Good watch, would watch again, and can recommend.
This is a great survivalist story in a horrible setting (wonderfully set, written to be a horrible world).
We get all the great fun that we got from the original movie, and then we add in the whole (spoiler) element. It's really what makes the movie and leads us into the next arc, but I won't mention it.
With Snow just on an angry tantrum spree (literally using childish tantrum words) you can tell very early that he's defeated himself, it's just a matter of time.
Jennifer Lawrence is a big enough personality to carry the movie and she does with everyone else playing support roles centered around her. It was fantastic to see Jena Malone come on board as I feel she adds something special to everything she's in.
If you can stand the battle royale concept, this this is a good watch for you.

This is a sequel to 2012's HUNGER GAMES, and is set in the same future world: a post-apocalyptic world where an Empire, called Panem, has imposed peace on the survivors only to decay into brutal tyranny. The symbol of the tyranny is the Hunger Games, a gladiator-type combat where only one "victor" is permitted and the rest of the fighters die. To keep the flow of victims coming, 12 districts of Panem are required each year to supply a teenage boy and girl for the fight, ostensibly as punishment for decades-old rebellion.
The theme of this movie is the moral issues over how to oppose such tyranny. Katniss Everdeen ( Jennifer Lawrence), the spirited girl who won the previous year's Games, wishes to stop the oppression, but fears that outright revolution will hurt too many people. There is another character (whom I won't identify to avoid spoilers) who doesn't care how many people are hurt as long as the revolution is advanced. Many of the subjects of the Empire are resigned to submitting until some messianic deliverer will appear. Meanwhile the ruthless President-for-life Coriolanus Snow ( Donald Sutherland) is determined to destroy the rebels before they can get organized. Who will win out? Therein lies the suspense.
There are enough special effects to make the futuristic background and technology credible without overwhelming the movie.
Aside from Lawrence and Sutherland as the impressive antagonists, the movie has a strong supporting cast: Woody Harrelson as Katniss's shrewd but alcoholic mentor; Liam Hemworth and Josh Hutcherson as two boys representing the aggressive vs sensitive sides of Katniss's character; Elizabeth Banks as a kindly but naive woman oblivious to the tyranny; Oscar-winner Philip Hoffman as Snow's Machiavellian adviser, and Sam Clafin, Jeffrey Wright, and Jena Malone as formidable former victors drawn into the conflict.
The movie's only real flaw is that being part of a continuing story keeps the plot from being resolved in the end.

More of the same stuff.
Lawrence is not bad and I think Josh Hutcherson is a great discovering but that's mostly it.

I still do not agree with the 9 and 10 star ratings but I feel this movie is slightly better than the first one. This is primarily because Jennifer Lawrence’s character is more mature and she seems more comfortable in the role. She is no longer an immature, naive and lost child. At least not most of the time.
The entire setup is still as ludicrous as before. It is a silly and depressing background scenario and it is definitely not my cup of tea. The people running around in ridiculous hair-do, makeup and showing a severe lack of intelligence is not making things better.
The enjoyment of this movie comes when the games finally start. These parts are definitely better than in the first movie. The various dangers are well done, the effects good and there is an interesting overall theme to the arena and the dangers instead of randomly throwing new menaces at players that seemed to be the strategy in the first movie.
To me the enjoyment of this movie is in the games themselves. This is probably because I just do not like the rest of the plot. The depressing scenario. The nonsensical and/or oppressive behavior, backstabbing etc. etc.

Awesome movie!

Good :3

Awakening from a lengthy coma, the expecting "Bride" (Uma Thurman) embarks on a lethal killing spree to avenge herself on those responsible for killing her fiancée and to find out just what happened to her unborn baby. She has a past - formerly a soldier in the "Deadly Viper Assassination Squad" - she formerly dated it's leader "Bill" (David Carradine) - and so in theory has her work cut out for her as she seeks her revenge. Well, except that is, that the aforementioned "DVAA" could not hit a barn door with an Howitzer. Despite their overwhelming numbers, their supposedly expert training and resilience, "Bride" mows through them as if they were wheat to her combine harvester. This film has no jeopardy whatsoever. Thurman looks great and packs quite some charisma into her performance, and Tarantino presents a quirky style to the story, but that story is hackneyed and unremarkable. The characterisations are undercooked and frankly nondescript and the fact that we know there is to be a part two, only robs this all too quickly of any sense of menace. Gory and bloody, yes but so what? A strong and feisty woman lead? Yes, but again - so what? The action scenes are well enough choreographed, but the whole thing has a relentlessness to it that really underwhelms. This director usually makes good use of his soundtrack, and the strong and powerful tones of Nancy Sinatra do tee this up well, but afterwards I'm afraid it just descends into mediocrity and I really struggled to appreciate anything different or innovative about this. Disappointing.

Interesting usage of anime to tell O-Ren's back-story, but I wasn't really a fan of the cartoonish blood splattering and gratuitous fight scenes.

Uma Thurman as an anti-superheroine
RELEASED IN 2003 and written/directed by Quentin Tarantino, "Kill Bill: Vol. 1" is an action/thriller/fantasy starring Uma Thurman as The Bride who seeks vengeance on the team of assassins who betrayed her, a group of which she once belonged. Her journey takes her from El Paso to Pasadena to Okinawa. Vivica A. Fox, Lucy Liu, ravishing Julie Dreyfus and Michael Madsen appear as various assassins or accomplices.
"Kill Bill” is a creative mish-mash of 60s-70's Bond-isms, Spaghetti Westerns and martial arts flicks, but with modern production values. It sometimes plays like a superhero movie in that The Bride is essentially an anti-superheroine who mows down literally armies of skilled fighters, e.g. the overly drawn-out B&W fight with the Crazy 88s. I loved the inclusion of Ennio Morricone's "Death Rides a Horse."
On the downside, there’s an overlong lame anime sequence and the characters lack substance and realism, but who can deny the film’s pizzazz? Sure, it’s style over substance, but it’s entertaining in a voguish, quirky way. Since both parts were meant to be ONE MOVIE, it’s mandatory to see “Vol. 2” to properly appreciate and appraise “Kill Bill.” The second part fills in the holes.
THE MOVIE RUNS 111 minutes and was shot in Texas, California, Mexico, Tokyo, Beijing and Hong Kong.
GRADE: B/B- (6.5/10)

Not so hush hush but very much on the QT.
After being gunned down on her wedding day by her former colleagues, assassin Black Mamba (Uma Thurman) rouses from a four year coma with only one thing on her mind, revenge! Striking up a death list of five, she sets off for bloody retribution.
Quentin Tarrantino writes and directs what is in all truth, a homage to all the cinema conventions close to his heart. Think an amalgamation of chop-socky, sexploitation, samurai, spaghetti Westerns, anime and cop shows of years past, and you get the heart of Kill Bill. A film that was so epic in scope it had to be cut into two films. What it lacks in Tarrantino dialogue dynamite it more than makes up for with action and astute visual flair. And it's bloody, very bloody. Thurman is great as the avenging Mamba/The Bride, while the inclusion of Sonny Chiba & Lucy Liu adds a touch of class as QT revels in his East meets West berserker narrative. It could have been trimmed down, particularly in the middle section where Tarrantino deals in a calm before the storm ideal, but Volume 1 was one of the most exciting movies of 2003, and most notably it shows Tarrantino to be adept at action directing. His action skills perhaps explains why the script doesn't crackle with the wit and panache of his previous offerings? You sense he wants more than the words "fine writer" engraved on his granite mined Curriculum Vitae.
Hugely enjoyable with a neat end of film cliffhanger, roll on part 2... 8/10

This is the movie he made after Jackie Brown. I thought I might just point that out. A big budget, larger scale action blockbuster. This is the one that would change the direction of Tarantino's films. And honestly, it might be my favorite besides Pulp Fiction.
This movie oozes with style and beautifully choreographed action. This movie has an anime section akin to Japanese anime. That's some cool stuff. Even the non-action parts are some really good stuff. Like the guy from the old Street Fighter movies as Hatori Hanzo and making the Bride's sword. And the fantastic soundtrack. The great opening scene where the Bride gets shot and then the somber "Bang Bang" by Nancy Sinatra plays.
But of course, the amazingly choreographed action makes this movie. A lot of it is showcased in the Crazy 88 fight and the few fights before it. It has some brilliant uses of the style. Of course, there's black and white which was actually used to avoid an NC-17, but works very effectively. And the beautifully shot battle between the Bride and O-Ren. No music really adds a lot to it. It's quiet and oh so effective compared to the loud blood fest of the Crazy 88.
But there's also the opening hand to hand fight scene with Vernita Green which is also very well edited. Very surprising scene as it is interrupted by Green's daughter coming home and then they talk. And it starts back again as quickly as it began and then ends once again with a knife to Vernita's chest. What a brilliant tension filled scene.
The movie also never takes itself too seriously. That's for the sequel. But the fun action and style leads the whole way. Also along with Buck, and other fun scenes. Lest we forget other great scenes like the whistle scene as Elle Driver comes to kill the Bride in her sleep. Or interrogating Sophie. "These will be things you will miss." I love it.
Honestly, it might be the best action movie of the 2000s, at least for me. And Tarantino has a lot of my favorite movies. Maybe I enjoy his movies a bit too much. But even with that, it's one of the my favorites. Kill Bill Vol 1 gets a 10/10

M. Night Shyamalan’s Split is a psychological thriller that keeps you on edge from start to finish, largely thanks to James McAvoy’s phenomenal performance. Playing a character with Dissociative Identity Disorder, McAvoy seamlessly switches between personalities, each one distinct and captivating. It’s a performance so versatile and gripping that it’s hard to imagine many actors today pulling it off with such precision. He’s a tour de force, commanding every scene he’s in and elevating the film beyond a typical thriller.
Anya Taylor-Joy also shines as Casey Cooke, bringing a quiet strength and emotional depth to the story. Her performance adds a layer of vulnerability that keeps you invested in her journey. It’s clear this was a breakout moment for her career, and she makes every second of her screen time count.
The film itself is a masterclass in tension, with cinematography that mirrors the fractured psyche of its lead character and a deliberate pacing that keeps you guessing. Each scene feels meticulously crafted, creating an atmosphere of unease while leaving breadcrumbs for the bigger picture. The details in the set design and framing elevate the experience, making it as visually striking as it is psychologically intense.
While the story occasionally flirts with the fantastical, it stays grounded enough to remain compelling... until it doesn’t. By the time the third act rolls around, the film takes a bold leap into unexpected territory. While this might feel a bit jarring at first, it’s ultimately justified by the subtle nod at the very end. That moment reframes the entire film and will have fans of Shyamalan’s work buzzing long after the credits roll.
While Split delivers a gripping story and exceptional performances, it truly finds its greatness in the final moments. The ending doesn’t just tie the film together, it elevates it, adding a layer of meaning and significance that reshapes everything that came before. Without this final piece, the film might have struggled to stand out, but with it, Split becomes part of something far greater, leaving audiences eager to see what lies ahead.

You like to make fun of us, but we are more powerful than you think.
Split is written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan. It stars James McAvoy, Anya Taylor-Joy, Betty Buckley, Haley Lu-Richardson and Jessica Sula. Music is by West Dylan Thordson and cinematography by Mike Gioulakis.
Three girls are kidnapped by a man with a diagnosed 23 different personalities. They must try to escape before the apparent emergence of the 24th - known as The Beast...
We now know that Split is the second instalment of a trilogy by Shyamalan that began with Unbreakable and is ending with Glass (released 2019). Always proving to be a most divisive director/writer/actor, Shyamalan has returned to the sort of noticeable form that had him earmarked in his early days as a director to follow - with the proviso that inevitably this is going to still infuriate some for its handling of the subjects at hand.
The plot trajectory is simple enough, girls kidnapped by a patient suffering from multiple personality disorder, as the girls in fear try to escape, a number of his personalities put in an appearance. Which builds up to the finale, which explodes after following on from the suspense and dread atmospherics so beloved by the director. In the mix joining the mental health issue with our main protagonist is a good meaning doctor (naturally), and the spectre of child abuse rears its ugly head. So not a movie to be cheered up by then! While if looking for a detailed and attentive look at the mental health issues to hand you will be disappointed.
However, there is a style to the picture in how it draws you into the predicament of the main players, boosted no end by McAvoy on irresistible form. Given licence to chew every scene, he delivers his various characters with great relish and no little amount of skill. Props to for Taylor-Joy, who as the lead kidnappee has deftly blended youthful innocence with resourceful strength (aided by Shyamalan's writing of course). Conversely, Shyamalan is guilty of just making a pic for entertainment purpose, which works as it's a very good creepy thriller with its black humour moments, but the mental health plot devices ensure his gimmicks will not be welcomed by all. 7/10

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)
James McAvoy plays Kevin, a man with a genetic disease which allows him to have multiple personalities. His trusted psychiatrist, Dr. Karen Fletcher (Betty Buckley), knows 23 of them, but there's one hidden from everyone who desires to dominate over all the others. Compelled by one of his personalities, Kevin abducts three girls, where Casey Cooke (Anya Taylor-Joy) becomes their leader to try and escape the "crazy" man.
Is this the return to form by M. Night Shyamalan, who has been struggling for more than a decade to release a major success? Is Split the movie that brings him back to the spotlight?
Once again, Shyamalan's storytelling is very original, unconventional and ultimately mind-blowing. Instead of establishing everything the audience needs to know about the characters right at the beginning, he gradually develops them, giving them haunting backstories and spreading parts of it throughout the runtime. That said, this film isn't for everyone. The audience needs to trust Shyamalan and be patient. Really patient. Don't start taking notes about something that you think it's negative because once you reach the third act, everything changes and suddenly it all makes sense. The screenplay is not as twisty as Unbreakable, for example, but it demands absolute attention in order to catch up on all the things that matter (and the ones that don't, as well).
The production and editing team have to be congratulated due to their seamless work. From the camera work to the extended one-take sequences, as well as the environment surrounding the characters, everything feels real and looks amazing. The soundtrack ... Let me just say that this element is so, but so much relevant to the conclusion of this movie. I can't really say anything else without spoiling the ending, so I'll leave a note after my rating at the end of the review with a MAJOR SPOILER.
As for the cast, I'll start with the man that I honestly think should have received an Oscar nomination: James McAvoy. You know, there's a big difference in portraying a non-fiction character instead of a fiction one: concerning the former, you can't really escape the true nature of the person you are playing, but with the latter, as an actor/actress, you have to deliver yourself 100% to the role for it to be believable ... And God, does McAvoy deliver! He gives 200% in what could be his best performance to date. Do you think Andy Serkis had problems portraying both Gollum and Sméagol at the same time? Well, imagine 7 ... or 8 characters. I lost the count. All in all, James McAvoy, sir, congratulations! You are superb!
Anya Taylor-Joy is also incredible as Casey! Her character has the most intriguing story of the three girls, and she's the one who assumes the leadership of the group once the kidnap occurs. Her initially unknown past helps her through the traumatic situation, but it's really her rather captivating backstory that grabbed my attention. It's fundamental to the understanding of the ending and Anya does a terrific job. I also want to give a small praise to Betty Buckley for a beautiful and necessary interpretation of Dr. Fletcher, a character that offers the audience some knowledge of Kevin's disease.
As for the other two kidnapped girls, well ... They're my main issue with the film since they don’t have a good reason to be there. Claire (Haley Lu Richardson) and Marcia (Jessica Sula) aren't the main characters, and they don't have that much screen time, but their dialogue still feels extremely forced and filled with a lot of nonsense. The ending of the story might not be as twisty as in other Shyamalan's installments, but I hope that people don't give up to false expectations. The classic Shyamalan's twisty ending isn't a necessary attribute of his movies, but the truth is that the twist is not the one you think it is. Once again, the note at the end of my review will clarify this.
In the end, Split is Shyamalan's return to his old early 2000's self. Brilliantly unconventional storytelling, a lot of suspense, some very captivating subplots and a fantastic editing and production team behind him. The soundtrack plays a huge role in this film, as well as James McAvoy, who delivers his career-best performance. Anya Taylor-Joy is also pretty extraordinary, something that can't be said about her fellow friends who portrayed two bland characters. The ending brings the classic twist that makes everything more understandable, and I gotta say ... I love this film, and it is one of 2017's best!
MAJOR SPOILER BELOW
As I said above, the soundtrack plays a huge role in the ending twist. That's because the soundtrack that plays right before the title of the movie appears on the screen, is the same one as in the third act of Unbreakable.
This is one of the many clues throughout the film that hint at the idea that Split belongs to Unbreakable's universe. Naturally, after the title shows up, there's a scene with David Dunn (Bruce Willis) that confirms this theory, but these are little details that make Shyamalan into a great director and screenwriter. Also, it's a pity that I've only watched these movies after Shyamalan stating that they were part of an eventual trilogy. Not that I was not surprised at the end of Split, but it did remove that first impact of pure shock in knowing that two films separated by 17 years (in real life) are part of the same universe.
Both movies end up falling into the "superhero" genre. Unbreakable is the story of our "hero" who spent his whole life sad because he wasn't doing "what he was supposed to do", and Split is an origin story of our "villain". If Glass delivers, this might be one of the best “superhero” trilogies ever.
Rating: A

**The 24th's about to explode!**
The much needed break for the director Shyamalan. It has been over a decade since the last time he was lauded like this for his work. On the paper, it was a simple split personality disaster theme, but cinematically clicked so well. Firstly the performance of James McAvoy made this film a very success. I have seen his lots of films, but if I had to choose only one of his great, that's would be easily this one. A straightforward story, no complication to understand, or needed to explain everything it revolves. Then suddenly the final act turned into a different mode. With a twist, all comes to end.
The three teenage girls have been kidnapped at the beginning. Following that, the victims do not know the situation, but makes a couple of bad moves, except one girl. As the film progress, many secrets revealed to us, particularly about the kidnapper. It all developed to lead in one direction where an unimaginable thing going to happen. How and what result it brings told in the following parts.
The perspective of the story was not really a thing in this. That means it does not take sides, but gives you the option to choose. And most of the viewers would root for the weird girl. It was Anya, and she's having a wonderful career in early stage. Could becomes one of the best if she contributed all her performances in the same pace and intensity. The music was equally awesome. Created the perfect atmosphere along with the visuals. I could have not asked the better one. Best thriller of the year. You will be stupid to miss it out if you love films.
_8/10_

I read some reviews and gave this movie a shot. I was very disappointed.
M. Night Shyamalan's last good movie, in my opinion of course, was The Village, where he had control over his style.
In Split he tries to use the same formula, but it doesn't work. There was no build up in reveling the plot, and then when we get to the end the feeling I got was : "Is that it ?".
Sure all the actors were good, but that didn't make the experience for me any better.

**Didnt see the review section at first so,I posted on the forums**
Not a fan of The director since Unbreakable. It was slightly above average but no whee near the quality of The Sixth Sence. I don't know why I keep watching his movies, probably hoping one will be the same extraordinary quality. With all the pre-release buzz I thought this was finally that movie.
I was so disappointed. I rated it slightly lower than Unbreakable. I don't know exactly where it where it went off the rails, but it never held my attention (and I'm not ADHD- I sit though theee hours of a good bio pic.
A good part of this was the girls trying asinine ways to escape; at other time we see McAvoy play several personalities half heartily. After all the award talk I expected a much better and diverse McAvoy. Sadly, just like the majority of Night's films he has his actors perform methodically. It actually felt McAlvoy was pushing his talents against the brick wall of what the director wanted.
He wasn't the only actor who underplayed the role. So did the doctor and the three teenage girls. First, after all these late night calls for extra appointment why didn't she get upset earlier or pull a personality up (which she has stated she can do) to discover the emergency instead of A casual bye--you-leave when another dominant personality shows up to the appointment.
I rate this in the same category of Nights's films except the quality Sisth Sense and Devil, which he did not direct and only wrote the original story,
As for,the ending, I felt it was a cheap shot. If the point was they are in the same time, the message came across far too,strong. If it is a hitnt to an Unbreakable 2 I'll pass and see another big screen feature.

Split was a movie that I was a bit weary to see, I had been bitten by M. Knight before and I wasn't sure if this movie would be worth while. But the trailers looked great and I had always thought James McAvoy was a seriously underrated actor.
Split surprised me. I loved this movie. Ann Taylor-Joy was decent in the film and the Dr was great, but McAvoy knocked it out of the park. Being able to portray all these different personalities with no props such as wigs or makeup shows his talent. It was amazing how one personality made you feel uneasy and perplexed and the next had you smiling and feeling like you were really staring at a strange child. Bravo McAvoy.
The twist at the end made me love this movie even more. Though I'm not sure if you can really cal it a twist. A "reveal" might be the better word for what the audience learns. Whatever you want to cal it, the reveal at the end made me excited to see what's next!
The only thing I didn't like about this film was the unresolved conflict between Ann Taylor-Joy's character at the end of the film.
Besides that, I loved it. Definitely worth watching.

There has been much discussion about whether or not it is socially acceptable to watch Split. I'm gonna skip right over all of that and talk purely about the movie itself.
Anya Taylor-Joy is good, but McAvoy is what makes Split worthwhile. The heavily touted twist/reveal was all but a non-event, even to a M. Night alum like myself. Though it is certainly (in my opinion) the best work The Shamhammer has brought out since at least Signs, it's hard to say that its successes rest on his shoulders. Again, it is for McAvoy that we really owe praise, who, with the exception of his role as the lead in Filth, gives his career best performance.
Final rating:★★★ - I personally recommend you give it a go.

Great acting by everyone involved, but the story is just not my cup of tea. If you like fake miracles (no shortage of people that do) and fantasy storylines, like prison guards that are humane and empathic (on death row nonetheless), then you might enjoy this more. I, however, will stick to more realistic fantasy, like mages fighting orcs and that sort of thing, and leave this in the trash pile of conservative media.

"Edgecomb" (Tom Hanks) is in charge of the prison officers who tend to the inmates on death row. He's a decent man who, with the help of his partner "Howell" (David Morse) tries to carry out his task as humanely as possible. Their team also numbers the truly odious "Percy" (Doug Hutchinson). He's an incompetent coward, but he also happens to be the nephew of the state governor, so tends to get away with his obnoxiousness towards the prisoners. That nasty behaviour becomes more pronounced when the giant "Coffey" (Michael Clarke Duncan) arrives. Also newly arrived is a small mouse which befriends, much to the chagrin of "Percy", a fellow inmate (Harry Dean Stanton) and oddly enough it seems to help keep the peace as people come and go. Things take quite an intriguing turn when some physical contact between their gentle giant and "Edgecomb" seems to cure his liver complaint. As the officer realises that this man may well possess healing hands, he and his team begins to bond with him. Meantime, the ghastly little "Percy" screws up his first execution causing an effect straight out of a Wes Craven film and Sam Rockwell's psychopathic "Wild Bill" arrives to liven things up. It's actually Rockwell who steal this for me. His performance is viscerally effective and he really does commit to the role. It's over 3 hours long but the acting is almost perfect as these characters develop and the story unfolds reconciling the brutality of racism, crime and punishment with the attempts at humanity and decency applied by virtually everyone whose lives are touched by these scenarios - even amongst the staff who struggle at times to keep their own priorities in kilter. One of Stephen King's much better stories with depth to the personas, a good baddie to loathe and a message of redemption delivered subtly but powerfully.

**_A Masterpiece of Cinematic Art -- Captivating and Reverent_**
The head Death Row guard at a Tennessee prison during the Depression (Tom Hanks) observes a new inmate, a black man named John Coffey (Michael Clarke Duncan), who is condemned to death for the rape and murder of two little girls. He and his fellow guards become intrigued by the gentle giant and conclude that there's no way he could be guilty of the crime. Who, then, is guilty? And will the guilty party get away with it.
"The Green Mile" expertly mixes film genres: It's part prison flick, part supernatural mystery and part drama. It was adapted from Stephen King's novel by director/writer Frank Darabont and released in 1999. If you're not an admirer of Stephen King books/films (I'm not), DON'T let that deter you from viewing this beautiful and spiritually-profound film; it's by no means a typical horror story, although it does have a couple of horrific scenes.
Running 3-hours, it's over my limited attention span, and yet it's somehow utterly engrossing, even on repeat viewings. It's character/dialogue driven, unique and unpredictable. Don't mistake this for a run-of-the-mill prison flick. The fact that it largely takes place in a prison in the 1930s is a secondary issue. This is a powerful supernatural mystery/drama.
**SPOILER ALERT** (Don't read this next paragraph unless you want to consider possibilities about the character John Coffey)
John Coffey's last name is, evidently, derived from an ancient Sumerian word, kophi, which means "winged creature." Hence, John could be viewed as a angel or messenger from the Almighty. Actually, John is a type of Jesus Christ verified in six ways: (1) His initials are JC. (2) He's good-hearted and can easily recognize true evil. (3) He miraculously heals people. (4) He pronounces and executes divine judgment. (5) He is sacrificed even though completely innocent. And (6) He offers eternal life (in a sense), as evidenced by the extended life-span of the Hanks character and the mouse "Mr. Jingles."
**End SPOILER ALERT**
Don't miss out on this cinematic masterpiece.

I enjoyed this. One of the great advantages of the whole "Spiderman" concept is that it can be reinvented time and time again without really compromising the original character - a decent but lonely young man trying to make his way in the world and to get his girl. Like Tobey Maguire before him, the casting of the largely unknown Andrew Garfield works well - it allows a whole new generation of fans to follow their hero. The fact that he is cute in tights doesn't do him any harm either. Emma Stone is quite good, too, as the object of his affections "Mary Jane" and the whole look of the film is sophisticated and colourful. The story is very derivative, however - and that is the problem with this film. Though there is plenty of action, it becomes a little repetitive and uninspired. The CGI will always look good, and will increasingly do most of the work with these kind of films - indeed, just about everything in the Marvel Universe is 90% style over substance; but so long as they can still recruit enthusiastic actors to play the roles than the franchise might still have legs (though hopefully not eight) for the future. Martin Sheen and Sally Field add a little gravitas to the proceedings - the former has one of these wonderful Churchillian style voices that just goes on resonating, and Rhys Ifans makes for an OK mad scientist. As a stand alone adventure this works fine. Maybe a bit too long, but a cinema experience to be relished - then, maybe, just put away again for seven years.

Webb's Spider-Man, Spider-Man, does what ever a Spider can.
The Amazing Spider-Man is directed by Marc Webb and collectively written by James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent and Steve Kloves. It stars Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Denis Leary, Martin Sheen and Sally Field. Music is by James Horner and cinematography by John Schwartzman.
Peter Parker (Garfield) was orphaned as a boy when his parents were killed in a plane crash, raised by his Uncle Ben (Sheen) and Aunt May (Field), he is a clever lad but something of an outcast at high school. While investigating the disappearance of his parents and sporting a crush on class mate Gwen Stacy (Stone), Peter's life is tipped upside down when he is bitten by a radioactive spider that gives him abnormal powers.
While the Spider-Man franchise doesn't (thankfully) come packaged with the kind of bizarre mania that comes with Batman, the acolytes are a tough bunch to figure out. Sam Raimi's trilogy garnered close towards $2.5 billion worldwide, yet now, with this reboot (actually it's a reimaging) trundled off of the Sony production line, there are plenty of "fans" coming forward to say they never rated Raimi's films! Magurie was this, Dunst was that, Raimi missed the beat of the comic version of Spidey and etc and etc. Well I'm sorry, but I just don't remember any fall out apart from the near unanimously agreed upon over stuffing of Raimi's part 3. Perhaps I just didn't go on the right Spider-Man forums? But even then it's hard to argue with a box office take of $2.5 billion, those figures have to be made up of a good proportion of Spidey fans, surely? You would reasonably think.
I mention it because The Amazing Spider-Man has met with reviews from each end of the scale. Those at the high end who support the "reimaging" seem to focus on it being close to the real Spidey universe they wanted, with great casting, better effects work and a origin story of worth. At the other end is the arguments that "reimaging" a film that is only ten years old is daft, especially since it actually doesn't bring the promised new direction or origin story of worth. In fact it just juggles bits of the Raimi trilogy and plays it out with other Spider-Man characters instead. While Garfield is hardly an improvement since he's way too old for high school as well! The truth is that Webb's movie falls somewhere in between both sides of the argument, and that's not just me being Switzerland and staying neutral!
Negatively it plays out as a compromised production and not the film that the makers initially set out to make, there are too many dangling threads and haphazard edits that leave narrative gaps. An Important character disappears off the radar, other characters are given limited time to breathe, and crucial plot points are arrived at with stupendous leaps of logic. A coda spliced into the end credits tries to entice us for the sequel, suggesting that the quick wipe over the origin "origin" story was deliberate, it's unlikely, and feels like an afterthought. For a film that purports to be putting its own stamp on the Spidey universe, it quite often makes you think of Raimi's films anyway. It may be The Lizard instead of Green Goblin and Gwen instead of MJ, but the emotional and psychological beats are still the same. Reboot? My arse. Oh and Horner, who I'm normally a fan of, has turned in a score that lacks vim and vigour, it aspires to be full of swirling superhero fervour to raise the goose flesh on your arms, but instead it's just goose, and not a decently cooked one at that.
However, on the positive side of things, low expectation really helped me to enjoy the film, and I even watched it a second time to check over some initial reactions I had. There is still a lot to enjoy here. Acting is of a high standard (Ifans' performance as Curt Connors gets better on repeat viewings), with good chemistry generated between Stone and Garfield, the effects work is (obviously) better ten years on; something which gives us a better-more acrobatic-moving Spider-Man, while the whole make-up of Parker as a geek who becomes cocky, even arrogant, really adds a kick to the first half of the movie's coming-of-age narrative bent. It's also good that with a running time of over two hours the makers have the time to expand Peter as a character, making the audience wait with expectation of his life changing date with the spider. As for the villain, it's true enough to say that The Lizard is hardly an inspiring choice, but it does fit in with the whole origin story plan that Webb and his team want to tell. Though it should be noted that those seeking wall to wall fights between Spidey and The Liz are going to go a little hungry.
It's big on human story and not the lazy cash in movie it could have been, and undeniably it's fun, but the holes, dangling threads and logic leaps stop it breaking out to achieve its intentions. Looking forward to the sequel, mind 7/10

This is the fourth spider man movie although it is not the fourth sequel but rather one of these reboots which seems to be so popular today. I found the movie to be quite enjoyable but at the same time a bit of a let-down.
In some ways it is better than the previous trilogy by Sam Raimi (well it is not very hard to make something that is better than the 2nd installment in that trilogy of course). The film is darker, more serious and Spider Man is not so silly and a total mess-up when out of his costume as the character portrayed by Toby Maquire.
However, this movie has its own faults which makes me have to think hard whether it is really that much of an improvement over the previous movie and this is what makes me feel a bit let-down since I had hope that this reboot would be that “real” Spider Man movie that enabled me to forget about the previous ones.
A lot of not so interesting scenes are really dragged out and the important stuff is rushed. Peter Parker’s transition to Spider Man after his bitten is over and done with quite quickly. In another scene he spends 5 minutes trying to talk some kid out of a car. He even takes off his mask and gives it to him (what the f…) and in the end just zips him out with a net shot. He could have done that right away and spared us the boring time.
Generally I think this movie is indeed a better Spider Man movie than the previous ones though and I quite enjoyed the movie evening yesterday, just not as much as I hoped.

“The Amazing Spider-Man” has no reason to exist. Spider-man is a hero everyone knows. He´s been around for so long everyone is familiar with his origin, comic fan or not. Its basic pop culture. Then you have the Sam Raimi´s movies. Everyone saw them. They made loads of money and they´re always on tv. They are entertaining movies. “Spider-Man” gave us a good origin story in 2002. This movie simply wasn't needed.
Now I gave it the benefit of the doubt. There´s Burton´s Batman and Nolan´s. Maybe this was a different Spider-Man. A more “dark” vision perhaps! Maybe the movie spent a few minutes on the origin and then wisely moved on with its story. Maybe... well maybe it wasn't just another rehash. A shameless attempt to remake, or how they say it these days, reboot the same idea with minimal changes except the cast. I was naive.
The whole movie is about Spider-Man´s origin. They traded Mary Jane for another love interest and held off on “The Green Goblin” because that would be too much “rubbing it in the face” for the fans, I guess. We get Gwen Stacy and “The Lizard”. The rest is same old, same old. The same uncle Ben plot, the same scenes about making the suit, learning how to control powers, the search for the criminal Spider-man lets get away with horrific results. Same thing. Except everything is done without a spark of energy or creativity. Raimi´s movies were energetic, flowing with excitement. They were “new”. Seeing Spider-Man on the big screen, webbing all over the city, fighting “The Green Goblin”, it was amazing. We didn't have “The Avengers” back there, or “Iron Man”. This was like a dream come true for comic fans.
“The Amazing Spider-Man” smells of old cheese.
I tried to take the movie for what it was but it was impossible. My mind would not let me. I knew what was going to happen next. I knew all the plots! I´d seen it all before!
But even ignoring that the movie just does not work. Its slow, turgid with an unlikable Peter Parker and a CGI lizard for a villain. Parker is a whiny, self centered idiot. His relationship with aunt May and uncle Ben is never fully explored and what little there is consists of Parker being a rude jerk for no reason at all.
The movie has one thing going for it. The cast. Sally Field and Martin Sheen are great with what little material they have. Emma Stone is sexy and sweet which is “her thing” and again she pulls it off brilliantly. Rhys Ifans is decent as Curt Connors and surprisingly enough I loved Andrew Garfield as Spidey. Yes, seriously! He looks perfect for the part and he did his best with the horrible script. He´s charismatic and brought his own touch to the role instead of copying Toby Maguire. If the movie is even slightly original its because of him.
Some of the action in the last third of the movie is also spectacular. Spider-man´s movements when fighting are really well done as is the web-slinging. The action is well directed and exciting and the movie sets up a sequel rather nicely.
But its asking a lot to go over the material everyone knows for two hours for a few minutes of cool action. The movie plays it so safe it hurts. Its competent but never brilliant. Tedious but far too long with little spots of action but few and far between.
I hope in the sequel this “Spider-Man” can find its own style and its own place. Given space to grow and evolve, on the strength of the character and Garfield´s acting this could be the weak start to a new amazing super-hero trilogy.
Then again, maybe i´m just naive.

"Jack Torrance" is a writer who suffers from a chronic lack of inspiration. To help overcome his block, he takes a job as a winter caretaker and relocates his family to the remote, huge, "Overlook Hotel" where he hopes he can focus! Gradually, the bleak Arctic conditions outside and the never ending, brightly lit, corridors and rooms long since abandoned start to affect his mind. When he ventures towards the expressly off-limits room 237 it all begins to get truly out of hand. Shelley Duvall is fabulous as his put-upon wife "Wendy" as is Danny Lloyd as their gifted, but largely terrified son "Danny". Kubrick is on top form as he cleverly capitalises on Stephen King's terrifying story helping the star create a wonderful sense of madness and menace tinged with quite a bit of comedy that leaves us with an horror film that is truly scary for a change! Credit also to the make up folks - they manage to help Nicholson transfer from obnoxious writer to axe-wielding psychopath; especially around the eyes, with real impact. 40 yeas on, it still packs a punch.

"Darling, I'm not gonna hurt you. I'm just gonna bash your brains in."
The Shining is a great example of how musical score and cinematography can elevate a movie to the best-of-the-best.
I tend to agree with Stephen King that Jack Nicholson looked like a crazy loon from the beginning, making his decent into madness less dramatic.
But that can be forgiven by all the iconic scenes masterfully weaved into a horror classic.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)
With Doctor Sleep, an almost 40-year sequel to The Shining, being released this week, now it’s the perfect time to revisit one of the greatest horror movies of all-time, as well as one of the most influential directors ever, Stanley Kubrick. I know, I know… Spoiler-free? For a movie released in 1980? Well, first of all, there’s always someone who still didn’t watch it. Secondly, as deeper we get into the 21st century, the more the 60s/70s/80s/90s movies are forgotten. And finally, if there’s a movie which I don’t need spoilers to explain how outstanding it is, it’s The Shining. With that said …
It has always been one of my favorite horror films ever. It’s not perfect (no film is) and some aspects don’t work as well now as they did 5/10/20 years ago. When it came out, Kubrick’s adaptation of Stephen King’s novel was received with mixed reactions. King himself criticized the movie. However, less than 10 years later, Kubrick’s film was already being reevaluated. Nowadays, it’s considered a cult classic, and it’s easy to understand why. From the countless homages to the hundreds of comedic parodies, The Shining has some of the most memorable lines ever. Just this year, we had It: Chapter Two mimicking Jack Nicholson’s “Here’s Johnny!” scene, for example. And then there’s the mysterious “redrum”…
However, the movie’s biggest influence is its technical achievements. I apologize in advance if this review becomes too technical, but it’s impossible not to address the arguably best component of the film. This movie was one of the first to use Steadicam (a camera stabilizer mount which allows for smooth shots, even on irregular surfaces, isolating the operator’s movement), something that became so common that people don’t even praise anymore. Honestly, there are still a bunch of recent movies that have terrible camera work, so I’m one of those who defend that the Steadicam use shouldn’t be taken for granted. Especially how Kubrick did, barely above the floor, which originated the extension “low-mode” that now exists and allows for the operator to easily shoot lower than its waist.
With the innovative use of the technical equipment, Kubrick’s delivers a masterclass in framing (composing the visual content of a series of frames as seen from a point of view). So much that it became worthy of studying. Almost every shot in this movie has a visual clue or an underlying theme. If you ever feel bored during your viewing, then you’re (probably) not “watching it right”. You’re not truly thinking about it or looking around the characters. This isn’t a generic horror flick with monsters or demons jump scaring you. It’s heavy on visual storytelling, so if you don’t pay attention, you’re going to reach the film’s climactic and enigmatic ending and feel that you missed something.
From the mise-en-scene (arrangement of everything that appears in the framing, hence this French term that means “placing on stage“) having several blood-red colors to the wide shots clearly showing “exit” signs and giving the maze-vibe of the enormous hotel, the imminent danger is visually spread out across the movie. The symmetry/mirroring is absolutely crucial to not only deliver key plot points but to create this sense of reality vs fantasy. From the hotel’s structure and decoration (everything is incredibly symmetric) to the growing use of mirrors (these are heavily used to either literally translate words or to show the descent into madness), Kubrick’s framing is what leaves viewers scratching their heads, still to this date.
You’ll always find something new on another viewing. It might be from 1980, but it’s a movie that requires your full attention. Don’t underestimate films from the 20th century like you can’t be surprised by a film “that old” (you’ll be dumbfounded by dozens). If John Alcott’s cinematography is impressive, then what can I write about Wendy Carlos and Rachel Elkind’s haunting score? Nowadays, scores are more based on creating an emotional impact on specific moments. However, throughout the film and during dialogues, even epic films still have a subtlest approach to these scenes, and the music is either very quiet or completely inexistent.
In The Shining, the score is part of the conversation. If a character feels fear or danger is imminent, a simple heartbeat can elevate such a moment. If two characters gradually turn their dialogue into something more violent and aggressive, the music makes sure to accompany that descent into craziness. It’s a perfect horror film’s score. Technically, I’ll stop there because no words will be able to express how mind-blowing Kubrick’s visionary methods are. He’s one of the greatest directors ever, maybe even the most influential. Hopefully, his work will always be remembered and never stop being relevant.
Story-wise, The Shining also inspired a whole new generation. Everyone knows and loves the key moments of the film, but it’s the clever exposition that satisfies me. Every piece of information is given through either an incredibly captivating dialogue or visual clues/actions. I watched the 144min version of the film (the European version has 25min less than the American version, and the latter has a final scene at a hospital edited out by Kubrick himself), and pretty much every single scene is intended to mean something. It can be important new information or an update on a previous plot point, but every single sequence has a particular purpose.
Jack Nicholson commands the screen with a phenomenal performance, one of his career’s best. His script might be very well-written, but his delivery and commitment to the role are astonishing. He carries one-take, extense dialogues seamlessly. Credit to Kubrick for making a movie with at least 2/3-minute takes, sure, but Nicholson is able to transform a good scene into a fantastic one. Danny Lloyd delivers one of my favorite young performances ever. His voice as Tony is a great accomplishment, and he seems to understand his surroundings, in a way that I never felt like I needed to “go easy” on him because he’s just impeccable.
Shelley Duvall, however, is a mixed bag for me. Over-the-top displays were better received at the time, but almost 40 years later, her performance does reach an unbearable level a few times. She’s an amazing counterpart for Nicholson and she stands her own within their dialogues, but when she’s alone or in an emotionally troubled moment, she’s too much to handle. Scatman Crothers doesn’t have that much screentime as Dick Halloran, but he shines every time he has to deliver a line. Some people complain about the slow pacing, but I love how it helps elevate the suspense and building up moments of immense tension. While the ending might be just a tad abrupt, the final image of the film stays with us forever, and after all this time, I still didn’t settle on my own theory.
All in all, The Shining might be one of the most accessible classics to new viewers of today to understand why it is, in fact, one of the greatest and most influential horror films of all-time. Stanley Kubrick’s masterclass in framing with his play on symmetry and mirrors is evident, so even if you don’t study the art of filmmaking, it’s clear that these two themes are vital to telling the story. In addition to his framing, his use of the innovative Steadicam and his notable mise-en-scene shaped an entire new generation that never misses a chance of paying homage to his work. Besides the impressive technical achievements, Jack Nicholson delivers a memorably haunting performance. The ending is still mind-blowing after all these years, and new theories keep coming up. While I’ll keep trying to settle on my own interpretation, don’t you dare spend the rest of your life without (re)watching this cult classic.
Rating: A+

Probably my favorite of the Stephen King adaptations (though not much for many of the others save for a one or two) but not amongst Stanley Kubrick's, watched this one for the first time in many years (maybe a decade) and while I did immensely enjoyed it, and really liked Nicholson towards the end, I never really bought into him early on. Still, atmospherically it was amazing and at times creepy. But can't place this as some sort of classic in my book, anyway. **4.0/5**