There are certainly a few scenes at the start of this film (mostly those seen in the trailers) when there is a spark of chemistry between Julia Roberts ("Georgia") and George Clooney ("David"). Formerly married, this couple have to dash to Bali when their twenty-five year old daughter "Lily" (Kaitlyn Dever) announces her intention to marry her Indonesian boyfriend of ten minutes "Gede" (Maxime Bouttier). Even on the flight over, it's clear that they cannot stand one and other, but they must ally and work together if they are to stop their lass's moment of madness. What happens now reminded me a little of "Mamma Mia" (2008) only without the ABBA songs and instead of Greece, we are in more Oriental surroundings. The photography is beautiful and "Visit Bali" must be hoping that tourists will flock to the gorgeous sandy beaches where you can readily farm seaweed and swim with some pretty brutal dolphins! The storyline here, though, is as predictable as one of the many sunsets we see as this decently paced lightweight comedy steers inevitably towards a conclusion that is never in doubt. Sadly it is the bitchy humour between Clooney and Roberts that holds this otherwise unremarkable film together, and as the story develops that is soon on the wain and we are left with a good looking but rather insubstantial movie. This raises a smile rather than a laugh, and slots neatly into the romcom category. It's a nice film, you probably won't hate it - but you won't ever remember it either.

The downfall of a great conductor (conductress??) could have been an interesting topic. But ‘TÁR’ is 2h38mins of leaving out major plot points and instead showing details in dreadful scenes that often don’t lead anywhere. The viewer has to make all this up for themselves, such as whether Tár is victim or culprit. In a way, this is all quite well done. Unfortunately, the film is too boring and incomprehensible to care.
This being a film about conducting, I found Blanchett’s conducting style ridiculous, though she was good otherwise. At least the Mahler 5 excerpts sounded wonderful, and so let’s just conclude with that number as my rating.
5/10

I wanted to like TÁR, but I just found it boring. Way too long and drawn out. I thought the story was decent with fantastic performances but it just did not work for me. I can appreciate it as a masterpiece in film making, even though I considered it a pretty poor watch.
Score: 60% |
Verdict: Decent

Cate Blanchett is superb as the eponymous, ruthlessly focussed and highly accomplished, maestra who lives with her violinist wife "Sharon" (Nina Hoss) and young daughter "Petra" (Mila Bogojivic). Acclaimed by her peers, she is now the principal conductor of the Berlin Philharmonic. A job not without it's complications - she must select music, inspire musicians, and deal with her less then competent assistant "Sebastian" (Allan Corduner) who was a favourite of the previous occupant of her job "Davis" (Julian Glover) whilst juggling the ambitions of her funding partner "Kaplan" (Mark Strong). This spinning plates operation means she is constantly making compromises and that impacts on all of those around her. Frequently, she must rely on her assistant "Francesca" (Noémie Merlant) and it's around this relationship that we see some cracks start to appear in the otherwise formidable armour of "Tár". One of her erstwhile musicians has taken her own life - and subsequently the rumour mill starts to suggest that maybe, just maybe, there could have been an element of the good old casting couch mentality going on. No smoke without fire or totally made up? Well the last half of the film unfolds as the allegations gather pace and, well... I wasn't exactly enamoured of development of the story. It reminded me a little of that surrounding acclaimed British choreographer Liam Scarlett - and with that in mind I found the theme a little undercooked. It does illustrate well the Humty Dumpty effect of gossip, though. Do we believe she is guilty of abusing her position and of manipulation? Or is she a powerless victim of someone else's failure? I had nowhere near enough evidence to draw any meaningful conclusion - and I didn't like that. The ending is rather powerful, though - a vindication or a terrible wronging? You must decide... Blanchett is, regardless of that, at the top of her game and there is some spectacular orchestral music to enjoy here, too.

**Unexpected but also unnecessary.**
A lot is going on with this movie! It's crazy, fast-paced, and just weird. As a movie for kids, it missed the target. As a movie for adults, some parts made me laugh. I definitely can't say it was terrible, but… it was just strange. Felt like a cartoon L.A. Confidential a little bit, and I'm not sure that's a good thing. I did appreciate how unique and unexpected everything was in this movie, but ultimately it lost me with its subject matter and jokes being way too bizarre for a kids' movie.

The script feels like it needed a bit longer in the oven, riddled with half-developed ideas. Neat premises, sloppy execution. Never quite nails down its dramatic tension as well as I wished. Nevertheless, very ambitious with its scale in variation in animation, and most of it works well! J.K. Simmons Gumby alone made this worth watching for me.

When Chip 'N Dale was first conceptualized, the writers needed to make a decision: would this movie be primarily made for those who had watched Rescue Rangers as children, or would it attempt to reboot the duo for a new generation? Sadly, it would seem the writers chose to do both. Chip 'N Dale is a movie packed to the gills with decades of animation jokes and easter eggs, yet ultimately it cements itself as a children's movies, utilizing the same cringeworthy cliches that every other children's movie utilizes. This is only further exasperated by KiKi Layne's terrible performance as Ellie, so much so that I believe the total removal of her character would vastly improve the film. Going into this movie I thought it had the makings of this generation's _Who Framed Roger Rabbit_. After seeing it, I now know that this movie will be relegated to the children's section and quickly forgotten.

A rare squalor turned out, of course. The characters are like pictures of a bad artist, flat and empty. Facial expressions and forms are alien. There is no aesthetic admiration for this attempt at expression in 3d. No grace and beauty. There is no depth and love, an adequate plot. Inappropriate flat humor. A fierce mockery of the innermost. A ridiculous untalented division without a sense of beauty, reminiscent of the very pirated products from the movie. They piled everything up and made an unintelligible dump. A bunch of some defective characters, like that Sonic who talks about the existence of the original Sonic, by the way... They ridiculed the key points, just for fun, quite unreasonably, only comedy is completely out of place here, as are the creators-comedians. And all this, of course, under the sauce "We love Rescuers". Well, well... We couldn't do it, in general, for real. In a Disney way. Only that picture was remembered, which hung on the wall of the actor Roquefort. And how wonderful it would be if the whole movie was of this style and with an adequate plot.
Fortunately, this is not an original reality that could continue the canon. To understand this substitution, which tried to continue the series, it is enough to see in the film an episode with the participation of Akiva Shaffer, who allegedly filmed the original series in 1990, damn it. That's the only thing I thank him for.

_Rescue Rangers_ throws all of these ideas and characters at a wall to see what sticks and before they can process what works and what doesn’t they’re already throwing another pile at the wall; it’s too much to digest and too much of a good thing all at once. _Chip ‘n Dale: Rescue Rangers_ is a film that distracts itself from telling its own story. It has some fun moments, but its absent-minded storytelling is too overwhelming to ignore or fully enjoy.
**Full review:** hubpages.com/entertainment/Chip-n-Dale-Rescue-Rangers-2022-Review-A-Badly-Drawn-Poorly-Written-Mostly-Animated-Reboot

This is just the gift that keeps on giving... Only thing is, once you take the admittedly attractive wrapping from the box, the present is empty! This continues the on/off, love/hate, familial discord of "Tessa" (Josephine Langford) and her beau "Hardin" (Hero Fiennes Tiffin). The thrust here (and there is far less actual thrusting in this film than in the others) seems to be to prove that the young lovers are maturing; they are beginning to realise that they are more two peas in a pod than we might have originally considered. This also develops the roles of the parents - especially "Trish" (Louise Lombard) and "Ken" (Rob Estes) as we discover they have plenty of demons of their own, and so frankly it is no real wonder that the weans have grown up quite so dysfunctional. It is hard to know just quite who this film is for. The story is all over the place, the melodrama weak and implausible and the characterisations become less and less engaging as this tiresome and frankly rather boring franchise drags all of their unwanted dirty washing onto the screen. It is also quite difficult to know whom this is relevant too or for, and HFT is as wooden as a board throughout. The production is adequate, clearly these have been made on a modest budget, but the writing is as infantile as the performances. I gather there are more to come - can't wait!

Jessica Chastain is Amy, a nurse working the hectic nightshifts at her local hospital whilst trying to bring up her two children and combat a pernicious heart defect that requires surgery - a surgery she can ill afford. The pressure looks set ease a little when she is introduced to a new arrival. He, Charlie, (Eddie Redmayne) is a sympathetic and engaging man with whom she gradually begins to build a (platonic) friendship. Suddenly, a patient at their hospital dies and after some feet-dragging, the police become involved in an investigation that rings loads of alarm bells. It soon becomes clear that this death is but the latest in a series of mysteriously unexplained incidents and that, perhaps, Charlie might be more involved that his friendly demeanour might suggest. It's based on a true story, so there's no jeopardy as to who did what, when and where. The film is basically a two-hander with the pair delivering competent characterisations of the two nurses. Redmayne has less to do until the ending, and there he rather hams it up a bit. Chastain has more of the game and plays her role a little more characterfully but again, the writing isn't really very good and the pace of thing is all but glacial. It has a documentary feel to it at times with a score that does little to enhance the overall lacklustre production. Interesting story, but the film is nothing at all to write home about.

I think there are actors in this.
I mean, I heard voices. Unfortunately, before filming, someone turned off all the lights and said, "ACTION." Can't see a thing.
Left after five minutes and got a refund. Was almost blinded by the real world. If you're courageous, bring sunglasses for after so you don't burn out your retinas after trying to see what's going on throughout this movie or whatever it is.

MORE SPOILER-FREE MINI-REVIEWS @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/mini-reviews-2022-edition/
"The Good Nurse uses the phenomenal cast at its disposal to elevate a shocking true story that will remain in my memory for a while.
Jessica Chastain and Eddie Redmayne shine through a screenplay that follows a mentally unstable serial killer who demonstrated the glaring lack of morals and institutional inhumanity of hospitals and administrators more concerned with protecting themselves than saving the lives of hundreds of patients.
The pinnacle of human incompetence and ignorance with a light of genuine kindness at the end of the tunnel."
Rating: B

Thirteen Lives is a deeply moving film that highlights the incredible true story of the 2018 Tham Luang cave rescue in Thailand. Directed by Ron Howard, the movie focuses on the global effort and teamwork that led to the miraculous rescue of a young soccer team and their coach. The performances by Viggo Mortensen, Colin Farrell, and Joel Edgerton are excellent, portraying the bravery and skill of the divers who risked everything to save the boys.
The film is technically outstanding, with gripping underwater scenes and a realistic portrayal of the challenging conditions faced by the rescuers. Howard’s direction keeps the focus on the human element, showing the immense sacrifices and collaboration that made the rescue possible. However, I couldn’t help but feel like something was missing. The movie spends so much time on the rescuers’ perspective that it doesn’t dive deeply into the emotional experiences of the boys and their coach. This lack of focus on their side of the story left me feeling that a key part of the event’s impact was underexplored.
Despite this, Thirteen Lives is still a powerful film that captures the resilience and determination of everyone involved in the rescue. It’s a testament to what humanity can achieve when people come together in the face of impossible odds. While it might not fully explore every emotional angle, it’s a well-made and inspiring story that’s worth watching.

What's possibly most remarkable about this real life tale of courage and ingenuity is that a pretty A-list cast don't really overwhelm the story. Their contributions are solid and fairly undramatic as they allow the chronology to develop and the suspense and pressure to accumulate. It's history - so we know what happens, but somehow that lack of jeopardy doesn't really matter as we follow the efforts of an international team trying to rescue the twelve boys and their coach who have found themselves stuck underground, a few kilometres from the entrance, after heavy monsoon rains struck and flooded the tunnels. Now, of course, the first question might have been for the coach - didn't he look at the weather forecast first? However, now marooned quickly in their dark and claustrophobic environment, Ron Howard takes his time to demonstrate to us all just how this most innovative and challenging of evacuations was planned and executed - none of it without considerable risk to everyone involved. We are drawn into the scenarios, and I felt that I had skin in this game - the story has a palpable immersion (no pun intended) for the viewer. The cast gel well without any stand-out contributions or wordy dialogue, which I think well illustrates the strenuous pressures put on these men, essentially volunteers, by themselves, the families, the authorities and the relentless rain. The subterranean photography works really well in generating a feeling of peril and I certainly shared in that sense of relief at the end... A cinema watch is better, if you can - somehow the big screen demonstrates the small, tight spaces, better!

MORE SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/
"Thirteen Lives follows the usual formulas of works based on true events, but Ron Howard's honest, non-Hollywoodized direction allows him to efficiently tell one of the most remarkable survival stories of the last decade.
The entire cast is extraordinary, but it's Viggo Mortensen and Colin Farrell who mainly guide the film through all the relevant, claustrophobic plot points in a somewhat heavy viewing runtime-wise. Interesting for viewers with little to no knowledge of what happened, but the question remains as to whether it adds anything truly significant to the documentary The Rescue about the same 18 days of suffering, anxiety, and uncertainty.
Massive praise for the worthy amount of screentime of the Thai language."
Rating: B-

The film "Werewolf by Night" pleasantly surprised me with its creative twist. Initially a black-and-white production, it captured my attention in a way I hadn't anticipated. The unique presentation in monochrome added to the film's appeal, and I particularly enjoyed the nod to "The Wizard of Oz" where the transition to color was a memorable touch.
This movie is definitely worth a watch - it may not be lengthy, but it offers an intriguing experience worth delving into. I've personally watched it three times and found enjoyment in each viewing.
What sets this film apart is that it doesn't detract from the thrilling excitement of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU); rather, it prompts contemplation on how it will fit into the larger narrative. This leaves me with the biggest question: how will it intertwine with the MCU, considering its unique approach that hasn't been explored in other ways before? I thoroughly relished this film and eagerly anticipate its connection to the broader MCU universe.

MORE SPOILER-FREE MINI-REVIEWS @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/mini-reviews-2022-edition/
"Werewolf by Night exhibits once again the immense talent of Michael Giacchino, but this time, in addition to delivering an excellent score, he also shines as a director.
From the stunning black-and-white cinematography to the instantly entertaining premise, the filmmaker creates such a distinctive style that no one would guess this special belongs to the MCU. A dive into the horror genre that pays homage to past decades and surprises with the level of depth given to the characters in such a short runtime.
Final praise for the superb performances."
Rating: B+

**Werewolf by Night makes bold creative decisions to embrace the monster movies vibe, and it pays off BIG TIME!**
Werewolf by Night is my favorite Marvel film so far this year. The stylized approach with the black and white filter and film grain was a bold choice that gave the movie great atmosphere and nostalgia. Werewolf by Night embraced the horror genre and violence slightly more than other Marvel movies, with villains losing limbs and being eaten. However, it’s still a Disney+ special at the end of the day, so I wouldn’t call it particularly scary or violent. As a fan of Elsa Bloodstone in the comics, I enjoyed her character’s role and backstory in the movie, which connected this isolated creature feature to a greater universe. The creative choices, great but not overdone effects, the introduction of new heroes, and the horror approach make Werewolf by Night one of the best recent entries in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Toxic Town is all about how these women get involved in a David and Goliath battle for justice. It highlights the lengths they will go to ensure those at fault are held accountable. It’s a fight that takes over a decade to be resolved. It goes to show how even the voices of normal residents can make an enormous impact on industry and, consequently, how ignorance from those in power can have such harrowing consequences. As I mentioned at the start of this review, I was mostly unaware of the scandal before watching the show. Now, I think it’s a real eye-opening watch.
This story will break your heart, but it’ll also inspire you. When I think of real-world dramas that have elicited such a profound emotional response, the only other that comes close is HBO’s Chernobyl.
Full review: https://www.whats-on-netflix.com/what-to-watch/netflixs-toxic-town-is-a-heartbreaking-unsettling-yet-inspiring-drama/

"Daredevil Reborn" is what you might expect, plus a little that isn't.
Yes, this series is better written than your usual tacky, superhero fare. There's a sense, in spite of the silly costumes, that the characters are real people, with all the complication, contradiction and baggage, that comes along for the ride. This extends beyond the protagonists to the antagonists, as well.
So, thus this series is off to a decent start. What's not so good is the slow creep thread of woke-ism. I would have though by now the US entertainment industry had inflicted enough pain upon itself and its viewers, to know better. Its not overdone but it becomes evident pretty quickly and its predictably, a little tiresome.
I'm into the second episode so I'm going to give this series the benefit of the doubt and hope it dies down. If not revise this review, accordingly.
Other more positive aspects include acting that's above average and overstated but still exciting, fight scenes.
In summary, a series that a little better than your usual superhero fare. Story line, characterisations and acting, are above average. That said, its still quietly beating the drum of work-ism and that's something, I personally, could do without. A mixed watch.

Season 1 of Reacher blew me away! Pure Jack Reacher - a one-man wrecking crew taking down bad guys. But season 2? Yikes. It felt like a cheap action movie showcasing a bunch of ex-military buddies instead. Lost the whole "lone wolf" vibe that made Reacher so cool. Should've called it "Reacher and the Misfit Battalion."

## A tale of two Reachers
### a matter of taste.
_Disclaimer: I haven't read the books._
You can re-cast characters, and play the same thing differently. That's OK.
The Reacher we get in the Tom Cruise variant is perceptive, clever, cautious; he relies on his wits and knowledge of human nature. He does what he thinks necessary and right, tends to avoid collateral damage. He's a loner, and perfectly fine with it.
The Reacher we get in the Alan Ritchson variant is a Hulk with penchant for killing; he leaves behind a trail of destruction and corpses. He pretends to be a loner, but is a lost team player in the end.
It's like James Bond versus the A-Team. Both enjoyable, similar topics, but very different in tonality and production.
One more aspect: the Cruise-Reacher is like a modern Yojimbo.
The Ritchson one is written like a power fantasy: invincible avenger walks through walls to right the wrongs.
A matter of taste, really. I lost my appetite for this series in the second season.
PS: Season 1 is pretty much "Red Harvest" with a modern plot goal.

Season one was a 10/10 show. I LOVED it.
I waited with eager anticipation for season two... and when I finally got to watch it, I was so disappointed.
In season one, Reacher was larger than life. In season two he just seemed les significant. Season two is 7/10. Still worth the watch, but just don't expect the same va-va-voom that season one had.

Bought Reacher: Season 1 on Blu-Ray. I absolutely Loved the series and I hope Amazon will continue filming it. The actor that plays Reacher in the series "to me any way," fits closer to the description that Lee Child has in his books. Not to take anything away from Tom Cruise and the movies that he played Jack Reacher in, because he had a smaller frame. Both actors did a fantastic acting job in their films which I also have. Top class acting from both Alan Ritchson and Tom Cruise. I also have Lee Child's books and if it wasn't for him writing such fantastic novels we would not have these great films.

A good advertisement for a holiday cruise this definitely isn't: a combination of sea-sickness; decks packed to the gunwales and some overtly snobbish fellow passengers make me realise why I quite like planes! Henry Kendall and Joan Barry come into a windfall inheritance and decide to celebrate by going on such an holiday - and soon discover that it isn't all it is cracked up to be. Using some of Hitchcock's expertly hones silent film skills, we tell the story as our nouveau-riche couple slowly realise that wealth isn't everything as their behaviour and attitudes start to adapt to their new surroundings. Don't look for any traditional suspense or thrills in this; it is a much more pedestrian assessment of shallowness and flummery with some quite poignant observations of a rather pointless existence.

I saw the silent version recently with an expertly played piano accompaniment that added loads to an, admittedly rather too long, drama. "Alice" (Anny Ondra) has a silly spat with policeman boyfriend "Frank" (John Longden) and then rather foolishly hooks up with an odious artist (Cyril Ritchard) who attempts to push his luck too far and whom she accidentally, rather brutally, despatches. Terrified that nobody would believe her, and rather than call the authorities, she flees the scene - but not before she is spotted and subsequently has to deal with the venal aspirations of her blackmailer (a perfectly cast Donald Calthrop). Meantime, the police get the wrong end of the stick during their investigation and another tragedy ensues - leaving poor old "Alice" riddled with even more guilt! The one thing that takes a bit of getting used to is the really rather static nature of the photography, but once you adopt a perspective that you are in the same seat (in the cinema) as the cameraman then that actually starts to work quite well as we become more immersed in a solid story of fickleness and deceit. The inter-titles are sparing but do all that is necessary to augment Hitchcock's innate ability to tell us a story using the limited technology available in 1929, that capitalises on light, shade, and the environment around the characters. Somehow, I reckon that the talkie version that followed almost immediately would be anywhere near as effective.

_**Robin Williams as a 10 year-old; great cast, but needed a rewrite**_
The Powells in Oakland have a premature baby, whom they name Jack (Robin Williams). The problem is that Jack grows at four times the normal rate and so when he finally is allowed to enter 5th grade at the age of 10 he looks like a 40 year-old man. Diane Lane plays his mother, Bill Cosby his tutor, Jennifer Lopez his teacher and Fran Drescher a single mother who’s attracted to him.
“Jack” (1996) takes the basic topic of “Big” (1988) and mixes it with the awkwardness of “Milk Money” (1994). It tries to be a serious drama, a slapstick comedy and a profound tragedy, which is tonally bewildering. Nevertheless, it would’ve been more successful if they worked out the kinks in the slapstick scenes, especially the ones with the kids, like the treehouse sequences. There’s nothing wrong with the cast or the filmmaking except that the script needed improved to flesh out the potential. As it is, I had a hard time buying that Robin Williams was a 10 year-old boy and the comedic scenes with the kids didn’t work for me, although they’re passably amusing.
Thankfully, there are several things that make the movie worthwhile: Lopez, Drescher and Lane are thoroughly attractive and I especially enjoyed the scenes with Lopez and Drescher, like the bar sequence; Cosby is his likable self (before his fall from grace); and the second half is better than the unsure first half.
Director Francis Ford Coppola proved that he could effectively do this kind of whimsical fare with “Peggy Sue Got Married” (1986), but here he needed a better script. Still, some people love this movie (while critics like Siskel & Ebert tore it to pieces), so I suppose it’s a matter of taste.
The movie runs 1 hour, 53 minutes, and was shot in areas just north of Oakland/San Francisco (Vallejo, Mill Valley & Ross).
GRADE: C+

Really, really good!
I knew nothing about 'Strange World' pre-watch, having only very briefly seen the poster(s) a few times online. The quick look I had at the character design from said poster(s) and the fact that I hadn't heard this talked about anywhere meant my expectactions were quite low.
Happily, however, what I saw across the 102 minute run time pleased me. I do think the characters and voice cast could've been improved, but both of those departments are still good. I wasn't immediately keen on the animation style, though honestly I very quickly warmed to it; the world comes alive nicely. The story kept me interested from beginning to end, all that is portrayed is enjoyable.
It obviously could've been greater, yet I still had fun with this. I felt way too much sorrow for Splat in that burn scene btw, it's always impressive how they can make you care for such side characters. Sorry to the little blue fella, Morph is still my guy though.

For being a Disney movie made today (2022) this is a fairly decent one. Sure, they have crammed in some of the usual woke nonsense but at least there is not really any of the blatant preaching the more extreme of Disney’s woke mob have managed to cram into things the last couple of years.
It of course helps that it is a all new story and new characters so they didn’t wokeify and ruin some of the old classics.
If one ignores the nonsense the story is pretty decent and so are the characters. Nothing to write home about but adequate. The coolest character is of course Jaeger. I quite liked him even though he sometimes was a bit dimwitted in his single mindedness. Searcher and his son Ethan are more bland and boring with one just wanting to be a farmer and the other one being the obligatory woke element in this movie.
What really makes the movie rise slightly above being bland is the absolutely magnificent scenery. It is a strange world indeed. It is strange, weird, scary and beautiful all at the same time. This creature, Splat, that Ethan eventually befriends was a nice comical element.
It is a shame though that they couldn’t create a better ending. I mean given what this strange world actually is surely there would be plenty of other options for harvesting energy instead of just more or less giving up. If the writers wanted to deliver some rubbish green message they failed miserably.
Anyway, a decent enough movie. I did enjoy watching it.