Some over-stuffed blockbuster actioners boldly boast their explosive and invigorating productions with dynamic glee. Well, the ‘Mission: Impossible’ film franchise echoes this same sentiment, with flashy fifty-something star Tom Cruise still carrying that boyish exuberance that never seems to miss a beat, and can breathe a sigh of relief because the latest chapter will not disappoint in its adventurous, adrenaline-rushing skin. Yes, Cruise is back as IMF super spy stud Ethan Hunt in writer-director Christopher McQuarrie’s power-surging ‘Mission: Impossible-Rogue Nation’. Notoriously slick, ambitious, wildly impish and vastly intriguing, ‘Rogue Nation’ incorporates superb direction, writing and, of course, its no-nonsense dosage of non-stop shenanigans to fuel the audience’s escapist palates.
In actuality, ‘Rogue Nation’ is a hyper and hip throwback to the original blueprint for this kinetic movie series that took viewers by storm when it first premiered back in 1996. The minor outcry for the box office sensation that was the ‘Mission: Impossible’ big screen offering back in the late 90s was quite understandable since it did not seem to stay entirely true to the iconic 60s television series thus being dismissed as a volt-driven vanity piece for the high-strutting Cruise. Still, the cinematic ‘Mission: Impossible’ experience did not peter out but steadily built a devoted fan base that wanted to endure the high-flying hedonism of Cruise’s espionage daredevil Hunt and his band of cunning cohorts. It is definitely safe to say that the stellar ‘Mission: Impossible-Rogue Nation’ has delivered a bang for its buck in a summertime cinema hunger that thrives for such sleek, innovative spy thrillers that charm more than harm. Maybe ‘Rogue Nation’ will not let anyone forget the exploits of the legendary James Bond spy capers anytime soon but hey…Cruise’s hotshot Hunt has a colorfully distinctive way of promoting his ‘shaken, not stirred’ moments as well.
So how did the collaboration of filmmaker McQuarrie and his chance-taking lead Cruise give ‘Rogue Nation’ its deliciously sinister, overactive pulse? The fact that the overzealous stuntwork (much of it performed by Cruise with daring enthusiasm) is imaginative and the story feels smart and clever certainly has a lot to do with the magnetic appeal of ‘Rogue Nation’. Hey, the TV advertisements even give a generous peek into the pulsating platitudes that the MI universe will swallow with robust anticipation. Watch IMF agent Hunt hang on to a speedy airplane with his dear life in the balance. Watch IMF agent Hunt jump into a deadly spiral of a waterfall. Watch IMF agent Hunt race a piercingly fast motorcycle (or car…take your pick) and enjoy the road raging carnage with poetic prominence. Okay…you get the picture.
The premise in ‘Mission: Impossible-Rogue Nation’ has more bounce to it than a basketball during the NBA playoffs and that is not necessarily a bad thing to note. While Hunt continues his mission to stop the team’s latest despicable foe (Sean Harris) and end the operation of the insidious operation known as the Syndicate there are feathers being ruffled because of the federalised threats to shut down the IMF empire through the suggestion of a top-notch CIA director (Alec Baldwin). Naturally, IMF head honcho Brandt (Jeremy Renner) tries to prevent such hasty actions as his team of agents must overcome some of the controversy and confrontations from previous disastrous events that have warranted the threatening hints to shutdown his governmental outfit.
Cruise's Agent Ethan Hunt is leaving on a jet plane and doesn't know how long he'll be back again in the eye-popping actioner MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE-ROGUE NATION.
Cruise’s Agent Ethan Hunt is leaving on a jet plane and doesn’t know how long he’ll be back again in the eye-popping actioner MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE-ROGUE NATION.
One cannot say enough about the ponderous yet action-packed ‘Rogue Nation’ as this exceedingly spry and hyperactive spy caper keeps one on their anxious feet while never letting up for a gasp of air. The exotic locales, showy opera houses, heart-pounding action sequences, innovative chase scenes on wheels, over-the-top baddies, well-choreographed fist fights and, of course, Cruise’s roguish Hunt and his willingness to soak up the mischievousness and mayhem of the proceedings allows this particular ‘Mission: Impossible’ installment to resonate so soundly in its off-kilter, energetic greatness. The supporting players such as Simon Pegg’s Benji and Ving Rhames’s Luther are on hand to contribute to the landscape of the triumphant cloak-and-dagger goings-on. In particular, Rebecca Ferguson is the transfixing tart whose presence as Cruise’s enigmatic female lead is easily a scene stealer. Can she be trusted or not? Who cares? In the long run, Ferguson’s inclusion is almost mandatory just to spice up this first-rate popcorn pleaser a tad bit more. Tom Hollander (‘In the Loop’) adds some flavor in the mix as the unpredictable British Prime Minister.
McQuarrie (who worked with Cruise previously on ‘Jack Reacher’ and helmed ‘The Way Of The Gun’) had a tough act to follow in terms of trying to keep stride with prior ‘Mission: Impossible’ big names in auteurs Brian De Palma, John Woo, J.J. Abrams and Brad Bird. Indeed, that is a tall order to fill. However, as the Oscar-winner screenwriter for ‘The Usual Suspects’ McQuarrie has shown that his take on the fifth edition of the ‘Mission: Impossible’ film franchise with ‘Rogue Nation’ can easily be as defiant and defining as any of his predecessors’ intense, eye-popping outings.
‘Mission: Impossible-Rogue Nation’, with its lavish set pieces and sophisticated sense of winding and grinding with the twitchy antics of Cruise leading the pack, is perhaps the closest thing to resembling the elegance and excellence of the indomitable Agent 007.
Mission: Impossible-Rogue Nation (2015)
Paramount Pictures
2 hrs. 12 mins.
Starring: Tom Cruise, Simon Pegg, Jeremy Renner, Ving Rhames, Sean Harris, Rebecca Ferguson, Tom Hollander, Simon McBurney and Zang Jingchu
Directed and Written by: Christopher McQuarrie
Rating: PG-13
Genre: Spy Thriller/Action-Adventure/Intrigue and Espionage
Critic’s Rating: *** 1/2 stars (out of 4 stars)

good!

A little heavy-handed at times with the social commentary though that's Neil Blomkamp's thing with all his movies at this point, however still was entertained throughout, the effects were mostly good (a few shots were a bit iffy) and Matt Damon is good in the lead. Didn't exactly land the emotional impact they were going for in the end but still was enjoyed this quite a bit and think it's actually better than District 9 (which I feel is overrated outside of the visual effects) and far and away better than Chappie. **3.75/5**

Wow... Where do I begin? I just got back from the cinema and I can still feel the adrenaline rushing through me. I was already a huge fan of director Neill Blomkamp's previous effort, District 9, so my expectations were running pretty high. And for once, I was not disappointed. No, I got even more than I could have hoped for.
Elysium is a terrific film. Plain and simple. The story is fairly simple, which I consider a good thing because the plot was easy to follow and so it wasn't overly complex and trying to be too intelligent and contrived. It is the year 2154, and planet Earth is one hot mess. The rich reside on a space station called Elysium while the poor remain on Earth, basically grabbing at every straw just to get by. The story we follow is that of Max, who, after a terrible accident at work, is in dire need of medical help, which is only available at Elysium. In order to get there, he must go to extreme measures. I won't tell you anything else, because that would just spoil the fun.
Max is played by Matt Damon, and he is very good in this role. He truly carries the film, start to finish. It always pleases me to see an actor who is just as good at tackling the character elements as well as the action parts of his role. When you think about it, that doesn't actually happen that often. Matt Damon can do both perfectly, and he is convincing in every aspect. Jodie Foster plays the role of senator Delacourt, a rich bitch who thinks she can get away with anything just because she calls the shots on Elysium. Well, somebody's about to prove her wrong... I absolutely love Jodie Foster, so it's hard not to gush, but she is a delight to watch. Her character is cold, calculating and without a sliver of conscience. And Jodie is so convincing you just want to slap her. It was great, and the fact that her accent is a little weird and distracting at times, is easily forgiven. William Fichtner also appears in a relatively small, but crucial role.
The biggest surprise for me, however, was Sharlto Copley. Remember him from District 9? He played Wikus, a dorky and kind of sissy character... Well, not in this one. His character Kruger, is the meanest, most vile bastard you can imagine. A card-carrying sadistic psycho. It really was a great opportunity for Copley to prove his versatility as an actor, and he used it to the fullest. Also, somehow his South-African twang made his character even more menacing, so I'm really glad he didn't drop it in favour of a – perhaps more crowd-pleasing – American accent.
My biggest compliment goes to the special effects department. As was the case with District 9, the SFX are so convincing, it's actually hard to realise that you're watching something that was probably 96% computer animated. Unlike D9, the visuals were even better here, if you can believe that. Usually, when a director's first film is a success and they up his budget for the next one, they go completely overboard and essentially ruin the aesthetics that made the first film so successful *cough*Matrix*cough*. In this case, all and everything was a major improvement. The action scenes are incredibly solid, the spacecrafts were eye-poppingly gorgeous (without being all flashy and futuristic – adding to the reality factor) and Elysium was a true sight to behold. 109 minutes of pure eye candy.
There were only two things that slightly bothered me. One, the somewhat stereotypical characterization of the Rich vs. The Poor. Simply put, rich = evil and poor = good, no exceptions. Especially with the rich Elysium folk I found it a little bothersome that there wasn't a single person who seemed to have a heart, they were almost mechanical and so the polarisation was pretty black-and-white. Two, the lack of emotional involvement. I didn't really feel much for any of the characters, except Max. There is a plot line with a woman he has feelings for, whose daughter is very ill, and that's a sad thing but the film failed at really convincing me why I'm supposed to care. Could be personal, but that's the way I experienced it.
However, these two minor plot points are not sufficient enough to deter me from giving this film any less than 10 stars. What I think is most thrilling about Elysium is the fact that it actually paints a frighteningly plausible picture of what our future might just look like. It is, in any case, much more realistic than pretty much every other post-apocalyptic film I've ever seen. Don't write this concept off too easily, this might very well be the world we live in one day.
In the end, Elysium is a terrifically made film. It's gritty, it's gnarly and highly realistic. And, to the zero-attention-span MTV kids out there, it's also an incredibly entertaining, action-packed thrill ride. Tiny side note: the violence is quite graphic at times, so some amount of parental guidance is definitely advised.
That leaves me with nothing else to say but: go watch this film. You won't regret it.
_(August 2013)_

If you want an action movie, this one really rocks. There are some unneeded clichés but, all in all, is quite an enjoying journey.
In addition, Matt Damon, Jodie Foster and, remarkably, Sharlto Copley perform at great level.

Parece que fuera el sino de la tierra y de los hombres, situacion que es posible observar a traves de la historia universal. Pero no seria posible hacer una película que muestre lo contrario? sería una lección o un modelo para todos en un mundo tan convulsionado?

I'm not the biggest fan of the diminutive Mr Cruise - but I have to hand it to him here. Brian de Palma has created an end-to-end action adventure and he is superb in it. He brings oodles of charisma to the screen as he ("Ethan Hunt") has to recover from a disastrous mission and build a team to discover not only who betrayed them, but to obtain a top secret list of American overseas operatives (i.e. spies) before it falls into enemy hands spelling doom for all concerned. What ensues is a fast-paced, well constructed movie that moves along cohesively with plenty going on - loads of tension, suspicion, nobody knowing whom to trust coupled with plenty of exciting stunts and a classy performance from Vanessa Redgrave bringing some gravitas to the proceedings as the stylish, but ruthless, "Max". Sure, it relies on tech and CGI a lot of the time, but the ensemble - Ving Rhames, Emmanuelle Béart and Jon Voight all deliver well into a plot that keeps us guessing until well into the denouement. Even Henry Czerny - not noted for the flexibility of his performances - turns in a decent effort and the ending might make you think twice before using the Chunnel! If you're looking for a good, high-octane piece of cinema; then this is certainly up there - on a big screen, if you can.

.

Man, when this came out I was thinking that we are going to have another James Bond franchise only with an American and I was super stoked about it.
Unfortunately I got my wish. This is really the only one worth watching and M:I2 just destroyed the series that didn't have the sense to die.
But....what you have here is 3 Days of the Condor, directed by De Palma, with lots of action.
No, I'm not joking, it's really 3 Days of the Condor with less plot and tension and more action and shooting. And Cruise instead of Redford, which actually is a pretty even swap from one generation to another...only Redford is still the better actor and Cruise only really acts when he wants to.
So, yeah, if you saw 3 Days of the Condor you know what is going on. Just make it international, push up the RPMs, add a soundtrack by 1/2 of U2 and you have Mission:Impossible.
But, despite that, it's really fun and enjoyable.

**Mission: Impossible thrives on a more localized story, trading massive stunts and action set pieces for a greater focus on spycraft, theft, and espionage.**
Mission: Impossible operates on a much smaller scale than its successors and benefits from a more contained story. The action and suspense are more personal, and the danger more intimate than in later installments. The first entry in the Mission: Impossible film franchise blends spy thriller, murder mystery, and heist movie into one heart-pounding and compelling film. Paranoia runs rampant as agent Ethan Hunt is betrayed time and time again while trying to uncover who murdered his fellow agents and prevent the murder of many more. Mission: Impossible is iconic with its classic hanging inches above the floor moment and established a billion-dollar franchise. While some of the effects are dated and some of the acting a little cliche, Mission: Impossible remains a hallmark spy movie that is a must-see for any action or film fan.

_**Well done spy/caper thriller with Tom Cruise and an eye-rolling Scooby-Doo element**_
The Impossible Missions Force has a mission at a Prague gala concerning a CIA non-official cover list, but it doesn’t go as planned. Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) and Clair Phelps (Emmanuelle Béart) then team-up with two disavowed agents (Ving Rhames and Jean Reno) to steal the real NOC list at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, before going to London for further thrills involving the TGV train to Paris. Jon Voight and Henry Czerny are on hand as leaders of IMF while Vanessa Redgrave plays an arms dealer and Kristin Scott Thomas an IMF agent.
“Mission: Impossible” (1996) was loosely inspired by the TV series of the late 60s/early 70s and started the successful movie franchise starring Cruise. Expect convoluted dialogues, espionage gadgets, high society galas, foggy cobblestone streets, sudden deaths, globetrotting, double agents, capers and mind-blowing action.
One thing that turned me off was the several occasions where a person’s fake face is torn off à la Scooby-Doo. Once would’ve been enough, but three times? What were the writers thinking? Other than that cavil, this is a quality spy/caper flick; it’s just too tortuous for my tastes with not enough human interest.
The film runs 1 hour, 50 minutes, and was shot in Prague; London, Pinewood Studios & various other areas in England; and McLean, Virginia, & Washington DC.
GRADE: B-

When I first saw this movie I did not like it at all. My main gripe with the movie was (and is) that it did not feel like a Mission Impossible movie.
Spoilers ahead! In the original series the team always succeeded, at least in the episodes I watched. However, the movie starts off with a big failure. Then to make matters worse we learn that Mr. Phelps, one of the original lead characters, is actually a traitor. I was so disappointed!
Now when I watched it for the second time with my son I actually liked it a lot more. I still think it is sad that the script writers felt they had to introduce all these chock elements but trying to look past those this is a pretty good movie. I still do not think it is truly a Mission Impossible movie in the good old style of the series though.
It is a very good action/thriller movie though. Tom Cruise is really not bad in the role of Ethan Hunt and so are the rest of the actors. He is performing quite a few spectacular stunts and there are a decent amount of high tech stuff in the movie. Sure, some of the stunts and action scenes are perhaps a bit convoluted but it provides for some good cinemagic and it is fiction after all.
If this movie would not have been labelled Mission Impossible I would probably have given it another star but I cannot bring myself to completely overlook how far from the original inspiration it has strayed.

While the sequences that _Mission: Impossible_ is most famous for (the ceiling-descent and train-top) are truly thrilling, absolutely everything in between these scenes is obvious and uninspired. Rarely can a movie have you so completely engaged one minute, and then immediately back to checking the time the next.
An important film, pop-culturally speaking, but not a very good one.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

Where do I start! This comedy had me rolling almost from start to finish... some highly questionable scenes, I wouldn't recommend it for families with young children, but older teens will find it amusing I am sure. Interesting Plot, likable characters, and plenty of mishaps to make it just the right amount of humorous. I actually wouldn't mind if they tried to do a follow-up story to this... but only if they could get the same cast to star in it.

**A new franchise is on making!**
I was very happy when I heard about a sequel is on the development of Vin Diesel's one of the career early films. I was a teenager, and I remember celebrating it in the theatre with my friends. But, like the T2, it was too late for a sequel. Most of other franchises are going for spin-offs in the similar case. Anyway, it was good to see the original character back in the action. Although not liked changing the title logo. The original is evergreen.
Well, the story continued as the same gap between the first and this film. I thought the original concept was like solo action hero kind, but in here, it became a multi-starrer. Like most of the similar themed action film series, it tried to add variety of characters, including clichés like computer hackers and a boss to handle those rogue guys. But there were too many Triple Xes.
The story was okay. It only wanted to make a comeback, like a re- introduction of everything. I liked the diversity in the film characters. The casting was from around the world, picking the best team like Donnie Yen from HK, Tony Jaa from Thailand. But I did not understand why Donnie was speaking in Mandarin, instead of Cantonese.
From all I did not like Deepika. Yes, she's the real Indian beauty, but not a good actor, especially for actions, she's unsuitable. I would have preferred Priyanka in here. They two should have switched the films between this and 'Baywatch'. Jaa, I did think he had in him his witty character display. He was a completely different person in this. The rest of the guys were too not bad at all, particularly that stunt guy was awesome.
When it comes to the action sequences, not some, many were totally impossible. Surely not the really performed stunts they were. Simply a special effects, and it was too much to take on. Because they were not realistically appealing to accept. Those include, non-snow mountain skiing, ocean wave bike surfing, you add it. The good news is, it was okay for watching once, but I'm anticipating the next part to be a game changer in the franchise.
_5/10_

I must confess that I did have higher hopes for this movie. I’m not sure what the script writers was up to when writing it but they really seem to have a very low opinion of the audience’s intelligence. Either that or it was written for a very young audience.
There were parts of the movie that was quite fun to watch but on the whole it was pretty much a mess. It is a shame because it had quite a bit of promise. The core of the plot was not too bad although I really wish that Hollywood writers would stay away from plots involving computer gadgetry. Their knowledge in that area simply stinks. Thus the gadget that the entire movie was spun around was simply stupid.
Unfortunately another core plot element was the crooked CIA (or whatever department it was supposed to be) boss that of course had to do some senseless backstabbing just to prolong the movie. Tiresome, overused and boring. I know, I know with fucktards like Comey I guess one could say that it would not be too far from the truth but it is still tiresome, overused and boring.
Since I am on a rant anyway let’s go on to the various stunts and special effects. It is a long time since I watched a movie where the stunts were so obviously and totally overdone and unrealistic. I mean, they were unrealistic to the point where I started to wander if it was a slapstick comedy I was watching.
All of this really dragged down the movie … a lot!
On the good side. I did like many of the wacky characters. It is a shame that many of their wacky moments were less of a comic relief due to the above mentioned silliness but instead felt like the more serious moments in the movie.
Vin Diesel, well I watched this movie because I am a Vin Diesel fan so of course I liked him. He is his usual badass and kick ass self. He is also surrounded by a bunch of badass (and wacky as I mentioned before) characters. I quite liked the ensemble. The guy who seems to collect crashes is rather silly but fun in a strange way. I did like the gun girl a lot.
However, apart from quite a few fun and/or cool scenes the movie as a whole did not cut it. In my opinion it was ruined by a substandard script devoid of any form of intelligence. I would go as far as to say that the writers were incompetent pure and simple. I was almost giving it three stars because there was many parts I liked but in the end … no, there is no way I could justify more than two stars for this mess.
Really a shame. I would have liked to see more xXx movies but after this one I’m not sure anyone will bet money on that.

Just as Vin Diesel bailed out of the first The Fast and the Furious Sequel, he did the same for the sequel to xXx.
However after some years Diesel is back as extreme sports star turned spy Xander Cage in this daft but slightly entertaining film which has an incomprehensible plot, a smug star and even some dodgy CGI here and there.
The plot is some bad guys want the Pandora Box which can control spy satellites and it is Cage and his team's mission to retrieve it. However we just know everyone around is just treacherous so they should all watch their backs.

Words cannot express how incredibly overwrought, insipid, hyperactive and foolishly exaggerated the third entry into the action-packed _XXX_ film franchise is in the nonsensical and numbing operative spectacle **XXX: Return of Xander Cage**. Monosyllabic muscle-bound action star Vin Diesel revisits the rollicking and roguish skin of athletic spy/sports enthusiast Xander Cage in yet another splashy yet sophomoric throbbing thrill-ride that only diehard Diesel fanboys will swallow with unapologetic fervor.
When in doubt Diesel knows where his bread is buttered in terms of his secured box office appeal. The pumped-up performer has initiated the hoopla with a couple of popular action flicks in the past only to leave them briefly before deciding to return front and center. Diesel has done this tactic with the inexplicably desired _The Fast and the Furious_ movie series as well as the aforementioned _XXX_ offerings (actor/singers Tyrese Gibson and Ice Cube inherited the big screen honors in replacing the absent Diesel in these energized ditties respectively). Now Diesel is called into service once again to capitalize on the extreme spy genre while satisfying those thrill-seekers whose thirst for the James Bond and Jason Bourne action-grabbers may be perceived as relentlessly mild as the acrobatic antics of the hip Bald Bold One looks to overshadow his competitors in daunting dumbness.
Bottom line: who the heck was cramming for the ridiculous return of the attention-getting Xander Cage other than the motivated machismo of star/co-producer Diesel strutting his all-too-familiar slick shtick in an empty-minded vanity project that is jumpier than a kangaroo with the hiccups? There is nothing like playing to the convoluted escapism and exploiting the loyal demographics that continue to get a charge out of Diesel’s boisterous brand from the _Fast and Furious_ enterprise that still sizzles for some and fizzles for others. Nevertheless, this espionage eyesore features Diesel’s Cage at his best…and that is not saying much. He is as smooth as ice soothing your ailing tonsils. Check. He is a chick magnet to the highest degree. Check again. He can turn his biceps and brawn into an invaluable weapon for the safety of his country and comrades. Double check and then some. Overall, we get it…Xander Cage is a badass without boundaries and daredevil Diesel and his on-screen cohorts wants to reinforce such titillating tripe. Go figure.
Granted that **XXX: Return of Xander Cage’s** sole purpose is to play into the pulsating popcorn pleasure of its audience while expecting one not to take the excitable escapades too seriously. Still, the tired formula for this particular genre in general (not to mention a Vin Diesel-starring vehicle) feels utterly uninspired and recycled despite the ambitious showcasing of active triggers that include high-wire skiing through the woods, dirt bike surfing, daring skateboarding prowess while clinging to the side of a moving bus and oh yeah…a lot of colorful butt-kicking tactics to boot. The highly stylized lifestyle of the free-wheeling Cage is by-the-numbers hedonism–cause havoc, conquer the lovely ladies hormonal for his suave affections and come off looking cool this side of 70’s knockoff bad motherf&%$# private eye John Shaft in taking care of business. Great spy work if you can conjure it up for indiscriminate action junkies wanting to engage in this souped-up silliness without rhyme or reason.
For those not quite familiar with the Xander Cage “mythology” he was an extreme sports talent that had been recruited by NSA head honcho Augustus Gibbons (Samuel L. Jackson) to utilize his competitive skills and abilities undercover. Now Cage is back in the saddle as he horses around on yet another challenging assignment that finds him butting heads with a trio of baddies in Deepika Padukone’s Serena, Donnie Yen’s Xiang and Tony Jaa’s Talon–a threatening threesome experimenting with dangerously rigging outer space satellites or something to that trivial effect. Of course the crafty Cage–beyond wily and reckless–is often reigned in by the likes of his superiors including Agent Jane Marke (Oscar and Emmy nominated Australian actress Toni Collette needlessly toiling away in this toothless contraption of a spy thriller).
Director D.J. Caruso (2016’s “The Disappointments Room”) merely goes through the motions with this disjointed spy caper that flexes its moronic muscles without offering much else to the preposterous proceedings. The displayed dialogue in a Lucky Charms cereal commercial has more credibility than the words leaving the lips of the featured players in this woefully generic actioner. Diesel, who has shown some promise as an actor in previous critical fare from yesteryear such as 2000’s _Boiler Room_ and 2006’s _Find Me Guilty_ has since played it safe and relied on the frivolous “sure thing” with the repetitive Furious installments and other fluffy movie projects that had diminished his potential in Hollywood beyond the brainless blow-em-up cinema that he finds automatic comfort in churning out as a cinematic safety net.
Although they say that a single “X” usually marks the spot it takes triple X’s to disprove this theory when welcoming back the chaotic coolness that is Diesel’s detached dude in cocky-minded Xander Cage–the sensationalized showboat that should have left his debuted one-dimensional adventurous tendencies back in 2002.
**XXX: Return of Xander Cage** (2017)
(c) **Frank Ochieng** (2017)

Probably since my childhood days I was fond of this movie, but now it is not impressive anymore. However, the music and sound clips were impressive

Like my review of Footloose, this is a classic, everyone has seen it, everyone loves it. It's one of those movies that came from your childhood and lasts well into the adult manboy years.
So, we're going to do a comparison with the remake.
For starters..the Ghostbusters plays it straight. The comedy is presented like a drama and that is usually the absolute best way to do comedy...straight.
And conversely the remake is just sort of over the top. And when comedies try that hard to be comedies, they stop being funny.
Another part would be scene length. And again, playing it straight, the opening of 1984 is short and honestly kind of scary...
...when the remake drags on and deals with characters that honestly have nothing else to do with the film but introduce it. You lose interest sort of fast.
And this can be seen again with the humor. The introduction of the car in the remake is prime example. Pulls up with a hearse, someone makes a joke about checking to see if there is a body in there....
...the scene SHOULD stop when they look at the hearse and cut away to a different scene. But the remake drags on and the joke loses momentum and falls flat when it COULD have been an easy laugh.
Conversely in 1984 you have jokes like the Twinkie that ends with "tell him about the Twinkie" and it is funny because it doesn't drag on in an effort to be funny. The same can be said about testing the proton packs, the joke ends fast enough for it to actually be funny.
And then there is the script and direction, the 1984 version stuck to it and made sure everything was tight, even when it was improvised, it wasn't allowed to get out of control.
But the remake the actors took control and the improvisation went on too long, even with scenes being cut.
So what you have is a tight and fast film that is a comedy played straight like it should be...and one that everyone knows and loves because of it.

It was luck that I had this film and the sequel on my NowTV.
I watched this in the afternoon and it brings me back fond memories. Not too scary but suitable for the spooky month.
Who ya gonna call?!

They came, they saw, they briefly conquered the 80s.
A trio of misfit parapsychologists set up business as Ghostbusters. Ideal really because although slow at first, their business starts to boom as New York comes under threat from a supernatural force.
Dan Aykroyd had this idea about space Ghostbusters in the future and the plan was to have himself and fellow Blues Brother, John Belushi, star in it. Pitching it to producer and director Ivan Reitman saw the basic concept retained but eventually it became what we now know as Ghostbusters. Co-written with Harold Ramis (also a co-star), Aykroyd's genesis turned not only into a "monster" smash hit at the box office, but also into a pop-cultural "phenomenon". In fact it actually is nice to re-visit the film these days without the public euphoria that swamped the movie for what seemed like a decade. T-shirts with the Ghostbusters logo on were everywhere, a telephone number if you rang it would have the Busters on answer phone, whilst the title song from Ray Parker Jr could be heard on the hour every hour on the radio. Even the catch phrase of "who ya gonna call?" was being used by the young, the old and the restless. Marketing genius or cynical tactics covering a sub-standard film?
Well ultimately the film is really rather ace, it has some problems for sure (the effects were bad back then, never mind now and Ernie Hudson is a token addition to the team) but it's razor sharp with its wit and has a mass appeal to people of all ages. It's a basic odd ball's to the rescue plot, but the differing characterisations and comedy lift it considerably higher than similarly themed films that had come prior to it. That it boasts a bigger budget and Bill Murray of course helps the cause. Murray was brought in after Belushi had left the mortal coil, and promptly owns the film. His Dr. Venkman is a fusion of sarcasm, biting one liners and sees science as a way of getting girls. All of which blends mirthfully with the polar opposites that are Aykroyd's Stanz and Ramis' Spengler. Sigourney Weaver lights up the screen as the soon to be possessed, and chased by Venkmen, Dana Barrett and Rick Moranis does meek goof-ball supreme as Louis Tully. There's also value to be found in the script courtesy of some political nudging as the mayor is aware of vote power, while the human element badness and cynicism comes from William Atherton's (suitably weasel like) stiff suit Walter Peck.
Given its success (it made a worldwide profit of almost $262 million) a sequel was inevitable. Amiable enough as it was, it was a pale shadow of the first film and even recycled the ending. So stick with this bad boy then, a fun film for all that serves as a reminder of when the world went Ghostbusters barmy. 8/10

The relentless battles between apes and mankind are taking their toll, and forcing Caesar and his followers into the frozen wilderness where they encounter the megalomanic "Colonel" (Woody Harrelson). Tragically, coming off the worst at this meeting, the apes end up imprisoned by their new, ruthless, human masters - aided and abetted by some gorillas too - and used as little better than slaves. Adding to their woes, both sides know that an impeding visit by some heavily armed troops is not in either of their interests! It now falls to "Caesar" to come up with a plan to free his species before they are all wiped out. Whilst I did quite enjoy this, it's not as good as the "Dawn..." (2014). It takes far too long to get going and Harrelson has all the menace of a cucumber sandwich. There is just too much dialogue (and sentiment) and Matt Reeves struggles to build, let alone sustain, the pace and menace that he did so well last time out. Although it is a bit on the long side, the last hour largely makes up most of these deficiencies as the plan for vengeance takes shape and the pyrotechnics go into overdrive. Good, but not great.

'War for the Planet of the Apes' wraps up a great trilogy strongly.
I enjoyed this installment just as much as its two predecessors, all three films are just supremely entertaining and are very well put together. Caesar is a terrific character and continues to look fantastic in this; the special effects are top notch, even the way the apes are shown in shot is expertly done. The additions of Bad Ape and Nova are neat, too.
I'd personally rank it above 'Dawn' but below 'Rise', though there isn't much between them at all. Intrigued to see where they go with the proposed spin-off(s).

The title _War for the Planet of the Apes_ is perhaps a misnomer, and it doesn't necessarily build the legend in the way I was expecting it to, but a worthy threequel it still makes, and blockbuster trilogy with no bad entries is a rare thing to see.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

On this movie I have to get a couple of things out of the way straight away.
First, the movie title and the blurb is hyperbole that has little to do with actual events in the movie. This is not some great war but just some silly little three way skirmish between some apes and two human factions.
Second, the story for this movie is clearly written by someone who has an agenda and that agenda includes preaching how bad the white man is.
Not surprisingly the result is bland, boring, frustrating and not very entertaining.
I thought Dawn of the Planet of the Apes was mildly entertaining. Mostly due to the special effects. I thought Rise of the Planet of the Apes was okay. Again due to the special effects and because it had a fair amount of action. War for the Planet of the Apes do have decent special effects but nothing else. Add the obvious political agenda and the movie goes straight into a nose dive.
The humans in the movie are stereotypical bad people and the apes are victims whether they are actually good apes or just asshole apes. There’s some decent action in the beginning and some at the end. In between we are “treated” to a slew of emotional scenes (or at least I suppose that’s what they were supposed to be) were Ceasars grief and the evil of man are force fed down our throats.
Not surprisingly the movie ends, which it of course do not do until all humans in sight are killed off for no good reason, with the apes finding their little part of heaven all shown in warm and rosy colors. Close curtain…thank good!
I was not expecting much from this movie but this was a typical Hollywood-with-an-agenda-movie. That is, not a good movie as far as I am concerned.

Excellent trilogy
Most Hollywood remakes/reboots are failed cash grabs. They are pale imitations of the superior originals. But the new Planet of the Apes trilogy surprises in that it trumps all the previous Apes films--those from the 60's and 70's as well as the Tim Burton 2001 misfire. Caesar still leads the intelligent apes against the human forces who want to eradicate them. Caesar even shows mercy to some of his human captives, but the humans who fear the apes will not relent in their attempts to destroy them. The movie is driven largely by Andy Serkis's superb portrayal of Caesar. He is a complex and intriguing character. Woody Harrelson is also very good as the villain. His character is no generic, stock bad guy. He's layered and you may even surprisingly feel some sympathy for him. A great and thought provoking popcorn flick.

This is a fascinating appraisal of the antics on Wall Street leading up to the global economic crash that started with the collapse of the American mortgages market in the mid 2000s. Christian Bale, Ryan Gosling and Steve Carell are superb as the three men who identify and appreciate the risks, capitalise on the flaws and who ultimately epitomise the woefully lacking standards of regulation and comprehension by market and government alike; coupled with degrees of avarice that would make King Midas want to blush. The pace of the film is gripping - plenty of parallel threads that gradually conjoin to create a compelling narrative well exemplified by a cast at the top of their game delivering a taut, fast moving adaptation of Michael Lewis' frequently jaw-dropping book. The technique of using real celebrities (like Margot Robbie & Selena Gomez) to illustrate some of the more abstruse aspects of these bewildering processes is effective, and the supporting cast - especially Brad Pitt (who reminded me a lot of Robert Redford), as perhaps the most odious of all: he knew the likely pitfalls for the ordinary people of their scheming, but proceeded regardless - Rafe Spall and Finn Wittrock add marvellously to this. What is does lack, though, is any sort of political dimension. It sets it's sights fairly on the excesses of the businesses, but focusses not at all on the incompetencies of regulators and politicians alike, which does present us with a bit of bias as to the complicity of many, many more than just the bankers in this disaster. It has a degree of thinly woven humanity to it, but sadly illustrates all to clearly how profligacy and greed prevailed in the absence of any real sense of decency or integrity. The last ten minutes is particularly potent - or should that be portentous...?

**Overall, Adam McKay somehow found a way to make a movie about mortgage fraud profoundly entertaining while still informative.**
Is it even possible that a serious film this well written, acted, and shot could possibly be directed by the same guy that did Anchorman, Talladega Nights, and Step Brothers? I know! Mindblowing! But Adam McKay pulled it off with an incredible cast and brilliant storytelling that took advantage of multiple narratives to keep the movie moving quickly. The Big Short was keenly aware that some of its necessary exposition was pretty complex and boring, so it found clever and entertaining ways to give those cumbersome details without losing its audience. As a guy that generally needs explosions and car chases to keep me engaged, I could not believe how much I enjoyed this film. The Big Short is an eye-opening film that tells a complex story with a fun, fast pace that keeps the audience engaged and entertained.

Perfect film as I see. The actors are all awesome and characteristic. The rhythm is tight and deeply involving.
I really like the theme -- 2008 global economy crisis. This film explains many technical sides unfamiliar to most of us, including those deeply affected by this catastrophe. Above the technical details, the main four roles have different philosophical insights during this event:
Michael Burry -- Realistic, Objective, Knowing history
Ben Rickert & Pals -- Murphy's Law
Jared Vennett -- Distrust of the Big Corp
Mark Baum -- Belief in the justice, even in against of the money
In conclusion, 100% recommended.