This is an okay movie but that is about it. The blurb sounded quite interesting and the trailers were promising even though I always take trailers with a huge pinch of salt. I have never read the original Manga. Whether that is good or bad with respect to the movie I do not know.
The good stuff as far as this movie is concerned is, not surprisingly, the visuals. I would not say that they are stunning but the are quite good. The environments are interesting and the special effects are not bad at all. I have to say that the tank design was pretty poor though. Not very exiting as a fictional design and utter nonsense from a functional point of view.
This is as far as the good stuff goes. The story is okay but it is pretty predictable and not that much to get exited about. It could have been more developed for sure. I would actually have liked to see the Major do a few more missions beating up the bad guys. That was where the movie shined a bit and showed the best visuals and special effects.
The acting is pretty mediocre to be honest. Even Daisuke Aramaki, which was a character that I did like, felt rather bland. The main bad guy was just a uninspiring thug.
To me the movie more or less felt like the pilote episode of a TV-show with a huge budget for visuals. It was not WOW god but showed promise and I felt like I would like to see more “episodes”. The fact that it is actually a movie and it seems unlikely that a sequel, even though the ending makes it pretty clear that they hoped there would be one, will be made left me with a unsatisfied feeling.
Bottom line, average movie with enjoyable visuals and special effects but one which do not manage to reach above the “just another sci-fi manga movie” segment for me.

I was unable to make it to the theaters for this one due to traveling for work those first two weeks. And then it was gone; couldn't find it in any theaters. I'm sure glad I didn't waste my money for that and only spent $1.62 to rent it from RedBox.
The trailer didn't show much, which is good. I hate trailers that give away everything about a movie.
So, a hot girl is always good...
And it had the teaser nudity that isn't real but is a suit - I'll let you be the judge of that.
The rest is the same old overused nonsense from all other science fiction movies:
A lot of fighting, shooting, explosions and destruction - way too much of that... but just about all sci-fi and superhero movies these days only contain that.
The first hour was incredibly boring. After about 70 minutes, it got just slightly interesting and then all the fighting/shooting/destruction began. There is nothing interesting about that - we've all see that hundreds of times. It's ridiculous.
Why can't any of these shooters hit anything? We still have that. It isn't interesting to watch. Thousands of rounds flying and everyone missing their target. With all this high tech stuff, why don't they have more advanced weapons?
I have to say, I was in Arizona earlier this year and fired a handgun for the very first time. It was a 6-shooter, a Colt "Peacemaker", you know the pistol of the "West". You don't "AIM" those, you lift them to just above waist high, look at your target & not the gun, and pull the trigger. After just a few shots, it starts to become very natural. Any sane person can hit a target the size of a person at least somewhere on their body, even if they are moving. 24 rounds: I had 24 hits & 0 misses at various distances. But the people in these movies can't hit anything even when they do aim and with much better weapons.
And then you have Major, her manufactured body can stretch & tear, wires breaking, and it can still function? Uh, NO, it wouldn't. That's not how mechanics and electronics work.
The City: a ridiculous "Blade Runner"/"Fifth Element" type of city but with fish floating around. No, not interesting at all. Just very silly.
Oh, one petty but very annoying thing: They can build an entire body and install a human brain in it and get everything to work but they can only give her a ragged, jagged wig or haircut? That's very weird. Her crooked bangs were a distraction in every scene that included her facing the viewer.
In Summary: This movie has a lot of awesome CGI with a ridiculous plot and horrible acting. Great CGI alone doesn't make a great, or even a good, movie. This catastrophe is a perfect example of that.

I boned up on this movie by watching the 1995 version and Stand Alone Complex for a bit, loved the repartée from Major Kusanagi and her crew and hoped it would translate to the big screen. The movie succeeds in displaying the setting and overall feel of the area. Everything is a grainy, low-tech with abundant neon and cyber-solidified humans. Sadly, the script is a bit of a mess. Kusanagi becomes Major Mira Killian (you'll see why toward the end the film) and Scarlett Johhansson, generally a quite credible actress, is sort of wasted here.
We do not get a lot of character development for her or her crewmates. There aren't a lot of quirky, funny moments as there are in the animated versions. Worse still, a lot of the teaser from the movie are just absent here, and one feels cheated. Overall this is a fine bit of popcorn absorption but fails to live up the series's standards and fails to give any of the actors much to work with. See it on a rainy day, if nothing else.
3.5/5

I know I wasn't supposed to love it but I accidentally did.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I strongly recommend you make the time._

I've watched Ghost in the Shell at the cinema 3 days ago, knowing
beforehand about the controversies that have surrounded this movie for
the last 6 months or so. Science fiction movies are probably my
favorite genre and I also enjoyed most of Scarlett's movies for the
past 8-9 years so those two factors were a plus for me going in.
Regarding the whitewashing business, I think its been blown way, WAY
out of proportion by social justice warriors with nothing better to do
than drag media attention over whatever they're feeling insecure about
this month/year. For those of you who might be on the fence about
watching a Caucasian actress in the role that (supposedly) should've
been reserved to an Asian actress, please consider this a NON-MATTER
and watch it anyway. The character she is portraying is SUPPOSED to
look Caucasian/white. It was the same in the source material and even
the creator of that anime said so in interviews.
Now, is the movie any good? In my opinion, yes. Yes it was. It wasn't
amazing but at the very least entertaining. There is a good amount of
people who score this a 1/10 because they are butt hurt that the story
was changed a lot. Please ignore them and see for yourself even if
you're a fan of the anime and are able to keep an open mind. I think
maybe I was able to judge it more objectively because I had zero
knowledge about the story in the anime going in, but, if nothing else,
the movie actually made me want to watch those old ones to compare.
The acting - 7.5/10 - Since Scarlett Johansson is the only big name
that the movie is being marketed alongside, I'd say she did a good job.
At no point in the movie could I say she didn't belong there. She
played the part of cyborg who had difficulty belonging in a human world
very well. The cast is diverse enough in my opinion, though some of
them get pretty little screen time.
The visuals - 9/10 - If there is one point most critics/viewers are in
alignment concerning this movie, that point is definitely the visuals.
The movie both looks and feels spectacular, with the futuristic city
looking like a close-future mix of Blade Runner and TRON. The
combination of CGI and practical effects looks organic, the movie's
powerful themes of excessive self-augmentation and technology almost
running amok represented very well visually.
Soundtrack - 8/10 - Sometimes pretty subdued, sometimes
almost-but-not-quite in your face, I found the soundtrack to vary
between decent and very good in some moments. It didn't MAKE the movie
but it enhanced a good deal in my opinion.
Story - 7/10 - Here is where the good points of the movie kinda start
to run dry. A lot of other people would probably rate it a lot lower,
with 5 or 4's if they're at least trying to be objective. Yes, the
story is fairly predictable, and the fact that the movie is only around
100 minutes long doesn't do it any favors either. Here is probably
where most of the legitimate hate towards this movie stems from. The
creators adapted a story that had a lot more depth and philosophical
insight and turned it into a somewhat generic cyborg coming of age
story mixed with an evil corporation doing questionable things. The
villain is also very cookie-cutter and has almost zero depth. HOWEVER,
I do think that concerning this film's particular themes and narrative,
a weak villain doesn't hurt it so much since its more about
losing/gaining your humanity through technology than any bad guy trying
to shoot you.
Writing/Dialogue - 6/10 - By far the movie's weakest aspect. In fact, I
believe if some more meaningful dialogue and character interactions
were written into this film, it could've easily been 1 or 2 points
higher on anyone's scoring system. As it is, the dialogue is shallow
and fairly run-of-the-mill for about half the movie's length. Some bits
of good interactions are sprinkled here and there, and thankfully
that's enough to preserve the soul of the movie's central theme of
human souls surviving in machine bodies, BUT not enough to give Ghost
in the Shell the depth it should've inherited from the source material.
Overall - I gave this movie 3.5/5 stars here, mostly because I
couldn't give it a 7.5/10 which felt more appropriate to me. My advice
would be to not listen to the whitewashing nonsense, because that's
exactly what it is, nonsense. Also don't listen to the haters who rate
this movie a 1/10 or call it shit because those people should not be
reviewing anything to begin with. It is a decent movie, with great
visuals and a theme that might get you thinking for a couple of days
after seeing it. The acting is decent, with an above average
performance from Scarlett and a good soundtrack that might hit the
right spot on occasion. The only bad aspects, like I mentioned, are the
film's rather short running time and weak dialogue/writing which hold
it back from being truly great.

I am writing this review as someone who hasn't seen the original anime. I have also been very critical of the whitewashing of this film. With that I aside, I went to see it with willingness to give it the benefit of the doubt. "Ghost in the Shell" is well...a beautiful shell.
The visuals were absolutely breath taking. The action scenes flowed so beautifully with special effects. But that's all the movie had to offer. Take away the spectacles and you have a basic run-of-the-mill action movie.
The acting was fine. But honestly, the leads didn't have anything to actually sink their teeth into. Scarjo, and everyone else, was serviceable.
If you're looking for some mindless, yet stunning entertainment, then go see it.

You can't help but feel sorry for poor old "Mr. Bennet" (Donald Sutherland) in this drama. He is married to a domineering wife (Brenda Blethyn) and has five, yes - five daughters! They are upper-middle class, gentile and well-to-do but have a problem. The laws of inheritance insist that upon his death, their home shall pass to a distance cousin so it's important that the girls make as best a way in life for themselves as they can. That might be simpler for the beautiful "Jane" (Rosamund Pike) but for the others. Well there's the girlish "Kitty" (Carey Mulligan); the tomboyish "Lydia" (Jena malone); the studious "Mary' (Talulah Riley) and the independently minded "Elizabeth" (Keira Knightley). It's the last who is likely to prove the most problematic as she has no intention of just marrying the local cleric "Collins" (Tom Hollander) or some drippy soldier like "Mr. Wickham" (Rupert Friend). Indeed, she only just manages to stay on the right side of good manners at a supper with the imperious "Lady Catherine" (Dame Judi Dench) who is surprised by her youthful fortitude of character. As ever, though, with Jane Austin there is a degree of inevitability about the denouement and when we are introduced to the equally strong willed "Darcy" (Matthew Macfadyen) we know that for all of their dancing around each other, their sparring, strops and tantrums there will be a spark, and whether or not that spark manifests itself into true love is the purpose of this story. Along the way, the production designer and the costumers have filled their boots. The film oozes stately homes and fine costumes, the writing enlivens almost everyone - especially the on-form Blethyn whilst Dames Judi and Penelope (Wilton) bring some gravitas to offset the engaging effort from Knightley in a role the could almost have been written for her engaging performance here. The Darcy role is amiably enough played, but that role isn't really so important in substance - it's more about his dashing eye-candiness factor that is supposed to have the hearts a-fluttering. Dario Marianelli has written a score that complements the story almost perfectly and though I did think it just a bit too long, this is classily constructed assessment of the vagaries of human nature, snobbery, aspiration and sheer bloody-mindedness and is well worth a gander.

Seen this one a couple of times and with my internet being out and wanting to revisit, decided to give it another watch. Still highly enjoyable and engaging romantic-drama with Keira Knightley and Matthew Macfadyen giving fine performances. **3.75/5**

**Overall, it's a good adaptation, even if it's not free of mistakes and problems.**
I believe that “Pride and Prejudice” is one of the most transported English novels to film and television. I've seen more than one adaptation, and each one has its merits and problems (however, it's generally agreed that the 1995 miniseries is the most perfect and canonical). This film is not as good as I would like it to be, it has several problems, but it is quite acceptable and also has positive notes to retain.
Here, the story we already know so well takes place in the final years of the 18th century. From what I saw, the director wanted to do this to avoid the fashion of the Regency period, which he doesn't like, and taking advantage of the fact that Austen wrote the early version of the book around this time. Well, I can say that I share the thoughts of the director, Joe Wright, when it comes to dresses from the Regency/First French Empire period. Aesthetically, they are much less interesting than the “bridal cakes” of the pre-French Revolution period, or the wide dresses that began to be worn in the Romantic period. The idea of these dresses, which greatly emphasize the woman's chest and then fall straight down like a nightgown, is in a way imitating what the Romans and Greeks were thought to wear. Even so, there are several errors in the way the characters were dressed, arranged, combed and characterized: basically, the director ignored everything that didn't suit him. That was a mistake.
The film is reasonably short for the literary work it brings, but I think it couldn't be otherwise. For the rest, the narrative is decently done, and the adaptation made to the source material is quite conscientious and tries not to cut important things. What I didn't like was the way certain characters were developed: Elizabeth became a wild girl and much less contained than would be supposed in the novel, for example. The rest, however, is quite satisfactory.
The film is full of great British actors: in addition to Keira Knightley, who manages well in the role of protagonist, we also have Rosamund Pike, Brenda Blethyn, Talulah Riley, Jena Malone and Judy Dench. Each did a fairly good job in the role assigned to them. We should also appreciate the work of Matthew MacFadyen, Donald Sutherland, Simon Woods and Tom Hollander. On a technical level, the film invests a lot in good sets, convincing and well-selected shooting locations and good props. The cinematography is also good and does an excellent job throughout the film, with enviable camera work and good colors and lighting. The film also has a good soundtrack.

When I watched this version of the Austen classic prior to packing the DVD away for a move, I assumed ahead of time it would stay nestled behind the Colin Firth version as my second favorite adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. Now, however, pending my watching the other version again, this might indeed be my new favorite. Not due to any major differences in acting ability or in the writing, but rather for the way it nails down the little things, the stuff I may not have noticed the first time or two I watched it.
One simple example is of the portrayal of Mary, one of the servants in the Bennet household. She says hardly anything during the course of the movie, but a couple of times we follow her while she is singing as she works, and I found it utterly charming. And I think it illustrates, whether or not it was intended, that this is a pleasant house that servants did not dread to start their work days in.
There is also at one of the balls a long scene of dancing that shows several of the characters who are involved in subplots going on, all within this continuous shot. It is clever, and on one website it is said the camera was left running by accident; a happy accident if you ask me. Also, a few of the scenic moments, such as one time when Elizabeth merely stares lost in thought in the middle of great beauty, are amiable natural breaks in the action.
The acting is very good, of course, with this cast, but also their attitude is perfect. Brenda Blethyn excels in the thankless role of the silly mother, managing not to cross the line into looking outright ridiculous. Sutherland is — well, I will give any movie a try with him in it. Keira Knightly is, for me, astonishingly good. If you had described to me before I watched it the way, when she or her family is insulted, she looks jolted for a moment, but then with a short laugh or smile shakes it off, I would have said “Nope, that won’t work.” But it works. Her wit is sensational. I write fiction myself and always try to to feature witty female characters, and Elizabeth would fit right into my modern novels.
Dame Penelope Wilton is excellent as always, and Claudia Blakey shone as Charlotte. If pressed to find at least one small fault, I could only say that I think the writers and director (and possibly Jane Austen herself) may have underestimated Mary Bennet as a character. I have always thought that more could be done with her, in every version.
I am only sorry now I have to pack the DVD away for the movie, even if only for a few weeks.

Good adaptation and performances from Knightley and MacFayden.

OK, I gave the first one 10 out of 10 stars...because I am easy and, honestly, the original didn't claim to be anything more than what it delivered. To me that earns all 10 stars.
Darker I gave 1 out of 10, because the plot line that it bills itself as following takes all of 5 minutes, gets resolved in the middle of the film, never comes up again, and has little sex (which is the reason why people see these things).
This one I am giving 1 of 10 stars.
There is actually less sex than in the sequel and far less than in the original...but look at the picture up here on IMDB, look at all the posters...it was marketed as a film about sex and there really wasn't that much. You see more in a single episode of an HBO series.
And the plot, again quoting IMDB:
"Anastasia and Christian get married, but Jack Hyde continues to threaten their relationship"
Like with Darker, that all happens in the blink of an eye. You sneeze and you'll miss the bulk of the plot. And the sex (the reason why people actually watch this film) doesn't even serve as filler.
So what you are left with is Anastasia and Christian sitting around, not having sex, trying to figure out how to fill the rest of the film. It's like watching linoleum curl on a hot day.
We aren't watching it for the plot anyway, just give us the cream filling we are actually buying the ticket for, otherwise give us an actual plot.
you gave us neither.

Nice Movie ♥

Saw this again recently for it's anniversary, or 4k conversion, - who cares what the reason was, it was just great to see it up on the bg screen again. In my view, it's easily the best of efforts from both the Coen brothers and from the formidable Frances McDormand. Here, she is a pregnant local cop who must deal with a sudden spate of crimes in her magnificently named town "Brainerd". William H. Macy ("Jerry") and the usually under-rated Steve Buscemi ("Carl") add loads to value to this drama that offers an almost perfect mix of sharp and wittily written dialogue, some clever and poignant performances and a storyline that does border on the surreal at times, but then again we are in Minnesota so is it all that surreal at all? The deliberately staccato nature of the dialogue cannot help raise a smile and a cringe - but that is how it is meant to come across. It takes skill to act like these folks do here, dumbing up and dumbing down to order whilst keeping an eye to a vaguely serious series of underlying plot lines... You won't like all of the characters, indeed some people get their well deserved comeuppance but this is still one of the best films from the 1990s and well worth a watch on a big screen if you can.

**An excellent film, although the comedy is so watered down and so sarcastic that it's not funny to most people.**
When I saw this movie for the first time, a few years ago, I didn't understand it, and it annoyed me a lot. However, I've always heard good things about it, and after seeing several Cohen films that I liked, I realized the film's potential and decided to rewatch it. I did it at a good time: the film is better than I thought, and I just didn't know how to evaluate it as it deserved.
The film begins with a note indicating that it is based on real events. It's a joke, actually, as it's entirely fictional. The story, however, can be based on several crimes, because it's nothing that we haven't seen on some TV news: a man who desperately needs money decides to hire two criminals and fake the kidnapping of his own wife, in order to convince his wealthy father-in-law to pay a fat ransom. It turns out that, as is so often the case in Cohen Brothers movies, things don't go as planned, the criminal duo's control gets out of hand and people start to die, as the local authorities, which practically boil down to a pregnant sheriff and a few colleagues, try to investigate what is going on.
The film made a huge sensation among critics and at festivals. It was nominated for several Oscars, but only won two statuettes (Best Original Screenplay and Best Actress). It was also considered by many to be the best film by the Cohen Brothers, a highly relative consideration, which largely depends on the personal taste of the person who claims it. Anyway, it's a good movie, quite tense and dramatic, and where the comedy is in the brutally ironic way in which things happen.
Frances McDormand is an actress who deserves particular attention in this film. She's not the kind of law enforcement officer we'd expect to see, because she appears to have a friendliness and sweetness that goes hand in hand with uncompromising law enforcement or even the use of firearms. However, her character does that and is actually very good at following her lead. Another actor to be congratulated is Steve Buscemi. He gives a huge performance, perhaps one of the best of his career so far. Next to him, Peter Stormare gives us the image of a cold and few-spoken criminal, who exerts brutal violence when he gets angry. William Macy is convincing in the role of the car salesman, with a slimy overdose of hypocritical politeness and cowardice.
Technically, the film has excellent cinematography, where snow and gray tones are the dominant accent. Interestingly, it seems that a lot of artificial snow was used in the film in order to achieve the icy and inhospitable look that the directors wanted. The sets and costumes are very good, particularly McDormand's costume and her hairstyle. The film uses a lot of very good visual and special effects, particularly in the more violent scenes, like the one where the killer tries to tear his victim apart in a shredder. The soundtrack has one of the most interesting main themes in the Cohens' filmography.

I didn't enjoy is as much as I thought I would, but 'Fargo' is still very good and something I'd obviously recommend.
I like the cast here, even if it is a bit of a Frances McDormand carryjob to be honest - she is terrific all the way through, absolutely nailing the role. Steve Buscemi is the star away from McDormand, while I've seen a few glimpses of William H. Macy elsewhere but this is his best showing that I've watched thus far. Peter Stormare is good too.
It's an entertaining story, that's for certain! Around 98 minutes was a wise run time call, also. I didn't get that extra little something from it, yet it's a film that I'd more than happily rewatch - largely thanks to McDormand, and Buscemi.

Great watch, could watch again, and can recommend.
It is very sad that this happened to people, but the way the story is told is so good that I felt like that sadness melted away fairly quickly.
This movie holds up after 25 years, and it is dated, but with cellphones the story would change dramatically, and that would be a good alternative history subject for a different movie.
A great cast, excellent deliveries, an amazing story, and the cinematography is a favorite on this one. The setting of a snowy Minnesota really allows for some great isolation scenes and highlights the "coldness" of the motivations in the story.
I think they even summarize the events at one point as "all over a little money", and it's spot on.
I can't say that any one thing is spectacular, but everything is done so well, I honestly think this is a great example of how to shoot a movie.

I only watched this movie cause it had the Rock. I was extremely surprised that it was a good movie. It was pretty funny as well.

It has a couple of decent moments, but 'Baywatch' is mostly uninspiring.
For a comedy, it takes itself way too seriously in parts. None of the heartfelt stuff really lands, while a lot of the humour is over reliant on sexual innuendo. The premise is followable, if entirely predictable. The cast is oversized, way too many characters. Dwayne Johnson and Zac Efron are good enough in their respective roles as Mitch and Matt.
Summer (Alexandra Daddario) and Victoria (Priyanka Chopra) are alright but underdeveloped, as is Stephanie (Ilfenesh Hadera). C. J. (Kelly Rohrbach) and Ronnie (Jon Bass), meanwhile, are annoying and extremely pointless. Yahya Abdul-Mateen II (Ellerbee) is solid in a small role.
I've never watched the original television series so maybe I missed a few callbacks etc., while there are two (incredibly forced) cameos from it. If it stayed at what it should be - a comedy - then I may have liked this, I simply didn't though.
Not terrible, but I still wouldn't say you should rush to see this.

**When lifeguards turned homicides!**
In the 90s, when the original television series was aired, I was just a kid. Then it was too sexy, that I was not allowed to watch. The world has changed so much all these years. I always wanted to see that, but never had a chance. Now a film, possibly a new franchise if it all goes well. There were lots of expectations on it, but the film did not deliver that. Yet they have already announced a sequel.
The bay security team is now recruiting new members. Three joins as the trainee after the tryout. Within a few days, a couple of suspicious deaths happen in the bay. The cops are not worried to solve it, but the Baywatch team jumps in and starts their own investigation. That leads them to a dangerous territory. From there, how they deal with it was revealed with some action-thriller.
Pumped up body, starring alongside a current top star, nothing is working for Zac Efron. He's just an accidental actor, won't survive long, unless he turns it all his way like Ben Afflect did. On the other hand, Dwayne was awesome. All the other actors too. Priyanka was not ideal for such role. Because an Indian in a negative role for an American film, nah, it does not work. India keeps all the thugs and sends only engineers, doctors, scientist et cetera to the foreign lands. A Chinese or a Russian villain works better.
No suspense. Everything was open from the beginning itself. Some of the comedies were good, but some were most absurd. Especially, I did not like the storyline. The Bay security force not doing their job, but police work. It goes completely out of the frame. It's okay doing same within their enclosure, but the film entered beyond that. Thus, the film missed to cover the beach events as what the title had promised. I hope the sequel would fall in line.
_3/10_

Yes, you're all very, very attractive, can we have something else too please?
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

Baywatch is a movie based off the popular TV show of the same name which launched the careers of such acting talents as Yasmine Bleeth and Pam Anderson. And then those quickly died right afterwards but hey, the show ran like 11 years andlittle known fact, Jason Mamoa was on spin-off show Baywatch: Hawaii.
The movie is very much like the show; as in if you walk in expecting to take it seriously you're already watching it wrong. The situations people need to be rescued from are just as ridiculous and far-fetched and the main plot here gets far more convoluted and hackneyed than the average day of any real lifeguard.
And like 21 Jump Street and a bunch of lesser TV to movie adaptations, this seeks to make fun of all of it, plus all the slo-mo beach running. Does it come off as good as Jump Street? No. Do we need this? God no. I mean didn't the show basically already make fun of itself enough as it is?
But all I can say here, and I guess the only thing anyone interested in this might want to know is, it could have been so much worse. I'm not saying this is the best movie of the summer so far. I don't really even know if i'm saying this is a good movie. But it's easy enough to sit through and the laughs, while not great, are consistent.
Where the script sucks, the cast knows how to make fun of itself. The Rock is the head honcho who takes the job very seriously. Zac Efron is the selfish, cool pretty boy new trainee who clashes with him. Both have a plethora of jokes for one another that work with varying degrees of success.
There's a fat lifeguard and the movie takes the shots you would expect it to take but actor Jon Bass also does have some comedic talent here in the Josh Gadd sense of the word. Actually he may even be funnier than Josh Gadd. Point is he works the best here from a comedic perspective.
The movie gives us quite a few dick jokes but this dude actually has one embarrassing moment that may rank up there with "There's Something About Mary", just with not as good a payoff.
Hannibal Burress also gets a couple scenes for a cameo and I love when he gets those. It's time for Burress to headline a movie though.
The women aren't as funny but I guess you can say they add some nice support to that and the action. Alexandra Daddario has shown a few times she's a pretty decent actress, and the others don't just seem like stiffs there to just show off a hot body. Priyanka Chopra is also here as the villain, and she's fine.
The whole movie can really be described as fine. It's funny and doesn't take itself too seriously and the cast all seems game for it. You don't have to see, but if you do, know it's already planning on sequels.
So I go 6 out of 10 on this one. For more reviews, check me out on Youtube at- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCY_IvAm1bJADConJhDCuq6A

"Cameron" (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a bit keen on "Bianca" (Larisa Oleynik) but she has eyes on the wealthy school Lothario "Joey" (Andrew Keegan). Regardless of who likes who, though, her dad won't allow her out of the house, socially, unless her independently-minded and rather stand-offish sister "Kat" (Julia Stiles) goes too. She's no intentions of playing any games of conformity, though, so it's a stale mate! Hormones drive ingenuity and swiftly "Cameron" and his pal "Michael" (David Krumholtz) come up with a plan to hook up "Kat" with "Patrick" (Heath Ledger). He hasn't much interest in the school or it's traditions either, so he might just be for her. Their cunning plan needs a backer, so they alight on the dim "Joey" to fund the operation so he can get a date with "Bianca". What a complex web we have weaved - and of course it's only a matter of time and tequila before we are set on the, rather predictable, bumpy course of true love. It is all standard fayre that leads to an obvious, slightly too sentimental, conclusion, but along the way there is a great soundtrack - Joan Armatrading sounds great with big screen sound - and plenty of humour too. Some of that is a bit crass, but there is still loads that works better as these horny, vain and bloody-minded kids try to get their guy/gal. Allison Janney features all too sparingly as the guidance teacher who cares little for her pupils - unless they can contribute to the steamy novel she is writing when their problems don't disrupt her concentration. Stiles and Ledger do gel well with the latter showing quite a degree of mischievous charisma with his pretty limiting role. There isn't really anything new here, but it has something engaging of the "Breakfast Club" (1985) style to it and I quite enjoyed it. The ending really did make me glad I come from a nation that spares it's children from that ghastly end of term torture that is "the Prom"!

Very funny movie. I like the late 90's and early 2000's quirky romance comedies. It's always funny to have embarrassing things happen to you, when your trying to impress a girl.

Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew in a modern high school setting with humour. Reminiscent of an 80s-style rom-com. Settle back and just enjoy it for what it is.

**Friends: A Timeless Comedy with a Bittersweet Note**
Rating: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
"Friends" remains an enduring masterpiece of comedy, weaving laughter and heart into the fabric of our lives.
The recent loss of Matthew Perry adds a poignant layer to the show's legacy. His portrayal of Chandler Bing brought joy to millions, and his absence is deeply felt. Let's cherish the timeless humor he contributed to this iconic series.
🛋️❤️ #Friends #MatthewPerry
https://mustwatchtvseries.xyz/actor/222178/matthew-perry

New York in the 90s was amazing. So when the people of the sitcom making business wanted to make another comedy show, they wanted to have the setting in that city.
And thus, Friends was born!
Another US sitcom that spanned a whole decade, and one of the top 10 best comedy series.
I dare ya to watch one episode and not laugh even in one scene!
From iconic quotes like "How you doin'?" to "Oh my God!" and of course "WE WERE ON A BREAK!", to every witty banters at the gang's local coffee shop and Joey and Chandler's dynamic friendship.
Friends is by far the best sitcom in the 90s!

An uneasy truce between the wolves and tiger "Shere Khan" becomes tested as "Mowgli" (Neel Sethi) gets older and harder to keep safe. Pre-empting things getting even more dangerous, they send him under the guardianship of the panther "Bagheera" to the nearest man village where he can grow up with his own kind. What now ensues are some engaging adventures through the jungle where he meets the clever bear "Baloo" - who knows how to get his honey supply sorted out; "Kaa" - the devious snake and, of course, the Kong-esque "King Louie". Now "Mowgli" isn't exactly sold on the man village thing, and the more he spends time in the forest with it's critters the less he wants to spend time with his people. Can "Baloo" and "Bagheera" deliver him in one piece? "Bare Necessities", "Trust in Me" and "King of the Swingers" add a bit of hypnotising and toe-tapping to a rather creatively animated story that merges the plentiful CGI with the live-action scenes really well - especially at the conflagration that is imaginatively created with quite a bit of menace and, of course, a nod to the healing balance of nature. Sethi has something of the Sabu to his performance. It must have been difficult for him to work with so much green screen, but he still manages to inject a degree of natural characterisation into his efforts - especially with the pesky bees and the even more pesky apes. It's not a great film for television - if you can see it at a cinema, then the photography and creativity accompany Roald Dahl's story of friendship and loyalty enjoyably.

Really good watch, would watch again, and can recommend.
I'll honestly go as far as to recommend this over the original 1967 version.
I don't think is quite as charming as the original, and it has a very different animation style, both with great quality of detail in it. From the individual strains of fur, to the types of animals included (I've done so much research on Indian wildlife today), you can really see the details of the cg effects. Just watch the end credit sequence alone, and it'll prove it.
There are 3 huge improvements to this versus others: Sher Khan's face, King Louie, and the intensity of the animal fight scenes. The movie isn't free of problems: I imagine someone will have issues with talking animals vs non-talking animals, that he'd have to learn the language (so how would he ever understand Sher Khan or Baloo?).
If anything, I think the writing took a hit. Where the original had a subtle but strong fables sequencing to it (sort of modular moral stories with shifting focus on characters), this is structured much closer to how many video game stories are structured, serialized chapters with some level of power creep and shifting focus of environment and goals but all focused on Mowgli. And I don't think the writing is bad, but this Jungle kid (never actually reveals his backstory, somewhat of a relief honestly) is performing clean engineering using vines and pulleys and armor (that wouldn't work) with calculated positioning. I understand that some people just have talent for some things, but I had to question whether or not I could do the same thing. I could, but I'd have to do it different ways.
And in all fairness some of the stupid /inconsistent things he gets up too, even though he's a "take charge" Mowgli in this version really got to me: I was literally cheering for Sher Khan at certain points.
Ultimately I had a good time with it, and I think most people and possibly their pets will too (my cats were interested for a while).

This is without a doubt a very good family movie. Many people seem to compare it unfavorably with the “original” animated movie from Walt Disney. To me these are quite different movies and should not really be compared. I have not read the book but I have a feeling that this movie follows the book more closely. It is a wee bit darker, more serious and incredibly beautiful to watch.
I quite liked the original jungle book movie. It was one of my favorites when I was a kid. I am therefore quite happy that this was not just a “dumb” remake with modern CGI and that I quite liked this take of the classic story. This movie is, as I wrote, much more serious and a wee bit darker. It is less of a children’s movie than the original.
The wolves are getting much more time in this movie which is good. Mowgli’s opponents are also much less comical and much more sinister. Kaa is a beastly snake with no remorse, King Louie is a huge, scheming, and tyrannical ape King and finally Shere Khan is a ruthless, human hating, tiger that kills anyone or anything that stands in his way.
The CGI is top notch as far as I am concerned. The jungle scenery is absolutely stunning and it is really worth watching the movie just for the scenery. Combined with a classic adventure story that is not half bad makes for a really a good movie.
I was definitely positively surprised by this movie. For me it is a big success.