**Despite being an improvement over the previous film, it still has a very stupid style of humor.**
When I saw the first “Clerks” movie, I found it quite rude, uninteresting, based on endless and boring dialogues. And I confess that I did not expect anything better here. The film, however, managed to surprise me and give me more than I expected.
The action takes place about ten years after the first film (which is correct, the sequel only appeared ten years after the original) and shows how Dante, the central character of this plot, left his hated convenience store to work in a fast food restaurant. He's still not interested in the job, and hates the place, but he's engaged to a blonde beauty who plans to take him to Florida, where her father is going to give them a home. However, whoever is destined to be a Nobody cannot expect many strokes of luck, and he will, in a single day, throw everything away. Of course, Randal, his old buddy, will take his share of the blame for what happens.
If the first film failed for having no script, just a succession of intelligent but rude and uninteresting dialogues, this film corrected that flaw and gave the characters a decent story. However, decent does not mean good: although this was a great advance, the film has a huge romantic subplot that seems to have been written on a high school, because it works rather poorly and is unconvincing. Another problem with the film is the quality of most of the characters involved because almost all of them are sketchy, one-dimensional, uninteresting and some of them are just clowns who throw us jokes and more jokes worthy of a military barracks or a college dorm.
This leads us to talk about humour! Thought to be the strong point of this film, the comedy is based on scatological, sexual and unhygienic humour. Jokes about poor hygiene in a restaurant or bestiality or several other sexual practices flow freely and abundantly, like a flood in a sewer after a storm. There are also references to other films (Lord of the Rings, Star Wars…), most of which not very complimentary. Anyway! This humor is not only rude, but also stupid.
The actors from the previous film (Brian O'Halloran, Jeff Anderson, Jason Mewes, Kevin Smith) are back for the characters they already know and to do again what they had already done. The big improvement is really from O'Halloran, who showed a better job and talent to do something more challenging and competent. But it's Rosario Dawson who deserves the most attention: her character is convincing, likable and smarter than the rest, while still being funny when she wants to be (brain and humor go hand in hand, take note, director Kevin Smith). Ben Affleck also appears here, in a short, uninteresting and forgettable cameo. Truly pitiful is Trevor Fehrman's performance… he wasn't an actor, he didn't go beyond the most pathetic silliness.

A pretty lame attempt to synthesise the old and the new as “Capt. Kirk” (William Shatner) and “Mr. Scott” (James Doohan) are invited to the maiden voyage of the latest USS Enterprise. Needless to say, it all goes wrong as they encounter an enormous energy ribbon that strikes the ship and mayhem ensues. Jump forward several years and “Capt. Picard” (Patrick Stewart) is now in charge of the ship and the TNG crew have to deal with Roddy McDowell, the mad scientist determined to recreate that sequence of events so he can reunite with his lost wife. “Picard” is reunited with “Kirk” in a sort of parallel timeline as they combine to try to defeat their foe. Sadly, we have now entered into the realms of "Star Trek" with "holodecks", "prime directives" and Gilbert & Sullivan - the fun, tongue-in-cheek elements are gone and it starts to take itself far too seriously. McDowell always did manage to carry off the "slightly deranged" roles well, but otherwise this runs out of steam for me after 15 minutes...

I've seen this one a few times over the years and while not great and the plot was something akin to a two-part episode of TNG, I still was mildly entertained even if Malcolm McDowell's role was underdeveloped with us being told of his motivations with the death of his family versus being shown it via flashbacks. But the selling point was seeing the two iconic Captains together, even if only for 25-minutes. **3.0/5**

I'll be honest, I really hated Star Trek The Motion Picture. I mean, I REALLY hated it and I am a Star Trek fan...
... so it's sort of fitting that I hate Generations as well.
I mean, it doesn't do the first generation or the Next Generation justice at all does it? Kirk shouldn't have been in it. The OG Enterprise crew shouldn't have been in it.
It felt like it robbed TNG of their first outing on the big screen while insulting the original crew of the Enterprise.

_**Ambitious and High-Concept Sci-Fi (for Grown-Ups only)**_
I can see WHY some don't like "Generations" (1994) or don't 'get' it: This seventh Star Trek film has some (false) plot holes and some things aren't spelled-out or explained very well (So what? Doesn't mystery intrinsically come with the territory of space adventure?); plus the story is a bit convoluted, particularly for those not familiar with Star Trek up to this point, both generations.
Regardless, "Generations" is ambitious, high-concept sci-fi of the highest order; it leaves the viewer with many interesting questions to ponder long afterwards. Although the Nexus has been criticized as a mere gimmick to get Kirk and Picard together, I find the concept utterly fascinating: No matter how much we want it, an illusory paradise is just that, an illusion. As far as I'm concerned, the concept of the Nexus and its implementation into the storyline is nothing short of brilliant. Who created the Nexus? Why, who else but the Talosians, the 'antagonists' of Trek's very first episode, "The Cage"! Think about it.
Besides this, there are multiple highlights (some SPOILERS follow): The usual Trek humor, Data's amusing experiences with the emotion chip, Malcolm McDowell's outstanding performance as the Soran, his believable obsession and justifications, B'Etor & Lursa and their "wild bunch" Klingons, the startling obliteration of them and their vessel, the thrilling crash-landing of the Enterprise-D, the meeting of Kirk and Picard in the Nexus, the final showdown with Soran and Kirk's death. Needless to say, "Generations" does far more than offer mere juvenile space battles.
BIGGEST PLOT HOLE (OR MAYBE NOT): Picard's purpose in leaving the Nexus is to stop Soran from annihilating the Enerprise-D crew and the entire Veridian solar system, including the 230 million people that live on Veridian IV. Since Picard can leave the Nexus and "go anywhere any time," as Guinan pointed out earlier, why go to Veridian III about A MINUTE before Soran launches his rocket? Why not go back to when Soran was a guest on the Enterprise-D and apprehend him then and there? Writer Ronald D. Moore defended Picard's decision on the grounds that he didn't want to risk the dangerous and unexpected consequences that can occur when tampering with the timeline; hence, his journey back in time from the Nexus is only a matter of a minute or so. It's a good explanation.
Speaking of explanations, some have criticized the fact that Guinan is simultaneously present in the real world and in the Nexus. How could this be? It's simple: It is repeatedly established that the reality experienced in the Nexus is not real; one experiences what they desire in the Nexus, not what is necessarily real. For instance, Picard has no children in the real world, but because he DESIRED to have them he was able to experience them in the Nexus. Hence, the 'Guinan' portrayed in the Nexus may walk, talk and act precisely like Guinan, but she's not real. She's only there because Picard desires her to be there for the purpose of explaining the nature of the Nexus. That said, many of the people in the Nexus are real, like Picard and Kirk.
COMMENTARY ON THE NEXUS: Although the Nexus should simply be taken at face value as a strange space phenomenon (likely created by the Talosians), you can also regard it as an analogy. At first glance the viewer might get the impression that the Nexus is a type of heaven, but this can't be so since it is repeatedly emphasized in the film that the people and events experienced in the Nexus are NOT real (for the most part). 'Heaven,' a term theologians and ministers traditionally use to refer to the eternal abode of the redeemed (technically referred to as "the new heavens and new earth" in the bible, as shown in 2 Peter 3:13), is always depicted as real in the bible, not an illusory paradise. If the Nexus is not analogous of heaven, what could it be a type of? The Nexus corresponds to any addiction a person "tastes" and embraces to escape reality (e.g. pipe dreams, drugs, alcohol, computer games, TV, porn, fishing, shopping, golf, etc.). Some, like Soran, are unable to flee its clutches and waste their lives and talents OBSESSED by it. Others, like Picard and Kirk, are able to see the truth and escape; they therefore "make a difference" in real life.
BOTTOM LINE: This "passing-of-the-torch" installment requires an attention span and an appreciation for high-concept sci-fi; it will likely bore those for whom Star Trek only means neato spacecrafts and superficial space dogfights (don't get me wrong, they each have their place in Trek). "Generations" has the courage to make bold changes -- killing off an iconic character, and fairly prominent support characters as well, not to mention destroying the Enterprise-D. In short, "Generations" is science-fiction for grown-ups and youth with advanced cerebral development. All others should stick with juvenile space fantasy flicks (giggle).
The film runs 1 hour, 57 minutes.
GRADE: A

Chief of Station is your by the numbers spy/action thriller, sandwiched between cheesy slices of US exceptionalism.
There's nothing new, whatsoever, on offer here. This is a flick driven by exposition, with action that lacks a certain polish but is still superficially watchable.
Acting is alright too, just don't expect any Oscars to be handed out.
In summary, a basic formulaic US spy thriller that's mildly diverting and little else. Possibly a good one for a slow Sunday.

I love An American Tail, I used to have an copy of this film and watching it! Better than The Emoji Movie! I wish to rewatch this film.

With "Hannibal Lecktor" (Brian Cox) now safely behind bars, the traumatised profiler "Graham" (William Petersen) might be looking forward to a well earned-retirement. Thing is, the "Tooth Fairy" has other plans as he embarks on a killing spree that causes his erstwhile FBI boss "Crawford" (Dennis Farina) to seek his help. These murders are truly gruesome with entire families killed, inside their own homes, on nights with a full moon. With the next one of those due very soon, "Graham" has to enlist the help of his former tormentor - whose help is never as straightforward as he might like - to see if they can establish some patterns and preempt more slaughter. Meantime, we are introduced to "Dollarhyde" (Tom Noonan) who's about eight foot tall and maybe not the most stable of photographers we are ever going to meet. It's possible that he might succumb to the more calming influence of the lovingly blind "Reba" (Joan Allen) but with the pressures mounting you wouldn't want to bet on that. Is there a connection? As with Thomas Harris's "Red Dragon" book, the audience is aware of far more than the pursuers and that works well here as we see "Graham" try to work from a blank canvas, and with an insane convict, to track down a man who has left virtually nothing for them to go on. Petersen holds this together quite well and the cleverly cast Cox, well he always comes across as an actor who'd be quite prepared to eat the competition. I found the ending just a little rushed, but the jigsaw is well presented and the jeopardy effectively increased throughout this quite chilling adaptation. Honestly - I didn't much care for the intrusively synthesised score - just a little too much "Miami Vice" for me - but this is a solid and at times quite gripping story of imbalance and mania that I did quite enjoy.

Recover the mindset.
Retired FBI specialist Will Graham is lured back into action to track a serial killer who is killing families, seemingly linked into the lunar cycle. In the process it opens up some old mental wounds that were born out during his last action out in the field...
Before the gargantuan success of Silence of the Lambs, where the name Hannibal the Cannibal moved into pop culture, and before director Michael Mann became a named auteur often referenced with relish by hungry film students; there was Manhunter, Michael Mann's brilliant adaptation of Thomas Harris' equally brilliant psychological thriller, Red Dragon. It feels a bit redundant now, years later, writing about Mann's use of styles to bear out mood and psychological states, his framing devices, his commitment to his craft, but after revisiting the film on Blu-ray, I find myself once again simultaneously invigorated and unnerved by the magnificence of Manhunter. Visually, thematically and narratively it remains a clinical piece of cinema, a probing study of madness that dares to put a serial killer and the man hunting him in the same psychological body, asking us, as well as William Petersen's FBI agent Will Graham, to empathise with Tom Noonan's troubled Tooth Fairy killer. Here's a thing, too, Francis Dolarhyde (The Tooth Fairy) is a functioning member of society, he is quite frankly a man who could be working in a shop near you! This is no reclusive psychopath such as, well, Buffalo Bill, Dolarhyde is presented to us in such a way as we are given insight into this damaged mind, he is fleshed out as a person, we get to know him and his motivational problems.
Dream much, Will?
Mann and his team are not about over the top or camp performances, gore is kept to a premium, the real horror is shown in aftermath sequences, conversations and harmless photographs, but still it's a nightmarish world. Suspense is wrung out slowly by way of the characterisations. Will has to become the killer, and it's dangerous, he knows so because he has done it before, when capturing Dr. Hannibal Lecktor. Needing to pick up the scent again, to recover the mindset, Will has to go see the good doctor who has a penchant for fine wines and human offal. These scenes showcase Mann at his deadliest, a bright white cell filmed off kilter, each frame switch showing either Lecktor or Graham behind bars, they are one. When Lecktor taunts Will about them being alike, Mann understands this and visually brings it out. Dolarhyde's living abode is murky in colour tones and furnished garishly, and with mirrors, paintings and a lunar landscape, yet when Dolarhyde is accompanied by Joan Allen's blind Reba, where he feels he is finally finding acceptance, this house is seen at ease because of the characterisations. Switch to the finale and it's a walled monstrosity matching that of a killer tipped back over the edge. Brilliant stuff.
If one does what God does enough times, one will become as God is.
Lecktor, soon to be back as the source material Lecter in the film versions that follow, is actually not in the film that much. Brian Cox (chilling, calculating, frightening and intelligent) as Lecktor gets under ten minutes of screen time, but that's enough, the character's presence is felt throughout the picture in a number of ways. The Lecktor angle is very relative to film's success, but very much it's one strand of a compelling whole, I realise now that Mann has deliberately kept us wanting more of him visually. Noonan is truly scary, he lived away from the rest of the cast during filming, with Mann's joyous encouragement, the end result is one of the best and most complex serial killer characterisations ever. Lang scores high as weasel paparazzi, Allen is heart achingly effective without patronising blind people and Farina is a huge presence as Jack Crawford, Will's friend and boss who coaxes Will back into the fray knowing full well that Will's mind might not make it back with him. But it's Petersen's movie all the way. His subsequent non film career has given ammunition to his knockers that he is no great actor. Rubbish, with this and To Live and Die in L.A. he gave two of the best crime film portrayals of the 80s. He immerses himself in Will Graham, so much so he wasn't able to shake the character off long after filming had wrapped. There's a scene in a supermarket where Will is explaining to his son about his dark place, where "the ugliest thoughts in the world" live, a stunning sequence of acting and a showcase for Petersen's undoubted talents.
Newcomers to the film and Mann's work in general, could do no worse than spend the ten minutes it takes to watch the Dante Spinotti feature on the disc. Apart from saving me the time to write about Mann's visual flourishes, it gives one an idea of just how key a director and cinematographer partnership is in a film such as this. The audio is crisp, which keeps alive the perfect in tone soundtrack and eerie scoring strains of Rubini and The Reds. Some say that the music of Manhunter is dated? I say that if it sits at one with the tonal shifts and thematics of a story then that surely can never be viewed as dated. And that's the case here in Manhunter. The director's cut is included as part of the package but the transfer is appalling, and for the sake of one cut scene that happens post the Dolarhyde/Graham face off, there's really not much to the DC version anyway. The theatrical cut is perfect, brilliantly realised on Blu-ray to birth a true visual neo-noir masterpiece. 10/10

High quality period piece although the book is supposed to be even better. I haven't read the book so maybe you will want to do that first. Back to the movie. The cast is superb and the story is compelling. What more do you need? The story has great characters, and the the cast brings out all their emotional interests. The story unfolds in a series of flashbacks as several characters are unwilling to share what happened during the German occupation with intrepid writer Juliet. This works well to build suspense around the overall mystery. Juliet is dealing with her own tragic war memories which drive her character's choices. Guernsey is like a character too and will probably be swamped with tourists in the near future.
As far as the present, we can all have a very pleasant journey there by just watching this great movie.

"Jack Lucas" (Jeff Bridges) is one of those late night radio presenters who loves the sound of his own voice and who enjoys nothing better than to put down, disdainfully, the collection of sad individuals who phone in with their problems. It's one of his casual off-the-cuff remarks that leads to a tragedy and a spiral that sends him into some serious doldrums. Things change for ever one night when he finds himself on the wrong end of a beating and then rescued by an eccentric looking fellow called "Parry" (Robin Williams). This is an erudite and complicated man who is obsessed with the "Fisher King" legend of the Holy Grail. Upon further investigation, "Lucas" learns more of the tragic cause of his new friend's predicament and as much as for his own salvation as for that of "Parry", he embarks on a task to find him meaning again. To that end he introduces him to the shy "Lydia" (Amanda Plummer) in the hope that this might help him find a new reason to live again. Things come full circle when "Parry" himself becomes a victim of the thugs and "Lucas" must strive to fulfil the quest and save something of both men. Whilst all of this chaos is bubbling away, it's down to "Anna" (Mercedes Ruehl) who is the former broadcaster's long-suffering girlfriend, to carefully tread on the eggshells of her relationship with him whilst quite temperamentally (and engagingly) trying to make sure she keeps him on as straight and narrow a path as possible. This is one of Bridges' better and more natural efforts and he works well with what I thought was an over-the-top performance from Williams to provide a film that is at times funny and at times quite poignant. The underlying mythology is quite effective at providing a modern day conduit for an ancient story of a hunt for the perfect in all of us and though it does take it's time, Bridges keeps it going.

My dad and I had this thing we did where we went to see a movie or rented a movie from the time before I could remember to, well, almost until the day he passed away. There was always time to catch a movie, an it's a bit easier because it isn't as weather dependent as playing catch is.
My dad took me to see this when I was a kid, and I absolutely hated it, I thought it was a horrible movie.
And then, I watched it again when I was in high school and I absolutely loved it. Thought it was an amazing film.
And then I showed it to my wife, who pointed out that I was only 11 when dad took me to see it.
And now I can see how my attitude about this totally changed.
It is really the story about the Fisher King isn't it? At least it's a grail quest to restore the health to someone who kind of acts like a charitable king with the worst Percival character known to mankind.
And, I don't mean to cast shade on Jeff Bridges by that. He played a great role, the... well... I can't think of a polite word for his character. But we all know people a little like him don't we? He's a bit stereotyped of that friend that you also kind of hate, but he pulls it off absolutely brilliantly.
He's just, you know, not the pure Godly Percival that we know from the legends.
But then again, Williams isn't exactly the same dignified wounded king is he? He kind of comes across as a bit of a Leprechaun in this, and he is the most redeemed of any character in Arthurian Legends. He kind of out Percivals Percival in this...
.... but who cares? It's Terry Gilliam redoing the Fisher King, once more tackling a Grail Quest and it is all brought to you in a way that only Terry Gilliam can bring it to you...
... OK, yeah, it's Gilliam, so it could be a bit of a bias review.
At any rate, so long as you're not watching this in the theater with your dad when you are 11 you're going to enjoy the heck out of this film. And even if your dad does make you watch it when you are 11, give it a few years, watch it again, and I promise the second time around you will enjoy the heck out of it.

Decent enough thriller but not especially memorable, though both Isabelle Huppert and Chloe Grace Moretz turned in fine performances. It's probably fine as a rental.

**_Insubstantial and forgettable, but Huppert makes it moderately entertaining_**
> _The philosopher is right who says that nothing thicker than a knife's blade separates happiness from melancholy; and he goes on to opine that one is twin fellow to the other; and draws from this the conclusion that all extremes of feeling are allied with madness._
- Virginia Woolf; _Orlando_ (1928)
In Claude Chabrol's _Violette Nozière_ (1978), Isabelle Huppert plays a prostitute who contracts syphilis from a client, tells her parents she inherited the disease from them, kills her father, tries to kill her mother, and falsely claims that her father molested her. In Chabrol's _La Cérémonie_ (1995), she plays a woman who shoots an entire family to death as they watch TV. In Michael Haneke's _La Pianiste_ (2001), she plays a pianist who uses broken glass to injure the hand of a fellow professional. In Christophe Honoré's _Ma Mère_ (2004), she plays a woman who commits suicide whilst having sex with her son, timing it so that her death coincides with his orgasm (just don't ask). In Paul Verhoeven's _Elle_ (2016), she plays a rape victim who sets out for revenge on her rapist, all the while indulging in ever more extreme play-rape scenarios with her (married) neighbour. It's quite a CV of depravity (and that's only five of the 120+ films in which she has appeared).
And so we have _Greta_. Written by Ray Wright (_Pulse_; _Case 39_) and Neil Jordan, and directed by Jordan (_The Company of Wolves_; _The Crying Game_; _Interview with the Vampire_; _Michael Collins_), this is schlocky B-movie territory through-and-through, with a completely ridiculous plot and over-the-top final act, all infused with a ludicrous generic campiness. It's one of those films that's so utterly horrendous in almost every way, it's actually kind of enjoyable. Kind of. Very much in the tradition of stalker-thrillers such as Brian De Palma's _Body Double_ (1984), Adrian Lyne's _Fatal Attraction_ (1987), and Barbet Schroeder's _Single White Female_ (1992), although nowhere near as good as any of them, _Greta_ was introduced at the Venice Film Festival as "_a twisted little thriller_". Well, it's certainly twisted, and it's also rather little, but there isn't a huge amount of thrilling going on. Same problem if you want to call it a psychological thriller, as there's precious little psychology. In fact, there's precious little of anything going on, as Jordan seems to have precisely nothing to say; the film simply isn't inherently _about_ anything. Although it is good for a few laughs (and I'm pretty sure not all of them intentional).
Frances McCullen (Chloë Grace Moretz), a young Bostonian, is sharing an apartment in New York with her college friend Erica Penn (Maika Monroe). Having recently lost her mother to cancer, she is all-but-estranged from her workaholic father Chris (the great Canadian Shakespearean actor Colm Feore), with every conversation painfully taut. Returning home from her waitress job, Frances finds a handbag on the subway belonging to Greta Hideg (Huppert). Bringing the bag to Greta's house, the two share tea, as Greta explains her husband died some time ago, and her daughter is living in Paris, leaving her feeling lonely. They strike up a friendship, with each filling an emotional void in the other's life. Although Erica thinks the relationship is "weird", Frances ignores her, and she and Greta grow ever closer. However, as Greta prepares dinner one evening, Frances finds a collection of handbags identical to the one she found on the subway, each labelled with a name and phone number. Deeply concerned, Frances tries to cut ties with Greta, conceding that Erica was correct. Greta, however, has no intentions of allowing Frances to walk out of her life.
_Greta_ is Neil Jordan's eighteenth film, and the eleventh to feature Stephen Rea (here playing a rather useless private detective), and his output has always been patchy; for every classic like _Mona Lisa_ (1986) and _The Crying Game_, there's a _We're No Angels_ (1989) and a _Byzantium_ (2012). Something in which he has always been interested, and which infuses many of his films, is folklore, especially fairy tales. Obvious in films such as _The Company of Wolves_ (1984), _High Spirits_ (1988), _In Dreams_ (1999), and _Ondine_ (2009), it's also to be found just below the surface in everything from _Angel_ (1985) to _The Miracle_ (1991) to _Breakfast on Pluto_ (2005). In _Greta_, Jordan allows his familiarity with the tropes of classic fairy tales to imbue the film's _milieu_, especially in relation to Greta's home, which is so obviously inspired by "Hansel and Gretel" it may as well as have been made of gingerbread, whilst Frances has more than a hint of Little Red Riding Hood's innocence and _naïveté_ about her.
However, this is a Roger Corman-style B-movie before it is anything else. For example, something you see a lot in B-movie thrillers is that when danger is apparent, otherwise intelligent characters must act like complete and utter simpletons; so, upon a barrage of calls and texts from Greta, Frances neither blocks Greta's number nor changes her own; when Greta starts calling the landline, neither Frances nor Erica think to unplug it; although it's never explicitly stated that Greta has a key to the girls' apartment, the fact that she seems to pop in and out at will suggests she does, yet the girls don't change the locks; Frances's big plan to combat Greta is to root through her garbage to try to find something incriminating; when trapped in Greta's house, after trying the door and one window, Frances thinks the best course of action is to flee to the dark cellar. Whether the film intends for this level of stupidity to be humorous or not is beside the point; anyone who has ever seen a movie (any movie) will surely get a chuckle from such appalling writing
The question one must ask, then, is whether or not Jordan is actually in on the joke. It remains somewhat ambiguous, but I would say, for the most part, that he is not, and that he seems to take the material relatively seriously. What is certain, however, is that Huppert is very much aware of the ludicrousness around her. Although _Greta_ is nowhere near the most extreme character she's played, she is clearly having an absolute blast with the part - whether it's delivering her lines as if she's over-rehearsed them, literally dancing across the set as she commits homicide, spitting chewing-gum into Frances's hair, gleefully engaging in some DIY emergency medicine, standing completely motionless in a city street, or overturning a table as if her life depended on it, you rarely see a performance wherein the performer is so joyful; she practically winks at the camera a couple of times. She commits totally to every bonkers moment, which come thick and fast in the last act. Without her exuberant performance, the film would be virtually unwatchable; Moretz is fairly wooden; Monroe's Erica is a blank slate rather than a character; Feore is wasted in only two scenes; and Rea is his usual hang-dog self. Only Huppert pops. But man alive does she pop bigly!
Thematically, the film flirts with a few issues, but never really penetrates any of them. One could certainly read it as a satire of NYPD inefficiency, the ineffectiveness of the justice system, and the misnomer that in a post #MeToo society, it's easier for women to report instances of stalking and harassment and be believed; when Frances makes a formal complaint about Greta, a bored policeman tells her "_it's not harassment if it's in a public place_". Later on, when Frances tries to file a restraining order, she is told it could be months before her case is heard. When Greta is taken into custody at one point, she is released almost immediately, despite clearly being unstable.
From an aesthetic point of view, the film signals its campiness right from the off, opening with Julie London's 1963 cover of "Where Are You?" As you would expect from Jordan, the film looks great. In relation to the production design by Anna Rackard (_Boy Eats Girl_; _Love & Friendship_), the dark brown classical feel of the interior of Greta's house, with delicate sunlight filtering through the curtains, and looking, for all the world, like a 19th century rural French cottage, contrasts sharply with the bright, grey, modernist look of the girls' sleek apartment. Jordan's regular set decorator John Neligan must also be mentioned, as he fills Greta's house with innumerable trinkets whilst leaving the girls' environment relatively unadorned. Also worth mentioning is how Jordan and director of photography Seamus McGarvey (_The Hours_; _We Need to Talk About Kevin_; _Nocturnal Animals_) shoot scenes of Greta watching Frances menacingly from outside the restaurant where she works - placing her dead centre in the frame as she remains completely motionless, in the midst of a flurry of movement and passers-by all around her. It's a very creepy image.
Another really well mounted part of the film is a scene where Greta is following Erica. Although neither Erica nor the audience ever actually see Greta, we know she's there, because she keeps sending Frances picture messages of her pursuit, as Frances is on the phone to Erica telling her to run. The editing by Nick Emerson (_Starred Up_; _Lady Macbeth_; _Daphne_) is especially impressive here, cutting rhythmically between Erica, Frances, and inserts of the picture messages, as the tension mounts. Again, it's a very unsettling scene, and a unique way to stage a chase. Finally, there's the sound design by Stefan Henrix (_The Devil's Double_; _Britannia_), which is noticeable in what it doesn't do; whenever we are outside, there are the typical sounds of a city that you would expect, however, when we move into Greta's house, the sound design is dialled back almost to zero (much quieter than the girls' apartment), creating the impression of the house as somehow separate from the frantic pace of the city right outside the door.
On the other hand, the aesthetic very much lets the film down in terms of location. Although set in New York, it was shot primarily in Dublin, with some pick-ups in Toronto, and it shows. Granted, I live in Dublin and was able to pick out most of the locations in a way someone not from here wouldn't. But irrespective of that, the filmmakers seem to have made little effort to disguise the location; from the sequence of the traffic lights to the side of the road on which the cars drive to the street signs. It's very distracting, and really wouldn't have required that much effort to fix. This is especially irritating insofar as the location's significance is built into the script (it's mentioned several times that if Frances were from New York she would never have picked up the bag). So the fact that so little effort has gone into actually making the film look like it was shot in New York is disappointing.
Unfortunately, there are a myriad of other problems. For starters, there's the script, which never feels like anything other than pure genre fare. Yes, it's to be lauded for using women in the role of both stalker and stalked, when stalker-thrillers have traditionally been about male anxiety. However, it doesn't take this trope anywhere, as if simply having two women at the centre is enough, and doesn't need further comment. When _clichéd_ issues like vulnerability, loneliness, and obsession are presented in a _clichéd_ manner, they don't cease to be _clichéd_ just because they've been given an undercoat of pseudo-feminism. The opportunity to engage with gender politics is right there, but is disappointingly avoided.
Another problem with the script is that none of the characters are given much in the way of interiority or psychological verisimilitude. Frances and Greta have some rudimentary backstory, but it isn't enough to compensate for their lack of psychology. There's little emotional complexity anywhere in the film, no real sense of any of the characters having an unconscious. And whilst the ludicrousness of Huppert's performance distracts from this and transcends the limitations of the writing, Moretz remains unable to break free. In this sense, she comes across like a cog in the screenwriters' machinery, only behaving in such and such a way because the plot dictates it, with scene after perfunctory scene doing only enough to get us to the next scene and nothing else. Neither Moretz nor Monroe are able to escape the generic moulds of their character-types; the bright-eyed and innocent newbie whose kindness will be her downfall, and the tough friend who seems churlish and cynical but who ultimately proves to have been right all along.
_Greta_ is a rote stalker-thriller that looks great, but offers nothing we haven't seen before; it's essentially a potboiler in a nice suit. No different from any of the late 80s/early 90s obsession thrillers, the plot is plodding and uninspired and the characters are underwritten. When all is said and done, it's hard to really figure out what Jordan was aiming for with this. You can't call it a psychological thriller about obsession and loneliness, because it does nothing with these themes, but you can't call it a self-aware and campy B-movie, because Jordan doesn't seem to be fully cognisant that it's campy schlock. Huppert's batshit insane performance elevates the material significantly, but even she can't paper over all the cracks. It's been 23 years since Jordan has made anything of real significance, and on the evidence of his last few films, it's going to be a while before he does so again.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)
Every year, there are a couple of underrated and/or overlooked movies. Greta is 2019’s first film to belong to both categories. It was definitely overlooked since Hellboy stole the spotlight, and it’s also underrated based on online feedback. Critics being divisive is kind of expected, but audiences are disliking Greta more than the former group, which I find quite surprising. Nevertheless, I enjoyed a lot and that’s mostly due to the outstanding performances of its leads. Isabelle Huppert is incredible as Greta, as expected from such an acclaimed actress. Her character has a very mysterious personality which is well-developed throughout the runtime. Undeniably, her character’s past and decisions turn out to be a bit questionable, in terms of logic. I don’t believe that it’s straight-up rubbish, but I can’t deny that some aspects of her persona lack consistency and sense. Fortunately, it’s nowhere near Serenity‘s level of absurdity. In the end, Huppert elevates her script and delivers a creepily captivating display.
Chloë Grace Moretz is one of the most talented young actresses out there, and I already stated a few years ago that she will be a much-desired star, sooner or later. In this movie, she shows off the subtlety of her expressions at the same time that she proves how amazing her range is. She embodies the charitable and innocent personality of her character like she is, indeed, Frances. Two wonderful performances that become even better due to the palpable chemistry that the two actresses have with each other. With such a short runtime, their interactions are interesting in the beginning, becoming more and more intriguing as time goes by. In addition to these two, Maika Monroe (Erica Penn) surprised the hell out of me! Not only her character doesn’t follow the stereotypical “blonde, dumb friend”, but she really offers an exceptional performance.
The screenplay does have some narrative issues, being most of them related to Greta, as mentioned above. It’s hard to imagine that what happens in the second half of the film could occur in real life as it’s depicted, which instantly kills most movies. However, it’s not as unbelievable as people might think at first, and after some thought, it’s actually pretty reasonable, having in mind the psychological factor. It doesn’t separate itself from the genre’s cliches and it’s quite predictable throughout, even though the ending comes as a nice surprise. It’s the typical B-movie that’s good to see at home on a Sunday afternoon, but if you catch it in the theaters, you won’t regret the money spent.
Greta is 2019’s first underrated and overlooked film. With two extremely captivating performances by Isabelle Huppert and Chloë Grace Moretz, this B-movie truly stands out from the most recent flicks of the same type. The leads’ chemistry carries most of the engaging story, even though a word of praise must go to Maika Monroe for her display. The indisputable narrative problems can either be completely nonsensical or reasonable, at best, depending on what kind of moviegoer you are. There are enough justifications for interpreting the second half events and Huppert‘s character actions as both silly or realistic. I stand on the latter, and I enjoyed myself during the whole runtime. Go see it if you catch it near you. If you don’t, be sure to watch at home.
Rating: B

I think my problem with this was that I remember seeing that opening sketch not long after it was aired in 1975 and it wasn’t funny. That’s kind of what I felt about this whole thing as it in real-time takes us through the ninety minutes before transmission of its creative producer Lorne Michaels (Gabrielle Labelle). The show is nowhere near ready to go, with three hours worth of content slated to fill ninety minutes. His lead talent - George Carlin (Matthew Rhys) thinks the whole thing is rubbish, and John Belushi (Matt Wood) and Chevy Chase (Corey Michael Smith) can’t stand the sight of each other. Meantime, network boss Dave Tebet (Willem Defoe) if menacing about the place with one of those totally supportive faces a football manager gets before he’s fired and the presence of Andy Kaufman (Nicholas Braun), a llama and a pile of bricks doesn’t leave us with much hope it’ll ever make the air, either. What ensues may well have been the very messy, caesarean, birth of an American institution but for those of us elsewhere in the world, this humour is passé and LaBelle’s passing resemblance to Dudley Moore seems to further intensify just how desperate this nation was to get past the scrupulous thought police (Catherine Curtin) who thought a golden shower was something from a Disney movie. It’s designed to bring together just about every form of innovative comedy, and a very extended version of Janis Ian singing “At Seventeen”, to signal a new direction for late night television but that doesn’t make this either particularly entertaining or enlightening. It’s worth a watch, but if this show isn’t already a part of your psyche, then it’s unlikely this effort will change that.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://talkingfilms.net/saturday-night-review-capturing-the-chaos-and-magic-of-snls-first-broadcast/
"Saturday Night successfully captures the frenetic energy and spontaneous magic of the behind-the-scenes world of SNL, transporting us to the heart of the organized chaos of a live broadcast.
Through engaging camera work and fast-paced editing, Jason Reitman and his team recreate the palpable nervousness and unique humor that shaped an iconic show.
It's a celebration of the talents who came together to create one of the most enduring, influential phenomena in television history. An irresistible tribute to all who dared to dream big, even when success seemed unlikely."
Rating: B+

Marginally a good film.
For a sequel, 'Pocahontas II: Journey to a New World' is indeed a fine attempt. I like the story of Pocahontas visiting London and seeing a new place, though the new love story is pretty dull and forced.
Irene Bedard is again good, while Billy Zane comes in with a fair performance as John Rolfe; arguably better than Mel Gibson's John Smith. The latter is now voiced by Mel's brother, Donal, funnily enough.
The problem when films add another 'good' love interest is that you end up having to force the lead into one direction, most of the time without strong reasoning - that's exactly what happens here unfortunately.
I'm sure the story of Pocahontas is again fictionalised just like in the original, but as a film it stands up solidly and I just about enjoyed it.

To be fair, I didn't expect much. Having pretty much watched everything on Netflix over the past 18 months, I had spent over 30 minutes scrolling and clicking, seemingly in vain, for something interesting.
So, in an effort to avoid defeat and an early bedtime, I thought that I'd at least give Wish Dragon a try. So glad I did. It turned out to be a heartwarming, well animated, expertly acted gem.
It would be easy to think that this is a simple re-telling of the Arabian Aladdin story but in a Chinese setting, yet it's so much more than that. Indeed, a little research shows that the Aladdin tale originated in China. Instead, it's a well woven story of promises lost and refound, the value and endurance of real friendships, the importance (or lack thereof) of monetary riches and the true meaning of success in life.
Animation and other production values are superb and polished, characters are eminently likeable (sometimes quite loveable!) and believably evil in equal parts.
It's an hour and a half of pure joy. It has a warm, wholesome, fuzzy feeling in the same vein that The Iron Giant once did. Even for a cynical old sci-fi addicted geek like myself.
Highly recommended.

With so many movies today about exorcisms, I was expecting just another copy of those movies, but on my surprise, this movie was different and well shot, quite scary. Atmosphere was good, makeup was done brilliant and almost everything in short was great, but there were few mistakes in some scenes that were too unrealistic and basically mistakes. For example: When Megan shows Lisa the footage of camera where corpse is clearly visible in the corridor, Lisa says that it's just a shadow? Seriously? Shadow of what? How in the center of something there can be shadow of nothing? And then Lisa notices the medicine Xanax and starts giving Megan a hard time and lectures about using Xanax completely ignoring the footage and fact that something unusual, some figure is spotted in the camera. This scene was very unrealistic and in real scenario any sane person would pay attention to that footage instead of stupid Xanax.
Second mistake was when Megan tells Randy about wound of corpse and Randy also recalls that corpse had a huge wound and now it's gone and instead of being shocked and curious how it happened guy starts talking about his past life that he had problems with drinking... I understand that horror genre is unrealistic itself, but those scenes were too much and lacked the common sense.
And lastly, the opening scene, well while it didn't have such big mistakes as those two scenes, I think it wasn't necessary and it looked like typical those copy exorcist movies I mentioned at the start.
If movie didn't have those mistakes, I would give it 10.

I'd watched this entertainingly farcical French wartime comedy for about half hour before I realised that the chap who looked like Terry-Thomas was, actually, Terry-Thomas! He, like everyone else here, is in his element as an RAF bomber crew find themselves shot down over Paris and dependent on a rather disparate selection of people to try and keep them from the hands of the Gestapo, and to help smuggle them out of the city and to some semblance of safety. It has all the hallmarks of a slightly less bawdy "Carry-On" film with some characterful performances from Bouvril ("Bouvet") and the increasingly amusing Louis de Funès as the suitably over-the-top orchestral maestro "Lefort". Neither gent is really equipped to guide our hapless trio of airmen out of their own bathrooms, much less from the grasp of the Nazis - but with the help of some silk parachutes, cunning disguises, nuns and horses - well who'd bet against them? Unlike many other films of this genre, this is actually funny. Sure, you can readily predict what is likely to happen, and some of the misunderstandings do have you wondering how was that even possible, but the ensemble cast including an on form Andréa Parisy and Benno Sterzenbach as the (no so) menacing "Maj. Achbach" give this just a soupçon of class that belies it's roots. Dated? Well yes, but still surprisingly enjoyable to watch.

> Use on opportunity, build an empire and be the boss!
I always liked Melissa McCarthy films when others said they were very bad, but this time it is totally different. I won't blame her, she always gives her one hundred per cent and so for this film. But it was the terrible script that let her down. Actually, it is a watchable film, because of her, but without her completely unimaginable. The trailer looked much better than the film. It is a comedy, but the laughs are too far, not even a little smile in your face easy to obtain.
So it seems there are plenty of negatives about it than the good. I watched it to prove the people are wrong about it, but in the end I was wrong. This is the second time the director and McCarthy together for a film who are the real life couple. But I liked 'Tammy' better, not this one and there will be one more film that I hope they would come up with much more interesting than these two.
She is not a solo type star, her films are always the multistarrer. So whenever I hear about her new films, I get curious about her new partner. Kristen Bell was not bad, even Peter Dinklage have given a nice performance. So The casting was good, but they all did not get the good script or the role. I did not enjoy it means not that I won't recommend it. It did not work for me, but it might to you, so I advise be carefully while choosing it.
3/10

No doubt that actress Melissa McCarthy has become a pop cultural phenomenon within the last few years. She has hit the jackpot in a career gone on a whirlwind upswing. McCarthy has just ended a six-year run from her Emmy-winning turn on the popular CBS sitcom **Mike and Molly**. She was Oscar-nominated for her performance in **Bridesmaids**. She has made a slew of hit-and-miss comedies. Her hosting stints on the legendary **Saturday Night Live** are riotous. McCarthy is part of the much-talked about upcoming female version of the wildly treasured 80's cult classic comedy **Ghostbusters**. Additionally, ardent fanatics of the 2000-2007 WB network TV series **Gilmore Girls** recently rejoiced when McCarthy agreed to join the Netflix revival show that previously endeared her to television audience years before. So yes...to say that Melissa McCarthy is on a continued roll with her ubiquitous presence in TV and movies is an understatement.
In McCarthy's latest broad comedy **The Boss** she and her husband Ben Falcone ("Bridesmaids") collaborate as they--along with Steve Mallory--co-wrote the script with Falcone taking over the directorial duties. In fact, both McCarthy and Falcone co-wrote the 2014 vehicle **Tammy** starring McCarthy with Falcone in the director's chair as well. So it is a relief to see how this Hollywood couple bond creatively over their film projects. However, it is not all that encouraging that the Falcones have subsided over generic laughfests.
On the surface **The Boss** could be perceived as a wacky female empowerment romp but dig deeper and this lackluster comedy has all the one-note comical deepness of a frizzled Phyllis Diller wig. McCarthy plays the brash and blistery Michelle Darnell, a Martha Stewart-esque CEO financial wizard with a convincing pretty penny that makes up her unbelievable fortune. In fact, Michelle happens to be the 47th wealthiest woman in America. Unfortunately, the law caught up with Michelle so now she is behind bars for inside trading.
After months of doing "hard time" (in reality "soft time" for the jailed demanding diva), Michelle is released where she learns of her frozen assets and diminutive ex-lover and rival entrepreneur Renault (Peter Dinklage) who has taken over her multi-million dollar companies. With nowhere to turn for support Michelle decides to intrude on her long-suffering former personal assistant Claire (Kristen Bell). The tolerant Claire is a single mother to 10-year old Rachel (Ella Anderson). As one can imagine the insufferable Michelle is a terror in poor Claire's household with her bossy demeanor. Apparently Claire's nastiness is just not reserved for Claire as she has plenty of scorn to go around for the ones who dare to step in her way.
Soon, Michelle discovers a way to get back into the capitalism game and recapture her status as a wealth-driven Wonder Woman. The agenda involves Rachel's Dandelion troop as inspiration for Michelle scheming to recruit the outcast girls from the Dandelions (dubbed "Darnell's Darlings) to sell the exceptional brownies based upon Claire's crafty recipe. Naturally, Michelle is hard on the little gals to push her need for reaching success but in her own caring way she wants to educate the Darlings to become strong, independent future businesswomen armed with potential power and poise. With Michelle's sad-sack backstory as a rejected little girl raised in a Catholic orphanage where many foster homes denied her existence it is clear that the seemingly cold and calculating Michelle does not want her hardship to be repeated in the group of girls she is grooming for the kill of conquering the business world.
**The Boss** has some slapstick moments that are passable and the always game McCarthy is willing to do what it takes to sell the zany goods to ensure the hefty chuckles. Playing hard-nose harlots such as the coarse Michelle Darnell is McCarthy's specialty and she is effective when the material supports her tyrannical pushiness. However, **The Boss** feels lackluster because McCarthy's sketchy bits are slight and the movie's basic follow-the-dots lunacy is never on par with McCarthy's bombastic business-minded bulldog. The movie feels cheaply lifted from the hybrid boundaries of 1989's **Troop Beverly Hills** paired with 1988's **Big Business.**
Thankfully, **The Boss** is not as tepid or forgettable as McCarthy's other outings such as the aforementioned **Tammy** or **Identity Theft**. On the flip side, this toothless romp will never rub shoulders with the more acceptable McCarthy staples in **Bridesmaids**, **The Heat** or **Spy** either. In short, this particular **Boss** ought to be demoted to the unemployment line.
**The Boss** (2016)
Universal Pictures
99 mins.
Starring: Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Bell, Peter Dinklage, Ella Anderson, Kathy Bates, Tyler Labine
Directed by: Ben Falcone
MPAA Rating: R
Genre: Comedy
Critic's rating: ** stars (out of 4 stars)
(c) Frank Ochieng

"Evelyn" (Kathy Bates) and her husband "Ed" (Gailard Sartain) are going through the motions in their marriage. They've long stopped making any effort for each other and she is a bit fed up. It's when she is visiting a friend at an old folk's home that she encounters the frail but spritely "Ninny" (Jessica Tandy) and they get chatting. The older lady starts to regale her with stories of her younger wife in rural Alabama and of her sister-in-law "Idgie" (Mary Stuart Masterson). Over the next couple of weeks and months "Evelyn" becomes addicted to hearing the stories, as do we, of racial and sexual inequality, iniquity and joy as this small subsistence community slowly and sometimes brutally evolves. The effects of this retrospective are quite profound on the younger lady who starts to feel empowered by what she's hearing. Her confidence grows - even if her insurance premiums start to go up - and she begins to take steps to improve her domestic situation. The photography and the engagingly crafted script illustrate quite powerfully and affectionately the struggles of just about everyone in a 1920s where racism and bigotry were never far away; the KKK travelled thrived unfettered and any sort of inter-racial relationship was downright dangerous. There are also strong contributions from Mary-Louise Parker as the upstanding, preacher's daughter, "Ruth" and from Stan Shaw as "Big George" as the thrust of inspiration in the face of adversity is transferred onto life in the 1990s. Tandy and Bates prove the perfect pairing as they mix the good and the bad, the happy and the sad and a fair degree of good old fashioned common sense and stoicism to create rounded and plausible characters, a degree of nostalgia and loads of mischief. It is slightly rose-tinted, but it's still well worth a look see an ensemble cast at it's best.

**An unfairly forgotten film, quite emotional, that women will find very good and men may or may not like, depending on their tolerance for films with a greater sentimental charge.**
Director Jon Avnet brings us a good film that reminds us of the value of good friendships and self-love. Intelligently directing his crew and cast, he managed to make a discreet, unpretentious but very enjoyable film that easily wins over the audience. Still, it's bland and tepid, and perhaps that's precisely why it ended up as forgotten as it is.
One of the strongest points is clearly the cast, headed by two solid and talented actresses: Kathy Bates and Jessica Tandy. None of them are big names within the film industry, nor do they draw crowds to a “multiplex” simply by appearing on a poster. However, they are very experienced, knowledgeable about this art of acting and capable of credibly interpreting their characters. For me, it's Tandy's best film, even deserved her an Oscar nomination. In addition to the skill of the two protagonists, it is fair to mention the contributions of Mary Stuart Masterson and Mary Louise Parker. Unfortunately, the male cast is very subdued which, combined with the melodramatic tone, makes the film more interesting for a female audience.
Set in Alabama, the story deals with the friendship between two women: they both feel alone, one of whom lives in a nursing home and doesn't talk to many people and the other is trapped in a dead marriage and has lost her self-esteem. The film discusses friendship, racism, violence, the connection to our roots, and there are many friendly and likeable characters. In fact, the emotional charge sometimes seems excessive. I don't see this as a problem, but a feature that will please some more than others. For me, it didn't take away any interest I might have had, but I'll understand if men say they feel a little queasy with so much mushiness. What bothered me most about the film was the length and the way it took a while to get interesting: on the one hand, I found it difficult to get interested in the first half hour and, on the other hand, I felt that it was a little stretched out in running time.
With such strong bets on the script and cast, the film did not need to invest too heavily in effects or technical aspects. All he had to do was be careful not to make mistakes and to do things well, and that's precisely what was done: from the cinematography to the costumes, through the visual and sound effects, the soundtrack or the choice of filming locations and scenarios, the film stands out for its effectiveness and elegance, but without being too daring, remaining in familiar and comfortable terrain where it manages to do well what needs to be done.

Twenty years earlier "Allen" (Tom Hanks) had a mysterious underwater encounter with a rescuer. Advance to present day and he is managing a fish market with his sibling "Freddie" (John Candy). Another trip to Cape Cod, another accident and yep, it's the same saviour - only this time their eyes meet over a choppy sea and shortly afterwards she follows him onto the land. It's lust/love at first sight and pretty soon she is living with him. She (Daryl Hannah) calls her self "Madison" after the avenue/president and after a day in Bloomingdale's television department picks up enough English to join in the rest of this rather slapstick movie - or to at last have a post-coital chat! Thing is, madcap scientist "Prof. Kornbluth" (Eugene Levy) is soon on her tail (!) and after chucking buckets of water at a similarly attired couple a few times, our lovebirds find themselves incarcerated in a lab where they are to be the subject of some nasty experiments. Can they escape the clutches of their captors and get her back to the open sea before six days expire and she finds herself stuck? The idea is quite fun and at the start when they are in their respective discovery phases, it's quite entertaining. It just repeats itself too often, though, and the presence of his annoyingly selfish brother just clutters it all up, gradually creating the look of a slightly farcical episode of the "A-Team". It's watchable but I didn't find there to be any chemistry between the stars - Hannah was never a particularly engaging actor, I found - and it's all rather forgettable.

Really good watch, could watch again, and can recommend.
Even after 25 years, this holds up, though a modernization is probably due soon.
Hop in the way back machine and see some of the greats early on: Tom Hanks, Daryl Hannah, John Candy, and Eugene Levy. That team pretty much carries the movie and they go through a wonderful, fun-filled adventure into a mystery of a new girl in Allen's life. Honestly, you could probably cut out the mermaid bit and have her be a crazy foreign girl, though that sounds like a movie someone has made already.
It being a mermaid movie definitely makes some allowances, and makes the movie more memorable. It adds in a metaphor of the importance of communication into the writing, and gives a focal point for the story to move around and become a focus in the 3rd act. As there is barely a direct antagonist in this, this sort of conflict is usually how a romantic comedy resolves.
It's a fun watch, well made for it's time, and imagine most people, especially mermaid movie fans, will enjoy it.

This is a unique specimen of a film, as it engages directly in the art of remaking classic films that we've grown up on, with a twist. Even more so fitting given the films setting of a mom and pop owned video store. Mos Defs character Mike is excellent as the straight man to Jerry (played by Jack Black) and his more then outrageous stunts and escapades. You can also feel sympathy for the character of Mr. Fletcher (played by Danny Glover) whose trying everything to keep his video rental store and apartment from being demolished. I won't spoil any further plot details or the ending, but the way things are wrapped up are bittersweet, and by the time the credits roll, everything is left in ambiguity. Overall I didn't go into major parts of this film because it just has to be experienced for oneself for full enjoyment. Be Kind Rewind is a funny, touching, and nostalgic trip down the roads of analog film renting, and fan film creation, all in one. Four and a half stars, out of Five.

I unintentionally farted during the movie's perhaps most serious scene and started laughing because of the contrast. Then, as the character on-screen started sobbing, I started laughing harder, and I couldn't stop myself, and tears started rolling.
That's a true story, and by far the best moment of the movie for me. I wanted to like this movie as my brother recommended it, but it's... Toxic. I can tell from the songs that are played throughout that someone in my age group made this. But... It's narcissism. It's like a shit teenager from when I was a teenager grew up, and never became an adult. Whoever made this is a piece of shit. That's what I'm left with.
I want nothing to do with the father in this movie, I don't want to know how his broken daughter is trying to become unbroken. I don't want anything to do with anyone involved in making this movie, unless they thought they were making a scathing commentary of how narcissism becomes negative heritage for the unfortunate descendants of them.

Would almost describe it as boring except I felt very uneasy and on edge the whole time. A humanistic portrait of a father-daughter relationship that evokes the question of what is it to be a good father.