This is a truly challenging film that routinely glorifies violence - especially towards women, and offers us a terrifying appraisal of the effects of unfettered government and science working in cahoots with each other. Fifty years on from it's groundbreaking release, it's great to watch this on a big screen again - and though the imagery is much less potent that it was in 1971, the performance from Malcolm McDowell is scarily compelling. The plot centres around him and his three sadistic cohorts who live a disparate life terrorising wherever they roam until finally they go a little too far and he is apprehended. A fourteen year sentence is handed down but after two of them, he seeks enrolment in a controversial, experimental, aversion therapy scheme the results of which don't quite deliver as expected. The film presents us with some some pretty gruesome worst-case scenarios to start with, those serve to exaggerate the threat to normal livelihoods and thus lend credibility to the even more daunting prospect of the clinical conditioning of people. In this case, it is specifically the conditioning of one violent individual, but it's very easy to extend the principle to those with whom the government, or state, might disagree - and Kubrick lays that threat bare for all to see and evaluate. I struggled a bit with the nonsense language at times, it seemed puerile and prone to ridicule, certainly to detract from, the more thought-provoking elements of the plot. Perhaps it is there to serve as steam-valve for the intensity of the subject matter, but I am not convinced it is effective or necessary. The book allows us scope to use our own imagination as to the terror this whole concept could invoke, but as film adaptations go, this one offers us a great and innovative template for any interpretation, and coupled with the powerful use of a classical music score - including Ludwig Van, of course, and a solid supporting cast contributing well, this is a truly momentous piece of cinema.

With this film, a world heritage of cinema, Stanley Kubrick has reached a level of artistic mastery that would make Michelangelo pale in comparison. To make a film an art form, it must have the innovation of a Chaplin or Jean-Luc Godard. Furthermore, for a film to be a masterpiece, it must have music, direction, and great performances by the cast. Nevertheless, this film easily fulfills these requirements, and miraculously, it is a perfect work of art, with outstandingly high quality visual beauty far above the audience. For 136 minutes, one feels as if one has stepped into an exhibition of paintings or photographs that are sigh-inducingly vivid, beautiful, sometimes violent, and sometimes insane. The film's elaborate camerawork is erotic, but not vulgar, like a sensual film. The clarity of vision, both pictorial and photographic, is unparalleled. Any of the scenes, even the still ones, would make a grade-A photo book. Without a doubt, it is the best film made in the entire world in 1971. It deserves to be the "Pietà" of the film world.

Some great visuals and direction not to mention an incredible performance from Malcolm McDowell, I wasn't totally into this, the first half especially was taxing to get through to the point I stopped watching and only finished a couple days later. The rest was good and found myself a bit more engaged however as a whole, this one never grabbed me. **3.5/5**

As time goes by, I'll always appreciate my Grade 10 English class (1984-85), taught by Mr. Terry. Looking back, it's probably the year that I was introduced to the most great literary works of all my life (especially 'Anthem' by Ayn Rand and 'Nausea' by Jean-Paul Sartre). Included that year in the course's curriculum was Anthony Burgess' dystopian masterwork, 'A Clockwork Orange' (as well as George Orwell's 'Animal Farm'--like Frank Sinatra would have said, 'It was a very good year'). I was mesmerized with it from the instant I noticed the unique approach to language, the 'ultraviolence' and of course, the eternal question of free will, its relationship to good-and-evil, and the can of worms of the myriad of ethical dilemmas that comes to the fore of individual freedom and rights versus that of society at large. The genius of Burgess was being able to put so well and forcibly, yet in such an entertaining way, so many issues that, had most anyone else set forth on the endeavor, would have come up with the type of off-putting, heavy-handed sermon that would never have reached such a literary pinnacle, and been required reading even now, generations later. It hasn't aged or dated a day.
Most cinematic observers felt the book unfilmable. Director Kubrick's adaptations work so well, particularly this, '2001: A Space Odyssey' and 'The Shining' (even though Stephen King would fervently disagree about the latter) because he, as he did with 'Dr. Strangelove', can so easily both find unforgettable visual metaphors for his ideas and so handily combine humour (an under-recognized trait of his, much more readily associated with say, Sir Alfred Hitchcock) with these heavy and daunting philosophical and intellectual volleys. In the wrong hands (particularly a Stanley Kramer, or his ilk), this could have failed miserably, like typical cinematic treatments of Ayn Rand novels. But this worked triumphantly, and heartily exemplifies one of the greatest directors ever at the apex of his craftsmanship. No self-respecting cinephile can avoid this movie, and I heartily recommend you to read the novel as well, though Kubrick nails it so effectively, reading the novel isn't necessary in the slightest for the film to be enjoyed.
One of the many 'gamechanger' films of Kubrick's storied and remarkable career.

Eastwood directs this deeply moving film about navy seal Chris Kyle, adapted from his autobiography. A first rate production both in front of, and behind the camera, this movie has all the markings of a true classic.

Vincent Price has spent his life working on a labour of love - a "son", an artificially constructed person that lacks only hands - for which he temporarily has two pairs of scissors. Sadly, the creator dies before he can rectify this and so young "Edward" (Johnny Depp) is left alone in his lofty castle. Alone, that is until a kindly Dianne Wiest ("Peg") takes him under her wing, introduces him to her many friends - including an on-form Winona Ryder ("Kim") - and they all discover he has a remarkable ability for topiary (and hairdressing!). Soon he is all the rage, the talk of the town - but always the misfit, and of course when a mishap - in this case a robbery for which he is framed - occurs, his fickle friends turn on him readily. It's a touching tale of innocence and humanity; Depp plays his role skilfully and with delicacy and humour, and the last half hour is quite a damning indictment of thoughtlessness and selfishness that still resonates today. Like many "fairy" tales, it has it's root in decent morals and Tim Burton is ahead of the game in delivering a nuanced and enjoyable modern day parable that makes you laugh, smile and wince with shame in equal measure.

Love this movie. It's like a non evil Freddy Kruger. The ending could have been better though.

Very enjoyable.
It's funny the way we picture things in our minds. I had heard of 'Edward Scissorhands' but actually knew very little about it, typified by the fact I was expecting this to be very dark - probably just based on the seeing the cover here and there. It's much sillier than expected, but in a positive way.
I do kinda end up wishing they went down a more dark/creative route, instead of relying on the novelty of having scissors as hands; though, to be fair, they do touch on the deeper side a bit. With that said, I did get a good amount of entertainment seeing this plot unfold. It's weird and wonderful.
Johnny Depp is a great actor and is very good here, mainly via his facial expressions and body language. It's cool to see Winona Ryder involved, someone I've thoroughly enjoyed in more recent times in 'Stranger Things'. Alan Arkin and Anthony Michael Hall also appear.
The film looks neat, as I've come to expect from Tim Burton. It has the obvious touch of Bo Welch to it, with the neighbourhood looking not too dissimilar to what Welch would create for 2003's 'The Cat in the Hat' - which I, truly, enjoyed.
Undoubtedly worth a watch.

Take the story of Frankenstein's monster, remove the hateful creator, and replace the little girl's flowers with a brightly pastel Reagan-era suburb. Though not my personal favorite Tim Burton film, I feel like this one best encapsulates his style and story interests.

Walt Disney always said he wanted to release his films every seven years, I think, so each time there was a new audience to appreciate them. This one has waited twice that time for a sequel that is perfectly watchable, but boy is it wordy! Dad "Bob" swaps roles with wife "Helen" (aka "Elastigirl") only to find that it's she who falls foul of the latest government anti-superhero regulations. Fortunately, the wealthy "Deavor" brother and sister act have a cunning plan to reverse these publicity disasters and restore the public confidence in our lycra-clad citizens. The remainder of this film follows rather procedural lines. Dad has fun managing the increasingly active "Jack-Jack" (and his entertaining new powers) whilst mum has to combat the new enemy "Screenslaver" who has some fairly formidable mind-control skills which he intends to use for, of course, world domination. As a role reversal comedy, the dad definitely gets the better, and funnier, end of the stick. As an adventure film, though, it's all just a bit 'been there got the T-shirt' and there is nowhere near enough action to sustain the almost two hours of screen time. The animation and score work well, though, and even if it's not really a patch on the first one, it's still an easy watch.

Ok, I didn't actually see or even really hear about the first one, and this is despite Sam Jackson's involvement. And I will sit through some horrible movies because he was in them.
So there were a few moments where I was a little lost, particularly at the start. Still they were few and far between enough where, like me, you can walk in fresh and it's not really a concern.
There is a LOT that is praise worthy here, but what wowed me the most was how well a cartoon movie could be a period piece of pop art.
It really fit the era right down to the faces and hair, not to mention all the other tiny little details.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, there was a lot more to it, but in my eyes the era stood out the most and in a pop art way. It made it fun for an old historian like me.
And for the MCU fans....This is what Captain America Civil War should have been about, and likely was until the plot got twisted

Doesn't hold a candle to the original _Incredibles_, and it's like... **really** on the nose, but _Incredibles 2_ is still a good time.
Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go.

A good sequel.
'Incredibles 2' isn't too far away from the preceding film, which is always a big plus for a follow-up. This one is definitely the more funnier of the two, there are some very amusing moments; especially with Jack-Jack (Eli Fucile/Nick Bird).
From a plot point of view, the antagonists are better though unfortunately they do go down the obvious direction with them. I felt a few pacing issues too, it's a slow burner. The animation is very solid, as are the voice cast.
Speaking of the cast, all of the main lot return with the exception of Spencer Fox (Dash) - whose absence I didn't really notice in truth. Everyone's as good as they are in the original, while the additions of Winston (Bob Odenkirk) and Evelyn (Catherine Keener) are welcomed. There's also a small yet nice role for Odenkirk's 'Better Call Saul' co-star Jonathan Banks (Dicker).
This does some things greater than 'The Incredibles', but other things less so. Nevertheless, it's a very respectable Disney sequel.

Plenty of action with good acting, however, Apocalypse (the villain) lacks originality. X-Men: Apocalypse is a mediocre film in the respected franchise that is "X-Men"

***Ranks with the best in the X-Men franchise***
Released in 2016 and directed/co-written by Bryan Singer, "X-Men: Apocalypse" has the team go up against the first mutant, Apocalypse (Oscar Isaac), whose origins date back to ancient Egypt. After thousands of years in stasis, Apocalypse is immediately disillusioned by the state of the world and so recruits a team of worthy mutants, including a dispirited Magneto (Michael Fassbender), to purge humanity and craft a new world order over which he will reign. Professor X (James McAvoy), with the assistance of Raven (Jennifer Lawrence), leads a team of young X-Men to stop their greatest nemesis and save mankind from complete destruction. Josh Helman is on hand as Col. Stryker.
This sixth film in the franchise (not including the several spin off films) easily ranks as one of the best. It includes many of the best elements of the X-Men and everything I would want in a great X-Men flick:
Professor X's ongoing goal for an educational sanctuary for interesting mutants from all over the world; his love for Moira (Rose Byrne); Magneto's increasing mastery of his great powers and his struggle to go on the offensive against prejudiced humanity; a greater focus on Cyclops (Tye Sheridan) and his potent power, both of which were neglected in the original trilogy; an outstanding actress to play Jean Grey (Sophie Turner), who is far better than the bland Famke Janssen; Olivia Munn's ultra-hotness as Psylocke; a worthy subplot on Weapon X with the corresponding guest appearance of Wolverine (Hugh Jackman); an excellent collection of young mutants, like Storm (Alexandra Shipp), Beast (Nicholas Hoult), Quicksilver (Evan Peters), Nightcrawler (Kodi Smit-McPhee), Havok (Lucas Till), Angel (Ben Hardy), etc.; a worthy main villain in the mold of Dr. Doom and Thanatos; an epic, apocalyptic final act (sorry); I could go on and on.
This isn't to say the movie doesn't have faults, however; the cartoony overblown prologue in ancient Egypt is Exhibit A.
The film runs 144 minutes and was shot in Quebec, Canada (Greenfield Park, Montreal and Oka).
GRADE: A-

What a let down after Days of Future Past (the best X-Men movie ever, in my opinion). Bryan Singer has usually directed some of the best films of the franchise but this one is a real clunker. Too many characters with not enough development and a very lackluster villain. Oscar Isaac is a talented actor, but even he can't make Apocalypse interesting under all that silly blue make up. Characters like Angel and Psylocke, as Apocalypse's horsemen, are very thinly written and barely have a personality. Also, it is absolutely ridiculous that the villain Mystique is transformed into a role model and leader for the X-Men in this movie. Jennifer Lawrence looks bored throughout and barely appears as Mystique's true blue self even though she's supposed to be an out and proud mutant. A real disappointment.

*** This review may contain spoilers ***
After immensely enjoying the turn the X-Men franchise took after the disappointment of X-Men: The Last Stand, I was pretty excited to see this movie. I love comics, but I never got into the X-Men, so I can excuse some of the inaccuracies that seemed to upset hardcore fans. I just enjoyed the movies.
X-Men Apocalypse is the weakest film since duds like Last Stand and Wolverine Origins. It just didn't have a whole lot going on. One of the biggest critiques of Marvel (yes, I know X-Men films aren't produced by Marvel Studios, but I'm speaking of the publisher of the original medium) is that their villains are lackluster. The big baddie through the whole franchise has been Magneto, easily the most charismatic and entertaining Marvel villain on film. Though we've had brushes with Stryker and Trask and his sentinels, this is the first movie in which the X-Men had taken on a true super villain who wasn't Magneto-- Wolverine vs. The Silver Samurai aside.
But it's almost like director Bryan Singer painted himself into a corner with Apocalypse. The villain was too powerful and could have easily achieved his goals without the help of his "four horsemen." He could have ended the world, in mere minutes, all by himself. But, of course, that would make a boring movie, so Singer and Co. had to figure out what to do with the world's most powerful and dangerous mutant for two hours before the final climax was to begin.
There were scenes where the villains were literally sitting around the desert talking about how they were going to lay waste to a city on the horizon. There were scenes where the most powerful of the villains went out recruiting much less powerful villains to join him. Really, Singer just didn't know what to do with this character. How do you create conflict and drama when the bad guy is just too powerful? Well, you can't.
Of course, after two hours of watching the most powerful mutant ever talk about what he is going to do (instead of simply doing it) he finally unleashes his fury. Except that, the X- Men actually have the most powerful mutant in the world on their side in Jean Grey.
So, again, why is Jean not simply destroying Apocalypse in the first 10 minutes of the movie? Because, running time needs filler.
And that's basically what this movie is: Filler. They came up with a concept that would make the storytelling aspect problematic. And rather than tweaking the concept or fleshing out the story with subplots, they just assumed explosions and superhero fights would be enough to carry the film.

X-Men Apocalypse is typical of what you would expect from a Marvel X-Men movie. Light on story and depth and heavy on special effects and action. In short it is exactly what I, as a Science Fiction and Fantasy geek, would expect as well as hope for.
The X-Men faces a new threat in the form of the worlds first mutant. Naturally said mutant is really a Übermutant vastly more powerful than any “normal” mutant. Equally naturally this Übermutant is set on a path of world destruction and domination. I quite liked this villain. He is a good all evil and powerful bad guy and a worthy adversary. No nonsense about trying to make the villain likable or trying to explain why he turned evil or such like. This guy is evil, he is the bad guy, he needs to be taken down…full stop.
As I wrote the story is not the most elaborate one around but it is a good one within the confines of a Marvel super hero movie. It gets the job done without being overly stupid or silly. It is set in the “prequel” universe created by X-Men First Class. The movie adds a few new X-Men to the ranks of Professor Xaviers team. Some of them thanks to the manipulations of Apocalypse although they start out on the bad side at first.
The movie moves along at a decent enough pace and, as was mentioned, there are quite a few action sequences and special effects thrown at the viewer throughout the movie. Personally I found the special effects to be quite good. Even stunning at times. I am quite a bit of a special effects nerd so of course this pleased me a lot.
The movies ending certainly opens the door to future X-Men movies and I for sure would like to see the franchise continue. I very much enjoyed these almost two and a half hours in front of my TV set.

**Another ancient power was awoken and blah blah blah.**
I have seen almost all the superhero films of the recent time, but this is the franchise I never liked. I'm sorry to say that, but that's the truth. The 'X-Men' series never made me sense, particularly to say it from the Marvel comics is a disappointment. When it comes to 'Wolverine', my opinion is different, because I loved those films. Hugh Jackman as Logan is the only 'X-Men' I love, so like usual this is another waste of time from its series to me.
I even enjoyed the recently rebooted 'Fantastic Four', but not this one. There's nothing new in the story, it's the same plot stolen from the different films. Like an ancient force is awoken who tries to rule the world by destroying everything created so far by the humans. So the mutants join hands to bring him down and we know what happens at the end. Apart from the vfx, this is very boring film and 150 minutes runtime was another lengthy joke that you never laugh.
Not just me, many people, even 'X-Men' fans showed displeasure over this film. That means, Bryan Singer's stint with the franchise is pretty much over. So they will going to bring a new one and that's another disappointment, because I don't know how long they're going to drag this series. End it already. Anyway, like I said I never was or will be this universe fan, so I don't care much, rather I just give them a try when they get released and obviously I'm to end in regret watching. Instead, I'm looking forward to the final 'Wolverine' film with Hugh Jackman.
_5/10_

Though far from the worst _X-Men_ film, _Apocalypse_ was still a disappointment, because until this entry, every Bryan Singer _X-Men_ film had been excellent. _Apocalypse_ is a far cry from terrible, but it is underwhelming given Singer's history, as well as in and of itself.
Certain actors, who shall remain Jennifer Lawrence, were completely checked out in this instalment. The CGI was often so bad it was confronting, even in the climax of the film. Apocalypse's plan was plot-hole-y and underdeveloped, and not all of the new characters hit it out of the park.
There was still a lot to like here though. Some of the newer costumes were neat, and a lot of the side-plots had me very intrigued. Fassbender and McAvoy are excellent as always. It's certainly not a failure amongst the likes of, for example, _X-Men: The Last Stand_. Which was a good callout in _Apocalypse_. Another thing I enjoyed.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

Not really a step forward in the X-Men franchise. Read my full review here.
http://www.hweird1reviews.com/allreviews/x-men-apocalypse-review

DCEU is making a comeback with this one! Finally, after many years of slumber, it is catching up with MCU at least. Although I can say it is not the best of the best, at least, they are finally learning.

If I can point it all out, there is so much wrong with this movie, especially the villain. I will choose Batman v Superman, which had really awesome action scenes, than this Justice League.

The Flash was definitely the comic relief for this one! I thoroughly enjoyed it, but I would have liked it, even more, if it is not kind of being rushed.

It was a pretty decent movie. Better than what I expected, but it was deeply flawed.

Great potential, poor execution. I was disappointed, to be honest. We were expecting a lot for this movie, but I guess DCEU was a tad bit too late in the film game. Their TV series was much more promising than their movies.

The biggest flaw of the film was that it didn’t fully utilized its characters. They just jumbled up some of the members of the Justice League from the comics, gave it a substandard representation of a villain, and called it a day.

A good movie with all your favorite characters. Pretty entertaining, but it won't match up to the meticulous world-building of the MCU. Still, a pretty decent movie.

I think hardcore DC comic fans will appreciate the movie more than the general audience will. Being a DC fan, I enjoyed it a bit more because of the references from the comic books that it made.

I have to say, I find it lighthearted and entertaining at least, though sometimes, you will find the plot to be rather confusing.