of names. Not that people have unbelievably crazy names in these films, it's the' Super Hero genre after all, of course they've got stupid names! I love it! But the Blade series seems to be populated entirely by characters with the "Saying Names" fetish. It's all "Hannibal King! Die", "Blade! There you are", "Whistler! Come save us." "Drake! It's him" and gets pretty unbelievably dramatic rather swiftly.
It'll be interesting to see how Ryan Reynolds fairs. This Marvel film came out quite a while ago, since then he's played Wade Wilson in Origins: Wolverine, Green Lantern for DC Films, he was the protagonist in R.I.P.D. He's set to return to the X-Men universe for Deadpool. I suppose if Chris Evans can get away with playing The Human Torch in Fantastic 4 and Rise of the Silver Surfer then move on to playing Captain America in The First Avenger I don't see why Reynolds can't pull it off. Hannibal was great, Ryan Reynolds is great but I'd be fine to see this be the end of it all here.
-Gimly

When a horror movie has to resort to vampire dogs, you know they're completely out of ideas. That's the least stupid part of Blade Trinity.

After watching all 3 of the Blade movies in a row, it gives a lot of perspective. The first was before all the Marvel boxoffice stuff took off, the second was having some Reaper stuff which was cool, but Trinity was the best in the series for sure. It needs better writing as Snipes has attested. We can tone down the Deadpool a bit and have more Wesley being a badass and not trail off into side projects. Whistler's family origins type things as well as Hannibal King's, but focusing more on Blade because he seriously can carry the whole film like he should have been doing since day 1.

It might (barely) have gotten one more star if it hadn’t been the third one in the Blade trilogy. As such it has some mighty good movies to live up to and that it doesn’t.
This time David S Goyer took to both write and direct the movie. I guess he should have stuck to script writing or something. The action scenes are not too bad. However, that’s all there is. Just a string of actions scenes barely strung together.
The worst offence of them all is Dracula. When I first learned that they brought in Dracula as the chief nemesis I thought that sounded cool. Wrong! Apart from a fairly cool look when he get really pissed off the film’s portrayal of Dracula is a joke. It’s an insult to the Dracula legends.
To sum it up, it’s 2 hours of not too bad action but a disappointment as a Blade movie.

I've never found Mia Farrow to be a very versatile actor, but she certainly delivers the best performance of her career in this gripping story of Satanic manipulation. "Rosemary" is married to "Guy" (John Cassavetes) and they live in one of those lovely great buildings that overlook New York's Central Park. Their neighbours are a bit eccentric, to day the least, with "Minnie" (the almost perfect Ruth Gordon) and "Roman" (Sidney Blackmer) chief amongst those who take an increasing interest in this couple when it appears that a baby is on the way. Gradually, she begins to suspect that something is amiss with not just her pregnancy, but with her marital relationship as she seems to see less and less of those previously close to her and becomes little better than a prisoner in her own apartment. She is becoming increasingly paranoid, confused and resentful of a seemingly indofferent husband who seems content to let just about everyone interfere as the due date approaches. This is also Roman Polanski at his best as he manages to amalgamate the sinister and the coercive with the religiosity of a story that exudes menace and panic whilst also calling into question established societal values around faith and trust. It's almost claustrophobic by design, and their small apartment soon takes on the mantle of a cell occupied by a woman who is very much not in control of her own destiny - whichever way she tries to turn, and with the careful use of a score from Christopher Komeda that could rival Bernard Herrmann then we have a story of visceral fear that looks great on a big screen. Gripping and genuinely quite terrifying at times, it's amongst the best of this genre.

We start off watching the destruction of the legendary city before advancing several thousand years to meet "Milo" - a rather geeky young man whose grandfather had been obsessed with the mystery surrounding the lost continent. Gazillionaire "Preston Whitmore" recruits him on a perilous expedition to try and find the truth - so equipped with a submarine and a crew you just know have another agenda, off they go. The first forty minutes of this over-long adventure is much more reminiscent of something from Jules Verne, only spent on elongated character establishment scenarios, some borderline slapstick humour and by the time the film gets anywhere near it's sharp end, I could already feel a sense of ennui setting in. Michael J. Fox does inject some character as the young lad, and James Garner has his tongue firmly in his cheek as the completely untrustworthy "Rourke", but that can't really inject enough to create any sense of pace into this competently, but unremarkably, animated feature. The style of the artistry, though colourful, is clearly computer generated. The animations lack depth or texture and coupled with a really average storyline leaves this in a sort of Disney limbo. It is certainly not as bad as some that were produced ten years earlier, but it is still factory-style output that lacks for imagination and any of the traditional uniqueness that this studio used to deliver. It is watchable enough, but pretty forgettable.

Terrible, which is very disappointing given how impressive the original is.
Michael J. Fox's departure as Milo immediately lowers the expectancy of the film, as does the instant sign of the animation being inferior. The plot starts off mildly interesting, even if it does feel like a 'What's New, Scooby-Doo?' story, but quickly loses it with two poor plots.
It is one rounded off premise, though it's practically still that annoying multiple stories rolled into one thing that Disney so often do for sequels. The film takes place, almost entirely, away from Atlantis which is utterly pointless. I had expected we'd see more of the world we left in the 2001 production, sadly they immediately revert back to the 'real world' which is massively less intriguing.
None of the voice cast or the characters themselves are memorable, they force a new one called Obby, a lavadog, into the mix which doesn't work whatsoever; he is just used to advance the plot at one particular point.
As you can tell, I didn't like 'Atlantis: Milo’s Return' at all. Everything from the animation to the pacing is just so bad, in my opinion of course.

As a kid, I was absolutely fascinated by dinosaurs, so you can imagine how Godzilla (1998) held a special place in my heart. Back then, I found the film to be a thrilling spectacle filled with awe-inspiring giant creatures and epic city-destroying action.
However, as an adult revisiting this childhood classic, I couldn't help but view it through a more critical lens. The standout disappointment, of course, was the design of Godzilla itself. It departed significantly from the beloved original, leaving a lot to be desired in terms of authenticity.
It's not a good movie, but it's fun to watch 6/10.

I found this to be quite a fun take on the Godzilla fable. Matthew Broderick as "the worm guy" and Jean Reno as the French Secret agent deliver quite watchable performances as they investigate some radioactive shipping incidents and some really big footprints. The special effects are decent enough too and help carry this admittedly over-long little movie. Roland Emmerich & Dean Devlin are quite good at churning out these adventure films - never great, but usually they move along nicely and keep you entertained and the last half hour of this is actually quite fun to watch and on a big screen if you get the chance.

The hype was as big as the monster to start with!
It felt like this take on Godzilla was advertised for 2 years in advance of the actual release, every time (it seemed) I went to the cinema I was awestruck by little teaser trailers, in fact the one of the old guy fishing and hooking Zilla is a personal favourite...SIZE DOES MATTER! Love it I do. Sadly as most of us now know, the film didn't meet fans and critics expectations at all, but was the film done down by the hype and an expectation of a masterpiece for the genre?.
Well it didn't help that is for sure, but taking aside that problem, the film only glimpses at what might have been. It has many great points that seem to have been forgotten, so sadly we are all too aware of the film's failings on the makers behalf. The build up in the film is excellent, the makers mount the tension in steady strokes, doing what all classic monster movie makers do, they have you waiting with gripping expectation of the creature by a series of scenarios and inventive dialogue. The sound is incredible, making it an essential viewing for those who cherish home surround cinema, while some of the shots and destruction of New York are well worth the viewers time.
But then? Well they throw the good work away by turning the film's focus away from the big lizard to a story line that was only fitting for the cartoon version of Godzooki. Thus rendering the film as a poor man's Jurassic Park, which quite frankly doesn't sit well. Matthew Broderick, Jean Reno and Hank Azaria all deserved better scripting, hell we all did!
It's not the evil stinker some would have you believe, it does have its moments of both good and bad, it is, by definition, very much a film split down the middle. 5/10

***HERE THERE BE SPOILERS***
This version of Godzilla is a difficult one to give a simple overall rating. Honestly, if Hollywood had just made this into a generic monster movie, kind of the way they did with Cloverfield, it would have easily been an above average movie, possibly even breaking into 4 star territory. The acting is above average (including the must-have flavor of the month, Jean Reno), the F/X are excellent for 1998 and the plot actually makes sense.
Nevertheless, the failure for this movie is that it was made by people not familiar with the franchise and/or what Godzilla means to his fanbase. Godzilla is to the people of Japan what Batman and Superman are to Americans, what Dr. Who and James Bond are to the British and what Shaft and the Black Panther are to the Black Community.
The demotion of Godzilla to that of nothing more than an over-sized animal working wholly upon instinct instead of the more humanistic level of intelligence that we in the fandom have come to know and expect was a slap in the face. Furthermore, the final scene where Godzilla is killed (a blasphemy only seen two other times in his 60 year history (Gojira (1954) and Godzilla vs. Destoroyah (1995), the later being the planned end to the franchise in its entirety) by only three F/18s and a total of 6 missiles when entire armies have done nothing more than irritate the King of Monsters was beyond belief. For those not familiar with Godzilla's accomplishments and reputation, imagine the outrage that would come from the respective communities if James Bond was taken out by a mall cop or Superman was killed by 3 six-year-old brats with baseball bats. Now you understand why Japanese movie-goers were storming the box-offices DEMANDING a full refund for this insult and why Toho quickly resurrected their dearly departed Kaiju less than one year later for probably one of the best movies in the entire franchise, Godzilla 1999 (Godzilla 2000 here in the United States).
All in all, as a monster movie, Godzilla gets 3.75 stars. However, for a Godzilla movie, it gets a 1 star rating. I'll cut the difference and meet them somewhere around the middle with a 2.5 star final score.

Quality film.
I thoroughly enjoyed 'Straight Outta Compton', it had me gripped all the way through. That's despite me having little to no knowledge of N.W.A, I knew of their name and of Ice Cube and Dr. Dre but basically zilch about their actual story. I couldn't comment on how true it is to history, but as a film it's fantastic.
You have great performances from O'Shea Jackson Jr., Corey Hawkins, Jason Mitchell and Paul Giamatti. Mitchell impressed me most as Eazy-E, while the casting of Jackson as Ice Cube - his father, of course - was a masterstroke. All the cast do very well, in truth.
I love how gritty the film is too, it feels real - at least as real as film can get. There is some neat cinematography in there, while the music is entwinned nicely. The pacing is almost perfect, aside from a few moments in the middle. I also rate how it all ends, in terms of the story but also with the end credits. There's heart in there.

**The rise of the Rap music!**
There were lots of debate over this film's snub from the Oscars, but I'm not here to talk about that. As a film, it was awesome and as a biographical film, even more awesome, but not an inspiring film that I was expecting. There were many bad things in it, like the language and character portrayals. Though hats off to the filmmakers for rendering the it with the bold contents. I don't know if it being true to the actual events, but anybody can feel how those circumstances would have been for those involved in the real.
One thing is for sure, the film is not for the families. The first half was the reason which was very negatively appealed, particularly the racism and police abuse preoccupied rather than telling the actual story. But the next half was much better. I liked it because of that part which crafted so brilliantly. That's where the real journey begins. Well played characters, everybody who repressed those real ones were done incredible job.
This film revealed something I did know. Like how the Rap music got so popular. I quite belong to the same generation where this thing got its revolution. It was like another 'Lords of Dogtown' where the young guys made skateboards popular, but here it was the Rap songs. It was a two and half hour long film, longer than an average film length, but the pace was good. Except the strong contents, the narration never looked dull. I totally enjoyed watching it, a good film for adults, particularly those who love Rap music must not think of missing it.
_7/10_

Gangster rap is pretty far removed from my wheelhouse, and I've never followed N.W.A. closely enough to know if this biopic an accurate depiction of their career, but; a good movie is a good movie is a good movie. And _Straight Outta Compton_ undeniably is that.
_Final rating:★★★ - I personally recommend you give it a go._

After twenty minutes I was like "Ugh, did this really **have** to get all meta and up its own ass like this?" but by the time I was done I was like "Okay yeah, it did, fair enough".
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

**Lights Out is one of the best horror movies of the past decade - a genius concept with an even more brilliant execution.**
Lights Out pulls off some of the most creative and impressive visual effects I have ever seen! The concept of a ghost/creature that can only attack through darkness leads to moments in the film that showcase these chilling and clever effects. The actors portray their characters in a way that keeps them from feeling like stereotypical horror tropes. Sandberg’s creativity and love of the story shine as he explores new innovative terrors and thrills throughout the film. It will make you want to leave the lights on while watching it! Great scares. Intriguing premise. Incredible effects. Lights Out demands to be seen by anyone that even flirts with the idea of being a horror fan.

2016 continues to be a great year for horror, and _Lights Out_ is a decent example of that, with a whole lot of originality.
_Final rating:★★★ - I personally recommend you give it a go._

Although a simplistic and familiar theme is explored involving sinister forces tormenting a child in distress, Swedish director David F. Sandberg brings something chillingly fresh to his horror/psychological offering **Lights Out**. Sandberg, making his feature film debut, delivers an adequate amount of tension and trickery for all things considered ominous in the edginess of darkness. Lights Out is a reasonable chiller that demonstrates a decent measurement of depth without tripping over its cliched feet. The characterizations that go “bump in the night” in **Lights** are not as disposable as one is routinely used to experiencing in produced over-indulgent, generic boofests.
The construction of **Lights Out** feels atmospheric and sparse at times but the manufactured thrills somehow add the necessary alarm factor in a psychological thriller that boasts solid performances particularly by actress Maria Bello as the tortured soul at the center of the CGI creepiness. Sandberg’s adventurous direction and screenwriter Eric Heisserer’s spell-binding script works in part because Lights Out never extends itself beyond its lean and claustrophobic confines. The storytelling is taut and the scare tactics create worthy jolts without further monotony. There are predictable jumpy cuts and the movie never fully deviates from the conventional suspenseful landscape that populates countless fright fables. Still, **Lights Out** manages to shine some shady brightness on this effectively drawn hair-raising spectacle.
The premise introduces the long-lasting notion of childhood fear and despair on the jeopardized shoulders of young insomniac Rebecca (Teresa Palmer) who has long since left the haunting homestead where the evil vibes of a dastardly spirit had tortured her relentlessly. Rebecca is now concerned that the tawdry tradition of this shifty spook is now about to terrify her little 10-year old stepbrother Martin (Gabriel Bateman). In fact, Martin wants to split his hellish household and escape to Rebecca’s place for some guaranteed safety. After all, who can blame the poor kid for wanting to abandon his doomed domicile.
Enter the problematic Sophie (Bello). As the nervous-wreck mother to both Rebecca and Martin, Sophie has had her share of disappointments, heartaches and breakdowns in the past and present. It was revealed that Sophie had spent some critical time in a mental institution many years ago which explains her current complicated issues with men/relationships not to mention the strained connection with her disillusioned children. More important, Sophie faces the dilemma of encountering an assortment of deceased figures that randomly pop up from time to time within her expansive, worrisome walls. But nothing is more arousing or concerning than Sophie’s run-ins with the devilish Diana (Alicia Vela-Bailey), her troubled off-the-wall pal and fellow asylum inmate from yesteryear.
What is so jittery about Diana’s presence in the house is that she is so clingy and protective of her precious Sophie. The key to Diana’s horrifying existence is when the lights are turned off, Thus, it allows the deranged feminine entity to roam the house in a blanket of blackness while staking the beleaguered Sophie in the process.
**Lights Out** (originally Sandberg’s short film competition entry years ago) acts as a symbolic mirror reflecting the echoes of mental illness and inherent self-destruction concerning the fragile psyche. The film percolates convincingly when Bello’s Sophie is scarred constantly by the harried ties that bind. Sandberg demonstrates a wounded woman on the edge of insanity. The suffering of inner conflict and outer self-doubt has consumed Sophie to the point where she has personalized her self-inflicted poison with baggage ranging from a couple of deceased husbands to the harsh reality that her children are weary of her toxic nuttiness. Bello displays the brokenness and confusion of her portrayal with applauded conviction. The sister-brother tandem of Palmer’s Rebecca and Bateman’s Martin is both comforting and intriguing as they are joined at the hip in their fright night delusions. Vela-Bailey’s Diana is deliciously shadowy as the intrusive Diana applying the statically gloom.
The nightmarish special effects are challenging and imaginative and cinematographer Marc Spicer’s experimental lighting gives **Lights Out** its gripping sheen. Overall, Sandberg’s menacing mechanism of a movie certainly forces the shaky hand of its skeptical audience to snuggle up to the nearest light switch.
**Lights Out** (2016)
Rat-Pac Tune Entertainment
1 hr, 21 mins.
Starring: Maria Bello, Teresa Palmer, Gabriel Bateman, Billy Burke, Alicia Vela-Bailey, Alexander DiPersia
Directed by: David F. Sandberg
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Genre: Horror/Psychological Thriller/Supernatural
Critic’s rating: *** stars (out of 4 stars)
(c) **Frank Ochieng** (2016)