I found this to be an excellent movie despite (or partly because of) major variance from the historic events it is based on.
Up until watching this movie, I had just seen four Tarantino films, so I guess I am not on his bandwagon. But I really enjoyed two of them (Jackie Brown and Pulp Fiction). I can now say I liked Once Upon a Time in Hollywood just as much as I did those two movies.
The dialogue is sharp and the main characters are sympathetic enough so I cared what happened to them. The film is loosely based on actual events, with fictional characters thrown in and at least one major plot change that I won't give away. I think some of the most negative feedback I have seen about this film were from purists who didn't like the major change in the story. But I appreciated the change. If I want total accuracy, I would watch a documentary, but I want to be entertained, not depressed, and I was.
And I plan to watch it again, not just for the sake of the story, but because maybe the second time through I will catch more of the movie references that are supposed to inhabit Tarantino's films.

“When you come to the end of the line, with a buddy who is more than a brother and a little less than a wife, getting blind drunk together is really the only way to say farewell.”
‘Once Upon a Time In Hollywood’ is a chilled blast from the past told like a fairy tale. It’s both aimless and yet meaningful with the commentary on the new era in Hollywood. The movie pays tribute to old Hollywood, film making, Sharon Tate, stunt work, and actors. This is perhaps Tarantino’s most personal and mature movie his made, until the last 10 minutes (which I love) goes complete ape sh*t.
I can’t think of any other director where the passion and love for movies is so transparent through Tarantino's craft. He’s such an old school film maker that he and Martin Scorsese are the last golden age directors, as every new release feels like an event. In this movie, Quentin presents 69’ Hollywood at its peak, as he remembers it from his childhood. He manages to rebuild classy LA thanks to the crew and creative team.
Bright neon lights, fashionable clothes, and late 60’s automobiles. There’s a couple of scenes where Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt), drives around LA and there are long shots that shows off the environment and it’s amazing the amount of detail and effort went into the setting - with Robert Richardson brilliant Cinematography bringing it all alive.
Leonardo DiCaprio was absolutely excellent as the fading Western star, Rick F**king Dalton. Dalton, a self-centered, yet vulnerable actor that you both laugh and pity. I will often forget about DiCaprio comedic chops, something similar to Ryan Gosling. I also like the subtle stutter that’s sprinkled through out, which is sad when given some thought that it’s something he’s got to deal with. There’s a heartfelt scene where Dalton tells his young co-star about a book his reading and mid way through explaining the story he realises it mirrors his life, and breaks down in tears with me crying with him. Yep, I teared up in a Tarantino movie. Leo was the pulse of the movie.
Brad Pitt was amazing as the deadpan and cool Cliff Booth. This is probably my favorite performance from him. Cliff’s main character trait is his strength and he demonstrates it multiple times, but leaves the scene before anything can escalate. The chemistry between Leo and Brad was electric. Pitt was the meat of the movie.
Margot Robbie was an absolute delight portraying the late Sharon Tate. Despite her slim screen time, but whenever she has screen time, I couldn’t help but smile. I instantly fell in love with her and it’s painfully to think something so sweet and pure could be taken away from us by brainwashed zombies who don’t deserve a life, just a jail cell. I thought her portrayal in the movie was a beautiful tribute and how they handle her gives new life into her legacy.
There’s a great scene where Sharon Tate watches a movie in cinemas that’s she’s in, but instead of Margot Robbie re-creating those scenes, they just show the real Sharon Tate in the movie. Now people were left a bit confused over this decision, although it’s clear to me that erasing the real Tate out of the movie would be more disrespectful to her memory, so leaving her in is a touching tribute to her career and her work. Robbie was the heart of the movie.
The other supporting cast all did terrific with the little screen time most of them had. Kurt Russell makes a welcoming return as a character that I assume is Stuntman Mike from 'Death Proof' - either way still a welcoming presence. He’s also the narrator and I find it hilarious whenever he tries to pronounce Italian movie titles. Al Pacino was a blast to watch as the tight and yet colorful producer. Mike Moh portrayal of Bruce Lee may have sparked some controversy recently, but I thought he was entertaining regardless and I don’t really think it mocks his legacy at all. I mean, this is the same director who made a four hour movie honoring the legend. Margaret Qualley was crazy good as the hippie girl who’s brain washed into a cult family. It’s crazy to know that Damon Herriman has played Charles Manson twice in the same year and month for this movie and the TV show ‘Mindhunter’, which you should totally check out by the way.
Julia Butters, Luke Perry, Timothy Olyphant, Dakota Fanning, Bruce Dern, and Damian Lewis - a stellar cast that did a stellar job.
After letting the film sit for awhile, there’s so many memorable lines that I would often catch myself recreating just from memory after seeing it twice. There’s so many great moments as well. The lights of LA coming to life at the dust of dawn, or the suspenseful scenes that actually got me feeling tense watching it. Without spoiling anything, but the Spahn Ranch scene where the Manson family stares down a defenseless Cliff Booth as he tries to speak to an old friend was terrifying - reminds me of the opening scene of ‘Inglorious Bastards’, in terms of building up tension that you wait in anticipation to explode.
Still, I think this is the best representation of the Manson family I’ve seen in any movie...by portraying them as absolute buffoons.
And of course with it being a Tarantino movie, the music is lost treasure revived for a modern generation. Always fantastic and incredibly catchy. I can’t think of anything better than Cliff driving around LA with the song ‘Bring a Little Lovin’ playing in the background.
Overall rating: I’ve seen this movie twice already and I still have a desire to watch it again. This is slowly creeping up to being my favorite Quentin Tarantino movie, but time will tell I guess.

Well, the last 15-minutes were great, the first 2.5 hours on the other hand was... uneventful. I have an interest in Hollywood, more from the 1980s though, so some of the slower scenes still kept my attention, but there's no real plot and minimal character development.
That said, DiCaprio and Pitt both give great performances and Margot Robbie of course had her moments, however I could only chuckle during the theater scene when she kicked her bare feet up. Okay, Quentin, lol. **3.0/5**

***Tarantino’s revenge on the Manson psychos***
In the late 60s, Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio), a popular TV Western actor, finds his career taking a downturn and tries to recover with the encouragement of his kick-axx stunt double and best friend, Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt). Sharon Tate (Margo Robbie) & Roman Polanski are neighbors with Jay Sebring always hanging around (Emile Hirsch). Meanwhile the Manson Family nutjobs are lurking in the background, prepping to attack.
“Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood” (2019) is Quentin Tarantino’s 9th full film and, for me, ranks somewhere in the middle of his oeuvre. It may not be as great as “Pulp Fiction” (1994) and “Django Unchained” (2012), but it places well with “Inglourious Basterds” (2009), “Jackie Brown” (1997) and “The Hateful Eight” (2015).
A famous director once succinctly defined a great movie as such: Three good scenes, no bad scenes. While the second part of this definition is debatable with "Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood,” seeing as how the movie could've certainly been tightened up (there are some dull sequences), there's no doubt that it fulfills the first part.
My three favorite scenes are: The amusing satirical Bruce Lee confrontation; the great Spahn Ranch episode, which effectively creates an underlying sense of menace; and, of course, the entertaining hippie attack in the final act.
Thankfully, there are numerous additional gems: The friendship and respect of Rick and Cliff; the audacious flamethrower sequence; Rick's breakdown with the precocious girl actor (not actress); the beautiful women throughout; the great cast, including several celeb cameos; the entertaining soundtrack; Brandi, the pit bull; Rick's meltdown in his trailer; Rick finally pulling off a quality acting scene via ad libbing; George Spahn not remembering Cliff; everything (surprisingly) turning out to be precisely as so-and-so said; the allusion to what MAY have happened to Cliff's nagging wife (Rebecca Gayheart) on the boat; the way it should have turned out on that infamous night; and the heartwarming close,
The film runs 2 hour, 41 minutes, and was shot in the Los Angeles area.
GRADE: A-

I'm not here to explain _Once Upon a Time In Hollywood_, just to enjoy it.
_Final rating:★★★★ - Very strong appeal. A personal favourite._

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)
Quentin Tarantino is one of the best filmmakers of all-time. He has undeniable talent behind the camera, and his movies are fated to leave a mark in each year they’re released. In addition to that, he’s also an extraordinary screenwriter, as Once Upon a Time in Hollywood proves once again. His knowledge of the early decades of film is vast, so every feature he produces is always going to be filled with references to those “fairy tale” years. And that’s precisely what this movie is: a fairy tale in Hollywood, hence its title. Let me just leave this here right off the bat: I’m not going to address any controversy surrounding this film (namely, the whole Bruce Lee depiction and the Manson Family, in general), as I’m always fair and impartial to the movie I’m reviewing. Moving on …
My knowledge of the 60s isn’t that good. Obviously, I know the whole Sharon Tate story, as well as the famous Manson murders, but when it comes to actual films from that decade, well … Probably, I only know a few by name, a classic scene, or a memorable soundtrack. Tarantino uses his large runtime to place tons of references to that period, and that’s one of the reasons the first act of the movie drags. There’s a lot of time spent with characters just driving cars while listening to music (references in the songs), wide shots of the city as they drive by (references in the buildings), or even just playing an LP and dancing to it (reference in the songs, again).
I understand that these mean something, but if they don’t develop the character in any way, then these are just Easter Eggs and have no impact on the actual narrative. The first hour or so is filled with sequences which sole purpose is to show how much Tarantino knows about that time, and there’s nothing wrong with it, as long as it tells a story. That’s the second issue I have with the first act: it takes too long to establish its characters, and there’s no apparent objective within the story. It feels like a person just strolling around with no destination, which in itself isn’t a bad thing. But if you put together repetitive sequences plus a story that no one knows where it’s going or how it connects to the only thing people are actually expecting (the Sharon Tate event), then you’ll bore the hell out of the audience (a lot of people constantly left my theater to get more food or something, and they weren’t in a hurry).
Nevertheless, from the moment we start understanding who Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth are, what they do, what they did, and what they want with their lives, then the film becomes incredibly captivating. It’s definitely a character-driven story. It’s a fairy tale where Rick tries his best to overcome his own personal issues to be the very best movie star, after being on an exponentially negative path. Cliff, as his stunt double, lives off of his buddy by doing everything he needs around the house and everywhere else. These two are inseparable, and their scenes are always filled with laughter and joy, even in the darkest moments. OUATIH works because of its beautifully-written characters.
If you don’t care about them, then you won’t enjoy the film at all. In addition to this, if you don’t know anything regarding the art of filmmaking, then you’ll probably hate it since it will become extremely dull. It’s one of those movies that anyone can like. However, for someone who knows and understands how films are made, it will always be a better time at the theater. You can love this movie, sure. But if you love filmmaking and you have knowledge of its techniques, you’ll love it even more. There are so many technical achievements worthy of appreciation that I can’t get to all of them, so I’ll just address two of my favorites. The first has to be the black-and-white flicks inside the actual film. Putting Leonardo DiCaprio acting on classic westerns with over-the-top performances is an absolute delight. Watching those features in a 4:3 black-and-white screen, filled with classic sound effects, and cheesy one-liners … Wonderful.
The second allows for my favorite scenes of the whole movie: the extensive one-take dialogues. I mean, 10 or 15-minute sequences where DiCaprio just gives it his all. This is how every single film should be done. There’s even a joke in the movie where Rick criticizes a particular type of filmmaking because they would film every character separately saying their lines and then editing them together. Unfortunately, that’s how most features are done today. Therefore, from watching a simple dialogue scene with DiCaprio and Julia Butters (a 10-year-old little girl!) to a bar sequence which belongs to a movie Rick is filming (this one even has Rick asking his lines, and the camera has to go back to its starting point), everything with no cuts whatsoever … What can I ask more from a director?!
Obviously, if this is a character-driven narrative, the cast has to be genuinely compelling. Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie … I mean, do I even need to explain how phenomenal they are? DiCaprio proves once again he’s one of the greatest actors of all-time. The ability that he has to put 200% in every single scene is unbelievable. I even started to tear up once his character is able to find his footing, solely due to the actor’s performance. The Oscar nom is guaranteed, let’s see about the win. Brad Pitt also has tons of nominations on his lap with an astonishing supporting display. He has a subtle performance, but it’s pretty incredible how much he can transmit to the audience by putting (apparently) so little effort. Margot Robbie doesn’t have that much screentime, but her character had the simple objective of showing how glamorous and dreamy an actress’ life could be at that time, so she didn’t exactly need to deliver her A-game.
It’s always good to see Al Pacino (Marvin Schwarz) on-screen, and I’m thrilled that Margaret Qualley (Pussycat), who I know from The Leftovers (one of the most underrated TV shows of the century), is finally getting some recognition. Technically, like I said above, it’s close to a masterpiece. It’s Tarantino, everyone knows what he’s capable of, but having in mind his most recent features, it’s a pleasant surprise and evidence of quality to the naysayers that he was able to produce a film with less bloody action. There are terrific demonstrations of great cinematography (Robert Richardson), and the editing is always impeccable in Tarantino’s features (this time due to Fred Raskin). The score is addictive, and it carries a very significant role in the movie. I would say that if Tarantino was able to shorten its runtime and control its pacing better, this would be a technically perfect film.
All in all, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood isn’t the best Quentin Tarantino’s movie, but it’s undoubtedly one of the year’s best. Filled with award-winning lead performances (second Oscar for DiCaprio, please), this character-driven story is packed with references to the 60s which will be the divisive point in whether people will enjoy the film or not. Its first act is slow and takes too long to set up its story, but from the moment it’s able to find its footing, it’s an entertaining ride. If you love filmmaking and you know the insides of the art, Tarantino delivers a near-perfect technical production. Its alternate ending to real-life events is meant to be controversial, but for me, it’s a vision of how everything should have happened if the world was fair or, indeed, a fairy tale … in Hollywood.
Rating: A-

The movie isn’t for everyone, of course, but it’s a fun ride back to the past with fantastic performances, hilarious comedy and beautiful aesthetics. Tarantino is the one director in 2019 that can get huge names without people referring to his films as “that Leo film“, and I think that’s worth something whether you’re a fan or not. It’s rare for a film like this to be a mainstream release, and in the lacklustre year of 2019 I think it’s about time we got something in cinemas that's original.
- Chris dos Santos
Read Chris' full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-another-tarantino-classic

To be honest, I was expecting rather more from this feature. It centres around the tomboyish princess "Merida" who is being groomed by her fastidious mother 'Elinor" into a refined and genteel lady befitting her station. Her father, "Fergus" is a bit rougher round the edges but by and large the family - along with the two younger twin boys - rub along ok. That is, until the king and queen announce to their daughter that it is time for her betrothal - and that she just marry one of the pretty hapless heirs from one of the three great clans of the kingdom. Unimpressed, she runs away and encounters a witch who agrees to cast a spell that will change her mother's mind... Well it does a load more than that, and soon the young "Merida" has to reconcile the fall out from her hastily sought wish as well as fend of a legendary bear that has already robbed the King of half of his leg. The adventure is entertaining enough, but the story is too thin to stretch for ninety minutes and despite some characterful and amusing efforts from Julie Walters, Billy Connolly and Emma Thompson, I found this just a bit slow. The accents are Scottish, but it really could have been set anywhere and be about anything. The standard of animation isn't brilliant either - it has a very linear style to it that I didn't think so natural, especially as much of this takes place outdoors in a dense and colourful forest. It's still an engaging family film though, one that you could safely leave the youngsters in front of without worry. One from the factory, you might say.

A wholehearted animated film from Disney.
'Brave' is very good. The Scottish vibes help a lot, but the meaningful message and superb animation are just a few of the film's other big positives. The casting, characters and music are some too. The premise itself isn't anything breathtakingly new, but is most certainly enjoyable to see unfold.
The cast are excellent, with my personal standouts being Kelly Macdonald (Merida) and Emma Thompson (Elinor). There are also good performances from Billy Connolly (Fergus), Robbie Coltrane (Dingwall) and Julie Walters (Witch).
It's a fun and simple watch, one I thoroughly felt entertained by.

The following is a long-form review that I originally wrote in 2012.
The film in all was a relatively decent venture. Perhaps Pixar's well deserved success is its pitfall here. Though highly enjoyable, Brave was simply not up to the standard brought forth by the likes of the Toy Story trilogy, Up or Monsters Inc. ?This movie falls more into the category of "Entertaining, acceptable, cute" instead of the higher echelons some of the studio's past work has earned it.
Brave attempts to take the "Disney Princess" line away from its predecessors in which princesses are only good for getting themselves into trouble so that men can rescue them (ie. Snow White, Belle, etc.) or in the case of the Little Mermaid in which she is willing to almost literally walk on broken glass for a man simply because he's pretty. And for this, we thank Brave. All that said and done however, there was one rather unfortunate side-effect of all this. I at first simply felt it was my warped interpretation, but every person whom I've spoken to drew the same conclusion, so perhaps not... Now, I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but, I must say, the main character Merida... Seemed to... Have a thing for her mum. Just saying, honestly, that's how the piece feels as it plays out.
On a less incestuous note though, stand up comic/actor Billy Connolly as Meridia's father King Fergus is simply brilliant, and probably the highest point of the whole film. Though the animation didn't exactly make leaps and bounds forward in comparison to anything else that's come out in the past couple of years, it was still most certainly impressive.
Maybe if I had been part of Brave's target audience I could have appreciated the movie more. It was most certainly good, but I wasn't really ?blown away? by any aspect of the film whatsoever. It managed to scrape a slight "above average" but I really would have liked something more than I got, especially seeing as movies on the big screen tend to impress me more readily.
Brave's biggest problem is that it is, in essence, forgettable. Though an entertaining 93 minutes to be sure, I can't imagine myself hankering for a re-watch any time soon.
62%
-Gimly

I enjoyed Brave but it wasn't without a few flaws.
First of all, I never felt like there was much meat to the story. It was enjoyable sure, and had some good morals and family values but I never felt like I was invested in the main characters. Stuff just seemed to happen.
Secondly, and this isn't as much the movies fault as perhaps the marketing that surrounded it, but it was actually a very different movie than I thought it was going to be. I discovered that it's hard to break those pre-conceptions as I kept thinking the story was going somewhere else than it did.
Brave was at its best when it made me laugh which unfortunately, was just too seldom. For example, the entire scene where the 3 clans try to fight for Mérida's hand was way too short!
The voice cast was very good though. Kelly Macdonald in particular, was perfect as Mérida.
All in all, Brave was good but not great. It just seems to lack the "magic" I expect from Pixar. Not their worst outing but close to it.

Did it really need a sequel?
It was beautiful. I mean, it looked beautiful...even if there was one part that made me motion sick, but even that part was beautiful. And that, I think, was really more of a lighting thing than a set design thing or a special effects thing.
Honestly, you remember the lighting in this. You remember it the way people remember the lighting in an Edward Hopper painting.
But did it need a sequel?
The acting was great, it really was.
There was honestly no real flaw as to how the movie looked, how it was directed, or how it was acted. It was pleasing...
...but it was also kind of empty. So, did it need a sequel? Questions were answered, but those questions were best left as questions weren't they? The little mysteries that fueled debate that made the first film so...talked about, even if it was initially hated.
Why did those questions need to be answered? They were better left as little mysteries to ponder.
And the result is the empty feeling you get when a really fun problem is finally solved. There is that A-HA moment of adulation...and than that little depression when you realize the mystery is finally over and you can move on.
From now on the questions will be officially answered and as it doesn't hurt this movie, it doesn't take away from the film as a singular entity, it kind of kills the first film.
Now we know it all and because of that, the first Blade Runner will never have the same feeling when you watch it.

Visually stunning. That's it. It felt cold as the acting of the main character. Also it made so many assumptions on the original movie that it felt banal. Such a shame, because the concept behind could have been good, but the delivery is just not there, I'm afraid.

Ryan Gosling is great in this update of the Ridley Scott story from 1982. He is "K" - working for the new but still all-powerful "Tyrell Corporation" tasked with eliminating the last of the "Nexus" generation of replicants. It's on one such mission that he, quite literally, unearths a terrible secret that could spell doom for the already crippled society of mankind. "K" sets out to gather as much information as he can to prevent this collapse, and gradually comes to realise that the answer might lie with the long disappeared "Deckard" (Harrison Ford); his water ego from times gone by. Thing is, though, as his search nears it's conclusion, will he be permitted to discover and act upon the truth? This enhances and augments the original, rather than try to replace it. The story is well held together by a Gosling who makes his presence felt, but who allows the story to develop using imagery and a sparing dialogue. Robin Wright is maybe not the best as his boss "Joshi" but it does feature one of the better efforts from Ana de Armas ("Joi") as we head towards a denouement that really does look at life as we know it! The photography is dark and gritty, there is a distinct and effective sense of the claustrophobic and the score from Hans Zimmer is one of his best - it really does assist in focussing the attention on the detail of this cleverly constructed and compelling adventure with a conscience. Big screen if you can - the lighting and effects are better appreciated that way.

**Overall : One of the most visually spectacular, stunning, and beautiful films I have ever seen!**
Now I need to be honest; I am a simple man, and the complexities of the philosophical questions presented by the Blade Runner movies are lost on me. What makes someone truly human or real is a profound question with which an escapist like myself doesn't want to grapple. But with all that being said, Blade Runner 2049 is a masterpiece regardless of your movie taste. The beauty of the bright neon colors splashing across the cold, dismal, muted city of Los Angeles in 2049 is breathtaking. Every scene and moment is a visual feast filled with practical effects despite being a sci-fi film with flying cars and futuristic technology. While parts of the story and action were a little slow, Blade Runner 2049 captivates and intrigues from start to finish.

The only thing _great_ about Blade Runner 2049 is the cinematography and the Atari sign, but it was just trying to copy Blade Runner instead of a new story. Outside of that it's dog dung. The music is a poor knock off Vangelis score. The story is basically fan-service and pandering by the studio with the tons of plot holes. It includes of biblical references, and aspects from the books _Fahrenheit 451_ by Ray Bradbury, that also takes place in 2049, mixed with _1984_ by George Orwell to try to come off as intellectual, but utterly fails and is poorly done. It practically ignored _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep_ by Phillip K. Dick. The original Blade Runner film did too, but at least that film was interesting. This film doesn't introduce anything new or anything that could be considered an original idea. The editing is awful. Dragging out scenes for no reason other than an attempt to appear "intelligent and serious" or to try to mimic 'Blade Runner' doesn't work since there's no reason for it story wise. It's kind of like a Zack Snyder movie, in that regards. The acting is subpar and wooden. Harrison Ford was phoning it in. It's a shallow film that misses the point. Here's a neat idea, why not try to actually adapt _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep_ into a film.
I don't understand why people think this shallow movie is an intellectual and intelligent movie.

I don't understand what people like in this movie. It has some good things, but nothing much to deserve such big rating. Soundtracks & atmosphere are really good & it's well shot, however story is confusing & everything is all over the place. I still didn't understand what was the whole story of movie and it is extremely slow & prolonged. Very small amount of talking & a lot observing moments. Every minor action is prolonged. Like you see man laying in the snow for a few minutes & etc... I didn't like the movie & it took more than 2:30 hours of torture and boredom...

As a movie this is a very good movie. The scenery, the acting, the colors etc. are of a very high technical standard. To me personally however, this movie is much too dark and depressing for my taste.
I cannot say that I am surprised that the movie is dark. The first movie was a rather dark one after all and this one is a truly post-apocalyptic one. I quite liked the first movie despite its dark setting though. However this one takes the darkness and melancholy to an entirely new level.
As I said before, technically the movie is great. The scenery is stunning whether it is a dirty little hut out in the badlands or the equally dirty vast cityscapes. The scenes of the abandoned city where Decker is (re)introduced is sad but beautiful.
The acting is more or less great from all the main characters and the special effects are very well done and just right to fit with the rest of the movie.
Unfortunately I cannot bring myself to give it more than 3 out of 5 stars. It has nothing to do with the quality of the film but a lot to do with my personal taste which of course is reflected in my ratings.

Strikes a true balance between new and old. Denis Villeneuve has a perfect filmmaking record in my mind, and _Blade Runner 2049_ continues that trend with aplomb.
_Final rating:★★★★ - Very strong appeal. A personal favourite._

The film was actually rather disappointing. As a film it was OK, but as a sequel to Blade Runner, it was terrible. There were some nice in-jokes and references, but overall low-brow junk masquerading as high-brow gold (it was directed by Villeneuve, so I really shouldn't have expected better, the only thing he's good at is making stupid people think they are clever). Everything seemed forced and unnatural. The plot was trite and cliched, and everything was very predictable. Totally a wasted opportunity ;^<

Hail to the Science Fiction gods as they came to their senses and granted upon the eagerly movie-going masses the long-awaited arrival of a stunning and opulent _Blade Runner_ sequel. Perhaps we should praise the understated genius and visionary mastermind Ridley Scott for his 1982 directorial accomplishment in serving up what appeared to be an underappreciated and overlooked SF thriller in its heyday over three decades ago only for it to emerge now as one of the greatest Science Fiction futuristic capers worthy of its cult classic following?
Maybe the long overdue kudos are reserved for the diehard nostalgic _Blade Runner_ bunch whose committed and fanatical fandom was the key catalyst for this undeniably brilliant, brainy, dazzling and polished presentation to resurface and give new vitalizing breath and striking energy to the Science Fiction genre in conception? Could it be possible that Hollywood simply saw opportunistic and healthy box office receipts to restart another pop cultural juggernaut from yesteryear’s cinematic scene?
Is there a returning Harrison Ford fixation/fetish blossoming courtesy of his past blockbuster film resume that boasts the obvious inclusion of prominent SF/adventure fantasy biggies such as both the _Star Wars_ phenomenon and the _Indiana Jones_ installments with _Blade Runner_ now taking up the matinee mantle?
Regardless of the film-making forces at hand or the key reasoning for this 164 minute visually arresting odyssey updated and packaged for bombastic _Blade Runner_ enthusiasts and dedicated SF connoisseurs the proof is in the proverbial pudding as **Blade Runner 2049** has made its auspicious presence known and succeeds thrillingly as an indelible wonderment in imagination, intrigue and intelligence.
Breathtakingly rich and vibrant in its overlong execution, **Blade Runner 2049** is a lustrous escapist epic that resonates with snappy pop, thought-provoking tendencies and atmospheric grittiness that soundly resonates. And yes…the participation of the aforementioned and omnipresent Ford reprising his role from 35 years ago is indeed the appealing and motivating factor to re-enter the anxiety-driven world of intrusive replicants, societal annihilation and the guessing game of humanity infiltration.
It seems that the intense workmanlike charm and structured suspense in the rebooted **Blade Runner 2049** has not missed a single beat as it colorfully brings its brand of contemplative tension and underlying humorous texture to this sumptuous spectacle. Importantly, the film’s philosophical edginess and saturated cynicism stays true to Scott’s unflinching vision of introspection about the valued properties of life and who are the chief architects of such a unique gift of existence. Consequently, speechless Science Fiction audiences once again are transfixed by the mesmerizing yet old adage about the rivaling ‘have’s and ‘have nots’ especially so vital in the gloomy squalor and doomsday darkness that Scott created so fervently in his vintage edition that set the stage for renegade blade runners in a power struggle with defiant, roguish replicants disastrously flirting with the sacred boundaries of humankind.
Filmmaker Denis Villeneuve (‘Arrival’, ‘Sicario’, ‘Prisoners’) has stepped into some pretty mighty cinematic shoes in dusting of the mothballs of _Blade Runner’s_ haunting and hedonistic past in an accomplished effort to bring forth a percolating potboiler of a challenging and imaginative hue to its succulent successor in 2049 with surging, exquisite aplomb. Screenwriters Michael Green (‘Alien: Covenant’, ‘Logan’) and Hampton Fancher (‘Blade Runner’, ‘The Minus Man’) manage to brilliantly convey the dystopian disillusionment as the caustic yet compelling commentary concerning the decline of humanity and how it is feverishly on the brink of non-existence. The fuzzy lines are crossed for the calculating chaos and corruptible wheels that are turning so aimlessly and shockingly. The sins of sinners, good, bad or indifferent, gloriously are stemmed in moodiness and mystery. Additionally, notably iconic cinematographer Roger Deakins (‘Fargo’) cultivates a dank, hazy-coated landscape where shadowy imagery compliments the dour suspicions of determined man versus durable machine co-existing in a hostile futuristic fantasy world of techno-dismal dimensions. Also, kudos are reserved for Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch for their soaring, energetic score that undercuts the tension and turmoil.
In a nutshell, Ryan Goslin (Oscar-nominated for 2016’s ‘La La Land’) is a young blade runner known as ‘K’ whose mission is to track down veteran Rick Deckard (the returning Harrison Ford…also a former Oscar nominee) in the aftermath of a major uncovered secretive revelation that requires the missing senior badge-flashing blade runner’s undivided attention. The problem remains, however, is that Deckard has been out of circulation for three decades and so the search is on for K to hunt down the long-absent Deckard.
Indeed, Officer K’s critical and contemplative police work is, to mildly put it, seek out the about-to-expire, unpredictable and resistant replicants and eradicate them when necessary. The replicants, mechanical menaces with artificial intelligence that are living among the humans incognito, are the main focus of the LAPD and K enthusiastically is immersed in the manhunt for the hidden techno-tyrants with militant mindsets that could strike at any moment among the walking flesh. K strives to put them out of their mechanical misery as his sworn duty to serve and protect but he is handcuffed (no pun intended) by the political politeness and procedural proprieties as pushed by his boss Lt. Joshi (Robin Wright). Basically, K is under surveillance based on his fragile mental state and Joshi is the one to contain this gritty-minded cop’s wandering psyche.
Thankfully, there is undeniable texture and intensity that fortifies **Blade Runner 2049** due to the layered and complex story that effectively taps into the robust realm of man’s possible mercy call at the dominant feet of advanced and sophisticated technology. This observational sentiment certainly rings true in contemporary times as selective human beings feel lost, intimidated, overwhelmed and need to surrender to the mounting shifty pressures of an exposed society seemingly ruled by sinning opportunists on both sides of the shady aisle, mechanisms rendered equally with blood and bolts.
Refreshingly, **Blade Runner 2049** is devoutly cerebral in passion and old school perception. Oddly, Villeneuve’s mixture of science fictional roots and thought-provoking dramatic art house probing works while adding a realistic and somber milieu of existential foreshadowing. Gosling is gloriously geared as the hound dog-faced law enforcer too close for comfort on the fringe of film noir-style burnout as he gets embroiled deep into an abyss of head-scratching discoveries. Ford does not miss a single beat as the gravel-faced, handsome-aged Deckard saddled in adventurous mode despite the matured years since his early 80s heyday in the mundane, ground-breaking _Blade Runner_ blueprint from yesterday. Oscar winner Jared Leto (‘Dallas Buyers Club’) joyously lets it all hang out as the wickedly off-kilter character Niander Wallace. The feminine inclusion of Wright’s top policing babysitter Joshi and Ana de Armas as K’s love interest, Joi, are welcomed personalities. Ex-wrestler/actor Dave Bautista (hot off the ‘Guardians Of The Galaxy’ film series) is a larger-than-life specimen as always in proven popcorn blockbusters.
Convincingly well-structured, profound, purposeful and without a prosaic bone in its bountiful body **Blade Runner 2049** is stunningly sumptuous Science Fiction theater for the thinking man and for the progressive machinery master-blasters as well.
**Blade Runner 2049** (2017)
Warner Bros. Pictures
2 hrs. 44 mins.
Starring: Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford, Robin Wright, Jared Leto, Ana de Armas, Sylvia Hoeks, Mackenzie Davis, Lennie James, Dave Bautista and Carla Juri
Directed by: Denis Villeneuve
Written by: Michael Green and Hampton Fancher
MPAA Rating: R
Genre: Science Fiction/Action & Adventure/Fantasy/Drama
Critic’s Rating: ***1/2 stars (out of 4 stars)
(c) **Frank Ochieng** (2017

In a wonderfully woeful world, a detective makes a sad attempt at a relationship, has the most inventive sex scene ever committed to screen, and grapples with an existential crisis as he does his work. This stuff, which could work as a standalone story, is so strong that this movie must be seen.
Unfortunately, the movie doesn't realise that the protagonist's everyday life is the best part, and instead focuses on a larger-than-life, goofy premise meant to tie 2049 to the original and set up another sequel, thus undermining what would otherwise be a gripping, intimate story.

"Blade Runner 2049 embraces the enormous shadow cast by Blade Runner 1982 by crafting a vast immersion in scale and vision..."
Read the full review here: http://screen-space.squarespace.com/reviews/2017/10/5/blade-runner-2049.html

Love this movie. Better then the original. Honestly this would be fun to do for real. It would be the ultimate gaming experience. The movie is so hilarious.

**Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle surprisingly exceeds the original and all expectations as one of the best, funniest, and most entertaining sequels of all time.**
The sequel no one saw coming or expected to light up the box office as it did! Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a fun adventure film with hilarious characters that works in every way. I will be honest; I was not a fan of the original movie - it freaked me out as a child. But the new film minimized the horror elements of Jumanji and focused more on adventure and humor. This time instead of a board game, Jumanji has morphed into a video game that sucks its unsuspecting victims into its deadly world. Welcome to the Jungle leans into all the video game tropes with hilarious results with jokes about skills, lives, NPCs, boss battles, and more. The movie is at its best with all the humor surrounding the body-swapped teens dealing with the game’s characters they now inhabit - the skinny nerd becoming the muscular hero, the jock becoming a tiny sidekick, and the funniest of all, the pretty popular girl becoming Jack Black (who is the real stand out of the film). Jumanji is a must-see family adventure film that brings fun and laughs to everyone who dares to play the game.

Fun and cool movie, probably better than the original.

***Entertaining adventure/fantasy with a little welcome depth***
Four high school teens in Atlanta – a nerd (Alex Wolff), a muscular football player (Ser'Darius Blain), a shallow “hot blonde” (Madison Iseman) and a brainy, demure redhead (Morgan Turner) – get sucked into a video game and find themselves as avatars – a brawny explorer (Dwayne Johnson), his diminutive zoological sidekick (Kevin Hart), a cartologist / palaeontologist (Jack Black) and a martial arts babe (Karen Gillan). Can they get back alive?
“Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle” (2017) is the third film in the current four-film franchise if you include “Zathura: A Space Adventure” (2005). It was a surprise hit at the box office and produced an immediate sequel in 2019.
While I give the edge to the original 1995 movie, this one delivers the goods for an entertaining family-friendly adventure/fantasy with a good message. The nonsense in the jungle is amusing & thrilling without overstaying its welcome. What really makes the film work is that it effectively establishes the four characters and their situations in the first act and wraps up with showing how they’ve grown as a result of their otherworldly adventure.
Dwayne Johnson is always great for the lead in these kinds of flicks and Hart & Black offer comical support. Karen Gillan is cute and athletic, but needs to gain some weight IMHO. Meanwhile Madison Iseman (Bethany) has alluring eyes, but Morgan Turner (Martha) actually outshines her. The exceptional title song plays during the credits.
The movie runs 1 hour, 59 minutes, and was shot in Atlanta, Georgia (neighborhood scenes) and Hawaii with loads of CGI backdrops.
GRADE: B

Eh. This was so-so. I like the rock so ill give this a 6 out of 10. The original was WAYYYYY better.

The effects have improved (as you'd hope they would over the course of 22 years), but _Welcome to the Jungle_ didn't really do much for me. It completely lacks the charm of the original movie, but also the worldly scope of the animated series. I sat there patiently as weak joke after weak joke bounced off of me ineffectually, but the person I watched it with seemed to be having a great time, so maybe I'm just dead inside?
_Final rating:★★ - Definitely not for me, but I sort of get the appeal._

**The 90's Game is back and got even more adventurous !!**
When four teenagers in detention discover an old video game console with a game they've never heard of, they are immediately thrust into the game's jungle setting, into the bodies of their avatars, played by Dwayne Johnson, Jack Black, Kevin Hart, and Karen Gillan. What they discover is that you don't just play Jumanji -Jumanji plays you. They'll have to go on the most dangerous adventure of their lives, or they'll be stuck in the game forever.
In the age of Hollywood's obsession with franchise-building and reboots, the idea for a sequel to 1995's 'Jumanji' came across as another eye-roll worthy project. However, the combination of charming actors Dwayne Johnson, Jack Black, Karen Gillian and Kevin Hart, made it evident that this would wind up either being a complete trainwreck, or total mindless fun. Fortunately, 'Welcome to the Jungle' falls solidly into the latter category. The chemistry between the lead cast is evident and the script makes the most of this by giving each actor moments to shine and showcase their skills while they clearly enjoy playing their characters.
Johnson's younger persona Spencer is a nerdy guy who has lived a sheltered life and is afraid of the world. When he enters the game he takes on the avatar of a hunk with no discernible physical weakness. Johnson has fun with this switch of persona and watching him go back and forth doesn't get old. The same goes for Jack Black who plays a self-absorbed, social media addicted teenage girl Bethany. Her switch into Black's trademark rotund shape is the most extreme and ends up being hilarious. While Black and Johnson are engaging as they are completely cast against their typical selves, Gillian and Hart aren't too far behind playing an awkward, insecure but intelligent girl, and an all-star jock boy trapped in a less-than-stellar body respectively.
This entire body-switch premise works on slapstick humour that's not crass and moves quickly with ample action to ensure that the 2-hour runtime doesn't feel bulky at any point. Granted there's a villain problem with Bobby Cannavale's Van Pelt being as one-dimensional as they come. It's conveniently explained away as this is all a video game, and the same rules apply for its lack of depth.
_Overall_, 'Jumanji: Welcome To The Jungle' ends up being a fun, holiday film that will keep you entertained enough to make it worth your time and money.