_Jason X_ holds the lofty title of maybe being the cheesiest movie in the incredibly cheesy Friday the 13th franchise, and while that's not exactly a compliment, it still, somehow, works. _Jason X_ is about as feelgood as a slasher movie can get, the catharsis is real, and so are the laughs.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

Perhaps back in 1995 the year 2021 did seem like it was an aeon away, but now that we are all actually here, this film really does struggle to resonate on just about every level. Keanu Reeves is a good looking star, but that's about the height of it. The scenario is nothing new - mankind is dependent on technology and about to be subject to a criminally backed corporation's attempts to dominate us. This time, it falls to our hero and his semi-luddite pals to access a micro-chip embedded in his brain to save humanity from oblivion. It's quickly paced, to be fair, and the star does an adequate job trying to keep one step ahead of his deadly, if not terribly effective, Yakuza pursuers but the dialogue is flat (and not terribly audible) and the supporting cast - drawn from a collection of B-listers, musicians and featuring the discobolus-like Dolph Lundgren as baddie-in-chief just follows a join the dots pattern. Maybe it's unfair to look back on it after 25 years with today's eyes - but sadly, like so many of these films, neither the talent not the visuals really stand the test of time at all well. It wasn't great then, it certainly isn't now

Decent watch, probably won't watch again, and can't recommend past a Bad Movie Night.
What a trip in the way back machine to see the inspiration for "The Matrix", maybe more of an homage to "Lawnmover Man", but very clearly they didn't have the capability to what they actually wanted to do with the movie.
The best things are clearly Dina Meyer ("Starship Troopers": Dizzy) and the "Hot Garotte" lazer whip thing, why haven't more movies used that?
Clearly Keanu Reeves did his best to try to hold this thing together, but the writing isn't that great, despite have a pretty good story and world to it. It's really dated, but it's good enough I would actually like to see a reboot of this.
There isn't a lot to say: the production and execution fell short and it's just not worth going back to watch this one.

Hmmm. Francis Ford Coppola has creatively produced a piece of superbly photographed and frequently quite intimate observational cinema here this is far more remarkable for it's casting than for anything especially innovative about the story or the characterisations. Indeed had seven of this cast not gone on to great and good things - to varying degrees - then I'm afraid I can't think this film would rate much better than as an interesting, "West Side Story" style derivate with neither the style nor the personalities. It is essentially a gang enmity film - the "Greasers" consisting of those at the top of the bill - (a rather toothy) Tom Cruise, Rob Lowe, Ralph Macchio, Matt Dillon, Patrick Swayze et al having a constant rivalry with their wealthier rivals from the other side of town - The "Socs" (Soshes). Every day there are skirmishes between the two until one evening, young Macchio ("Johnny") and pal "Ponyboy" (C. Thomas Howell) are set upon by a group of older lads and tragedy ensues, a tragedy that leads to all concerned discovering and displaying their true colours. Unfortunately, the acting here is all pretty wooden - except, perhaps, for a decent last minute effort from Rob Lowe. Dillon was a good looking man, but like the others here he was never an especially versatile actor and much of the emphasis here is upon the fact they look good in 501s. The story is otherwise a rather humdrum, violent, coming of age effort that ends in sadness and salvation - but is delivered in an almost rushed fashion. Time hasn't been terribly kind to this, it has lost much of what made it potent at the time - but it is still a story worth a watch.

_**Artsy teen melodrama in mid-60’s Oklahoma from the perspective of a 16 year-old**_
In the Tulsa area in 1965 the rivalry between the Greasers (poor kids) and the Socs (rich kids) heats up after a gang member is killed. The Greasers supposedly responsible flee the area (C. Thomas Howell and Ralph Macchio), but ironically end up being viewed as heroes. Matt Dillon costars while the notable peripheral cast includes the likes of Patrick Swayze, Rob Lowe, Emilio Estevez, Tom Cruise, Diane Lane and Leif Garrett.
“The Outsiders” (1983) was one of two films Francis Ford Coppola shot back-to-back based on S.E Hinton’s young-adult novels. This one was successful at the box office while the even more artsy “Rumble Fish” (1983) failed to draw an audience.
Hinton began writing “The Outsiders,” her most popular novel, in 1965 when she was 16, inspired by two rival gangs at her school, Will Rogers High School, which is about 2.5 miles west of downtown. I bring this up because the movie definitely comes across as an overdramatic tale from the perspective of a teenager. The most mundane, trivial events are presented as life-or-death happenings, like going to a drive-in theater or facing your nemeses at a park where one person idiotically brings a switchblade to a fistfight.
This explains why some people write the flick off as “the cheesiest and corniest movie ever.” In its defense, you have to acclimate to it in order to appreciate it. Go back to what was happening in your life when you were in your mid- teens and how a fistfight or breakup was an earthshattering event. The movie captures this very well.
The original theatrical film runs 1 hour, 31 minutes, while the 2005 Director’s Cut runs 23 minutes longer and includes new music. It was shot in the Tulsa area.
GRADE: B-/B

While I enjoyed this film, it was a bit of a disappointment compared to the others in this series. As noted by other reviews, the film is haunted by an incredibly poor script. On the other hand, the action is pretty good if you can tolerate the long, poorly scripted scenes in between.
The film tries too hard to surpise us with twists, some of which are predictable and others which are just flat. Some of the circumstances in the film are far-fetched. I don't mind suspending belief a bit, but this is neither a fantasy or a science fiction film, so there should be some reasonable level of reality. Several scenes are just ridiculously beyond reason and logic.
Claire Foy is an excellent actress and I like watching her. She did the best she could with this script. It's unfortunate that the directors chose to portray her as a bit haggard and completely without sex appeal. Certainly, the character of Lisbeth Salander is intended to be a nonconforming ruffian, but Claire Foys' depiction of her is considerably rougher than Rooney Mara's and far less sexually-charged than Noomi Rapace's. This is a shame as Claire Foy does have sex appeal; she either chose or was not encouraged to to use it here.
It's an acceptable addition to this series, but it's mediocre in comparison to it's predecessors.

Lackluster entry in the Millennium film series:
A solid performance by Claire Foy (First Man, Unsane) can't do much to elevate a weak script that, quite often, not only asks you to suspend your disbelief, but to abandon your disbelief altogether.
This film is based on the fourth of five books (to date) in the popular "Millennium" series of novels, which happens to be the first of the books written by author David Lagercrantz after the passing of original author Stieg Larsson. The first three books were adapted into a trilogy of films in their native Sweden (all of which were released in 2009), and the first book, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, was given an American adaptation helmed by David Fincher in 2011.
The story of the newest entry in the film series revolves around a top-secret program called Firefall, which would allow whoever wields it to take control of the world's nuclear weapons. The program was designed by Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant), who has a young autistic son. Balder, having come to realize that the program is too dangerous for any government to control, contacts super-hacker Lisbeth Salander (Foy), asking for her help to find and destroy the program. Unknown to them,however, a mysterious group known only as the Spiders are also after the program. Salander receives help along the way from good friend Mikael Blomkvist (Sverrir Gudnason), a journalist working for Millennium magazine (from which the book series gets its name). In the meantime, Lisbeth's attempt to acquire the Firefall program leads American National Security Agency security expert Edwin Needham (LaKeith Stanfield) to travel to Sweden in hopes of tracking her down.
Action abounds, and as the film progresses we learn the identity of the leader of the Spiders, a secret tied to Salander's murky past. Eventually all parties converge on a house in the mountains that is all-too-familiar to Salander, where the film's climax plays out.
The film appears to retcon certain details from the previous films (e.g. Blomkvist is younger than he should be), which can be off-putting to those familiar with those films.. Vicky Krieps, who audiences may remember from her fantastic performance in 2017's Phantom Thread, is wasted in a brief appearance as Millennium's publisher Erika Berger. While Salander has been established as a first-class hacker in previous films (as well as in the books on which they're based), here her hacking skills often reach levels of unbelievability. An example of this: in one scene Salander hacks into a car's systems while actively pursuing in another car.
In the end we are left with a film that could have been greater than it is, but which was hobbled by a poor script filled with overly convenient contrivances. The film's one saving grace is Foy, who does the most with what she is given.

No wonder Marilyn Monroe overdosed on sleeping pills, I was suicidal well before this movie finished!!
This movie is so depressing that it is hard to watch. I had to jump through numerous parts desperately looking for something even slightly uplifting. I failed.

'Blonde' is a strange one.
There is nothing about it that I'd scream from the rooftops about, yet the heavy run time of around 2hrs 47mins went by in an absolute flash - not once was I bored with what I was watching; I tend to check how long is left of a movie when I'm finding it dull, but with this I didn't check at all - as clear a sign as any that I obviously enjoyed it.
I'm not fully convinced why, admittedly. I think it's just really interesting to watch from start-to-finish, the acting is very good and the film is put together well. I wasn't sure about having Ana de Armas as Marilyn Monroe during the first few scenes, though I quickly lost those thoughts as she gives a great performance.
I get the criticisms (though how many biopics truly stick to reality?) but I predominantly judge films as films, and this is a very watchable one in my books. I'm not saying it's anything special, though for a near 3hr flick to fly by it evidently gave me what I require.

This is a movie that shows no other side of Marylin than her being miserable. While watching this movie, if you try to fact-check stuff, you realize that many parts of it are fictitious. Then as you continue watching the movie, you wonder what you're watching. This movie is neither a good representation of reality nor a good work of fiction...

In the middle of 2022, the movie I was looking forward to the most was '**Blonde**', but... I'm really disappointed.
The film has nowhere to hold on, it's just a fictional compilation of the supposed life of **Marilyn Monroe**, where we don't get context and it's easy to get lost through the scenes and the large number of characters (_which if you didn't know the story, you wouldn't really know who they are_) of a feature film of almost three hours. The direction is good, although quite experimental where sometimes elements that seem to come out of nowhere are combined. Not to mention the constant switching between color and black/white that doesn't seem to represent anything concrete.
**Ana de Armas's** performance is brilliant, by far the best of the film, despite how poor her character is.
I'm really disappointed, in these times we live in, designing a movie about **Marilyn Monroe** could have contained a much more powerful message. The story of a woman who went through the sexualization of the industry in the 50's. Instead the film only seems to add fuel to the fire by showing nudity at any time and sometimes for no reason.
Based on a story in parts fictitious, with a vision, in my opinion, poorly focused, they make 'Blonde' a great disappointment.

What a truly disappointing film this is. It offers us a really slow, sterile and disjointed - almost episodic - depiction of just how Marilyn Monroe's life might have panned out. For a start, I couldn't decide whether Ana de Armas was really Lady Gaga or Scarlett Johansson (both of whom would have acquitted themselves better, I'd say) as she offers an admittedly intense, but remarkably uninvolved performance. We move along from chapter to chapter in her life hindered by some fairly weak and uninspiring dialogue and seriously intrusive scoring in what becomes an increasingly shallow and lacklustre fashion. The photography does try hard - it does offer us a sense of intimacy, but the whole thing is presented in such a stylised and un-natural manner that it is frequently difficult to tell whether she is/was a "real" woman. Her marriages are treated in an almost scant manner - and her relationship with JFK is reduced to something rather implausibly one-sided and sordid showing nothing of how their relationship might have come to be. It has no soul, this film. Aside from her glamour - which was, even then, hardly unique we are not really introduced to any of the nuances of her character, we are left guessing a lot of the time as to just how she did become such a superstar, and how she spiralled so inevitably into a maelstrom of booze and pills. It relies to a considerable extent on the viewer's existing knowledge of, and affection for, this flawed lady. Adrien Brody and Bobby Cannavale don't really have much chance to add anything as her husbands and the highly speculative relationship between her and Charlie Chaplin Jnr (Xavier Samuel) and his sexually ambiguous partner-in-crime Edward G Robinson Jr (Scoot McNairy) does suggest something of the rather profligate and debauched existence that some lived in Hollywood, but again their characters are also largely undercooked and again, we are largely left to use our own imagination. It is far, far too long and in a packed cinema, I could see people looking at the ceiling just once too often. Watchable, certainly, but a real missed opportunity to offer us something scintillating and tantalising about this most of iconic of women.

Cuckoo, directed by Tilman Singer, is kind of a mixed bag. I didn’t really like it, but I didn’t completely hate it either.
The movie starts off with a slow, eerie pace in this isolated setting, and for a while, it felt like something big was coming. I was waiting for that moment where it would all click and be great, but it just didn’t happen. The story seemed lost, like it couldn't make up its mind, and it really dragged the whole experience down. It was frustrating because there’s good cinematography, and the production quality is there, but the plot? Just a mess.
Hunter Schafer, who plays "Gretchen," didn’t bring much to the role. I know they can act; they’re solid in Euphoria, but here, Gretchen felt cold and flat, with no real emotion or depth. It’s like the character was there, but there was nothing to connect to.
Overall, Cuckoo had some promising elements but just couldn’t bring it all together. It’s one of those movies that leaves you feeling a bit let down because you can see the potential — it just didn’t live up to it.

A new midgnight classic.

Dan Stevens had a chance in "I'm Your Man" (2021) to hone his German impersonation skills for this rather weak mystery. He owns a sprawling resort in the Bavarian countryside that's visited by the teenage "Gretchen" (Hunter Schafer) and her family. Her father "Luis" (Martin Csokas) is to design a new complex for "Herr König" who kindly offers the young woman a job in his hotel. It's when she cycles home after a very quiet shift one night that she is pursued by a mysterious woman with bright red eyes. Luckily, she can take refuge in the local hospital, but of course nobody believes her far-fetched tale. Meantime, her mute step-sister "Alma" (Mila Lieu) seems to be experiencing some serious inexplicable traumas and ends up in the same hospital. Might the incidents be connected; just what has their enigmatic host got to do with things and what's the agenda of the outwardly friendly ex-cop "Henry" (Jan Bluthardt)? Auteur Tilman Singer has a good go at creating something a little off-the-wall with this film, but sadly the really mediocre acting talent on display here let's the potential quirkiness of the plot down quite badly. There's far too much meaningless dialogue, dysfunctional familial drama and the pace, presumably designed to build a sense of menace, rather builds one of ennui and inevitability as the "cuckoo" theory is disappointingly undercooked and the denouement quite rushed. It's watchable enough, but I'm sure I'll never remember it,

Following on from the enjoyable "Hustler" (1961), Paul Newman's "Eddie" takes the cocky but green pool player "Vincent" (Tom Cruise") under his wing so he can teach him how to win and to win big. Initially hostile to the idea, "Vincent" realises his opportunity and pretty quickly the pair are on a tour of the country's pool halls trying to raise enough money to stake their entry in a tournament of champions. Newman is on great form here. His portrayal of the formerly invincible player is strong and nuanced. He knows he is not as good as he once was, but is he now vicariously living through his protégé, or might this younger man galvanise him to raise his game one last time? Cruise is also good as the arrogant and cock-sure youngster and there is some considerable on-screen chemistry between the two as the story follows a not entirely unpredictable path. Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio ("Carmen") and Helen Shaver ("Janelle") both contribute well as the girlfriends, the former trying to keep "Vincent" grounded, the latter trying to keep "Eddie" motivated, and as they travel we get a sense of a building reliance and animosity between the two that can only lead to fuses blowing. John Tarturro and Forest Whitaker both offer us timely contributions that demonstrate to both men their failings and opportunities along the way, too. The dialogue is strong, potent and sparing - Newman still uses his expressions well and the pace of the story builds really effectively. Two hours just fly by before an ending that I really thought a bit of a tease. What ever happened to the "Color of Money 2"?

Great movie very funny. Everything seems to go wrong for them everywhere they go.

5 stars ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
My personal favorite horror film of all time that has a favorite death scene of mine that compares to the one and only Wizard of Oz!!!

Feeling like a time warp now, but oh so much fun and frights.
Viewing this for the first time in 20 years really put a smile on my face, now I know that for after having just watched a horror film that may not be the best guideline you will ever read, but the film has it's tongue firmly in cheek and it doesn't come up short on the thrill factor.
You will read other reviews stating that the film is a little cheesy and a little dated, and sure, in this day and age of gorno and ultimate slash kill death murder movies, the film can be judged as tame alongside the big box office ghoul movies. But from a personal point of view I got such a kick out of watching a good honest genre piece that shows love, care, and entertainment rolled into one movie. Perhaps I'm the old fart who is so desensitised to blood horror these days? Perhaps I live in the past too much? So what? It matters not because as long as there are delightful genre pieces like this to remind me that the 80s horror crowd had some knowing style, then I'm a happy bunny.
Cute teens embroiled in Vampire next door plot is about the make up of the film. No one believes the central guy of the piece (William Ragsdale as Charley Brewster), but he convinces TV Vampire Slayer Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowell) to join his quest to rid the neighbourhood of the murdering menace living next door. The film has the love interest in peril (Amanda Bearse), it has the grossly annoying best friend (Stephen Geoffreys) - and boy is he annoying! And it has all the homages to the horror classics gone by you could wish to have.
Such guts and gusto went into making this film I felt like clapping at the end. It's aware of the horror competition when you catch some of the dialogue, so it should never be allowed to become a perceived cheesy relic, because this is 1985 and it rocks for those that remember when horror had a glint in its eye instead of a sabre through its head. 8/10

"I've always relied on the kindness of strangers." - Blanche Du Bois
Blanche Dubois has had some problems back home. She rides into New Orleans on a streetcar to stay with her sister Stella and her brutish husband Stanley. It's an immediate clash of cultures as Blanche and Stanley butt heads.
Though their ideology is different there is also an undeniable sexual tension around them as well. That tension continues to build to tragic effects.
To call this film one of the all time greats almost seems like an understatement. Based on the Pulitzer Prize winning play by Tennessee Williams, it ushered in a more mature dramatics that film needed. It also was important as a new kind of acting style. Marlon Brando had made the film "The Men" the previous year, but it was this movie that projected him to the forefront of his generation of actors. Vivian Leigh matches him as Blanche. She is strong, but incredibly fragile. Leigh, Karl Malden, and Kim Hunter all won acting Oscars.
Ironically the most magnetic performance of Brando was only nominated. This is probably in my Top Ten films of all time._italic text_

_**Interesting themes, but an overrated melodrama**_
Released in late 1951 and directed by Elia Kazan based on Tennessee Williams play, "A Streetcar Named Desire" stars Vivien Leigh as the neurotic Blanche DuBois, who moves in with her sister (Kim Hunter) in the French Quarter of New Orleans where she is antagonized by her brutish brother-in-law, Stanley (Marlon Brando). As she seeks a relationship with one of Stanley's friends (Karl Malden) her reality crumbles around her.
The story is thematically rich and I enjoy evaluating and interpreting it. For instance, Blanche represents the dying Southern aristocracy, its airs of sophistication, its morality and delusions of superiority, whereas Stanley Kowalski represents the simple primal world of working class immigrants and the moral decay of modern society or, at least, its veneer of morality (which is the root of legalism). But the way the conflict between Blanche and Stanley plays out shows that Williams doesn't advocate either side, which leaves the audience uncertain on who to support. While Blanche's initial arrogance shouldn't be condoned and deserved rebuked, I squarely side with Blanche as Stanley's ongoing (and increasing) assaults become less and less justifiable.
What Blanche did or didn't do with the Dubois estate is a legitimate issue of contention and the truth needed to be pursued, aggressively if necessary; but most of the other issues Stanley has with Blanche are basically none of his business. After all, everyone has shameful skeletons in their closets, even Stanley, but he's too oafish to likely ever admit it. One critic erroneously criticized Blanche for being a "pedophile," but he obviously doesn't know the definition of the word. Pedophilia refers to a persistent sexual fascination with pre-pubescent kids. The worst Blanche can be accused of is ephebophilia, which is an attraction to those in their later teens, 17 and up. This condition is balanced out by her serious romantic interest in Mitch (Malden).
People rave about Brando's acting in "Streetcar," but there are far better examples of his genius, such as "The Young Lions" (1958), "One-Eyed Jacks" (1961), "Mutiny on the Bounty" (1962), "The Missouri Breaks" (1976) and "Apocalypse Now" (1979), to name a handful. Marlon's portrayal of Kowalski is undermined by the needlessly antagonistic nature of the character. In other words, the performance might be excellent, but the character is so distasteful it's hard to appreciate it.
This is one of the main eye-rolling problems with the story and the movie: The characters are too one-dimensional and unbelievable. Blanche is the drama mama with airs of sophistication, Stanley is the animalistic brute, Stella is the blindly loyal wife and Mitch is the infatuated dumbaxx. Leigh's depiction of Blanche is so over-the-top and artificial it would've received a Razzie if the film were released a mere decade later. And I'm not blaming Vivien; she did the best she could with the melodramatic script.
Even worse, you have ridiculous elements, like the idea that Mitch was never able to see Blanche in the full light of day, so to speak, even though he took her on a date to the pier. The whole "dimming the lights" component is absurd and poorly executed, especially in light of Vivien's obvious beauty, whatever her age. In reality, Mitch would (and should) be worshipping at her feet for eternity, regardless of any skeletons of her past.
Then there's the preposterous explanation of the suicide of an off-screen character. In the play the reason was that he was caught in a homosexual affair, which is interesting and works (particularly considering the time period), but they changed this for the movie due to the moral codes and they failed to pull it off, to be nice.
BOTTOM LINE: The movie is thematically rich and has a great cast, but the execution is seriously problematic. The story's not compelling, the characters are aggravatingly one-dimensional and there are too many eye-rolling elements. If you want to see a good Tennessee Williams movie check out 1964's "The Night of the Iguana" or even 1960's "The Fugitive Kind" (the latter has its problems, but it's better than this). The ongoing praise of "A Streetcar Named Desire" is a good example of the emperor having no clothes.
The movie runs 122 minutes (125 minutes re-release) and was shot at Warner Brothers Burbank Studios in California, with the bowling scene done in Los Angeles and the opening railway station filmed in New Orleans.
GRADE: C-

Daniel Craig is good in the lead, while the premise is an intriguing one. However, it doesn't quite come together cohesively enough to be enjoyed on a major level.
I didn't dislike 'Dream House', I found it alright to be honest. Craig (Will), as alluded to, is enjoyable in the main role, with Rachel Weisz (Libby) and Naomi Watts (Ann) being solid supports. The casting is probably the best thing about this film. It's the execution of the plot that holds it back.
What's produced is watchable, but doesn't - at least for me - connect on any hearty level. The final act is a little clunky and messy, despite a nice reveal earlier on in the 84 minutes . It's definitely an interesting concept, but it's mostly a wasted one by the end. Reportedly, along with director John Sheridan, Craig and Weisz disagreed with the producer's final cut - no blame to them, if so.
Craig, the idea and the run time stops this leaving a negative memory. I likely won't revisit it, but it's an OK - if underwhelming - production.

Good viewing.
'Sting' gave me what I desired, albeit without properly enthralling me at any point. It's a well done horror flick, I do prefer these sorta ones where it is more the characters getting unsettled rather than the audience with cheap jump scares etc. The run time of around 90 minutes is astutely chosen, also.
The cast are positives. Alyla Browne produces a sturdy showing, while Ryan Corr is good too. The likes of Penelope Mitchell and Jermaine Fowler support nicely. Robyn Nevin's Gunter character was the only I didn't really rate. Away from them, the effects for the spider are effective, I like how it changes throughout.
There perhaps could've been some more fun had with the kills, though what is there sufficed for me to be honest.

Nope, it's not very original - but it does have "Granny Helga" (Noni Hazlehurst)! It's the worst snow storm in ages and she summons poor old bug-hunter "Frank" (Jermaine Fowler) to investigate some noises coming from within her apartment walls. He turns up, despite the sub-zero temperatures, and pretty soon appears to be part of the problem! What's going on? Well we skip back a few days and discover that a meteor storm has deposited a small spider into the care of "Charlotte" (Alyla Browne). She shoves it in a jar and rather ruthlessly feeds it live insects - that's her first mistake. It gets a taste for things, it's also quite adept at unscrewing the jar lid from the inside, too. The more it eats, the more it grows, the more it grows, the bigger the snack it needs! Nobody is safe as her family - mum (Penelope Mitchell), new husband "Ethan" (Ryan Corr) and baby "Liam" might soon be on the lunch menu too! Meantime, the entertainingly amnesiac grandparent sails through the whole thing completely oblivious. Or is she, really? Nothing about the acting nor the writing stand out here and the usual dysfunctional familial dynamic does nothing for the story either. As to the visual effects, the budget - or the imagination - clearly wasn't there to make much of these and our critter barely features as we develop and pad out the thinnest of stories. It's perfectly watchable but it will be fine to wait to watch on television.

Sting is a decent little by the numbers horror.
A dark take on the novel Charlotte's Web, Sting offers up a skin crawlingly, creepy horror experience. Its struggling middle class, suburban setting, with the usual issues you might find in any home, is starkly contrasted with an alien, other worldly, eight legged horror.
This film is simple but well done. It sensibly starts off, quite literally, small and then grows, gradually amplifying the extent and scope of of the scares, which are predominantly of the jump in your seat, variety. Probably not one, I would think, for those of us, with a weak ticker.
In summary, neat little horror film, with subject matter most people would find creepily unsettling. Worth a look.

**A tale of imbalance between love and grief.**
The film was based on the Australian novel of the same name. It was a recent book, but a period drama about a World War I veteran who just returned home. So I feel this film was made too soon. Because it seems so classic, only if we had given some time to pick up its popularity. I mean the literature version which at least needed a decade of freedom before heading to the big screen. You know, this same kind of tales from the past is what now we consider epic, which looks even better in the cinema. Anyway, this film was good, but the future adaptations will be much more effective for its viewers.
From the director of 'The Place Beyond the Pines' who also wrote for the screen. The title gives a brief insight of what kind of a tale it is. But the film was even deeper and darker with emotionally strong. The island where it takes place reminded me 'Song of the Sea', though it is not a fantasy film. If you love views, nature, particularly seaside, this film will suit you.
Besides, the story was much stronger, so the backgrounds will fade away when all your focus fall on its narration. For me the location was the first in the film, the hundred year old setting, away from normal society was the most impressive. It helped to narrate this wonderful drama which contained the message of moral imbalance.
Tom Sherbourne, a World War I hero who relieved from the duty returns home and becomes a lighthouse keeper in an isolated island on the west coast of Australia. He marries a woman whom he has instantly fallen in love. Now they are living far from the human world. A couple of tragedy strikes in their life following one another.
Before coming out of that trauma, they find a baby on a lifeboat that washed up on their island and decides to adopt her. But after some times when they return to the mainland, they come to realise what they're doing is not legally nor morally correct. From onwards how it affects their each others trust, how far it all goes and how the story ends was told in the remaining parts.
> ❝You only have to forgive once. To resent, you have to do it all day, every day.❞
Despite the book was modern, the storytelling was so vintage. I'm talking about the way the plot and characters developed, including how it concludes. For the present generation, if you are familiar with a few similar works from the past, then you would predict this film. I mean not the entire film, but some scenes are at its initial stage can be foreseen. Because sometimes, some developments are called coincidence, but when you have plenty of them, that is called very intentional. That was the only negative of this film. By avoiding them the tale would not be possible. In other way, it could have had stretched even further which are unnecessary details.
I did not care the clichés. For me it was a fine drama. The performances were magnificent. It looked to me an Oscar worthy, from both Michael Fassbender and Alicia Vikander. Even Rachel Weisz was for the supporting role. So tick marks for cast and locations, also the screenplay and score. But the sad part is the film was not received very well, especially by the jackass film critics.
It's not the same case with regular movie goers, particular I think the older and matured people would like it better. But it's not another 'Pride and Prejudice' from the family audience perspective. The events of the film and the outcome can be wrongly judged. Most importantly, it sets in the same world as ours, so everything is the near fact based. So the right and wrongs are inside the film, but not applicable for the filmmaking which I think a well done job.
The post climax scene, the one that comes before the end credit was very good. For this kind of tale, that kind of outro sets a final tone. Despite not an inspiring storyline, all the portrayal in the film was so poetic. Mainly because of slow narration with high influence of sentiments and most of the occasions being dialogueless. The length was not an issue if you like period dramas. Anyway, it was engaging theme, there's always something keeps happening. So I think this is one of the under-rated films of the year. It deserves much better recognition. If you haven't watched it yet, I recommend it and highly if you are 30+.
_8/10_

**Seeking a second chance for the normal life.**
Whenever I review a Stop-motion animated film, I always start with by saying it is a dying art form that needs a bigger lift from us. It gave a new life for filmmaking when there were no technology like computers hundred years ago for the creation of giant creatures to all the fantasy and magical world. I am glad that every year someone coming forward to show the world how beautiful these are.
I think there's a quota for it and 2D animation for the Oscars. Otherwise, these formats would die sooner than we expected, so that recognition in the big stage. Every year at least one film from these two categories makes out. This year it was a double jackpot for Stop-motion animation. Including this, 'Kubo and the Two Strings' was the other one to shine in the world's biggest film awards ceremony. But winning the trophy is almost impossible in this 3D animated film world. Anyway, I'm happy for this, that I enjoyed watching it.
It was a short film, that ran for just one hour. First, we have to understand filmmaking in this form is a most challenging one than any other. It is a manual work. I mean people get in there and frame by frame do all the work. So for this one hour film, they had done the great hard work and it paid off well by got nominated for the Oscars. It was also Switzerland's official submission for the Best Foreign Language Film, but failed to make progress in that race.
The screenplay was based on the book. A simple story with a strong message. This is the tale of a boy with full of dreams and after his alcoholic mother died, he is taken to the orphanage. That is the last place he wanted to be where he meets a mean boy and soon becomes his close friend. Being young kids, they tend to play some pranks with officials, visitors and themselves. That's one of the ways to cope with for where they have ended. So the remaining is to tell us would they get a second chance in their lives.
> ❝I don't know why I'm crying. Sometimes people cry because they're happy.❞
When some take up a project like this, they are not offered to make mistakes in choosing a weak screenplay. Because there are thousands of films in production around the world and in those, a handful of animated films, but probably he's only one up for a Stop-motion animated feature. Which means everyone with the knowledge of his commitment will be looking forward to it. So the filmmakers have opted to adapt a novel, which is always a best option in filmmaking.
The next is the characters. Making them come alive, particularly initial stage, the creation of models. Yep, they have done that job as well so well. Gooding looking ones, especially among the kids for having similarity with their vision. The frame rate was good. Very smoother for viewing. So technically it was a flawless for the normal watch. An impressive storyline, which might serve as a tearjerker for a few.
There's a little romance, but from the children's perspective of having a crush. Since the girl character was introduced, the narration takes a fresh look. The following event becomes even more adventurous and fun filled till the end. The voice-over was excellent. From the dialogues to the film scenes very impressive. It marks the directional debut for a short filmmaker. An appreciable work and I hope he makes more like them with new technics than migrating to computer animations.
One of the advantages is it is a short and sweet film, but those who love such films might feel it is too short. Most importantly, there're not clichés like what we've seen films that takes place in the orphanages. The opening was shocking. If it was a real life, the boy would have ended in a different place. Still the emotional parts were less explored, yet very convincing for not leaning too much on that facet.
The film is one of the best in its kind, but I agree it's not a masterpiece. Not if you have seen plenty of Stop-motion animations in your life. Yet it can't be neglected that easily and surely it is for everyone. I know there are folks who thinks this format of films are for little ones, but the truth is they are still in the pre 90s mindset. This is good, give it a try and you might love it. Anyway, for its rareness itself highly recommended, then you decided how do you liked it or not.
_7/10_

Like I said in 'Song of the Sea' review, its a 3D animation dominated world. That's mainly in Hollywood, but trend spreading so fast everywhere. Even the Japan shifting gear from anime to 3D anime, I saw it in 'Space Pirate: Captain Harlock'. From a comic book to 2D animation is easy because they are much alike, but it's different when it comes to the 3D. I have seen Micky Mouse and Co transformed into 3D characters that I did not like, because some characters do not suit for that kind of leap. In Micky Mouse, the ears were the biggest drawback. But 'Tintin' was a success and so expecting 'Popeye' would do the same magic which is due next year (2016).
I have seen all the 'Asterix & Obelix' movies so far from both the format, live-shot and animation, but this is the first 3D animation. I'm so happy that it came overall very well, every detail was retained. Even those mud-smoke/dirt-smoke (whatever it's called) shown exactly as it to be which forms during their fight after the consumption of magic potion. That concept is for comic book, to make understand the readers the situation because the picture is still. But in a motion picture you can show the whole action, if they make that change the trademark will lose. So I must praise the technical side of the movie for the lossless transformation.
It's like a new beginning in the series in the 'Asterix & Obelix' franchise. Especially this story was not freshly written for the screen, but taken straight from one of the comic books in the series called 'The Mansions of the Gods'. In 3D animation, emotions, violence, comedies would be a little realistic. That's why the movie like 'Brave', 'Frozen', 'Up' appealed strongly on the sentimental side. Gaul's favourite food, the wild boar hunting was compromised, because children would be watching the movie and it might disturb on the softer side of them. Just like the filmmakers avoided the Giant's children and women in 'Jack the Giant Slayer'.
One of the best things in 'Asterix & Obelix' movies is that the movie might not be awesome, but still it entertains and keeps you engaged. You can't spot the flaws, in animation all are relevant. A man can jump 1000 feet high and leap a mile away. So if there should be something, that must come from the technical side. Since it (Gauls in 3D) is new and so much fun, you can't concentrate finding those faults or you will miss the actual enjoyment.
> ‘‘It's weird that the house looks like a box.’’
As usual the story set in the first BC. The Gaul's enemy the Romans comes with a new strategy to defeat them. They begin to build the large mansions near to their village and later to invade by seducing the community by the Roman culture. So the fight begins between them where the innocent civilians and black slaves get affect more. But Gaul's main intention is to keep the ecosystem unaffected, especially they're against the Romans modern fancy civilization. What happens to the Julius Caeser's 'Veni, Vidi, Vici' is the movie's final battle to disclose.
Probably a best 'Asterix & Obelix' movie compared to the previous couple of movies. Good to see a non-Hollywood 3D animated movie with a great quality and doing well commercially as well. A whole family together watchable movie, not only for the children. Hoping for the a sequel, I mean very soon. All the above it was short and sweet which runs about 80 minutes. If you are a fan of this comic, you will love it, because lots of the frames look alike. Must be dedicated to the fans.
7/10

I was initially apprehensive about watching The Mouse Trap, given the recent trend of rushed public domain movies that have often been boring and unimaginative. However, when Mickey Mouse became public domain in the form of Steamboat Willie and this film was announced, I was curious to see just how exploitative it might be.
The Mouse Trap is undeniably a low-budget slasher film, and it wears that label proudly. The film leans heavily on the Mickey Mouse character and Disney-related puns, almost to the point of overkill. The film’s one-dimensional storyline doesn’t do much to add depth or coherence, leaving viewers with more questions than answers as to the motivation behind the carnage.
The overuse of Disney references, while initially amusing, quickly becomes tiresome. The film seems to rely on the novelty of incorporating a beloved public domain character into a slasher context, but this novelty wears off as the movie progresses. For instance, the antagonist’s costume—a grotesque parody of the classic Steamboat Willie design—loses its impact after the first few appearances, becoming more of a distraction than a source of genuine horror.
That said, there’s an undeniable sense that the cast and crew had a great time making this movie, and that enthusiasm does shine through in the performances and the film's visual style. The actors, despite the flimsy script, seem to be fully committed to their roles, bringing a sense of fun and energy to the production.
The visual style of the film, while not groundbreaking, is creative within the constraints of its budget. The filmmakers clearly took inspiration from classic horror tropes and combined them with a playful, almost satirical approach.
Overall, The Mouse Trap may not be a masterpiece by any stretch, but it has its moments of entertainment. While the film’s reliance on Disney puns and the overuse of the Mickey Mouse character can be grating, the clear enjoyment of the cast and crew adds a certain appeal. It’s a film that’s fun for one watch, especially for those curious about how far a public domain slasher can push the boundaries, but it likely won’t hold up to repeated viewings. If you’re in the mood for a campy, low-budget horror flick with a unique twist, The Mouse Trap might be worth a look—just don’t expect too much beyond the novelty.

worst movie I ever seen in my life. this movie is so anti family, it makes you never trust a women again, women are beautiful creatures but they are shown as a cheater in this movie.