The Sixth Sense phenomenon.
Child psychiatrist Malcolm Crowe takes on the case of a deeply troubled boy named Cole Sear. At first Cole is reluctant to be helped, but as Malcolm gets closer to the boy, Malcolm learns the root of Cole's fears, he claims he sees ghosts.
The Sixth Sense was a monster hit back in 1999, a deftly crafted ghost story with a kicker that was talked about by all and sundry, the box office bulged and the critics did rave. Nowadays you will find hundreds of people proclaiming that the film is boringly formulaic, that they worked out the film's premise easily in the first quarter of the film, or that the film is a mere cliché, funny how I don't remember it like that back in 1999! The box office bulged because many went to see the film more than once, they went (myself included) back to see just how director M. Night Shyamalan (Academy Award Nominated Best Director) managed to bluff us and pull the rug from under our feet. I remember vividly both times I saw it in the cinema, the crucial turning point of the piece bringing a collective audible gasp from the viewers sunken in their respective seats, that's the sort of impact that carries a film's reputation far and wide, and that's the reason why I will never rate the film lower than 10/10.
Repeat viewings of The Sixth Sense obviously dim its star appeal because we know the tricks of the directors trade, but the film still ranks to me as one of the best of its type for so many other reasons rarely mentioned. The writing from Shyamalan (Academy Award Nominated Best Screenplay) is surprisingly complex, the piece masquerading as a horror picture is emotionally charged, linking children with the paranormal through loss and a need for understanding, the need for closure of unresolved differences, but chiefly and crucial to the film's heart is the message of connection before it's too late.
The performances are incredible, Bruce Willis as Malcolm Crowe is perfectly understated, all the pointers for the denouement are there for us to see, but such is the actors performance, and we now know he is cutely having to play his cards close to his chest, are hidden from us until the revisit of the picture reveals it all. Hayley Joel Osment (Academy Award Nominated Best Supporting Actor) is wonderful, for a child performance in a film of this type to not be over sentimental, is quite an achievement. Sympathetic Cole may be, but Osment never lets it become less than the accepted level of child vulnerability. Rounding out the great trio of leads is Toni Collette (Academy Award Nominated Best Supporting Actress) as Cole's mother, Lynn, fabulous in portraying the love and confusion in Cole's troubled world, this story arc between the two is expertly realised. The direction from Shyamalan is very restrained, forgoing out and out shock value for periods of disquiet, he uses sounds to make the audience sense the unease unfolding in this creepy tale, while his camera work, full of draw ins and pull outs-and subtle side shifts, is adroitly in tone with the narrative. The score from James Newton Howard flits beautifully between the uneasy periods and the sustained moments of query, while Tak Fujimoto's cinematography puts a gorgeous funereal texture over this part of Philadelphia.
If you haven't seen it then don't believe the naysayers, because The Sixth Sense deserved every penny/cent it made, its a wonderful, creepy, and yes, at times, a beautiful picture. A film that still ranks as one of the best ghost stories ever crafted. 10/10

_**A strong directorial debut**_
> _I always knew that I wanted to direct, but I also knew that I could only direct something that I had a point of view about, a story that I want to tell, something deep down. Some people said, why don't you direct a pilot or a commercial or something just so you could learn, and I thought that scares the hell out of me, because I don't even know where I would put the camera._
- Bradley Cooper; "The _Star Is Born_ Scene That Scared Bradley Cooper" (Krista Smith); _Vanity Fair_ (October 1, 2018)
_A Star is Born_ was met with a rapturous reception at its Venice Film Festival première earlier this year, and has since gone on to receive near universal critical acclaim (90% on Rotten Tomatoes at time of writing), with much speculation as to its staying-power come award season. And whilst I liked it, and found a great deal to admire, I didn't love it. At least I didn't love all of it.
The original _A Star is Born_ was made for Selznick International Pictures by William A. Wellman in 1937 and told the story of aspiring Hollywood actress Esther Blodgett (Janet Gaynor). Discovered and mentored by one-time star, but now fading alcoholic, Norman Maine (Fredric March), against all odds, Esther quickly becomes a huge success. When Maine proposes, she says yes, but only on the condition that he give up drinking. He agrees, and they elope and marry. As their careers continue to move along opposite trajectories, he secretly begins drinking again, and when she wins the Academy Award for Best Actress, he ruins her speech by drunkenly storming the stage, prompting a stay in a sanatorium. Upon his release, Esther determines to help him face his demons no matter the cost, leading to much emotional trauma and tragedy. Possibly based on the marriage of Barbara Stanwyck and Frank Fay, and the life and death of John Bowers, the storyline for the film was so similar to RKO's 1932 film _What Price Hollywood?_ that Selznick expected to be sued by RKO (although they weren't). _What Price_ was directed by George Cukor, and based on a story by Adela Rogers St. Johns inspired by the marriage of Colleen Moore and John McCormick, and the life and death of Tom Forman. Although both films were critical successes, _What Price_ was a box office flop, and _A Star is Born_ was a huge hit. It was first remade as a musical by (ironically) George Cukor in 1954, starring Judy Garland and James Mason, and with a virtually identical plot. A second remake followed in 1976, directed by Frank Pierson, which told the story of aspiring singer Esther Hoffman (Barbra Streisand) and fading alcoholic rock-star John Howard (Kris Kristofferson).
The latest version was originally set to be directed by Clint Eastwood back in 2011, starring Beyoncé Knowles and either Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Cruise, or Will Smith. As the project languished in development hell following Beyoncé's pregnancy, Eastwood approached Esperanza Spalding and Bradley Cooper but the project never got going. By 2015, Eastwood had moved on, replaced by Cooper himself, who remained as leading actor (he would also co-produce and co-write, with Eric Roth and Will Fetters). In 2016, Cooper cast Stefani Germanotta (aka Lady Gaga), and the film began shooting the following year.
Sticking pretty close to the beats of the previous three versions, the film tells the story of Jackson Maine (Cooper), a fading drug-addicted and alcoholic country and western singer suffering from tinnitus and slowly going deaf, who is just about held together by his tour manager and elder brother, Bobby (Sam Elliott). After a show, Maine ducks into the first bar he finds, where he sees Ally Campana (Gaga) singing a sultry version of "La Vie en rose" (1946). Impressed by her talent, Maine goes backstage to meet her, and they spend the night talking, during which time she tells him of her dreams to be a professional singer/songwriter. Although he invites her to his next show, she has no intention of going, much to the chagrin of her father, Lorenzo (Andrew Dice Clay), a limo driver who is adamant he was a better singer than Sinatra. When Maine's driver arrives for her, she tells him she isn't going, but he refuses to leave without her, and she soon finds herself on Maine's private jet with backstage passes to the show. During his performance, he unexpectedly invites her on stage to sing one of her own songs, and the crowd eat it up. With her performance getting millions of views on YouTube, she joins Maine on tour, and they soon begin a romantic relationship. As Ally's popularity grows, she is approached by Rez (Rafi Gavron), a music producer who offers her a record deal. Maine and Ally are later married, but as Rez moves her away from her pseudo-unplugged origins towards a more manufactured style of pop, Maine begins to voice his disapproval, whilst increasingly indulging in drink and drugs.
To begin with what I disliked about the film. Firstly, the first half is markedly superior to the second, which, I think, comes down to pacing issues and editing rhythm. Whereas the first half really takes its time in setting up the characters and their relationship (it's nearly an hour before their first kiss), the second half often feels rushed, offering almost a highlight reel of events spread out over many months, without really giving any of them time to breathe.
Secondly, I had some problems with the character of Maine. As is the case with all previous versions of the story, although the woman is ostensibly the lead, the man's troubles are the focus of the narrative, with the template established in 1937 (or 1932) inviting the audience to pity the man more than admire the woman. But with Cooper writing, producing, directing and starring, this can come across as a little self-indulgent in ways which weren't an issue in previous versions. Look, for example, at the number of close-ups and shirtless scenes Maine has, with the film going to some lengths to ensure we never think really badly of him despite his, at times, utterly reprehensible behaviour. Additionally, Cooper's Maine is the least convincing and wantonly self-destructive drunk of any of the four _Star_ male leads, with only one scene where he genuinely seems to be completely hammered (although, to be fair, it's a cracking scene).
Another issue, and one which I totally recognise I'm in the minority regarding, is that I found Gaga's performance a mixed bag. I hated her work in _American Horror Story: Hotel_ (2015-2016), where I thought her sultry and seductive vampire was a mass of clichés and overacting, although critics and audiences seemed to really like her. She's a lot better here, but still nothing spectacular, essentially doing a Barbara Streisand impression (albeit a decent one). Additionally, her performance doesn't really go any way towards showing us why this young woman would want to be with an alcoholic twice her age (apart from the fact that he's good for her career). Gaga never lets us see her fall in love with him, despite the framework being right there in the script, but neither does she play the role in such a way as to suggest a cynical exploitation of Maine.
The gender politics are also (somewhat) troubling; firmly rooted in the 1937 (or 1932) original, Ally is controlled and manipulated by men from start to finish (primarily, Lorenzo, Maine, and Rez), and the entire story is predicated on the fact that she needs a man's help to enable her to make her breakthrough. In this sense, it might have been interesting to reverse the genders, and instead have the film tell the story of a fading, substance-abusing older woman mentoring a hungry up-and-coming young man. It would probably be automatically criticised by the type of men who downvote anything gender progressive, but it would have been an interesting modern spin on an old story.
To counter that suggestion, however, and move onto what I liked about the film, it could be argued that by effectively maintaining the themes of the previous iterations of the story (and, in relation to the 1976 version, actually returning to plot points which were ill-advisedly discarded), the film is simply embracing its histrionic Classical Hollywood genesis, unapologetically retelling a traditional story in much the same manner as it was originally conceived. And with that in mind, the film is undoubtedly both an effective melodrama and a Classic Hollywood escapist fantasy.
Which is not to say it tries nothing new, or never goes left when you expect it to go right. For example, the film also surprised me in relation to Ally's new style, as never once does it imply that this style is any less authentic than it was under Maine's tutelage, or that his is somehow more "truthful" than hers. After she has her hair dyed, Ally looks in a mirror and says, "_it doesn't even look like me_", and I fully expected this to be the beginning of an arc which satirised what the industry has cost her, pointing out that the only way she could make it as an artist was by abandoning the art that meant anything to her, in favour of something synthetic. But that doesn't happen. Her new style (which becomes closer and closer to the real Lady Gaga as the film goes along) is presented as simply different from Maine's, in the way that his would have been different from those who came before him. If anything, the film presents the whole thing as a fairly organic evolution, with a lyric of what appears to be Maine's best-known song telling us, "_maybe it's time to let the old ways die._"
Another aspect of the film which worked well is that there was genuine sexual chemistry between Cooper and Gaga. Sure, having a good script helps tremendously in this sense, but just because there is chemistry on the page, doesn't necessarily mean there'll be chemistry on the screen - think of the wet fish of a relationship that is Kit Harington and Emilia Clarke's romance on _Game of Thrones_ – I've seen more chemistry between relations (pun intended). And although I do have some issues with the performances, the element of sexual attraction is very much there for all to see. Also on the subject of acting, Sam Elliott and Andrew Dice Clay steal pretty much every scene they're in.
Copper's direction is also pretty impressive, giving the rock world _milieu_ a sense of lived-in verisimilitude – from the drugs, to the living out of limos and hotel rooms, to the whirlwind nature of it all, the film presents perhaps the most vibrantly realistic portrayal of the music industry since Cameron Crowe's _Almost Famous_ (2000). Visually, Cooper's direction is functional (more the laconic style of Clint Eastwood than the hyperkinetic style of Cooper's frequent collaborator, David O. Russell), never drawing attention to itself, and allowing instead the camera to be a fairly passive observer. For the most part, Cooper as director is invisible, which makes sense, given the nature of the story (the ominous nooses seen hanging above Maine on a billboard are a little over the top, however). He also avoids the type of clichés we usually see in this kind of story. For example, to suggest the increasing success of a character, a standard music film will undoubtedly feature either a single scene or a montage of hasty autograph signings, a scene or two of an increasingly rabid fanbase, and at least one, but usually more, chaotic press conferences. Cooper features none of these, relying instead on scenes which illustrate to us Ally's popularity in a more organic manner (for example, we know how successful she has become when she is asked to perform on _Saturday Night Live_).
Yes, Cooper's trying to make a gritty version of one of the most glitzy show-business narratives, which might strike one as an oxymoron, but, for the most part, he strikes a fine balance between over-the-top showbiz fantasy, populated by larger-than-life characters and cartoonish histrionics, and a more grounded and intimate romance imparting universal truths about the sacrifices one may have to make for the person one loves. To cite just one example of how well he handles this dichotomy, the scenes which introduce the two leads are as far as you can imagine from razzmatazz – Maine is shown alone in a green room popping pills before staggering onto stage, and Ally is shown in a toilet cubicle breaking up with her boyfriend over the phone. These two scenes set the tone nicely, and are a credit to Cooper's directorial choices.
All things considered, _A Star is Born_ is an impressive directorial debut, and is probably the best of the four versions of the story (it's certainly better than the 1937 and 1976 versions). Signalling the advent of Lady Gaga as a leading lady, the film also marks the arrival of an interesting new directorial voice. I didn't think it was as good as a lot of critics and fans have made it out to be, finding it a little too disposable at times, but I certainly enjoyed it, and I'm looking forward to whatever it is that Cooper does next.

Lady Gaga clearly is (and has been for a very long time) a fantastic singer, and has made massive strides as an actor as well, but I _really_ did not enjoy this.
Bradley Cooper has clearly been studying at the Jeff Bridges' School of Being Completely Fucking Incomprehensible for this one. Maybe he was just trying to lend some believebility to the idea that he and Sam Elliot were brothers, I don't know (If that is the case, it failed miserably). Which I mean, whatever, it's his movie, he do that character whichever way he wants, but I don't appreciate it myself. Honestly the only thing in this, the fourth iteration of _A Star Is Born_ that I **did** appreciate at all was the first 15 minutes and the last 15 minutes. I didn't love those segments by any stretch, but I liked them at least partly. Not so for what came in between.
I can definitely support _A Star is Born's_ two audio-related Oscars, and maybe, _maybe_ even see my way to understanding the Best Actress nomination for Gaga, but beyond that, I don't follow the logic at all.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

Very interesting. As soon as I saw the trailer, I wanted to see it. I work in the professional cv services, and through the big traffic there is no time for going to the cinema, so I will wait for the film to appear in good quality on the Internet. But the trailer is exciting. Everything I love: romance, love and music!

It feels silly to even qualify this one. LADY GAGA. BRADLEY COOPER (who can sing and direct, apparently). You don’t even need to have any info about the plot to know that this a priority must-see.
But, in case you’re wondering, it’s also based on one of the most iconic (and beloved) movie musicals of the 20th century (it’s been re-made a bunch of times, but none was better than the Judy Garland-helmed version) and in addition to all the Gaga-Cooper creative brilliance, the screenplay is also co-written by Eric Roth, the Oscar-winning screenwriter who once compared life to a box of chocolates in Forest Gump (he modified the novel’s original — and far less quotable — line, “Being an idiot is no box of chocolates”)

Prisoners is a largely generic revenge / suspense / mystery "they have my kid" tale with a predictable plot that gives itself away too early. No attempt at realism, this is Scooby-Doo style investigation - lie detectors are treated seriously, "bad guys" are largely 1-dimensional with poorly explained motives designed to surprise rather than give insight, etc.
It tries to make up for this in a few ways: a) bump up the intensity of scenes (comes across forced and awkward), b) add extra violence and dark semi-religious symbolism (seems out of place and largely meaningless), and most importantly c) maintain an air of mystery by throwing left-field plot points at you every 3-5 minutes to keep your attention.
If you carefully note the clues, about half way through the film it strongly indicates the finale. After that the air of mystery that keeps the film feeling suspenseful largely dissolves and you are left with what feels like a AI-generated script desperately trying and failing to throw you off the initial clues.
The film's greatest redeeming quality is its attempt to turn some revenge film character archetypes on their head. It is not always successful, but the attempt to break cliches is always welcome! I suspect a much better film will be inspired by this.

Prisoners is a carefully constructed labyrinth, deceptively simple and very clever. The material was nothing new even when the film was released, but director Denis Villeneuve (pre-Dune) and screenwriter Aaron Guzikowski work a few unexpected twists and turns into their maze to keep us on our toes. The key element, however, is Hugh Jackman’s career-best performance as Keller Dover, a father whose patience for police work quickly runs thin when Detective Loki (the always effective Jake Gyllenhaal) fails to find Dover’s kidnapped little daughter.
It will surprise no one that Dover decides to take the law into his own hands, recruiting Franklin Birch (Terrence Howard), his best friend whose daughter has also gone missing, to kidnap the only suspect – whom the police has ruled out for the moment –, take him to an abandoned house, and beat a confession out of him. This is par for the course in the movies, but is it realistic? Can a father, however desperate he may be, really go from zero to psycho in no time flat?
The film makes this transition 50% more believable by making the character a committed survivalist, meaning that he was halfway there all along. And even if we still found it hard to believe, Jackman would just browbeat us into believing it with a sadistic, ballistic, animalistic skin-shedding, raw nerve-baring performance wherein he doesn't just go berserk; he goes full on Beserker.
In some twisted way, all this makes sense; the antagonist or antagonists are just as crazy as Dover, if not more: making children disappear is their way of “making war with God”. With that in mind, who better than a monster to find a monster? Dover may not in fact be too far off either, or is he? In one of those twists I mentioned, the movie toys with the Law of Economy of Characters by casting Paul Dano as the mentally challenged man on whom Dover’s suspicions (and fists, among other objects) fall.
Gyllenhaal’s work is as strong Jackman’s, but more subtle and nuanced; he gives his Loki an eye tic which lets us know that, although he has solved all his cases, and belying his usual calm and collected demeanor, he has not gotten to where he is without some traumas of his own.

**This heavy film is not for everyone but for those that enjoy suspenseful crime cinema, this is one of the absolute best.**
A crime thriller that brilliantly manages its slow pace to create the same dread the characters feel in the hearts of the audience. Every passing second steals the parents' hope away that they could ever find their children alive. Everything about this movie emphasizes the story's emotion, from the acting and muted color tones to the sets and directing.

Be prepared for the worst, but hope for the best. Pray for the best, but prepare for the worst.
Prisoners is directed by Denis Villeneuve and written by Aaron Guzikowski. It stars Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Viola Davis, Terence Howard, Maria Bello, Melissa Leo and Paul Dano. Music is by Jóhann Jóhannsson and cinematography by Roger Deakins.
When Keller Dover's (Jackman) daughter and her friend go missing, he takes matters into his own hands...
At first glance of the plot synopis, one could be forgiven for thinking this is yet another revenge thriller filled out by police procedural side-bars. How pleasant to find that Prisoners has more to offer than a simple who is the criminal? And just how far will a vengeful father go to satiate his grief?.
Prisoners is such an apt title because all the main players here are trapped by either mental fragility or victims of their innocence, guilt or chaotic impulses. It's a multi stranded character piece that poses many questions, while of course it has a big mystery element. The narrative features a whole host of clues that might be something, or not, unanswered questions dangle throughout until the finale reveals thge edgy secrets.
It's safe to say that the themes at work here are dark and upsetting, with the core abduction thread siddling up against horredous back stories, torture and religious mania. Gruzikowski's screenplay is quality, mesmerising even, there's no lazy filler or extranous sequences, even as the jigsaw pieces are put together in the last quarter, you may find yourself wondering how you missed something so simple?.
This was Villeneuve's first English language picture, and it's not hard to see why he was highly touted as one of the next big director beings - his output that followed subsequently bears this out. His control of mood and pacing is superb, his garnering of high quality perfs from his cast (notably Jackman and Gyllenhaal) is impressive, and his teaming with the great Deakins is a match made in photographic heaven.
This is adult film making, a thriller designed to illicit emotional responses from the audience. Relentless and powerful, a troubling examination of the human conditioning in various guises - and we are witnesses. 9/10

MUST SEE MOVIES BEFORE YOU DIE,
another masterpiece by Hugh Jackman, surprising plot-twist!!

What a powerful film and what a great acting. I just couldn't help rewinding various scenes throughout, especially when Jackman's character showed anger and frustration for either his child being abducted or having what he thought was the culprit being tortured, although getting nowhere. Definitely a must for Mystery/Drama.
8/10

Certainly Villenueve's most accessible film, but still a very good one.
Final rating:★★★½ - I strongly recommend you make the time.

Really intense and well done thriller. One of the few in the last years with great performances by Jackman, Gyllenhaal and Dano.
It also has some content to chew. I really enjoyed watching it.

"I, Robot" from 2004 delivers a solid action sci-fi experience. Visually, it's a standout for its time, with a great depiction of futuristic Chicago and well-designed robots. Alex Proyas's directing creates a cool, dark vibe, which fits the central "are the robots turning on us?" concept. Will Smith is entertaining, though his character's robot-hating trait is a bit over the top. The script has some shaky moments and plot holes, and it feels like they could have explored Asimov's laws more effectively. However, the action sequences are fun, and the pacing keeps you engaged.
For me, the sound design and score added to the experience, especially in the intense robot action scenes. It's a good popcorn movie, aiming to entertain, and it succeeds at that. Sure, it has flaws, and it's not a perfect adaptation of Asimov's stories, but if you want a fun action movie with cool visuals, it's worth a watch. It's the kind of movie you can put on and enjoy without overthinking.

Will Smith is a cop who detests artificial intelligence with a vengeance; despite the fact that he has a substantial part of his body made up of enhanced prosthetics after a car accident. When an executive from the world's largest robot production company commits suicide, he has to investigate and soon discovers a plot to take subjugate humanity. "I Robot" is a clever exposé on how AI could take over the world; largely by capitalising on the indifference of people, our obsession with convenience and reliance on technology. Smith and Bridget Moynahan - and Alan Tudyk as "Sonny" a rogue robot designed to reveal the plot - turn in good fun performances as we try to stop the robot revolution. It's quite a well written, stylishly presented and pacily directed couple of hours.

Will Smith does paranoid and grumpy, and he does it very well. But then he does pretty much every role he plays very well. A vision of the future we're all expecting to happen, and the only nice people are robots.

I, Robot (2004), holding it's own in the genre pantheon?
I, Robot has a fan base that I'm glad to say has kept this film from drifting down into the depths of bad blockbuster sci-fi ratingville. I remember upon the film's release how so many people were wary of if Will Smith could carry the film? The concerns from Isaac Asimov's fans about a sacrilegious take on his legacy etc etc. Truth is is that I, Robot is an amalgamation of sci-fi ideas, from the suggestion of Asimov to the novel of the same name from Eando Binder, it's a mix that ultimately gives us a cop versus sci-fi conspiracy picture, that is sure as hell entertaining if taken on popcorn terms.
Having just watched this again for the first time in a year or so, I found that it still hits the mark to me as a real tidy genre piece with a solid heart beat to keep it thought provoking. A futuristic mystery is smartly realised by Alex Proyas' directing in the manner befitting the subject, and of course Will Smith handles the entertaining action lead role with much ease. However, the main triumph (outside of the story) is Alan Tudyk as our computer generated protagonist Sonny, the voice and humanist movements are brilliantly brought to life by him and it's a real pleasure to observe.
Great visuals (Oscar nominated), top story, kinetic action, better than average acting (though Bridget Moynahan struggles to convince as a boffin at times), and we get a perfect nights entertainment for someone looking for a rental that safely delivers what it says on the robotic shaped tin. 7.5/10

Everything was green and no one had a character.

So the "Gamma Bomb" has done it's stuff and "Banner" (Edward Norton) has got to find some way to control his newly found, bodice-ripping powers - there must have been quite a bit of lycra in his trousers! Anyway, desperate for a cure and on the run from army general "Ross" (William Hurt) he alights on that man's daughter - and his ex-girlfriend - "Betty" (Liv Tyler) to help him sort himself out. "Ross" isn't the giving up easily type, though, and he engages the help of British killing machine "Blonsky" (Tim Roth). Tired of coming off second best in their battles, this man decides that he too must find a way to mutate - setting up the prospect of a battle royal between the two powerhouses of brute strength and terrible skin conditions. It's watchable, this, but I always found the "Hulk" stories amongst the most boring from amongst the comic characters. Norton enters into the spirit of things well enough, as does the always reliable Roth, but neither William Hurt nor the terribly sterile Tyler really add any richness to this otherwise procedural fantasy. The visual effects are efficient, the pyrotechnics likewise but the sum of these parts just doesn't really add up to much of an whole as it concludes in the only way it can. A triumph for the make-up department, certainly, but not really much else.

Much more enjoyable than the 2003 film, which this 2008 release reboots. So that's a positive. As for a follow-up in the MCU, it's a little underwhelming if still passably good - at least to me.
'The Incredible Hulk' is closer to being forgettable than it is to being memorable, but that's not to say I didn't have a solid time watching. It's only really the ending that I felt dragged, yet even then it still has positive moments.
I liked Edward Norton's performance for the most part, particularly early on in South America. Tim Roth is good too, though a few of his scenes irritated me slightly - perhaps more to do with how the film uses him, rather than what Roth does himself. There are a few others, but those two are the most standout.
I did expect more, but there's enough there that I rate.

It's an improvement on the Ang Lee film only in the sense that the smashy smashy bits are more entertaining than the previous film's thinky thinky bits. But the fact that the entire film is just one long extended fight scene is disappointing to us who enjoy the darker, more emotional beats of the Hulk's story. I enjoy this movie quite a bit as a well put together piece of fluff entertainment, but I hold no delusions that even Marvel Studios couldn't get the definitive version of Hulk on screen.

**A long form review originally posted in 2011:**
Dubbed as a “re-quel”, _The Incredible Hulk_ was first released in 2008, and now, I’m here to review it in the line of Marvel films I’m getting through a the moment.
I always like to think of films individually, but with the Marvel Cinematic Universe getting so big, that can be rather difficult to do. So though I may comment on films in relation to their sequels, remakes, prequels, spin-offs, parodies and the like, know that my final score out of ten is always based purely on the films merits, or lack thereof.
It’s pretty crazy seeing Edward Norton (_American History X, Fight Club, Red Dragon, Kingdom of Heaven, Pride and Glory, Stone_) as a very scrawny Bruce Banner, considering that he turns into the giant, muscular Hulk. But to me it totally worked. As an interesting side-note, Norton co-wrote the script, which may or may not have contributed to his being ousted as Banner for any future films after the movie was released. Not because the script is particularly awful or anything, but because as a general rule production doesn’t like actors getting all up in "dey grillz" half way through. Although it’s not like Norton’s never done this sort of thing before.
Under-appreciated Tim Roth (_Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Planet of the Apes, Lie to Me, Rob Roy_) is also excellent (as far as I’m concerned) playing the role of Abomination/Emil Blonsky. Interesting side-note, no, he’s not related to Eli Roth, who’s also a friend and actor of Quentin Tarantino and his films.
Ultimately, _The Incredible Hulk_ is a fine film, but it just can’t stand up to the superior writing and character building of Thor, Iron Man or Iron Man 2. Liv Tyler (_The Strangers, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Armageddon_) is rather a non-event as supposed love interest Betty Ross. And William Hurt (_Robin Hood, A History of Violence, The Village, A.I.: Artificial Intelligence, Dark City_) as semi-antagonist General Thunderbolt Ross, is nothing but annoying (although it is pretty cool to see just how much they got him looking like the comic book character he is based on.
You would’ve thought that having a modern day Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde story to run with, backing from the success of the franchise you’ve got supporting you, that it would be easy to write strong characters, unfortunately, it’s not the case. And while the action sequences are cool, and the fighting is possibly some of the best that Marvel’s come up with, it’s not enough to bring this film up to the standards of the other 3. The film lacks the flair I’m sure everyone would be expecting, and while it’s a perfectly good monster-movie movie, perhaps a completely separate Super Hero origin story would have been better than the overly-CGI-ridden quasi-sequel to 2003’s _The Hulk_ that we ended up with.
66%
_-Gimly_

**A very violent film about drug trafficking and paranoia, with a great cast and a great production, but where everything is histrionic and exaggerated.**
I caught this film yesterday on television and decided to watch it in full. I had already heard about it, and the good dramatic performance that Al Pacino had, and so I decided it was time to see for myself. Directed by Brian de Palma, it marked its time, but is currently somewhat forgotten. It's understandable: in addition to the gratuitous violence and the crudeness with which it approaches the topic of drug trafficking, we don't have any character here that we are capable of liking, and this puts a wall between the film and the viewer.
Brian de Palma is a very solid director. Unfortunately, I didn't see as many of his films as I would have liked: I really liked “Carrie”, which for me is his masterpiece so far, and “Untouchables”. In this film, he did a very competent job, especially from a technical point of view, but the film has no soul and, after a while, it just seems like pure carnage. The chainsaw scene, as well as the final shootout, are worthy of an anthology.
Technically, the film is impeccable and has luxurious production touches: the cinematography is beautiful, it highlights the sun and brightness of Florida very well and gives us a real feeling of the tropical climate. The sets and costumes not only fit well into the decade, but also manage to emphasize the characters' sense of nouveau riche and fast ascent. Of course, it's absurdly kitsch, even the soundtrack tells us that! However, we can't expect anything else from characters with no taste, no culture, no education and tons of money to show off! However, I will agree if someone tell me that the film is too long, with some scenes a bit incidental or unbelievable (that scene where Gina, enraged, gives herself sexually to her brother, was a good example). With little effort, about half an hour could have been removed from this film, making it more palatable.
The film's script is based on a remake of an original from 1932, which very few people know, and which was made by Howard Hughes. Perhaps the name of this film is slightly inspired by the figure of Al Capone, who had the unflattering nickname of “scarface”. In one of the most notable performances of his career, Al Pacino is histrionic, unpleasant and paranoid to the extreme. The intentional exaggeration may be off-putting, but it seems to be in line with a film where everything is exaggerated. However, I don't consider this to be one of the actor's best, I enjoyed seeing him in other roles. Robert Loggia and Steven Bauer provide very happy support, but Michelle Pfeiffer has little to do other than look sexy and vain. However, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio and F. Murray Abraham have frankly underutilized characters.

Despite all the hype and plaudits, I don't think this film is as good as Paul Muni's 1932 iteration. That's not to say it isn't a good film, nor that Al Pacino doesn't turn in a good effort - it's that it is all so brash. The language and action has no subtlety or finesse to it. It glorifies violence - it's not just that it is a necessary evil in the world in which "Tony Montana" works, it just comes across as if there was nothing in the script and the film had to be padded out somehow - so let's shove in some more brutality. There is precious little sophistication with the characterisation either - and after a while that all just grates. Top drawer production and scoring, though - and some fine supporting efforts from Robert Loggia and Steven Bauer but for me it was all just a bit in my face when just a little more effort and better scripting could have improved it no end. Good, but not great.

Immensely great crime-drama that features some great performances and excellent writing from Oliver Stone (and this coming from someone who isn't a big fan of his) to the direction by Brian De Palma. The score is great though still love the song "Take It to the Limit" during the money laundering scene. Still a few slots below the likes of The Godfather and Heat, yet still a amazing film that holds up so well. **4.5/5**

Now I never read the book, and the DVD of this has been sitting in a box for years until recently when, discovering it did actually get both an Oscar and a Grammy nomination, I thought I would give it a go. It's all about "Anastasia" (Dakota Johnson) who goes to interview hunky gazillionaire "Christian" (Jamie Dornan) in his plush office. A bit of flirting ensues as he makes it quite clear that he is interested - but boy, is she in for a surprise when she discovers that all belts and braces does actually having another meaning (as does butt-plug!). What now follows is, I felt, a really tame exercise in soft porn that is about as sexy as putting out the wheelie bin. Dornan is very easy on the eye, but otherwise we are all subjected to a dull, ploddingly produced series of poorly lit scenes that drag on interminably. There's no point evaluating the acting nor the script, they don't matter. This is just a poor attempt to entertain or shock or both that does neither, remotely. Titillatingly tantalising? Nah - just dull. Nice helicopter but the song didn't win either award.

My fiance is a big fan of the movies...and I only mention that because she is worse than me when it comes to sniffing out mainstream erotica. So, you know, totally hit her radar.
On my end, I brought the book at LAX one night to read on a layover, and I stopped when Grey picked up his phone to call for a helicopter and started using trucker jargon. "Breaker, breaker, two-nine..." NO! Not reading any more!
I honestly didn't even want to watch the movie after encountering that.
However, let's be honest, you aren't sitting down to watch the film because of dialogue or plot.
You're watching it because of sex. And, out of all the movies, this one actually delivers the most on it. AND, unlike all the sequels, it doesn't claim to be about anything else. It advertises itself as a movie about kinky sex and it delivers as being a movie about kinky sex.
So ten stars. It is exactly what it claims to be and delivers on that.

Honestly, it has been a long time since I've watched such a bad movie.
The script is just ... stupid and the dialogues even worse. The characters are not believable. I mean, when you watch Twilight, you just swallow the whole thing because it is fantasy and ... OK, it is just a stupid vampires story but, this is just toooooooo bad.
I've not read the book but I suspect the fail is not just in the movie but that it is adapting something that is already bad from the beginning.
The worst is that I kind of liked Dornan in his role in Fallen but this movie has made me realize what a short range of performing resources he has. Dakota Johnson is not too bad, though. The acting is OK, it is just that you hate such an stupid character.
One more to my very narrow list of movies in which I have seriously thought stop watching by the middle of it. I wasted the second hour too, though.

A lot of action in this one. The movie kind of dragged along. Boring at times.

Well, this is the fourth Jurassic Park movie I have watched over the past month and it feels like my reviews are very similar, something I try to avoid obviously.
So let me get a few similarities out of the way. Once again a child is placed at risk, though these precocious kids always seem adept at outrunning dinosaurs even while under a blind panic, so hats off to them. There are of course bad guys on the dinosaur menu, up to at least three in this Jurassic entry. And as usual a couple of times our heroes are saved from certain death by one predator Dino attacking another at the last second. What are the odds?
But it looks like we are finally moving away from the small island off the coast of Costa Rica, as the island seems to have been destroyed by a volcano eruption that oddly reminded me of the lava damage in Lord of the Rings. Poor dinosaurs. First there was the comet millions of years ago, and now the volcano nearly made the score Universe 2, Dinosaurs 0. But don’t fear, a handful got away and who knows how much DNA?
I am not too impressed by the whole building a super dinosaur thing. Aren’t we reaching a critical mass where they might as well end this franchise and switch to having the monsters be old fashioned alien invaders?
Oh, and Jeff Goldblum is back, though perhaps it was a dry, humorless clone of the original character who was a highlight of previous Jurassic movies, but who sounded like a didactic college professor this time.
But hey, we have seen much worse sequels often, haven’t we? On some surface level, this entry in the franchise was entertaining as always. That seems built into the series’s DNA as well as often accompanying Spielberg’s name in the credits. And it must be frustrating to try and fail to match the magic of the very first film.