Simultaneously both more grim and more silly than the Indiana Jones films either side of it, _The Temple of Doom_ was my favourite of the series as a kid. As an adult though, it seems it is objectively the worst movie in the trilogy, but damn if there isn't a lot of memorable parts to love about it.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

**The best film in the series**
_Raiders_ was great but suffered patches of slowness where the momentum was damaged - I know people who actually fast forward Raiders when Indy and Sallah discover the Well of Souls and begin watching the film again at the plane fight sequence.
_Temple of Doom_, however, is a non stop rollercoaster ride - a thrilling, violent and funny adventure. Spielberg's best action film, in my opinion. Violence, horror, sentimentality, thrills, comedy - _Temple_ has it all! _And more_!!!
John Williams provides a superb Indian infused score performed beautifully by the ever reliable _London Symphony Orchestra_ probably my favourite musical score of the series too. Indy takes a severe beating in this adventure, famously losing his shirt sleeve in the process - whereas in the toned down Raiders rehash, _Last Crusade_, he merely gets a bit of dust on his hat.
A great whirlwind of energy this film is. Love it!
- Potential Kermode

Unbreakable! What a classic. M. Night Shyamalan really took the superhero genre and flipped it on its head with this one. It's such a slow-burn, introspective take on the idea of "What if superheroes were real, but grounded in reality?"
Bruce Willis as David Dunn is so understated but powerful in his performance. He just exudes this quiet strength, and his journey of self-discovery is handled so well. That scene where he's lifting weights in the basement? Iconic. It’s such a simple moment, but it’s brimming with meaning, like he’s finally starting to believe he might be more than just an ordinary man.
And then there’s Samuel L. Jackson as Elijah Price, or “Mr. Glass.” Talk about a perfectly cast role. He brings this eerie, almost tragic depth to a character who’s obsessed with finding his opposite. The way Shyamalan builds up their dynamic, leading to that twist ending... I mean, come on, it’s such a Shyamalan twist, but it works so perfectly here.
The relationship between David Dunn and his son is one of the most heartfelt aspects of Unbreakable. It’s a quiet exploration of faith and trust between a father and son, with Joseph’s unwavering belief in his dad adding emotional weight to David’s journey. Their bond reflects the film’s deeper themes of self-discovery and the quiet strength found in family, making the story not just about extraordinary abilities, but also about the human connections that ground us. It’s these tender moments that give the film its emotional core, balancing the suspense with genuine heart.
What I love most about Unbreakable is how it plays with the idea of comic book tropes without ever feeling like a comic book movie. The cinematography, those long, deliberate takes, makes everything feel heavy and significant. And James Newton Howard’s score? Chills every time.

one of the most underrated masterpieces in cinema history

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)
What a movie! This is one of the most underrated films out there, and it was unfairly compared to The Sixth Sense at the time the former was released. These are two very different movies, but both of them have a lot of twists, which was what brought fame to Shyamalan's films, especially The Sixth Sense.
Unbreakable follows that same methodology. It has a lot of twists throughout the runtime, and they are quite diverse: some are very technical twists, related to our point of view of a particular scene that, as it progresses, we always find ourselves tricked (these ones, most people either don't catch them or just don't care ... For me, it's proof of brilliant writing); the others are the prominent plot twists, where something unpredictable happens to the overall story.
This movie has all of that and much more. The story itself is incredibly captivating since the main plot holds a lot of mystery and suspense, but these only work as well as they did thanks to Shyamalan, both director and screenwriter. His very unconventional way of storytelling and the anxiety that he's able to convey to some fantastic scenes, elevate the film while delivering a perfect narrative. It's even more mind-blowing the fact that this movie still makes so much sense and it didn't lose its replay value after 17 years!
In fact, I bet it would be a striking success nowadays, where the superhero genre is over-saturated. Each year, we get more and more movies following the excessively used genre's formula that makes almost every blockbuster an instant box office hit. Unbreakable is nowhere near that formula, and I genuinely think that any fan of comic-book films must watch this one so everyone can understand what a "grounded superhero movie" actually means. M. Night Shyamalan wrote a story that everyone can appreciate, without all of those big CGI fights and overwhelming visual effects. Comic-book fan or not, Unbreakable is the closest to what reality would be if superheroes really existed.
Regarding the cast, Bruce Willis probably has his career-best dramatic performance in this film. He's terrific as David and I can feel all of the emotions which he wants to transmit to the screen. Samuel L. Jackson brilliantly plays Elijah, who has a real-life disease which SLJ portrayed beautifully and respectfully. The supporting cast is also worth praising since both Robin Wright (Audrey Dunn) and Spencer Treat Clark (Joseph Dunn) play magnificent roles as the wife and son of David, respectively.
Everyone helped Shyamalan direct exquisite dialogue sequences that extended for minutes without end. The editing and production of this movie are unbelievable ... and it was filmed in 2000! There are so many long, one-take scenes that explain in just a few minutes, everything you need to know about a character or a specific place or event ... Even a full action sequence is filmed in just one-take (the stunt work is also pretty efficient)! The soundtrack is so important, especially in the last act where everything comes to a conclusion. It's inspirational and even epic, I dare calling it. It's just perfect! Throughout the runtime, you can barely notice it due to how subtle it is. However, when it is needed to deliver a new layer of feelings, it always raises the moment.
As discussed above, this is a M. Night Shyamalan film, so a very powerful twist right at the end needs to happen ... and it does. It gives the audience an unpredictable perspective about the whole story. I risk myself in saying that it isn't exactly necessary, but the truth is that it makes sense and it does bring the movie to a whole other level, so very, very well done! Finally, I just wish that this film had been released now. It is so much different than what we are used to watching and experiencing, that I dare to say it is one of the best movies inside this genre.
Once again, Shyamalan shows the audience why was he becoming one of the most popular directors/screenwriters and proves that his rather unconventional storytelling, unpredictable twists and excellent direction are skills to praise more often. Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson have great chemistry, but the former has his career-best dramatic performance. The editing, production, soundtrack and even the pacing of this film are entirely flawless, as well as the ending twist that leaves us with our jaws dropped. Unbreakable is one of the most underrated superhero movies ever, but it sits way on top as one of my favorites.

Not The Shamhammer's best, but certainly of the era when he was still making "good".
Final rating:★★★ - I personally recommend you give it a go.

Soon found out had a heart of glass.
It often gets forgotten just what an exciting talent M. Night Shyamalan was during the early part of his film making career. True that Unbreakable, with its deliberate slow pacing and left-field narrative, would (and has) proved to be not everyone's cup-o-tea, but there's a film making craft here, and a genius idea brought to vivid life, that makes a spectrum of film lovers lament how his career nose dived, how his ideas quickly got as stupid as his acting...
Unbreakable challenges the thought process, spinning a story that's of a adult comic book heart, but also of a clinical human examination. The narrative is consistently ambiguous, holding the patient viewers in enthral as the cosmic conundrums come tumbling off of the screen. It's refreshing to find a story like this that is so devoid of cliché, where the wonderfully reflective Bruce Willis and the brilliantly fascinating Samuel L. Jackson feed off each other, their character's destinies superbly steered by cast and director. Unbreakable is a complex movie, but not needlessly so, its strengths are numerous for those of a keen eye and ear. It represents Shyamalan's most clever cinematic offering, to which the sad realisation comes to pass that he would never, as yet, be this smart and vibrant again. 10/10

Matt Damon ("Jason Bourne") is fished out off the sea by a passing fishing boat and after having had bullets removed from his back, determines to find out just what happened to him. One slight snag - he has absolutely no idea who he is! Luckily, his rescuer has some skill with a scalpel and aside from the bullets, he removes a small gadget that contains details of a Swiss bank account that ultimately gives him a name, but asks far more questions than it answers. He goes to the US embassy, but that doesn't quite go to plan and in escaping picks up the feisty "Marie" (Franka Potente) and the two have to evade chasing police and would-be assassins as they try to discover the mystery of "Treadstone". It's a gripping, end-to-end spy thriller with short, refined, fight scenes that genuinely engenders suspense and peril. Robert Ludlum's story survives largely intact and Damon, alongside a suitably duplicitous performance from Brian Cox, deliver well.

**The Bourne Identity returns the spy genre to hard-hitting realism with face-paced hand-to-hand combat, clever espionage, and a great lead.**
In the early 2000s, when James Bond was surfing on laser-melted glaciers and fighting diamond-crusted henchmen and Ethan Hunt was dual-weird diving through a flock of doves, The Bourne Identity charted a new path. Doug Liman took Good Will Hunting’s Matt Damon, whose biggest action role to this point had been watching Tom Hanks die to save him in Saving Private Ryan and turn him into a hardcore action hero. But unlike Bond and Mission Impossible, Bourne was a grounded and gritty spy that used skill and ingenuity to overcome the duplicitous intelligence agencies that wanted him dead. The action is more realistic and brutal, with the punches landing harder and pens stabbing deep. The Bourne Identity reinvented the spy genre.

Lost count the number of times I've watched The Bourne Identity but it's still a fantastic action-thriller with Matt Damon perfectly cast in the lead which if I recall at the time he was only known for dramas. Some issues with how the sequels were handled, mainly (in TBU) the suggestion Bourne and Nicki (Julia Stiles) had some sort past relationship when it's pretty clear he was just another black ops agent.
In any case, still works almost 20 years later and I'm sure I'll revisit this one again. **4.0/5**

Pretty decent movie. Was not expecting the movie to be that entertaining. I love the little twist into the movie.

Full review: https://www.tinakakadelis.com/beyond-the-cinerama-dome/2021/12/28/punk-fashion-cruella-review
There are many aspects of _Cruella_ that are easy to love. The campiness of Emma Stone’s performance as the titular Cruella, Emma Thompson doing her best Meryl Streep in a The Devil Wears Prada impression, the fashion, the development of Anita Darling’s character (lovingly played by Kirby Howell-Baptiste). All of these things make _Cruella_ the perfect summer movie. It’s a film that doesn’t take a lot of brainpower to follow, and it leaves the audience feeling light and happy. This is a summer blockbuster with loose ties to a beloved franchise and a guaranteed instant hit for Disney.

Cruella is an excellent movie. Disney tried a character’s revolution and we loved it. The villain is not anymore the bad guy. Everyone has a past and everyone can change. But how? Cruella will entertain you and teach you a lot of good things, about you ego and alter ego. But also about relationships between mum and daughter, friends and good people who can change the story. If you want to discover more, all the details at SpotaMovie.com Enjoy it!

This is a fun movie to watch. I have never watched 101 Dalmatians in any form so I don’t have any bias as some do comparing it to other films. The script is intelligent and witty despite having several writers involved, which often leads to a flailing disorganized mess.
Some of the stunts Estella/Cruella pulls off are crazily original as she fine tunes her knack for bad behavior. I will not go on and on about it — I just plain enjoyed watching it. A small part of me wonders how this crook with a heart turns into what seems to be a more evil incarnation of her later, but since I don’t know the 101 Dalmatians story, I don’t need to worry about it, and neither should you.

I advise watching this movie as an independent film that tells a separate story, which is different from "101 Dalmatians". I also want to say that the film is suitable and those who just want to relax in the evening, and see something funny and not loaded with a deep narrative and plot strokes.

Cruella is such a boring movie HOLY SH#$... You would think with that big of a cast that the movie would Go further than the animation ever did but instead it was a snooze fest. just did not capture the real crazy essence of the animation Cruella.

It is one of the best villain origin stories. I had so much fun watching. Both Emmas are a joy to watch, they performed their characters very well. Emma is best as **Estella and Cruella** both.
The **world-building** and character development are too good. The background story of Cruella is brilliant.
The soundtrack is excellent and the costume designs deserve Oscar. Such beautiful costumes I get to see in this movie. The cinematography and direction are the best.
Cruella's character is quite similar to Joker and Harley Quinn but still, Cruella is much different from both the anti villains.
She is dark and became burned by her career and looking for revenge as well as popularity just like the joker. While she loves unique costumes, makeup, a hairstyle like Harley Quin.
She is cynical too like Harley and self-interested but then Harley is a good-hearted person who just made bad decisions while Cruella is sociopathic and a bit cruel as well.
It's a fun, surprising, and engaging movie. So I just loved it.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
The 101 Dalmatians franchise is one of those Disney properties that is always broadcasted across all main television networks during holidays in my country, usually during Christmas. The live-action films of 1996 and 2000 are stored somewhere in my memory, even though I never really sat down and watched the movies all by myself. Cruella might just be another live-action film from the Mickey Mouse studio, but it's far from being yet another remake, much on the contrary. Just like the vast majority of the company's villains, Cruella de Vil (portrayed by Glenn Close in the previous installments) was even worse than the generic antagonist with cliche motivations that eventually every studio used and reused to exhaustion.
Besides Cruella's greedy necessities, purely evil personality, and extreme vanity, this wicked character was driven by something completely unthinkable: skinning short-haired puppies to have more success in the fashion industry due to their soft fur. Anyone with a conscience knows that Disney would never bring this character back to the big screen in 2021 without making some changes, especially regarding this motivation in particular. How would a movie with a dog-killing protagonist at its front and center be remotely successful? Obviously, this hardcore motif no longer belongs to Emma Stone's Cruella's defining character traits, which might be a no-no for those viewers who are more protective of the original material, as if times and culture didn't change from decade to decade.
Since the start of Disney's live-action remakes campaign, audiences have been divided about how to feel and what to expect from these films. Some wish for a copy-paste version of the same story, while others desire a completely different take on the well-known narrative. However, the best experience - and the primary goal of these movies - is a mix of both: a version that keeps the essence and the message of the original while bringing something new and different to the table to justify its existence. Cruella isn't a remake but an origin(al) story based on a classic villain... And it's undoubtedly one of the best films I've seen this year until this day! I didn't expect to write an extensive review, but with so much to address, I know my thoughts will take a while to transcribe to this article.
Let me start with some easy elements that everyone can see and enjoy without having to go into "deep analysis mode". The costume design is indisputably the technical standout. The colorfully stunning dresses steal the show visually, but it's how it differentiates Estella and Cruella that Jenny Beavan shines in her job. Just from what Stone wears, the viewers can easily decipher what character she's playing. The differences between the glamorous, rich people that the Baroness surrounds herself with and the dirty, poor friends Estella meets at the beginning of the movie - Jasper (Joel Fry) and Horace (Paul Walter Hauser) - is also accentuated through their wardrobes.
The extravagant parties are packed with Oscar-worthy costumes, but also with beautiful makeup & hair (Nadia Stacey) and absolutely ravishing production design (Fiona Crombie). Nicholas Britell's score carries little references to the music of the other installments, as does the film itself. Craig Gillespie doesn't hide the Easter Eggs spread throughout the runtime, of which some will definitely please the most avid fans. Technically, it's as gorgeous as one came to expect from the studio, but not everything is as impressive as the aspects above. In a movie where even the black-and-white hair and clothes of Cruella pop off the screen, the CGI backgrounds and animals are way too noticeable for the studio that just made a hyper-realistic remake of The Lion King.
CGI dogs are employed during most of the runtime, which is not only understandable but also commendable. Animal violence in filmmaking is a serious topic that fortunately was solved long ago. However, the VFX don't look good enough, causing the dogs - mainly the Dalmatians - to be an unintended distraction. In addition to this, a specific outdoor location that's quite important to the story is surrounded by an awfully dark, fake background that just feels way too off. Finally, the ending boasts a ridiculous sequence made with terrible CGI that will definitely leave the more "logic-driven" viewers stunned with disappointment. I consider this a nitpick, especially since it's not a film without silliness.
In fact, Cruella's success partially rests on Gillespie's tone balance. Jasper and Horace become the comic-relief characters, starring in the absurd action sequences that occur at parties and other places they decide to steal from. Now, some people might expect that since the other movies are defined by their irrational fun. However, Dana Fox and Tony McNamara's screenplay carries undeniable similarities to The Devil Wears Prada and the most recent Joker. Estella's life story is far from being a happy tale, and Cruella's rise even less. Overall, the balance between the silly comedy and the more dramatic, depressing, traumatic storyline is mostly well-handled, but there are a few moments where Gillespie lets it too loose, especially in the over-Disney-ish last fifteen minutes.
So, let's address the two protagonists: Estella and Cruella. The comparisons with Joaquin Phoenix's take on Arthur Fleck / Joker are impossible to unsee. From the upbringing filled with bullying and family tragedy to the final transformation, Emma Stone's character follows a similar arc, but with clear differences concerning the solution for her problems. Estella dreams of being a fashion designer and idolizes the self-centered, self-indulgent Baroness, which takes her down a learning path of how to be successful in the business. The Baroness' despicable treatment of Estella brings the ruthless Cruella gradually back to life, eventually stealing the spotlight from the lovely little Estella who just wanted to do what she loved for a living... without having to carry on extreme measures.
An unexpected, clever twist pretty much completes the protagonist's transformation, which genuinely caught me by surprise. I admit that I didn't have high hopes for this origin story. Nevertheless, the well-written screenplay deeply explores a previously hollow villain, offering her a touching backstory and comprehensible motivations. While it's true that she possesses dozens of identical characteristics to the infamous Baroness, Cruella never truly becomes 100% that person. Honestly, I wouldn't mind seeing a sequel, but I don't think there's room for another film that wouldn't hurt the one we just got. So, there's just one more aspect to delve into: the cast's performances.
Joel Fry and Paul Walter Hauser are truly hilarious as the famous duo of thieves. Both share a compelling connection to Estella, one that I believe deserved a better conclusion. They become a family, living and stealing throughout their lives, but when Estella starts giving Cruella some screentime, a few issues arise within the trio. These problems are indeed approached and solved, but in a less dramatic manner than I hoped for. Fry is excellent as the more competent, rational Jasper, but Hauser never stops being extremely funny. The before-mentioned balance is rarely affected by the characters' comedic banter, which is something the actors also deserve credit for.
Emma Thompson delivers one of my favorite performances of her recent filmography, interpreting the Baroness von Hellman. How can you make an extremely over-the-top character feel cartoonish yet strangely real? Someone who clearly feels like an exaggeration of a stereotype but still resembles dozens of people from the real world? Thompson takes her role, and the only reason why she doesn't steal the spotlight from everyone else is because the other Emma rises to the challenge of portraying such a classic villain. With obvious references to Miranda Priestly from The Devil Wears Prada, Thompson is able to be amusing and vile in the same scene, making every second with her on screen feel incredibly captivating.
Nevertheless, Emma Stone manages to stay a level above everyone else. I firmly believe that she's one of the best actresses of her generation. Carrying one of the most expressive faces in Hollywood, Stone was born to play a protagonist with two personalities. Without looking at the screen, any viewer will be able to know if she's talking as Estella or Cruella. Not only she changes the tone of her voice depending on the character, but the mannerisms alter as well. It would be a massive surprise if such an early Disney performance got an Oscar nomination, so her chances are obviously thin. However, if there was an award for Best Monologue, Stone would be a strong contender.
I don't recall how many minutes it really is, but I can't forget that long, uncut take with Stone at the center of the screen with nothing but her acting the hell out of an emotionally impactful monologue. Switching between Estella and Cruella in the span of milliseconds, her micro-expressions elevate a heartfelt, character-defining speech that will undoubtedly mark this year of cinema. Stone gives not one but two impressive, attention-grabbing performances that will satisfy most viewers looking for a Cruella they can understand and even root for.
Cruella is not only one of 2021's biggest surprises, but it's also one of the best movies of the year so far. Despite the occasional lack of balance between the silly comedy and the dramatic narrative, Craig Gillespie offers an incredibly captivating origin(al) story about one of Disney's classic villains. Dana Fox and Tony McNamara's remarkable screenplay profoundly explores the Estella-Cruella transformation, giving her non-dog-killing, emotionally compelling motivations, a traumatic, depressing past, and an unexpected twist that will probably catch most viewers off-guard. With one of her best performances ever, Emma Stone delivers an award-worthy display, interpreting two personalities in impressive fashion, stealing the spotlight from the other outstanding interpretations. Technically, the distracting CGI in animals and some noticeable green-screen don't overcome the predictably Oscar-winning, stunning costume design, as well as the gorgeous makeup & hair, wonderful production design, and sweet score packed with excellent song choices. A character study that makes this one of Disney's best live-action films in the last couple of decades.
Rating: A-

A terribly wooden Ioan Gruffudd heads the cast of this weak and feeble sci-fi adventure as "Reed Richards" - a career boffin who leads the team of "Ben" (Michael Chiklis) and siblings "Sue" (Jessica Alba) and the cocky "Johnny" (Chris Evans). Funded by "Victor von Doom" (Julian McMahon) they are investigating some spacial anomaly when poor old "Ben" is caught unawares on an EVA and he is exposed to a hefty dose of cosmic radiation. The others thought they were safely behind an impermeable shield but upon their return to Earth they discover that they have some new quirks. "VVD" isn't impressed by this and soon the four must put aside their domestic grievances and unite to combat his ever increasing ambitions - and it turns out that he, being on the ship too, has powers of his own! Aside from the hunky Evans who has the most fun super-power (he can catch fire and fly like a rocket) and easily the most charisma, the rest of the casting is very much by-the-numbers, as is the dialogue and the predictable storyline. The writers have a stab at putting some humour into the film, but no amount of wit is going to help Gruffudd and his unpredictable accent (why did he even bother?) to carry this good looking but poorly delivered helping of Marvel-lite. There is also a little too much simmering romance and envy here to clutter up the main thrust of the lacklustre plot. What we end up with is actually a bit of a mess. To be fair, it does move along well enough and is only 100 minutes, or so, but really - this is an unremarkable effort from all concerned that I doubt I will ever bother watching again.

I personally find the Storyverse Fantastic Four films underrated for a lot of reasons. One good reason is Michael Chiklis' performance as Ben Grimm/The Thing. He did such a great job as the Thing and is seen by many as the best character. The acting, effects, plot and production values are pretty good. After the Fant4stic film, I feel like people should give this film and Rise of the Silver Surfer another chance.

Hello rock, this is me in between you and the hard place.
Reed Richards (Ioan Gruffudd), Sue Storm (Jessica Alba), Johnny Storm (Chris Evans), Ben Grimm (Michael Chiklis) & Victor Von Doom (Julian McMahon). All set off on a space mission that sees them engulfed by a mysterious storm that imbues them all with different special powers.
Fantastic Four is arguably the most loved on the page of the super-group comic book creations. Certainly it's Marvel's flagship offering in that corner of the super hero market. Odd then, that when it finally makes it to the big screen they throw money at it but employ the director of "The Firing Squad" & "Taxi"? The whole film reeks of nervousness, with director Tim Story either fearful of making a hash of said flagship movie, or worse still, being directed himself by studio executives fearful of making a hash of said flagship movie. While the casting of Gruffud (dull), Alba (cleavage for hire) and McMahon (out of his depth as a villain) beggars belief. Sloppy CGI fails to ignite what little action there is, while the final smack down as our intrepid 4 battle with Von Doom, is of a TV movie standard. Yet it still has a smidgen of fun about it to warrant investing a damp dark afternoon with.
Chiklis and Evans are the plus points, the former injecting a bit of heart into proceedings and the latter some sexiness and some much needed humour. There's also some worth in the script's attempt at messaging about the perils and pitfalls of celebrity status. While who can deny that the first appearance of "flame-on" & "clobbertime" doesn't induce an ickle tingle down the spine of the discerning comic book fan (ok that may just be me hankering for my youth). If only the film wasn't so safe and had been in better hands. But hey! the film turned over a $230 million Worldwide profit, so what do I know eh? The sequel was inevitable, so one can only hope that with the same people involved they not only learn from their guardedness, but that they manage to stay faithful to the source and give it some much needed pizazz.
Footnote: The extended cut at twenty minutes longer, suffice to say, is a better experience as it has more pizazz. So 5/10 for the theatrical cut and 6/10 for the extended version.

This had all the ingredients and even a self-flagellating Paul Bettany so what happened? Well it all started strongly enough with the aforementioned man perpetrating a mysterious killing in the Louvre museum. It turns out that the victim is one of the museum’s curators and when the police discovers that his body has been defaced with ancient symbols, they call in “Sophie” (Audrey Tautou) to investigate. She, in turn, invites acclaimed American professor “Langdon” (Tom Hanks) to help find out what this might all mean, and swiftly there are embroiled in the machinations of a legendary society that has it’s roots stretching back to the very beginnings of Christianity. Indeed, as they try to stay one step ahead of these people who would have them dead, too - and who have a multitude of connections throughout French society and government - they begin to suspect that the Holy Grail might be the ultimate goal here as their travels take them, ably assisted by “Sir Leigh Teabing” (Sir Ian McKellen), to a burial site in London reputedly connected with the crusades. The supporting cast includes Jean Reno and Alfred Molina and the story itself is thick with religiosity and controversy, but the end product is really a bit of a damp squib. I think that’s probably because Hanks hasn’t the gravitas to anchor this well enough. Even his looks of panic lack any credible sincerity and there’s precious little by way of chemistry with the adequate Tautou. Bettany does better, he does manage to exude a little of the maniacal zealot and Reno always manages to play the slightly dodgy French cop convincingly but for the most part this is just dialogue heavy with too many clues transcribed straight from the text of Dan Brown’s novel without Ron Howard seeming to remember that this is a visual medium and sometimes it’s more fun for us to be given a few detecting tasks of our own to figure out. It’s long, but that needn’t have mattered had we been more involved in the unravelling of this intriguing mystery. We were not, though, and that makes it a little too ploddingly descriptive for me, sorry.

Writing this review might be considered an act of vanity. Until recently I was among the very few who hadn’t seen The Da Vinci Code, or even read the book. But now I have done so — watch the movie, that is. I still have no plans to read the book. But is there anyone left out there who might benefit from a review?
Mostly I thought the movie was rather silly. Oh, I know that the book was researched about as well as your average documentary, and that the plot is intricate and suitably complex for a thriller. Like a spy thriller, it develops that the two heroes can never be sure who they can trust. In fact, the short answer seems to be “No one!” There are plenty of plot twists, reverses and surprising revelations, some nifty but others that are utterly predictable. But it lost some of its credibility for me near the beginning when the female lead drove her car at a high rate of speed in reverse in and around traffic, faster than most drivers could manage driving forward. Really?
There is a lot of action in the movie, but it lacks the exuberance and humor of a classic like Raiders of the Lost Ark. I guess religion is a serious business.

Each breath you take is a sin. No shadow will be safe again, for you will be hunted by angels.
The Da Vinci Code is directed by Ron Howard and adapted to screenplay by Akiva Goldsman from the novel of the same name written by Dan Brown. It stars Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Ian McKellen, Paul Bettany, Jean Reno, Alfred Molina and Jürgen Prochnow. Music is scored by Hans Zimmer and cinematography by Salvatore Totino.
When a man is murdered inside the Louvre, his body is found to be surrounded by cryptic messages. The police call in American symbology expert Robert Langdon (Hanks) to decode the clues. When he is joined by Parisian cryptologist Sophie Neveu (Tautou), it quickly becomes apparent that nothing is as it first seems and a mystery begins to unravel that could shake Christianity to its very core.
Extended Cut (Blu-ray) Version Viewed.
I haven't read the book! And I love treasure hunt/clue chasing movies! So I came to Ron Howard's hugely successful film (over $600 million in worldwide profit) bereft of literary pressure and with only a modicum of genre expectation. Perhaps this is why I'm apparently only in a small percentage of film lovers who really enjoyed the film? In spite of those gargantuan financial figures.
Ultimately it's very safe film making, with a director and cast guaranteeing professionalism, but it weaves a magical mystery tour full of cryptic clues, secret organisations and cover ups. Yes, there is a good deal of corn thrown in as well, which inevitably stops the adaptation from being hyper intelligent. There's also an understanding on my part as to why many feel it's just too talky, but was the film ever going to be unfurled as an action movie blockbuster for the popcorn munching crowd, like National Treasure et al?
It is a clever conspiracy thriller full of twists and turns with a outlandish revelation at the finale. It's also very appropriately performed by the cast (serio brooding and fret), and when McKellen joins the fray after an hour of film it has a little class as well, while Zimmer's score is a majestic blending of choir, strings and synths. I maintain that the film didn't deserve the critical whacking it got, but again I say I had a blank canvas going in for my first viewing.
I wasn't sold to it because of controversy or had a saliva tinged mouth having worshipped at the altar of Dan Brown, I expected exactly what I got. A flawed but ever so intriguing adult mystery thriller, and not even Hanks' hair stopped me having a great time with the movie. 7/10

One thing that the MCU hasn't been spectacular at is branching out into other genres. Most have been scifi/fantasy fare. An attempt at horror with "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness." Some more comedic entries like "Thor: Ragnarok." "Shang Chi" is their attempt to bring the classic Kung Fu fantasy genre into the fold. And it sort of works. It's not wholly original in the idea, but can be taken more as a tribute to the Kung Fu fantasies of old. There are some changes made to established Marvel lore, but nothing that couldn't be lived with and accepted and really are necessary for the story. The story is good, not great, the performances are mostly good. The effects...are mostly decent, but there are some issues. The constructed sets are good, but the green screens are obviously green screens.
The main problem this movie has is that it shines a spotlight on a problem the MCU as whole is developing, which happens in the comics and any long running shared universe: It's getting really bogged down by its lore and interconnectedness. It not good for newcomers to the MCU and will likely only appeal to fans of both classic Kung Fu films and the MCU films.
It's good. It's entertaining. It provides some new stuff for the MCU, but it falls short of actually being a great film.

I'll be straight forward with you; I'm old. And I have a great pleathora of movie viewing history behind these eyes. Me being old, I am bitter most times from jealously of lost youth and a firey contempt toward lazy boneheaded braindead youth of today. But I digress...the review.
My review will be short as are my praises, while my critique shall be terse. Deal with it.
This movie is not bad. I wouldn't call it a waste of money to see, but on the same turn it's not "OMG, I have to come see this again with Pauly."
The special effects (I'm old. Deal) are pretty good, specially when the hero vists the magical homeland his mother gave up gaurding to be with his father. The fight scenes, while they make an earnest attempt, are not Jackie Chan or Jet Li smooth but they are done with a compentent hand. (So much for being the first Chinese Superhero)
There are only few downsides and those are the inconsistencies only a trained eye might see. If you follow the action and the movie you can simply dismiss them as "It's in the script." But if you are like me certain questions born of observation nag at you during and after seeing the movie. Such as, _"Is the co-star female sidekick supposed to be his girlfriend or sister?!?" "Why does she walk & sound like an old woman if they are supposed to be the same age???" "Why does the woman playing his sister look older than he is, but she's supposed to be a few years younger???"_ I'm not kidding, the woman (While fit) is very UN-easy on the eyes in the beauty department. And that's saying something considering how dainty most Chinese women appear. And my last "knit-pick" if you will, is that the studio called the rings, rings. They are not. They are bracelets since these are worn on the arms instead of the fingers. But I believe it was done because it was easier to do the special effects for them.
The movie is not bad at all, overall. Good way to pass the time if you happen to run into it on a channel surf. But like _**Black Panther 1**_, not really considered a must-see.

I have to say that this was a surprisingly good movie. I say surprisingly because Marvel (or DC for that matter) have not exactly excelled in making even decent movies for quite some time. That the woke “critics” on Rotten Tomatoes gave it high ratings was a bit of a red flag as well but not only was the movie rather free from woke ramblings and preaching but it was a very fun and entertaining movie to watch.
The movie starts off in a somewhat bizarre way with Shang-Chi and his girlfriend swiping a car from a valet parking and going for a joy ride. It turns out that they are telling their story to a couple of friends and that is pretty much how this movie is told.
It begins more or less right away with some nice action and it continues that away with plenty of action sequences intermixed with story telling. The action and martial arts is really good in my opinion. They are in stark contrast to the mediocre rubbish we were treated to in Snake Eyes. The latter which was quite a disappointment.
This movie relies heavily on fantasy elements with tie ins to Doctor Strange, especially towards the end. Another movie that I liked a lot by the way. Thus there are of course plenty of special effects and CGI. Most of them good or very good. I really liked the beautiful world of Ta Lo. The combat scenes, especially when the rings are in action are both cool and beautiful.
There are quite a lot of comical relief in the movie as well and, for once, it is not to silly, outrageous or plain stupid. It contributes well to the enjoyment factor of the movie. The washed out actor is a bit on the limit but otherwise it works well with the rest of the movie. That guy on the bus starting to film and make commentaries was quite hilarious for instance.
The story? Well it is a Marvel special effects movie so one should not expect too much but the story is not bad. It mostly holds together and works well enough to tie all the action together. The acting is pretty much the same thing. One should not expect too much but it is good enough. It was nice to see Michelle Yeoh as Ying Nan though. She was one of the few cool characters in Discovery and she does know how to act.
Overall I very much enjoyed this movie. It is a simple super hero and fantasy adventure story with lots of action and special effects and with the single purpose of entertaining the audience that doesn’t fall in the trap of trying to “educate” said audience.

**Shang-chi** is the 25th film in the marvel cinematic universe, it is deep without canyons of emotion but also comedic (with occasional comedic failures).
This film embarks the MCU into a different world where tradition intertwines with modern societal problem,the film tackles this elegantly with a few stutters at the seams. As is usual with marvel property this film is a minefield of links to past and future marvel ventures, but is done in such a way that it truly can be an entry point into the extensive universe without having seen the others.
The story develops slowly unwrapping the setting but it also serves to highlight the beautiful cinematic choices Destin Daniel Cretton has made, cinematic shots build to a grand climax with a sufficiently marvel-esque battle between relatable family struggles in unrelatable places and circumstances
The end to the fight is satisfyingly predictable and leaves a numbness upon the audience because of the climax's grandeur and its fizzle into the marvel trope of comedic endings.
There are 2 Pre and post credit scenes who for the marvel enthusiasts add a great deal of pleasure adn completion to the story and set up the shang-chi subfranchise.
This film through all of its achievements feels disjointed and only becomes a cinematic feat at its climax leaving the audience feeeling as if they could have missed the first 50 minutes and still understood the majority of storyline.
This is an great feat of film through its inevitable cinematic, it is extremely enjoyable nevertheless.

**Take That 👊 💥 DELTA-21 . . . . . . Marvel Studios Presents The " _M o t h e r_ " Of All Superhero -{ FANTASlES }- . You've Been Warned . . . . . . The Bonkers Level Here Is, Er, Well :
" _E X P O N E N T I A L_ 😂 🐲❗" .**
A **- _B I G_ -** Screen MINI Review. Viewed Sept. 5, '21.
______________________________________________________
Katy : "That's fine...... you can just explain on the plane". { Said to Shaun a.k.a Shang-Chi, marking a "sudden and unexpected" twist of events }.
______________________________________________________
**1. " So -{ MANY }- Upsides : "Crouching Tiger, Hidden MARVEL" { Gosh . . . . where do I even start❓} " :** Ang Lee's circa 2000 quasi-mystical Martial arts spectacular is the -Very- first film that came to my mind whilst watching a certain beautifully -{ " Atmospheric " }- segment of the opening-act of 'Shang-Chi And The Legend Of The Ten Rings' ( 'Shang-Chi' for short ) . . . . you'll know it -Immediately- upon seeing it . . . . featuring "ever-fabulous" Malaysian Mega Star Michelle Yeoh ; who of course was one of the -Principal- characters in 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon', -As well- . { FYI : this is by no means intended to be a spoiler ; -several- of the movie -official- teasers & trailers 'gallantly' feature the said scene, albeit briefly }. And what's more ...( trailers also )... if you're someone with 'even the slightest bit' of true passion for all things within the realm of sheer cinematic **-{ FANTASY 🌠 }- ,** then you'll be absolutely -delighted- to know that Shang Chi -Also- has a distinct 'Harry Potter' aspect to it . . . & if even -that's- not enough for you . . . then, get this, its got a 'full-blown dollop of Narnia' thrown in there for good measure, at that. To be -Really- honest, it felt a bit disorienting , -At First- , seeing all "those types of elements" in an 'MCU' ( 'Marvel Cinematic Universe' ) picture, but then I suddenly realized that 'Infinity War' -And- 'Endgame' both -Very- prominently feature, well ...{ a walking, -"Talking"- demolition derby of a, err, -"Raccoon"- }... in them, & I began to feel at home again, pretty darn quick.
**2. " There -Is- One 'Stark' Downside, Alas . . . . The MCU has had -{ WAY }- Too Much "Muddled & Obfuscatory" Messaging Vis-a-vis 'The Ten Rings', Over The Years " :** In 2008's -superbly- received { and completely -iconic- } 'Ironman', which is where we were all introduced to the bespoke militant organization, ( 'TTR' for short ), for the -Very- first time . . . . there is an "Explicit And Unequivocal" reference to the film's ( initial ) setting as being sometime within the USA's long 'War In Afghanistan', ( where the -Official- state religion is Islam ). Hence, by **-{ EXTENSION 💡 }- ,** there is the correspondingly "Glaring", ( although tad more "Implicit" ), suggestion that TTR is . . . . . { from the immediately apparent ethnic backgrounds of the mostly Urdu & Arabic speaking members portrayed, to the group's visually -Distinctive- flag, right down to the undeniably frightening 'Imminent-Beheading' type video featuring a thoroughly bruised & bloodied Tony Stark as its centerpiece ( all too reminiscent of the -Horribly- tragic & bloodcurdling news stories that we've been, sadly, accustomed to reading about, hearing about and watching over the years ) } . . . . . 'yet another' archetypal, classic "Islamist-fundamentalist" type group. When in fact, as is -Strongly- conveyed to us in -This- particular picture, ( beginning all the way with the trailers itself ), that this is simply -{ Not }- the case. The said militia does, of course, turn out to be, ( at its very 'Core' ), & by way of, this, its Origins-Story ; "Not Arab Or Middle Eastern -At All-" , but in fact . . . . **-{ " 100% _CHINESE_ " }-** . Certainly very confusing, -especially- for the majority of us, who -haven't- read any 'Mandarin vs. Shang-Chi' comics . . . . . . . . . . Go Figure 🤷 ♂️ 🤔
**3. " Final Analysis " :** -{ If }- you can get yourself to basically -Overlook- the aforementioned, & "Legitimate Inconsistencies" pertaining to Marvel's cinematic representation of its Ten Rings Organization, then . . . . -Yes- , for the most part at least, you -{ Should }- believe all the "Rave Reviews" that this 'Utter Delight Of A Movie' has -already- garnered, 'Globally'. A -Huge- Shoutout to its 'rookie' ( -relatively speaking- ) Director 'Destin Daniel Cretton', who"s been able to achieve this feat with, get this, just his -"5th"- Directorial-venture . . . Ever 👏 . What started as a humble yet impassioned little comic book effort about 10 very magical, & { Phenomenally Empowered Alien **" _MAKLUAN_ "** Rings } . . . by the "Truly-Legendary" Stan Lee & Don Heck in Feb. 1964 ( "Tales Of Suspense, No.50" ) . . . has now become the supremely enthralling "Fresh New Face" of Marvel's 'BOLD NEW ERA' { that started with 'Phase Four' }. The film's 'Star' is newcomer Simu Liu, whose portrayal of the outwardly nerdy-seeming yet immensely likeable 'Shaun' works wonderfully { not to mention all his ( " Super 😉 " )-impressive Kung Fu skills, of course }, with his ever-jocular best companion 'Katy', ( Awkwafina ), showing an absolute -ton- of heart, courage, & most of all, -{ " Fierce " }- Loyalty, throughout. Tony Leung, Meng'er Zhang, Fala Chen, Michelle Yeoh, & of course Shang-Chi's Big, Fun, "Open-Surprise" .....the 'one & only' Ben Kingsley.... perform their respective roles with -{ " Panache " }- . So, all told, it's going to be **" A Completely Charmed, Fiery 9.50 Marks Out 10 From Me . . . . ROCK ON, MARVEL 👊 🔥❗"**

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/shang-chi-spoiler-free-review
"Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings just became one of my absolute favorites of the entire MCU! Destin Daniel Cretton delivers an entertainment-heavy movie with arguably the best action ever seen in the cinematic universe. Through the outstanding mix of long takes, impressive fighting choreography, and jaw-dropping stunt work, Simu Liu shines with his martial arts skills, but also in tackling the identity issues of the protagonist. Marvel gains yet another emotionally compelling antagonist, as well as a relatable female character that embodies many elements of the Asian-American culture. Despite an overreliance on unnecessary, excessive exposition devices (narration, flashbacks, foreshadowing), the story behind all the tales and legends never loses interest. From the breaking of stereotypes to a remarkable depiction of their culture, most Asian viewers will certainly love this film, even more than I do. Phase Four is off to a remarkable start…"
Rating: A-