Well, the problem with having a part one is that you just know that nothing much is going to happen as we build up to the next film's denouement. "Katniss" (Jennifer Lawrence) finds herself on a ship with "Finnick" (Sam Claflin) where she discovers that the erstwhile baddie "Plutarch" (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is really on their side as she is whisked to the long-thought destroyed District 13 where she meets "President Coin" (Julianne Moore), who leads a semi-militaristic society bent on deposing the Capitol. Unfortunately, not everyone managed to escape from the collapsing dome and poor old "Peeta" is being used, shamelessly, by the authorities to try and paint "Katniss" as the epitome of revolution and evil and so the scene is set: rescue him and mass their forces for an attack that will eliminate the totalitarian regime once and for all. Aside from one of two combat scenes, very little actually happens here. There is a great deal of dialogue, plenty of moralising and if I'm honest, "Coin" doesn't come across as any more trustworthy than the man she hopes to succeed. There simply isn't enough by way of plot to sustain this for two hours and the acting still, largely, refuses to engage me. Liam Hemsworth ("Gale") features a little more, but the confused does she/doesn't she romance stuff is exasperating as this supposedly emotionally and sexually charged environment delivers nothing by way of passion - indeed the pace of the whole thing borders on the racial. Sure, it looks great but I feel that the writing is very much on the wall for part two - my expectations are pretty low.

Yet more of the same extended in an inexcusable way. Let's hope the last movie of the saga can get a proper end.

It was good. Although I wish it had more action scenes. It's worth watching ago don't miss out!

Emotionally powerful and historically very important. This film deals with possibly the hardest topic in human history, and it does it with class, purpose and excellent filmmaking. Liam Neeson is brilliant as Schindler; Fiennes is utterly horrifying as the terrible Goth and all the other character actors hit the mark brilliantly. The decision to make it black and white makes Schindler's List stand-out and feel distinct, it is a piece of genius. In the end this film is about the utter depravity that humanity is capable of, and the utterly brilliant heroism humanity is capable of, WW2 and the Holocaust in real life brought out the worst in us as a species and it bought out the best of us, this film captures that, but it also captures the complexities of the people at the heart of the most dramatic events in world history, no other film does this as well. Top quality and a very good start point for people who are unfimilar with the nitty-gritty of the Nazi regime.

There's a powerful little low-budget effort with Ralph Richardson called "The Silver Fleet" (1943) that illustrates just how difficult it was for those in the occupied territories to continue to do what was right without looking like a collaborator and/or ending up against a wall of Nazi bullets. Well here, Steven Spielberg takes that dangerous occupation and scales it up somewhat as the eponymous Czech industrialist and arms manufacturer (Liam Neeson) finds his increasing revulsion to the brutality of their new occupying power driving him, with the able assistance of his Jewish factory manager "Stern" (Ben Kingsley), to find ways to keep them from being routinely slaughtered. Getting them out is not really an option, so he invents ways of convincing the authorities that they are more useful alive and decently fed/housed - even suggesting the usefulness of children's small fingers to polish shell casings - to avoid them being deported to the now fully functioning Auchwitz extermination camp. The story is history but the manner in which it is delivered here is poignant and potent. Schindler's gradual shift from a venally induced indifference to one of active concern is well handled by Neeson's considered performance and Kingsley works well as his low-level but crucial co-conspirator. Plaudits must also go to Ralph Fiennes with, I think, the best portrayal of his career as the odious Commandant Goeth who combines just about every element of the worst in human nature into one ghastly individual eliciting a palpable degree of loathing. Does it need to be 3¼ hours long? Well I'm not so sure about that, and there are times when the repetitive oppressiveness of their gruelling environment risks de-sensitising the message a little, but for the most part the abusive and terrifying lives led by the Jewish prisoners and the increasingly perilous path being taken by those trying to help is well held together with some stunning cinematography and an untypical John Williams score. It's definitely a big screen occasion - somehow television reduces it's impact, so if you can see it in a cinema. Either way, it does offer some salutary lessons in man's inhumanity, and humanity to our fellow man!

Directed by Steven Spielberg, the name is enough. He enjoys immense love and justified appreciation. It’s not just a rumour, but his name transcends to million footfalls to theatres and multiple OTT replays. But this movie is special because as a Jew Spielberg felt the pain of Holocaust and thus this was personal. Spielberg’s paternal grandparents were Jews from Ukraine. I really hope things cool down very soon in Ukraine and somebody someday make a film on the crisis in Ukraine.
After watching “The Kashmir Files” I felt like watching the list because I wanted to see how we can make better movies without the propaganda. The Kashmir Files is necessary minus the very few political flaws and propaganda it subtly injects into its viewers. Asking the questions is not anti-national and not all JNU people come with an agenda. Kashmir Files tells many truths and ought to be told but also hides a lot of the actual/factual truths. Just like a dictator it blatantly shows only the side they want to without any iota of balance.
But Schindler’s List is different because it never lets the bleakness of the Holocaust overwhelm its important theme of fighting for the common good. The director says, “My primary purpose in making Schindler’s List was for education. The Holocaust had been treated as just a footnote in so many textbooks or not mentioned at all. Millions knew little if anything about it. Others tried to deny it happened at all.”
Keneally’s best-known work, Schindler’s Ark was published in 1982; also known as Schindler’s List and film released in 1993, tells the true story of Oskar Schindler, a German industrialist who saved more than 1,300 Jews from the Nazis. . Liam Neeson plays very well Schindler however shows his true side that he was a playboy and so on. He was not a saint. He cheated on his wife, drank excessively and spied for Abwehr, the counter-espionage arm of the Wehrmacht (German army), in Czechoslovakia.
But the true characteristics of human beings cannot be spliced even in the most fascist regimes. Sometimes character flaws bring in real joy, excitement and belief. Steven Spielberg’s movie, Schindler’s List, while important, impressive and admirable in many respects, tries to show the true face of propaganda and mass bullshit and how an entire nation can be mass brainwashed to fuel hatred amoung it’s people and bring a great nation down. Something India and Indians need to really ponder upon.
After Germany invaded Poland in 1939, Oskar Schindler sets up an enamelware factory in Krakow that used a combination of Jewish workers interred by the Germans and free Polish workers. His initial interest, of course, was to make money. But as time went on, he grew to care about his Jewish workers, particularly those with whom he came into contact on a daily basis. In addition, helping Jews became a way to fight against what he viewed as disastrous and brutal policies emanating from Adolf Hitler and the SS. Oskar Schindler convinced German authorities his factory was vital and that he needed trained workers. But Schindler did not author or dictate the list instead, Marcel Goldberg, a Jewish “clerk” compiled it. There is a line in the movie which goes like, “That’s not just good old fashioned Jew hate talk. Its policy now” and it hits hard and makes us aware that nothing has changed in present too. Itzhak Stern, played in the movie by Ben Kingsley was one of the most powerful character more of culmination of lot of people at that time. Oskar Schindler was a great man publicly and a not so great man privately but he saved the lives of more than 1,000 Jews during the Holocaust and that’s why a movie has been made on him. The imperfections in his character and the nuances in the historical record only make his story more remarkable.
The movie’s budget was just $22 million. No one had ever made a profitable film about the Holocaust. Spielberg himself didn’t take a salary, calling it “blood money.” Something Vivek Agnihotri and makers of “The Kashmir Files” should ponder upon. As I write this Kashmir Files has already touched 250 Cr. Such sensitive films should come with not just spontanity but also empathy which is found in Spielberg and lacks in Agnihotri’s.
This movie reminded me of another Spielberg movies which moved and caved in Bridge of Spies. Bridge was about the fine art of negotiation and the List is about the fine art of “Gratitude” you will hear this word a lot in the Schindler’s List. I felt both the movies very similar and fantastic.
The use of black and white cinematography also makes me think of “KOTA FACTORY” both shot in black and white to resemble the dark and hollowness of the subject material. Art does make you uncomfortable and that’s it’s Dharma and Karma but propoganda does give you only the bigoted narration with giving the example that his master is always a good guy.
In one scene, Schindler implores Goeth to spray water into the cars on a hot day to help the dehydrated Jews inside. Goeth tells him that to do so would give false hope—a clear implication that the trains deliver Jews to their deaths.The lists become increasingly ominous during sorting exercises to determine who is fit to work or who is “essential” and who is not. Those deemed “unessential” are placed on the list to be evacuated to extermination camps. Stern’s name appears on a list sending him to Auschwitz. When Schindler saves him, an SS officer mentions that it doesn’t matter which Jew gets on the train, and that keeping track of names just means more paperwork. This disregard for names and particularity symbolizes the extent to which the Nazis dehumanized Jews. Schindler’s list is one that saves lives. The Nazis’ lists represent evil and death, but Schindler’s list represents pure good and life. In an ironic twist, the final list in the film is a list that Schindler’s workers give to him—a list of their signatures vouching for Schindler as a good man, to help him if Allied soldiers catch him. The saved in turn become saviors.
The one-armed man who thanks Schindler for employing him and making him “essential” is shot in the head by an SS officer as he shovels snow the next day. Blood flows from his head, staining the surrounding snow. In a later scene, Goeth orders the execution of a Jewish woman engineer who tells Goeth of a fatal construction error. Her blood, too, pours from her head and darkens the snow around her. The blood pouring from the victims’ heads is both literally and metaphorically the lifeblood being bled out of the Jewish race. In yet another scene, Goeth attempts to execute a rabbi working at the Plaszów labor camp. The rabbi stays kneeling as Goeth again and again attempts to shoot him in the head. But the gun jams, and the rabbi is spared, symbolizing the tenuous protection the Schindlerjuden had and the fine line between life and death.
The film talks about the corruption of not just money but hearts and minds too. It shows us privileges and different aspects of life while keeping humanity before profits and ideologies. Intricacies of personal and professional lives are intertwined here for the good sake.
The film ends with – “WHOEVER SAVES ONE LIFE, SAVES THE WORLD ENTIRE.”
The actual Oskar Schindler died in 1974 and was buried in Jerusalem on Mount Zion. He is the only former member of the Nazi Party to be honored in this way. He and his wife Emilie were named Righteous Among the Nations by the Israeli government in 1993, something that would be hard to believe could happen without the film highlighting his life.
As we all know, Spielberg and the film went on to win several Academy Awards for Schindler’s List, including Best Picture and Best Director. The film also won for Best Screenplay, Best Cinematography, and Best Editing. Spielberg would win another Best Director Oscar for Saving Private Ryan five years later, but for him what happened with Schindler would be his crowning achievement.
Schindler’s List is a rare movie whose legacy is just as important as its existence.
Perhaps the lasting legacy of the film, aside from tolerance, is the image of the girl in red. During the liquidation of the ghetto scene, we see a little girl wandering. She serves as the person Schindler and the audience fixate on. The weight of the atrocity that we carry as viewers.When prompted to talk about one of the only color moments in the film, the girl in red, Spielberg told USA Today, “In (Thomas Keneally’s) book, Schindler couldn’t get over the fact that a little girl was walking during the liquidation of the Krakow ghetto. While everyone was being put on trucks or shot in the street, one little girl in a red, red coat was being ignored by the SS.”
For Spielberg, that came to symbolize the blind eye world leaders turned to the murders going on in Europe. “To me, that meant that Roosevelt and Eisenhower—and probably Stalin and Churchill—knew about the Holocaust… and did nothing to stop it. It was almost as though the Holocaust itself was wearing red.” Same repeats in Ukraine too.
Spielberg helped develop and found The Shoah Foundation. It furthered the education and established “The Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation” to document the testimonies of thousands of survivors. For Spielberg, he wanted future generations to have these eyewitness accounts to serve as a permanent record. He hoped that there would never be a time we saw Nazism and fascism on the rise again. The project has collected the testimony of more than 55,000 survivors and witnesses to the Holocaust as well as other atrocities. “It wouldn’t have happened without Schindler’s List,” he said. “The Shoah Foundation wouldn’t exist.” Something the Hypocritic Vivek Agnihotri should think about. I still stand by that “The Kashmir files” should be shown to everyone without propoganda and only one agenda that this atrocities and “Genocide” should not be repeated on any one anywhere.
The film is available on Netflix. Go, watch, think.
https://letterboxd.com/mayurpanchamia/film/schindlers-list/
https://mayurpanchamia.wordpress.com/2022/03/27/schindlers-list/
https://www.themoviedb.org/review/62405d62706e56005dc24c03

I usually think that a good spell of time between an original and a sequel is a good thing. It gives everyone space to refresh the ideas and develop the characterisations. That's pretty much what Gore Verbinsky has done with this superior follow-up to the 2003 story. This time, we don't really need to spend much time on the who's who bits, so can head straight to the action which for the next 2½ hours follows "Jack Sparrow" (Johnny Depp) double-dealing as only he can trying to stay one step ahead of the vengeful "Davy Jones" (Bill Nighy) with whom he made a deal that means it's now his turn to enter hell. Meantime, "Will" (Orlando Bloom) and "Elizabeth" (Keira Knightley) are having problems of their own, and when he has to try to kidnap "Jack" with his compass for the dastardly "Lord Beckett" (Tom Hollander) in return for her safety he, en route, becomes reunited with his rather curmudgeonly (and barnacled) father (Stellan Skarsgård). It seems that both "Will" and "Jack" cannot both get what they need - but can they find a solution? It's end-to-end stuff this, with loads of mythical creatures from the depths, a tiny bit of romance and a Johnny Depp very much at the top of his game. The story is solid and entertaining, as is much of the quickly paced dialogue and David Schofield turns in a good effort as the malevolent "Mercer". I could have done with Geoffrey Rush but otherwise this is a fun fantasy adventure with some cracking visual effects and Hans Zimmer's music adds richness to the jollity too. A big screen must, really. It's just not so good on the telly.

Part 2 introduces Davy Jones. Jack Sparrow has owed Davy a debt. Now Davy intends to make Jack make good on that debt. One way or another. Really awesome sequel.

As ever with Christopher Nolan films the chronology needs close attention - as so many of the clues as to what the hell is actually going on require a considerable degree of concentration (and multiple viewings) before any semblance of quality emanates from the outwardly cluttered and, frankly, preposterous plot. We start with Christian Bale ("Borden") about to swing for the murder of Hugh Jackman ("Angier") but of course it is not that simple; and through a series of complex flashbacks we discover just how these two, erstwhile friends and colleagues, got themselves into this predicament. This is a story about ambition, obsession - to succeed and to hate; it has elements of love - both men have relationships, one the cause of their estrangement; the other (with Scarlett Johansson) continues to fuel it. The whole nature of their profession - illusionists; conjurers of/to the imagination - lends itself splendidly to the subject of this vendetta. The look of the film is first class, with Wally Pfister creating a gem of vivid imagery with some wonderful visual effects too. The performances are OK - they are not great; the dialogue is likewise. For a film essentially about seeing being believing (or not) the script is frequently too wordy and overpowers the subtle opportunities for the actors to demonstrate rather than speak their parts. Sir Michael Caine probably brings the most authentic accent to the proceedings - the others left me needing quite a bit of convincing; and the brief appearances of David Bowie as Tesla were a poor choice of casting, I felt. This is a good film, and I enjoyed it - but I did need to watch it 4 times before I felt half way comfortable writing anything down about it!

'The Prestige' is tremendous!
An expertly made movie about magic, one that lasts just over two hours but it is most definitely 120mins+ well spent. I was sold by the whole vibe of it from the very beginning, sometimes you can just tell you're going to absolutely enjoy something from the opening minutes and this, for me, was one of those films.
The casting is terrific, many well known faces appear. Hugh Jackman, Michael Caine (how about that speech), Christian Bale and Scarlett Johansson are all brilliant, the latter two do hold minimally iffy accents though; or maybe it was just me. There are a few other strong performers too, like Andy Serkis and David Bowie! No-one onscreen puts a foot wrong.
Christopher Nolan is again back to his twisty best with this one. It's admittedly nothing as super deep as, say, 'Inception' and I did read where this one was going in certain aspects, though certainly not every angle - either way, it's just as thrilling to watch no matter how much or how little you pick up. Big fan of the way the film depicts its events throughout.
Just now seeing how highly this is regarded, on Letterboxd at least. I know I do try to avoid as much as I can with movies, but based on the aforementioned I'm kinda shocked I hadn't heard anything about this growing up or even in recent years. Most of Nolan's other works I at least recall hearing through the grapevine, yet this one evidently somehow slipped through the net. Probably a good thing, mind you.

Nolan should make more period dramas.

There is great entertainment in seeing the two fellow-rivals battling each other, but it is only after the final twist that the viewer realises the entire film is a magic trick, a prestige, itself.
10/10

Perplexed by the storyline at the beginning, deeply attracted to the narratives of the intense rivalry between two actors in the main body of the show, and finally shocked by the revealed truth, or *The Prestige* in the end. This is one of the most mind-blowing mysteries that I've watched in recent years.
One of the best part, I think, is how the characters of two young magicians are depicted -- through small but noticeable details like the facial expressions, one or two words, the novels et cetera.
In fact, the title of the movie, even being explained by Cutter in the beginning, still puzzles me and I can't stopped thinking about the meaning of it. Not to mention other puzzles. But ultimately, I came to realize that the plot structure corresponds to a epic magic show as well.

It would be easy to say this is a bad movie, if you wanted to be narrow-minded, but if you're willing to give it a chance it's really pretty good. Not great, but good. It comes at you head-on with some pretty cool and unusual perspectives. I mean, a philosophical action movie. You don't see many of those around. Ok, the philosophy falls short because the script just isn't clever enough but, it's a nice idea. And making the lead a woman was a bold touch. Bring the popcorn but keep a couple of your brain cells awake too. Oh, and if you honestly believe the myth that humans don't use 100% of their brains then there are a few scientists you need to talk to.

_**Time to GROW UP**_
"Lucy" (2014) is about an average hot babe named Lucy, played by Scarlett Johansson, who increasingly taps into her mind's full capacity and, consequently, acquires superhuman powers (or are they just fully-human powers?). She hooks up with the leading expert on the human mind (Morgan Freeman) to share her discoveries and also teams-up with a Paris police captain (Amr Waked) to destroy the malevolent schemes of an arrogant Asian mob boss (Min-sik Choi).
It should be emphasized that this is not comic book superhero movie (Don't we have enough of those yet?), it's an ordinary-person-reaching-full-human-potential movie. There were two of these in the mid-90s, "Powder" (1995) and "Phenomenon" (1996). They're both good, but the latter played it too safe, particularly at the end, while "Powder" reached for greatness and got a finger in. Francis Ford Coppola added his take on the genre with 2007's "Youth Without Youth," a dense film with many interesting elements; too bad he forgot to include an entertaining story.
"Lucy" is the best of these and is, in fact, one of my all-time favorite movies. "Lucy" includes the mindfood of Coppola's film, but doesn't forget to be entertaining. As such, the film mixes interesting, inspiring elements with thrills, action, eye candy and ear candy (a notable score). On top of this, "Lucy" is stylish and "hip," whatever that means; in other words, it's got pizzazz.
Some complain that the film is flawed because it's based on the notion that we only use 10% of our brain power, but this is only a plot device to illustrate that most people are functioning way under their potential and are obsessed with usually worthless things and blowing precious time accordingly. Take, for instance, the people who blow hour upon hour of valuable time watching sports. Viewing a game here or there is great, but these types have lost all sense of moderation. Or how about those who feel they have to numb themselves with alcohol or drugs just to have a good time? They're, in essence, running away from reality.
What's funny about this criticism that the film's based on humans only using 10% of their brain power is that, in most cases, the number's more like 1-2%. Lol, just kidding. (Or am I?)
In regards to Lucy's powers illustrated in the film, and the other films noted above, I've had my own run-ins with such phenomena. For instance, about seven years ago I was in bed having an intense dream when my wife burst into the room to wake me up. The smoke alarm outside the door was blaring like crazy, but there was no smoke or fire or heat. The potent energy evoked by my dream obviously set it off because, as soon as I awoke, it suddenly stopped. If there was any doubt, the same thing happened the next week. What can explain this except the untapped power of the mind and focused energy?
Another example comes to mind, albeit different: when I was around 8 years old my family and I were walking the trails of Theodore Wirth Park in Minneapolis when we came to the edge of a baseball field. As soon as we entered the outfield somehow I just knew that the current batter was going to hit the ball and it was going to hit me right in the face. I knew this but I didn't know how I knew it. I just knew. Next thing you know the batter hits the ball high into the air -- it was like slow-motion -- and it came and hit me right on the cheek! (Good thing it was a softball, huh?). How did I KNOW this was going to happen? I don't know, but it's pretty amazing and it shows the power of the mind and spirit to warn us, which some call intuition.
Less spectacular is something that I experience every day with my wife: One of us will be thinking something and give voice to it and the other says, "I was thinking the exact same thing." What's going on? We're picking up each other's immaterial thoughts, otherwise known as telepathy. What if we developed this further? Other paranormal phenomena featured in the story include psychokinesis, extraordinary empathy and what the Bible calls "the word of knowledge." Although they're exaggerated in the film, they're REAL.
"Lucy" is inspiring in that it's an encouragement to GROW UP. As Lucy evolves she stops at her apartment and runs into her roommate, who's the typical bimbo party girl who spends too much of her free time "partying" and pursuing a "cute guy with nice buns" (or however she puts it). Not that there's anything intrinsically wrong with these things, except that these people obsess over them and they become their PURPOSE for living. Whatever happened to "All things in moderation"? The beginning of the movie shows that Lucy was just like her roommate but something happened and... she GREW UP.
My praise of the movie's philosophical and theological ideas shouldn't be interpreted to mean that I agree with every jot and tittle. It's a sci-fi/thriller blockbuster, after all; it's just that this one has more interesting ideas than most. Secondly, who agrees with everyone about everything? Is that even healthy?
Needless to say, I love "Lucy"!
The film doesn't wear out its welcome at a mere 1 hour, 29 minutes, and was shot in Taiwan, France and a German airport.
GRADE: A

A lot of people appears to have gotten into some hate-mode when watching this movie. I guess they did not check up what the movie was really about before watching it. The movie is not perfect, it has its flaws, but a 1 or 2 star bullshit rating is hugely unfair. Personally, I really liked this movie. It is science fiction, pure and simple. If you expect science without the fiction, well then you should go and see some other movie. With Luc Besson both writing and directing and statements like “merciless warrior evolved beyond human logic” in the blurb … well I got pretty much what I expected.
The movie starts off making you think it is a “simple” revenge story with science fiction elements in the form of the superhuman Lucy. However it gradually evolves into something else. Lucy knows that she cannot survive in her new state and it becomes a quest to preserve the knowledge that she has acquired while she still has the time and at the same time dodging the drug dealers that are the cause of her situation in the first place.
Lucy is great. Her powers and how they develop are awesome. I really like surprise effects in movies and books of the kind that you get when someone like Lucy reveals her powers to the “mundane”. Especially when the revealing means swatting a few bad guys. This movie is full of moments like that. It is quite a roller coaster ride of action with Lucy exhibiting her growing powers. Not too surprisingly the movie is also full of scientific bullshit and plot holes. I do not really care. I’m in for the ride and it is a fun ride.
Scarlett Johansson is very good in her role as Lucy. Most of the other actors are ok although the Asian drug boss could have been better. He came out more like a brainless thug than anything else. Certainly not as the mastermind of a criminal organization.
The ending was a bit unsatisfactory compared to the rest of the movie though. I was a bit disappointed that the big fight at the end more or less was done without Lucy. The long cinematic sequences where Lucy wondered about in time and space felt a bit like yawn-filler-material. The actual ending, well that “I am everywhere” bit was really been there, seen that, done that. Also, if she was indeed everywhere, why the hurry to create that fancy memory stick?
Anyway, apart from that I really enjoyed this movie.

Ignorance brings chaos, not knowledge.
Lucy is one of those films that brings about furious reactions, it is after all a science fiction type action thriller. They always divide film fans right from the off. It's a film that to all intents and purposes needs to be viewed just as a cinematic experience, as a piece of popcorn fodder that may try to be something more cerebral, but ultimately is a daft - but hugely fun - piece of film.
Luc Besson writes and directs a film that sees Scarlett Johansson duped into being a drug mule, with the transportation of drugs sewn into her abdomen. It's a new drug, boy is it a new drug, and when things go belly up and the drugs are unleashed into Scarlett's system, she's a threat - or hope - to mankind.
It can be, and has been, called pretentious et al, such is the science factor, which is perfectly understandable, so any hope of tight science fiction musings will only end up in a crushing disappointment. Undeniably Besson and his backers thought they had something to say, to open up the film watchers' minds to something deep and probable, to be relevant and viable. But unlike the makers we the viewers didn't have access to donepezil, so we sadly couldn't all turn into Bradley Cooper and be limitless in our viewing capabilities.
Personally, it's a rollicking fun film for two thirds, when it's about Scarlett kicking butt, a revenge driven babe, it grips and shakes all the genre compliant cinematic senses. The ending, the grand finale, infuriated me, and by the looks of Morgan Freeman (coasting for easy money), he was also a little frustrated. But I had fun, yet on the flip side if anyone fronted me up and said they hated the film with a passion? Then I would understand and take them home to play with my chemistry set. 7/10

I've also struggled to appreciate several o Luc Besson's movies but this is is by far the worst one.
A lot of jibber-jabber bullshit with sexy Scarlett Johansson, lots of FX, predictable ending in Paris and a pointless car race on its streets.
Better spend your time on something else ...

There is no excuse for basing a screenplay on taking seriously a well known urban myth and writing it as if the audience believes the myth.
Did no one up the entire production line step out and call bullshit on the discredited 'we only use 10% of our brain,' idea? I am so embarrassed by seeing actors I admire, Scarlett Johansson and Morgan Freeman, deliver solid performances on the basis of an idea at which most people laugh.

The Silence of the Lambs is one of those movies that isn’t just great—it’s iconic. From the moment it starts, there’s an unsettling tension that never lets up. The plot is masterfully structured, pulling you into a psychological game of cat and mouse that keeps you engaged the entire time. It’s dark, intense, and layered with meaning, making it the kind of film that sticks with you long after the credits roll. This isn’t a casual weekend watch but rather a cinematic experience that deserves full attention.
Jonathan Demme’s directing is sharp and precise, keeping the story tight without any wasted moments. Every scene feels deliberate, building suspense in a way that’s subtle yet incredibly effective. The cinematography plays a huge role in this, with its use of close-ups making the film feel personal and claustrophobic. There’s an intimacy to the way characters are shot, pulling you into their headspace and making the psychological tension hit even harder.
The acting is what really elevates the movie to legendary status. Jodie Foster delivers an incredible performance, bringing both vulnerability and determination to her role. But it’s Anthony Hopkins who steals the show, creating one of the most chilling yet mesmerizing characters in film history. His screen presence is magnetic, proving that sometimes, the scariest thing isn’t loud or violent but calm, calculated, and intelligent. The script is airtight, filled with sharp dialogue that never feels forced. Every exchange has weight, and the conversations alone are enough to keep you on edge.
The score and sound design play a crucial role in building atmosphere. The music is haunting yet subtle, never overdoing it but always enhancing the unease. Silence is used just as effectively as sound, making certain moments feel even more intense. It’s one of those films where everything, from the writing to the visuals to the performances comes together flawlessly. The Silence of the Lambs isn’t just a must-watch. It’s a masterpiece.

This is a brilliant screen adaptation of the Thomas Harris book with a cast impossible to improve upon. Anthony Hopkins plays "Hannibal Lecter", a murderous sophisticate with a penchant for eating the evidence and Jodie Foster as the novice FBI agent sent to try and elicit his help in tracking down a killer with a similar modus operandi to our now incarcerated "Lecter". The menace with which Hopkins portrays the role is spine-chilling. Foster conveys the transformation from scared young agent to hard-nosed detective with convincing aplomb and this really does make for a belter of a thriller. A clean sweep of 5 Oscars and the top 2 acting BAFTA awards can't be wrong!

**Absolute Classic Film!
I read the book before watching this thriller/horror classic film by Jonathan Demme. The film works on so many levels and at times feels very realistic in how it portraits law enforcers and the perverse criminals they pursue. Outstanding performances by Anthony Hopkins, Jodie Foster, Scott Glen, Ted Levine, etc.. I feel the director was influenced by Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho classic horror film by way of how grounded this film shows the deadly cat and mouse game and the overall arch of themes throughout.
Fear and desire for sex, loathing of the human body, suppression of emotions, hatred for banality and towards women, etc. In this day of cartoon Marvel movies which have little or no connections to human experiences or reality, this classic film will stand the test of time because of how all of the creative artists involve respected the work. This one's on my all time top favorite list of must see films.

As a genre fan, there's a certain amount of satisfaction when a film is recognized by mainstream audiences. That's what it was like for me in 1992 when Silence of the Lambs swept the Oscar's (Best Picture, Director, Actor and Actress).
And boy did the movie deserve it. Jonathan Demme's fantastic retelling of the classic book by Thomas Harris. Anthony Hopkins' scene-chewing Hannibal Lecter turned him into a pop culture icon (and unfortunately a slew of middling sequels). And Jodie Foster's grim and naive portrayal of Clarice.
The final touch is that haunting score. Some of the best movies out there are elevated by a musical score that puts it another league.
A phenomenal classic.

It kind of reminds me of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, because Frank and Jame are drag queens who kill.

This is one of a few movies I put off reviewing for years, because I honestly don't know what to say about a film this classic. So I'll be brief in my actual review, knowing that it comes from a place where I honestly believe that this is a movie that deserves its praise:
Even if the A-plot of the story wasn't one of the best crime thrillers put to screen, the Hannibal Lector moments alone would be enough to make _Silence of the Lambs_ a great movie, most especially his run in Memphis.
_Final rating:★★★★ - Very strong appeal. A personal favourite._

Unlike a lot of viewers, I first saw _The Silence of the Lambs_ at five years old. So, for me, _The Silence of the Lambs_ is a childhood favorite. Some would say I had an unusual childhood, in this age where some people actually **avoid** R-rated movies like the plague. The fact that I saw _Something Wild_, which Jonathan Demme directed five years before _The Silence of the Lambs_, as well as the original _Alien_ (alone at that), at the same age probably indicates that they were okay with me watching pretty much anything that wasn't rated X, though, honestly, I've **never** had any interest in that stuff. It was probably due to the fact that, like the movie's protagonist, I don't "spook easily," and many so-called "scary" movies, including this one, never scared me, but (many of them) definitely thrilled me. Granted, I'd seen _Saving Private Ryan_ a few months before, which probably gave me a strong stomach. Well, enough about my wild, albeit fun, childhood. How does _The Silence of the Lambs_ hold up all these years later? For me personally, _The Silence of the Lambs_ is every bit as good as it was the first time I saw it at five years old.
On the off chance you don't already know the plot by now, Jodie Foster stars as Clarice Starling, a rookie FBI agent with a degree in psychology who is called from training by her boss Jack Crawford (Scott Glenn) in the middle of a string of murders by a man nicknamed "Buffalo Bill" (Ted Levine) who skins his victims, all of whom happen to be women. Crawford tells her to interview the psychotic Dr. Hannibal "the Cannibal" Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) in prison, hoping he might have an answer of some kind. Lecter brushes her off. After Catherine Martin (Brooke Smith), the daughter of a senator is kidnapped, Lecter agrees to give Starling information about Buffalo Bill on the condition that she tell him personal information about herself.
If I had to pick the greatest Best Picture Oscar winner ever, it would most likely be _The Silence of the Lambs_. Well-acted, well-written, and well-directed, it's definitely my favorite.
Let's look at the acting to start. Jodie Foster, unsurprisingly, won a well-deserved Oscar for her performance as Starling. Foster plays Starling as a little scared yet strong at the same time, definitely not a coward as Julianne Moore later played the character in the movie _Hannibal_, and definitely not someone who would turn cannibal as Thomas Harris wrote the character as doing in the novel Hannibal. Movie or novel, in my honest opinion, the Clarice Starling depicted in _Hannibal_ is an insult to what this Clarice Starling stands for. As we find out about what's been nagging Starling since childhood, Foster plays it especially well where another actress may have overdone it.
Anthony Hopkins, like Foster, won an Oscar for his performance as Lecter, and I speak for a lot of people, if not everybody, when I say it was also well-deserved. Hopkins plays Lecter as brilliant yet insane, making him one of the more interesting villains in movie history.
Scott Glenn plays Crawford very well for the time he's onscreen.
Ted Levine plays "Buffalo Bill" as straight up crazy, and does a very good job of making us hate him.
Brooke Smith is only supposed to play Catherine Martin as scared and she does - with dead-on accuracy.
Ted Tally won a well-deserved Oscar for his screenplay, adapted from Thomas Harris' novel of the same name. Tally doesn't feel the need to focus on violence and gore, which is one of the movie's strengths. Instead he focuses on the characters, and I'd be lying if I said he didn't flesh them out very, very, very, well.
Jonathan Demme also won an Oscar for his directing and he does a very good job of it.
_The Silence of the Lambs_ is relentlessly thrilling and it holds me to my seat until the last frame every time I see it, all without relying on excessive gore.
I've already mentioned that _The Silence of the Lambs_ doesn't scare me, so it may - or may not - scare you, depending on what you're afraid of. Admittedly, there are a few creepy things displayed onscreen so I can see why it would scare some viewers.
Either way, I can't recommend _The Silence of the Lambs_ enough, and everybody should see it at least once.
_The Silence of the Lambs_ is a childhood favorite of mine, and it holds up very, very well almost 25 years after its release. It's relentlessly thrilling, flawlessly acted, flawlessly written, flawlessly directed, and one of the few movies that actually deserved all the Oscars it won.

Jurassic Park (1993) is one of those rare films that perfectly blends story, spectacle, and emotion. Directed by Steven Spielberg, it’s a true benchmark in movie history, and honestly, it’s hard to find anything about it that doesn’t impress. From the opening moments, the tension and wonder pull you in, setting the stage for a thrilling adventure that doesn’t let go. The pacing is spot-on, balancing moments of awe with bursts of heart-pounding intensity. Every scene feels meticulously crafted, showcasing Spielberg's masterful ability to make even the quiet moments count.
The performances are exceptional, with each actor bringing a sense of realism and humanity to their roles. You truly believe these are real people reacting to an extraordinary situation, which is what makes it so easy to connect with the story. The visual effects, a mix of animatronics and early CGI, still hold up today, which is a testament to how much care went into this production. John Williams' iconic score deserves its own spotlight. It amplifies every scene, whether it’s filled with wonder, suspense, or quiet reflection. It’s the kind of music that stays with you long after the credits roll.
What really makes Jurassic Park timeless is how it captures the imagination. It’s not just about the thrills or the groundbreaking effects but also the themes that make you think about humanity’s role in nature and the consequences of pushing boundaries. Everything, from the cinematography to the set design, feels immersive, transporting you to a world that’s both beautiful and terrifying. It’s no wonder this film continues to be celebrated. It is simply one of the finest examples of filmmaking ever made

A cracking film about a team of archaeologists sent to evaluate a theme park with a difference. It has end-to-end thrills and some truly groundbreaking special effects. The acting is, however, another matter entirely. Sam Neill and Laura Dern as well as the truly irritating children, deserve to be eaten (preferably as early on in the film as possible) and Richard Attenborough's accent - well goodness only knows where that is supposed to come from. Bob Peck and Jeff Goldblum hold up their end of the bargain rather better and the dinosaurs are just magnificent. John Williams does his stuff with the score, too - all contributing to something you must see.

The classic jurassic park movie. It's a theme park where the dinosaurs eventually break out of. Once they taste human flesh they can't get enough of it.

**Overall : Unparalleled storytelling blends nostalgia and terror, producing one of the most extraordinary adventures ever on screen.**
Jurassic Park's groundbreaking special effects blended practical effects with cutting-edge computer-generated imagery, resulting in such realistic creatures that even many modern-day effects. Spielberg brought dinosaurs to life, capturing the imagination of every young child while still delivering thrills and scares. It's a beautiful combination of fantasy, adventure, and sci-fi terror. Jurassic Park set a new standard for storytelling and effects that inspired filmmakers to dream bigger and audiences to expect the magnificent.