If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)
I haven't seen Zombieland in quite a few years, but with its sequel being released this week, now it's the perfect moment to go back to the hilarious world of zombies. It still holds up incredibly well. In a time where zombie films and TV shows were starting to come up (The Walking Dead premiered one year later), this post-apocalyptic zombie comedy flick still remains as one of the best zombie movies of the century. Their use quickly became something cliche, and neither funny or scary. Nowadays, people are used to seeing the living dead on the screen all the time, so why does a 2009's film like this still work?
Well, first of all, the outstanding cast is halfway through success. In 2009, only Woody Harrelson was already a renowned adult actor. Emma Stone and Jesse Eisenberg didn't star in anything truly remarkable yet, so much that Abigail Breslin was more recognizable than them. Even with only 13-years-old, she already had an Oscar nomination in a supporting role (Little Miss Sunshine). However, everyone delivers fantastic performances, which carry the simplistic yet entertaining story to such a success that it became a zombie classic.
Harrelson portraying Tallahassee, the guy who's not scared of anything and likes to "enjoy the little things", is one of his career's coolest roles. Eisenberg is not exactly the type of actor I like since he can only do so much with his acting abilities. He always offers the same type of character: a quirky, twitch-full, idiosyncratic personality, which most of the times doesn't work. Contrary to this tendency, Columbus is a character that logically and hilariously fits this model, hence Eisenberg is the movie's primary source of comedy. From his list of rules to his weird behavior, everything feels natural since the character's background justifies his awkward self.
Stone and Breslin share great moments together, as well as Harrelson and Eisenberg, but the former duo has less exciting sequences. Nevertheless, even though the girls could have received more character development, their relationship gives them a compelling reason for us to care about. Wichita might just look like the cliche hot girl who falls for the good guy, but she would do anything to protect her sister, and her love for Little Rock does give her some gravitas. The cast's chemistry is undeniably astonishing. It's visually palpable that they had tons of fun doing this film, and that elevates every single conversation or action scene.
The short runtime allows for a fast-paced story, packed with fun moments, and a lot of bloody zombie killings. The production design is remarkable. Excellent use of practical effects and real sets, plus a perfect soundtrack. Ruben Fleischer knew precisely what he wanted the movie to be, and he never tried to make it something more. Yes, it still involves a romance of sorts, and some backstories might not be funny or joyful. However, it never feels forced or fabricated. It never overextends its stay because Zombieland is neither a romance or a drama. It's purposefully campy, plays with stereotypes creatively, and it's merely 88 minutes of good fun. We are in 2019, and studios forgot how to make films like this!
Every year, there are dozens of blockbusters that would be extremely entertaining if studios would just let them be what they are meant to, but no. They need to have some relevant story that carries a political tone or a social message. Zombieland has all the attributes of a pure blockbuster: a phenomenal cast, a straightforward narrative packed with thrilling sequences, a short runtime with fast pacing, compelling characters, and thousands of zombies. Put together a funny screenplay filled with chuckle-worthy jokes, and you have yourself one of the best zombie movies of the century. It's one of those films which don't exactly have what people address as "flaws". Zombieland has its cliches and lazy exposition, but it heavily compensates them with 80 minutes or so of spectacular entertainment. It's a zombie cult classic. Nut up or shut up, but watch the goddamn movie!
Rating: A-

Fun, not that fun to have a higher mark than a 5/10.

I thought that movie was some shitty old-school musical, but boy, I was wrong. A gem, must watch.

To be fair to Baz Luhrmann, this is actually quite a difficult story to adapt for the big screen. On the face of it, there are many contradictions right from the start (not least that our relatively normal narrator - trader "Nick" (Tobey Maguire) lives next door to the eponymous and enigmatic millionaire (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his Disney-esque castle). The story is told by way of a retrospective during which the now depressed "Nick" regales his psychiatrist with his tales of life in the fast lane that offered him the opportunity to mix with the rich and famous at the very end of the 1920s through his new neighbour. Simultaneously, he must cope with the unhappy marriage between his cousin "Daisy" (Carey Mulligan) and her selfish, womanising, husband - of old wealth - "Tom" (Joel Edgerton). The film starkly contrasts the wealth and profligacy of the "Gatsby" existence with those of the poverty stricken working class reeling, still, from the impact of the Great Depression. The film looks beautiful. The costumes and the dancing, the cars, the jewellery and the houses (fancy and less so) all add richness to the story and the performances - especially from DiCaprio, Edgerton and to a lesser extent Jason Clarke are really quite good. Maguire and Mulligan less so and I found that unlike in many other of his films, the use of a contemporaneous soundtrack whilst all are clad in the Upstate NY finery didn't work so well for me. The book is an interesting character study looking at just about everything from wealth and privilege to prostitution and mental illness - and for the most part this stays on track. Easily the best cinema adaptation of a flawed book - and well worth watching.

See I don't know how to review this because I came into it hating the novel, and it's 2022, it took me over a decade to finally say "fine I'll watch the movie."
And unfortunately they didn't improve things. It's still, well, pretentious. It's still a story of someone that is living above his means, and living a very shallow life, that the audience is supposed to relate to enough to either like or dislike him...
... and I just never could. Holden Claufield was pretentious, but the magic of the Catcher in the Rye is that everyone could relate to him in some way, everyone could connect in some way, even if you ultimately didn't like him.
Jay Gatsby, you can't really relate to him. The best description for him is a false prophet, at least the most apt description of him is a false prophet... and that isn't a relatable protagonist. That isn't the sort of character that most people can connect with.
And it carried over into this film. It's hard to get into the novel when the protagonist is unrelatable, and just as hard to get into the film.
But, at the same time, it's done beautifully and Leo did nail the part. In fact, all the acting was pretty great.

An over the top portrayal of the classic novel, while at times excessive and tasteless, it truly hits home with the novels original critique on the excess of the time. The cast was **excellent**, the movie stayed true to the novel in all the most important ways. I personally feel the modern soundtrack wasn't appropriate in several cases, but a couple flawless executions.

Baz Luhrmann repeats what he did with Rome + Juliet and creates a horrible moster full of FX and exaggeration.
Still, the cast performs well.

Now proud to be green, "Shrek" and "Fiona" return to his forest home for years of games of happy families. Their return doesn't start well, though, when they open the door and discover that "Donkey" has already arrived and made himself at home! They are newlyweds. They just want to be alone. How thick can that critter be? Then to make matters worse, a royal herald arrives to invite them all to the castle for a state banquet to celebrate their recent nuptials. Thing is, neither parent knows that "Fiona" has now gone the turned into an ogre! Unsurprisingly, the King and Queen don't quite take this in their stride and after some initially polite protocol it's pretty much open warfare. Meantime, the pretty hapless "Prince Charming" still has a bit of a crush on the princess and so connives with the not so benign "Fairy Godmother" to upset their apple-cart of domestic bliss. Now there's no getting away from it for me, I am not a fan of Eddie Murphy in just about any of his guises, and here his interpretation of the annoying donkey does just that - and after about ten minutes of the relentless (unfunny) prattle, I'd have happily paid for him to go to a sanctuary, ideally on the moon. The rest of this is quite entertaining though, with loads of mischief and calamity ensuing as this family has to learn that it's not all about appearances. Judge folks on their actions and who they are and maybe you'll discover that being big and rough round the edges is no bad thing. The suave and debonaire "Puss In Boots" steals the thing for me and I did enjoy the idea of the anti-fairy wreaking mischief and not so much cheesy joy. There's plenty in the script for the grown ups as well as for the kids and I thought this almost as good as the first one (2001). Good fun.

In an animated movie marathon with the kids, this one finds a way to hold on.

**A novel written specifically for a dramatic work**
The story of the movie is simply that we have a person murdered and a group of people suspected of being involved in killing this person because they all have an interest or benefit that this person should die. The movie is simply ask who killing old Harlan Thrombey.
Often these types of films and these types of stories that contain puzzles and crimes are based on old books such as Agatha Christie, Sherlock Holmes, or any other novel, but this story from the movie was written specifically in order to be made in a dramatic form because the story was written for the cinema and the way the story was implemented was far-fetched. Completely different from traditional methods. This is the strong aspect of the film due to its reliance on the theatrical system. It makes you contemplate the music, the method of filming, and the placement of the characters one after the other, as if you are watching a theatrical performance.
The most beautiful thing about this theatrical show is the way the characters are presented. Each character sees it for the first time when they are called for investigation by the police and who they are and what is their relationship to the victim. But what is beautiful is when the next character is identified and we know who she/he is and what her/his relationship is to the victim them We start to doubt the stories and information given by the previous character to the investigators
With more than one character and with more than one investigation, the contradictions will become clear. This will bring us to the question that comes to our minds after 40 minutes of the movie: Who killed Harlan Thrombey?

So, this is a bad remake of Clue... but...
"The bad scores are because of Star Wars fans" And, honestly I am sure that some of them are... but once more we see people attacking anyone that doesn't give a Rain Johnson 10 out of 10.
"The bad scores are conservative trolls" And once again we see people, and Johnson, attacking anyone that doesn't like this film.
Once again people are throwing a fit because other people don't like the exact same thing they do.
But to be honest, again, I can see that. This is overtly political, and by "overtly" I mean that they are screaming through a megaphone, at just about every opportunity, to inject their politics into it.
Other than that, it is kind of like Clue... if Clue was very careful not to insult some people in their jokes, and very focused in an attempt to insult others with a sheer and unadulterated prejudice. And that kind of makes for a very awkward film where the jokes are so self-aware they can't help but fail.
So, basically that is what you are getting, Clue with jokes aimed at the politically correct and a hearty injection of politics. And that is all you are getting.
But, hey, if you haven't seen Clue, you might like it. And, if you share the politics and think they should be shrieked in everything, you will totally like it.
The rest of us are just going to watch Clue.

An incredibly well-crafted and beautifully shot whodunit with an impressive cast. ‘Knives Out’ keeps the viewer on the wrong track thanks to the ingenious script, bringing a surprising delight towards its conclusion, but without losing rewatch value.
10/10

Incredible. Loved it!
Even on just one watch, it's one of my favourites already - I have a feeling I'll be revisiting this a lot. I had heard amazing things about this since its release and, man, is the hype befitting. It's a brilliant 131 minutes, even if it feels much shorter than that given how enjoyable it is.
The casting is impeccable. Daniel Craig is superb in the role of Blanc, I've actually found Craig a tad hit-and-miss - even with 'James Bond' - but he is utterly superb here; even with that unusual yet definitely entertaining accent.
It's by no means The Craig Show, though. Ana de Armas is excellent as Marta, she does a lot of heavy lifting in terms of making her character's situation fully believable. She's great from start-to-finish.
Michael Shannon is top notch too, I literally always find him fun to watch - from 'Boardwalk Empire' to, even, 'Kangaroo Jack'. Jamie Lee Curtis, Chris Evans, Don Johnson, Toni Collette, Lakeith Stanfield and Christopher Plummer are all fantastic too.
The plot is enthralling, it's crafted together expertly. It reveals bits way earlier than I was predicting, which made me worry it was going to all fall flat at any moment but it kept turning out to be the perfect time to twist the story. The comedy is also very funny, I laughed a fair amount.
A joy to watch! I haven't got a bad word to say about 'Knives Out'.

A great movie, entertaining and it has you playing detective right away. Great for all the Columbo wannabees.

80's actors meet the younger generation of Marvel and series for a huge "camp it up" under the patronage of Bond himself.

Caving to popular opinion and seeing this was a bad decision; Daniel Craig's accent is the only interesting aspect, and you can get that from the trailer.

Best way to watch is on big screen

This film had quite the rewatch value, keeping a consistent, yet entertaining thrill ride. Rian Johnson's original tale is strikingly filled with a talented ensemble, old-school-mystery-thrills and a sharp envisioning. Knives Out keeps the audience on their toes and brings a surprising delight towards it’s conclusion.

Fun little murder-mystery starts off great, kind of loses a little steam in the middle, before rebounding nicely at the end. Fine performances all around, though especially Daniel Craig (reminded me why he was also great in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo even with a starkly different tone). Also makes me remember Rian Johnson is a fine filmmaker (loved Brick). **4.0/5**

"That certainly not what I was expecting."
- Whodunit?
- Rian Johnson.
- Why?
- To subvert the tropes of yet another sub-genre... properly!
As divisive as it was, I neither loved nor hated the love-it-or-hate-it The Last Jedi. Maybe because I'm not a huge fan of the much-beloved saga. But I can give you a quick opinion of what I thought about it anyway. The first half almost turned me off completely: tons of lame jokes and out-of-character moments that indicate that Johnson's biggest concern was to subvert expectations and nothing but. The second half of the film was way better. It proved to me that Johnson is actually very capable of adding fresh blood to the saga, so effortlessly to such an extent that I wondered why he struggled so much in the first half.
In Knives Out, Johnson didn't add a new spin on the 'whodunit' sub-genre of detective fiction; he took it and turned it on its head. He did so not only by playing with the tropes and mechanisms of this sub-genre -and boy, he did that so exquisitely and gracefully- but he also by using a new and very effective building block: Drama. It doesn't sound new, isn't it? But, actually, relying on it here, in this kind of a story, is nothing short of revolutionary, and that's simply lies in the fact it's unprecedented to build upon it here. The result is nothing but marvellous. And although that, at some point, the main concern of the plot wasn't the murder mystery per se, the mystery didn't lose its sharpness even a tiny bit. And that's a strong proof that everything worked, and integrated, seamlessly. I said integrated because the film has a plethora of comedic bits throughout its runtime -which flies by- and, to be honest, I think every single joke landed perfectly. The film also suggest a political agenda that's exquisitely woven into the plot, and provides a sharp social commentary that's impressively subtle.
Not only did Rian Johnson reinvigorate this seemingly outmoded and unfruitful sub-genre, but he also did the same thing with a couple of members of the star-studded cast: I didn't know that Chris Evans, Captain America himself, would be better as, well, an "Anti-Captain America "; Craig as Blanc is absolutely phenomenal, with his southern accent and caricature detective character; and Jaeden Martell (IT) is very interesting as the weirdo Jacob Thrombey. As for Curtis, Langford, Plummer, Collette and Shannon, Johnson makes an excellent use of their incredible acting abilities, and of their facial expressions and features, especially Shannon with his remarkable menacing countenance. The real standout, though, is Ana de Armas. I mean, she was good in Blade Runner 2049, but here, as she plays my new favourite version of Pinocchio, she proves she's an exceptionally talented actress who is capable of expressing emotions, and changing them readily, only with her eyes. Honestly, I think she should have been nominated for an Oscar!
Overall, I'm really surprised how much I loved this film. With Johnson superb and clever direction and meticulously-nuanced and witty -albeit slightly too-structured- screenplay, I think this is my favourite - even if it's not my highest-rated - film of 2019. You know what, this film is actually terrible: it's very pretentious; its puzzle is too convoluted for its own good; it has an overabundance of plot twists; it underutilized its stellar ensemble; and it has a lot of plot holes, or -in this case- donut holes! Excuse me, I gotta leave right now!
(9.5/10)

“This case is like a donut
with a hole
in the middle of a donut hole.
Actually,
it's a donut within a donut's hole.”
‘Knives Out’ subverted my expectations...in a good way. A smartly written whodunit movie that manages to be both humorous and classy. The kind of murder mystery that never fails to entertain. Pleasing both cinephiles and mainstream audiences. Perfectly balance, as all things should be. It basically pulls a Hitchcock on us.
Rian Johnson is a great director, but at times has silly ideas. On the other hand, when given the right material I think he’s a great director and writer. He’s also a clever man, but never came off as annoying. The dialogue was so sharply written that I could tell the cast loved every minute of soaking up and delivering these lines. The cinematography was nothing short but beautiful and will often linger in rooms of the house which helps the audience immerse in the overall setting.
One of the tightest scripts of the year with raw humor and a satisfying mystery/comedy.
The cast is stellar, but the main stand outs for me were Daniel Craig, Ana de Armas, and Chris Evans. I loved Daniel Craig’s Southern drawl which I didn’t expect at first, but I was amazed of how far he went for it. Often times it reminded me of Frank Underwood from ‘House of Cards’. He plays detective Benoit Blanc, AKA CSI: KFC. At one point during the movie he delivers one of the funniest monologues in the entire movie, which was brilliantly delivered by Craig. He should seriously try out more comedy roles.
Dose anyone remember when Ana de Armas starred in Eli Roth’s ‘Knock Knock’? Well look at her now. She was absolutely excellent in this movie. The running joke throughout the entire movie is her character can’t lie and whenever she dose, she vomits on the spot. How ironic, yet I love the comedic irony behind it.
Chris Evans plays a spoiled child with a slimy grin during the worst situations. The over privilege black sheep of the family. This is very against type for Evans, especially when his character hates dogs, which I would imagine being difficult for Evans since he’s a dog lover in real life. Also the different sweaters he wears in every scenes was impeccable.
The rest of the cast manage to shine individually in this crowded movie. Although at times some of them felt like background wall paper compared to others. However that never takes away from what else ‘Knives Out’ has to offer.
Toni Collette dose a great impression of Gwyneth Paltrow. Michael Shannon plays a wimpy son to a crime-writer Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer). Despite the small screen time, Plummer is still charming as always. While Jamie Lee Curtis and her character brings the dramatic elements into play. She’s uninterested in the humorous quarrel during the grim situation, as early on she reminds everyone that her father just died.
Judging it as a whodunit mystery, the pay off itself is slick. The events leading to the death are revealed early into the movie, and instead Johnson remains steps ahead from the audience. There’s an underlining social commentary beneath the foul play. The themes of privilege and underprivileged with the sour taste of bitterness throughout. Nothing deep or new, but at least is trying to say something rather than being one thing.
Overall rating: My House. My Rules. My Coffee!!!

I did not think that _Last Jedi_ was a very good movie, but I have always been a fan of Rian Johnson. And honestly? _Knives Out_ is a strong contender for his best work yet. I have never seen a whodunnit like this before. Seeing this in a theatre was the poppy-poppy-paper of movie-going experiences, because I so enjoyed that.
_Final rating:★★★★ - Very strong appeal. A personal favourite._

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
Knives Out has been shown in numerous festivals, and it received massive acclaim in literally every single one of them. Therefore, its hype grew more and more until its wide release date. Before the film, I can’t deny that I was indeed affected by the whole “a whodunnit like you haven’t seen in years.” I went into the theater with high expectations, not only due to the festival praise but due to its jaw-dropping cast. It’s uncommon to possess such a renowned ensemble and deliver a “bad” movie, especially when Rian Johnson is writing and directing it (yes, I like The Last Jedi, and even if I didn’t, he did other stuff, you know?). It’s one of those films everyone knows it’s going to be appreciated by a considerable part of the world.
Even the genre itself is a very welcome type of cinema entertainment in regards to both critics and the general public. So, does it live up to its hype, or it fails to reach such high expectations? Knives Out is one of the best movies of the year, as well as one of the best mystery-suspense stories of the millennium (everyone is doing the whole “best X of the decade,” I’m going one step beyond). This is a film I know I’m going to rewatch countless times throughout the next years. Usually, when it comes to whodunnits, people are misled into thinking that from the moment they know who “did it,” the movie loses its interest. This is rarely true, and Rian Johnson succeeds because he doesn’t need the ultimate reveal to deliver a great story.
This screenplay is definitely getting tons of nominations and wins during the awards season. Every little line of dialogue means something. Every single character says or does something impactful to the narrative (except for Jaeden Martell’s). It’s been half-a-day since I’ve seen it, and for every question that my brain comes up with, there’s an answer lying on someone’s words or actions. It’s such an intricate, complex, extremely subtle script. One with so many tiny, little details that it’s impossible to catch them all on a first viewing.
I genuinely love the first act, even if it’s the one where I have a minor issue. Rian Johnson doesn’t waste time and puts us directly in the crime scene, interviewing each and every member of the family. It’s through these interrogatories that he cleverly introduces the suspects, developing them solely through masterfully written dialogue, and outstanding performances. For example, with a single sentence and a particular body/face expression, Toni Collette instantly creates a profile of Joni, her character. Rian plays with character-types and cliches in such an intelligent manner. He makes us think a particular character follows a specific cliche, then it doesn’t, then it does again…
That’s one of the reasons I couldn’t figure out the mystery until the last act reveal. Every time I was close to indeed follow the right path, new developments arise, meant to mislead, confuse, and create doubts. Some people feel better with themselves if they solve the case before the film. They feel “intellectually superior” just because they found out before everyone else. First of all, I prefer being fooled and end up blown away by an unexpected conclusion than solving the whole thing way before time’s up and end up disappointed and bored. Then, honestly, anyone who says, “I guessed it,” there’s a 99% chance that they’re either lying or not answering correctly to the question “who killed Harlan?” If you’ve seen the movie, you’ll understand what I’m trying to express.
(I don’t want to sound presumptuous or hypocritical. I’m not trying to say, “I couldn’t figure it out, so no one can.” Please, if you haven’t seen the film, judge the previous paragraph after your viewing.)
Throughout the second and third acts, loose ends start to tie up, ending up with a brilliantly delivered reveal. From the marvelous cinematography (with those classic close-ups when a character is about to say something meaningful or tell a story through their imagination or memory) to the remarkable editing, the team behind Rian Johnson did a phenomenal job. The suspense is held at high levels, and it reaches limit-breaking points with Marta Cabrera’s (Ana de Armas) narrative. Armas and Daniel Craig deliver the standout performances, with Chris Evans (Ransom) following right behind. Literally, everyone else offers excellent displays, and help carry a story filled with mystery, but also with a lot of humor.
However, I have to emphasize how astonishing Ana de Armas and Daniel Craig are. Ana might be a bit unknown to most people. I’ve been supporting her ever since Blade Runner 2049, so I’m ecstatic that she finally got a major role in a big movie, especially within an ensemble of actors with legendary careers. Craig, who could have just delivered a slight variation of the character he’s been playing for years, instead offers a unique take on the Detective role. Just like Evans, both have been playing iconic characters for years, so it’s sort of an extra joke to everyone who watched Captain America and James Bond for the past decade or so.
My only minor issue has nothing to do with the political undertone and the social messages Rian Johnson puts in this film. Honestly, I love that aspect of it. It’s like Rian knew some people would complain about it, so he made sure to have a couple of characters (Jaeden Martell’s Jacob and Katherine Langford’s Meg) somewhat resembling the so-called snowflakes and all that. No, my issue is related to some excessive exposition regarding the first act’s interrogatories. It’s great that every character gets their own motivations, but it feels like each confrontation with the detectives went on for a bit too long. Some pieces of the mystery might be a bit hard to believe that they would occur, but these are all nitpicks in a remarkable movie.
In the end, Rian Johnson is able to bounce back from the divisive The Last Jedi with one of the best whodunnits I’ve ever seen, Knives Out. Rian proves that not only he’s a talented filmmaker but also a phenomenal screenwriter. With a renowned and impressive ensemble cast, Daniel Craig and Ana de Armas are standouts within all of the other outstanding performances, Chris Evans being right behind. With one of the best screenplays of the year, the mystery at its center keeps everyone extremely captivated until the very end, even if you guess “who did it” beforehand. Masterfully written dialogue, remarkable editing, and great use of classic cinematography techniques. It’s an entertaining story with tremendous replay value and significant political/social layers that only elevate the already complex yet subtle narrative. Don’t miss it!
Rating: A

This is a crime thriller that’s been a long time in the making. Mystery fans rejoice: ‘Knives Out’ is an impeccable cinematic achievement, laced with sardonic wit, division and conflict, and of course a perplexing puzzle. This is easily one of the most fun films of 2019 - it’s both a brilliant piece of entertainment and beautifully crafted enigma. Sit back, relax, and try to crack the code.
- Charlie David Page
Read Charlie's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-knives-out-a-whodunnit-worthy-of-agatha-christies-hercule-poirot

Psychological drama well in the beginning of Ben Aflleck and Matt Damon in their careers - they star (with Matt in the role of the protagonist) and wrote the script together. The director was Gus Van Sant (Drugstore Cowboy).
The movie tells a story about a irish-descendant boy in Boston that works as janitor in a mathematics faculty, and it is a self-taught genius, with a troubled past and present - some mathematical riddles are left by the head of the chair in the faculty (Skarsgård) and mysteriously solved by night. Catching up with Matt Damon character Will he can be out of parole if he gets a job and consult with a psychiatrist what shows to be a tid bit tough thing.
The film received positive reviews from critics and grossed over $225 million during its theatrical run against a $10 million budget, and received nominations in nine categories, including Best Picture and Best Director, and won in two: Best Supporting Actor for Williams and Best Original Screenplay for Affleck and Damon. Nothing bad, at all for someone being just out of Harvard University. Anther curiosity: character Skylar in the movie have the same name and background of Matt Damon's girlfriend back then.
Robin Williams acts as the psychiatrist that could connect with this troubled boy, in a solid role - speaking of solid role it was nice to see Matt Damon out of some action movie in really nice drama scenes. Another actor that shows up is Stellan Skarsgård, yes the father of the four sons the most known being Bill (of "It").
Nice heartwarming moving movie thought the end with a solid script. I would scorre it a 8.0 out of 10.0 / B+. It is strange that I didn't even reminded this one back in 97, but then I remembered that that year I was in the 3rd year of Medicine so not much time to seeing movies I guess.

**A very good film, but with some flaws and problems that deserve attention.**
This film is about a boy from Boston, who comes from very poor backgrounds, but who has a gift for mathematics, easily solving theorems and advanced problems that leave Harvard professors unanswered. He is discovered after solving one, at night and without telling anyone, and one of the professors at the university decides to help him be someone and make use of his gift. The problem is that he doesn't want to, he's not able to trust anyone, and he's seriously stuck with justice. Therefore, he will recruit an irreverent psychiatrist to try to help the boy.
The film's premise is very good, and the story has merits that we cannot ignore or minimize. It's one of those delicious movies to watch, that leaves us without feeling the time that passes. We really know that guy is not a bad person, but it's not easy to like the character due to his options and his bad social attitude. However, what bothered me the most was the construction of Robin Williams' character and his whole way of acting and accompanying that patient. I think anyone who has ever had the need to see a psychiatrist knows that they have strict rules about what they can and cannot do, and Williams' character breaks a good number of them.
And this leads us to talk about actors. I really enjoyed Williams' work, but he is a long way from the best that the actor has given us. Matt Damon also did a good job, perhaps one of the best of his career, and one that opened more doors for him in his professional life. Stellan Skarsgard also intelligently took advantage of the opportunity to impose himself on the American cinematic scene, with a job well done and of great merit. Minnie Driver also did an interesting job, perhaps even more so than Ben Affleck, whose character doesn't have as much visibility or relevance.
Technically, the film has many merits, starting with the excellent cinematography, a good set of sets and interesting costumes. The effects are understated, but they work quite well, and the soundtrack also does a pretty good job. It is not, however, a film that stands out for its technical aspects, nor could it be. The important thing in this film is the story it brings us and the work of the cast.

"Will" (Matt Damon) is a rudderless character who works as a caretaker. He's an attitudinal pain in the neck whom, aside from his best friend "Chuckie" (Ben Affleck), is pretty much shunned by everyone. "Professor Lambeau" (Stellan Skarsgård) spots some potential in this wayward lad, especially when he realises that he has an amazing ability to solve mathematical problems. To that end he sends him to see the eccentric psychologist "Sean" (Robin Williams) who proves remarkably adept at cutting down the young man's defences and at beginning to rebuild the character of the man in a more positive and life-affirming fashion. The film combines some excellent performances from all four men, but especially a bang on-form Williams as the penetrative, but flawed, route to salvation for an equally flawed and angry almost younger version of himself in the genius "Will". Damon is entirely convincing as his temper and his prodigious nature are juggled adeptly and aided by a powerful script that allows the actors to take and keep centre stage as the potency of the plot becomes more and more focussed, we are presented here with a ground-breaking and thought-provoking look at what makes a great teacher as well as what makes a human being tick, what makes one happy and fulfilled - and what makes one the opposite! For my money, Gus Van Sant's finest interpretative work and well worth watching a few times, for more detail emerges to appreciate each time you see it.

So great!
'Good Will Hunting' is a film I had heard many a great thing about but had never actually seen it so didn't know anything about the plot - so much so that I genuinely thought it was about the good will of hunting or something... and certainly not about a character named Will Hunting! The poster makes it look like a film of that sort, in my defence.
I also didn't realise, aside from the lead two, that the cast list was so stacked until the credits came up at the start. The names didn't let me down either, as the acting is superb across the board. Matt Damon and Robin Williams are truly outstanding together, I already rate them from other productions so I'm glad I can add another cracker to their respective filmographies.
Even away from Messrs Damon and Williams, you've got very good displays from the likes of Stellan Skarsgård, Minnie Driver (emotionally, particularly, excellent) and Ben Affleck. Pretty impressive that it was written by both Affleck and Damon too!
The plot is great, the way the friendship builds between Will (Damon) and Sean (Williams) is so beautifully done. Both characters are very interesting, even if I didn't buy the genius of Will at all at first but I quickly let that go as the film does such a grand job at crafting everything together around it.
In short, it's ace! Glad I finally checked it out.

Will Hunting, is a working class 20 year old mathematical genius, and yet chooses to shun a university education, preferring instead to be a janitor at Harvard university.
At a social level he is headstrong, arrogant, likes getting into fights as well as ending up in police cells for his regular anti-social behaviour.
Despite having friends, they are not shining beacons leading him into a better light. He is happy with his lot, shuns commitment and his best form of defence is attack both physically and verbally against those who want to impose their will on him for better or worse.
At the same university a professor of mathematics throws out a complex mathematical challenge to his students, asking them to complete the formula on a blackboard in the hall outside of his classroom. Will is cleaning floors one morning, comes across the blackboard and within seconds he has completed the formula before carrying on his duties while the professor wonders who it was!
It turns out Will was abused in his youth, and has moved on from one foster family to the next, but none of them were seemingly any better, and never reached out to his needs leaving him feeling bitter and angry.
A psychology professor (Robin Williams), spends various sessions with Will, and slowly, ever so slowly, Will begins to open up his darker side until both Will and the professor find a bond.
Make no mistake the premise is original but predictable. However, the acting performances are terrific, especially from Damon, whom I never really had much time for up until this film.
I was also impressed by the performance of Will's girlfriend, played by Minnie Driver. She soon fell in love with him, only to find that he never reciprocated and pushed her away just as had done to other people who tried to get too close to him in the past.
It is very much a feel-good film with a nice satisfying ending. It pulls at the heartstrings sometimes, but you just know everything will work out right in the end.

The adventures of an arcade game villain who is fed up watching everyone else get rewards and medals whilst he is always portrayed as the baddie. "Ralph" decides that the time has come to abscond and try and emulate his pal "Fix-it-Felix" in the feel good, popularity, stakes. His first encounter is with the no-nonsense "Sgt. Calhoun" in a shoot-em-up but instead of thriving, he manages to destroy just about everything there and soon threaten the entire arcade. How to stop this catastrophe? Well that might be down to his new, enthusiastic pal "Vanellope". She's what is called a "glitch" from a neighbouring racer game - where everything looks like it's straight out of "Wonkaland" - and the two must work together and race to thwart the increasingly evil ambitions of "King Candy". It's OK, this film. perhaps gamers will get more from it, but I'm not a gamer so was rather unimpressed with the rather predictable messages of undervalued person seeking validation and affection in a cruel, uncaring, world. Some of the animation is great fun, it features a bit of Pac-man nostalgia and there is plenty of lively action packed into one hundred minutes of characterful storytelling - it's just that the story, for me anyway, was just thin and procedural and there is way too much dialogue. Sorry.