The story of this movie is a pretty cool idea but unfortunately it is somewhat ruined by Disney’s woke brigade.
I have to say that I quite enjoyed the first third of this movie even though said woke brigade managed to throw in some woke unnecessary bullshit about “white privilege” quite early but from there it went rather downhill.
The first third had plenty of over the top hilarious action in it. It was fun to watch. The parts where Free Guy learns to “level up” and kick ass where quite cool.
From there on it started to go downhill. The idea that Millie should access some “hidden level” in the game to reveal evidence that Antwan had stolen code from her is rather ludicrous.
Speaking of Antwan, can you say “over the top”? Sometimes over the top can be fun but this guy was just cringey.
Although there were still plenty of cool CGI effects in the latter half of the movie it was pretty much ruined for me by several completely unnecessary strongly sexual scenes. I do not need some guy touching another guys “boobs” in my films and I do not need any boob touching at all in a movie for all audiences. Overall, at this point the movie becomes more an attempt at social engineering, propaganda and agenda feeding.
The ending? It was, not very surprisingly at this point, rather meh. To me the movie more or less ended when Millie’s original level was found. The rest was just dragging it out with some rubbish about being able to do whatever you wanted and nonsense about there being so many people not wanting to actual play a game (shooter) but just mill around and watch. Sorry, people wants to play games, if not to shoot things (which most people actually wants to do) so at least to do something. Not just to watch.
Also the rubbish with Antwan trashing servers to hide evidence? The usual Hollywood nonsense. No way anyone, even a game studio, running a game or service that big would not have back-ups.
Too bad, it was a good idea and some parts where really cool and fun to watch but their woke brigade and Hollywood script writer’s stupidity.

**Free Guy captures the wonder and goofiness of Elf, except with video games and Ryan Reynolds.**
Free Guy is a fun yet heartwarming film that feels like the video game version of Elf with Ryan Reynolds playing the fish out of water goofy character with a heart of gold. Ryan Reynolds' Guy is filled with awe and wonder as he experiences things that the real world would consider mundane but, to him, are spectacular. The romance between the two lead characters is awkward at first, but the payoff at the end makes it worthwhile. All the video game easter eggs throughout make Free Guy a love letter to gamers, but the plot and acting keep it entertaining for anyone. Shawn Levy's experience with the Night at the Museum franchise and Real Steel prove his skill at making fun family films that adults can enjoy alongside their kids. Levy's lighthearted directing and Ryan Reynolds' goofy antics are a perfect combination making Free Guy a delightful movie that is worth a watch.

Ultimately, while _Free Guy_ has an amazing concept, it’s trapped within a massively underwhelming execution.
Admittedly, the film looks like it was an absolute blast to make, but also incredibly expensive. This tall budget, combined with public hesitancy to return to theaters and the Delta variant of COVID seemingly on the verge of backtracking all the progress we’ve made since the vaccine became readily available to the public, it makes you wonder if _Free Guy_ has any sort of chance of making a respectable amount of money at the box office or even just breaking even.
Note: This was originally written when the film opened in theaters. _Free Guy_ would go on to make $331.5 million on a $100-$125 million budget. A sequel is currently in the works.
**Full review**: https://boundingintocomics.com/2021/08/17/free-guy-review-artificial-excellence/

Free Guy was unexpected...
This movie was a unexpected good movie to watch.
Ryan Reynolds has quietly put together some good movies with her sense of humor / personality coming out in the roles he plays. This movie is more of a romantic comedy if you look at it as a whole.
I truly enjoyed the experience of watching the development of the story and the cast.
If you like Ryan Reynolds comedy you will enjoy this movie!

**Ouch and Cringe**
This "Ready Player One" clone is just as dumb and non-immersive as the original, only here we get our hopes up in the first 20 minutes or so. We get setup nicely with truly funny video game references, top notch CGI and clever dialogue. But then the flick degenerates into the same old, same old: boring villain, plot is unoriginal, action is magic, hacking is imagined by someone not owning a computer (probably just a smart phone) and finally, the philosophical idea of a first AI ever is not explored in the slightest.
I know this is just supposed to be a "feel-good" film, but critical thinkers will not feel good watching this drivel. Something this trivial simply does not deserve a high score, even if it does what it's supposed to.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/free-guy-spoiler-free-review
"Free Guy possesses a remarkable tribute to the gaming community, but it's the surprisingly clever, thematically rich screenplay that makes it one of my favorite films of the year. In addition to the impressive visuals, hilarious comedy bits, and thrilling action sequences, Shawn Levy, Matt Lieberman, and Zak Penn offer a brilliant narrative that deeply explores human nature and what the viewers perceive as "real". Superb acting from the entire cast, namely Ryan Reynolds and Jodie Comer, and jaw-dropping cameos genuinely elevate the overall experience. Honestly, it might be the very first movie to prove that Disney owning every major studio also has its perks. What could have been "just a videogame flick" is actually a nerdgasmic, super exciting viewing with emotionally compelling characters and an extraordinarily smart story. I couldn't recommend it more to gamers, but don't let my words mislead you: Free Guy is a blast of entertainment for everyone!"
Rating: A

This is such a good movie, its got everything, a bit of sillyness, romance and action, the whole family really enjoyed it in fact the whole audience was laughing and clapping, not something you normally get in an Australian cinema. If you are debating what to watch at the cinemas watch this one its a blast and you wont be disappointed.

Chapter 2 was more awesome then the first. I even got a little freaked out myself on some parts. This has easily become one of my favorite horror films of all time.

How does a movie with no story become 3 hours long?
Seriously, it's a real question.
Nothing seems to happen... ever... and they virtue signal by changing a character, because you have to now... but nothing really happens for most of the movie.
And the horror felt a bit like a kids movie.
But ultimately it's 3 hours with no real plot.

I watched the two films in a double bill and I really did want to enjoy this as much as I did the first - but boy, could this have been much more of a let down? The original has a far better cast; snappier direction and a much tighter script. This just rumbles along with a staccato, portmanteau-style storyline that robs the narrative of much of the cohesion of it's earlier, much more compelling, iteration. The ending is straight out of "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" (2004) without the roller skates and the pretty feeble efforts from Jessica Chastain and James McAvoy really don't help keep it on track at all!. Sadly, disappointing marshmallow monster mayhem.

A step down, but 'It Chapter Two' is still a very good film.
It is, I will say, overly long, it did bore me a little at the midway point; not in a necessarily negative way, I just wanted more. However, it regains its footing with an entertaining ending. I'm usually not a fan of cast changes in film series, but this does it to good effect. I love the characters, whether it be in this film or the preceding entry.
Jessica Chastain and Bill Hader are great choices to play the older versions of Sophia Lillis and Finn Wolfhard, they are very convincing casts. James McAvoy is also a positive addition, while Bill Skarsgård remains enjoyable as It.
The score is, again, strong. I like the plot, even if I do feel like it's stretched out and could've had more freshness added to it. It isn't as creepy as the first film either, but still has a solid amount of uneasiness.

“You lied and I died!”
Making us proud Georgie.
I re-watched the 1990 mini-series and 2017 remake last month in preparation for this movie in terms of judging in quality. The 90's version had it moments, but I find some scenes unintentionally funny where it reeked of early Stephen King adaptations. 2017 was surprisingly good and a massive improvement, but laid back on cheap thrills.
‘IT: Chapter Two’ was a tough act to follow up on after the monster success of the first and with the second chapter being the hardest to adapt. I thought the movie both succeeds and stumbles in parts. Although reflecting back makes it feel more like a parody than a serious horror movie. An epic finale that ended in a over the top fashion - with themes of childhood trauma and the idea of holding on to the past despite growing up with age are sprinkled through out. The loser club are all grown up now and returning home to kill IT.
Whoever cast the grow up version of the loser club deserves massive praise here, because it’s pitch perfect casting and I could definitely see the child stars growing up to be the adult stars. James McAvoy, Jessica Chastain, Jay Ryan, and Isaiah Mustafa were all great in bringing the more dramatic aspects to the film. While Bill Hader and James Ranson bring the comedic aspects, but not to say they weren't dramatic as well, even making me tear up at one point.
Bill Skarsgard was truly amazing as Pennywise. The physicality in his movement has a certain silliness that you would expect to see from a clown, yet predatory with his animal-like attacks with drool running down his mouth and eyes staring in opposite directions despite looking straight at you. I find the dancing clown incredibly terrifying whenever he becomes playful and kind to deceive children.
Andy Muschietti truly shines as a director when it comes to bizarre imagery and unsettling camera angles, while also capturing some real emotions through the lens. The opening scene at the bridge where a homophobic attack takes place was really brutal and starts the movie off strong - on par with the Georgie meets Pennywise scene in the first movie.
Despite the run time being nearly three hours long, but I can’t recall ever being bored. It moved at a even pace in my opinion. I guess a few scenes could’ve been cut as most of it is unused footage from the first movie. Although it would be difficult to cut scenes as everything follows up to the next scene and that emotional punch towards the end wouldn’t be earned.
Now for the issues:
Henry Bowers was completely pointless in this movie and was only used for jump scars. Same thing with Mike, who through out these movies has nothing to do and the important things he did in the book was given to different characters.
I didn’t like how Stan’s suicide was handle, because you find out he actually “sacrificed” himself to save the others.
Some of the humor didn’t always land, especially if it’s right after a tense scene where it kinda deflates the horror. At times I struggled to gasp what the film marker was going for in certain scenes. Is this scene suppose to be scary or funny? Both maybe?
I wish there was more practical work for the monster scenes instead of CGI, because at times it looked really terrible. The finale battle at the end could’ve been in a video game boss fight.
* Overall rating: Not as strong as the first, but still enjoyed it. Still, let’s kill this f**king clown.**strong text**

Wasn't a huge fan of the first but did like the young cast but the scares were non-existent. This sequel had a couple okay moments and I did like the characters as adults, but Bill Hader easily was the standout. Still wasn't very scary yet even with the lengthy running time never felt like it dragged. One day I may try watching the two back to back, but between the two, not overly impressive. **3.5/5**

A pretty odd choice too undercut every scare in the movie, but I was less disappointed with _Chapter Two_ than everyone else seems to be. I gave it the same star rating as the first Muscietti _It_ movie, but if I'm being honest, that one was definitely better. Doesn't make this bad though.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

It's the love story between Richie and Eddie that makes this movie worth viewing twice. Looking forward to the conclusion!

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)
So, Chapter Two is a sequel to It (2017), and my expectations were a bit high. I really enjoyed the latter to the point of considering it one of the year’s best, as well as one of the best Stephen King cinematic adaptations. Andy Muschietti returning to the director’s chair and having such a fantastic cast portraying the adult versions of the Losers (not only in terms of quality acting but also regarding how well the adults look like the older versions of the young actors) are two of the main reasons why I was genuinely excited. Also, the runtime (longest horror movie ever?!) definitely left me wondering how a horror flick could have the same duration of some of the most epic films in cinema…
Well, I got to be honest: I’m disappointed. It’s not a bad movie, at all, but it doesn’t even come close to its predecessor’s heels. I disagree with some headlines I’ve read though. Some say the comedy was misplaced, taking away impact from emotional or dark moments. There’s barely a moment where it was expected seriousness and laughter kicked in instead, but when it does occur, it actually works. I just think it wasn’t as funny as the previous film, overall. Granted, Bill Hader as Richie Tozier is hilarious, and a perfect cast as an adult Finn Wolfhard. His chemistry with James Ransone (Eddie Kaspbrak) resembles the one Wolfhard, and Jack Dylan Grazer had, therefore this/these duo(s) being the comedy highlight.
Some say the movie is too long. Now, this is a tricky one. Usually, when people feel bored or not as entertained as they wanted to be, they tend to blame it on the film’s runtime, especially if it’s over 100 minutes. I agree that the movie FEELS long, but I disagree that the runtime is too long. There’s more than enough story to explore, and literally, every single character from the Losers Club has an interesting arc. The problem here is that not all of them are explored in a way that’s funny, scary, or just captivating enough. The fact that Jessica Chastain’s (Beverly Marsh) sequence with the old lady is entirely displayed in one of the trailers (and consequently shown at every single screening) doesn’t help the pacing.
The first act is pretty decent. As expected, it shows us where everyone is, what they’re doing for a living, and how they get back together. During this act, it’s pretty clear that Muschietti is going to give time to develop each character and follow their respective arcs to the end, hence the lengthy runtime. However, the second act falls flat. Bill Denbrough (James McAvoy / Jaeden Martell) has the most emotionally impactful storyline, one that affects the main plot, making the time that is spent with him worth it. Same goes for Richie’s subplot. On the opposite side, the rest of the group doesn’t have entertaining sequences or new developments whatsoever.
Beverly continues to be affected by her childhood of abuse from her father. Ben Hanscom (Jay Ryan / Jeremy Ray Taylor) keeps being in love with Bev. Eddie is still a whiny little “kid” who’s scared of everything that might make him ill. Stanley Uris (Andy Bean / Wyatt Oleff) doesn’t do anything, and Mike Hanlon is surprisingly the engine that moves the plot forward, which is a problem of its own since I never really cared for that character (he was definitely the one put aside in the 2017’s movie). Honestly, he just serves as an exposition device considering he spends the whole time just explaining everything the audience needs to know to understand where the film is going.
Finally, the third act is a mixed bag. While it does provide a climactic ending with a sweet message, it feels very much like its predecessor. I don’t want to spoil anything, but it’s incredibly repetitive comparing to the first movie. Considering all things together, it’s a big letdown since it feels like the exact same film, but with older versions of the characters. Obviously, each of them has a different arc in this one, something the first didn’t have the time to explore, but looking at the main story, it’s pretty much the exact same thing, including how it ends (just with a minor twitch). Nevertheless, the performances are all great…
James McAvoy continues his streak of amazing displays, and Bill Hader has to be the MVP for the range he demonstrates. I wish Skarsgård had more time to shine as Pennywise, though. In 2017, I thought he really nailed the character and made it his own. Unfortunately, this time around, Pennywise doesn’t have that much screentime (such a disappointment), and when it appears, it often looks too CGI-ish, taking away from the gripping performance of its actor. The finale has almost no Bill Skarsgård since there’s so much CGI. Despite that, I congratulate the team(s) behind the makeup, hairstyling, costume, and production design. Derry looks terrific, and the time jumps between the young and the old gang worked seamlessly partially due to these visual achievements.
Andy Muschietti knows how to work a camera, and the movie is very well-shot. However, he should have been able to come up with creative sequences to deliver a different level of entertainment, especially during the tiresome second act. Gary Dauberman’s screenplay is clever, and it brings this enormous story to a fitting conclusion, but he also could have imagined some new ideas for some of the characters. There are a couple of great sequences though, especially one with Bill going through a theme park tent with illusions.
In the end, It Chapter Two fails to deliver a conclusion worthy of its epic runtime. Even with a phenomenal cast, it isn’t as funny, as scary or even as captivating as its predecessor. Its runtime is appropriated having in mind that each character has a personal arc, but only a couple of them are genuinely compelling and entertaining. Therefore, the film feels too long, uneven, and it could have used a bit more creativity when it comes to its climactic finale. Its central story feels very similar to the last movie, its scary sequences are nowhere near the quality seen before, and even though the costume and production design are top-notch, there’s excessive use of CGI on Pennywise. It still carries some emotionally convincing moments, as well as a couple of cool sequences. Overall, it’s … okay.
Rating: C

‘It Chapter 2’ isn’t as stable or as refined a film as its predecessor, and while it feels lacking by comparison, it’s still far better than most studio horror films. It’s epic, ambitious, crazy, witty and unafraid to go for the heart as well as the throat. As a whole, this adaptation of maybe Stephen King’s greatest work feels singular in the landscape of modern horror cinema: two films built on strong interconnected relationships spread over decades, as sentimental as they are vicious, and executed on the scale of a fantasy epic. They also may be amongst the best adaptations of King’s work, understanding what makes his writing (and this novel in particular) so horrifying and so arresting, the human horror amongst the fantastical. Andy Muschietti aimed big with ‘It’, and even in the moments its reach exceeds its grasp, you’re still so glad it reached so high in the first place.
- Daniel Lammin
Read Daniel's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-it-chapter-2-the-ambitious-conclusion-to-the-beloved-horror-epic

Geoffrey Rush and Colin Firth make for quite a pairing in this touching drama of King George VI and his speech impediment. Being called upon for public speaking only increased the anxiety of the then Duke of York (Firth) and so his wife (Helena Bonham Carter) decided that there had to be a better way to treat her husband than sticking an handful of marbles in this mouth. She, as "Mrs. Johnson" sets up a chat with speech therapist Lionel Logue (Rush) and he, having no idea who she really is, only agrees to see him if he comes to his consulting room. Unfamiliar with the backchat, but impressed by his independent mindedness, TRH duly arrive and once Logue gets over the shock, he begins to deal with his new, cash-are, client in a polite but hardly deferential fashion. Gradually we see that progress is being made. Not just with the confidence of the Prince at speechifying, but also with his attitude and behaviour in general. He likes Logue, Logue likes him and thanks to some airfix kits, quite a bit of the old Anglo-Saxon and all under the discreet but potent supervision of the Duchess, the young man comes better prepared for what is to come next - after the Abdication Crisis, that is... There's a great rapport between the two men here as this speculative story offers us a plausible and engaging look at just how tough and unforgiving society was to those who stammered - regardless of their rank. Rush also juggles Logue's role of a career man with that of a loving family man well as well as a budding Thespian entertainingly too. Astutely, Tom Hooper leaves the vast majority of the film to just those two men. HBC adds a touch of diversion now and again and Sir Derek Jacobi weighs in as the outwardly rather unsympathetic Archbishop Lang but for the most part it's just them. It's history, we know what actually happened but over these two hours we do get a sense of beginning to know a little of the man beneath the crown and of his honest and forthright advisor and of why they might have become firm friends. No gimmicks, no CGI - just a solid script, some great production design and two strong performances.

The gift of cinema does credit to the gift of speech.
The King's Speech is directed by Tom Hooper and written by David Seidler. It stars Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter, Guy Pearce, Timothy Spall, Derek Jacobi & Michael Gambon. Music is by Alexandre Desplat and photography is by Danny Cohen. The idea for the film came about after Seidler read about how King George VI (Firth) overcame his stammer after a friendship was formed with his voice coach Lionel Logue (Rush). Having himself overcome a stutter problem in his youth, Seidler set about writing his story from informed information. A bonus came before filming started when notebooks belonging to Logue were put forward for use. These enabled Seidler to incorporate works from the books into the screenplay. Plot picks up just prior to George's brother, Edward (Pearce), abdicating the throne, thus thrusting the stammering George on to the hottest seat in England. With World War looming, George will be needed to make the speech of speeches to becalm his nation, but first he must work closely with the affable Logue and hope it brings an end to his vocal woes.
I first viewed The King's Speech just a couple of days before the Academy Awards that year, so I didn't know how it was going to perform there. It would garner the Academy Award for Best Picture, Best Director (Hooper), Best Actor (Firth) and Best Original Screenplay (Seidler), with 12 nominations in total. This was a year when Oscar and BAFTA (where it won 7 of the 14 categories it was nominated for - including Best Film and Best Actor for Colin Firth) got things right. The film at that time I watched it had already made over $230 million in profit, which was a figure guaranteed to rise considerably since the film was still playing to packed theatres in the UK (which was indeed the case as the last figure put forward was $412 million).
I myself ventured to the theatre on 22nd February 2011, which was over 6 weeks after it was first released in its homeland. As I approached the cinema I saw there was a queue! A queue? I haven't queued to get into a film since the halcyon days of Jaws, Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind! I noticed there was many youngsters in this line, so of course they were going to see the Yogi Bear movie, or that Gnomeo & Juliet film, Surely? Not so actually. In they went to see The King's Speech, an audience that ranged from 12 years of age to the fragile OAP day trippers. For the next two hours the only sounds I heard were that of laughter, hushed words of praise for what was on the screen, and even sobs during some of the more tender moments within. No mobile phones, no chitter chatter about acne or the boy next door, just an across the board appreciation for expert film making.
There in is the reason why The King's Speech coined it in at the box office and broke merry records as it went on its way. It has universal appeal, a film without tricks, just a simple involving story acted supremely by a cast of bona fide thespians. It beats a true heart, whilst doling out a visual history lesson to those so inclined to matters of the British Monarchy and the political upheaval about to surface as Adolf started his surge. Even for a film so chocked full of dialogue and basic human interactions, the pace is brisk and never sags, the quieter reflective moments only bringing anticipation of the next enjoyable scene. When all is said and done, The King's Speech success snowballed because of word of mouth, it started out as an intended independent picture, to be shown in selected theatres only, and now it holds up as one of the best films of 2010/2011. Believe me, believe the hype, that if you still haven't seen it then you owe it to yourself to see this beautiful movie. 10/10

Round movie: good story, great cast, impressive stage and fantastic performances. It has it all.

"Cady" (Lindsay Lohan) has spent much of her life being home schooled by her scientist parents in the African wilderness. Maybe that ought to have prepared her for her relocation to an American High School where the dog eat dog attitude is just as prevalent. She alights on the two school oddballs - "Janis" (Lizzy Caplan) and her "almost too gay to function" pal "Damian" (Daniel Franzese) who guide her through the tribes of people at the school. The ones to be avoided at all costs are the "Plastics" - vain and vacuous girls led by "Regina" (Rachel McAdams). When "Cady" is invited to join them for lunch one day, they all sense a chance for some mischief-making! She happens to sit behind the school heart-throb "Aaron" (Jonathan Bennett) who seems as keen on her as she on him, but wait! He is the ex of her new found bff. Is he off limits or maybe "Regina" could even help her courtship? Well the scene is now set for an acerbically satirical look at all things teenage. There's angst a-plenty, vengeance, revenge, a thoroughly enjoyable degree of bitchiness and by mid way through it's quite hard to pick any of them to rescue from an earthquake. Lohan and McAdams are in their element her and Tina Fey's adaptation of Rosalind Wiseman's sarcasm-ridden novel swipes at just about everyone from the geeks to the jocks, the bimbos to the brainiacs. There are elements of stereotyping, but put together in this melting pot of attitude and aptitude, they work to serve up an entertaining look at an environment where hormones are raging and being popular is essential - however many people you have to tread upon, cruelly if required, to attain status. It's exaggerated, sure, but there's something real about the whole thing that adds to it's realism and there's even a bit of the real Janis Ian ("At 17") for the eagle-eared to hear, too. Good fun.

Having just watched the 2024 version for the first time, I must admit that the 2004 original film surpasses the new musical by a significant margin. The depth of the original movie and its unwavering commitment to the storyline, without unnecessary deviations, truly set it apart.
While the older film may lack character development for most of the cast and at times feels a bit rushed compared to the musical, it excels in creating strong connections and allowing the characters to evolve in a natural and engaging manner.
The original film's cast not only delivers humor but also showcases seamless chemistry. The movie successfully concludes with a satisfying transition from chaos to a harmonious society, a thematic element that seems to be missing in the musical adaptation.
Despite some minor flaws, the original film's well-developed characters and cohesive casting result in a seamless and enjoyable viewing experience.

Surprisingly a lot of fun!
I wouldn't have predicted me liking 'Mean Girls', but I actually thoroughly enjoyed it. The first half is stronger than what follows and it does wrap up a bit too harmoniously, though all in all it has good intentions and is unexpectedly consistently amusing.
Lindsay Lohan appears in a similar role to what I've seen elsewhere from her across this era, nevertheless she does put in a very good performance. Rachel McAdams is excellent, strangely likeable despite playing an unlikeable character. The rest of the cast are pleasant as well, e.g. Lizzy Caplan, Tina Fey and Tim Meadows.
Interested to see how the sequel and remake turned out. As for this one, it's entertaining!

_Mean Girls_ has absolutely no business being as phenomenal as it is. None at all. If you've read many enough my reviews to get any sort of indication as to the sort of cinema I am in to, then you could be forgiven for assuming I wouldn't be a fan. After all, _Mean Girls_ is about as far away from my wheelhouse as a movie could conceivably be. But I fucking **love** it. And I honestly can't tell you why. Every single piece of _Mean Girls_ examined in isolation, is something I despise. Every trope, formula, format, cliche, device and style choice is something I have ragged on a hundred times before in different reviews, but for whatever reason, I cannot put _Mean Girls_ down. I don't think a single year has gone by since I first saw it in the late '00s that I haven't rewatched it. Usually, multiple times a year. Inexplicable, but there it is.
_Final rating:★★★★½ - Ridiculously strong appeal. I can’t stop thinking about it._

I hardly ever watch contemporary American comedies in which most of the top cast are women (I still haven't seen either 'Clueless', 'Bridesmaids' or 'Heathers', for example), but recently I enjoyed 'The Devil Wears Prada', I have liked both Lindsay Lohan (especially in 'Bobby' and 'The Prairie Home Companion') and Rachel McAdams (most significantly in 'Redeye' and 'Passion'), so knowing that one of my favourite SNL comediennes, Tina Fey, both wrote and co-starred in this, made me give it a shot. It being critically lauded by some male cinephiles I trust didn't hurt matters, either.
It was full of laughs and subtly got across its points about 21st-century American society and of the growing pains for young women in its high school shenanigans. 'Mean Girls' is definitely worth the trouble to find and to give a try yourself. It left me enthusiastically wishing Ms. Lohan can sort out her personal troubles and get back to acting, where she belongs.

I'm a fan of Twilight. I have not read the book so I'm not really sure what happens. I didn't like New Moon that much. So I wasn't really that excited about watching this movie. I guess, I can say, I went with the flow. I wanted to be one of those people who have seen this movie. It was a holiday because of the President's inauguration. So we went to Podium because I know there will be more people in bigger theaters. Many showtimes were sold out already. So we decided to buy tickets for the last full show. We stayed and played with Toby the whole after noon and after dropping off Edward, straight to Podium.
This movie was much better than New Moon. There's more action and the romance between Jacob and Bella are deeper now. More screen time for the Cullen family. The music is better than New Moon having some songs that are more alike than Twilight. I didn't like the makeup. It was not consistent and Bella's hair was the worst.
My rate for this movie is B-. It was nice but nothing beats Twilight still.

It may seem that this movie is totally a soap opera but it is actually a terrific adaption of the original novel with good performances from the cast.
Another question would be what kind of story we were expecting: teenagers oriented, hyper melodramatic, cheese and quite often stupid and with no sense whatsoever. Exactly as the original novel.

Perhaps if Uncle Sam had just taken the view that what it doesn't know wouldn't do it any harm, then "Hunley" (Alec Baldwin) wouldn't have managed to get them to shut down the IMF! They do, however, and that casts "Hunt" (Tom Cruise) and his team even more into the shadows. Their timing could hardly have been worse as just at this point, a sophisticated "Syndicate" is out for world domination. They are starting out by innocuously disposing of some key global figures - all looking like accidents, but despite his protestations to the sceptical CIA, "Hunt" remains on the outside and needs to rekindle the gang to thwart their intentions - intentions that have their roots deep within the establishment. Nope, it's not original. Not in the least. This is just another excuse for Cruise to show of his stunt-man skills, for the CGI boys to let rip and for the deadly and nimble assassin "Ilsa Faust" (Rebecca Ferguson) to flirt with menace. I still can't get my head around why Simon Pegg is here (or in "Star Trek") as I find his characterisations linear and annoying, but Ving Rhames brings an amiable bit of less is more and Jeremy Renner also works well as sidekick "Brandt". There's plenty of action, pyrotechnics, gadgets, rubber faces and though the denouement isn't exactly Pulitzer stuff, the whole film moves along entertainingly, if predictably, for just over two hours with an increasingly distinctive British slant to the proceedings. Like all of these, they really do need a big screen to come alive but once there, they are usually quite good - this one is.

So after all that, I’m pretty convinced that the _Mission: Impossible_ series just isn’t for me. That being said, how many film franchises can say that their fifth instalment was also their best? Probably just this one, and, maybe _Fast & Furious_. There’s actually a lot of parallels between those two lines of movies.
Pertaining specifically to _Mission: Impossible_ though, this one truly is the best of the bunch in my opinion. It has it’s most complete female role to date, in fact, you could say that of any character. This is the first film that doesn’t feel like it entirely hinges on Ethan Hunt’s input. The characters surrounding him are actual people with their own personalities and ideas. And maybe it’s just that I’ve watched him do it five times in the past three days, but honestly I even sort of bought Tom Cruise in an action role this time around.
Crazy.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

Everything you can expect from a "Mission: Impossible" movie. The script is not the brightest nor the freshest but works OK. Cruise, Pegg and Rhames keep the franchise afloat while Renner and Baldwin feel unneeded.
Great addition with Ferguson. She takes most of the attention in this movie.
Good work from the direction.