Not as good as the first, but still pretty good. This time agent J has to make agent K remember who he is. Agent K needs his help on a case. Again really funny movie, especially the tiny aliens.

The first in this franchise had the advantage of being an original, quirky and entertaining spoof of all things sci fi with a couple of characterful detectives trying to stop world decimation. This just drags that enjoyable concept, kicking and screaming, into a sequel that is nowhere near as good, as well written, nor do Tommy Lee Jones ("K") or Will Smith ("J") have anything like enough to work with to make this film anything other than an unremarkable story overly-featuring a talking dog. The premise is that "K" has left the "MIB" and so obviously has no memories of his time at the agency. With global extermination looming yet again, "J" knows that his only hope is to reactive his erstwhile mentor's memories - and quickly. Easier said than done! "J" gradually comes to realise, though, that "K" had anticipated some sort of necessity for his return and so had left some mnemonic clues for them both to find enabling him, we hope, to return to fighting fitness. The nature of the story has flipped the dynamic leaving much more of the frankly irritating "J" in pole position far too often for me, and "Z" (Rip Torn) doesn't make much of an impact either as we are introduced to a special effects fest of alien creations that go some way to creating a bit of a sense of fun with this otherwise disappointing follow-up. Too much dialogue and too much Will Smith - one film was plenty.

Decent watch, probably won't watch again, and can only recommend if you REALLY liked the first on and MIB International isn't available.
They literally start the movie by subtly explaining why the formula doesn't work without Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith, hell Patrick Warburton would have been an AWESOME option to be in the movie for real.
This is a weird one because the movie is well cast, it has an interesting premise and villain, and the story is well written up to a point. And hell adding Rosario Dawson makes anything better, but this one just lands weak. They seem to do a worst job of showing us all the same tricks (sometimes literally) from the first movie, but Agent K feels shoehorned in, and the resolution isn't satisfying at all. Maybe if there was an epilogue, but the movie is from the perspective of the MIB and they're planet side only.
The threat is also weird. They could have taken their time and did a mystery movie, but instead they put a clock on it and rush it so it's barely interesting and there is no connecting logical dots for deductions. Then it's arbitrary when the do figure it out, and there is no explanation of why, how or what actually lead up to that. It is literally no information leading up to a fact, then no information resulting from that fact other than a simple reaction.
The first movie is just better, and MIB International is a lot more fun.

_**Fun sequel, but not as good as the first one**_
Tommy Lee Jones, Will Smith and Rip Torn return in this sequel about a secret government agency based in New York City that deals with extraterrestrial interactions on Earth.
Like the original 1997 movie, "Men in Black II" (2002) is amusing & thrilling in the first half, but loses its mojo a bit in the second half where some of the jokes fall flat. If you’ve seen the first film, there’s no need to see this one; but, if you want more with slight variations, then check it out. It’s the lesser movie, but it still fills the bill for when you’re in the mood for fun & thrilling popcorn entertainment.
On the female front, Linda Fiorentino is absent, replaced by Lara Flynn Boyle as the villain and Rosario Dawson as a pizzaria employee that catches Jay’s eyes. Meanwhile, the stunning Paige Brooks appears in a couple of small scenes.
The next two sequels are: Men in Black 3” (2012) and “Men in Black: International” (2019); the latter is the only entry in the series (so far) without Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith.
The film runs 1 hour, 28 minutes, and was shot in New York City & surrounding area (e.g. Fire Island for the Post Office scene), as well as Los Angeles/Culver City/Pasadena.
GRADE: B-/C+

I don't know that _Men in Black II_ is really thaaat much worse than the rest of the trilogy, as most other people seem to think. I mean, in my opinion, it's actually better than the third. But these are all basically the same movie. So they can only go so right or so wrong from one to the other to the other. It's not awful (well, the faces on that poster are, my god), but it's not like... good.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

I’d say the movie holds up a lot better all these years later because 1. it’s not right after the first MIB and my expectations weren’t super high and 2. after years of seeing Will Smith either not care enough about the movie to try or try too hard to get an Oscar it was awesome to just see him having fun and doing what he does best again. You can read more of my review here: https://imdgflicks.wordpress.com/2017/06/29/throwback-thursday-movie-review-men-in-black-ii/

My child hood all time favorite movie. Now my own family loves this movie too. Of course all the songs too!

This is a magical animated interpretation of the Jeanne-Marie de Beaumont fairy tale. A handsome, but vain and selfish, Prince finds himself on the wrong end of a curse - and is condemned to live a life of solitude, hideously disfigured - until someone falls in love with him and breaks the spell. Meantime, "Belle" is living in the village trying to avoid the endless amorous attentions of local beefcake "Gaston". Her father is travelling through the forest when he becomes caught up in a storm and seeks shelter in the Prince's castle - but he picks a rose and is duly imprisoned. When "Belle" discovers he is missing and follows his horse back to the castle, she manages to get the Prince to agree to swap; they gradually get to know each other and... He has an array of servants who all shared his curse and were transmogrified along with their boss - "Lumière" the butler/candlestick rules the roost with "Cogworth", "Madame de Garderobe" and the wonderful "Mrs. Potts" (Angela Lansbury) as the teapot/housekeeper with her little "Chip". All of these characterisations fit the mood perfectly and as the story develops each one becomes more engaging and sympathetic to their poor inflicted master's predicament, as we build to the really quite tense, but satisfying denouement. The songs - and the singing - are superb; the artwork and colours bring it all to life and the script is fast and funny. It's a thoroughly enjoyable demonstration that looks aren't everything...

A bunch of teens and children with weird special abilities like superheroes all in one house. Miss Peregrine is pretty much there mom. I hope they make a sequel because I would like to see more of there abilities then they showed in this movie. It feels like it was like a tease showing us as little as possible at what they can do.

This reminded me a bit of the "Golden Compass" (2007) as Asa Butterfield ("Jake") finds himself drawn to a sleepy island where he encounters the eponymous, magical, Eva Green who hosts a group of children of all ages with special quirks who live in a time loop - the same day from 1943 - which should ensure that they remain safe from the predatory "Barron" (a wonderfully over-the-top Samuel L. Jackson) and his menacing monsters who are bent on capturing "Miss Peregrine" and eliminating the youngsters. It's a bit too long, but once it gets up an head of steam then Butterfield is an engaging hero well supported by the odd appearances from Dame Judi Dench, Rupert Everett, his father Chris O'Dowd and his inspirational grandfather Terence Stamp. The stories are enjoyably episodic, each child has their five minutes of fame to demonstrate their skills and personality, there's a soupçon of romance, a bit of mischief, teenage jealousy and yes, even the usually rather wooden Eva Green brings a little charisma to the screen with her Sherlock Holmes-style pipe before a denouement that knits it all together nicely. I like that this is trying to be a more sophisticated story for younger folks. Some of the issues - i.e. WWII - have resonance beyond the frivolity of the story and the increasing sense of menace is well developed by Tim Burton without becoming the stuff of sleepless nights.

**Despite the flaws, and some less than positive interpretations, it is a good film.**
Tim Burton has already accustomed us to a surreal and fantastic style, and he almost always gives us very good films. This movie is no exception, giving us good entertainment. It's based on a book, which I've never read and I don't know what it's like, although I've heard that it's frankly more interesting than this movie. However, Tim Burton has already shown that he doesn't care much about this, in previous works that we have seen.
The script is surreal and fantastic, based on a teenager's trip to the British Isles, to see his grandfather's place of origin, recently deceased. There, he discovers the ruins of the orphanage where his grandfather grew up, destroyed by German bombing and never rebuilt. And later he discovers that his childhood friends and the orphanage's governess are still alive and living in a time loop created the day the house was razed. And that there is a danger that will threaten them all.
Overall, the film is quite satisfying, entertains quite well, and has a beautiful, well-written story. This is due, in large part, to the way in which he tackles difficult topics such as mourning and the family relationship between a father and a son. There are some little-explained details, loose ends, situations that don't get the attention they could have, and I thought the film takes a while to "gear" and really capture our interest.
Among the cast of this film, no one stands out like the impeccable Eva Green. The actress has what it takes for the character that fits her, and she knows how to make the most of her charisma and the good quality of the material given to her by the screenwriter. Terence Stamp was also in good shape and did a good job. Among the younger actors, it is Ella Purnell who stands out the most on a positive note, although Finlay MacMillan and Lauren McCrostie also give us very satisfactory performances. Unfortunately, as far as the cast is concerned, everyone else can't achieve such a good performance: Judi Dench, Rupert Everett and Chris O'Dowd have neither characters nor screen time to allow them to do something really interesting. Despite having achieved some good moments, Samuel L. Jackson looks like a fish out of water in this work. But the one who really deserves a boo is Asa Butterfield. It was a bad choice, a casting error. The actor doesn't have charisma, he doesn't have the capacity to deal with the protagonist, and he wasn't very lucky with the material he received either (and here, the fault lies with the screenwriter and the way he conceived and worked his character). Far from capturing attention and holding our interest, the actor fades away from any of his co-stars.
Another of the strong points of this film are the visual effects and the excellent CGI used. The house, for example, couldn't be more realistic, and the skeletons and ship look great on screen too. The cinematography was very well worked, the camera does a good job, the sets and especially the costumes and hairstyles are excellent and automatically transport you to the 40s. I really liked some of the places where the film was made, highlighting In particular, there is a famous Belgian mansion near Antwerp, which has been in ruins since the Second World War and which was demolished shortly after this film was released. The soundtrack does an effective job, but it doesn't bring us any surprises.

Before I start I should perhaps mention that, although I consider this a family movie, it is perhaps a bit on the scary side for the youngest member of the family. Anyway, personally I liked the movie and so did my kids.
It did have time travel in it which I, in general, utterly dislike but it is a Tim Burton movie so it was already a foregone conclusion that it would be a wee bit bizarre anyway and it had Eva Green, which is one of my favorites, in it so that kind of made up for the time travel crap.
The movie starts of by Jacob watching his grandfather being murdered by some mysterious being that only he can see. Of course everyone believes that he was hallucinating and so off we go with hospitals and shrinks and so on. Finally his parents allow him to travel to the island of Cairnholm in search of the mysterious Miss Peregrine.
From their on we wander into the wonderful world of “Burtonesque” bizarreness, fantasy and general weirdness. Naturally Jacob meets Miss Peregrine and her kids. Kids who each have some peculiar talent each more weird than the other.
Naturally there are a some bad guys lurking in the shadows as well. Bad guys intent on destroying Miss Peregrine’s shelter and … well, let us just say that they are not exactly concerned for the children’s wellbeing. I liked the bad guys. Both in their half human form and their more scary monster form. I especially liked Samuel L. Jackson as Barron, the boss bad guy. He really made an excellent performance.
The one person I did not like was Jacob’s father. Apart from being a jerk he looked like he was on drugs or sleeping pills throughout the entire movie.
On the whole this was perhaps not the best of Tim Burtons movies but it was still a good and enjoyable one. Decent special effects. The story worked despite the enormous paradoxes introduced by the time travel stuff. The characters did a fair performance. I did not regret the 2+ hours I spent on watching it.

**The innocent peculiar children versus the monstrous peculiar adults.**
I thought it should have been a Steven Spielberg film, but he would have compromised on the visually frightening negative characters. Particularly from the little children's angle who are the regular target audience for a theme like this. Even in his recent 'The BFG', you know how the giants were portrayed. So Tim Burton was the right choice and he did his best. But not everybody agrees on that, even I was slightly disappointed. I mean technically it sounded so awesome, but the story was not that impressive. Because of too familiarity, except the peculiar characters.
It was based on the young adult book of the same name. The story of a boy named Jake. After his grandfather's murder, he goes to Wales to find the children from an island home about the stories he had heard when he was a little. He discovers they are intentionally stuck in a time loop to avoid their enemies from striking them. But what they feared is about the come true, so now how they plan to defeat after half a century hiding from them is to be told in the rest of the segment.
As a children's film fan, I wanted to like it, but not fully satisfied. It was a two hour long film, the first half was an introduction that we saw everything from its trailers and teasers. So I lost interest in those parts, but once the clash between the good and bad had began, the film started to give something new. Again the final battle at the fair should have been designed better. I thought Samuel L. Jackson was not untilised well.
The major issue with the film was the narration not trying to take a big step in the story development. Felt like they are aiming for a sequel, so they are avoiding to give out everything in here itself. Similar to the first 'Twilight' film, which was too boring drama. It is almost out of the big screen now and the rating further going to drop. The film critics bashed it, but seems most of the people and film fanatics enjoyed it. I hope they will make 'Hallow City' and I'll be waiting for that.
_6/10_

Well one certainly cannot accuse filmmaker Tim Burton from straying away from his trademark bizarre movie-making playbook. Perhaps Burton’s best asset when it comes to his brand of distinctive cinema is to faithfully maintain that solid sense of oddness in the manner for which he presents his randomly spry, off-kilter narratives? There was always this consistent understanding that Burton enthusiastically embraces the whimsical peculiarities of his colorful, cockeyed characterizations. Naturally, the eccentric Burton would be drawn to yet another off-balance project that is right up his weirdly imaginative alley. Hence, in **Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children** the notoriously quirky director is true to form as he presents another delightfully macabre and freakish showcase that will definitely appeal to the darkened nature of the kiddie crowd.
**Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children** is the big screen adaptation of Ranson Rigg’s popular young adults trilogy. The film is an instant magnet for Burton’s off-the-cuff style and standard of warped whimsy. The Sci-Fi enhanced children’s fantasy is highlighted effectively by visually arousing set decorations, breath-taking CGI special effects, eye-popping costumes and an overall wonderment of interestingly deformed yet capable super-powered youngsters with unusual gifts that define their unique identities. Screenwriter Jane Goldman (“Stardust”) dutifully captures the misguided magic of Rigg’s best-selling novel brought to life that is very reminiscent of an atmospheric _Harry Potter-esque_ universe where one can easily detect that stimulating Hogswarts vibe bursting at the seams. The only viable knock on **Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children** is that Burton has explored this twisted territory before thus giving the familiar illusion that he is making the same movie over again but with some updated dressing. Still, the surreal stamp of Burton’s animated movie mindset is enough to recommend the erratically conceived **Miss Peregrine’s** as a frolicking fun-filled fable riddled with perky-minded naughtiness.
The construction of **Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children** is a strange brew that brings together the assembled working parts of a previous Burton Gothic-looking spectacle with similar elements meshed in the movie-related mechanics of such ditties including Mary Poppins, the aforementioned _Harry Potter_ film franchise, _Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory_ with a touch of a junior-sized _X-Men_ sentiment attached to the proceedings. Basically, Burton encourages his kooky kind of whirlwind escapism where he wants to transport the audience into a hazy maze of unstable, creepy hedonism embedded in indescribable gaudy chaos. It is no secret that Burton looks to incorporate his known ingredients of strangeness, endearment, gentle terror and slight wackiness. The majestic concoction, for the most part, works on the welcomed senses.
In the title role of **Miss Peregrine** is the fetching Penny Dreadful star Eva Green (one of Burton’s featured actresses from his 2012 film “Dark Shadows”). The nostalgic backstory of Miss P. and her mixture of rejected orphans is recalled in detail by a Florida-based retiree named Abe Portman (Terrance Stamp) who revels in enlightening his teenage grandson Jake (Asa Butterfield) about the remarkable wonder woman and her special orphanage stationed on a Welsh island. Clearly, Jake thinks highly of his grandfather’s fascinating vintage storytelling but feels like an outsider especially when his own parents think that he is in need of serious counseling. When Jake is not engaged in Abe’s recollections of his old pals from Miss Penegrine’s orphanage (complete with handy black-and-white photographs for proof of his proclamations) he works at the local supermarket in uneventful fashion.
As legend has it poor Miss Penegrine’s Victorian orphanage located on the island of Cairnholm was demolished by Nazi bombs that rendered her and the kids vulnerable during World War II. However, we are also informed of the supernatural tendencies of the resilient lady and her “peculiar children”. For one, Miss Penegrine can turn herself into a…wait for it…penegrine falcon at a moment’s notice. As for the bird beauty’s charges they too possess noteworthy specialties in appearances and spellbinding prowess as well although not as accepting as Miss P’s accentuated tricks.
Jake had always viewed his grandfather’s accounts of Miss Penegrine and her peculiar children in question as a compelling revelation especially when he was younger. Jake, courtesy of his indifferent folks, saddle him as the caretaker for the ailing Abe. However, when he uncovers his dementia-ridden, dying grandpa Abe babbling endlessly about monsters and everything connected to the Miss Peregrine universe this sparks an immense curiosity about Jake wanting to further explore Abe’s whispered claims of seemingly exaggerations. Jake is convinced that Abe was murdered–no doubt by the so-called monsters–and wants to further the cause by visiting the mysterious European island that planted so many adventurous memories in his grandfather’s childhood back in the early wartime forties. Additionally, the concept of time bubbles known as “loops” figure into the suspense. The loops are a designed invention by Miss Penegrine to keep her endangered wards safe from the period’s on-going harm.
Since Jake is already in therapy and everyone thinks that the troubled kid has a screw loose in the aftermath of the trauma regarding his deceased beloved grandpa Abe it is suggested that maybe a visit to the Welsh island would put to rest the inner conflict within the young man. So Jake’s father Franklin (Chris O’Dowd) accompanies his son to Cairnholm where he can sort out his lingering angst. Can Jake successfully locate his grandfather’s old-time orphanage and come to his own elusive conclusions? Soon, the modern-day Jake will experience his own time-traveling warp where he will at firsthand encounter the captivating kids that were included in youthful Abe’s existence including the lovely Emma (Ella Punell) that strikes his fancy–the same gal that his grandfather crushed on back in his heyday.
**Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children** is a jumbled gem that does not quite separate its eerie realm from other Burton-oriented fare that shares the same branding of visual makeup found in entries such as _Beetlejuice_, _Edward Scissorhands_ or _Dark Shadows_. Nevertheless, **Miss Pelegrine’s** is stunning although the half-baked plot bounces aimlessly at will. When Jake is transported back to 1943 and witnesses the peculiar-looking children we are truly in awe of Burton’s tangy taste for the cartoonish craziness. Children that are cursed (or blessed) with head-scratching anomalies not to mention the haunting images of Hollowgast monsters and Green’s fetching but crafty spellbound diva in Miss P all establishes an intriguing off-balance children’s Sci-Fi fantasy that hits more than it misses its nightmarish target.
Burton assembles some notable names that fill the circus ring surroundings in **Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children**. The explosive Samuel L. Jackson is on board as the villainous Barron looking to feast upon the peculiar kiddies’ eyeballs. Veteran performer Stamp is convincing as the aging Abe whose descriptions of his 40’s-era childhood inspires Butterfield’s Jake to make this disjointed journey into Burton’s devilish and daring vision of eccentricity. Other supporting players include the magnificent Judi Dench’s Miss Avocet, Emmy-winning actress Allison Janney (from TV’s “Mom”) as Dr. Golan and Rupert Everett as the resident ornithologist.
Surely, **Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children** won’t entirely disappoint avid Burton fans as he delivers what amounts to be a safe serving of sideshow cinema ready to please the entertaining palates of gentle grotesque-loving moviegoers everywhere.
**Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children** (2016)
20th Century Fox
2 hrs. 7 mins.
Starring: Eva Green, Samuel L. Jackson, Terrence Stamp, Asa Butterfield, Judi Dench, Ella Purnell, Chris O’Dowd, Rupert Everett, Allison Janney, Milo Parker, Pixie Davies
Directed by: Tim Burton
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Genre: Children’s Fantasy/Sci-Fi & Family/Action & Adventure
Critic’s Rating: ** 1/2 stars (out of 4 stars)
(c) **Frank Ochieng** 2016

_Miss Peregrine's_ could have done with a little more peculiarity. I understand that the lead is our door into this fantastical world, but a character can be relatable without being downright boring. Not an outright bad movie, but certainly not the one to put Tim Burton back on track.
Eva Green is golden but under-utilised, Sam Jackson can barely talk through his fake teeth, the creature designs are fantastic but pulled off with some very poor CGI. There is a little stop-motion to counter this, but again, it's not used to the degree it should have been. Which is really an apt description for the whole thing. Over an over, _Miss Peregrine's_ hints at a great movie buried somewhere within it, but what we end up with is an ill-paced mess. The only truly engaging character momets of the whole story are dropped as soon as they crop up in favour of the "Good VS Evil" rhetoric you've seen a million times before.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

**An effort worthy of merit, but which did not result in a really good work.**
Kenneth Branagh is one of those actors/directors who doesn't seem to be afraid of a challenge, and I respect him for that, even if his choices aren't always the wisest. Bringing the greatest book of Agatha Christie's work to the cinema is a considerable challenge, not only given the richness of the material and characters, but also taking into account the relevance of the work and the admirers who remain faithful to the author's books (I am one of them). I can't help but say: for me, she is one of the greatest writers of the 20th century. She not only helped to cement the police narrative, but also substantively developed it. Therefore, I must absolutely condemn the recent news about the revision of her books, whose new editions will be stripped of any term, word or minimally offensive mention. In the 16th century, books were burned. Today, despite the justifications, we refine the practices, but maintain the line of thought and the similarity in attitudes towards books that can offend us.
The “Orient Express” has already been adapted for the screen on several occasions. The first, in 1974, was a real show and is full of stellar actors. However, one cannot ignore the television adaptation starring David Suchet, an actor who, in a tour-de-force of many years, embodied Poirot in an impeccable way, difficult to match.
The film has its merits, which are based essentially on the visuals. The cinematography makes intelligent use of light, the spectacular snowy landscapes and the vintage elegance of the train, which replicates the real Orient Express, a train that, despite numerous business mishaps, still exists. The costumes and props are also magnificent and help to recreate the era, the 1930s. A special note for the way in which the film manages to give us the perfect sensation of the smallness of the spaces. Another peaceful point is the performance of the cast. I won't be being unfair in saying that each one did a good job with the material received. Unsurprisingly, Branagh is the protagonist and gives us a Poirot that gradually becomes more human. He starts out as a weird individual, a deduction factory applied to solving crimes, and ends up with another perspective on truth and justice. That is the focal point of the book. The work of Judi Dench and Michelle Pfeiffer also deserves a special note. The others – and the film is impressive for having such a heavy cast – seem to be there just to be able to say that they worked with the director and that they were part of the project.
These are all good things! However, the film is not without serious problems. The biggest and most blatant are the action scenes. Poirot is a dandy, a maniac, a genius, but he was never an action figure or a brawler. In the books, he leaves that to the police or loyal friends like Captain Hastings or Chief Inspector Japp. Seeing him in action scenes doesn't seem like something he would do. Branagh got it wrong here, just as he got it wrong with that unkempt, tasteless mustache. The books have several descriptions of Poirot's mustache and none of them fit the hair accessory used in this film, which looks more like a dead rat. The character is also stripped of most of her many obsessions, limiting itself to a craze linked to boiled eggs. It's absurd! Branagh, who did not even stop to think that he is not at all similar to the character, did not consider the shape of Poirot's head, which is described as "ovoid", and did not even try to reproduce the character's gait, which walked in small steps. And considering the elegance and refinement that characterize Poirot, the clothes Branagh wears and the almost absence of a hat are unspeakable details. The film – which focuses on Poirot – also makes a very shallow use of each character's material. Some of the ones that most dialogue with the detective in the book, like Debenham, are almost absent here. Finally, we have Johnny Depp, a casting error, turning Rachett into a kind of hateful amateur mobster.

Beginning with Kenneth Branagh's second decade as a filmmaker, I suggest he became an industry workhorse. He acted in many films and directed several, all with varying results in quality. Most pointedly, few felt like they were personal projects for 15 years. For example, his direction of **THOR** is at the pleasure of Kevin Feige, the head of Marvel Films. I argue that **MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS is personal**. I believe that the "Shakespeare" guy believed he could create the "Agatha Christie" equivalent of the Marvel Universe. As of this writing, he has returned a second film, **DEATH ON THE NILE**. There are at least 30 more Hercule Poirot novels remaining for potential sequels. Likely, we won't see a third unless the second proves to be successful.
_ORIENT EXPRESS_ received a lukewarm reception - a tepid selection of both audience and critics who find the film neither superior or horrible. But I am committed. I find this classic story delivered through modern technology is beautiful, fun and entertaining. It remains quaint and intimate even as computer generated matte paintings create the stunning atmospheric vistas. I even find the film quite open to repeated viewings.
The beautiful color and imagery is supported by a score by Branagh's friend and musical voice, Patrick Doyle. The two feed off each other - Doyle's assertive and aggressive compositions uniquely mimic Branagh's earnest storytelling. In other words, it is rarely quiet.
Starting with **MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING**, Branagh does a lot of stunt casting. This time may just take the cake. Every performer is an A-player and each is given at least one scene to chew a bit of the scenery. Make no mistake about it, this story is a tour de force for the role of Hercule Poirot. Branagh's performance of the Belgian super-sleuth is quite fun, beginning on one of the greatest character introductions in the decade.
If critical and box office is a good reflection, its a fifty fifty shot whether you will enjoy Branagh's **MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS**. To be fair, most of the negative reviews I see are written by someone who is comparing this film to the 1974 star-studded telling. Those would rather you look up that version (where you will likely not know many of that _star studded_ cast)

I have always loved this story and was looking forward to seeing this adaptation but afraid it was going to be Branagh'd, especially when finding out he was playing Poirot himself and cast Johnny Depp as Ratchett.
When a director wants to put their own stamp on something, they usually screw it up. Branagh dipped both of his shoes in poop (symmetrical, yes?) before stamping Christie's work. Let the story take the film where it needs to be. CGI is not where it wants to be. There's nothing wrong with a dialogue-heavy movie no matter what the studio thinks.
Casting Grade: D
* When I heard Depp was going to be in it, I assumed he'd be Poirot and Branagh as Ratchet. Depp would have been a terrible choice too but would have made more sense then Henry V himself. Depp did not fit the Ratchett part at all. Richard Widmark's portrayal in the 1974 film was dead-on. This time an Ed Harris would have been perfect. If he weren't available, Charles Dance. Dance may be too British rather than Italian/American but he still can shoot daggers with his eyes. JK Simmons would work and potentially Sean Bean or Viggo.
* Poirot - This is a tough role to cast, no doubt. Suchet IS Poirot and Finney, though exaggerated was entertaining. Branagh is not tall but this movie seems to film him as larger than his character is. He's supposed to look like a "funny-looking little Frenchman." Yes I know he's Belgian. But also little and funny-looking. All the upward angles make Branagh look bigger, not smaller. Not quite the star power and I wouldn't buy a ticket just to see Daniel Bruhl, he might work.
* Michele Pheifer as Ms. Hubbard was great. The best of the casting, so points here.
* I think Cruz and Dench were fine, as was Dafoe. Only problem here is that even as a red-blooded American male I don't remember much about Cruz's performance. That is criminal underuse. Bergman won an Oscar in this role! It's tough to live up to but still, Ken.
* Josh Gad? Fine as an actor, awful in this role. Eddie Marsan maybe? Martin Freeman? Perkins was perfect so let's go more in that direction.
* Bouc? Bouc is not and should not be 28. Yes they said he's the son of the director of the line but that's dumb. Make him a bit more of a Poirot contemporary so the chemistry is there as if they'd been friends for years.
* Ridley and Odom. This problem is more with the story "updates". Daisy's fine and Odom's acting is fine though.
* The rest of the cast is ok- meh and nothing more. The Suchet one wasn't super star-studded, but with an ensemble cast, more of the cast should have been better known.
Story itself - Here's the fun -
1. Why does the opening sequence in Syria take 20 minutes? The first question here though is "is Branagh trying to introduce Poirot to a new audience?" I would venture to guess that the vast majority of the audience knows Poirot, at least somewhat. The Syrian intro is roughly half of a chapter in the book, a quick few minutes in Suchet's version and not even really dealt with in Finney's. You can also do the egg thing on the train when he orders breakfast. That's enough.
2. Shootout? What? Why?
3. Arbuthnot. Why combine the Col and Doc characters? The 2 should be separate, either because the doc is completely removed from the subjects (book and 1974) or is a separate suspect himself (Suchet). Having them combined just seems pointless especially when you add sharpshooting to his repertoire and the inter-racial reasoning for the quiet romance with Mary. That's a lot, especially since it's 1935.
4. Moustache. Ridiculous but not in the good Poirot-image sort of way. In fact he looks more like Wyatt Earp. HP is vain and his hair would not be shown as gray - it would be dyed black and a fantastic shape, not a ridiculous rug. Again, Suchet has it beat.
5. Hanging outside. Huh? It's a snow drift in the mountains and they're outside hanging out in clothes they were wearing on the train. Winter clothes but not warm enough to have a picnic in. The Suchet version definitely got it right - the passengers were COLD. They showed that with the bundling up, the atmosphere, etc. Also, people from other coaches could be mingling. Whole point was to not let people come in or go out of the Calais coach and dining car.
6. The train tunnel ending roundup. No. Bad Kenneth, bad. Dining car, keep it there. Don't try to be clever, it didn't work nor should it. Cramped in the dining car, trapped with HP's monologue. It works.
7. Gun. Again, what's with the guns? The one under Ratchet's pillow is the only one necessary. His reasoning doesn't make sense either - Bouc is still there and he knows about the plot so they'd have to kill him too, not just HP.
8. CGI - just stop. Video trains. Not hard.
9. The Daisy note - neat trick being able to see the ENTIRE note clear as day and not just a few letters or a word or two.
Overall - 5/10 is generous. More of a 4. I really wish we could start over here but with Death on the Nile out now I hope 2 is all Branagh does. At least Nile is not one of AC's better stories. Lets wait 10 years and start again. Works for superheroes, why not one with just brains but no braun? Evil Under the Sun perhaps??

I am a great fan of Agatha Christie in general and Hercule Poirot in particular. When yet another remake of Murder on the Orient express came out I was somewhat hesitant. After all, the one with David Suchet was perfect.
I guess I was right to be hesitant. This is another one of those remakes where you just wonder…why? As a movie it is not too bad but as a Hercule Poirot movie, the classical Murder on the Orient Express no less, it is like buying a piece of prime filet of beef and discovering that the butcher gave you chicken drums when you open the package. Edible but not at all what you paid for.
To me this movie was a blatant attempt to make an Americanized version of Hercule Poirot. It was poorly done by a clueless scriptwriter and director and it was deeply disrespectful to the original character.
The movie starts of by introducing Hercule as the pedantic, somewhat weird, person that he is but the attempt is just dumb and silly. Apart from the scene more or less making Hercule look like a jerk, these people apparently know him, why would they serve two eggs of different sizes in the first place? Oh right, because the director thought the audience was too dumb to make that reflection.
Then there are some things that Hercule simply do not do. Like walking on the roofs of train cars, climbing around and chasing criminals as if he was some action hero. He even gets shot and more or less just shrugs it off for Christ sake!
And do not get me started on that grotesque moustache! As I said, an Americanized version of Hercule Poirot. Unfortunately bigger is not always better.
I can go on for some time here so let’s move on.
Technically the movie is not that bad. The scenes, the decor, the acting in general etc. can even be said to be good. Unfortunately, for me, this was constantly overshadowed by the brutal slaughtering of my beloved Hercule Poirot character.
Part of this is probably due to the movie trying to focus so much on Hercule that most of the other actors almost feel like … props, even though they themselves are doing quite a good job of their roles. One reviewer wrote that “The actors seem to have been invited, not to play characters, but to watch Kenneth Branagh act.” and there seems to be some truth in that.
The movie ends with a hint of further moves. Personally, I hope there will not be a continuation of this train wreck (pun intended).

Decent watch, might watch again, and can recommend, at least as a one-off.
I have technical frustrations with this movie, but it's premise alone is interesting enough that anyone interested in survival style movies should watch it, though I'm not sure how many people are re-watching this.
The movie is cast very well: Sandra Bullock and Jon Malkovich, both wonderfully portray jerk characters in completely different lights, along side several supporting actors who all deliver adequately or better.
As most of the movie takes place inside a single house, they manage to keep things interesting there and vary up a few select locations, to include a city that is amazingly detailed in all the chaos unfurling and a river that is somehow both expanse enough you could feel lost and also claustrophobic in its restriction: it's a movie that presents very well.
My big qualm is the structure of the writing: not the writing itself. All the dialogue and story arcs are great, but the RIDICULOUS insistence on re-ordering a story and not benefiting from it is just annoying.
The second half of the story is interspersed with the first half of the story so you alternate back and forth. Really, who tells a story and jumps ahead 3/5 of the way, then back, then when you get to the 3/5 mark, not reiterate what is happening there.
I might watch this again, but I know I won't truly enjoy it until I finally take the time to edit into the correct order.

***Well, at least it doesn’t have zombies***
A mass epidemic strikes Earth which makes people go crazy and commit suicide, but only IF they are not blindfolded and SEE the mysterious phenomena. A group of Californians find succor in an abode with covered windows. One woman (Sandra Bullock) and two children try to make it down a remote river to find sanctuary, blindfolded. Trevante Rhodes and John Malkovich costar.
“Bird Box” (2018) is a post-apocalyptic survival adventure/horror with an original concept and elements of flicks like “The Book of Eli” (2010), “The Mist” (2007), “Carriers” (2009) and “Stake Land” (2010). The reason for the apocalypse is what makes “Bird Box” standout and, thankfully, there are no zombies, yet it’s the least of these for a couple of reasons.
For one, I didn’t find the dramatic dynamics of the group all that captivating, but it was okay. If you’re a fan of Bullock you’ll probably like this movie more than me. I appreciated Rosa Salazar as Lucy, but her role isn’t that significant. Meanwhile Rhodes and Malkovich are effective.
The concept behind the mass crisis is where the movie fails. It’s sort of explained and yet it isn’t. There are too many inconsistencies and what appears to be plot holes. It’s basically a bunch of malarkey and reflects lazy writing. People on message boards debate back-and-forth ad nauseam, but the movie’s too nonsensical and meh to make it worth the effort.
The film runs 2 hours and 4 minutes and was shot in Southern Cal (Monrovia, La Puente, Santa Clarita, Smith River, Scripps College and Los Angeles).
GRACE: C

Kind of a _The Happening_ meets _A Quiet Place_, but better than the latter and **way** better than the former. Maybe I didn't get eeeeeeverything I wanted out of _Bird Box_ but I'm still on board. I know that I opened this up by saying the movie is very much like two other movies, but what I liked most about is honestly that it's unlike 99.99% of the horror genre, and that little variation was just what I needed today.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

Requiem for a Dream is a psychological drama movie by Darren Aronofsky, based on a 1978 book of the same name by Hubert Selby (1928-2004) that passes in NY in the 70's era of drugs.
The book was written already with Hubert thinking about a movie and had a screenplay for it and approached Aronofsky with it in hands, and Darren rewrote the screen with the help of the writer plus directed the film, being his second official movie after Pi.
With a small cast of protagonists Ellen Burstyn (Sara Goldfarb) mother of Jared Leto (Harry Goldfarb), Jennifer Connelly as Marion Silver (Harry girlfriend) and Marlon Wayans as Tyrone C. Love (Harry's friend).
It passes in the four stations of one year of 70 to 80's in New York Coney Island district - Sara's son Harry is a drug addicted drop out jew student of high college that constantly sells his mother TV set to pay for various drug including heroin, crack and marihuana, aided by his friend Marlon. He has a, aspiring fashion student addicted as well and share his drugs with her.
The plot follows a drug enriched summer through the months each one reflecting the drugs effect from the use, high and withdraw with the seasons, involving also Sara as she is a lonely widow that lives watching shows on television about weighting loss and dreams to be in one. One day she receives a letter saying that she was selected to maybe star on one of those and after failing diet she tries to loose weight with prescribed drugs that induces to addiction as the body arrange itself with the dose.
This drama as most of Aronofsky's movie have a very different way of showing up the passing of time and the drugs, into a magnificent and frenetic way as I must say - I am an Aronofsky fan, and at least for me. he is into my top 10 directors/ writers list.
The acting of young Leto and Connelly in the start of career are superb and Ellen Burstyn won an Oscar for her performance. It isn't an easy movie to watch but it shows the way drugs act in a realistic way of euphoria in short bursts hip hop sequences and the sudden drastic effect of withdraw as it wrecks the life of the protagonists. Especially towards the end the movie is very heavy to watch, as expected especially at the start of the 2000's.
Several cinematography techniques as split screen, timelapses, long shots and close-ups are used, and editing was strenuous
using as 4 times more sequences than an usual movie due to the frenetic nature of drug use.
As Aronofsky was into the start of his career I suspect he was not indicated to more Academy awards like editing, cinematography and original soundtrack (using string quartet arrangements of Kronos Quartet) written by Pulitzer Prize-winning composer David Lang.
Even now, 20 years after the making it is an very enjoyable and a must see movie like the director works to understand how revolutionary it was at the time. It is as important to drug addiction as Kids was to Sex (never watched Trainspotting so I can't correlate).
For my an easy 9.5 out of 10.0 / A + and a masterpiece of traditional techniques that is a must see to any cinema lover.

I've never been so afraid of a refrigerator.

Only my second viewing of this, last time probably was when it came out on DVD, and not one I'll re-watch anytime soon, but still a great drama featuring incredible performances, most notably Ellen Burstyn who was worthy of her Oscar nomination. Has some darkly wild moments and a swing in tones, guess giving viewers insights into the highs and lows of heroine use. Not entertaining in so much as fascinating film worth it for some of the visuals and acting. **4.5/5**

Shattering expose of the fallible human condition.
What to say about Darren Aronofsky's Requiem for a Dream that hasn't been said already? Without doubt it's a film, that in spite of its high standing on the main movie sites, polarises opinions. It's a film that in simple terms follows four people through their addictions until the shattering denouement, but the journey is made more bleak by offering tantalising snatches of hope, the dreams of the protags offered up as some sort of goals for the addicts to cling on to - only for the narrative to stick in its rusty serrated blade to draw the lifeblood from the hapless hopefuls.
Arononfsky brings a multitude of technical skills to the party that emphasise the emotional discord on show. Standard split-screening is married up with rapid cutting, isolated framing, close ups, long tracking and Snorricam, all of which is sound tracked by Clint Mansell's haunting musical composition. All told it's an assault on all the senses and terrifying with it, boosted no end by Aronofsky getting top performances from his cast of actors. Love it or hate it, it's a film that simply can't be ignored, unsparing cinema produced by a most gifted director. 9/10

Despite a MAJOR decline in Quality, The Simpsons is still one of the greatest Television shows of all time. Its peaks are some of the highest out there, and it has been able to regain its footing as of late. Fantastic Series.

To address the failing quality:
The Simpsons once mocked and then it became mainstream pop culture. So that is a cause of why it has declined.
And another cause is that there is a new PC comedy trend to laugh at things. As in the audience is expected to laugh at the object itself without having an actual joke behind it. As in, "This is a computer, Laugh at it!"
Because of that we see a transformation of the jokes. The celebrity guests were once the butt of the joke. Mulder and Scully came on and the Simpsons mocked them. Now the joke is the celebrity guest. As in, "This is Lady Gaga," or "this is Michelle Obama."
They aren't spoofed or satirized in any way, the audience is just asked to laugh at the fact that they have a celebrity guest.
And the final reason is the laugh track comedy, in which the Simpsons has none. That is no laugh track. But now the writing sets up the jokes with almost a pause for laughter as if the tracks were there.
In the past the jokes were piled onto one another. There would be several jokes stacked right next to one another in a single event. Now it has become joke, pause to acknowledge the joke, continue.
But no ones really laughing because it's no longer mocking culture, it's no longer spoofing the celebrity guests, and it's lost virtually all of its edge.

The Simpsons is my all time favorite show! I am 13, and I can relate in so many ways since the Simpsons are an average American family! My favorite character is Lisa because even though she feels lonely because of her smarts, she prevails and overcomes so many ...

Every now and again you find something hanging around in the back of the fridge or freezer you forgot to throw away. That's how I feel about The Simpsons.
Its humour is, in my opinion, long past its "use by" date, feeling stale and tired. Its a shame it hasn't been shelved as what it did do back in the day, premiering on "The Tracey Ullman Show" (remember her?) was fantastic, witty and current.
For myself I'd rather remember The Simpsons for what it was than what I believe its become. 4/10 from me.