I knew that quite a few people had complained about the realism in this movie even though it hold high ratings on most movie sites. I was hoping that the complaints were mostly nitpicking like wrong model of Sherman tank and such like. Well, I am afraid that it was a bit more than that. I would say that this movie is clearly written by some Hollywood writer sitting in his comfy chair and never ever having been close to any military activities, not to mention live action, in his life.
I can live with a movie being inaccurate or somewhat unrealistic if the rest of the movie is good but I have to say that I did not really like the movie even after trying to filter out the unrealistic nonsense.
The movie is very dark and gritty and there are really no likeable characters in it whatsoever. Well, the clerk that got thrown in as a tank machinegun gunner was perhaps somewhat likable but then him getting assigned as a tank machinegun gunner in the first place was one of those nonsensical bits. In this movie the “heroes” are not really any better than the Nazis. The scene where “Wardaddy” forces previously mentioned clerk to shoot an unarmed POW is just disgusting. I am sure this is not too far from reality in some cases during the war but I’ll be damned if I am watching a movie to be entertained by it.
Having said that I must also say that the movie was very well done in terms of acting and cinematography with one exception. The ridiculous overuse of tracer bullet effects. Tracer bullets do not look like you are in a Star Wars movie and yes I have been using tracer bullets during my military service, obviously unlike the producer and consultants (if they had any) of this movie.
The pacing of the movie was somewhat uneven. Some of it was fairly fast paced but then some parts, like the part in the apartment of the two German women was quite slow and somewhat dull.
The “last stand” at the end was just silly and nonsensical. It started pretty much right away when the poor clerk spots the arriving German infantry just using his eyes. Then it just takes forever until they actually arrive so our “heroes” have all the time in the world to prepare. There would of course be no way for a lone Sherman to hold off an assault like that and the Germans would of course not be charging around shooting useless fine caliber weaponry against said Sherman. Also when they had all this time to prepare why the f… did they leave some of the ammo outside the tank? Obviously because some dumb scriptwriter thought it would make for a good scene. And do not get me started on the fact that the Germans apparently just stops in their tracks every time the director thinks it is time for some slow scene inside the tank.
The ending? Well I do not like bad endings and this one certainly did not give me any feeling of reward for having suffered through over two hours of this movie. Needless to say I am a tad disappointed.

'Fury' has fantastic set pieces. The special effects are incredible and the sound is brilliant. The film is very gory and there are lots of explosions and body parts flying all over the place.
I could tell that the movie was trying to follow in the footsteps of 'Saving Private Ryan' by stealing a lot of the characters and trying to recreate the depth and heart of that film. However, it didn't realise that 'Saving Private Ryan' took a lot of ideas from old war movies and paid homage to them whilst delivering awe-inspiring and moving scenes of battles.
'Fury' did not have this. A lot of the dialogue and interaction between characters was laughable. The romance that tried to be thrown in at the middle of the film did not work and just seemed bizarre, The characters were one-dimensional and just seemed like walking stereotypes. The film felt more like 'Tropic Thunder' than 'Saving Private Ryan'.
'Fury''s lack of long shots of the landscapes and battles meant that the film did not seem as vast or beautiful as other films of the genre.
However, the action scenes were very well done and it was exciting and superbly directed.
★★★½

April, 1945. As the Allies make their final push in the European Theatre, a battle-hardened army sergeant named Wardaddy commands a Sherman tank and his five-man crew on a deadly mission behind enemy lines. Out-numbered, out-gunned, and with a rookie soldier thrust into their platoon, Wardaddy and his men face overwhelming odds in their heroic attempts to strike at the heart of Nazi Germany.

Only the second time seeing this but this is a well done western-drama with amazing performances, most notably Javier Bardem and to a lesser extent, Josh Brolin. I don't think it's a great movie especially compared to a movie like Hell or High Water, but still highly entertaining. **3.75/5**

This is a spoiled brat Hollywood formula version of the classic film NIGHTFALL. It is so parallel to Nightfall that there is no doubt that McCarthy wrote it as a brattish rewrite of the classic film.
By "brat" I mean it is contrived to appease the control freak nature of the immature and spoiled American. I doubt this will fare well in the future, and if anything, it will cause a renewed interest in Nightfall, with Aldo Ray and Brian Keith.
Like Nightfall, we have an investigator who feels he is in over his head in a case of money stolen from hoodlums.
Like Nightfall, the hero stumbles across stolen money and is also in over his head.
Like Nightfall, there is a sadist who makes a game out of killing his victims.
Like Nightfall, the sadist has an ally who is repulsed by the sadist, and is killed by the sadist.
The only difference is that "No Country" presents the hoodlums as the "gods" that dorks worship so much.
Also, in total plagiarism of Nightfall, the sadistic killer entices his victims to believe there is a contest, when in reality, the killer is going to decide the fate no matter what. In "No Country", it's the toss of a coin, but anyuone who knows sadists knows that it's a rigged contest.
"No Country For Old Men" presents the sadist in the usual Hollywood formula of being immortal and godlike. In "Nightfall", the sadist is a mortal. "No Country" endeavors to contrive every bit of the story to show that if you're sadistic enough, you are immortal, the true Hollywood formula since about 1965. (Godfather and other gangster movies, Leone westerns, almost all horror movies e.g.).
So, we have a total lack of risk taking in McCarthy writing the total "safe" Hollywood story, to join the innumerable other such Hollywood stories that fail to either inspire or instruct, meant only to make the Beavis and Butthead viewers guffaw with delight.

Javier Bardem is just great in this! He is "Anton", a ruthlessly efficient killer on the hunt for a missing bag of loot that has fallen into the hands of the opportunistic "Moss" (Josh Brolin) after a drug deal goes awry. The latter man soon cottons onto the fact that his life is now considerably more at risk and he has to figure just out how to survive long enough to escape and enjoy his cash. "Moss" might just have an unlikely and unwitting ally, though, in the form of the pursuing but rather unenthusiastic sheriff "Bell" (Tommy Lee Jones) but, well you just wouldn't want to bet against the truly menacing Bardem! It's violent and brutal, sure - but it's also darkly humorous with plenty of pithy banter and quite some degree of characterisation from both Brolin and Bardem as the denouement looms large. That conclusion is as unpredictable as the rest of this quirkily scary and entertaining crime drama that uses an oxygen cylinder with startlingly effective results in this game of lethal Russian Roulette. Nobody is safe, nobody is innocent - and it doesn't matter whose side you are, ostensibly, on either. It's perfectly paced by the Coen brothers, the characters and the story given ample opportunity to develop and to breathe and by the conclusion I was definitely rooting for someone! It has shades of the old wild-west Texan Western genre to it, it reeks of authenticity and is really well worth a watch.

**Enjoyed it. Go watch it. But don't expect a masterpiece.**
There is no denying this is a very well-done film with incredible actors and storytelling. Javier Bardem's Anton Chigurh stands out immediately as a new iconic film villain full of foreboding relentless focus and cold uncaring presence. No Country is clearly a product of the Coen Brothers' unique charm and style. It boasts some tense shoot-outs, and the uncompromising pursuit of Josh Brolin's character was fantastic. Unfortunately, it drags along in some places but by design. The ending is probably supposed to be symbolic and clever, but it was sudden and lost on me (a guy that takes pretty much everything at face value). All in all, it's a good movie, but I am at a loss for why it won an Oscar for Best Picture (although I don't think it had much competition from Transformers or Shrek the Third).

I can't say I view this one positively. I clearly don't get it, which I'm fine with.
I'm all for films that don't play it so straight that it's predictable, but at the same time I'm rarely a fan of films that are so full of themselves to end in such a derisory way. Listen, that's probably harsh as it is still a good flick no doubt, but 'No Country for Old Men' is highly unsatisfactory and highly uninspiring for me.
I will say that I have no issues with the cast whatsoever, they are all fantastic. Javier Bardem is awesome, easily the star, and Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin and Woody Harrelson are all top value. Kelly Macdonald and Garret Dillahunt are also involved, I like them too. Stephen Root, Mr. 'L for Love' himself, as well. Away from the onscreen bunch, the cinematography is superb.
It's the story. I didn't get what I wanted from it, at all. All the ingredients are there for a 10/10 film, that's the level I was expecting it to reach based on the opening half or so. The second half though... super disappointing! So many underwhelming choices. Such a waste of a strong cast... 'The Counselor'-esque. Bardem is also in that, sorry my dude!
The fact I'm still giving this what I consider to be a positive rating shows how much the conclusion frustrated me. This had top tier written all over it but it somehow messed it up as it went by... and I'm not usually one to dig out a film's ending.
In my defence, even some reviews (many, in fact) from people who love the film mention that the ending isn't perfect so I guess it just comes down to how the final moments sit with you. For me, evidently not good!

I watched this for the first time with a few friends as part of an ongoing movie night we shared. I think it was the most violent film we watched together. The plot is taut and somewhat riveting, with great dialogue and acting. At the same time, for me, it seemed rather bleak. I gradually had the sense it would not end well for nearly anybody. If it weren’t for the Tommy Lee Jones character, I am not sure I would have wanted to stick with it. He provides a sort of balance in the mood of the film. I am not a big fan of movies with super criminals. You know the ones — they seem to always be one step ahead of the hero or the authorities, free to run roughshod until that are defeated at the very end of the movie, if at all. Woody Harrelson delivers another one of his stellar performances. Who knew he would be so good very early on in his career?
Oddly enough, No Country for Old Men caused metaphorical violence to our movie watch group, as there was an exchange that caused us to watch no more films together. Powerful stuff.

I always figured when I got older, God would sorta come inta my life somehow. And he didn't. I don't blame him. If I was him I would have the same opinion of me that he does.
No Country for Old Men is directed by Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, and the Coen's adapt the screenplay from Cormac McCarthy's novel of the same name. It stars Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin, Woody Harelson, Javier Bardem and Kelly Macdonald. Music is by Carter Burwell and cinematography by Roger Deakins.
When a hunter stumbles upon the bloody aftermath of a drug deal gone wrong, he decides to make off with cash left at the scene, that violence and life threat will follow from here on in...
Not quite the genius masterpiece some would have you believe, this is however and decidedly dark, sombre, gothic type thriller with noir shadings. The ultimate message slowly pulsing away is one of how making a fateful decision can shape the course of many people's lives, with fate ready at various junctures to trip you up.
The Coen's and McCarthy are not in it to offer hope for a better world, this really is a life stinks and is evil narrative, none more so than portrayed by Bardem's chilling psycopath. The unpredictable nature of the story keeps things on the high heat, even as Deakins brings beauty via his colour photography, his teaming with the Coen's brings visual smarts.
The screenplay is tightly formed, giving the actors something great to work with, and as they respond in kind, while we the audience are drawn in close to the slow burning madness. It definitely finds the brothers Coen returning to their best, as they take McCarthy's melancholic machismo and drip their self aware irony over proceedings.
The finale lacks a punch, and in fact it's a little boorish, while this narrative has been done well before in film noirs of the original wave - so it's not as fresh and exciting to us more mature film lovers. Yet it's still a great piece of film making, the like we could do with more regularly. 9/10
, gorgeously photographed by longtime Coen associate Roger Deakins, and genuinely smart, but its insights boil down to "Whichever way you turn, fate sticks out a foot to trip you," and DETOUR (1945) got there first.

I literally liked the Movie. Its story is outstanding and innovative. However, I wish the ending was more of action scenes than dialogues.
Not to forget that Javier Barden's acting is breathtaking and marvelous. His smile 4:49 is petrifying!

No Country for Old Men (2007)
Another great one from the Coen Brothers
27 January 2009 - 3 out of 3 users found this review helpful.
INSTANT CLASSIC.: YES, this film is as good as the critics say. YES, the performances are as good as the Academy says. NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is one of my favorite films and I have watched it many, many times. Javier Bardem, makes an excellent screen villain, this guy is really scary, you would not want him chasing you. Josh Brolin, and Tommy Lee Jones turn in Solid Performances, and Woody Harrelson also. I'm saving my praise for KELLY MACDONALD, one of my favorite actors. KELLY nails that southern accent. which is always surprising because her speaking voice is so Scottish, she does not have a lot of screen time but when she is on screen, you will know, you are watching a great performance. I absolutely give NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN <> Ten Stars 10**********

Part 5 has Jack Sparrow now on a quest for to find the trident of poseidon. Still a lot of the original crew is missing as well. Still a good movie and lots of crazy scenes.

It was a lot better than the 3rd installment, it was more memorable than the bulk of the 4th...but there are issues.
The charm of the original two is missing and Jack seems worn down and not nearly as much fun as he was in past installments.
He seemed to go from the lovable scoundrel that Forest Gumps his way through the 7 seas, to just, well, to just a drunkard.
Lets hope in the next one we get the charm and fun back, rather than a paint by numbers installment with a less than fun Sparrow.

If only we could recycle our waste as efficiently as Disney appear to be able to recycle this theme! Once again, we find "Jack Sparrow" (Johnny Depp) in a bit of bother from someone from his past. This time it is Javier Bardem ("Salazar") who has escaped from his purgatory in the "Devil's Triangle" to avenge himself on his arch-enemy. Meantime, the young "Henry Turner" (Brenton Thwaites) seeks help to track down Poseidon's Trident which will empower him to take control of the seas, and to reunite with his father - the original "Bootstrap" (Orlando Bloom). There's no doubt that this is a great looking film, the effects are spectacular but the story is little better than a regurgitation of voyages gone by. The cuties that were Bloom and Kiera Knightley have been succeeded by the handsome, boyish Thwaites and his feisty astronomer pal "Carina" (Kaya Scodelario) but otherwise, it is another pretty formulaic prolongation of this colourful adventure franchise. It has some humour, there's a tiny cameo from Sir Paul McCartney that raises a smile (if only because you are never entirely sure if it is actually him); Geoffrey Rush still manages to inject oodles of charisma as "Barbossa", and Bardem offers a bit of menace - but Depp can only get away with that hail-fellow-well-met meets a drunk persona so often before he becomes a parody of his own characterisation. It's fun to watch, for a time, but after a while I was just bored. The format offers unlimited opportunity for fantasy and adventure, but maybe it is time for the "Black Pearl" to join the "Queen Mary" and HMY "Britannia" and just settle down as a respectable old lady of the sea - and a tourist attraction!

There has never been a truly awful, **awful** entry in the _Pirates of the Caribbean_ franchise. But there's only ever been one that was truly any good. _Dead Men Tell No Tales_ does nothing to alter these assertions.
I would not begrudge anybody who enjoyed their time with this latest _Pirates_ movie, particularly anyone who saw it on the big screen, there's the zany action romps that the series has been famous for from the get go (and that started wearing thin on me after the second one) and some truly spectacular visuals including shiny rocks and zombie sharks (which I will refrain from making a joke about jumping). But where _Dead Men Tell No Tales_ fails harder than anywhere else is in its dialogue. Virtually every line is uncomfortable to hear delivered, and I can't see myself looking forward to the inevitable sixth instalment.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

"[An] ugly skyscraper of a film; to build it must have been a monumental undertaking (that cost Disney a reported $230million), but what, if anything of merit is the outcome...?"
Read the full review here: http://screen-space.squarespace.com/reviews/2017/5/24/pirates-of-the-caribbean-dead-men-tell-no-tales.html

If you like end of the world type movies, then this one is for you. I love this movie more then other end of world movies, because it has multiple disasters that happen. Citizens try to survive them all.

And the public gets what the public wants.
Roland Emmerich was armed with a $200 million budget, and this is what it produced. It's an easy film to dislike from an intellectual level, artistically as well, while the science fiction boffins no doubt had kittens where the science was concerned. It's also easily one hour too long in length, and come the second half of the marathon it starts to sag. There's only so many times you can watch your lead protagonists escape crumbling carnage - via various modes of transport - before the fun factor begins to wane. However.
The carnage effects are grade "A" stuff, eye popping and ear splintering, Emmerich is a master at this sort of thing, and with a likable cast comfortably chewing through the safe disaster film making screenplay, it's a very decent popcorn blockbuster. It also isn't afraid to explore some dark moments, all of which - while not all being a surprise - strike strong emotional chords. It knows its disaster movie roots and is happy to tug on them.
2012 made a $500 million profit, that's a figure not to be ignored. The blockbuster movie loving public lapped it up, they often love this stuff, they just want to see the world exploding and chases and crashes and humans imploding or being heroic. If you have to strip it bare on any sort of cerebral level, then of course it's naked. But fully clothed, attired purely in modern film popcorn clobber, then it's grand dramatic and exciting fun. And this even as you have to massage your buttocks at the two hour mark. 7/10

In 2009 is geoloog Adrian Helmsley op bezoek in India bij een collega en krijgt te horen dat door een grote zonnevlam neutrino's tegenwoordig microgolven afgeven. Daardoor warmt de kern van de aarde met grote snelheid op wat zal leiden tot rampzalige gevolgen voor de planeet. Adrian haast zich terug naar de Verenigde Staten en waarschuwt Anheuser, stafchef van het Witte Huis, die op zijn beurt de president inlicht. Adrian maakt vanaf dan deel uit van de staf van de president en wordt gevraagd een schema te maken van de mogelijke gebeurtenissen die zullen plaatsvinden in de komende jaren.
In 2012 blijkt dat de president opdracht heeft gegeven om 8 grote arken te bouwen waarin 800.000 mensen op basis van DNA, expertise en wetenschap zich schuil zouden kunnen houden. Inmiddels weten ook alle leiders van de meeste landen in de wereld van dit plan af en worden er selecties gemaakt. Ondertussen komt Jackson Curtis in Los Angeles zijn kinderen ophalen bij zijn ex-vrouw Kate (die samenwoont met haar vriend Gordon). Hij neemt z'n kinderen mee naar Yellowstone National Park. Daar worden ze vervolgens meegenomen door het leger en ontmoeten Adrian, die hen de smoes voorlegt dat Yellowstone in moeilijkheden verkeert en daarom geen toeristen toestaat. Ook ontmoeten ze Charlie Frost, die een eigen radiozender heeft en Jackson vertelt dat de wereld binnenkort vergaat. Hij zegt erbij dat er een grote groep mensen is die plaats mag nemen in "ruimteschepen" waar hij de locatie van weet. Jackson brengt op verzoek van zijn ex-vrouw zijn kinderen terug naar L.A., alwaar hij hoort dat er een aardbeving heeft plaatsgevonden die een grote scheur in de aarde heeft veroorzaakt. In het Witte Huis wordt duidelijk dat het schema van Adrian sneller verloopt dan ze dachten, en dat door de grote hitte van de aardkern de mantel ook vloeibaarder is geworden, waardoor de aardkorst als het ware "los" kan drijven, en dus zal gaan verschuiven. Ook krijgen ze te horen dat er maar 4 arken op tijd klaar zullen zijn. Jackson wordt opgeroepen als chauffeur om de zoons van de Russische miljardair Yuri Karpov op te halen en ze naar het vliegveld te brengen. Hier laat één van de zoons per ongeluk los dat zij de rampen zullen overleven en Jackson niet. Met de informatie die Jackson al van Charlie kreeg, realiseert hij zich dat er inderdaad rampzalige dingen zullen gaan gebeuren, en hij rijdt terug naar L.A. om z'n familie op te halen. Hij gebruikt een vliegtuig en Gordon, die amateurpiloot is, is uiteindelijk gedwongen het vliegtuig te besturen wanneer hun piloot blijkt te zijn omgekomen. Terwijl ze opstijgen is de familie Curtis getuige van de complete verwoesting van Los Angeles. De stad verdwijnt door de aardkorstverschuiving volledig in de Stille Oceaan.
In het Witte Huis wordt Adrian verteld dat de aardkorstverschuiving voor honderden aardbevingen heeft gezorgd en al 2 miljoen slachtoffers heeft geëist. President Wilson geeft het bevel dat zijn personeel zo snel mogelijk het vliegtuig in moet om naar China te vertrekken, waar de ruimteschepen liggen. Hij onthult ook aan Adrian dat hij zelf niet mee zal gaan, omdat iemand de rest van de wereld op de hoogte zal moeten brengen van de komende rampen die tot het einde van de wereld zullen leiden. De president vindt dat hijzelf daar de aangewezen persoon voor is. Adrian gaat vervolgens met Anheuser en andere personeelsleden aan boord van een Air Force One. Jackson beseft intussen dat als ze het willen overleven, ze de locatie van de schepen moeten zien te achterhalen. Hij overtuigt Gordon er daarom van om naar Yellowstone te vliegen en Charlie te vinden, om zo de locatie van de "ruimteschepen" te achterhalen. Terwijl Gordon het vliegtuig bijvult met brandstof, gaat Jackson op zoek naar Charlie en vindt hem. Hij vertelt dat de kaart in zijn camper ligt. Jackson weet net op tijd weg te komen als de vulkaan onder Yellowstone plotseling uitbarst. De familie ontsnapt met het vliegtuig net op tijd aan de aswolken. Jackson ontdekt op de kaart dat ze naar China moeten en ze landen uiteindelijk in Las Vegas om nieuwe brandstof te tanken. Hier lopen ze Yuri en z'n gezin tegen het lijf. Hun vliegtuig is gecrasht. Yuri's piloot Sascha neemt vervolgens een oude Antonov An-225 over, maar heeft een co-piloot nodig, waardoor de familie Curtis en Gordon mee kunnen. Ze willen landen in Hawaï om meer brandstof te tanken, maar ontdekken dat Hawaï volledig is veranderd in een vulkanisch gebied. Ze zijn gedwongen verder te vliegen. Sascha voorspelt dat ze binnen 15 minuten in de Stille Oceaan zullen neerstorten. Wanneer hij door de wolken heen is, ziet hij dat waar de oceaan zou moeten zijn, een grote ijsmassa te vinden is. Jackson realiseert zich dat de aardkorstverschuivingstheorie werkelijk bestaat. Ze storten neer op een gletsjer waarbij Sascha omkomt. Vervolgens worden ze gevonden door Chinese troepen, die bezig zijn dieren over te brengen naar de schepen. De soldaten nemen Yuri en z'n kinderen mee wanneer hij zijn tickets laat zien. Daardoor blijven de familie Curtis, Gordon en Yuri's vriendin Tamara (die geen ticket had) achter. In China, bij de schepen, wordt duidelijk dat van één van de arken het dak is ingestort door de aardkorstverschuiving en wordt het Laura en Adrian duidelijk dat de passagiers helemaal niet op basis van DNA en wetenschap zijn gekozen, maar dat rijke mensen hun toegang hebben kunnen kopen: zij hebben per ticket 1 miljard euro neergeteld. Adrian wordt vervolgens door zijn Indiase collega opgebeld met de mededeling dat India op het punt staat overspoeld te worden door een gigantische tsunami. Hierdoor beseft Adrian dat de tsunami hen eerder zal bereiken dan gepland, en dat ze op moeten schieten. Wanneer Anheuser dit hoort, maakt hij de beslissing de poorten van de schepen eerder te sluiten, waardoor tienduizenden mensen, onder wie Yuri en zijn zoons, buitengesloten worden.
Jackson en z'n familie worden intussen opgepikt door een Tibetaanse monnik die op weg is naar de schepen om aan boord te gaan. Ze worden door diens broer aan boord gesmokkeld van een ark via de machinekamer en Jackson beseft dat de schepen geen ruimteschepen maar arken zijn. Ze komen vast te zitten wanneer de poorten weer zakken op bevel van Adrian, die de buitengesloten mensen toch wil binnenlaten. Gordon wordt tussen de tandwielen geslingerd en overlijdt, en tegelijk komt ook een drilboor vast te zitten tussen de motoren, waardoor de poort niet meer volledig kan sluiten. Yuri weet z'n kinderen net op tijd aan boord te krijgen, maar valt vervolgens zelf van het platform en sterft. Nu de poort niet meer volledig sluit, kan de bemanning de motoren niet starten. De tsunami komt al snel hun kant op en water begint de ark binnen te stromen, waarna de passagiers benedendeks door het water waden. Jackson en z'n gezin worden gesplitst doordat waterbestendige deuren sluiten. Daardoor komen zij in verschillende compartimenten terecht. Adrian ziet via de camera's dat Jackson aan boord is weten te komen en haast zich naar de compartimenten om hem en zijn familie te redden. Tamara, die alleen zit, verdrinkt al snel wanneer het water te hoog komt. Jackson hoort van Adrian dat de compartimenten alleen maar open kunnen gaan wanneer de boor uit de motoren wordt gehaald en het hele systeem weer werkt. Met hulp van z'n zoontje Noah weet Jackson dit voor elkaar te krijgen. De poort sluit weer zodat de motoren kunnen worden gestart en een botsing met de Mount Everest ternauwernood wordt voorkomen. Jackson en z'n familie maar ook de monniken worden bevrijd, en Jackson en Kate herenigen zich.
27 dagen later (datum: "27ste dag van de eerste maand, jaar 0001") krijgen de arken de eerste satellietfoto binnen, waaruit duidelijk wordt dat Afrika het enige continent is dat niet volledig is overstroomd. Het ligt nu zelfs hoger, waardoor de Drakensbergen nu de hoogste bergen ter wereld zijn. Uit metingen wordt duidelijk dat de lucht weer enigszins schoon is en dat de poorten van de arken kunnen worden geopend. Daardoor kan de mensheid voor het eerst sinds de overstroming weer naar buiten.

**An excellent film.**
I confess that this movie was better than I was expecting. I thought I would find a simple romantic comedy, conventional and relatively predictable, but I was very pleased with the way the story develops and the conception of the characters. The director, David O. Russell, is also responsible for _The Fighter_, a film that won two Oscars but that I don't think is as good as this one.
The script is, in my opinion, quite well written, and follows Pat, a man who has just been released from a psychiatric hospital where he served a sentence of a few months, after catching his wife in the act of adultery and violently assaulting her lover. With his marriage over, he goes to his parents' house, his father being a crazy fan of the town's football team and seems to be convinced that having his son close during games brings good luck to the team. In the midst of his attempts to get close to his ex-wife (who has imposed an injunction on him by law), he approaches Tiffany, a young widow, with a strong temper and very explosive manners, who proposes to help him in swaps him being her date in a dance contest.
The story is very good, and it is full of shenanigans arising from the volatility of Pat and Tiffany's personalities. The characters, played convincingly and very committed by Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence, are complex and demanding, and it was great to see the way in which the two actors were facing the challenge and solving what they had in front of them. Furthermore, Lawrence won the Oscar for the work done in this film, which, in addition, had seven other nominations – Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Editing. In addition to the duo of main actors, the film has an excellent supporting cast, including the impeccable Robert DeNiro, the wonderfully restrained and maternal Jacki Weaver, and the dysfunctional and strange couple played by Julia Styles and John Ortiz.
In the midst of so many good things, is there anything less good or possibly bad? I think so. Although I really like the film in general, I feel that the ending was a little cliché, and that the solution found is a little too conventional for a film that seems to want to give us something different from most romantic comedies we are used to. I also thought that there are some characters that end up not getting enough attention (Julia Styles, John Ortiz, in a subplot that gets very sketchy and underdeveloped). But these are points that end up not detracting from the film's value, criticisms and minor repairs.
On a technical level, I would like to positively highlight the excellence of the cinematography, with the film taking advantage of the good filming locations in the city of Philadelphia, and the editing, which makes the film pleasant, giving it the right pace. Good sets and costumes (in particular what is reserved for Lawrence, who has a somewhat depressing look) complete the positive values of a discrete production, without great effects or visual artifices.

Great watch, probably won't watch again, and can recommend.
This is a great movie that I don't care about. I'm not a particularly big fan of either Bradley Cooper or Jennifer Lawrence, though they are clearly great actors, and give a fantastic performance in this, especially with the range of emotions delivered and broad spectrum of dialogue topics.
It's about two sad, broken people who are trying to rehabilitate and release back into society despite their behavioral problems. While that is intriguing from a psychological perspective, I found it to be more sad than fun, which does make it powerful and worthy of awards and your attention, but it's not a movie that I'm going to re-watch lovingly.
The writing is excellent: well structured and has good content, with an odd message that it is okay to lie to people when it is in their best interest so that you can get them to a potential to better themselves even if choose not too, and that is what love is.
The movie also focuses a fair bit on proper etiquette of social interactions, football, and dancing: none of which I'm particularly fond of watching.
So while there isn't a lot for me in this, objectively, I do believe that a lot of people will like this and it is well worth a watch.

**Dolly Mopping**
(29 January 2013)
Jennifer Lawrence is one magnificent slut. Her performance in _Silver Linings_ is a tour de force. She nails it. Not since Jennifer Jason Lee in _Last Exit to Brooklyn_ has a trashy trollop been played so convincingly. She easily deserves to win the Oscar for best actress and for any other category the film might win since she is the reason it's in the running at all. It's not easy being a slut. And harder still garnering sympathy for one. We can never be certain if her salacious wonts are biological or self-imposed. The grand old whore is a whole lot more desirable. She is typically forced into a her predicament for money or by male coercion. She's portrayed as a victim and tattooed with a heart of gold. But the nymphomaniac is a sadder sort. She's not as fetching or sentimental. Why should we care about her? It's clear that she either can't get enough carnal pleasure for herself or desperately seeks endless attention from men. Pathetic, is it not? But Lawrence absorbs the role and literally runs with it. Perhaps even re-writing the Dolly-Mop playbook. This movie will be required viewing for budding psychologists. And while Bradley Cooper does an impressive job bouncing the the bi-polar ball, we know he's acting. Fine work Mr. Cooper, no one else could have done it better, maybe. But down the street a few blocks, we entirely lose ourselves in Ms Lawrence. She deftly out-performs them all. Daniel Day Lincoln has to be relieved that there is a gender divide in the acting awards categories. Lawrence is so adept at playing the unapologetic slut that we suspect she's not acting. That she's spilling her guts. Revealing all the sores and warts of her true self. And this is what makes her so great in the movie.

"The Devil Wears Prada" is a smart, stylish film that blends humor with a touch of drama, set against the backdrop of the high-pressure fashion industry. Meryl Streep is magnetic as the commanding Miranda Priestly, delivering a performance that's both intimidating and captivating, while Anne Hathaway shines as the relatable protagonist navigating the chaos of her new role. The movie’s greatest strength lies in its ability to make you reflect on the sacrifices we make in pursuit of success and whether they're truly worth it.
The pacing is well-done, keeping you invested without dragging, and the supporting cast, especially Emily Blunt, adds layers of wit and charm. What stands out is the film's subtle commentary on personal growth, ambition, and staying true to what really matters, all wrapped in sharp dialogue and stunning visuals. It never feels preachy but leaves you thinking about how much of yourself you’re willing to compromise to fit into someone else's definition of success.
While it doesn’t dive too deeply into its themes and follows some predictable beats, the movie more than makes up for it with its entertainment value and heartfelt moments. It's a fun, engaging watch with enough substance to leave a lasting impression. Perfect for when you want something light yet meaningful.

The cast elevate this film up a lot.
Everything else to do with 'The Devil Wears Prada' is all perfectly fine don't get me wrong, but I most certainly wouldn't have enjoyed it as much without the cast. Meryl Streep does an excellent job portraying Miranda, while Anne Hathaway matches her as Andrea. Emily Blunt (Emily) is also enjoyable, as is Stanley Tucci (Nigel).
I never, personally, held too much interest in the plot, it does get a little bit repetitive in parts. With that said, thanks to Streep & Co., it's still a film that's definitely worth watching.

Normally this sort of film wouldn't interest me, but I was fascinated by the cast (Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway, Emily Blunt and Stanley Tucci ARE four of my favourite contemporary American actors) AND I liked the three previous films I've seen about the fashion industry ('Ready to Wear', 'Zoolander' and of course 'Death Wish 5: The Face of Death'). I was really pleased by the comedy caused by the bitchiness, pettiness and downright superficiality of everyone involved, which says SO much about contemporary civilization...and the climax and denouement, are both touching and so fitting. The strong writing and acting made this much better than it had any reason to be.

You have to wonder whether Mark Zuckerberg would ever have liked this career defining portrayal by Jesse Eisenberg? His character comes across as an arrogant ass of a man who is prepared to chuck just about everyone under the bus in order to get his original concept of an inter-connected network that enables folk to chat with each other in real time online. He is fed the germ of the idea by the Winklevoss twins (Armie Hammer) and using $1,000 from his best (and only) pal Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield) is soon well on the way to developing "Facebook". That comes to the attention of the savvier Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake) but it's pretty clear that he and Saverin are no match made in heaven. As the story progresses, the personalities are quite sensitively and intensely developed as ambition takes over and Zuckerberg finds himself more and more isolated. Eisenberg is really quite effective here. His portrayal of a man who is fiercely intelligent, sarcastic and focussed is quite compelling to watch - even if it does, frequently, make you want to shoot him. Garfield, too, works well as the almost diametrically opposite sort of character who only towards the end realises he is being played and institutes the legal proceedings around which the entire biopic is based. There are so many NDAs involved to know the extent to which this might be true or just speculative, but Aaron Sorkin is at his writing best and David Fincher likewise in the director's chair as we are introduced to an embryonic industry riddled with selfishness and innovation.

Full review: https://www.tinakakadelis.com/beyond-the-cinerama-dome/2021/12/28/no-new-friends-the-social-network-review
Perhaps no other website has altered the course of the 21st century like Facebook. Its launch in 2004 forever changed the way society talks about social media and connects with friends and strangers, and became the lightning rod of a multitude of controversies. Conspiracy theories, political propaganda, and mass surveillance became the norm. All of it a far cry from the basic “hot or not” site Facebook sprang from.
_The Social Network_ takes the audience back to that fateful night at Harvard when a primitive version of Facebook was born in the dorm room of Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) and Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield). Director David Fincher and writer Aaron Sorkin are a dream team in this film. Sorkin’s signature quick dialogue is a perfect match for the pace of this movie. It gives Zuckerberg a smarminess that is easy for the audience to rally against, as though creating a website that objectifies women simply because his girlfriend dumped him isn’t enough to cause immediate dislike.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
Here we go with the fourth review of a David Fincher's film this week, in preparation for the upcoming Mank, directed by the same person who delivered phenomenal movies like Se7en, Fight Club, Zodiac, and more. Now, it's time for The Social Network, which premise can be summed up in "the story behind the creation of Facebook". Ten years have passed since its release, and the real Mark Zuckerberg already stated that most of the film is based on fictional events and conversations. Truth is, this movie was never marketed as a true story, but yes as an adaptation of Ben Mezrich's 2009 book The Accidental Billionaires. It's a film like any other, not a detailed account of whatever happened in real life.
With that said, this is easily one of the best adapted screenplays of all-time. Aaron Sorkin, the man behind one of the best movies of 2020 (The Trial of the Chicago 7), demonstrates his incredibly talented writing skills in The Social Network, proving that he's one of the most meticulous writers working today. If you've been reading my previous reviews, there's a couple of compliments I keep giving to Fincher, which are his extreme attention to detail and his impressive dedication to the narrative he wants to tell. So, what happens when you put together two of the most perfectionist filmmakers ever? An award-worthy, "best of the year" contender arises from their gifted minds.
There's not even much to discuss besides the narrative itself since this is, by far, the aspect that elevates the whole film. Jeff Cronenweth, who previously worked in Fight Club, brings out Fincher's trademark realistic look and feel through his simple yet powerful cinematography. Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross' original score is packed with little effects that resemble computer sounds, making it quite addictive while also increasing the movie's energy in the most exciting sequences. Finally, just like in Zodiac, the editing work (Angus Wall, Kirk Baxter) is absolutely seamless, and it's definitely the technical component that better helps Sorkin's screenplay shine due to the latter's structure.
Throughout the entire runtime, the story is told through a nonlinear timeline, mixing up Facebook's actual creation (ideas, planning, programming) with the future legal issues that Mark Zuckerberg faces. This structure allows for an exceptionally captivating and tremendously entertaining couple of hours by never letting the pacing slow down or to have an uneventful sequence. The protagonist is accused of stealing the concept from the Winklevoss twins (both interpreted by Armie Hammer), gets in trouble with his best friend, Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield), over the website's monetization, and Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake) is partially the trigger for a lot of the chaos that ends up overwhelming Zuckerberg's life.
Sorkin and Fincher's greatest accomplishment is their success in making the viewer feel invested in a main character who's an utter "asshole", an adjective with a lot of weight in the film. Jesse Eisenberg is remarkable as one of those characters people "love to hate" (no wonder the real Zuckerberg didn't enjoy the movie since he's depicted as a contemptible friend). Eisenberg has a unique manner of speaking and distinctive mannerisms that are perfect for this character. Garfield and Timberlake are also formidable, incorporating their characters effortlessly. Once again, comparing with Zodiac, The Social Network is also a dialogue-driven narrative, but the latter resonated with me a bit more due to my area of work.
The only issue I have involves the Winklevoss family. Armie Hammer is excellent as both twins, as is Max Minghella as Divya Narendra, but their subplot occasionally drifts from the main story, losing my interest for those short moments. There's even a rowboat race that feels out-of-place and unnecessary, but I admit that it's gorgeously shot and accompanied by a fantastic soundtrack. Despite this little misstep, Fincher continues to impress me with his outstanding directing techniques, forcing the actors to prove their worth by making them go through their dialogues faster and implementing long takes every time that's possible.
All in all, The Social Network is yet another masterful piece of cinema, this time delivered by not one but two magnificent filmmakers. David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin employ their mutual perfectionism and meticulousness to create an extraordinarily engaging narrative. Boasting a nonlinear but tremendously effective structure, the two pillars of any film - story and characters - are wonderfully built, even reaching the point of making the viewer feel invested in a despicable yet fascinating protagonist. Jesse Eisenberg shines in a career-defining performance, but Andrew Garfield and Justin Timberlake also rise to the necessary level of dedication, dealing with the rapid-fire dialogues and outstanding long takes seamlessly. Technically, great camera work offers a realistic feel, an addictive score increases the excitement levels, and flawless editing makes the different timelines shift seamlessly. Despite an occasionally unnecessary, irrelevant detour concerning a minor subplot, this is another brilliant addition to Fincher's filmography.
Rating: A

Eisenberg was probably born for this role.
The story is well threaded and you don't get bored until the end. A decent movie.