I know cats who'd take out whole zipcodes for that kind of cheese.
Remakes do work occasionally, case in point Shaft, John Singleton's update of the 1971 Blacksploitation movie that starred Richard Roundtree as the title character. Roundtree gets a part in this one as well, playing the uncle of Samuel L. Jackson's title character, John Shaft.
It's the perfect role for Jackson, lashings of cool and menace, on his bulky shoulders dose the film easily rest. Plot finds Shaft turning in his badge after the law proves useless to let racist murderer Walter Wade Junior (Christian Bale a sneering villain but awesome looking in a tux) out on the streets. Shaft vows to bring Wade to justice, by any means necessary. Though he also has other things on his plate, namely Latino drug lord Peoples Hernandez (Jeffrey Wright a riot) and some less than honourable police officers.
The screenplay is a little trite, but as an action movie, one with the coolness and sparky humour, it really hits the required spots of those just after such easy minded fare. The support cast is a roll call of sound performers with the likes of Vanessa Williams, Dan Hedaya and Toni Collette fronting up, while the awesome ebullience of Busta Rhymes is very infectious.
Isaac Hayes gloriously famous theme tune is still in place, pumped up by composer David Arnold, which ensures the feel of the original isn't lost, and Donald E. Thorin's photography is pin sharp and in turns gorgeous (night shots) and streetwise gritty. Shaft, the 2000 version, still bad-ass and sadly under appreciated. 7/10

I mean, there are better Star Trek movies, but this was 1991 and the Berlin Wall fell and the Klingons were the metaphor for the USSR (despite what the current everything is political writers of Picard say, despite their attempts to invert it) and spray cans destroyed to O-Zone layer...
... and so do moons.
So.... this fit PERFECTLY into 1991. PERFECTLY, and good science fiction is always a commentary on politics, culture, religion, something contemporary that needs to be poked at and examined.
And that is EXACTLY what VI does, and it does it to the letter. It examines the old cold warriors in a new time of peace.

Fresh from their flirtation with the Almighty, our crew of intrepid explorers are on the eve of hanging up their phasers when they are summoned to carry out one last mission. This time, it's just a courtesy job to escort the Klingon High Chancellor to a conference on Earth. They meet, have a nice state dinner and exchange some Shakespeare; next thing the Klingon has been assassinated and "Kirk" and "McCoy" have been fitted up for the crime and imprisoned on a cold penal colony that makes "Hoth" look like Barbados. Now we have a race to free them and get to the new venue of the peace meeting before the warmongering "General Chang" (Christopher Plummer, complete with a bolt-on eyepatch) and his Federation co-conspirators put the kibosh on the proceedings and they all die fighting. This is the last ensemble outing for the whole crew and it's a great bit of action adventure in the spirit of "Wrath of Khan" (1982). A fitting finale for their last voyage together.

Not bad, though I was expecting more from this acting duo.

This has been on my watchlist for far too long, and I only wish I had watched it sooner.
The film is a visual masterpiece, its beauty serving as a captivating contrast to the intense and brutal violence it depicts.
For a fictionalised history, the story is remarkably deep, with characters that are not just well-developed, but also deeply engaging, with clear and believable motivations that draw you into their world.
The only downside? The British actors. They're as stiff as cardboard, and not one fiddles with their moustache like a proper Edwardian villain. What's the point of being dastardly if you're not moustache-twirling?

This movie is one, really fun, action-packed, superhero watch. The CGI, of course, is fantastic. What I love about this movie, though, is that it's not just an empty, trivial story as an excuse for CGI. Quite the contrary. The story itself is a fictionalized version of a very real, revolutionary period just before Gandhi's non-violence movement took the lead.
If anyone could make any complaint at all, it would be that the British roles are caricatures. Honestly though, what do we white Americans know of how Imperial Britain treated its "non-white subjects"? We DO know that, in 1919, British troops fired on a crowd of unarmed protesters killing hundreds of men, women and children. So the film is steeped in real history. Perhaps, the caricatures were Rajamouli's way of side-stepping the issue by allowing the viewer to accept them at the same level of unreality as the two super heroes of the film.
The film itself is over the top, fun and action-packed. It even has the requisite Bollywood dance scenes! I loved the way Ram became Rama, the mythological Hindu archer, an avatar of Vishnu. I probably missed other cultural references, but I suspect that when the two superheroes cooperate, they have 4 arms - that is Shiva, the destroyer with a bow and arrow in two of the arms. The story and production design are gripping. S.S. Rajamouli does such an amazing job with the pacing that three hours seems to fly by before you can even say popcorn.

**By: Louisa Moore / www.ScreenZealots.com**
“RRR” is one of those movies where just about everyone who watches it, loves it. It’s an over-the-top historical spectacle about a violent uprising in 1920s India, offering a fictitious retelling of real events. This international blockbuster has everything: thrilling action sequences, adrenaline-charged stunts, a rousing story, and euphoric Bollywood dance scenes that are nothing short of show-stopping.
The plot centers around two real-life India revolutionaries, Alluri Sitarama Raju (Ram Charan Teja) and Komaram Bheem (N.T. Rama Rao Jr.), and imagines what would have happened had the two met and become friends. In “RRR,” the men join together to fight against the British Raj and brutal colonialism in order to save the people. The trail of vengeance begins after a young girl is abducted and Bheem takes action to free her from the tyrannical regime. Raju is working for the enemy and becomes a strong adversary to Bheem’s rescue mission. Clashes and chaos ensue when the two start working together.
This movie is crazy, ridiculous, silly, excessive, and absolutely amazing. Director S.S. Rajamouli has an enviable skill and master of the craft, as he puts together some truly inventive and unforgettable sequences. Everything is executed with precision and it all works, no matter how outrageous the ideas sound (like unleashing an army of CGI animals into an unsuspecting crowd). This is a strong achievement in directing, and it’s one of the most entertaining movies I have ever seen.
Part of the reason the film works so well is due to the two charismatic leads who can act, dance, sing, and do their own stunts. They’re bonafide action stars with old Hollywood charisma and charm, and their screen presence is unmatched. I could happily watch these two in anything. They’re so good together that audiences should be begging for a sequel.
It’s not all lighthearted fun, and Rajamouli takes his historical setting seriously. The film doesn’t gloss over brutality and violence, and there are upsetting scenes of abuse and death. Men, women, and children are put in great peril. The heroes in the movie are mostly men, and women are the ones who need to be rescued. This is a macho story and not a feminist one, but that doesn’t make much of a difference to the classic action movie vibe.
Everything is dialed up to the maximum level, and every second of the movie’s 3-hour-plus run time is packed. “RRR” is a crowd-pleasing cinematic experience that’s intoxicating, exhilarating, and delivers a ton of fun. It may also inspire viewers to research India’s history and learn more about the country’s revolutionaries, which is an interesting undertaking in its own right.

My first exposure to Telugu Cinema, is when I saw my wife watching a near naked guy running in the forest, chased by a Tiger, looking so shredded that I thought my wife was appreciating the sweaty, bulbous body of a forest guy. I dismissed it immediately as another macho movie after-all, which is not my wife's favorite (its Korean movies). Until I saw a raving review of the Netflix viewer in Youtube who aren't Indians but Americans and Europeans. Now that caused me curiosity. So I decided to watch it, and then watched it again. First I can't believe the quality of CGI in most cases and the great acting of the very charismatic actors NTR and Ram Charan. With Ajay Degn and Alia Bhatt making the movie an experience of a lifetime. The movie is brimming with action, drama and great fun that I wished I watched it in bigscreen. I even eatched its Telugu version. Although the Brit-actors aren't too convincing, the entire movie is bursting with energy and drama and with it a series of suspending your belief that a movie this good can feel so short even if its 3 hours. The movie led me on a journey of watching old Rajamouli, NTR and Ram Charan movies. I have been familiar with Devgn's Drishyam (also good). I just had ti watch this several times due to so many things one can find and the beauty of friendship and relationships in the world of freedom fighters. This is 11 but I can only give it 10/10 for sanity reason.

The Cinemark near me has started to show Indian movies. Not feeling like sitting home tonight, I decided to catch this one, and luck was with me.
My image of Indian movies, I confess, was that they were mostly musicals centering around a love story involving a very beautiful young woman and a very handsome young man, with lots of elaborate, high-energy dance numbers to keep things going.
There is a love story here, but it's not the focus of the film. There are also a few large and very impressive dance numbers, but only a few. (The men's dancing, extremely athletic, astounded me.)
Rather, this movie focuses on the story of two young men in 1920s India who, each in his own way, are fighting against the English occupiers.
The English are portrayed as inhuman monsters. Very often, they made me think of the worst atrocities committed by the Germans in France during World War II, or the most rabid racists in the American South. The first time we see the two male leads dancing, a link is indeed made between the Indians and what appear to be Black American musicians.
Every time the Indians manage to take revenge on the English for their inhuman abuse of the Indians, you cheer - but at times I wondered if I would have cheered watching a parallel movie about Blacks taking revenge on white racists who had mistreated them in the American South, especially if I had been in a movie theater where, like tonight, I was the only audience member who did not belong to the oppressed population. Imagine Spike Lee, for example, able to make a movie in which he did not have to worry about selling tickets to whites as well as Blacks, and you have some idea of how anti-British colonials this movie is. It is the difference between a society in which the oppressor was a small minority of the population vs. Here, where Blacks are a minority of the American population. I don't want to push this comparison too far. The movie only makes the connection in one scene. But this is very definitely a movie that focuses on the story of a brutally oppressed people seeking freedom from an inhuman oppressor, rather than just a series of dance numbers.
I don't speak any of the Indian languages used in the movie, but I had no problem following what was going on with the subtitles, which were almost always easy to read. I'm sure there were cultural references I didn't catch, however, especially at the end in the final big dance number, which seemed to be presenting India as a nation of different regions and cultures all united in one.
The director and cinematographer definitely deserve praise. There was one very striking visual image after the next, especially during the battle scenes. Ram Charan, dressed as a "native warrior"-if that term means anything anymore-flying through flames was breathtaking.
So, if you've even been curious about Indian movies, give this one a try. Yes, it's three hours long, but trust me, the time goes flying by. This is truly an action movie, a mixture of visual fantasy and often very graphic realism that held my interest to the end.

Taught me that Indian movies apparently should just be ignored, as ratings apparently tell you absolutely nothing about the quality of a film.
This is perhaps the worst acting I've ever seen - Plan 9 from Outer Space included - with post-production dubbed voices to boot! Add to that the most cringey, cartoonish pathetic storyline, and you're seriously wondering if this is all a joke. No, SERIOUSLY wondering.
I considered I might keep watching for the laughs (I was laughing from the very first scene with the lip surgery receiving evil white woman sitting in the jungle in the 1920s surrounded by kneeling indigenous worshippers and a terribly-dubbed studio recording of a little girl singing, with the girl not even remote knowing the lyrics and making all the wrong mouth movements to pretend it's actually her doing the singing). But then I realized at 3h5m, the cringey OMG-it's-so-bad-it's-funny laughs definitely wouldn't last that long.
Holy graboid on a blind horse, Batman, this is so bad!
No more Indian movies for me. Lesson learned.

Obviously not as good as its predecessor, but I had a fun time with 'Kronk’s New Groove'.
Like with 'The Emperor’s New Groove', all the goodness comes with the humour which is again amusing. David Spade (Kuzco), who only appears for short cameos here, is definitely missed but Patrick Warburton (Kronk) does a respectable job at leading this sequel.
The premise isn't as memorable as the 2000 production's, with them deciding to split a few flashback stories across the relatively short run time. I'm not usually a fan of doing that (see: 'Tarzan & Jane'), but Elliot M. Bour, Saul Andrew Blinkoff & co. do well to keep things interesting. The format probably works better for these films due to them not taking themselves too seriously; which is a positive.
It's nice to hear the return of Warburton, Spade, John Goodman (Pacha) and others - I'm likely to enjoy a follow-up film more if the same cast remain, changes almost always end up in failure. Tracey Ullman is one of a couple newcomers to this, she's alright as Miss Birdwell.
Sure, this isn't something that needed to be made. However, it is a sequel that is actually fairly entertaining - which isn't always the case, especially with Disney's animated films. Worth a watch.

Why did they turn April into an obese black girl?
Oh, right right right... Woke brain cancer.

MORE SPOILER-FREE MINI-REVIEWS @ www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/mini-reviews-2023-edition
"Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem is a whole lot of fun! It delivers everything TMNT fans wished for: entertaining turtle banter, badass ninja action - best sequence belongs to Jackie Chan's Splinter - and an awesome score.
The animation style inspired by purposely exaggerated sketches from director Jeff Rowe's teenage years - much like The Mitchells vs. the Machines and Into the Spider-Verse - perfectly fits the lighthearted atmosphere of the source material, and brings the famous turtles to the big screen in what is arguably the best film adaptation of the franchise.
Bring me the sequel!"
Rating: B

Helpfully, for those us who are not turtle-heads, we are provided with a little potted history of just how the four shelled super-heroes were discovered in a sewer by 'Splinter" having had a drink of some secret formula that had accidentally dropped down a sluice. Spin forwards a few years and the four are living a clandestine life, discouraged by their father with having anything to do with human beings. On one evening though, whilst out "shopping", they encounter "April" who gets her scooter pinched. They quickly try to get it back for her, she follows them and a series of adventures follow as we are quickly immersed in a city-wide battle against other, less convivial, mutants bent on destruction and mayhem. I was expecting little from this but it is actually quite an enjoyable action-packed animation. Some effort has been put into the script to enable some fun in the dialogue and for the characterisations to not just be sword-swinging would-be painters, but to have just the tiniest element of depth to them as the story develops. I didn't love the slightly bloated-head style of the animation, the proportion to the rest of their bodies was all a bit "Scooby Do" and I found there to be way too much soundtrack that drowned out the speech a lot of the time, but it was better than I was anticipating...

One of the greatest surprises of the year has to be “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles,” a film that I never would’ve expected to be as terrific as it is. Co-directed by Jeff Rowe and Kyler Spears and co-written by Rowe, Seth Rogen, and Evan Goldberg, this animated feature is confident, action packed, funny, and is a visual delight. It’s a crowning achievement in animation, and the perfect summer movie to boot.
The film tells the origin story of four turtle brothers, Raphael (Brady Noon), Leonardo (Nicolas Cantu), Donatello (Micah Abbey), and Michelangelo (Shamon Brown Jr.), who were mutated after a dangerous laboratory explosion left them covered in radioactive ooze. Their adopted father Splinter (Jackie Chan), a kind and elderly New York City sewer rat, has sheltered his teenage sons from the harsh, dangerous, and judgmental human world for over a decade. Deciding that they want to be accepted as normal teenagers, the brothers head out into the city on their own, crossing paths with young reporter April O’Neil (Ayo Edebiri). A fast friendship develops, and the turtles find themselves taking on a mysterious crime syndicate that’s run by fellow mutants.
It’s a good story that’s elevated by across-the-board talent. Spears and Rowe’s crackerjack direction is on point, especially when it comes to orchestrating thrilling action scenes. This is easily one of the most well-directed animated features I’ve ever seen. Energetic and bursting with enthusiasm, it’s nearly impossible not to have a blast watching this movie.
The characters are great, too. The turtles may be mutants, but they still act like regular, dumb teenage boys, finding humor in the silliness of everyday experiences. The voice performances are outstanding too, with a talented cast and a diversity that feels natural and appropriate. Everyone (including Paul Rudd, Ice Cube, John Cena, Rose Byrne, and Giancarlo Esposito) gives top-tier turns, and it makes the movie even better.
It’s worth noting that this animated film isn’t made for little kids, and youngsters will likely be very bored and fidgety. This is more of a movie that’s geared towards ‘tweens, teens, and their parents (especially dads over 35 who grew up with the Ninja Turtles in various iterations). I would think longtime fans would be enamored with what the film does to their classic heroes, because a person like me who had very limited knowledge of the characters was quickly won over.
Films like “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem” and “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” are exciting because not only are they breathing exciting life into the animation genre, they are setting the highest standards for quality, edgy animated films for adults. We should all hope for more projects of this caliber.

The popular Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle Franchise has taken a break from the recent live-action updates and has returned to animation to reboot and modernize the franchise.
“Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem” is a loving and updated look at the story as Seth Rogen and his creative team have shaken up the franchise but remained true to the core characters and universe.
The film follows the four Turtles Leonardo (Nicolas Cantu), Raphael (Brady Noon), Donatello (Micah Abbey), and Michelangelo (Shamon Brown Jr.), who are looking to find acceptance in the world despite their father Splinter (Jackie Chan), warning them not to trust humans and that they will never be accepted.
As typical teens do, the boys frequently rebel to sneak out and use their Ninja skills to travel New York to do tasks ranging from shopping to watching outdoor movies which only fuels their desires to be accepted and
have normal experiences such as High School.
At the same time as a crimewave is happening attributed to a menace known as Superfly (Ice Cube), who is gathering all kinds of high-end gear for his nefarious scheme.
When the brothers become aware of this while helping a human named April (Ago Edebiri), they become obsessed with her and desire to help her get to the bottom of the thefts and hope to win her approval as well as human acceptance in the process.
What follows is a madcap adventure with plenty of action and humor and
several celebrity voices which adds a new level of fun to the expanded
cast of supporting characters.
The animation style is at times a bit rough to watch over an extended
period but as the film progressed I became used to it and it did much like the two recent Spider-man animated films grow on me even if it can be distracting at times.
The cast is solid and the film seemed to play well to viewers of all ages
as there were jokes and references for all ages and the storyline was engaging even if it did at times seem to drag in places.
In the end the film is a loving and solid entry into the franchise and one that I am sure we will be seeing more animated entries from in the near future and is a must watch for fans of all ages.
4 stars out of 5

Alright viewing. Nothing worth remembering or revisiting though.
'Mother’s Day' has a good cast list. Jennifer Aniston is always a pleasant watch, as she is here as Sandy. Kate Hudson, Julia Roberts and Jason Sudeikis also feature. I liked all three of them, they and Aniston are certainly the strongest parts of the film.
Garry Marshall staple Héctor Elizondo also appears, he is as likeable as he is in, e.g., 'The Princess Diaries'. Jack Whitehall and Britt Robertson are together in this, I found Whitehall a bit wooden to be honest. Elsewhere, they somehow make Margo Martindale unlikeable - I've only seen her in sweet roles before, but her Florence (and Robert Pine's Earl) is rather detestable. That whole 'arc' is poorly written.
Not as cheesy as predicted, even if it still does feature a fair amount of cheddar. The main cast make this an OK watch, if not necessarily a good one.

> Mothers and their responsibilities despite struggling through.
I heard Garry Marshall has died a couple of weeks ago, so I decided to watch it rather sooner. He was a good director, one of the rare kind to focus on the women subjects and multi-starrer. I loved films such as 'Overboard', 'Valentine's Day', 'Pretty Woman', 'Frankie and Johnny' and many more. His films definitely not for everyone, but certain kinds of viewers would enjoy them and so did I.
This is the final movie in the Special Day trilogy. I certainly adored 'Valentine's Day', but the next film 'New Year's Eve' was pretty bad and this third film comes between those two. The story was okay, but nothing looked seriously compelling. The best parts were the actors, theirs present and performances makes it watchable. What Jason Sudeikis is doing in the 'Mother's Day' poster is the first thing I wanted to be answered.
The story opens a week or so early to the mother's day and focuses on the various mothers who are all has connections somewhere. Being the mother and their responsibilities were this film's purpose. Though I anticipated a bit emotional or the strong message, but it ended as an ordinary film. Surely a decent timepass film, but it had its chances to be a better one and it never untilised that opportunity well. A few people might like it, but most won't. Overall a feel good film, despite whatever your rating going to be at the end of the watch.
6/10

**It deserves to be remembered nowadays.**
I think the 80's were, maybe, the golden age of alien movies. Between comedies or horror films, the quality is quite satisfactory and there is plenty to choose from. This film is, however, one of the least known, perhaps due to the light way in which everything was approached, and it has even fallen into unfair oblivion today. For me, it was a movie that worked better precisely because of that, not least because I'm not a particularly big fan of alien movies.
The film, in fact, is a very light and familiar comedy, pleasant and not made to think too much, nor to be an award-winning film. I really got the feeling that it was an unpretentious project that, at the time, gave very good results, having even won two Oscars, for Best Visual Effects and Best Supporting Actor (for veteran Don Ameche).
The script is quite simple: a group of friendly old timers from a nursing home, who have the habit of visiting the pool of a neighboring abandoned mansion, have just discovered that their new owners have mysteriously changed the water with gigantic stones from the bottom of the sea: now, in addition to being warm, the water seems to have the ability to restore their youthful vitality and health. What they don't know is that the stones are, in fact, emergency pods left by an alien civilization that had an exploration base in the sea, nearby, which we learned to call Atlantis... and that the new owners of the abandoned house they are really aliens from a rescue team that came to collect the pods left behind thousands of years ago.
The film has a great cast that includes venerable names such as Don Ameche, Maureen Stapleton, Jessica Tandy, Wilford Brimley and Jack Gilford. In fact, and despite the merits of younger actors like Steve Guttenberg and Brian Dennehy, it is a film made to allow veteran actors a good opportunity to shine and show that age is numbers. I think I won't be exaggerating if I say that everyone enjoyed the film well and showed that they are doing very well, and that talent doesn't fade with age. I especially liked Brimley and Stapleton. Guttenberg has done better in other films, and Tahnee Welch doesn't do very well here either.
On a technical level, it's a very well-made film: the cinematography extracts the best of the sunny and seemingly paradisiacal environments of the places where the film was made, and the visual and special effects used fulfill their role in the film very well. We might even think that there are some cheap clichés, like the light on the boat, or the flying saucer, but as I said above, it's a light film, and we're only being unfair or overly demanding if we think about things like that. The soundtrack was in charge of James Horner, with whom Howard will make a series of films, and fulfills his role very well, without much fuss.

_**Discovering the "fountain of youth"**_
On the surface "Cocoon" (1985) is about elderly folks at a retirement home in Florida unknowingly finding the "fountain of youth" via a pool on an adjacent property. A peculiar group of people rent the property to store boulder-like objects they take from the bottom of the ocean. As such, the pool acquires healing powers and restore's the old folk's youthful vigor.
Steve Guttenberg stars as the likable protagonist, the boat owner/operator who helps the people get to the objects in the ocean, but he has no idea what's really going on. The stunning Tahnee Welch, Raquel's daughter, plays one of the members of the peculiar group to whom Guttenberg's character takes a liking. Unlike Raquel, who's known for being a bit biyatchy, Tahnee shines with a winsome disposition. Brian Dennehy is also on hand as the leader of the odd group, and he does very well.
Most great movies have a deeper subtext, and so it is with "Cocoon." The story is a commentary on aging, death, grieving and the yearning for eternal life. The people of the peculiar group are types of angels or, better yet, the redeemed in glorified bodies. What they offer is the gospel, the key to eternal life in the "new heavens and new earth, the home of righteousness" (2 Peter 3:13). By "the redeemed in glorified bodies" I'm referring to the glorious bodies that are promised to believers at the time of their bodily resurrection (1 Cor. 15:42-44); these bodies will be imperishable, powerful and spiritual (not carnal) in nature. Believers will be able to defy gravity with these new bodies, walk through doors and teleport from one place to another, all of which can be observed in Jesus Christ after his resurrection.
Needless to say, "Cocoon" has an incredible subtext. But it's not necessary to get so deep. This is just an entertaining movie with a good heart. More than that, it's inspiring. On the downside, the final act is overextended and should've been trimmed down.
The film runs 1 hour, 57 minutes, and was shot in the Clearwater/St. Petersburg area of Florida with the underwater scenes done in the Bahamas.
GRADE: A-

The Rainmaker is a compelling legal drama that showcases Francis Ford Coppola's return to form after the less successful Jack. Adapted from John Grisham's novel, the film follows Rudy Baylor, a novice attorney portrayed by Matt Damon, as he takes on a powerful insurance company in a wrongful death lawsuit. While the case's outcome may seem predictable, the narrative remains engaging, keeping viewers invested throughout.
Matt Damon delivers a strong performance, capturing Rudy's earnestness and determination. 1997 was indeed a significant year for Damon, with Good Will Hunting also releasing, further establishing his presence in Hollywood. The supporting cast, including Danny DeVito as Deck Shifflet and Jon Voight as the opposing attorney, adds depth and nuance to the story.
Coppola's direction brings a grounded realism to the film, focusing on the intricacies of the legal process and the moral dilemmas faced by the characters. The courtroom scenes are particularly well-executed, balancing tension and drama effectively. With Coppola's direction and the performances, The Rainmaker is notably one of the better adaptations of Grisham's work.
Despite its strengths, The Rainmaker didn't achieve significant box office success, grossing $45.9 million domestically against a $40 million budget. However, it received generally positive reviews.
In summary, The Rainmaker is a well-crafted film that combines strong performances with insightful direction, making it a noteworthy entry in Coppola's filmography and a testament to Damon's early talent.

‘Good lawyer’ is not an oxymoron
RELEASED IN 1997 and written & directed by Francis Ford Coppola based on John Grisham’s book, "The Rainmaker" stars Matt Damon as an idealistic newbie lawyer in Memphis who takes on a fraudulent insurance company with Danny DeVito as his paralegal and Claire Danes an abused potential love interest. Jon Voight plays the lead lawyer for the insurance company and Roy Scheider the CEO of the corporation.
Beyond Coppola’s renowned expertise, the cast is stellar, which also includes Mickey Rourke as a smooth legal mogul, Virginia Madsen as a witness and Dean Stockwell & Danny Glover as judges. This was Damon’s break out role as a leading man, paving the way for hits like “Good Will Hunting” (1998) and “Saving Private Ryan” (1998). He’s affable as the principled young lawyer and I liked the way the movie discreetly shows his new home life with the elderly lady, plus other budding relationships.
This is decidedly a drama with many courtroom scenes, so don’t except the thrills of other Grisham-based films, like the excellent “The Firm” (1993) and action-packed “The Pelican Brief” (1993), although there is an intense action sequence in the second half. While the first half confidently take its time with the drama, throwing in moments of realistic amusement, it segues into a compelling third act. Furthermore, “The Rainmaker” is a must for anyone interested in the good, the bad and the ugly of the legal arena in America.
The movie made $46 million domestically from a budget of $40 million (not including revenue from other countries), but it was still considered a disappoint in comparison to “The Firm,” which cost roughly the same amount and made six times as much at the box office. Coppola subsequently took a decade break from directing before reentering the fray with the inscrutable “Youth Without Youth” (2007).
THE FILM RUNS 2 hours, 15 minutes and was shot in the Memphis area of Tennessee, as well as Cleveland, Ohio and California (Alameda, Oakland, San Francisco).
GRADE: B

Basically a mash-up of 28 Days Later, Mad Max, generic medieval film and Michael Bay rolled into one (not to mention The Warriors and Escape from New York). A bit all over the place but I generally enjoyed the insanity of it all and liked Rhona Mitra as the lead, too bad her career really didn't take off, though I suppose opportunities for action roles for women was limited. **3.5/5**

This is quite an enjoyable depiction of some multi-lingual Arabian Nights-style scenarios as we find "Roy" (Lee Pace) in an hospital in 1920s Los Angeles. He had previously been a movie stuntman but an accident has robbed him of the use of his legs and so with medical science being somewhat limited, he is pretty much bedridden. Also in the hospital is the young "Alexandria" (Catinca Untaru) who is recovering from breaking her arm and in need of some cheering up. With a vivid and varied imagination, he begins to regale his new friend with fantastic tales of bandits and slaves all trying to defeat the epitome of evil that is "Odious". Along the way, she becomes enthralled as the "Black Bandit" tries to avenge the killing of his "Blue" brother by working with the equally aggrieved "Luigi" (Robin Smith) who turns out to be quite nimble when it comes to getting things to blow up! Indeed, before too long we have quite a few folks determined to bring their nasty antagonist to book. There is method to his madness in telling these stories, though. She is charged with procuring some medicine for him that he can't get from the nurses. When we discover just what that is, then we begin to appreciate that "Roy" has a darker agenda of his own. The question might be, will his stories create a bond with the youngster that might divert him from that path? This is great fun, with loads of action packed into a two hours that really does fly by. The performance from Daniel Caltagirone as the baddie reminded me a little of the sergeant from the old "Zorro" television series - menacing but in an almost avuncular fashion, and with loads of swash and buckle, pyrotechnics and fantastic mystery it's just as easy for us to get sucked into his stories as it is for the young "Alexandria" - and that's a character that's played well by the young Miss Untaru - imbuing enthusiasm, a bit of awe, and latterly something altogether a little more poignant. The scoring is lively, the dialogue frequently quite funny and the portmanteau style of chaptered storytelling works well. It's for grown ups; you can appreciate that pretty much from the start and I really did like it.

Maybe too ambitious this drama told through a children's tale.
Photography is great, though.

Outdated and more than a bit quirky, but a fun watch and a film that I honestly thought was hilarious.

God, this movie is bad. And it's so much fun I can hardly stand it. Reasons why you should watch Hackers, in no particular order:
- A steaming 20-something Angelina Jolie,
- A bleach-blonde Jonny Lee Miller (hubba hubba),
- An ever awesome Matthew Lillard, who cranked his Lillardness up to 11,
- A duo of DJ/hackers named Razor and Blade (feel free to cry),
- An awesome and totally cliché GenX soundtrack,
- "It's 1995 so we have to make an Eddie Vedder reference" (and it's totally awesome),
- Fisher Stevens who acts out his entire part as if he's on steroids,
- Did I mention Angelina Jolie?
Does this movie have any basis in any realm of conceivable realism? Nope. Is this even what actual hacking looks like? Oh puh-lease! Is it everything you could wish for in an hour and a half of pleasurable suspension of disbelief? Absolutely.
Hackers is sexy and silly and every good kind of bad.
I gave you my recommendation. If you don't like this movie then there's nothing I can do about it.
_(February 2017)_

My 2nd favorite out of the series. More chuckies to deal with and it's pretty funny and awesome. And the original Andy from the first 2 is back in this movie. Loved it!

Literally one of the worst films I've ever seen. I saw Child's Play 1 and 2 years ago and enjoyed them but skipped over the later movies. Watched this as I saw it had a great review somewhere online in those 'overlooked horror movie' lists. But wow. This was awful. I was angry with myself for watching until the end. Total garbage.

Kind of shits the bed in terms of the _Child's Play_ mythos, and looks as cheap as it is, but it's always a good time watching Chucky do his thing.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._