The King decided that he didn't much fancy this third outing, so conveniently died and left the kingdom to his daughter "Fiona" and her husband "Shrek". Thing is, he'd much rather just stay at home and leave the governing to someone else. "I know", thinks he - let's go and find the legendary "Prince Artie" and see if we can't get him to take the job instead. Off he, "Donkey" and "Puss in Boots" set on their quest, but they don't bargain on the scheming "Prince Charming" who has designs on the throne for himself. It's this latter gent who has cleverly assembled an army straight from the Brothers Grimm to do his fighting, charming and seducing for him. Can our intrepid trio manage to thwart his cunning plan, find the missing prince and get back before "Fiona" has her baby? I actually quite enjoyed this rather derivative adventure, possibly because the annoying donkey takes much lesser a role as their search plays to many other fantasies, a bit of Arthurian myth and has plenty of action to keep it moving along for ninety minutes. It was always going to be more difficult to keep the character fresh after six years, and the writing here isn't quite as witty as we've seen before, but the underlying characters are still quite engaging and the hero/anti-hero storyline did rise a smile from time to time. Maybe Dreamworks ought to take the hint, though, and call it quits now?

Denzel Washington saves the day.
There's nothing I'd consider special about 'The Equalizer', though thanks to a typically stellar performance from lead Washington I still had a fun time watching this 2014 release. It's a great showing from Denzel, not that that is a surprise given he is - alongside Leonardo DiCaprio - my favourite actor.
Otherwise, it's a pretty standard vigilante action flick which probably goes on for slightly too long and features some forgettable, if solid, support cast/characters, the latter is especially true for the rather plain villains. The music is also standard, though does improve towards the end with the final score and end credit soundtrack.
All in all, a worthwhile watch thanks to Denzel. I'm hoping the sequel, whilst still featuring a top lead performance, is more of a well rounded effort - I guess I'll soon see!

Expected pretty good, got very good. Can't call _The Equaliser_ a perfect movie, but I love me a mixed bag of content like this.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

For me this was a very entertaining vigilante flick. Denzel Washington is excellent in his role as a cold and calculating yet compassionate vigilante. The movie is slower than a lot of movies in this genre but that does not make it boring and when the action starts it is measured (for a movie in this genre) and well done.
Although there is a red thread, started by McCall’s first act of vigilantism, running through the movie he also performs a few on the side jobs as well during the movie. I like the vigilante stuff so for me this was some nice fillers to round off the movie.
The main thread pitches McCall against a real psychopathic Russian enforcer. No one can say that this movie did not have a well done bad guy. The role is quite well played. The guy is creepy to say the least. Not to mention violent of course but then so is McCall when the time is right.
One thing I liked with this movie is that McCall it is not one of the usual run around, look dangerous and clobber the bad guys in periodic outbursts of violence stereotypes. McCall is always calm, calculating, behaving intelligently and the baddies almost never realizes the mistake they just did until it is quite a bit too late.
Sure, the capacity of McCall to clobber the bad guys, usually without getting hurt himself, is bordering on superhuman but what the heck, it is fiction after all. Totally realistic movies are rarely fun, at least not movies of this genre. Also, the end fight where the baddies are more or less running around aimlessly and get taken out could have been better. Especially since the Russian mobster had shown quite a bit of intelligence up until that point. Having said that, I did like that it did not degenerate into the usual 20 minute shoot anything that moves nonsense. McCall is continuing his cold and calculating rampage through the unfortunate individuals on the wrong side and the various ways of disposing of them are rather creative.
On the whole I found this to be a rather entertaining movie. In one sense it is the usual vigilante stuff, which I happen to like, but in one sense it is not your normal run of the mill vigilante movie thanks to Denzel Washington’s cold, calculating and intelligent portrayal of McCall.

Watched the movie last night, kept me interested although somewhat predictable plot. Big bad guy, quiet good guy, helpless victims, bad guy gets his. Overall I did like the movie, but then again I like anything Denzel is in.

Porn quality without getting to see actual porn... Poor acting, poor dialogues, poor story, only the photography passable.

If I were in the mood to watch adult content, Netflix would definitely not be my first choice. The movie I stumbled upon was a total disaster, making me extremely uncomfortable, especially when children unexpectedly walked into the room. It was a messy experience that I strongly advise against.
"365 Days" seems to be all about sex and trying to engage the audience solely on that basis. The sequel follows the same pattern, and both films are filled with excessive plot holes, acting issues, and seem to lack a meaningful storyline. It feels like they are veering towards the wrong direction, almost resembling pornography rather than a film with substance.
Despite being somewhat enjoyable, these movies left me questioning why they were even made. I only watched the sequel because I had seen the first one and felt compelled to review both at the same time, even though I found them both to be quite terrible.

The fuck? (pardon the pun)
It's actually impressive how diabolically terrible '365 Days' is. I had heard small details about how sexual this was but hadn't seen anything about the film's other aspects. Now I know why, there aren't any.
It's just one big illicit romp with practically nothing holding it together, a cynic would say this is Netflix just getting pornography on their platform through the back door (pardon the p... nevermind).
The worse part about this is the glorification of sexual violence, whether it be kidnapping or even - startlingly - rape. How the plot plays out is actually extraordinary - it turns out THIS is the way into a would-be lover's heart... who knew?! It's crazy. You could argue it's a sexually explicit retelling of 'Beauty and the Beast', but that's an argument for another day.
They could've done this without the aforementioned and still got the same vibe out of the film, it's bizarre why they choose to go down this direction. You can make characters hate each other before jumping into bed together, you simply do not need the criminality aspect.
If I were to offer minor solaces of 'praise' about this 'film': the music (random Mabel is random) and the end scene, which is well shot.

The characters and their interactions aren't interesting, the direction's flat, and the story fails to build or maintain tension or momentum, so the audience's interest is neither captured nor kept. There are one or two steamy sex scenes (and I appreciated the use of what I assume is a prosthetic dildo in the blowjob scenes) but the rest of the movie's filler. There is budget softcore stuff that's both titillating and mildly entertaining on a narrative level. This is 95% neither. This is 95% bleh.

In the quiet words of the Virgin Mary... come again?
Snatch seems to be one of those spunky British gangster films that critics are divided on, yet it's loved by the target audience. Guy Ritchie has done a Sam Raimi, he has remade the first film that put him on the cinematic map. Where Raimi remade The Evil Dead, and just called it Evil Dead II, Ritchie cheekily tries to get away with remaking Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and calling it Snatch. Sure the circumstances in plotting are different, and there's a big American star brought in to beef things up for the global market, but it's the same movie and without doubt it's lazy film making. But it still - like Evil Dead II - Rocks!
Snatch in story terms is concerned with a big diamond that stitches together a number of threads involving the London underworld. Some rough and tough Romany types join in the fun, headed by a purposely illegible Brad Pitt, while Dennis Farina, Benicio Del Toro and Rade Serbedzija add more cosmopolitan meat to the crooks and gangster stew. The British cement holding the building up comes in the twin forms of Jason Statham and Stephen Graham, with Vinnie Jones once again turning up to frighten the masses. Everything from bare knuckle fighting to bumbled robberies - to dog fighting and shifty arcade empires - are here, with Ritchie writing characterisations that positively boom off of the screen.
As with "Lock-Stock", the beauty is in the way violence and humour are deftly blended. Scenes are often bloody but also bloody funny, a pearl of dialogue is never far away from a perilous situation. The comic tone is more close to the knuckle here, Ritchie having fun toying with ethnic and machismo stereotypes, while he brings his bag of visual tricks before it got boring. The narrative is deliciously complex, but much credit to Ritchie for the way he pulls all the threads neatly together in a whirl of scene splicing and cocky literary assuredness.
So it's "Lock-Stock 2" then! No bad thing if you happen to be a fan of that sort of wide boy malarkey. If you don't like it? Then jog on sunshine. 8/10

The introduction of Doctor Strange in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is hailed as a great beginning, with the character's origin story setting the stage for his journey into the mystical world. The inclusion of Christine Palmer, portrayed by Rachel McAdams, is praised as a solid choice, although some viewers feel that her character could have been further developed, with a more profound exploration of her role and potential in the MCU.
While the first Doctor Strange film lays a strong foundation for the character and the magical realm he inhabits, some fans express disappointment with the portrayal of the ultimate villain. Despite this, the film is recognized as a promising start to the Doctor Strange storyline within the MCU, introducing audiences to a new dimension of superheroes and storytelling.
However, the sequel, "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness," receives criticism for its perceived shortcomings. Some viewers feel that the film falls short of expectations, lacking the depth and coherence expected from a Marvel installment. The rushed nature of the film and its perceived lack of attention to detail lead to disappointment, with viewers feeling let down by the outcome.
The underwhelming reception of the sequel raises concerns about the future of the Doctor Strange franchise, with doubts lingering about the direction and quality of upcoming installments. The mixed reviews and dissatisfaction with "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness" leave some fans hesitant about the potential success of future Doctor Strange films within the MCU.

**A colossal work of incredible CGI, in which the script is quite lost, and the actors do a good job playing characters they already know well.**
Contrary to my custom, I saw this film directly after the first one. It wasn't my will, it was the TV channel that decided to show them in sequence. And that's good: things are clearer and more understandable if we have previously seen the initial film, which explains the origin of the character and her journey. There are some aspects and details of the script that I didn't understand, but as Marvel tends to chain its films together, as if they were the threads of a tapestry, I believe that what I didn't understand will be related to the number of Marvel films that I still didn't have the opportunity to see it.
The film is directed by Sam Raimi, which immediately raised my eyebrows: after all, he is a truly creative and intelligent director, who has already given us works worthy of praise, although hero films have not gone well for the director in the past. As far as I know, production was extremely confusing and, as we know, heavily affected by the recent pandemic. Raimi took advantage, rewrote a good part of the script and revised everything, in order to create a bizarre, somewhat scary story (he started out as a director of cheap horror films, let's remember), about the multiverse, a concept that has been explored a lot in the cinema of this decade.
As expected, the film was a brutal success, both at the box office and in terms of specialized critics, having registered the fourth-best box office of 2022, and was sacramentally ignored by the Oscars, even in the visual and technical categories where, in my opinion, opinion, he could have had a good chance of winning a prize. In fact, the film is a visual spectacle of supreme proportions, making the most of the multiverse's enormity of possibilities for a visual experience that is worth it in itself. If the first film had already been colossal in terms of effects and CGI, this film surpasses it almost in every way. The sets, costumes, props, makeup, everything was thought out in minute detail and makes good use of the huge budget that Marvel made available. And the work of the stuntmen and choreographers was excellent in the action and fight scenes.
The script brings together two characters from the Marvel universe in the same story: the already known Dr. Strange and the Scarlet Witch, Wanda Maximoff. Before this film, and what came before it, I didn't know them because I'm not a big fan of comics, although I recognize Marvel's exceptional work in this field over several decades. There is also a third character who enters here, America Chavez, a young Latina who, honestly, must be some kind of third-line character, but who assumes considerable relevance to the plot. In general, the script seems weaker to me than that of the first film, and this could be a direct consequence of the immense confusion that was the entire process of conceiving and producing the film, between a pandemic, withdrawals and all sorts of setbacks.
Benedict Cumberbatch returns to his character and does a job well done, although the actor seems to be working with slightly less interesting material and entering a comfort zone that makes things more monotonous. Elizabeth Olsen was also perfectly at ease with her character, as she had already played it in other films in the Marvel universe that I, as far as I remember, have not yet seen. She is quite good at what she does, and the actress's work is convincing. There are also several other actors from the first film who return for a new job: Rachel McAdams and Chiwetel Ejiofor have an easier job, but it seems to me that the film doesn't particularly take advantage of them. Much better luck had Benedict Wong, with impeccable work, and Xochitl Gomez, who made positive use of the opportunity, even without deserving the spotlight.

Great movie. This multi-universe stuff is crazy. I wish I could be a part of this in real life. It would be so awesome.

Man all the people that went into this to watch a Doctor Strange movie are going to be angry aren't they?
This isn't about Doctor Strange, well, it is if you make Doctor Strange into a bumbling idiot. This is about Woke Captain America, Amerigo Chavez, the biological daughter of two Lesbian women who is the center focus of this backdoor pilot.
And it is about Wanda, who did horrible things and was instantly forgiven because girl power... or something... or Woke or whatever.
But don't expect to see the Sorcerer Supreme in this, you know given that since Strange was already stripped of that title because he is problematic and they couldn't let him retain it, but then, don't expect to see that much of Strange either.

I really like Doctor Strange and i really liked the first Doctor Strange movie. So of course I was worried that Marvel being Marvel would screw this one up with their usual woke nonsense or just a substandard Hollywood writer hack script as they too often have done.
Fortunately that was not the case. I quite liked this one.
The movie is a CGI special effects feast of course. That is really one of the main reasons to watch this movie. However, Benedict Cumberbatch is really great as Doctor Strange as well.
The movie has a half decent story. As good as you could expect from a Marvel movie. As usual it is a mix of action, suspense and comedy relief and Marvel has actually managed to get a decent balance in this movie. Doctor Strange stays competent throughout the movie and although Wong is sometimes a bit silly it is not too bad. There is little of the unintelligent slapstick “comedy” that Marvel sometimes pollute their movies with.
I have to say that the main bad guy, Wanda the Scarlet Witch, was a bit mediocre though. Sure, when she let loose with her magic it was generally cool but, to me, she lacked real bad guy charisma.
At times the movie became a rather violent actually. Although there was no real gore in it, the way Wanda disposed of some of the heroes in the alternate universe was somewhat brutal. Also the alternate universe undead Doctor Strange was almost horror movie material.
The bottom line, for me, is that overall this was a very good movie.

Cool!
Wish it had a bit more finesse in it he way it handles its themes and structure, but I had a lot of fun. I’m a big fan of Sam Rami’s past work and the stylistic flourishes (seemingly) brought on by his involvement were definitely welcome given how homogeneous the other MCU films have become. Might be the best cinematography and editing in the franchise! Also shoutout to Xochitl Gomez for holding her own here, second feature length project and its on this scale? Good stuff.
Hoping I’ll love it even more on rewatch, there were some noisy people sitting behind me in the theater and it took me out of the film quite a few times.

**Pretty good but filled with missed opportunities.**
A Marvel movie so different than the rest... while still just like the rest. With the introduction of the Multiverse, this movie took full advantage of the opportunity to explore new worlds, new variations on familiar characters, and character cameos that Marvel fans have been desperately waiting for! I enjoyed Raimi's horror influences on the MCU. Unfortunately, the movie propelled itself from start to finish at breakneck speed, preventing the story from really taking advantage of the exciting cameos and roster of characters. The pace also jumped past true character motivations making the average audience confused and unsympathetic towards a formerly well-accepted hero now turned villain.

First of all, let me say that I enjoyed the first Doctor Strange along with many other projects Benedict was involved in, but this one removed all the sanity and introduced horrific and woke garbage that simply destroyed this movie for me. Somehow they managed to take a perfectly acceptable character and transform it into crazy madness and barbaric nonsense. Even those initial stumbling blocks I could have gotten past, but Disney decided to interject their woke garbage into this movie like many other new shows which has now put them on a blacklist for so many others like me. Not sure I would ever pay or even 'watch for free' anything by this company again, but that is me. I have standards, and clearly Disney is determined to brainwash their viewers with woke trash. So (for me) this movie doesn't move the needle, in fact I consider it a waste of my time. 🧻🚽🪠🚫🤮

good film

Dr. Strange explores the multiverse even further than Spider-Man: No Way Home. It was extremely entertaining, and Sam Raimi brought a good amount of horror to the MCU, even though I would have preferred slightly more. Both Dr. Strange and Scarlet Witch stole the show and really made this movie for me. Many movies you wish it were a bit shorter, but with Multiverse of Madness, I really wish we got 15 more minutes. A lot happens in a short 2-hour chunk, and pacing would have been much better if it were given a slightly longer run time.
**Verdict:** _Great_

This is a good movie. It's has Balderdash Crumplebutter and he's a good actor. He doesn't afraid to have grey hair in his beard and he can do **magic** to the bad guys to win.
> Do or do not, magic is not about trying.
Love it!!

Obviously this film came loaded with the usual great special effects and endless battle scenes that I guess are needed to draw and hold your average superhero movie fan. Not so much of the Marvel wit and humor that are more like to hold me, the anything but average fan, or rather,not a fan at all, though I do like science fiction.
For me, the 500 pound elephant in the room that cast a shadow over the entire movie was the villain. Now if you haven’t seen the film yet this may count as a spoiler, though it is revealed fairly early on. But the former heroine turned evil one is a woman taken over by the dark side. But what got me was her motive. Not to take over the world or the universe or the multiverse, but rather because she wanted to be a mommy to kids she lost along the way, or never had, or something. Billions of people in multiple universes died because she didn’t want to adopt.
It seems like inserting herself into one universe might have been enough for you or me, but I suppose she wanted more options open if something went wrong with the first kids whose mother she killed (or is it her alternate self?) to get hold of. Dr. Strange even asked about it once, and she blithely explained that if her new old kids got terribly sick, she could find the cure for anything in other universes. She is the perfect mom, doing anything for her kids; well, except for providing moral leadership and showing them the path to be a good person who helps others and contributes to the world around them. Yeah, do as I say, kids, not as I do.
Whoever created the evil dark book that took over her personality would have been disappointed that it was used merely to seed a new family.

Whilst I really did quite enjoy this - and it was great to be in a busy cinema again - it's really more of a testament to the skills of the VFX guys rather than to any of the writers. The story is really pretty thin with the engaging and confident Benedict Cumberbatch joining forces with the charismatic and feisty young Xochitl Gomez' "America" - a young lady who has been appearing in his dreams. Turns out, she can cross from one universe to another - and soon both are being sought by the mighty Elizabeth Olsen's "Wanda Maximoff" (surely a "Bond" girl?) who wants control of time so she can get back to her lost family, yada yada... Benedict Wong features sparingly, but always adds a little value as the "Sorcerer Supreme" and there are a few cameos from Charlize Theron and Sir Patrick Stewart to help prop up what is, admittedly, a pretty meagre second half. I think this multiverse strand could provide Marvel with the gift that keeps on giving, but they have got to tighten the pace up - two hours for this was just too long; the plot doesn't sustain it and though the combat scenes are nothing to the length in the "Avengers" movies; there is still far too much slack here. It does look and sound great on a big screen, though, and I am now warming to the star in the role (and his intuitive flying cape). Fun, but flawed.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/doctor-strange-multiverse-madness-spoiler-free-review
"Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is undoubtedly one of the most unique installments in the MCU, thanks to Sam Raimi's distinctive visual style and his impressive ability to elude the Marvel formula by seriously venturing into the horror elements. Never has a film from the cinematic universe been so violent, bloody, and terrifying.
Benedict Cumberbatch and especially Elizabeth Olsen carry the complex story about the multiverse through Michael Waldron's flawed screenplay. The balance between the various storylines could be better, America Chavez is just one MacGuffin to reach another MacGuffin, and the journey through the multiple universes only compensates for the mind-blowing visual effects.
Some personal disappointment is associated with the cameos treatment and the lack of real-location filming. Overall, more was expected from what was supposed to be Phase Four's "big movie", but it's a solid entry into the top half of the franchise."
Rating: B

_Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness_ is dark, silly, and fan pleasing. The film is at is most bewitching when Sam Raimi can let his horror roots be showcased. It will satisfy horror and superhero film fans alike, but would have and could have been even better if Raimi was allowed to dive even further into the horror genre. Be sure to stay after the credits, as well. There are two after credits sequences with the final one being so absurdly on the nose for Sam Raimi that it may be the most entertaining part of the film.
**Full review:** https://hubpages.com/entertainment/Doctor-Strange-in-the-Multiverse-of-Madness-2022-Review-Sam-Raimi-Finally-Brings-Horror-to-the-MCU

'The Mummy' is a film that I've taken way too long to see. I've known of these films for ages, in fact I think I (illogically) watched the third film when I was a kid. This first entry is very good. I haven't got much to note other than the fact that there's plenty to enjoy, it's a fun two hours.
Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz are a sturdy onscreen pairing, both give praiseworthy performances. I wasn't overly keen on the characters of John Hannah and Kevin J. O'Connor, neither hamper enjoyment mind. Oded Fehr (wanted to see more of him) and Omid Djalili are pluses though.
The special effects haven't aged the most gracefully, though for 1999 I guess there aren't too bad - and again, like Hannah & O'Connor, it didn't affect me whilst watching, it's just noticeable that's all. That's the only noteworthy drawback that I have for this, it's entertaining all in all.

The Mummy is one of those movies that never loses its charm, no matter how many times you watch it. Directed by Stephen Sommers, it's the perfect mix of action, adventure, and humor, with just the right amount of spooky thrills to keep things exciting.
Brendan Fraser is a standout as Rick O'Connell, bringing charisma, humor, and heart to the role. He's not just a great action hero but also someone you can't help but root for. His chemistry with Rachel Weisz, who plays the smart and fearless Evelyn, makes the story even more engaging. Add in the brilliant Arnold Vosloo as the menacing Imhotep, and you've got a cast that makes every scene memorable.
The film's mix of practical effects and CGI, while dated in some places, still works beautifully to create an epic, larger-than-life feel. It's the kind of movie that reminds you why adventure films are so fun.

This is just a good bit of fun. Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz star as the unlikely couple who set off to discover the golden treasures of Pharaoh Seti I. Alongside her hapless, scaredy-cat brother (John Hannah) they encounter the Mummy - an epitome of evil, disease and destruction - and engage in a battle royale to defeat this monstrous reincarnation. Stephen Sommers keeps this moving along well, and there is enough in the script to make you smile now and again. Perhaps not a film to be too closely scrutinised by any Egyptologists out there, but it's an enjoyable little romp through a rarely exploited vein of ancient mythology.

**An action-comedy horror blockbuster that hits at every level!**
The Mummy gets everything right! This remake takes the original monster movie and brilliantly blends it with "Indiana Jones"esque adventure. Though primarily an action-adventure movie, The Mummy adds comedy and horror with outstanding results. Brendan Fraser and John Hannah's humor provides moments of release between monster kills and the attack of undead hordes. Stephen Sommers perfectly balances fun and fright, simultaneously leaving the audience in peril and safety. The Mummy has something for everyone creating a delightful and widely entertaining action-horror romp. This film lands at the number one spot as my favorite creature feature of all time!

***Indiana Jones Horror Story***
If you think "The Mummy" (1999) is a remake of the glacial, ultra-serious classic of the same name, think again. This version is just as much an action/adventure (and comedy) as it is horror; and not 'horror' in the sense that it's scary, but rather horrific. Also, be ready for quite a few laugh-out-loud parts.
Everything magically works, granting the viewer a highly entertaining romp. Brendan Fraser is perfect as the Indiana Jones wannabe. Rachael Weisz is so cute it's hard to take your eyes off her (WATCH OUT for her opening library scene). Arnold Vosloo is great as the mummy Imhotep and Oded Fehr is memorable as Ardeth Bay, the Magi guardian of the City of the Dead. John Hannah offers some comedic amusing moments as Eve’s brother and Kevin J. O'Connor is perfect as a selfish, disloyal, greedy little weasel.
"The Mummy" is not great ponderous art as in, say, "Apocalypse Now" or "2001: A Space Odyssey," but it is great adventure and horrific fun. On that level, it's filmmaking of the highest order.
The movie runs 2 hours, 4 minutes, and was shot in England, Morocco and Glen Canyon, Arizona.
GRADE: A-