"El Indio" (Gian Maria Volontè) is a bank robber being hunted by poncho-clad bounty hunter Clint Eastwood "Manco". Lee van Cleef ("Col. Mortimer") is also on the trail of our bandito and his gang, so the unlikely pair form an uneasy partnership in order to track him down and share the bounty. This most certainly ain't a film about trust - it's about greed, pure and simple and is great! It’s a bit of a slow burn - nothing happens very quickly, but that all adds bundles to the atmosphere and tension of the story. That said, it sure isn't dull: there is still plenty of gun fighting, fisticuffs and general nastiness as well as some clever, black, humour and a wonderfully rousing score from Ennio Morricone that gets us to the inevitable series of crosses, double and even triple crosses. I don't think it has quite the menace or grittiness of "A Fistful of Dollars" (1964) but it's is still a tautly directed, character-driven western with a plot riddled with twists.

This is a waste of some wit.
Of the dollar trilogy, this one had some wit to it, but it's wasted. There's an ongoing weird counting that the bounty hunters perform, which finally makes sense in the end.
There's an interesting bit about the chimes, and drawing when the chime ends.
And we get a name for No Name.
But it's wasted on a movie that Leone made during what must have been the days when he really hated some brunette who scorned him. He spends most of the movie contriving so many ways to kill brunettes that he obviously is seeking a Nazi merit badge. He stopped worshiping Adolf and Eva soon after the dollar trilogy, though.
There's no way to get past his Nazi ideology in this movie, and it ruins the movie.
Not to mention the lack of credible characters and lack of credible motivation. Again, it's a case of everyone in the West is either a homicidal maniac or the first victims of homicidal maniacs, no exceptions.
The weakest part, and part that makes anyone with an IQ over 15 groan, is that Leone is not subtle about his message that the more of a homicidal maniac a man is, the more of a demigod he is, and more immortal he is.
Only another demigod can kill a demigod, and only a homicidal maniac can be a demigod. It appears the only way to be a god is to be the biggest homicidal maniac.
If everyone was like this, there would be no one left to be like this.
A waste of wit, which is bad, because this is the only one of the Leone Westerns which made any attempt at wit.

I'd rank it slightly below the original, but that's unimportant as 'For a Few Dollars More' is still a lot of fun.
Clint Eastwood is tremendous again as the lead character, while Gian Maria Volonté reappears as a different character - usually I'm not a fan of actors playing different characters in a series, but I must make an exception here as Volonté is terrific; just as he is in the preceding 1964 film. One newcomer to the cast is Lee Van Cleef, who is brilliant too.
A story regarding bounty hunting was always going to be enjoyable, which is most definitely the case here. The aforementioned trio are massively entertaining. I particularly found the ending to be one of the best parts of this.
I was excited to check out 'The Good, the Bad and the Ugly' even prior to watching the first two films, given it's the one I knew most of beforehand, but its two predecessors really have wet the appetite and then some!

I was worried about you - all alone, with so many problems to solve...
The middle part of Sergio Leone's dollars trilogy sandwich is a mighty hunk of meat and pasta. Plot has Clint Eastwood and Lee Van Cleef as bounty hunters who form a very uneasy alliance to bring down violent bandit El Indio (Gian Maria Volontè) and his gang.
As befitting Leone in this sub-genre, the pic positively oozes charisma and class. His compositions are as striking as the coolness he wrings out from his lead actors, the characterisations bristling with a calm grizzle factor that beguiles as the story jumps from violence to suspense, from humour to misery, with surprises is store as well. The screenplay adheres to some clichés of the Western formula, but never at a cost to suspense and mystery, such as with the finale that looks set to be formulaic, but joyfully brings its own identity whilst simultaneously adding extra layers to the protags and antag. The dialogue (Leone and Luciano Vincenzoni) pings with literacy, something which is a pleasant mercy in the Spaghetti Western world, while Morricone fills the key scenes with aural shards of atmospheric delight.
A great film in its own standalone right, but also a super precursor to The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. 9/10

This film managed to keep me fully engaged. I watched it at 1.0 speed, which has been challenging for me lately. The plot was so thrilling, but after it ended, I had this feeling of uncertainty. Perhaps I did not realize something, or maybe there was a hidden reason behind everything that was happening. I was left with unanswered questions. However, as I read other reviews, I started to realize that this was my first time watching a film by Yorgos Lanthimos, and I did not fully catch up to his style. By the way, I discovered this film through Barry Keoghan, and he did not disappoint. My next stop is "The Lobster" as you all love it so much.

I found this to be one of the better Yorgos Lanthimos films, but I just cannot get behind his writing style. The stories he delivers are incredibly unique and I want to like them so much more than I actually do. Despite those drawbacks, _The Killing of a Sacred Deer_ was a mind-bending movie that threw me for a loop. The performances were great all around, as they should be with a star-studded cast featuring Colin Farrell, Nicole Kidman, and Barry Keoghan. The plot was incredibly twisted and dark. I enjoyed this film, but much like Lobster, and really wish there was a more modern spin on the writing instead of the short choppy and somewhat awkward framing that Lanthimos is known for.
**Score:** _65%_ |
**Verdict:** _Decent_

**What a shame this could have been excellent**
This film depicts the life of upper class people as we like to imagine it, and brilliantly so. The medical doctors couple have it all figured out, speak in complete sentences and are firm and polite. The house is gorgeous, the children are smart and well behaved. The setting of the story as a whole is very well done, believable and with great actors to boot.
The score is not so great. At times we have experimental "music" that just annoys and does nothing for the mood, but the visuals are exciting to watch, we have interesting camera angles, no shaking and clever zooms and motion.
The pace is slow, yet "The Killing of a Sacred Deer" is never boring. There is always a plot twist which is explored after, things take their time but rightfully so.
Why the relatively detailed review for a 1.5 star rating? The problem is that the climax is just a huge letdown. The audience can't help themselves but wonder what is going on, guessing on the crime the apparently genius 16 year old villain commits. It is never explained. The makers thought it would be enough to have the bad guy win. It is not enough.
In the end everything good about the movie was negated by breaking the suspension of disbelief in a petty way, just ending the movie.
Even "The Leftovers" explained its phenomenon, and that show did not need to. There the mystery was the premise for character development, here the mystery is a tool to keep the viewer's attention.
I'd like to give less than 1.5 stars, because of how cheated I feel and because of the waste of talent and production value. But I'm sure there are people who love this and people who will learn from this.
18 December 2017
I am migrating my reviews from a different site which has become simply garbage. TMDB looks awesome and I look forward to be a part of it.

Finally got the chance to see this via Amazon.
Dogtooth and The Lobster (from the same Greek director, who I must admit has a keen sense of storytelling) did not impress me at all. Very interesting ideas; atrocious presentations. Dogtooth was indecipherable and The Lobster is cruel, ugly, and not humorous in any fashion (I've no idea why it's billed as a black comedy.)
However, this latest film is entertaining to me despite it's grim and inky-black nature (based on the ancient Greek play, which is where the title is loosely derived from.) Perhaps it's a bit more straight-forward despite its cryptic nature, a bit more involved in some form of reality we can recognize and less inference as to what the hey is really happening. But I sure watched it w/ more interest than The Lobster (I've no interest in the director's film prior to that one.)
A successful heart surgeon (w/ a past history of alcoholism, sober for some time at present) is shown to have an uneasy alliance w/ the teenaged son of a patient who died on the operating table. It's clear the boy has some hold over this surgeon, who seems eager to please him but his heart's not into it (no pun intended.)
The boy's true intentions are revealed as events move forward; the surgeon's wife and two children (a few years apart, both intelligent in their own ways) are placed in grave danger as well as dear old Dad, and to reveal just how would spoil it for first-time viewers.
The camera-work here is impeccable, as are the jarring soundscapes, found-sounds, and industrial noise which makes for harrowing listening. The actor playing Martin, the teenaged oddball w/ a shared secret, is riveting to watch in a well-suited role.
Sacred Deer isn't so much a horror-film as a drama w/ strong elements of dream-like reality, awkward young romance, and assorted chills and cold calculated sex-scenes involving "playing dead" and "the other."
My biggest complaints would be as before w/ this director's work: everyone speaks their lines as if hearing them through an ear-piece to parrot back, which makes the cast seem rather stilted and robotic. This director favors a weird tangent of "Mamet-speak."
The ending is about what you'd expect, following the matter-of-fact discussions which precede it. Up until that point Sacred Deer does a pretty good job keeping us wondering what will happen next, where will things lead, what is that kid's gift and whereupon was it bestowed; unfortunately the outcome isn't as entrancing or unexpected as I'd hoped.
But overall worth my time to watch. Considering how disappointed I was by the previous films by the director I'd watched (great reviews, all of which confounded and puzzled me) this film was much less of a bore and a chore to watch. A pleasant, unpleasant surprise indeed.

I am a big fan of some of Yorgos Lanthimos' earlier work, so _The Killing of a Sacred Deer_, which I had been told in no uncertain terms would be a straight up horror movie, was well and truly on the agenda for 2017. Unfortunately, I found that not only was _Sacred Deer_ not at all a horror, but more importantly that it lacked the dark whimsy of something truly odd, like the director's previous film, _Lobster_. Instead it opts for an outright uncomfortable tone. The world is real, boringly so, and it is only the characters who seem unbelievable. Which is a 180 on the sort of absurdism I usually gravitate towards. That said, _Sacred Deer_ still contains some beautiful cinematography, and a couple of the most genuine laugh-out-loud moments I've seen in a movie all year.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

My immediate response as soon as this finished was "MASTERPIECE." Lanthimos is back to _Dogtooth_-level craziness with this film and I couldn't be happier. _The Lobster_ was a favourite of mine in 2016, but something about this one's hopelessness drew me in more - odd, I know. Lanthimos' films have characters stuck in dead end situations where they are able to make a choice, but the results of the options are bad and worse. It's a dour story and the film is relentlessly unsettling, but this is what I've come to expect and want out of this Greek maestro.
Sacred Deer is a suburban Greek tragedy that draws inspiration from Euripides’ _Iphigenia in Aulis_ - a character even mentions this title in a key scene - and it plays out both as you'd imagine and with great shock and originality. Lanthimos and his writing partner Efthymis Filippou may just be my favourite writing team working today - they haven't let me down yet.
The cast is spectacular here with Nicole Kidman and Colin Farrell in top form bringing the odd words of Lanthimos and Filippou to life - albeit a very, very strange life. Farrell, having worked with Lanthimos on The Lobster, had nothing but high praise for the director during tonight's Q&A after the screening of the film. He even said they were planning another project to work on together. He's slowly becoming a muse and their relationship is turning into a DiCaprio-Scorsese type partnership (except I look forward to these way, way more).
The audience I was in had a hard time with this film - there was audible shock and disgust during the film and the applause as it ended was slight. I think people were genuinely scandalized by this one and that makes me like it even more. Keep shocking audiences, Lanthimos, you Greek bastard. I'll be in line every single time!

**Plot: 5/20**
Probably the movie's biggest downfall. The plot is your generic story of two people who don't get along with each other and end up becoming best friends before the movie ends. On top of that, the whole point of the the story is for the characters to catch the "typical bad guy" leader of a drug ring. It's really just the garbage rehashed Hollywood cop story told over again, but with tons of hilarious scenes added in throughout. I don't really have any detail to go into with here because there's not much to analyze.
**Rewatchability: 5/15**
Don't get me wrong, even though the plot is terrible the movie is ridiculously funny. It gives comedies from 2013 a run for their money. As with all movie ratings I give, I watch a movie twice if it has a commentary track. This movie ended up having four or five separate commentaries, but I only watched the one with the director's commentary. I really don't think I can sit through it any longer than I have, because it is a two hour long movie after all. I wouldn't ever watch it again unless it popped up on TV and I was really bored, but I can give this movie a good ol' watch-this recommendation for the comedic aspect alone.
**Acting: 15/20**
Interestingly enough the acting is superb. With huge celebrity A-list names it's not too surprising. Sandra Bullock absolutely kills every scene she's in. A lot of her shots in the film are improvised. My favorite one being the hospital scene towards the end where she's crawling on the ground and ends up shooting the bad guy twice in the nuts. As much as I can't stand Melissa McCarthy in general, her acting was great as well. She came off as an arrogant, foul mouthed, dirty and annoying police officer better than probably anyone else could have managed to pull off. A YouTube star named Spoken Reasons also makes his acting debut in this film as a perpetrator and is actually quite impressive.
**Audio Production: 10/20**
I thought that the soundtrack was just your typical Hollywood film soundtrack with nothing but popular music. Most of the songs featured female rap from artists like Angel Haze and Azealia Banks, but there were also some classic pop/rock songs from Ted Nugent, Air Supply, and Boston. What I really got a kick out of was hearing the rapper Kreayshawn's song Left Eye play randomly (or so it seemed). I wasn't really feeling the soundtrack, but the overall sound effects and audio production were done quite well. Nothing spectacular, but good.
**Visual Production: 15/20**
The film crew made very good use of different sets throughout the city of Boston. This film has everything from a giant paint warehouse, to a local town pub, to car chases. The amount of stunts performed in the movie is entertaining. Towards the beginning of the movie Melissa McCarthy parks in between two cars, but there's not enough room to open her door. She ends up climbing out the window into another car, and then struggling to make her way out of that car as well. Just the small things that add some good humor to the movie like this really make a difference. There's also some really good special effects in the movie and a scene where they blow up a car.

I honestly can't think of a better movie to replace a mind massage on a hard working Monday's night.

Absolutely fascinating interpretation of the good cop bad cop theme.

With his mother (Darlene Cates) morbidly obese and equally embarrassed about her image, and his younger brother "Arnie" (Leonardo DiCaprio) dealing with mental health issues, it falls to "Gilbert" (Johnny Depp) to try and provide as best he can for his family. He has a job in the struggling local grocery store that sees him deliver to the "Carver" family. "Betty" (Mary Steenburgen) is the bored housewife there with whom "Gilbert" has some fun whilst her husband is off selling insurance. It's all a relentless cycle that's going nowhere until "Becky" (Juliette Lewis) comes to town and starts to give "Gilbert" a sense of a different purpose. She begins to help him see that he must live a bit of his own life too. When a fairly predictable tragedy ensues, everyone has to make some choices - and they're not easy. DiCaprio is pretty outstanding as the soon-to-be eighteen year old lad whose behaviour would test the patience of a saint. His loud and repetitive language and his child-like tantrums are just the tip of the iceberg and his performance - especially his grinning - gives "Arnie" an engaging amount of character. He's not going for the sympathy vote, either - his portrayal elicits feelings of affection, sure, but also of cheerfully wanting to strangle him! Depp holds this all together with assurance and there's plenty of humour to keep the melodrama at bay. It starts off strongly and continues for two hours of characterful and thought-provoking drama that can at times come across as just a little contrived, but it is still a good watch.

So, I had no idea who Leonardo was when I saw this back in the 90s, it was before Titanic, before he made it big, and I thought they hired an intellectually disabled man to play the part.
And it dropped in '93 so that would make Dicaprio about 19? Maybe 18 when they made it?
I doubt they would give an Oscar to a kid that young, but see that he's CLEARLY not Intellectually Disabled and how believable he was, well, that's probably one of the best performances I've seen. That was Oscar worthy.
Besides that, it was really a Johnny Depp vehicle... as much as a 90s indy film can be, and he played a calm, low key, and utterly charming role in a film about a man that had to maybe grow up too fast and deal with too much at too young an age.
And, of course, a charming little love story. A charming story about family. About loyalty.
There is honestly absolutely nothing to criticize here, except, it's certainly a 90s story, a 90s movie, and if you are removed from Gen-X, it might not have the appeal. This isn't the over-the-top FX sort of films that are a hallmark of the Millennial generation...
...but beyond that, KUDOS to Leo for nailing it as such a young age, and a cheers to everyone else involved for making a brilliant and entertaining hidden gem of a film

**A rather conventional and average family drama, where DiCaprio and Depp's performances turn out to be the only truly worthy note.**
Sometimes, what makes a film remarkable is the extraordinary performance of an actor, and that becomes even more admirable when that actor is extremely young. That's what we have in this film, a conventional family drama, where a young adult tries to live his life as normally as possible while having to take care of everyone around him, particularly his mother, who is morbidly obese and depressed, and his younger brother, who has a mental problem that the movie never really specifies.
In fact, I didn't find the script particularly interesting. Cinema is full of family dramas, and this one has nothing really new or fresh to add. And if the script doesn't seem remarkable to me, the production values and technical aspects deserve even less attention, with the film betting on very conventional and average visuals, and a pace that sometimes slows down and falters, the result of an editing not always well executed.
What makes the film more interesting is the cast, which includes two young actors, then very promising, called Johnny Depp and Leonardo DiCaprio. Depp is older than DiCaprio, and his career was relatively established when he agreed to star in this film. DiCaprio, on the other hand, was still an unknown young man and was beginning to emerge. However, the collaboration between them, in this film, is remarkable, and it seems that both knew how to get the best out of each other, to our benefit.
Although today we know Depp through a wide range of peculiar characters, what he did in this film is the complete opposite, and his character is one hundred percent ordinary, responsible, mature and strong. DiCaprio, however, stands out the most, even more than Depp. Playing a mentally disturbed teenager, DiCaprio had a lot of leeway to study and design the character and his mannerisms and tics. The result is truly credible and surprising.
Mary Steenburgen and Darlene Cates provide very effective support and give us the best female performances. In absolute counterpoint, Juliette Lewis doesn't have much to do, while Laura Harrington and Mary Kate Schellhardt practically disappear when they're on the scene.

I recently watched this movie again after many years, and was surprised how many details I had forgotten. It features a great ensemble cast who seem to mostly share a screen rapport. Leonardo DiCaprio previews his future star career with a stellar performance as the difficult Arnie.
I thought the scene where husband Mr. Carver comes home from work and obsesses over the burnt cookies and the unused swimming pool was silly and a bad fit for the film, especially consider what came after the scene. Meanwhile the two sisters were great characters: they were emotional when the situation called for it, but gave an even and restrained performance. I would have like to have seen more of them.

"White Chicks" is a film that sparked mixed reactions due to its premise of black actors dressing up as white women, a concept that some found confusing and potentially controversial. Despite concerns about blackface and whiteface, the movie managed to navigate this sensitive territory at a time when such issues were not as heavily scrutinized, allowing it to avoid significant backlash.
The film's creative humor and unique concept contributed to its enduring popularity, with audiences still enjoying and quoting it years after its release. While the portrayal of black men disguised as white women may seem unrealistic due to the obvious nature of their disguises, the movie's over-the-top and comedic approach adds to its charm and entertainment value.
Ultimately, "White Chicks" is a lighthearted and cheesy comedy that aims to entertain rather than offend. Viewers are encouraged to approach the film with a sense of fun and appreciation for its playful and exaggerated take on gender and racial dynamics. By embracing the movie's humor and acknowledging its intentions, audiences can enjoy a comedic ride that offers a break from the seriousness of everyday life.

Best movie ever. I mean does it get any better than this? Look I felt it was total metal. And I am a heavy metal maniac that gives everything 89/100. So there. Now there is comedy, there is suspense, there is disguise, there are trannys (or is it trannies here in Lithuania or whatever who knows?) and the movie addresses race relations which is very important because people pretend they are metal and still listen to f'n tarja, you know?
Bottom line: you will laugh,you will fall over, you will learn a lot and there are two hawt chicks. What else could you ask for?

**The two shades of white!**
I've heard this film a long ago, but I never interested to watch it. We can't avoid them, because when we look for a particular type of film for the occasion, they will pop-up and that is how I watched this now. I know it is a silly comedy, because in a real world this thing never happen. So knowing this is only for cinema, I prepared to enjoy whatever it offers. But I must say, even though my rating is not big, I kind of enjoyed it.
Nobody watches this without knowing its synopsis. So you will already know the fifty per cent of the story when you do. The rest is how it is developed; including how good the jokes are that comes with our watch. So much cliché, but entertaining with some good scenes and lines. The actors were excellent. The make-ups were not flawless, but worked okay, especially for a comedy. Because if there is an error, it will going to appeals from the comedic side.
So the overall film was better than what I presumed all these years. Glad I saw it, it's nothing like those silly comedies I've seen. I've seen many imposter themes, but this is refreshing. All the above, this is a one off film, that's the best thing about it. You know, sequels are what degrades the original film in most of the scenarios. Thanks for that, there's no follow-up for this with a B movie cast and crew. This is a very much watchable film, not comedy riot, but fairly does its job.
_6/10_

**A film that changed my vision of the life**
"A Silent Voice" is a film that has changed my vision of the life, understanding better the importance of the human communications. Including profound reflections related to empathy, self-esteem, redemption, self-improvement, and the importance of understanding and listening to others.
This film was truly made with love. Because it has a Sound-Track, thought and composed as if they were simulating the stimuli that a deaf person can feel throughout his life, such as the touch of someone or the vibrations of a cup of water.
Also, the way that it is made the animation and the camera angles, reflecting the feeling and the evolution of each character. Giving a unique impact because of the way it is well-thought-out.
Making me love this film even more for these details, feeling a unique and nostalgic experience when watching it, leaving it definitely one of the best films on a personal level. I don't understand how this film hasn't won any Oscar.

A Silent Voice: The Movie (2016) is an absolute gem! 🌟 This beautifully crafted anime film takes you on an emotional rollercoaster, touching your heart and leaving you with a sense of hope and understanding. The characters are so well-developed, and the animation is simply breathtaking. Prepare to be moved and inspired by this poignant story of redemption, forgiveness, and the power of empathy. Highly recommend it for anyone looking for a touching and meaningful cinematic experience!

**A second chance to fix the past mistake.**
This is the next best anime in the recent time after 'Your Name'. Not that you know this director very well, not at the international level. But with a film like this, she's going to be. This is another teen romance. Well, romance is not exactly a word that matches with what this film is about narrative, but there's no other way to describe its theme. It was like before romance, that mean before committing to a relationship and after you had started to like someone while fixing the mistakes made in the past.
It's a high school tale. Before that, it opened with a brief flashback of the elementary school events, where Shoya Ishida bullied a new admission Shoko Nishimiya for her hearing impairment. Soon after that, she'd transferred to another school. Now, a few years later, they meet again in the high school, where Ishida tried to fix what he had done wrong a while ago for her. So a relationship develops, despite people around them does not understand their commitment. At some point, it will be tested, which might lead to uncover their true feeling to one another.
This is surely aimed at the teen audience. Especially, the romance and sentimental parts are intended for the youngsters, but anyone would enjoy it. So, I felt them, but not like I'm still young. Otherwise, I would have said it is a masterpiece. That's only from the story perspective. The sketches and animations were not bad. The film characters were awesome. Each one was very unique and different people pick different characters as their favourite. I liked Yuzuru as I always like tomboyish type roles. But obviously Ishida and Shoko make this film.
> ❝Please don't make such a serious face. And, let me say... I am sorry.❞
Smooth animation. Technically comparable with any big names (anime titles). That also means the director is now in the league of the best anime-maker. She's young and I hope she keeps doing more films. As I said many times before, that after Hayao Miyazaki retired from making films, we need more people like this filmmaker to fill that empty space. The film won many awards for its great achievement, as well as box office success in the domestic market. Expecting the rest of the world and anime fans to receive it at the same extent.
It was originally based on the manga of the same name, and a television series was made before this feature anime. As I collect film quotes, the best ones, I was disappointed on that context. There were many emotionally and romantically appealing lines, but not on the moral perception. That does not mean the film lacks the social consciousness. In fact, the film highlights the bullying and its severe consequences. That alone is enough, this is a must see for the school kids.
Surely kids, teens and some youngsters would love it, but as far as the adults, this is not an ideal thematic, yet you can't ignore its artistry and the intention of the film. Sometimes it might help you to like it in the second viewing. Because this is one of those kind. My issue was understanding the Japanese sign language. Besides, the subtitle for that was not much helpful, as it was exactly translated as what the hearing impaired character babbled which is an alternate spelling for every word and sentence.
I had lots of fun watching it, as well as other moods like romantic, touching, annoyance, but overall it leans towards the good side. Just over two hours, it never looked too slow or hurried in the story or the character developments. Could be the best to pick as a date flick or get together with your school friends, particularly opposite sex friends. My final saying is, it is not to be missed for many reasons I've mentioned in this review and the other one is it being an anime, a quality one.
_7/10_

**A case study on makeup and pre-CGI effects.**
I saw this film recently, and I wasn't particularly pleased. I recognize Sam Raimi's talent and his special aptitude for horror films, but the films he made in the 80s, in my opinion, have aged poorly and today seem extremely dated. And that defines this film quite well. Even so, the film was important at the time, a huge box office success that made the fortunes of several of those involved and still has its loyal legion of fans, who will forgive me for not liking it very much, I'm sure.
The film takes place in a cabin in the forest, with a group of friends, and the undead who appear to carry out the usual massacre. There are a lot of points of contact between this film and other living dead films with a similar script, it seems that they all drew from the same primordial source. Furthermore, the film's script was clearly not the most important issue in the conception of the overall work. The story is flawed and it is the most violent scenes that save the film from being worse than it is. The ending is particularly bloody and unsuitable for sensitive people or those with more irritable stomachs.
I've seen other works by Bruce Campbell, and the truth is that this actor has never been able to convince me of his talent. He's a decent actor, but he's not a nationally or internationally talented actor. In this film, he simply does what a hero destined to survive would predictably do, under the same conditions, and jumps from cliché to cliché until the final outcome. The rest of the cast is so immeasurably weak that I won't waste time analyzing it. Suffice to say, they are there to die.
Where this film truly excels is in the use of special effects to visually accentuate the various fight scenes between young people and the undead. From the blood, to the bizarrely colored goo, and several convincing makeup effects, this film is a case study in pre-CGI makeup and visual effects, done in very cheap but surprisingly convincing and pragmatic ways. It lacked the necessary budget for more competent work, and a better cast and story.

Right, so we all head off on a weekend trip to stay in a remote cottage. When we arrive, having crossed a distinctly dodgy bridge, we discover a ramshackle shack. Me, well I'm not getting out of the car, much less staying the night in the place. They are braver than me, though, so in they go for a night of Trivial Pursuits... In the basement, they discover a real-to-reel tape recorder with some tape that reveals that the previous occupants had discovered that the whole place was riddled with a Sumerian curse which the dozy pillocks proceed play aloud - I'm definitely back in the car; but by now it's too late and all hell breaks loose. What gets me is the choices they make under pressure - outside is the last place they want to go - without a Gattling gun anyway - but yet, off they go - in the middle of the misty, dark, night - and guess what...! This has suffered from the ravages of time; the effects are just silly now (think Ray Harryhausen with his first year chemistry set and some Fairy liquid) - but it is still quite scary; and that's largely down to Sam Raimi's style of storytelling: he uses close ups, light and sound to create tension and suspense and Bruce Campbell is actually quite decent as the hopelessly out of his depth "Ash". Still works well on a big screen - 40 years later.

The last time I watched this film, I was about ten years old. So, this is essentially a new viewing. I though the first twenty or so minutes were quite slow. Poor acting and dialogue led me to believe this was going to be another run of the mill 80's horror movie. But, once that action is established, it does not let up, with the next hour filled with nonstop thrills, leaving very little room to breathe. It was exhilarating with some fantastic tension, camera work, and special effects that had the hairs on the back of my neck standing straight up. It is incredible what Raimi was able to do with such a small budget. The story and dialogue leave some to be desired, but everything else is truly amazing. This is truly worth all of the praise it gets.
Score: 86% 🏅
Verdict: Excellent

Decent watch at best, probably won't watch again, and can't recommend unless you just love classic gore practical effects.
I'm honestly confused why this was such a bit hit at the time. Maybe it was just part of the trends, maybe the 1980s was just when people wanted to see horrific gore, and there was a lack of options.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's bad. I don't feel like we get a proper explanation of what the hell is happening, so no expectations is really built to be subverted, but I certainly wouldn't want this movie to explain anymore than it did.
I'm honestly not sure exactly what to say about it: it's a "don't mess with dark forces you can't possibly understand" trope with a bunch of blood, gore, and weirdly designed possession.
Part of what I enjoy about (even paranormal) survival situations like this is the idea that their is / was a way out of it, if the characters can figure it out. This is more of just someone blew up a dam, and now we're going to die from a flood.
I just feel like this movie could have been a lot more, and I'm not going to remember this, but I had a good enough time watching it.

RELEASED IN 1981 (but not until April, 1983, in the USA) and written & directed by Sam Raimi, “The Evil Dead” chronicles events when five Michigan State students travel to a remote cabin in western Tennessee for spring break wherein they discover a copy of the Book of the Dead and an audiotape whose incantations resurrect demons in the woods. Havoc ensues.
This is a cult classic movie and the famous director’s first full-length feature. It only cost $350,000 to make and was shot in 1979, as well as the first weeks of 1980. Bruce Campbell makes for a quality protagonist and there’s a good trio of girl-next-door types (Ellen Sandweiss, Theresa Tilly and Betsy Baker), but Raimi only really takes advantage of these feminine resources with Sandweiss as Cheryl.
The first half of the movie is great, which involves the five students’ arrival to the cabin and the initial possession/attack sequences. It’s atmospheric, well executed and compelling. The second half, however, is redundant. While each new attack ups the ante it’s basically more of the same in the same setting (the cabin). Don’t get me wrong, the second half is effective chaotic & chilling horror with loads of cartoony gore, but it’s too one-dimensional with no meaty subtext to chew on. It’s just people being attacked by hideous creatures, one after the other.
This simplistic approach CAN work, as witnessed by 1972's "Gargoyles," but in that movie the initial gargoyle attacks led to a captivating confrontation in their hellish cave complex in the last act. The latter half of "The Evil Dead," by contrast, is just one attack after another in the same general setting. But the latter half of “The Evil Dead” is just one attack after another in the same general setting. This might work for 11-14 year-olds who are wowed by cartoonish gore and constant diabolic thrills, but it doesn’t work for more mature people who require some element of mindfood or, at least, variation to keep interested. Another negative is the final gory sequence which is decidedly low-budget and cartoony, albeit creatively and expertly done on a film student level.
THE FILM RUNS 1 hour & 25 minutes and was shot in Morristown, Tennessee, with additional work done in Michigan.
GRADE: B-/C+

Has its moments.
'Knocked Up' begins with more cringe than enjoyment, but belatedly turns into something worth watching. The story is comical and silly for the most part, but gets serious here and there and ends up holding a positive message.
The cast list is absolutely stacked, there are many familiar names. Seth Rogen, Katherine Heigl, Paul Rudd, Leslie Mann, Jason Segel, Kristen Wiig, Ken Jeong to name just some. Pretty impressive. Heck, even Don's buddy Stormy Daniels is in there.
It made me laugh in a few moments, nothing belly laugh worthy but I had fun with bits of it for sure. Rogen and Heigl are extremely solid together, the latter particularly does well. I will say the run time is a little too long, these type of comedy films tend to work best at 90mins in my opinion.

Great! All the more impressive given offscreen events.
The awful behind the scenes stuff with lead Brandon Lee was all that I knew about 'The Crow'; I only learned it was a superhero flick in the lead-up to watching it, I had always assumed it was a straight up horror. No better time to watch it, what with the reboot out now... gotta see the sequels first!
There is a strong performance from Lee in there, Ernie Hudson is also someone I enjoyed in this. The rest of those onscreen are all positives, namely Rochelle Davis and Michael Wincott. I don't have any real complaints with this as a film, the feel is aesthetically, audibly and tonally spot on - plenty of Evanescence/Bring Me to Life and Gotham City vibes.