Watching it again after 8 years, my feelings about this installment remains the same. Guess I found it easier to watch after revisiting the franchise but still think the plot was weak, even by the standards of the series, and while I know it’s based on a video game, really wish the movie didn’t feel like one, even more so than the previous installments. Still like Jovovich in the role of Alice, in fact, and take this for what you will, is the strongest actor of the ensemble with Guillory turning in an especially awful performance (at least under the Umbrella Corp’s influence). Easily this is the weakest entry. **1.5/5**

This movie is the 5th instalment in the Resident Evil series. Why would you want to watch this movie? Why would you want to watch any Resident Evil movie come to think about? Good acting…nope. Intelligent and intriguing plot…absolutely not. Zombies…yep. Action…most definitely yes! Anything else…well if you’re member of the younger part of the average male population you probably watch it for Milla Jovovich as well.
Now that we have established the baseline for the movie, does this movie deliver? The answer to that is, without a doubt, YES! This film delivered exactly what I expected of it. As I mentioned it is the 5th movie in the series and the entire series is sprung from a video game in the first place so it should really be no surprise that the film is one long video game action sequence sporadically interrupted with some dialog. Yet a lot of people seems to expect something else and judges the movie by those expectations.
I think those really low rating are quite unfair. The movie does indeed deliver what I think you should expect. A lot of the action scenes are marvellous. The slow motion scenes are well done and enjoyable unlike some movies where they are just annoying. The zombies and other monsters are good. And yes, I confess that, although I’m hardly among the younger part f the mail audience anymore I do like watching Milla Jovovich jumping around in the scenes in those ridiculous skin tight suits.
If I should complain about anything it would be that I sat through half the movie being annoyed that nobody would get the, painfully obvious, idea to rip that red mind control gizmo off Jill’s chest. When it was finally done in the end it was like “did you really have to take that long to get that idea into your head you dumb bastards”.
I cannot really give the movie a top rating since it does lack much of a story after all but I certainly think it is worth 7 out of 10 stars. I enjoyed myself a lot while watching it. The ending is the usual video-game-movie cliff-hanger and I really hope they make another sequel now when Alice got her powers back. That she lost those was one of the big downers for me in one of the previous movies in the franchise.

**A forgettable film, full of problems, and which purges Garfield of the charisma and soul of the original cartoon character.**
I have to say that, although I'm not a comic book fan, I've loved Garfield since I was a child, particularly due to his adaptation into children's cartoons, which I saw in my childhood and loved. I also saw the more modern animations, in digital format, but I can't help but think that the classic material is better, and the stories presented are much more engaging. In any case, trying to compare the 2004 film to any of the Garfield animations or comic books is a real trial by fire: the film is considerably weaker, even though it has certain positive points that deserve our attention.
The film was directed by a certain Joel Cohen, who is not the same Joel from the Cohen Brothers, he is another person with an identical name, who I didn't know. The director doesn't seem to me to have been the best student in the directing class at film school... notice how the film was poorly edited and unfolds unevenly, wasting a lot of time on uninteresting things just to rush near the end. In addition to the pacing problems, the film lacks a good soundtrack and some comic “spark” that gives it soul and charm. Although sarcasm works effectively and is a very solid characteristic of the character, Garfield manages to be funnier and more charismatic than this cat in this film, and most of the jokes sound hollow, especially to adults.
The script, instead of taking advantage of the wealth of Garfield that exists in comics and animations, serves us a story that is dull, uninteresting, poorly written and full of clichés. It seems that the production only had people who didn't like, or didn't know, the character: the film only talks about the friendship between Garfield and Oddie, a cat and a dog who will have to learn to share the attention of their owner, Jon. There is an attempt to do anything more than that by inserting a villain who acts like Cruella De Vil, trying to use animals for his selfish purposes. In the end, he looks like Mufasa in the hands of the hyenas in “Lion King”: the scenes are identical, a copy that shows the void of ideas in that production room.
However, despite all these problems being worthy of consideration, the film has quality elements, starting with the CGI and digital animation, which were inserted into the conventional filming with great technical skill. Even for the beginning of the century, it's a reasonably convincing film, with one drawback: Garfield's character. Being a “live action” film where all the characters, human or not, are real and similar to their animated counterparts, why didn’t they do the same with the orange cat? The cat remains equal to the animated one, and is the only one, brutally clashing with everything! For a practical example, compare Garfield to Oddie or even Nermal: the two characters look much better than the animated cat.
As for the actors, the film seems to have made safe bets on competent people who could add some talent to the film and guarantee a minimum of quality: Jennifer Love Hewitt does a very competent job, but it is a film that she cannot save, she is in a position too secondary to do it; Bill Murray, despite only lending his voice to the cat, is the ideal actor to do it. Not only does he have the most suitable tone and voice, he also has an extraordinary comedic streak and ability to make jokes loaded with sarcasm. However, even he knows this film is weak, despite the cash he received for lending his voice! Stephen Tobolowsky is a weak, pantomime villain, with no personality or ability to threaten, and Brekin Meyer doesn't give Jon a personality worthy of our esteem, he turns him into a sympathetic fool.

Like this movie. I always enjoy the real versions of animated movies. This was done well. Garfield being pissed off at Odie for John bringing him home.

**What happens when you give Zack Snyder complete creative control? A crazy awesome zombie sci-fi action heist joyride!**
Sheer insanity at its ridiculous best! Zack Snyder goes all out with Army of the Dead by throwing as many plot ideas and spin-offs as he can to build his dream movie playground to play in for years at Netflix. Zombies plagues, zombie robots, time travel, multiverse, and who knows what else all flash across the scene and somehow don’t distract from the exciting central story. Dave Bautista leads a crew of expendable mercenaries to break into a vault in the middle of a zombie-filled quarantine zone once known as Las Vegas. The stand-out character in all this is Matthias Schweighöfer‘s Dieter. His comedy and goofiness breathe life into an otherwise wholly gritty film. The nonstop action and gore will satisfy any genre fan. Rather than the typical rescuing of a trapped loved one or VIP, I appreciate the new purpose for battling zombies - money. Zack Snyder goes full throttle, and it definitely pays off! I can wait to see more.

The only good thing about Zack Snyder's masturbatory exercise Army of the Dead, is that it's comparatively shorter than his version of Justice League – but what movie isn't? An hour and a half short of a four-hour movie is still too long, especially considering that if everything we've seen before were edited out of the film, AotD would be a short feature.
True, we may not have seen a heist/zombie apocalypse movie, but we've seen dozens of heists and dozens of zombie apocalypses, and bringing the two genres together only serves to highlight the inconsistencies of each. But, let us start at the beginning. A US military convoy is transporting an unknown cargo from Area 51. The two soldiers in the cab of the truck debate the contents of the box (“the original draft of the Constitution written in the blood of the Founding Fathers… Amelia Earhart, long live ", etc.). Whatever it is, it’s highly inflammable, judging by how the truck instantly turns into a huge ball of fire the moment it makes contact with a considerably smaller vehicle.
Actually it is some kind of superhuman zombie that kills a bunch of soldiers and infects two of them. This entire scenario could easily have unfolded without the arbitrary and random explosion; the gigantic fireball is here solely because Snyder is such an impatient director that, in a 140-minute film, he can't wait even five minutes before blowing something to bits – the cinematic equivalent of premature ejaculation.
On the other hand, Snyder takes his time on plot points that we all know by heart. Hero is offered a job. Hero turns down job. Hero changes his mind and takes the job. Hero assembles team. And so on and so forth. So as to leave no cliché unused, the hero also has an estranged daughter, Kate (Ella Purnell); this, however, deserves some more attention.
Kate works in a quarantine camp for zombies, which is nothing short of a logic-defying concept. It is first established that the zombie bite takes immediate effect, transforming the victim into another zombie – and one does not quarantine a zombie; one shoots a zombie in the head and moves on.
Now, it has always been a habit of zombie movies to play fast and loose, depending on the requirements of the script, with the time it takes for a bite to kick in, but two wrongs don’t make a right. All things considered, AotD is a rip-off that makes it a point of ripping off bad ideas – which might be all right if it were a parody, but the movie is too bloated and excessive to ever be able to take itself lightly.

Zach Snyder is a director I have an incredible amount of respect for. He has a truly original vision, he makes films unlike anyone else, and he seems to relish being a bit of an outsider who somehow gets to make whatever he wants. Sort of like this generation's version of 90's/00's Robert Rodriguez.
Yet, try as I might I just can't seem to actually enjoy his films. I won't bother going into it because personally I'd prefer not enjoying a wacky Zach Snyder film then being mildly entertained by most mainstream fluff that seem crafted by algorithms.
If you like Snyder's films this one will most likely be a real joy. If you don't this one won't win you over. Either way, I hope he gets to keep making his manic fever dreams because we need more films with authentic voices.

Army of the DEAD typical zombie action movie, but its not the best that's out there. Movie starts off abit boring and then goes into hyper drive midway then slows down at the end. it was abit unbalanced but that's just my opinion.

Great watch, would watch again, and can recommend.
Probably the worst part of this is a trend I'm noticing from some movies I've been seeing recently where they show you what could be a better movie, in the movie.
While this starts with a "patient zero" style opening, they then skip past the movie I want to see to the last possible story from the opening event.
This movie does do a lot though, and has a lot of moving parts at any given time.
Batista is amazing, and everyone sort of gets lost around him, I can't tell if that's because he's a giant or if the movie wants it that way: the cast all does a fantastic job in their roles.
The movie does a couple things that I don't typically enjoy in movies: smart zombies, obvious traitors, and secret motivations. It's like if SHIELD was in "I am Legend" and Black Widow kept tripping everyone else to get a rare Pokemon card.
That said, they show a fantastic amount of detail and complexity to a society that is barely explored, adding a wonderful flavor to the story.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
Zack Snyder is far from being a consensual director. Some viewers really love his work - Zack Snyder's Justice League was only possible due to passionate, hardcore fans - while others fail to understand the reasons behind the constant hype surrounding the filmmaker's projects. Personally, despite not belonging to his enormous fandom, I quite enjoy his work outside of the DCEU. From Dawn of the Dead to Watchmen, passing through 300, I hold these films in high regard. However, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is unquestionably one of the biggest cinematic disappointments of my life, and it's arguably the movie that triggered the beginning of the controversial general opinion about the director.
Usually, when people find themselves on a rough path, going back to their roots helps them get back on track, which is precisely what Snyder does here. The "zombie apocalypse" genre has been around for decades, but since the start of the new century, audiences all over the world were able to witness a narrative that was once unique and exciting become one of the most overdone, generic, formulaic pieces of storytelling. This last statement doesn't mean a few gems can't come out of it. From probably the greatest zombie film ever, Train to Busan, to the comedy classic Zombieland, there are truly great movies within the genre. So, where does Army of the Dead stand?
Somewhere in the middle, labeled as "good fun", which is all I expected from this Netflix film. Let me get one thing out of the way immediately: this looks, sounds, and feels like a Snyder movie. Countless over-stylized shots, long slow-motion scenes, an overwhelming amount of gore and blood, bizarre song choices, a two-hour-and-a-half runtime... for better or worst, no one can complain about studio interferences this time. Clearly, the famous director had complete creative freedom, and it shows through all of the film's positives and negatives. Fortunately, Snyder's filmmaking style not only fits well within this genre, but it also works for the simple, entertainment-driven screenplay.
A vast majority of viewers will press play in the hopes of receiving an action-heavy, fun, uncomplicated zombie movie with all the attributes that these flesh-eating characters possess. Except for a genuinely interesting storyline - though not new - concerning a specific type of zombies, everything else is pretty much what viewers have seen for the past two decades, which might be disappointing yet still highly enjoyable. From the way people can kill them to the time each infected person takes to become a zombie, every single cliche is present in this film. Honestly, none of them really annoy me unless they're repeated to exhaustion, which I don't believe Army of the Dead does that much.
The action sequences are all well-shot, but I did expect more from them. Most scenes are just characters randomly shooting, hitting insane headshots that viewers will just have to accept as something normal, which shouldn't be too hard, considering the recent action flicks. Occasionally, one-on-one or one-on-many combats ensue, and it elevates the excitement levels by focusing on that single character, but then it's brought down again by tiresome shootouts. Snyder asks the viewers to accept several dumb plot and character decisions, so it's always going to be a matter of how much you can take until it starts getting too much...
Personally, these logical issues don't really bother me - the ridiculous third act does push my limits, I admit. However, the lack of character development and overall care for everyone in the movie will always be a massive problem, especially when supposedly emotional, heartfelt moments end up having zero impact. I doubt anyone will be surprised to find out that people die in this film besides the zombies, consequently bringing tonal balance to the table. Obviously, not every character needs to receive a deep backstory and complex motivations, but it doesn't hurt to tell the viewers a bit about the people going into the danger zone so that the action sequences can carry more tension.
Without spoiling anything, there's a period in the movie where a deadly countdown begins, and everything that occurs from the starting time to the climactic moment just feels like any other scene in the film. The lack of tension and sense of urgency ultimately stops it from being one of the greats. Overall, it's an enjoyable zombie flick that offered me a blast of fun, but I still believe it could have been a lot better. Dave Bautista (My Spy, Avengers: Endgame) is the absolute standout, interpreting the only fully-developed character of the movie. Ella Purnell (Wildlike), Omari Hardwick (Sorry to Bother You), and Nora Arnezeder (Origin) are also quite good.
Finally, a point must be made about the relationship between studios and filmmakers. While I'm all in favor of creative freedom, there must always be a compromise between both parties. Snyder didn't gain fame for badly editing his films for no reason. Army of the Dead is, like most of his movies, unnecessarily long. The "deleted scenes" feature on Blu-rays doesn't exist for show-off. There's no film in the history of cinema where every single second recorded is pure gold, and runtimes are something studios can *help* filmmakers nail perfectly. In the end, I still consider this movie to move quickly through its straightforward story, so the excess screentime might not be that big of an issue for other viewers.
Army of the Dead brings Zack Snyder back to the zombie apocalypse genre, delivering an entertaining, action-driven story that will please most spectators. With his distinct, divisive filmmaking style completely unrestrained, for better or worst, the standout Dave Bautista and his team fight through the cliches, lack of character development, and excessive runtime to still offer plenty of excitement. The lack of tension and urgency hurt some of the last action sequences, but all are well-shot and packed with energy. Exceptional production design and VFX aren't enough to compensate for the predictably formulaic screenplay, especially when the only interesting zombie storyline is only partially explored. Overall, it's the definition of "good fun", so if your weekend has a two-and-a-half-hour empty slot, Netflix has my endorsement.
Rating: B-

Army of the Dead injects some much needed vitality into both zombie films as a whole and Zack Snyder’s career as a filmmaker. Dave Bautista is also the best he’s ever been as far as his acting ability goes. Gory as hell and entertaining through and through, Army of the Dead is a must-watch for action and horror film fans alike. We really needed more scenes with Vanderohe (Omari Hardwick) using that giant circular saw to tear through zombie flesh though.
Full review here: http://geekshavegame.com/army-of-the-dead-review-zack-snyders-return-to-zombie-flesh-eating-form/

Solid swash-buckling action-adventure cast perfectly with Anthony Hopkins, Antonio Banderas and Catherine Zeta-Jones and finely directed by the great Martin Campbell. I don't remember much about its sequel, The Legend of Zorro, but kind of wished there would be one more to complete a trilogy (maybe titled Zorro's Last Ride?). In any case, was a fun ride and been a good decade plus the last time I watched. **3.75/5**

High definition a necessity for this delightful homage to swashbucklers.
Zorro senior tutors Zorro junior in the way of the blade, their combined goal? To enact revenge on Don Rafael Montero and Capt. Harrison Love respectively.
Martin Campbell was an interesting and wise choice for this latest take on the swashbuckling heroics of the Latin Robin Hood. Campbell was the man in the director's chair for both of James Bond's reinvigoration's, firstly with "Golden Eye" in 1995, and then with "Casino Royale" in 2006. For here it's evident that The Mask Of Zorro has no delusions of grandeur in the pantheon of cinema, it wants (and is) to be an action film with pure fantastical flamboyance pouring from practically every frame. It honours the swashers of old by ensuring all genre boxes are ticked, yep, we got swords a plenty, yep, we got a dashing hero (x 2 actually), yep, we got a spiffing looking villain, and yes we got a heaving bosom led romance into the mix as well. While Campbell and his team of screenwriters gleefully ensure that humour is a very prominent thing, thus keeping the fantasy in the comic book realm from which Zorro's essence comes.
The stunt work on show is top draw, none more so than during a horse chase sequence where this Zorro tips its hat to former glorious genre pieces (well done Tony Angelotti). Other notable technical aspects deserve a mention, the costumes from Graciela Mazón are desirable and now in this age of High Definition Cinema, good make up work really comes to the fore, so it be that that department did sterling work on this picture (check out Elena's gorgeous face). The cast are basically very strong, Antonio Banderas slips into the Zorro cape with charming ease, and though it's nice to see a Spanish actor playing the famous Spanish character, here in this adaptation the irony is that Zorro is Mexican! Anthony Hopkins is as elegant as ever as the elder, newly retired Zorro AKA: Don Diego de la Vega, and Catherine Zeta Jones is positively ravishing as Elena, while Stuart Wilson does a nice line in pompous villainy as Don Rafael Montero.
Some minor complaints do dwell within the picture. Campbell has a lot to fit into a running time of two hours and twenty odd minutes, and this makes the wait for the rip roaring finale longer than one at first wished for. Though for sure let it be noted that the gold mine action bonanza at pics end is totally worth the wait. Weak in the cast is Matt Letscher as Captain Love, oddly looking like some Kiefer Sutherland tribute act, he lacks any real menace for what is a pretty well written role. James Horner's score lacks the necessary boom boom bang bang that someone like Alfred Newman would have provided, and a comedy horse strand pushes the boundaries of acceptable genre homages a little too far.
But really why moan and groan at irks that don't alter the trajectory of The Mask Of Zorro's blade? It isn't trying to do anything other than whisk you along for a blade swashing ride, and that is something that it most assuredly succeeds in doing. 8/10

A fantasy flick of real quality!
I got to watch this at the cinema thanks to its release as part of its 40th anniversary, the second movie I've seen re-released on the big screen after 'Trainspotting' back in May. That Danny Boyle flick from 1996 is great, as is this Wolfgang Petersen feature from 1984. I wasn't sure what to expect, I only knew of its genre and that famous theme song.
One of the first things to note about 'The NeverEnding Story' is how well it has aged, it looks awesome. The practical effects still look top quality and are super effective, I watched 'Big Trouble in Little China' yesterday and that has aged rather poorly in the effects department - and was released two years after this!
I really loved seeing the world come to life. The effects are a big reason for that, though this shows the importance of getting strong voice actors. Alan Oppenheimer is fantastic in the roles of Falkor, Gmork and Rockbiter, credit to Robert Easton as Morla too. As for the 'normal' actors, Sydney Bromley, Moses Gunn and Tilo Prückner are excellent in their respective roles.
Younger actors Barret Oliver, Noah Hathaway and Tami Stronach all do good work. I could've done without, and this my only thing close to a criticism (which it even isn't), the constant leaps back to the reader (Oliver's Bastian), it's not bad but sometimes doesn't feel necessary; less is more, sorta thing.
A brilliant film, one with an edge to it as well... 🕊️🐎

I remember seeing this film when I was young - spurred on by the Limahl theme song that was in the charts at the time, and rather enjoying it. Based on just the first half of Michael Ende's original novel, it's a gentle fantasy tale of a young boy - "Bastian" (Barret Oliver) - who is being bullied by three classmates. When one day he seeks refuge in a bookshop, the owner shows him a mysterious book that he "borrows" and reads - introducing him to the magical, and dangerous, kingdom of "Fantastica" where he learns that it's benign, kindly young "Childlike Empress" is dying and that only he can help "Atreyu" (Noah Hathaway) save her and everyone from disaster at the hands of "The Nothing". The youngsters are strong with their performances, and Wolfgang Petersen's adaption of his own screenplay remains reasonably faithful to the delicate story with clever, engaging animation - a combination of intricate puppetry and blue-screen effects that is both charming and fun: the luck dragon ("Falkor") and the "Gmork" greatly add to the story of wishes and secrets as "Bastian" races against time to accomplish his task. Time has been quite kind to this film (apart from, maybe, the haircuts!) and it still holds up well.

After watching Jordan Peele's *Nope* twice, I found myself captivated by its technical brilliance, particularly the cinematography. The night scenes are especially impressive, achieved through a unique 'day-for-night' technique developed by cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema. This method combined ARRI ALEXA 65 infrared and Panavision System 65mm film cameras to create stunning visuals that are both eerie and beautiful.
Daniel Kaluuya's performance is another highlight. His ability to convey deep emotion with minimal dialogue is remarkable, reminiscent of his work in *Get Out*. His portrayal adds a layer of depth to the film, making his character's journey compelling to watch.
While the storyline didn't fully resonate with me, I appreciated the well-crafted script. The dialogue is sharp, and the film explores intriguing themes, even if the overall narrative felt somewhat disjointed.
In summary, *Nope* is a visually stunning film with standout performances, particularly from Kaluuya. Despite some reservations about the storyline, the film's technical achievements and strong acting make it a noteworthy addition to Peele's filmography.

This film had the potential to be something wonderful, but unfortunately, it missed the mark on multiple levels. The execution of the storyline seemed off and failed to engage viewers in the way it should have.
Keke Palmer's acting was criticized for being over the top and coming across as forced. The film's approach appeared to lack creative risks, with some scenes, like the alien reveal, being described as resembling a flying tampon, giving the impression of a haphazardly put together production.
While the criticism may sound harsh, it reflects one individual's perspective on the film's shortcomings. The lack of cohesive writing and disjointed elements may have contributed to the overall disappointment in the film's execution.

A really well made flick!
'Nope' comes across as a pretty unique film, even if the core premise isn't necessarily that. I enjoyed seeing it all come together, the conclusion is the most entertaining part - as it ought to be, I guess. The cinematography, meanwhile, is ace.
I also dig the special effects, although oddly I feel like the main thing's effect slightly (!) dropped off a bit towards the end - but that could just be the fact that we see more of it at that point, as opposed to the prior snippets.
Keke Palmer is excellent throughout, the clear standout in my opinion. Daniel Kaluuya and Steven Yeun are also enjoyable, as are Michael Wincott and Brandon Perea to be fair - albeit less so. Neat to see Keith David involved too, I need to see him in a more prominant role at some point - only ever seems to be a bit-part in what I've seen of him thus far.

All you all that like movies like this are going to be really embarrassed once it's not hip to be racist anymore. You know, one this woke crap ends and we go back to judging people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.
But then isn't judging people by the content of their character "racist" today? You have to judge by skin color right?
This is Peele, he makes a point about that, because once more all white people are idiots or evil, and now all Asians are idiots and evil too, because in woke culture they are "white adjacent."
It's more veiled racism that people today applaud, call intelligent, and when the woke market ends, they are going to liken it to "the Turner Diaries"

I do noi Ike horror movies as a rule, but I liked this one, so I suspect that “Nope” didn’t have enough gore or shocking surprises for the average fan of that genre. I thought the acting and writing were fine, and the title was a subtle selection. The odd subplot of the incident with Gordy the monkey reminded me of the movie Magnolia for some reason. I wonder if that film was any kind of an influence on Jordan Peele’s storytelling style?
The entity in this movie is rather quirky and odd as we learn how it operates and its likes and dislikes. I will say no more than that because learning about it is part of the fun, though I am sure it made it too slow moving for thriller fans. It won’t be a favorite of mine, but it makes the short list of horror movies I have watched and liked just fine.

My first Jordan Peele film!
Such a rich text and an incredibly well-crafted piece of filmmaking. Great ensemble, superb execution of its sci-fi concepts, and just a joy to exist in. It might be one of the best films I've had the pleasure of seeing in theaters and definitely one of my favorites.

Full review: open.spotify.com/episode/03ZQLC8VjUeeMGuAIbVyTq?si17083aa90c4457
Jordan Peele's 'Nope; comes in with some big expectations due to Peele's previous work. 'Get Out' shifted the paradigm for horror movies, taking a genre which has historically been associated with a temporary experience of thrill and adrenaline, to being social commentaries on society and raising some deeper questions about ourselves in the process of watching his stories unfold.
Nope is no exception, and in fact it can be argued that it attempts to combine story, metaphor and meaning in a more ambitious way than his previous outings. Taking the central theme of 'spectacle', Peele beautifully illustrates its dangers and how we as a society are so obsessed with the spotlight to our own detriment (and even int he worst cases, eventual demise). Choosing a more science fiction approach this time around, Peele does a great job of story telling, and often subvert's out expectations time and time again in the process. Aside from the film's deeper meaning, some of the other highlights come in the form of the cinematography and performances from the central characters (mostly notably, OJ, Emerald and Angel). Peele has managed to create some complex characters which are highly relatable, and the chemistry between the actors is something which will be a lasting memory for me.
However, I do feel that the film does sacrifice plot and narrative in its relentless effort to hammer in the metaphor of the central theme - 'Spectacle'. While I did enjoy each story (OJ and the Animal Alien and Gordie and Jupe), I had a hard time understanding the relationship they had with each other from a narrative point of view. It often felt like two stories could have been played out better without the interference of the other. Other than that I did have some questions around OJ's motivations to tame / kill this animal, the legitimacy of the final impossible shot, the nature and behaviour the animal, and how / if OJ survived (or was this open for interpretation?). The ending of the film also was a slight let down with the death of the animal not being all that grand. This however could also be tied into the overall message of 'Spectacle' as the finale is often not worth the what we expect it to be.
Overall, I think Nope is a very good movie which will probably get better with a few re-watches to fully appreciate what Peele was trying to tell us.

They said it and you wont hear me disagreeing with it. Did I find it entertaining? "nope". Did I feel the story was cohesive and comprehensible, with a clear contextual message? "nope". Were characterisations relatable and relevant? "Sort of".
Nope's characterisations are moderately relatable but somehow, also seem to appear oddly misconstrued. The mostly monosyllabic cowboy character, for example, only adds to the sense of ambiguity (perhaps that's the idea).To my mind however, this ploy, if that's what it is, stifles development, of the already ambiguous, story line. The sister, his complete antithesis, is superficially verbose but seems equally, to lack any depth of self awareness.
The only thing I can say conclusively about Nope, is the visuals are compelling, complex and, at times, almost intricate. This film certainly scores a A+ in this regard.
That said, so much else is lacking, in particular a clearly articulated narrative, that it failed to resonate, with me.
In summary, I found Nope a frustrating, dissatisfying watch. Somewhat reminiscent of M. Night" Shyamalan films Nope is visually stunning but does not offer up enough morsels of knowledge, leaving this viewer hungry for more.

**Overall : A big YEP to NOPE!**
Jordan Peele’s creativity is unrivaled! Nothing is typical of anything he does. Even knowing it is an alien movie, he keeps things fresh with surprising twists and eerie tension. Unlike anything I have seen before—there is excellent symbolism through the flashback sequences. I also enjoyed the developing relationship between the main two characters. My only complaint is that the horror and dread so palpable at the beginning fades completely about two-thirds into the film.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/nope-spoiler-free-review
"Nope contains extraordinarily immersive technical elements, but the thematic focus raises narrative issues.
Jordan Peele takes full advantage of Hoyte van Hoytema's phenomenal cinematography and Michael Abels' memorable score to create a spectacle worthy of the big screen, but it's the sound production that really elevates the movie to that level.
Daniel Kaluuya, Keke Palmer, and Steven Yeun are exceptional, but the latter is tied to an extremely thematic storyline - immensely rich - with little to no impact on the main plot, leaving countless questions unanswered and a divided audience while still affecting the overall pacing.
Humor is surprisingly effective, and the moments of suspense and tension deliver what viewers most desire. A film that deserves multiple viewings and will generate endless debates."
Rating: B

I'm always very nervous when a film's advertising campaign leads extensively on the director and not on the acting... To be honest, here, I really couldn't quite see what the fuss was about on either front. A pretty monosyllabic "OJ" (Daniel Kaluuya) lives with his feisty sister "Emerald" (Keke Palmer) on a remote stud farm where they provide horses for the movies. When strange things start going bump in the night, and the horses start behaving oddly, then disappearing all together - they are bemused. Off to town they go where they meet local geek "Torres" (Brandon Perea) who is full to the brim with alien conspiracy theories and who comes and installs some CCTV for them. What now ensues is a quirky, rather poorly paced sci-fi caper that takes far too long to get going and then when it does, well it sort of rumbles along with loads of pretty repetitive photography, minimalist dialogue and an ending that made me chuckle - and I am not sure that was Jordan Peele's intention. The plot reminded me of something from the "Outer Limits" from the 1960s! There is certainly some lovely scenery to be admired in this California valley but all in all I was totally underwhelmed by this film, the best bits I felt, were seen in the trail.

Now this film will only make sense if you saw, and enjoyed, the original in this franchise from 2003 and as sequels go, it works ok. That is, side from a strangely miscast Sir Derek Jacobi but that's short and sweet. The persecuted pairing of Kate Beckinsale and a still rather wooden Scott Speedman race to track down the imprisoned original Lycan "William" before the recently awakened super-vampire "Marcus" (his brother) can release him and unleash untold terror on the world. Such as it is, the script is a bit stilted but the action scenes are tight and the film moves along quite sharply. As with the first film, probably not for purists of the genre, but it does have the distinct benefit of being half an hour shorter and the characters are suitably mean and moody.

I'm sorry but I've denied myself this for far too long. _Underworld: Evolution_ is a cinematic masterpiece and I will fight to the death to defend it.
(I won't actually fight to the death to defend it, or even really try to defend it at all. I know I am in the vast minority here, but I absolutely love this film.)
_Final rating:★★★★½ - Ridiculously strong appeal. I can’t stop thinking about it._

Oh Brother!
The sequel to cult fave Underworld (2003) finds vampire warrior Selene (Kate Beckinsale) and half werewolf Michael (Scott Speedman) unravelling the truth about their respective blood lines. Just what caused the feud between the vampires and the lycans?
Unsurprisingly reviews for this sequel are mixed, it's either a smart action popcorner that was warranted, or it's a huge let down after the first film. Personally I'm in the first camp, personally because it does pretty much the same things, only the story has a bit of complexity about it to try and bluff us that it's cerebral.
For a film about vampires and werewolves at war it delivers all that is required in the modern era. There's lots of high energy action, blood and guts galore, CGI overdrive, fast pacing and a sexy lead actress fronting the piece. The story ticks along nicely, introducing new and interesting characters, while flashbacks fill in the gaps for any newcomers to the series. The main villain is one bad-ass winged mofo, a genuine terror that our protagonists have right to fear, and the finale is as expected a bonkers array of bloody chaos.
Smartly put together by director Len Wiseman and coolly photographed by Simon Duggan (steel blues and greys), it isn't ground breaking cinema, but it's a wail of a time for those with expectation levels set at popcorn bonanza. 7/10

Truth or Dare (2018) is one of those horror movies that keeps a decent pace but feels oddly familiar, almost like a mashup of different horror elements you've seen before. The setup is engaging enough, and the production is solid for a Blumhouse film, but there's nothing groundbreaking here. The tension is there, but the scares rely too much on predictable moments and overused horror tropes. It moves fast enough to keep things from getting boring, but at the same time, it doesn’t leave much of a lasting impact.
The acting isn't bad, and the cast does what they can with the material, but the film as a whole feels forgettable once it's over. It has a few moments that work, but the story doesn't do enough to stand out from similar supernatural horror films. If you're just looking for a casual, easy-to-watch horror flick with some creepy visuals and a decent pace, it might be worth a shot. Otherwise, it's not something you'd revisit or think about much after the credits roll.