This is about an important topic in today's world - unrecognized mental health issues. First, let me say that the acting is tremendous. Paul Mescal did an awesome job of portraying the silence of depression. Even Frankie impressed me, like another Ana Paquin. This is a powerful story that clearly mirrors the unanswered questions in the life of auteur Charlotte Wells. This film has been added to my movie list "Directors About Themselves". https://letterboxd.com/sirlaffalot/list/directors-about-themselves/ I was really only not pleased with the introduction of Older Sophie's domestic life. We don't learn anything about them and it leaves a hole in the overall script.

I was pulled into watching this movie by the high ratings it received rather than the plot or the performers. So I find myself in the weird position of wondering if I am a bit thick and just didn’t “get it.” For to me the movie was a mess. There were some striking scenes and fine acting, but it all seemed disjointed and confused to me.
Between shaky camera syndrome and recurring flashing images that meant nothing to me, I lost the thread of the story besides the obvious, which was showing the ongoing interaction between father and daughter. Several of the quiet scenes seemed to trail off and take on the appearance of a still life picture, and then suddenly we are in the next scene, Wait, what was the previous scene all about?
There were a few hints alluding to the father’s melancholy state of mind and where it might have led him (since we were not told explicitly) and those scenes should have been critical ones driving the plot and the mood of the story. But they felt like they were offered just as sidebar information.

"Calum" (Paul Mescal) and his daughter "Sophie" (Frankie Corio) head off for a holiday in Turkey. Initially their experience reminded me of "Carry on Abroad" (1972) with the usual building works and booking errors, but soon they settle into a comfortable poolside routine and we begin to learn a little about the dynamic between father and daughter. The occasional conversation with their absent mother tells us the parents are no longer together and a series of ongoing vacation activities paired with brief flashbacks from the adult "Sophie" help us to follow the young girl's attempts to get to know her father better - and he, her - as they relax in the sunshine. This features a strong and confident performance from the young Corio and there is an engaging familial dynamic here between the two. His character is protective but indulgent, her's independent and curious - and auteur Charlotte Wells allows their characterisations to develop for us in a well paced, considered fashion. Nothing really happens here - and yet so much does with their relationship and their respective maturity. It has a realism to it - there are no "jump" moments as such, it's about evolution and both have plenty of scope for that. I am not sure it really needs to be seen at a cinema, but it is certainly worth watching when it hits the smaller screen.

**A sci-fi dystopia with a good political conspiracy plot in a film that cinema preferred to forget.**
I think I've seen at least twenty films about the Millennium where times are shown with great pessimism. In this specific case, the end of the millennium is a time of social and political chaos, in which society moves without a clear direction, given over to fleeting pleasures and criminal acts. And in the midst of all the dissolution of morals and values, a mechanism emerges that allows the recording of the memories and sensations of the person who uses it, leading to a black market in illicit recordings of crimes, sex and controversial acts: thus, a man who never stole, killed or cheated on his wife can experience all of this without necessarily having to do so. But what happens when a recording keeps evidence of a murder?
The film has qualities, and presents a story that mixes sci-fi, political thriller and a little romance, in a mix that has aged very well, even though we are now firmly into the millennium. The project began around 1985, and is one of the few results of the partnership (professional and loving) between Kathryn Bigelow and James Cameron. He had the ideas for the script, and she assures us of the elegant direction, the impactful and suitably dark cinematography, effective visual and special effects and a costume and set design strongly influenced by punk and metal aesthetics. The film was named after a song by the “Doors”, and was a huge critical and commercial failure. Therefore, everyone involved preferred to forget it.
I can't help but consider the oblivion as unfair: it's not a perfect film, the story is too complex, it seems too stilted, like a hot air balloon, and it's excessively long (less than thirty minutes of dead scenes would have made things more dynamic). However, it is an immersive film that addresses, in some depth, people's appreciation for superficial pleasures and ways to escape a cruel and oppressive reality. This is still a very topical issue, as is the whole plot surrounding excessive police violence. And finally, I need to highlight the quality of the “first person” footage, when the mechanism is used, and we see things through the character's eyes.
Ralph Fiennes gives us one of the most complex and interesting dramatic works of his career, making the most of his character's multiplicity of contradictory feelings and emotions. Angela Bassett also shone in this film, in an intense and action-packed role. Juliette Lewis does a pretty decent job, especially when she sings, but I can't help but consider that the actress's nudity is somewhat gratuitous and exaggerated, perhaps to sexualize the character. Michael Wincott is an effective villain.

Very interesting funny movie. The storyline is better then the actual comedy in which is rare. It's a good movie.

> Almost every character has my characteristics, and so when we add up the whole series, **it's exactly me.** That's something **I love.** The moment I realised that the series is very similar to me, this series **became a safe place** for me.
I was a little sad that I finished the new season, which I waited for a long time, in one day without getting up from my seat. I wish I could **erase my memory and watch all 2 seasons** from the beginning again today. Some people have started to minimise the troubles of the young people in the series, but I think what they do is absolutely wrong because the series talks about **eating disorders, self-harm** or **realising own sexuality,** even accepting it first and then having the courage to tell others. Even Nick **hesitated many times about coming out** in the series. I think people should be much more careful when watching the series because we have a character in the series **who thinks he is useless,** we have a character who cannot tell them about her own self because **her family is homophobic,** we have **a transgender character.** Like Tara, there are people who find it difficult to **come out as a lesbian both to themselves and to others.** All of the characters in the series are very young, and they did not do anything bad to experience such things. They did not deserve these troubles.

When i saw the people on social media talking about Heartstopper the first though that came to my mind was ooh another gay teen show *rolling eyes*, but i could never have imagined the story that i was going to find. Since the beginning of the show the chemistry between Nick and Charlie was amazing, the looks, their body language, how they develop their friendship and also the little animation details that give the scenes a whimsical touch, all of this it didn´t felt rushed and you get to experience all of the emotions of both sides.
When the story unfolds and you get to see how their love grows, it will warm your heart and at least in my case, was mixed with a lot of nostalgia because growing up as a gay teen my experience was filled with so much hiding, embarrassment, loneliness because i only had relationships based exclusively on the physical devoid of meaningful feelings, that why this series is so moving for me and I feel we rarely get to see this version of gay teen love, focused on romance and even idealized but in a uplifting way; I definitely prefer this idealized way than the fetichized way most of queer teen stories are depicted in series.
Also, the other characters bring so much to the plot and get their spotlight, the soundtrack is amazingly selected, beautifully timed to complement what´s happening in the scene. I highly recommend everyone to watch this series, just ordered the graphic novels, can wait to read them!

My biggest problem with this, aside from the shockingly wooden acting from Nicolas Cage - is that I saw through the subterfuge almost immediately. Quite possibly luck, but once I'd guessed who was doing what to whom, the thing just descended into a remarkably procedural thrill-free thriller that I really struggled to remain engaged with. As it is, dodgy cop "Santoro" (Cage) finds himself embroiled in the assassination of the US Defence Secretary at a boxing match. Working with his military security chief - and close friend "Dunne" (Gary Sinise) he has to try and find out just who would gain by this, and why. There are a few red herrings, a mysterious woman in white, and as the story develops plenty of plausible enough candidates, but there is precious little jeopardy and the "Santoro" character is neither likeable nor engaging. Some of the dialogue is pretty cringeworthy, and I am afraid I just found the whole thing a fairly mediocre and forgettable effort all round.

It’s just typical John Travolta , Nicholas Cage , doing John Travolta and Nick Cage Until the demise of one of them.
Not memorable. But you knew that!

Okay, so Mr. Right is a different sort of romantic comedy! It starts with an original idea: a hit man undergoes a personality change due to an injury, so that instead of carrying out hit jobs like previously, he decides that “murder is wrong “ and so, not seeing the obvious irony, he kills those who order the hits.
We also meet Martha, a single gal coming off a bad break-up (isn’t everyone at the start of these movies?) and the two of them gradually make a connection. Against all odds, it seems, given his mental state, he treats her quite well. Their banter is witty and intelligent, with some humor coming from him telling her exactly what he does — kill people — and she naturally thinks he is kidding. She has her own surprises for us later, but I will give nothing away here.
As I have noticed with a few other movies lately — mostly action films, such as Nobody — there is a ridiculous amount of violence here, almost cartoonish at times. I invented a new genre for them :Bodybag movies. I guess if some viewers require such excesses, who am I to complain? I enjoyed this movie anyway. I like that he is always polite and considerate to his new girlfriend even under extreme and dangerous situations. And you know how it is neat when characters display personal growth? The surprises that emerge concerning Martha that I alluded to above are part of a rather astonishing bit of character growth for her. Or is ‘growth’ the wrong word?. But no, my lips are sealed. Watch this entertaining comedy and see for yourself.

Great watch, will watch again, and do recommend.
This has a very special recipe of madness to it, I honestly don't know how to tell you how this movie FEELS. Sam Rockwell has a very particular style of acting to begin with, and telling him to turn it up to eleven turns out amazingly. Anna Kendrick, better know for "I'm a teen girl" acting than intense action roles keeps every pace with Rockwell in both action and madness.
While we get whiplash from how likeable Kendrick's character is before Rockwell comes in, the fun of the movie quickly takes off in both action and writing. As "Mr. Right" carries chaos in his wake, it starts to develop multi-threading between the two characters, and while Rockwell is the main focus for majority of the movie, I think it is equal part leads between the two.
There is some funny business in the 3rd act as they do some things that would normally be 1st act establishing events, but one becomes a mini-arc of the 3rd act, and the other just isn't explained at all, unless I misunderstood.
The only other movie that is even close to this is "Wanted", and that's pretty superficial, the higher philosophical points aren't presented in the same manner at all, the movies "feel" completely differently, but they both focus on the morality of killing and high reflexes.
Definitely give this one a go if you like action movies, it's a lot of fun.

LOUISA SAYS:
A SCREEN ZEALOTS REVIEW www.screenzealots.com
“Mr. Right” isn’t much more than a half-baked hitman romantic comedy. We’ve seen the concept before (think “True Romance” meets “Grosse Point Blank“), but the idea has never been as messy, sloppy and as ill conceived as it is here.
Unlucky in love Martha (Anna Kendrick) has her world turned upside down when she meets and falls for gun for hire Francis (Sam Rockwell). Their love story blossoms over killings, knives and gun battles. The script, written by Max Landis of “American Ultra” fame, is just too flimsy to work. I expected more from the writer.
Tim Roth and RZA turn in enjoyable supporting performances, but the two leads lend the most starpower. The film features the onscreen pairing of my dreams with Kendrick and Rockwell. The two have an undeniable chemistry, but both actors are completely wasted with this mess. I really, really hope to see them work together in the future in a good movie — they both deserve a far better vehicle than this.
“Mr. Right” is a fun idea that’s poorly executed.
MATT SAYS:
In “Mr. Right,” Martha (Anna Kendrick) has recently broken up with her boyfriend after she discovers him cheating on her. A chance encounter in a convenience store leads her to start dating an unnamed hitman (Sam Rockwell).
If those two names — Sam Rockwell and Anna Kendrick — are all you need to hear to decide you want to see this movie, read no further. If you want to see the two of them play off of one another, this will be a meal that is mostly satisfying for you, but leaves you just a little bit hungry for something with more substance. There are probably vehicles that would have worked better for the two of them, but basically, it’s enjoyable enough as a choice for a movie night at home.
The highlights: Sam Rockwell’s dancing and dry delivery and the way that Anna Kendrick’s millennial-angsty, world-weary-but-optimistic character plays off of him. Tim Roth’s nameless soldier-of-fortune with inscrutable motivations. The rent-a-thug Steve (The RZA), who is nothing if not pragmatic. The lowlights: a terrible script that tries too hard to shoehorn a hardcore action plot into a film that works well enough without it. It’s readily apparent why this movie didn’t get a wider theatrical release.
I enjoyed seeing it, but ask me a month from now and I’ll barely remember it.
**A SCREEN ZEALOTS REVIEW www.screenzealots.com**

> A hitman with the 'killing is wrong' attitude.
Something is not right for 'Mr, Right'. It is not an event based action-comedy or something like man meets woman romance-comedy, but very random presentation. Where it begins and where it ends, you can't clearly say it is a well written script. The actings were decent, but the scenes aren't overwhelmingly impressive as it should be. Directed by 'Neon Flesh' famed filmmaker, after that film his other projects weren't up to the standards including this one.
It is written by the one who was behind the 'American Ultra'. There's a strikingly similar between these two and you won't deny if you had seen them. Especially Anna Kendrick's character to what the Jesse Eisenberg was in that film. If we go deep, Sam Rockwell as well might fall into the same category to what Kristen Stewart was. At some point, one of the film characters mentions the same secret project. So I think it is the same universe and a spin-off.
Sam-Kendrick combo was the highlight of the film. I hope they would do some serious subject together in the near future. The action sequences were good, other than that it's not funny at all or romantic. That means I did not enjoy it because the theme did not work for me which I felt very common these days. So it failed because of the lack of innovation and proper development, but the overall film was not bad if entertainment is the main agenda. I know there are audience for it and they will back it. I won't stand between you and your watch if you want to try it, I just say be careful, that's all.
5/10

Good enough of a watch, might watch again, but can't honestly recommend.
The biggest problem is just that the movie is dated. The entire movie is based off a fear mongering joke/concept that our lives are controlled by computers, which in 1995 wasn't really the case, but in 2020 is much more true in the way that the movie wants to say.
What actually makes the movie is that the movie isn't centered on manipulating the information, but uses it as adversity that the protagonist can overcome.
Essentially this comes down to a "average person" in a "spy movie" trope. I think puzzle fans will like this one as it is a lot of "If X and Y, then what do you do?". And we know Sandra Bullock doesn't shy away from a little action.

# Waste of time. Don't waste yours
## The good bits:
* Filmed in Scotland, in Edinburgh;
* you get to hear the accent (and twinkle of Scots even).
## The so-so bits:
* Yet another gruesome-serial-killer yarn. The "twist" isn't new either.
* Experienced actors (not just the two internationally known ones on the movie poster) earning their pay.
## The bad: plot and direction
* a non-thrilling "thriller".
* There is no "aha moment", and even if you didn't the resolution coming miles away, it was lacking tension.
* and the actors seem not to have been directed much beyond saying their lines, so it's very uneven in acting quality.
* gruesome murder scenes and corpses without use. Some people may get their kicks from such things, but it provided no benefit to the story.
## The worst:
* uneven pacing
* overlong in many places, the story overstays its welcome
## summary:
Yet another waste of talent, money, time, and potential.

This hurt. Spawn was a really cool character, well, he still is. He was a character for the 90s and...it was really the 90s that killed this movie.
It tried really hard to look like the Crow, which was also an unbelievably 90s film, but one that worked well with the look that certain movies in the decade had.
Spawn just didn't. It wasn't really suited, it didn't really match and the result was a big...meh.
But the thing is, now they are remaking it and...Spawn as a character doesn't really fit today very well either.
There is a time and a place for Spawn, and, like Maxx it was the 90s and MTV, but not the big screen and not today either.

**How long one's eyes can keep secret!**
My confession is I haven't seen the original film. I had several opportunities, but for various reasons I stayed unwatched till now. Firstly, I won't consider it a remake since both the films were adapted from a novel. Yet no one can stop the people comparing between the two, just to find out which one is true to the book. In my perspective, I think the original source was written keeping the Argentinian society, because that dark tone narration suits them. I have seen many Argentinian films, but for the American kind of storytelling, it does not appeal. Even though it was not a bad film, I somewhat enjoyed, maybe because I haven't seen the other version.
The actors were great, but it was Chiwetel Ejiofor's film, He dominated the screenspace, and Nicole Kidman and Julia Roberts were slightly disappointed with their small roles. But overall, they all made it a decent film, particularly the direction impressed me for handling neatly knowing it is already once made a film. The story was suspenseful, yet it feels familiar and lets you predict the each scene before its commencement. Yes, I thought it was holding something big for the end part, and then it gives out all clues leading that way. So I kind of assumed what the end twist might be and that happened, but a bit differently.
This kind of screenplay totally works for a Korean style filmmaking, but Hollywood is expert in a different field. Wherever it comes the film, a film is a film, so I won't blame it on a regional ground for lacking of something. But it should have been a bit better, maybe more thrilling and making the characters more stronger with emotionally appealing could have worked, particularly for a certain group of audience. If you're watching this story for the first time, then you might enjoy it, but for the other reasons you might not. Whatever, not a bad film for watching it once.
6/10

Fresh out of the cinema after catching the 2024 film "1992" starring Tyrese Gibson and the late Ray Liotta, I was struck by its heavy racial themes. The movie, from its trailer to its execution, delves into the complexities of race relations head-on.
The plot revolves around a robbery at a local establishment that entangles a maintenance man and his son. Against the backdrop of a riot following the acquittal of police officers in the Rodney King beating case, the film exposes the harsh realities faced by the African-American community at the time.
"1992" vividly portrays the deep-seated tensions and injustices prevalent in America during that era. It sheds light on the segregated society and the deeply ingrained prejudices that individuals held, shaped by their upbringing and surroundings.
Ray Liotta's character initially comes off as racist, but as the story unfolds, it becomes apparent that his disdain is directed towards everyone, not just a particular race. Liotta's performance is commendable, serving as a formidable antagonist to Tyrese Gibson's protagonist.
While Gibson's character strives for change and a better future for his son, he grapples with his own demons and past mistakes. Despite his flaws, he emerges as a beacon of hope in a tumultuous time.
"1992" may not be groundbreaking cinema, leaning more towards the action-packed movies you'd stream at home with family. However, for a thought-provoking theater experience, it's definitely worth a watch.

**A very human film that is solidly based on the performance of the two main actors and on the discussion around the death penalty.**
There are certain films that are made to play with our feelings and with what we consider to be divisive themes. Films about the death penalty almost always do so in one way or another: the topic itself is highly controversial, and almost everyone has an opinion (the level of critical information in opinions varies) about it. The debate about capital punishment will never end, not least because there are legal, human, social and religious reasons that reasonably support who is in favor and who is against it. In the end, it is one of those choices that depends a lot on how the legal and correctional system is viewed, that is, whether we value more, as a society, the exemplary punishment of the criminal or his eventual atonement and correction.
The film is based on the memories and experiences of Sister Helen Prejean, a kind-hearted Catholic nun who, over the years, has accompanied and counseled several death row inmates in Louisiana, one of many US states that maintain the active practice. It is a very intimate film, as much of it is focused on the private conversations between the nun and the convict, who in this film is a man who killed a teenage couple, but who claims to be innocent.
The script does everything it can to sweeten the story in order to keep our interest: the constant allegations that he may be innocent, the flirtatious atmosphere that sometimes arises between the nun and the prisoner, the passionate (understandable) behavior of the victim's relatives, the various allegations about the promiscuity between the justice system and the conveniences (or inconveniences) of the death sentence for politics and for the image of the Governor. The film makes the most of its theme, shoots in several directions and, for the most part, hits its targets. In addition to being an authentic manifesto against the death penalty, the film is a poignant drama where a clearly evil and vicious man regrets the things he has done, even though it is too late for him. My only negative criticism of the script turns out to be, precisely, the flirtatious atmosphere felt in some parts, and which I think is left in the film, and was not necessary nor particularly positive.
Susan Sarandon, one of the great actresses of the late 20th century, gives us a remarkable job in which she ended up winning a deserved Oscar for Best Actress. She demonstrates sensitivity and a heightened sense of humanity as she plays the character, and never gives in to the temptation to become overly melodramatic (except, perhaps, for a few sugary, less-than-accomplished moments, near the end). Moreover, this is one of the great works of the actress's career. Sean Penn, on the other hand, still looks young, and is making the most of the opportunity to open doors to grow as an actor. As we know, he's going to do it, and he's going to get great achievements and important awards a few years later. Here, he is responsible for a good performance, in which he balances between resentment, regret, despair and the need for redemption and forgiveness. He never allows his character to appear to be one-dimensional, or too dark, or even too sugary, giving it complexity and various psychological undertones that are worthy of being appreciated.
On a technical level, the film is understated, functional and pragmatic. It makes no glaring mistakes, makes good use of source material and the collaboration of the real Sister Helen, who was engaged in this project, and tries to give the actors all the space they need for their work. This is the work of a sensitive and methodical direction by Tim Robbins, who knew how to understand that the film would depend heavily on the work of the two main actors, and he concentrated on extracting from them what he needed without adding anything that would hinder them or distract us. However, I don't think I'm being unfair or flattering if I briefly call attention to the good cinematography, with good framing (the use of bars and other effects to enhance the feeling of confinement) and an excellent setting. The film even has an original song, which was composed by Bruce Springsteen.

This is a terrific movie, with dramatic power and a balanced look at the issue of capital punishment. It is based on a true story written and lived by a nun, Sister Helen Prejean though, as usually happens, the story is modified to fit the needs of a dramatic movie. For example, the two inmates she provided spiritual advice to are merged into one for this film. As a side note, Sister Prejean has an uncredited appearance in a scene concerning a vigil.
The movie is gritty at times,but always watchable. Susan Surandon received an academy award for her performance.
In addition to it being a great movie, there are two soundtrack albums of note. The first is the soundtrack, featuring an array of songs by Springsteen, Johnny Cash and others. Also there is a movie score version, with music of a more atmospheric nature. I use it to read or write fiction to sometimes.

We've all read brochures that extol the virtues of an hotel or resort (or maybe even read the effusive nonsense MUBI write about their daily, "hand-picked" film selection) so we won't be surprised to learn that when a selection of elderly Brits arrive at the ramshackle "Exotic Marigold Hotel", they are sure to be surprised. Recently widowed "Evelyn" (Dame Judi Dench), curmudgeonly "Mrs. Donnelly" (Dame Maggie Smith) and retired High Court Judge "Dashwood" (Tom Wilkinson) are amongst this motley collection who must adjust to their new lives in this vibrant and frenetically different city - all whilst under the watchful gaze of the enthusiastic, but pretty hapless young, and loved-up, hotel owner "Sonny" (Dev Patel). Yep, it plays to just about every stereotype in the book. That can either ruin it for you, or serve as quite a fun conduit to tackling some of these pre-conceived ideas and in some cases - from both cultures - hold them up to a bit of humorous scrutiny. The characters are possibly a bit too much of a potpourri of society. Gay, straight, happy, sad, lonely - you name it, but the character actors engaged here - especially Celia Imrie and Ronald Pickup, I found - help to dismantle the template of ignorance that prevails at the start of this light-hearted comedy. The writing is often effective at illustrating that age (or declining health) is not necessarily a barrier to happiness and fulfilment, and though this film is very much more on the simplistic side of an evaluation of race, religion and creed - it's not meant to be a documentary. It's an enjoyable bit of cinema that does raise a smile.

This is easily one of the best films I have ever watched. I cannot put it into words that will describe my feelings towards the film. From the very beginning to the very end, the characters were introduced excellently.
You feel a strong bond for each and every character. Every single one of them are so relatable, as if this was a reality show and not a film.
Especially in the days when most of the world continues to live repetitive lives due to the COVID-19 pandemic, more and more people question the ordinary lives we all have. This film can be the one spark you need in your life to start over.
Would I watch this again? Absolutely! Would I make my friends watch it? Without a doubt!

This is an excellent movie with a great cast. Before seeing the movie I saw one review categorizing it as having Benny Hill style comedy. I did _NOT_ see that at all in this movie. In fact, one criticism that I have is that I'd liked to have seen a little more comedy. One of the characters is truly over the top, but not slapstick. But regardless this movie flows elegantly start to finish without being overly saccharine or morbid or falling back on what you might expect for comedy involving the elderly. This film won't move you like Slumdog Millionaire but it is a quality film in its own right.

The VHS series of found footage horror flicks have been a campy, at times gruesome, carnival ride over the years. Its been a bumpy ride too, with inconsistent scripts, that range from decent to downright awful.
Thankfully the latest iteration VHS Beyond is one of the good ones'. Its zany, out there, splattery but intelligently thought through and novel enough, to keep you watching from start to finish.
I thought the opening tale was particularly well done, whilst the whole dog thing (watch and you'll see what I mean), was certainly pretty weird.
In summary, VHS Beyond is one of the better VHS franchise flicks. If you like this sort of overstated, out there horror, its definitely worth a look.

I just happened to find this movie in the program listings yesterday. Movies based on Edgar Allan Poe can be a bit hit or miss but I like quite a few of his works so I decided to give this one a try. I have to say that it is surprisingly good. The Victorian era setting together with the rather dark plot and atmosphere makes for a very enjoyable old times thriller. The movie is based on the works of Edgar Allan Poe but not in the usual way that one would think when one says based on. Instead the story in this movie is a new story spun around Edgar Allan Poe as a person where his work is used by the evil mastermind in that the various stories are re-enacted in real life…with deadly results.
I, for obvious reasons, have no idea how Edgar Allan Poe was as a person and I did not really have any pre-conceived opinions before watching this movie either. I can imagine that he, as a poet and writer of rather grisly stories, might have been a wee bit excentric though so to me John Cusack’s performance as the rather excentric, somewhat alcoholic and sometimes almost insane but still brilliant Edgar Allan Poe was a very good one. Not that the rest of the actors are below par by any means.
The story, if you take it apart and remove the parts taken from Poe’s original works, is not really something to jump up and down over. However, put it together with the bits and pieces from Poe, add the characterization of Poe by Cusack, the dark Victorian ambiance and generally well implemented cinematics and you have a movie that is, as I wrote above, surprisingly good.

Elementary my dear Edgar.
The Raven is directed by James McTeigue and written by Ben Livingston and Hannah Shakespeare. It stars John Cusack, Luke Evans, Alice Eve and Brendan Gleeson. Music is by Lucas Vidal and cinematography by Danny Ruhlmann.
"On October 7, 1849, Edgar Allan Poe was found, near death, on a park bench in Baltimore, Maryland. The last days of his life remain a mystery"
It's a real smart idea that the makers have here, putting their own theory forward on what happened in the lead up to Poe's death. Essentially a period whodunit procedural as Poe (Cusack) and Inspector Emmett Fields (Evans) race against time to find the person who is killing in the style of Poe's literary works. Poe's love interest, Emily Hamilton (Eve), is in grave danger, so as to add extra peril and suspense into the clock ticking drama.
It's a safe piece of entertainment, one that acquaints the uninitiated with Poe's work and his life struggles away from the writing bureau. The detective angle is fun and the murders grizzly and appropriately Gothic in execution. Unfortunately it rarely convinces as a period piece. The dialogue is often out of sync with the era, Eve is miscast, the score is inappropriate and it always feels like actors playing at period rompery.
It's a shame that it is bogged down by such irritants because Teague's direction is stylish, while the art design deserves a round of applause. Cusack is fun to watch, but more at ease playing Sherlock in the second half of the piece than a tortured soul in the first, and Evans is confident in the straight backed gentleman detective stakes. There's a good time to be had here on a surface whodunit follow the clues experience, and Poe fans will delight at catching the many references to his life and spiky works, but it unfortunately misses the mark in too many key areas. 6/10

Despite the intimidating sprawl of its narrative, 'The Traitor' presents an interesting knot of a character for the audience to unravel as they watch the confessions of a traitor revealing the mafia's darkest secrets.
- Jake Watt
Read Jake's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-the-traitor-crime-and-punishment-in-sicily

The recently released Fifty Shades of Black is a comedy spoofing the romantic drama Fifty Shades of Grey which went on to become a super hit worldwide and collected close to $570 million. Principal photography of the movie started in August 2015 in Los Angeles. The film is financed by Octane which is a division of the larger IM Global production house. Stuart Ford, its CEO serves as the movie’s executive producer. Open Road is distributing the movie in the United States. It is interesting to note that Open Road also distributed Wayan’s 2013 parody “A haunted house 1” and its 2014 sequel “A haunted house 2”, both of which belong to the same genre as this movie.
Marlon Wayans stars as the mysterious Mr. Black in this outrageous comedy movie. He is also one of the producers and is credited as a writer alongside his long-time producing and writing partner Rick Alvarez. Mike Tiddes who directed both the haunted house parodies is the director of this movie. Kali Hawk, Mike Epps, Affion Crockett, Andrew Bachelor, Jane Seymour, Florence Henderson, Fred Willard and Jenny Zigrino appear in this movie along with Marlon Wayans.
The movie’s soundtrack comprises of a combination of hip-hop and R&B songs. There are 10 songs featured in the album and is released by IM Global Music. The music has been curated by Format entertainment and IM Global Music. The soundtrack goes very well with the movie and is being appreciated by all people who love independent music.
Marlon Wayans plays a secretive black entrepreneur in this erotic spoof comedy. He starts dating an inexperienced college reporter Hannah played by Kali Hawk. His unusual sexual practices shock Hawk’s character and put a strain on their relationship. What happens when Hannah is taken through the maze of rough, hard and premature encounters inside Mr. Christian Black’s playroom forms the crux of the movie. True to the genre, the movie parodies the original by taking into account the basic story premise, its characters and all the important scenes. Sample this. Hannah is bidding farewell to Black as the elevator doors are closing. Only, the doors are closing several times on Hannah’s head.
True to its tagline, the movie is way shadier than grey in its content and its treatment of the original book and its movie adaptation. It is not easy to spoof a popular movie with a great record at the box office. But Fifty Shades of Black lives up to its expectations and delivers on all counts. For a limited time, watch the full 50 shades of black movie right here!

***Like "Alien" but with Jason and a sense of humor***
Released in 2001, "Jason X" starts in the year 2010 where the government decides to finally stop Jason by putting him into frozen stasis. He and another person are revived in the year 2455 by a professor and his students who are on a field trip from Earth Two to Earth One. Jason is unleashed on their spaceship and havoc ensues.
This entry is like 1979's "Alien" except with Jason as the monster and a sense of humor. You'll also notice that it's a great departure for the series putting Jason in space in the future. Most Friday fans look down on 1993's "Jason Goes to Hell" and "Jason X" because the producers tried something new. It's obvious that they felt the series had become stale and formulaic with an incredible eight-installment run from 1980-1989. I felt "Jason Goes to Hell" had a refreshing concept (ripped off from 1987's "The Hidden") and a great intro & opening act, but the tone was distasteful and the flick eventually spiraled out of control with its cartoony quasi-horror gobbledygook; still, it featured a couple of the best women in the series (Agent Marcus and Deborah), which should be commended.
I heard negative comments about "Jason X" over the years, but the first half is sci-fi at its best with some amusing elements thrown in for good measure. It’s stunning how well the filmmakers handle the sci-fi aspects of the plot and F/X. The second half, unfortunately, becomes too cartoonish as Jason systematically annihilates most of the crew, particularly when he gets his new futuristic look, basically morphing into SuperJason (rolling my eyes).
As usual, this installment features an impressive assortment of women, but it's only Kinsa (Melody Johnson) that I find appealing, except for the cameo of the campfire teen #1 at the end, played by the stunning Mika Ward. They should have included her in the main cast.
To be expected in light of the spaceship plot, the film was shot mostly on sets (in Toronto) with a couple of outside sequences in Ontario.
The film runs 91 minutes.
GRADE: B-

10th time's a charm. Better than many of the Friday the 13th movies.