Not particularly good, but surprisingly better than I was expecting. It's pretty easy to find faults in _Truth or Dare_, and sometimes that gets aggravating, but at least it wasn't boring.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

"A potentially interesting premise that is then left in the hands of an insipid posse of one-dimensional characters to mull over..."
Read the full review here: http://screen-space.squarespace.com/reviews/2018/4/12/truth-or-dare.html

Love puss in boots. It was kind of weird that humpty dumpty was in the movie though. Still very good movie and very funny.

**Klaus reinvents the classics of Christmas with charm and creativity. It belongs on your holiday tradition list.**
Klaus is a surprisingly sweet and heartwarming animated Christmas story that reimagines Santa's origins. The story is unique and creative, standing out from many other Santa Christmas cartoons. The animation style creates the feel of a living storybook, and the voice actors delightfully march the lighthearted tone of the crazy little town of Smeerensburg. Klaus leaves its audience feeling cozy, nostalgic, and content. This will be on the yearly Christmas holiday watchlist in my home.

A beauty.
What a lovely, charming and clever film. 'Klaus' took my interest and then some, I was locked in from the start. It's terrific, with some excellent hand-drawn animation. The cast, led by Jason Schwartzman, do very good jobs, also.
I loved seeing it connect all the dots of Santa, Christmas et al. If you think about it, it's actually rather simple but it's done in a smart and pleasant way. The ending is particularly sweet. Away from the heart, it also has humour and the pacing is absolutely spot on.
Schwartzman is entertaining as Jesper, with J. K. Simmons doing a very solid job as Klaus. I also enjoyed Joan Cusack as Tammy. The cast are probably down the pecking order of this film's pluses, but that's only due to its other, more noticeable positives.
Always pleasing to see a great animated film away from Disney, if only to create important competition for the latter.

"Elf" is a holiday movie that has become a beloved classic over the years, despite some reservations about Will Ferrell's acting style. While not initially drawn to Ferrell's comedic performances, the film's charm and heartwarming storyline won over viewers, including those who may not typically enjoy his style of humor.
Ferrell's portrayal of the character in "Elf" is noted for its over-the-top and somewhat obnoxious nature, traits that are characteristic of his comedic persona. However, the film's unique take on the holiday genre and its endearing story make it a standout production that has secured its place in the history of Christmas cinema.
Despite any reservations about Ferrell's acting, "Elf" has become an iconic film that brings joy, laughter, and a sense of nostalgia to audiences. Its enduring popularity and ability to evoke feelings of warmth and merriment have solidified its status as a holiday classic that families revisit year after year.
Overall, "Elf" is celebrated for its humor, heart, and timeless appeal, making it a film that is cherished and enjoyed by viewers of all ages. Its ability to spread holiday cheer and bring people together in laughter is a testament to its enduring legacy in the realm of Christmas movies.

In my opinion this is the best Christmas movie ever made. Its so hilarious that you laugh throughout. If you havent seen this, i highly suggest that you do.

Whilst delivering toys to an orphanage, a curious baby crawls into Santa's sack. Back at the North Pole shortly after, this young lad makes his presence felt, is named "Buddy" and put in the care of "Papa Elf" (Bob Newhart). Years later, "Buddy" (Will Ferrell) has now grown to full height and isn't really fitting in - on any level. His adopted dad tells him something of his real parents and off to New Work he goes in search of his father "Walter" (James Caan) who had, hitherto, been completely unaware of this son's existence. Hard-nosed "Walter" is initially disinterested, but thanks to a photograph from years gone by, quickly decides to try and help his green-suited offspring to try and make his way in the world. "Buddy" isn't very good at much, but what he excels at is making friends and spreading good cheer - and all of that proves crucial when Santa (Ed Asner) finds his sleigh won't work on Christmas Eve for lack of Christmas spirit. Can "Buddy" rally the troops - and avoid the menacing Central Park Rangers? This is a jolly and fun Christmas feel-good film that has weathered the last twenty years rather well. The sentiment is well layered, the humour works for all ages and Caan compliments the sometimes cringe-making effusiveness of "Buddy" - aided by sparing but kindly appearances from Mary Steenburgen - well. There is even an hint of a romance for our good-natured soul in the form of "Jovie" (Zooey Deschanel) and as Christmas movies go, this is certainly one of the better ones.

_**Destined to be played on TV every Christmas the rest of your life**_
Released in 2003 and directed by Jon Favreau, "Elf" is a Christmas dramedy/fantasy starring Will Farrell as an orphaned infant who stows away on Santa Claus' sleigh and isn't discovered until he's at the North Pole, where he's adopted by Papa Elf and named Buddy. After growing up as an elf, he travels to New York City to meet his father (James Caan) and starts a relationship with his neglected younger half-brother. He also starts a relationship with a department store worker (Zooey Deschanel) and helps spread Christmas cheer as Santa (Ed Asner) arrives to the city.
This is an all-around entertaining Christmas flick highlighted by Farrell's goofiness as the quasi-elf. It's fun with consistent laughs, not to mention a nice Christmas moral.
The film runs 97 minutes and was shot in New York City and Vancouver.
GRADE: B+

Good watch, will likely watch again, and can recommend.
For all the good this movie has in it, there is a fair amount of annoying as well, which is what keeps it from being a great movie.
A family reconnection trope, with a character out of his element trope, crossed with one of the most annoyingly positive characters of all time trope.
Ultimately, it's a sweet, hear warming story that really captures the spirit of family, Christmas, and togetherness.
It also captures all of the insanity Will Ferrell can conjure up for his character, basically as if he wrote a SNL Christmas special and just rode rough shod over the other actors.
The cast does a wonderful job of backing up Will Ferrell, but that's clearly what it is.
Around the holidays, especially, don't be afraid of giving this a try, and bear through the annoying bits, because there is likely something really funny just about to happen.

Okay, this is a fun movie, what I consider to be one of those classic Christmas movies I am willing to watch every year. And for me, that is a fairly short list, such as A Christmas Story and the ubiquitous It’s a Wonderful Life. (Interestingly, Peter Billingsley, who plays the lead Ralphie role in A Christmas Story, has an adult role in Elf.)
The script goes over the top a bit sometimes, resulting in cringeworthy moments for me, but it is harmless and easily forgiven. There is wit, pathos and sight gags galore. I like the chemistry between Will Farrell and Zooey, and it is a treat to have national treasures Ed Asner and Bob Newhart leading off the film as Santa and the Papa elf. James Caan and Mary Steenburgen are credible as Elf’s prospective new family in New York City.
So there is not a lot of depth to this movie, nor is there supposed to be. It is a great film to watch with friends or extended family. It shouldn’t offend anyone and you can visit with each other, because you don’t have to pay close attention to the plot. In fact, many viewers will be able to recite he lines along with the characters.

**It works as a piece of entertainment, if we don't think too much about it. But it is, in fact, a film full of problems.**
I just saw this movie right now. I've always heard a lot of bad things about him, but now, after seeing him, I wonder what really went wrong here. The film, to be quite honest, is good enough to meet my expectations (even though they were quite low, I confess), and it seemed to me to be a quite acceptable piece of entertainment, if we don't think about it too much and forget the graphic novel by Alan Moore. It's an adventure film, which easily captivates those who like this style and which gives us good action scenes, with characters we know and which is full of that unmistakable Victorian charm that is still in fashion today. After all, what the hell happened here for this film to be such a resounding failure?
Let's start by talking a little about the script, which brings together bizarre characters from various literary works from the same period: Tom Sawyer, Alain Quartermain, Captain Nemo, Dr. Jeckill/Mr. Hyde, Mrs. Mina Harker, the Invisible Man (who for rights reasons had to change his name in this film), Dorian Gray and James Moriarty, to name a few. Literature connoisseurs have already realized that the amalgamation of different characters from different books and authors has a lot of potential, it could create a kind of “19th century Avengers”. The problem is that the potential was lost when the screenwriters ignored the stories of these characters and created “action figures” with the same name and some similarity. There is mutual distrust, attempts to bring some depth to the film, but in general, the story is shallow and bloated.
Throughout the film, we observe that there is no concern about precisely recreating the Victorian environment. In fact, the film is a kind of alternative history where we even see the use of technologies that only appeared long after 1900, such as sonar, radar and automobiles with automatic gearboxes. This “salad” increases the level of special and visual effects and also the creative breadth of the producers, but I don't know to what extent the public accepted it. In addition to these problems, we still have logic holes in the plot and dialogues that couldn't be more cheesy and poorly written.
Directed by Stephen Norrington, the film seems to have had no director at the helm: we can see the technical ineptitude, the disregard for key points of the project and the director's obsession with Victorian aesthetics, action scenes and CGI (the only really good things the film has to give us). In fact, the visual aspects are incredibly crafted, and we can see this in the elaborate decoration of the Nautilus, the recreation of Venice and even Mina's very elegant dresses. The action scenes are immersive, at the level of a blockbuster, and the cinematography and effects are very good. The editing, on the other hand, already fails in several moments, giving the film an uneven rhythm, which accelerates in the action sequences and dies soon after.
As for the cast, what can we say? Sir Sean Connery, despite the terrible working relationship with the director and deep dissatisfaction with the entire project, did a job well done and left the cinema with a bitter taste in his mouth, but his duty done (this was his last film). Peta Wilson and Stuart Townsend do a decent job, but with little soul. Naseeruddin Shah ignores the entire tragic depth of his character and is just a “gadget king” with a solution for everything. Jason Flemyng lives in a love-hate relationship with his fictional alter-ego that makes no sense at the end of the film, and Tony Curran and Shane West seem to have been highly underutilized. And what about Richard Roxburgh? It must have been one of the worst versions of a villain I've ever seen: a barrage of clichés and arrogance don't make a villain, they just make an idiot.

.

Enjoyed it.
'The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen' does nothing all that extraordinary but produces a fun time nevertheless. Great cast, fast paced plot and entertaining action. The ending slightly underwhelms, but I still found myself satisfied with it. The special effects are good, it's only "The Nautilus" that looks less than so.
Sean Connery does carry the film as Quatermain, he's terrific throughout - really enjoyed the way his character carries himself. I liked Tony Curran's Skinner too. I actually rate all the characters to be honest, with Jason Flemyng (Jekyll/Hyde) and Stuart Townsend (Gray) being my picks of the rest.
Merits a watch, even if Connery didn't remember it all that fondly.

This movie was amazing! Went to see it at the cinema when it first got released back in 2003. For the time the special effects in this movie are mind blowing. A must watch in my opinion.

Way better then the first. Way more action too and explosions. This one is hilarious too. It needs a part 3 now.

Still a must-watch but it was never going to live up to the original.

This movie was a clear example of when studios can't get enough of a good thing. Red didn't need a sequel at all. This cheap attempt at recreating the comedic magic that the the first movie had reminded me plenty of the overkill series of the Hangover. Some things should just be left alone in singular existence. 2/5 Stars is all this got from me.

I cannot fully explain all aspects of the movie easily and clearly in a text smaller than a large volume, but yet I will try to compress it decently here.
First and foremost, the movie for me is like a spectacle which could go on with the same cast for 100 hours and still be interesting and captivating. I have always wished it had been a series with this cast instead of a movie. Futile wishes!
The casting, to begin with, is very well matched to the book's spirit if not the physical descriptions. Vivien Leigh, Clark Gable, Olivia de Havilland and Hattie McDaniel. I stop here and will edit it bit by bit to complete it in a few days. It is too large to finish in one writing.

When watching films by Japanese animation powerhouse Studio Ghibli a number of adjectives come immediately to mind; imaginative, wholesome, and quirky, to name a few. And there is perhaps no more quirky Ghibli film than _Kiki's Delivery Service_.
Fundamentally, _Kiki's Delivery Service_ is a coming of age film, telling the story of 13-year-old trainee witch Kiki who leaves home with her cat Jiji to continue her training. Arriving in a far-off European city, Kiki starts a flying delivery business, couriering goods around the town, which catches the eye of aviation-obsessed Tombo, who is immediately smitten by her flying.
One of the big draws of Ghibli is the simplicity of the stories, making them hugely accessible for the audience. In Kiki's Delivery Service we must just accept that there are "some" witches and even though people will possibly never see one, they are not feared. In fact, the only fear in Kiki's Delivery Service comes from Kiki's own self-doubt.
Considering, then, that Japan is far more conservative than the West - especially when it comes to family values - it is quite bizarre that one conservative Christian group in America took the decision to boycott the film solely for the purpose of glamorising witches.
But really, Kiki being a witch is completely secondary to the film. In some ways it could be argued that Kiki being a witch is simply another excuse for director Hayao Miyazaki to view another Ghibli world from the sky, allowing his team of animators to draw some of the most beautiful landscapes in animation.
In addition, it allows Kiki's comic foil to be a talking cat (who, in the English dub, is voiced by the instantly vocally recognisable Phil Hartman, who you may remember from such shows as _The Simpsons_, where he plays Troy McClure). As well as dominating most of the film's funnier moments, Jiji also depicts Kiki's transition from innocence.
Despite all of this marshmallowy innocence, _Kiki's Delivery Service_ is still a quirk. The plot is littered with unanswered questions - what happened to the other flying witch who was returning home? - and the final act involving the dirigible is, frankly, too overdramatic and out-of-place with the rest of the down-to-earth storyline.
Still, it is perfectly enjoyable, and while it isn't necessarily the first Ghibli I would recommend, it is still one that you should see.

This is my least favorite out of the series. Just the main character doesn't sell her character to me in this. The death scenes were cool, but it was just an ok movie.

***Solid sequel, maybe a notch better than the first film***
The first "Final Destination" movie from 2000 was a rather innovative 'Dead Teenager Movie' in that the killer was Death itself, the Grim Reaper, as an invisible spiritual presence. A group of people, mostly youths, escape a great tragedy due to a premonition of one of them and the rest of the movie involves the Grim Reaper systematically slaying those who cheated Death in various creative ways, usually involving an unlikely chain reaction. The opening tragedy in the first film was a plane crash; in this second film from 2003 it's a horrible highway pile-up; in the third it's a roller-coaster mishap and so on.
There are currently five films in the franchise and they all tell the same basic story with different characters and some nuances; they’re all of the same high quality of technical filmmaking. Whether you prefer one or another depends on whether you like the cast and the death sequences (and the locations) because, other than these factors, they're all basically the same, although the fifth film throws in an interesting new twist (Death’s victim can find a substitute).
Ali Larter returns as a secondary protagonist while A.J. Cook takes the reigns of the 'final girl.’ Keegan Connor Tracy also has a considerable role in the female department while Sarah Carter has a smaller part. While this is a quality assortment of women, the creators coulda done more with them. On the opposite side of the gender spectrum Michael Landes stars as a state trooper. Jonathan Cherry, Terrence 'T.C.' Carson and James Kirk are also on hand. Their importance to the story is in that order. Meanwhile Tony Todd makes his second of four appearances in the series as a mortician who curiously knows more than he should.
I actually like this one a little better than the first one, but like that film, the second half isn’t as strong as the first. Is the final scene supposed to be horrific? Cuz it made me bust out laughing.
The film runs 1 hour, 30 minutes and was shot in the Vancouver, British Columbia, area, including Campbell River (although the events take place around New York City).
GRADE: B/B-

Buckle up.
Kimberly Corman has a terrifying vision that a highway pile up will claim her life and that of her friends. Blocking the entrance with her car, Kimberly watches in horror as the crash unfolds, thus saving her life and that of the people in the queue behind her. But the grim reaper is not impressed and he's coming to claim the deaths of all those who should have died in the crash.
For a sequel to truly work well it has to come up with something fresh, otherwise why do a sequel eh? Well the makers of Final Destination 2 choose to use the basic same formula of the hugely enjoyable first film, only adding more black humour into the crazy death design broth. Opening with a quite horrific highway pile up, FD 2 then takes us on a journey that sees an assortment of folk offed in various and gruesome ways. The story remains the same as the first film, even though writers Bress and Gruber think they are being intricate by weaving this plot into the original story, but ultimately it's just a devilishly nonsense fun picture. Ali Larter returns for a second helping, and she in turn is joined by a bunch of no mark actors waiting for death, which is perfectly fine for the genre discerning fan.
This is a riot, and as long as you don't look too deep into it (why would you really?) you may just find yourself having a real good time. 7/10

**An excuse for yet another CGI animated film.**
I think this movie shouldn't have been made the way it was made. The secret to the success of the first “Space Jam” was its originality and the way it combined the drawings and a real basketball star in a movie where he could play a little with himself. Here, what we have disappoints anyone and only serves to raise money for the public without delivering a product that truly meets expectations.
The film's biggest problem is obviously its script: it all starts when LeBron James, a basketball player, turns down a contract with Warner Bros. The contract was crafted by a computer algorithm that has somehow taken on a life and will of its own, and is determined to make itself noticed, even in the worst ways. By imprisoning the sportsman and his son in a digital universe, things get complicated. James will have to play basketball against the live algorithm, and he will ask the only one who might possibly have a good idea for help: Bugs Bunny. It is, as we can see, a basic script, very poorly written and poorly designed, which is not able to properly sustain the film.
I don't want to be mean to LeBron James. He's not an actor, he's not expected to do a great job as an actor. I think he did a lot with what he got, which was pretty bad, but I also think he's not famous enough to support the movie the way Air Jordan did before. Maybe he's famous in the USA! Outside the US, no one knows who he is. Don Cheadle, thus, ends up being the most prominent actor in the film, even if in a Machiavellian and tiresome character. Cedric Joe does what he can, but his character is terrible, and it was very poorly thought out. Self-centered, selfish, vain and resentful of his father, the kid is nasty almost until the end.
Technically, the film bets everything on the CGI of great visual effect and fails completely: if there's one thing that doesn't work well, it is the stylized and tiresome look of this film. I've acquired a special dislike for the computerized versions of Bugs and the rest of Looney Tunes. They are terrible and ugly. There are things that shouldn't be modernized, so they don't lose their essence! In addition, the film has tiresome cinematography and is excessively long, with no script or material to fully justify it. I liked, however, the many tributes that are made to the films of the past of the Warner studio: we have everything from “King Kong” to “Casablanca”, with the passage guaranteed by the “Harry Potter” franchise to “Matrix” and “Mad Max”. It was the part of the movie that I found most sympathetic and honorable, but I still don't recommend this movie.

This has to be in the running for turkey of the year. It's such a shameless example of bad storytelling, bad acting, and product placement that they might as well just have given you a goodie bag as you (prematurely) left the cinema replete with your Warner Brothers tattoo. It's centres around the son of LeBron James being kidnapped by an evil AI. The only way he can be rescued is by LBJ and his new bestie "Bugs Bunny" putting together a team that can win a basketball game against team selected by the AI. That's about the height of it - there are no characterisations worthy of note amongst the humans, and though it is quite nice to see some of Warner's cartoon characters on a big screen again, any nostalgia that evokes is soon washed away by the sheer naffness of this whole enterprise. Quite whom this is for is anyone's guess - but it sure wasn't for me...

Pros:
- Kong and the Iron Giant gave eachother a fist bump!
- It featured many characters from Warner Bros.
- Porky Pig roasting Al-G Rhythm in a rap battle
- Gabriel Iglesias and Zendaya provided the voices of Speedy Gonzales and Lola Bunny, respectively
- It was better than the first film
- LeBron James!
- There could a be a possible Space Jam spin off titled Wonder Bunny!
Cons:
- They never showed the Pepe Le Pew scene.
- I was hoping the Tune Squad would play against villains of Warner Bros.; Wicked Witch of the West, Sauron, Pennywise/It, Agent Smith...
- I was expecting a surprise twist, where Al-G Rhythm turns out not to be a bad guy but was actually helping LeBron understand his son more. The writers should've done more.
- Cringing moments

A very creative alternate to the original. The story line is all original and updated with current times. Lots of great puns and looney jokes. Better than what I expected. However nobody can be Michael Jordan

Very, very good movie!
'La Haine' is interesting slice of life viewing, I was intrigued across the whole 90 or so minutes as it tells its tale nicely. Some of the cinematography (b/w, smart choice) and editing is particularly impressive, while the ending is stark and unforgettable. The intentions of the film come across loud and clear.
I didn't overly connect with the main trio, aside from Hubert. I could also sense that something was on the horizon (didn't see it going exactly that way, mind) from early on, so you kinda are just sitting there waiting for the penny to drop - but there's no doubting the film successfully keeps you on tenterhooks.
The characters are a bit meh in terms of wanting to watch them, though the actors who play them are excellent - without question. Hubert Koundé is the one I'll likely remember most, even with still noteworthy performances from Vincent Cassel and Saïd Taghmaoui; two actors I have seen in a few English-language flicks down the years.

It's not so much the individual acting with this that stands out, it is the collective effort of all concerned to demonstrate to us just how perilous life can be on their Parisian suburban housing estate. Riots the evening before we arrive on the scene have left the area in a state of almost acute nervous exhaustion. The police are treading on egg shells and the community is a tinder box. To add to the volatility, a police officer lost his gun the night before and one of the locals "Vinz" (Vincent Cassel) has vowed to avenge himself on another officer should his currently hospitalised friend "Abdel" die. It transpires quite quickly that "Abdel" was severely injured as a result of an interrogation at a police station, and is now in a coma. You can just imagine the effect that has had on this otherwise mistrusting and suspicious community. Director Matthieu Kassovitz has created a monster here. It's poignant and angry, evocative and terrifying. As this fateful day turns to night and "Vinz" with his two friends "Said" (Saïd Taghmaoui) and aspiring boxer "Hubert" (Hubert Koundé) head downtown things take a turn for the worst with yet more tragic results. It is not an easy film to watch this, but it is compelling and as a sad indictment of urban living and (in)tolerance, it is very effective.

Matthieu Kassowitz's La Haine (Hate) is a portrait of youth disenfranchisement and the ensuing rage set in the public housing projects outside Paris. Before this film was released, many foreign viewers knew only the well-dressed, white, reserved and educated France depicted in e.g. films of the 1960s New Wave. Even many French people were unaware of the darker undercurrents of their own society, as no film had dared to handle this subject matter before. La Haine was a bombshell. While shot in 1995, it remains entirely topical today, as riots have continued to make the news in recent years.
La Haine follows one day in the lives of three young men of different ethnic backgrounds all born and raised in one particular housing project: the aggressive Jew Vinz (Vincent Cassell), the insecure, clownish Arab Saïd (Saïd Taghmaoui) and the more level-headed, pensive sub-Saharan African Hubert (Hubert Koundé). The film opens on a spring morning, in the aftermath of a riot which has rocked these youths' housing project. Some cars and buildings are destroyed, and the news reports that a police officer has lost his gun in the chaos of the night before. During the 24-hour period before the film's shocking ending, this trio tours the bittersweet environment of their housing project (violence and poverty on one hand, loving families on the other) and, in an effort to pick up money owed to them, they navigate the alien environment (rich, educated, white) of downtown Paris.
This is not only a revelatory film in showing viewers a side of France they had never seen before, but it is also extremely entertaining. The performances by these relatively unexperienced actors are totally convincing, Vincent Cassell in particular. Kassowitz shuns his country's own film tradition and instead sculpts the action under inspiration from the USA. However, the "urban", "hip-hop" aesthetic he employs does not lower the film to the more vacuous Hollywood productions but instead is at the level of Spike Lee and Scorsese. The director's decision to print the film in black and white has imbued it with a gravitas that makes it timeless. That said, in spite of the fine acting and ethnographic detail, the plot itself is rather mundane, which holds me back from giving this too high a rating.