As a general adventure and action movie I would consider this as a decent, even good, movie. As a Sherlock Holmes movie…not so much. Unfortunately, watching this movie confirms my suspicions. This is a Hollywood version of Sherlock Holmes. No style, no finesse. A Sherlock Holmes movie should not be a Hollywood action rollercoaster. It should be intelligent, stylish, witty perhaps involving detective work and, above all, British. It didn’t help that they enrolled Stephen Frey. This film is just not right.
I really cannot stand the hostility between Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson. There no justification for it in the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. The slow motion scenes are nothing but annoying. The lame jokes are out of place in a Sherlock Holmes movie.
It gets a 5 out of 10 just because it’s actually a decent movie…if you can forget that they claim it to be a Sherlock Holmes one.

The movie is a **parody** to action-spy movies. It is not about the action, but rather about the characters.
The character interactions and relationships are perfect. There are so many little details, like one word or eye contact, that tell us everything.
Action scenes are great, except they are made to be funny and realistic in that way.
The story itself does not has many interesting twists, but nicely follows evolving characters.
### Conclusion
This movie is not for people who wants to see pure big action. However, whoever enjoys well thought through comedy, this could be your cup of tea.

Awesome movie, and lots of action. I love how they try to hide that their in the same occupation from each other. Until they both end up going for the same person then things start to change.

This is another one of those greatly nuanced movies people just don't get. Viewers are expecting another run-of-the-mill action film so that's all they look for, and in doing that they miss so much more! The interplay between the characters, the subtext and the layering you can only fully appreciate after absorbing the film in its entirety is a thing of beauty. If all you get out of this is the action then I'm afraid that says more about you than the movie.

**Mr. & Mrs. Smith’s experienced director and cast make it the peak of the spy versus spy romantic comedy genre.**
Mr. & Mrs. Smith shares a similar romantic spy versus spy plot as movies like This Means War, Killers, and Knight and Day. However, a significant difference is that Mr. & Mrs. Smith came out 5-7 years before the rest and is hands down the best of the group. Doug Liman was coming off his enormous success with The Bourne Identity and landed two of the biggest stars in Hollywood (especially at that time) to lead his next big spy action thriller. The script is a little clunky, but Jolie and Pitt’s chemistry and charisma carry the film. Car chases, explosions, hand-to-hand combat, gun fighting, and pretty much every other action movie element permeate every moment of the film with short pauses to laugh at Vince Vaughn’s ridiculous banter. The movie might be a little outrageous, but it’s a fun take on the spy genre from a director and actors who have proven they know the genre well.

Been a long time since I last watched this and while not great, was certainly entertaining thanks to the charisma and chemistry between Pitt and Jolie and the action from director Doug Liman was well done. Kind of had a weird ending with no resolution with their respective agencies going after them. **3.5/5**

Average performances, average script. What did you expect?

Mr. & Mrs. Smith explodes with flaming chemistry but assassinated its own script. “Brangelina”. Without Liman’s standard action comedy, we wouldn’t have had the power couple that dominated the tabloids. Several children wouldn’t have been adopted and brought up in a completely different, yet financially stable, environment. Jolie wouldn’t have been the charitable humanitarian she is now. And Shiloh’s first baby photograph wouldn’t have amassed over ten million dollars worldwide. Wow! Suffice to say, the two most beautiful humans in Hollywood have a substantial amount of gratitude to show Liman for his efforts in pairing them. If only his energetic vibrancy was enough to power the lacklustre screenplay, the balance of action and comedy could’ve been a landmark within the sub-genre. A bored upper middle class married couple are astonished to learn that they work for differing assassination organisations, soon to be assigned to kill each other.
It’s your standard marriage. Winning a teddy bear at a carnival, falling in love whilst buying the most expensive mansion on the street, succumbing to the same mundane daily routine, destroying the house with an almighty shootout followed by a gas explosion, participating in the feistiest erotic love-making scene ever and naturally ending in marriage counselling. A cruel irony for “Brangelina”, maybe they should’ve watched the film they made together? Cynicism aside, what truly elevates the memorability of this feature is the onscreen (and offscreen, bow chicka wow wow...) chemistry of its leading stars. Jolie and Pitt are exceptionally effortless with their comedic timing, dramatic endeavours and high-octane action. The lightning-fast wit that they inject into Kinberg’s less than impressive script is nothing short of, well, impressive. They make the film. They are the film. And they certainly have solid taste in curtains.
Liman maintains a light tone throughout, never dabbling into the cracks of the marriage which is vital for retaining a fun buoyancy. This isn’t an analysis on marital breakdown. It’s just a tongue in cheek slice of entertainment.
Having said that, despite the tantalising chemistry of its leads, you never quite feel that they are truly in love. Unfortunately, Kinberg’s script is so vacuous in emotional conviction, that both Smiths resemble roommates than a married couple. Understandably the marriage is stale as they conform to their upper middle class lifestyle, but even when they fight and makeup, there’s no real connection. I yearn to see Jolie and Pitt lust over each other. The momentum essentially grinds to a halt after their house explodes, with Kinberg’s script focussing on a central plot point involving “The Tank” and an onslaught of heavily armed operatives raiding a department store. Attention for the splendid couple instantly dissipated with a third act that seemingly refused to end, ultimately losing the acute fun that preceded the underwhelming conclusion. The whole “keeping up appearances” act was tossed out of the smashed window, and that was the sole element that made the film incredibly fun.
Mr. & Mrs. Smith doesn’t conclude with a divorce, as it is sensible light entertainment for the vast majority of its runtime, yet the concluding act and poor screenplay prevent the marriage from flourishing fully. Angelina Jolie man! I would abandon my homosexuality for her...

While The Scorch Trials carries over the strong directing, cinematography, and high production values from the first film, it falls short in key areas that made The Maze Runner so compelling.
The character growth and connections that I appreciated in the first movie felt noticeably absent here. The relationships lack depth, and new faces introduced in this installment fail to leave a lasting impression, making it harder to feel emotionally invested in their journey.
The script, while fun at times, struggles with repetition. Much of the movie feels like a sequence of action-packed set pieces rather than a cohesive narrative. That said, the visuals and production design remain a highlight. The post-apocalyptic environments are well-realized, and the tension in many of the action scenes keeps things exciting.
The Scorch Trials delivers on spectacle and action but sacrifices emotional connection and narrative depth in the process. While still enjoyable, it doesn’t capture the same magic as its predecessor.

Well, if you are looking for a collection of good looking folks lurching from one perilous scenario to another - desperate to escape the clutches of the arch villain that is Aiden Gillen; then this is the film for you. If you are looking for anything remotely akin to the books that tell of the continuing adventures of "Thomas", "Newt" etc. as they attempt to defy the will of "WIKD", then get ye hence (as Shakespeare might have said) for this film has nothing for you. Gillen has all the terror-factor of Mary Poppins and whilst Dylan O'Brien, Kaya Scodelario and Thomas Brodie-Sangster; along with a seriously hammy Giancarlo Esposito look like they are having some fun with their escapade-driven flight; the dialogue is all over the place and the story lacks any sort of structure. The effects work well and the battle scenes are well put together but, ultimately, it is a sort of "Percy Jackson" version of the story; watchable but forgettable and not in the same class as the first film.

I believe the adage is meant to go "Ask me no questions and I tell you no lies". _Scorch Trials_ however seemed to be trialling the new "I pose you 500 questions, I tell you no answers". But there's still some interesting things to find the further the movie goes on. It lacks the cohesion of the first movie, for sure, but there's more going on, so that tracks.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

Let's get to the point. This is bad.
A dystopian future full of conspiracies in which we throw the typical ingredients thinking that, magically, would make a good movie: teenagers, zombies, a "Mad-Max"-like desert and a stupid story in which main characters and their enemies behave stupidly at every step.
Quite a forgettable one ...

> The adventure expands outside the maze to seek the answers.
Another teen movie in the mid series on the line of 'Divergent' and 'Hunger Games'. As an adult, I don't know what to expect from it, but entertainment was the priority. The first film was just an introduction that happened in a small and a single location like the film 'Cube'. Now it has outspread in a large extent with more new characters and takes a wider adventure in the wastelands.
Many doubts from the previous film were cleared, yet a few need to be clarified and hoping for the next one to do that job. But anyway the suspense was this franchise's specialty, that simply reminds us the TV series 'Lost'. This second part can be compared with plenty of other post apocalyptic films, but still I liked it better than the first.
The best thing was they retained the same director and he's going to be here for the next film as well. But I'm more interested in the prequel, I mean the fourth film than the third which brings an end to the story moving forward. Because the maze holds the key for many unresolved issues. So I'm anticipating the prequel trilogy than the current one to learn how it all began.
Surprisingly, many new additions like zombies, bounty hunters in the mainstream boosted the film with its variety. Gives us a creepy atmosphere, along thrilling running and chasing. The twist was not that great, but kind of unpredictable, and again due to the mysteries surrounding it, it created more curious about what might happen next.
6½/10

It is quite an automatic instinct to compare and contrast the first installment of 2014’s ‘The Maze Runner’ with the arrival of the latest entry in director Wes Ball’s distant dystopian drama ‘Maze Runner: Scorch Trials’. The original blueprint effectively captured a unique time and place of mystique and other morbid curiosities. The audience was craftily introduced to The Glade, a head-scratching venue out in the middle of nowhere while being surrounded by a massive maze that pretty much rendered its survivors in vulnerability and uncertainty. Well, ‘Maze Runner: Scorch Trials’ looks to revisit that same kind of mystifying aura where our young and daring protagonists face the surreal obstacles in a futuristic facility that begs for the same kind of grandiose ambivalence. Sadly, ‘Scorch Trials’ is a derivative follow-up shadow of its former pronounced presentation. This formulaic fantasy fails to provide any distinctive punch or promise to its more competent predecessor.
As a post-apocalyptic Young Adult-oriented narrative ‘Maze Runner: Scorch Trials’ never really invests in its adventurous characterizations that seem to blankly react to the jittery surroundings without any genuine conviction. It certainly is not advisable to saddle a pack of imperiled individuals in a cocoon of dream-like devastation and not have them equally match the imaginative SF sensibilities of their enthralling, enveloped universe. One can speculate as to whether ‘Maze Runner: Scorch Trials’ does any justice to the James Dashner epic-driven YA novels or not. Still, there should be a sense of excitable freshness and intrigue to this eye-opening film project that comes off strangely as remote and mechanical despite the whimsical feel to its wasteland of wonderment.
Sure, some will be partially engaged in the exploits of our young harried heroes bouncing from post to post in a desolate desert known as the Scorch where unpredictable encounters with undesirable creatures and the regional elements are recounted with Ball’s simplistic by-the-dots direction. There will be your predictable share of over-the-top villains, outlandish yet awestruck special effects imagery and a centerpiece for youth-oriented romancing among the ruins. However, ‘Maze Runner: Scorch Trials’ should do a better job in whisking its viewers away in a bells-and-whistles story that should be convincingly subversive and challenging.
Back in the Maze mold madness is Glade stud Thomas (Dylan O’Brien) and his band of fellow wanderers in Theresa (Kaya Scodelario), Minho (Ki Hong Lee), Newt (Thomas Brodie-Sangster), and Frypan (Dexter Darden). The group had learned that their ‘a-MAZE-ing’ (sorry…could not resist) past experiences had been at the devilish hands of the evil paramilitary outfit known as WCKD (as in the pronounced word ‘wicked’). The head honcho of the aforementioned WCKD is none other than diabolical diva Dr. Ava Paige (Patricia Clarkson). So now Thomas and his endangered entourage (along with a few more disposable tag-a-longs) are forced to roam in the treacherous Scorch where the ominous run-ins with the resident beastly zombie Cranks are inevitable.
Of course, there are other factors working against Thomas and his Gladers. First, they must constantly hunt for their safety guaranteed in the arms of the resistance faction called The Right Hand based in mountainous terrain. Secondly, there is also the matter of an outbreak known as the Solar Flare virus that is running amok and the cure is to draw blood from those that are immune. The underhanded Janson (Aiden Gillen, from television’s ‘Game Of Thrones’) heads up the laboratory where the shifty agenda for collecting pure blood from unsuspecting hosts is hatched. So the dilemma is presented as such: should Thomas and his put-upon colleagues be the sacrificial lambs in an experimentation that could benefit the numerous lives of their exposed society?
The problem, among others, is that ‘Maze Runner: Scorch Trials’ never seems to distinguish itself among the crop of other YA-related feature films that seem collectively familiar in theme and tone. The long line of impish and impulsive fare that includes ‘The Hunger Games’ film franchise and ‘Divergent’ movie series has already saturated the movie market to the point of no return. Unfortunately, this leaves little room for error for derivative knock-off films such as ‘Maze Runner: Scorch Trials’ to not only echo the same kind of entertainment value but be considered a few notches off the scale in doing so.
T.S. Nowlin’s screenplay is shockingly synthetic and that is inexcusable for an escapist SF flick using Dashner’s colourful and descriptive tomes as its inspirational source. A few of the interesting supporting characters come and go while registering some servicing interest such as the dashing duo Jorge and Brenda (Giancarlo Esposito and Rosa Salazar) that befriend the Gladers en route to their destination for comfort and calmness. Gillen’s Janson is serviceable as the slimy opportunist blood baiter. Otherwise, the main performers that make up this cosmetic caper bring little to uplift this pseudo calculating landscape of imagined isolation and desperation. Somehow, the charismatic presence of both O’Brien’s Thomas and Scodelario’s Theresa seem watered down from the first film.
For the second time around it is kind of a tough sell for ‘Scorch Trials’ to get the obligatory mouse to chase after the cheese in this particular misplaced maze.
Maze Runner: Scorch Trials (2015)
20th Century Fox
2 hrs. 11 mins.
Starring: Dylan O’Brien, Kaya Scodelario, Thomas Brodie-Sangster, Dexter Darden, Ki Hong Lee, Patricia Clarkson, Aidan Gillen, Giancarlo Esposito, Rosa Salazar, Lilli Taylor and Barry Pepper
Directed by: Wes Ball
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Genre: Sci-Fi Fantasy/Dystopian Drama/Young Adult Action & Suspense
Critic’s rating: ** stars (out of 4 stars)

A true masterpiece of the crime genre! Five usual suspects are rounded up by the police to take part in an identity parade following a New York heist. It's clear that they had nothing to do with it, but when pitched together decide that they will avenge themselves on the NYPD. Their scheme progresses well until the intervention of international super-criminal "Keyser Söze" via his debonaire but menacing agent "Mr. Kobayashi" (a superb Pete Posthlethwaite) and soon it becomes clear that the police are not the only people who are the targets here. It's told in a clever, retrospective, narrative style with some great performances from Kevin Spacey and Gabriel Byrne that leaves us pondering just who is "Söze" and to deal with an ending that you"ll never forget!

SUPERNATURAL THRILLER
Director Singer and writer McQuarrie won't admit that it's a supernatural thriller, and insist it's just the goofy Hollywood movie it appears to be at first, but a few viewings will let you know that it is indeed a supernatural thriller.
The story centers around five criminals who think they are gods, and therein lies the first clue to this being a sueprnatural thriller. Also, one of the men, Keaton, played by a Judd Hirsch look alike named Gabriel Byrne, is making a deal, along with his lawyer girlfriend, with some men in a high level restaurant.
Upon a few viewings, you will realize that these men are not what they seem, because the lady lawyer eventually is seen making a "deal with the devil".
The "devil" is known to the five men as a character called "Kaiser". The allusions to Caesar (which the word "kaiser" comes from) is a biblical reference to a supernatural evil.
You will find out who the devil is when you realize that the biblical devil is incapable of telling the truth, and so everything he says is a lie. The five criminals all believe they can be "better devils". One of the five is actually a stand in for the female lawyer, for reasons you will know if you watch the film.

Upon watching The Usual Suspects, I was initially excited to see what all the hype was about however, I found the film to be somewhat of a letdown. That being said, I do think that there were some strong aspects to the movie.
From a technical standpoint, The Usual Suspects was quite impressive. The camera direction by Bryan Singer was particularly noteworthy, especially given that this was only his second full-length feature film.
Where the movie fell short for me was in the writing. While the dialogue and overall story were intriguing, the way they were executed left much to be desired. In particular, the first act of the film was disjointed and difficult to follow. The audience was thrown right into the middle with the suspected criminals, with little information given about their backstories or their connections to one another. As new characters were introduced, the plot became even more complex and convoluted, making it challenging to keep up with all the moving pieces. Once the film starts to conclude the second act, the pieces become a little more streamlined, which makes the back half of the movie much more enjoyable.
In terms of acting, the performances were a bit of a mixed bag. Some actors, such as Kevin Spacey and Gabriel Byrne, delivered grounded and impressive performances. However, other characters felt like overacted caricatures of quirky criminals, such as Benicio del Toro's character.
One of the main selling points of The Usual Suspects is its "incredible" twist ending. However, I personally saw it coming from a mile away, which was a bit disappointing. It's possible that the film's score may improve upon a second viewing, but for now, I can only give it three stars. That rating is primarily due to the strong technical aspects of the movie, as without those, it would likely only receive two-and-a-half stars.
Score: 56% ⚠️
Verdict: Decent

**A film that deserves to be revisited and remembered.**
I think it's unfair that this movie seems to be so forgotten nowadays, but maybe that's because of the intricate plot, loaded with flashbacks. I can understand that, but I think there are even more confusing films out there that have never gone out of style. Anyway, it's a quality film, with good actors and a story, to say the least, intriguing. A small note: the film took home both Oscars for which it was nominated (Best Original Screenplay and Best Supporting Actor).
It all starts when a group of men, apparently random, is taken by the police to participate in a line-up. What seems at first very casual, is not: all of them were criminals well known to the authorities, and most particularly one of them, who was also a policeman and seemed to have retired from crime and to be living an honest life. After this opening scene, the film shows the efforts of the police to capture those responsible for a shooting on a boat, with several dead and a single survivor, who will tell everything that happened. And I say no more because this script is one of those that gets better the less you know in advance.
The cast is dominated by two great actors: Gabriel Byrne and Kevin Spacey. Each in their respective character, but both very committed to their work, they steal the public's attention whenever they appear, ending up being, in a way, complementary: Spacey gives life to an apparently fragile and sick man who would be the most unlikely suspect, whereas Byrne is the typical "tough guy". I don't know if I can say that this film is Spacey's best so far, maybe that's premature, but it's safe that his work here opened doors for him to fly higher. Four years later, he would go on to win the Oscar for Best Actor with “American Beauty”. Byrne, on the other hand, is one of those talented actors who never seem to have had their big moment in cinema. I also want to highlight the good work of Pete Postlethwaite, in yet another secondary character of strong relevance, two years after receiving his (only so far) Oscar nomination.
Technically, I think it's worth praising the direction of Bryan Singer, who stayed true to the suspense and managed to resist the temptation to let the film slip into loud and noisy action scenes that weren't really necessary. The best thing about the film is the tense environment it builds, the enigmatic and mysterious way in which it tells its story, and this would have been partly lost if the director filled his film with random shootings and chases. Another point that deserves a note of praise is the soundtrack, and in particular the main theme, used in the opening and end credits, and which is perfectly atmospheric. The rest remains average, but is done without glaring errors. The only points I feel I should criticize negatively are the opening credits graphics, which look very dated now.

**A clever twist and heavy fan support are the only stand-out aspects of this average heist film.**
Bloggers, reviews, and friends hyped The Usual Suspects for years before I finally watched it, and it was ok. The movie had a pretty clever plot twist that the entire film was building towards from the beginning. Unfortunately, without the twist, the film is pretty mediocre. Brute force characterized the heists over clever planning. Keyser Söze's brilliant manipulation of the characters around him seems less mastermind and more taking advantage of criminals that aren't the sharpest tools in the shed. Many people would disagree with me, but The Usual Suspects rates average at best for me.

Keaton always said, "I don't believe in God, but I'm afraid of him." Well I believe in God, and the only thing that scares me is Keyser Soze.
The Usual Suspects is directed by Bryan Singer and written by Christopher McQuarrie. It stars Gabriel Byrne, Kevin Spacey, Kevin Pollack, Stephen Baldwin, Benicio Del Toro, Chazz Palminteri, Pete Postlethwaite, Giancarlo Esposito and Dan Hedaya. Music is by John Ottman and cinematography by Newton Thomas Sigel.
Held in an L.A. interrogation room, Verbal Kint (Spacey) attempts to convince the feds that a mythic crime lord, Keyser Soze, not only exists, but was also responsible for drawing him and his four partners into a multi-million dollar heist that ended with an explosion in San Pedro harbor – leaving few survivors.
It sort of sidled into movie theatres in 1995 with no fanfare or heralded notices. Yet it wasn't long before word of mouth got around that The Usual Suspects might actually be the must see film of the year. Fledgeling director and writer - Singer and McQuarrie - produce a masterclass of crime/mystery/noir plotting in a whirl of intricate plot shifts and deft sleights of hand.
The core essence of the story is simple, just who is Keyser Soze? His reputation is one of utter fear, he may even be the devil himself. What transpires throughout the film is a number of scenes told in flashback form and narrated by Kint as the cops put the heat on him.
We are introduced to the five criminals who make up the suspects of the title, where dialogue pings with machismo laced humour. The addition of Postlethwaite's Kobayashi character, one of Soze's harbinger's of doom, further ups the ante of the story's deliciously corkscrew intrigue.
It all builds to a climax that - has you pondering just what you have watched previously. Yet here's the key as to why the pic still holds up on repeat viewings, we have been outsmarted, for as we dive in and enjoy the across the board great perfs, we have been privy to something that will stand the test of time for the genre it sits in. The repeat viewings factor still, some decades later, is as strong as ever.
The advent of time and home format releases etc have only improved the pic's own mythical status. Behind the scenes egos and dislikes on set only add further strength to the characterisations, as does one main man thinking he himself must be Soze when in fact he was way off. There's a trail of clues in the film that will reveal who Soze is - who knew!? - and on it goes. The Usual Suspects is the filmic gift that keeps on giving. 10/10

Great movie with superb performance from Kevin Spacey, well accompanied with the rest of the cast.

This is one of my favourite films ever and I've loved it since I was a child, everything from John Williams iconic shark theme to the chilling opening scene. Jaws is nothing short of a cinematic masterpiece.

I saw this recently on the big screen for the first time since I originally went as a child in 1975 and if anything, it has got better. John Williams' score and Robert Shaw's "Quint" combine to far outweigh the "rubber" shark scenes. Unlike "The Meg" this film conveys a real sense of tension; coupled with some good old-fashioned scariness. It also dips it's toe into the science and behaviour of an apex predator, which we may consider ourselves to be. Take away our technical accoutrement and we are clearly the minnows...

A very good, and evidently a very influential, film from 1975.
That release year doesn't even sound correct, the film holds up extremely well in that regard - I knew already, but if I didn't and I had guessed the year I wouldn't have said anything earlier than 1990. This alone raises the film up ½* for me - it's impressively made.
I don't, personally, think the story is as perfect as the aforementioned. Don't get me wrong it's all entertaining, but I feel it peaks with the shark terrorising the town as a whole - when it's down to just the trio, I didn't enjoy it quite as much. Roy Scheider, Robert Shaw and Richard Dreyfuss do give notable performances, though.
Going back to my initial point, the effects for the shark are incredible. I kinda wanted to simply see more of just the shark, even if we do get more of the great white towards the conclusion. Heck, the film from the shark's prospective would've been 5*. Lastly, that John Williams score is sensational - I think every film fan, whether they've seen it or not, knows that famous theme.
Almost 47 years after its release, I've finally seen 'Jaws'. I don't honestly think the story/the characters itself are anything out of this world, but there's so much to admire and praise from a technical aspect. A marvel, really.

Solid shark-thriller that still holds up well with each subsequent viewings. Love the cast especially Robert Shaw and was entertained even during some of the slower moments. Not a favorite of mine or amongst Spielberg's resume, but a lot of fun. **4.25/5**

Much like the shark itself, the movie starts slowly, deep down in the depths before coming to the surface to explode in pure sensationalism.
Jaws is one of those rare exceptions where high-brow art meets fun entertainment. At the time of its making, however, simply keeping its head above water was the most the cast and crew were hoping for.
But Spielberg had created something special. During production, no one saw it--I'm not sure Spielberg himself saw it, but it was there. I think it was really editor Verna Fields who saw it and put it together.
Jaws begins the way most primal fears begin: someone is alone, in the dark, in an alien environment, and is being attacked from some unknown entity. People remark today how Jaws worked so well, that it's kept them afraid of the ocean for years. I disagree. I think it's because we are scared of the ocean is why Jaws works so well. The opening scene of the young girl being savaged in the black nothingness that is the night ocean is terrifying because it preys on primal fears; it doesn't create them.
Next we're introduced to our cast of characters: There's Police Chief Martin Brody--an everyman with a fear of the water--and his wife, Ellen. There's Brody's loyal deputy Len Hendricks (mysteriously named "Jeff" in the sequel). Then, of course, there's the other side. There is the crooked mayor Larry Vaughan, and his two toadies newspaper editor Harry Meadows and coroner Carl Santos. After Brody and Hendricks find evidence of a hungry shark off the coast of the resort town of Amity, they do the sensible thing and start closing up the beaches. The mayor, seeing dwindling dollar signs, convinces Meadows and Santos to back him, and together they confront Brody and put the kibosh on his beach closing plan.
In an era where the primitive special effects technology gave us a shark that looked like a pool toy, it became essential that the shark not be the focal point of the film. And while a fin here and a barrel there do work wonders, it's only because the shark is far from the only villain in the movie. To have credibility, we have to have a human villain. And that is where Vaughan comes in.
After Vaughan's cavalier "it-can't-happen-again" attitude blows up in his face, Brody brings in the book smart, but decidedly out-of-his-element marine biologist Matt Hooper. Hooper tells Brody everything he and we, the audience, already know: The shark is out there; it's hungry; it's eating people; and it will continue to do so unless it is killed.
After a disastrous Fourth of July celebration that should have gotten Vaughan impeached, Brody and Hooper join forces with Quint, a grizzled fisherman with a personal vendetta against sharks. The movie then switches from its horror and drama elements and becomes something of an adventure, foreshadowing Spielberg's work on films like Raiders of the Lost Ark. Even John Williams' score begins to conjure up images of Errol Flynn-style swashbuckling. The adventure almost seems fun.
And that is when the shark, previously only a shadow, fin, or plot point referenced by dialogue, takes center stage. The movie shifts gears further near the end, going from adventure to a full on monster movie.
The build up is slow, relying on showing us the results of the shark's presence rather than the shark itself. This creates enough fear and credibility so that by the time the big, rubbery toy shark is commanding the screen, we're afraid of it. It's already been established as a monster.
The movie's pacing, dialogue and acting are all perfect, creating a strong enough foundation on which a silly, albeit terrifying, plot rests. By the time the shark is sinking boats and eating shark cages, Spielberg has made us by into it that he could have had the shark blasting off for the moon and we would have accepted it. And that is how and why Jaws works.

Is it safe to go back in the water? ...
Steven Spielberg got ahold of the incredible Peter Benchley-penned novel about a giant, carnivorous Great White (dubbed "Jaws") who swims the ocean waters off a fictional resort town, preying on both the Island's locals and its visitors alike, and adaptated, for the silver screen, what would become one of the most terrifying American made thrillers to ever be released in the worldwide cinema. Exceptional filmmaking! And members of Spielberg's crew had the nerve to maliciously "mock" Jaws, by referring to it as "Flaws", during the filming process? All because of a few "glitches" in the mechanical shark? Ha! Who's laughing now?
Great screenwriting by Benchley and Gottlieb. Great composition by the legendary John Williams. Great direction by Spielberg. Phenomenal performances by Scheider, Shaw, and Dreyfuss. Great supporting cast. Just...magnificent. Jaws is a magnificent film. A true classic.

Jaws.
A man eating shark is terrorising the holiday island of Amity. Police chief Martin Brody, shark hunter Quint and marine biologist Matt Hooper set sail in the hope of killing the great white monster.
Jaws is responsible for many things, it's responsible for propelling director Steven Spielberg's career into the stratosphere, it was responsible for a downturn in the package holiday trade, and it was responsible for shaping the summer blockbuster release practice's. There are many other things which one doesn't need to bore you with, it's just true to say that Jaws is firmly ensconced in movie history, if one hasn't seen it then one surely knows about it, it is, even today, part of popular culture.
But is it any good? Is it worthy of a long standing reputation as one of the greatest monster movies of all time? Hell yes it is, one or two easily overlooked flaws aside, it busted the box office (world wide) and tapped into a primal fear that resides in the majority of mankind, the unseen that resides in the sea.
Jaws sets out its marker right from the start with a truly shocking and attention grabbing opening sequence, from then on in Spielberg (learning from Hitchcock for sure) tweaks the tension to have the audience living on their nerves, even as character building (by way of Brody's family arc) sedates the pace, we just know that it's all relative to an extension of fear and terror that is around the next corner. After the first victims' remains are found, Brody glances out at the ocean, Spielberg perfectly framing the shot to say so much about what we are about to be witness' to. Jolts and shocks pop up from time to time to help build the unease, whilst Spielberg makes the audience wait before we even see what it is that so coldly and efficiently destroys man. Then it's the claustrophobic switch as our brave protagonists are out at sea on Quint's boat, unaware that the giant menace is now hunting them, eyes as black as death itself.
So many great scenes linger for all time in the memory, the entrance of Quint is a hum dinger, a mournful widow reducing Brody to a stunned realism, the Indianappolis monologue, the bigger boat! Just some of the reasons why I personally love cinema so much. The score from John Williams is as effective as any for the genre and Robert Hoyt's sound team's work furthers the unfolding dread. The cast are superb and uniformly excellent, managing to cast aside technical problems (and genuine resentments at times) to portray this story with verve and a genuine depth of feeling. Yet Roy Scheider (Brody), Robert Shaw (Quint) and Richard Dreyfuss (Hooper) were far from from original choices, Charlton Heston was wanted for the role of Brody, Sterling Hayden and Lee Marvin were both mooted for Quint, and John Voight was Spielberg's preferred choice for Hooper. Whilst Jaws author (and co screen writer here) Peter Benchley was heading for the top by asking for Newman, Redford and McQueen!! Imagine that!
Still it all turned out well in the end because Jaws stands the test of time as one of the best films of its type. No amount of complaining about continuity and a rough looking mechanical shark will ever dim its appeal, even as I revisited it recently for the hundredth time I still got tingles all over my body. So file it alongside King Kong in the pantheon of Monster Movie Masterpieces. 10/10 always, now go enjoy your dip in the ocean.

Now this is not my favourite style of animation, I find it all a little unnatural to watch. That said, though, this is a charming story that follows the life of a music teacher who really just wants to play his beloved jazz. "Joe" finally gets an opportunity to tinkle the ivories with the band of the renowned "Dorothea". She like shim, he likes her - then an accident befalls and in best "Matter of Life and Death" tradition, he is on a conveyor belt to the afterlife. Determined not to follow the masses of other dead folks, he jumps from the pathway and ends up in a curious plane of existence that is designed to train new souls for exportation to newborns arriving on Earth. Shrewdly, he manages to capitalise on this administration mix-up and become a mentor - to the unruly and pretty irredeemable "22". After a bit of bargaining, the latter, who has been there for aeons and has no interest at all in being "born" - agrees to help the former to get back to Earth in the right body. What ensues now are a series of characterful escapades that see them flirt with rebirth (only in swapped bodies) but that ultimately cause both to re-assess what their priorities are. Of course there's some moralising - it's Disney - but that is delivered quite subtly and wrapped in some entertainingly witty dialogue and some - though not enough - gorgeous jazz. There's not much doubt as to the conclusion, but along the way we find a story that's optimistic, life-affirming and does rather encourage people to count their blessings. Glass half full, and all that!

I watched a cartoon with children. Kind and deep cartoon. I liked the humor, especially when the hero's soul moved into the cat. I recommend it for family viewing