Okay action-thriller that has some decent action and overall was entertaining. However, this is one where I think Schwarzenegger was the wrong choice to lead as someone like Bruce Willis (circa 2002 mind you) would've worked better. Still, has its moments. **3.25/5**

***Lacks heart, but there are highlights and the compelling last act features a nice plot turn***
A vengeful Los Angeles fireman (Arnold Schwarzenegger) goes to the jungles of Colombia to apprehend a terrorist (Cliff Curtis) where he meets the man’s dissenting wife (Francesca Neri) & their son. An angry CIA agent (Elias Koteas) also travels to Colombia to join with paramilitary allies to take down the same man. When the two teams learn of a planned terrorist attack at Union Station, Washington DC, they return to the USA.
"Collateral Damage" (2002) is an action/adventure originally set to be released a few weeks after 9/11, but due to that tragedy it was set back four months wherein an anti-CIA subplot was removed, as well as a plane hijacking. What we are left with is a by-the-numbers film with a couple of highlights that perks up in the final act with an unexpected twist.
There’s a spectacular waterfall sequence shot in southeastern Mexico, which takes place near the beginning of the second act. Another highlight occurs at the end of the second act where the movie drives home the problem with military attacks and the eventual revenge of the enemies: One nation’s military attacks a paramilitary organization wherein innocent civilians are killed, which is considered “collateral damage,” and so the paramilitarists attack the nation in question with more “collateral damage.” Who’s right and who’s wrong? And where does it end?
The film runs 1 hour, 48 minutes, and was shot in Los Angeles & Burbank, California; Coatepec, Veracruz, Mexico (standing in for Colombia); Union Station, Washington DC; and New York City .
GRADE: C+/B-

Don't even look at those guys unless you can kill 'em.
Hmm. As with all action films, especially those that feature one of the action heroes we grew up with, there will be supporters of even the most turgid of productions. Collateral Damage was the point where the truest and honest of Arnold Schwarzenegger's fans knew it was the end of an era.
Famously held back from release for a year due to the 9/11 attacks on the twin towers, the film pitches Schwarzenegger as a L.A. fireman, who after his wife and child are killed by an act of terrorism, decides to take the law into his own hands. The focus here is Colombia, and the big guy goes off to Colombia on a one man crusade to kill those responsible for his grief. Cue explosions, kinetic action, bad effects, bad dialogue, mucho posturing and hissing villains.
It works on a very basic level for fans of such fare, in fact it's nice to see Arnie playing a vulnerable role where he quite often gets hurt - both physically and mentally. It's just that it feels tired, feels too long, while it wastes a cast that includes Elias Koteas, John Turturo and John Leguizamo. Decent enough as a time waster? Yes, just, but really if this wasn't on Schwarzenegger's CV then nobody would lose any sleep over it. 5/10

_**Moving magical tale at an apartment complex in Philadelphia**_
A superintendent at an apartment building in a suburb of Philadelphia (Paul Giamatti) discovers an innocent redhead in the pool (Bryce Dallas Howard) who needs the assistance of several tenants to escape the creatures that threaten her and her mission.
"Lady in the Water" (2006) is a drama/fantasy based on a bedtime story that writer/director M. Night Shyamalan told his kids. Like most Shyamalan pictures there’s a moving reverent ambiance amidst the amusing and sometimes horrific dramatics. It’s very original, coming across as a Shyamalan flick mixed with elements of fantasy movies, like “The Wizard of Oz” (1939). Think about it, “The Wizard of Oz” meshed a family drama with a dreamlike fantasy involving wonder, humor and slight horror along with a profound message, and so does this film (which isn’t to say it’s as effective as “Wizard”).
The set of the apartment complex and the cinematography thereof combined with James Newton Howard’s score are all superb. Plus there are some amusing moments, like with the dour film critic (Bob Balaban). Similar to “Signs” (2002), there’s a good theme about coming to grips with tragedy and moving on with a newfound sense of purpose. Moreover, Bryce is very appealing as the naïve fantasy creature and the movie leaves you with a warm feeling.
On the negative side, the somewhat convoluted fable will be less than compelling for certain viewers and some critics understandably complained that it was a mistake for Shyamalan to cast himself as the writer whose words are the seeds to changing the world, although it didn’t bother me; I think he’s perfect for the role. Still, M. Night casting himself as the savior of the freakin’ planet is a tad pretentious.
The film runs 1 hour, 49 minutes, and was shot in Levittown, Pennsylvania, a suburb northeast of Philadelphia.
GRADE: B-

HECK YEAH BICEP MAN

I was a bit sceptical when I saw the casting for this - Shia LaBeouf trying to rehabilitate himself after his recent off-screen shenanigans with a heart-rending story about a lad with Down Syndrome? Well, how wrong was I? It is a an uplifting experience from start to finish. A brief appearance from Bruce Dern, a coating of of vaseline and away we go into a journey that sees Zak meet and travel with Tyler as they develop a bond that is truly joyful and convincing. You can tell that they both had fun making the film, the chemistry is palpable. Our family used to work closely with folks and their families coping with DS and the notion of restraining them for their own (and others' good) in institutions was never far away; this escape and subsequent adventure demonstrates, albeit fictionally, that the human spirit is alive and well in everyone. Highly recommend this film.

Cinema cannot get much better than this. Brilliant.

> Heartwarming and sweet, though lacking a memorable plot to anchor it.

'The Peanut Butter Falcon' has become the rare indie darling to make a splash at the U.S. box office, and Australian audiences would be wise to follow suit. It's a comedy that is as sweet and unique as its main star, and points towards a bright future for disabled inclusivity in film.
- Ashley Teresa
Read Ashley's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-the-peanut-butter-falcon-wholesome-and-heartfelt

Decided to get in one more Friday the 13th movie and this one reminded me why it's not high on my list in the series, though I liked portions of it, just nothing involving Shelly and watching it in 2D, the shots made for 3D are pretty annoying. I will say, I did like the lead actress and I'm a fan of the hockey mask Jason. **3.0/5**

***Somewhat fun and entertaining, but adds campiness and bad writing***
The first two films from 1980-1981 are serious in nature with the expected antics of youths at a remote camp, but the franchise introduced a campy element with this third installment, which pretty much plagued the rest of the series until the reboot in 2009. Not that I'm complaining much, as these films are only quasi-believable anyway.
Still, this is the main detriment of "Part III,” released in 1982. The opening credits song tips the viewer off that this isn't a wholly serious horror film (like the first two), which is compounded when a couple of the protagonists meet some sinister bikers at a convenience store in the boonies, which takes place about 25 minutes into the story. These hoodlums are too cartoonish to take serious and so it's hard to take the horror seriously either. This doesn't mean it's not entertaining in some ways, just that it's my least favorite installment.
The dubious writing doesn’t help. For instance, why does Fox go into the barn? Speaking of that dang barn, why on earth are so many characters preoccupied with it? It’s like the writer wanted to come up with any possible excuse to use the barn as a focal point. Also, why does Vera leave Shelly to go outside and hangout by herself? I realize she probably wanted to get away from the pathetic guy, but she informs him that she’s going to go outside with a sense of purpose and come back in, but she really doesn’t do much outside. Sequences like this reflect lame writing.
Another noticeable difference between Part III and the two previous films is that, although the story takes place in the area of Crystal Lake, the film was shot in Southern Cal instead of the East Coast, specifically Santa Clarita, CA, and nearby Melody Ranch (where the barn is located). The geography is obviously dryer and the contrast in setting is too glaring. While it could be argued that the different environment provides a nice change of tone, the setting seems too one-dimensional.
As usual with the series, the film thankfully features a nice assortment of females: three white girls, a Hispanic and a black woman, the latter being the biker chick, Fox. It's hard to pick a favorite, but the main protagonist, Chris, played by Dana Kimmell, is probably it, followed by the stoner chick, Chili; not to mention Debbie and Vera (Debbie has a quality bikini scene).
BOTTOM LINE: Part III is entertaining in some ways and is notable for switching the filming locations to dry Southern California, not to mention Jason is bigger and more imposing than in Part II and he finally acquires his iconic hockey mask. Yet it’s my least favorite of the franchise due to the goofy elements, the subpar writing and the limited setting with too much focus on a freakin’ barn.
The film runs 95 minutes.
GRADE: C

Still to this day, the entry with the creepiest looking Jason.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

The kindly young “Fern” (Dakota Fanning) manages to rescue a runt piglet and rear it as her own pet - despite the reservations of her dad. As it grows up, though, it becomes too big to live in their home so it’s sent to a nearby family farm and that’s where we all meet “Wilbur”. He’s an engaging and curious little critter who fits in with his talkative farmyard friends quickly and obliviously coasts through life until one of his new pals mentions the dreaded “C” word! He’s naturally quite terrified but what can he do? Well fortunately, the ingenious spider “Charlotte” lives in their barn too, and she concocts a plan that might just save his bacon! What now ensues sees a series of mischievous incidents that allows each animal to characterise a little as “Wilbur” and “Charlotte” come up with a plan to immortalise the young piggy. This is one of those stories I recall reading at school, and though it can run a little to sentiment, it’s still an entertainingly thoughtful story of fitting in, of team playing and of enduring friendship and though many years later I have undoubtedly become more of a cynic, it still has the power to reduce things to basics in quite a poignant fashion. It’s about optimism and sacrifice and the voice talents (on the English language version, anyway) offer us a friendly and touching story that still celebrates a vicarious version of humanity, well. Fanning delivers amiably, the animation is enjoyable to watch and if the last ten minutes doesn’t make you smile and blub just a little, then you’ve left your heart in the fridge.

Decent watch, probably won't watch again, but can recommend for younger audiences.
It's based off of a famous book, Dakota Fanning, Steve Buscemi, Julia Roberts are all charming in their own ways, but I never realized what a dud of a character Wilbur was before this. Sure, he's a happy-go-lucky guy and social trend setter, but he's a character that needs a lot of help and doesn't even really give back.
The story feels like a more modern fable: there is a lesson of morality and life here, but it is a lot more subtle than I'm used to fables being. Of course this has a cooked in version of explaining life and death to young children, but it feels like it tries to convey that a life well served, however short, is good life. This does make the movie oddly charming, but I can't say that it makes it as great as I remember the book being.
Now, that may be nostalgia glasses, or maybe I have them for the this movie, but I think, in the end, it's an average movie with a good story that kids might like.

This is a lovely film :) Julia Roberts is lovely as the eponymous character, Dakota Fanning is a delightful Fern, and Dominic Scott Kay is an adorable Wilbur- if you see the special features, he does come across as quite a shy little boy
Lovely film :) <3

They at least made this movie to connect with the previous ones. A new family moves into the house where the girls lived 20 years ago.

One step forward and two steps back! “The Ghost Dimension” seeks to breathe new life into a tired brand, but its fresh take ultimately hurts the franchise more than it helps. The concept of “a special camera that can see spirits” may have seemed intriguing at first, but in practice, it runs counter to the entire premise of the “Paranormal Activity” franchise . After all, it’s far more unsettling to speculate about what a demon may look like than actually seeing one. Moreover, the horror element is diminished if the audience knows the demons’ next move; the film becomes little more than a collection of cheap scares tossed in for effect. The story is poorly written; the characters are among the franchise’s most inept yet, and they’ll make you scratch your head despite the performers’ best efforts. “The Ghost Dimension” presented some new lore, but ultimately failed to achieve anything substantial. In any case, as it is, it’s a disappointing sixth entry in a franchise that has been pushed through the Hollywood meat grinder to cash in on the first film’s success.
___
Rating: **5/10** *(Meh, Nothing Remarkable)*

There are certain film franchises that just cannot take a hint and go away. The idea of milking the stale novelty of the on-going queasy saga of repetitive horrifying hedonism is something that both the movie-makers and movie-goers are guilty of perpetrating that ultimately feeds into the chronic sequelitis of misbegotten movies refusing to surrender the spotlight. This is definitely indicative of the Paranormal Activity movie series that stretched its one-time legitimate creepy credibility into a tired and tacky frightfest that overstayed its welcome. Hence, the arrival of the latest extension in the veteran found footage phenom machine entitled Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension. Basically, audiences needed another Paranormal Activity installment much like a creaky skeleton needs its share of body fat. Thus, this so-called "final entry" makes its macabre mark in the mediocrity of mayhem.
After four previous Paranormal Activity fear-inducing flicks (with Paranormal Activity 4 being released three years ago this month in October), the fifth entry for Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension looks to grind out what is left to pick apart in this grainy and grating creeper. Unfortunately, The Ghost Dimension drags and drowns in its desperate and dull attempt to parlay the familiar foundation of sketchy scares and manufactured jitters as it tries to jump start the stark memories from the other predecessors. The problem is that the Paranormal Activity editions have not sustained itself adequately after the original blueprint. So there is nothing to really build in terms of varying degrees of suspense and shock when the last couple of sequels were thanklessly watered down.
One would not mind so much if Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension was a viable swan song that wrapped up its continued bump-in-the-night theme with something unique and invigorating as it looks to wave goodbye to its former reputation as a distinctive chiller thriller. Sadly, The Ghost Dimension feels clunky and goes through the motions while not missing a beat in presenting the same old hair-raising high jinks. This is business as usual and even the most ardent defender of the Paranormal Activity film experience deserves more than this stillborn haunted house boofest.
It is a shame that the original brilliance of Paranormal Activity has been lost in the shuffle following a series of continued creepy-minded chronicles that single-handily ruined such an innovative premise. The blueprint for PA started out promising as it delved into the haunting shenanigans of its found footage gimmick that appeared so refreshingly raw and arresting. Plus, the unseen terror and imagined goosebump goings-on solidified this scare tactic piece of cinema as the "reel deal" of shock cinema at the time. It looked as if the PA influence would revolutionize (or at least lend some innovative spark) the horror genre to a different degree of expectation.
The premise in The Ghost Dimension finds a family man Ryan Fleege (Chris J. Murray) and his loved ones in wife Emily and young daughter Leila (Brit Shaw and Ivy George) moving into a new house as they get situated in their exciting place. Soon, Ryan and his brother Mike (Dan Gill) come across something most unusual--a leftover box containing a camera and VHS tapes (NOTE: it is worth mentioning that the tapes detail the harried happenings that occurred in Paranormal Activity 3). Strangely, Ryan and Mike come to the realization that this most peculiar piece of equipment has a bizarre power in that it can record what they are doing and broadcast it to other sources for whom they are viewing thus creating a link to past and present goings-on. Furthermore, this weird camera has captured the roaming and ominous spirit in the household. The threatening revelation, of course, is that the spooky presence of this ghostly figurehead is drawn to little Leila. Naturally, the concern is an open and shut case: the family must obviously protect the child from the pesky apparition as they are determined to get to the bottom of the mysterious camera that has caused this sudden sense of domesticated dire.
Other than serving as a mere bridge to connect the previous PA outings to pad the proceedings in this current edition, The Ghost Dimension has really nothing to offer in terms of developing its own path of peril. This "retread of dread" feels needlessly wasted and we never are invested totally in what appears to be another routine rousing romp fortified with basic stares and scares, predictable knee jerk reactions, silly-minded atmospheric special effects and the typical "child gloom-doom possession" tactic that has been overused countless times before. Sure, Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension promises to answer some of the lingering questions that were presented in this movie's so-called folklore and does indeed touch upon some key factors that PA fans were curious about previously. Still, the film's pay-off in the later part of the story feels concocted and unsatisfying. Indeed, The Ghost Dimension feels like some elaborate patch job as opposed to a solid scream-dream thriller hoping to tie all the pieces together in a film fright series that has inexplicably lasted over the last several years. Simply, the ensuing PA chronicles has been overwrought with meager menacing indifference.
Director Gregory Plotkin (whose credits include editing some of the PA flicks) helms this narrative with a run-of-the-mill flair that does not help an already pedestrian exposition short on its share of daring chills. Surprisingly, The Ghost Dimension has an impressive handful of screenwriters with decent track records of scripting serviceable psychological gems yet their collaboration seems ineffective and incomplete. Perhaps an appropriate case of too many cooks crowded in the kitchen of creativity? The one saving grace, thank goodness, is John Rutland's delicious cinematography that is vividly shot with imaginative urgency. As for the 3-D special effects that are scattered throughout The Ghost Dimension, they somewhat resonate but it is nothing that one would label compellingly expressive from a visual standpoint.
If the Paranormal Activity legacy has a Ghost of a chance to preserve its movie-making memories, it should take its final curtain call with Dimension and allow any found footage of these churned out sequels to speak for itself in the haunted house genre it contributed to so convincingly in its heralded heyday.
Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension (2015)
Paramount Pictures
1 hr. 28 mins.
Starring: Chris J. Murray, Brit Shaw, Ivy George, Dan Gill, Olivia Taylor Dudley, Jessica Brown, Chloe Csengery, Tyler Brown
Directed by: Gregory Plotkin
MPAA Rating: R
Genre: Horror/Psychological Thriller/Haunted House Suspense
Critic's Rating: * 1/2 stars (out of 4 stars)
(c) Frank Ochieng (2015)

_**One of the goriest films ever made**_
A Survivor-like reality show meets in the backwoods of West Virginia where the contestants & crew find themselves assaulted by a family of mutant yokels. Henry Rollins plays the Drill Instructor-like host of the show.
“Wrong Turn 2: Dead End” (2007) is the first of many sequels in the franchise about cannibalistic hillbillies in Appalachia. The reason "Deliverance" (1972) is so iconic and unsettling is because the story actually COULD happen. The first “Wrong Turn” film from 2003 started out this way but became increasingly unbelievable as the story progressed. As such, it was entertaining and compelling but not genuinely scary.
This one adds some overt camp and goofiness while increasing the gore factor. It may well be the goriest film ever made at the time of its release. And it is entertaining to a point, despite the disgusting elements (not just gore, but sleaze as well), yet it’s not truly chilling because it’s so over-the-top it’s cartoonish.
Still, Rollins does well as the gung-ho host and a few of the protagonists emerge as likable people worthy of surviving. Unfortunately, the most agreeable character is one of the first to buy the farm. I’m of course not taking about the annoying Kimberly Caldwell in the opening, although what happens to her is amusing in a “shocking” black humor kind of way.
Petite Aleksa Palladino (Mara) stands out on the feminine front. Crystal Lowe (Elena) is alluring but her character is a loathsome skank. Erica Leerhsen (Nina), who was a highlight as the Wiccan lass in "Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2" (2000), still looks good, but has unfortunately lost weight and looks stick-like.
The mutant hicks are well done, but most of them look like Klingons from Star Trek from back in the day, just uglier.
While “Wrong Turn 2” has some entertainment value, it’s so excessive in its attempt to be revolting & amusing it loses impact. Less is more.
The film runs 1 hour, 33 minutes, and was shot in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
GRADE: C

I can imagine the pitch for this..."Ok, you know how re-makes have had a history of flopping and being completely horrible? Well, we are going to remake Overboard....but wait, we are going to switch the characters around...but wait, we are going to make one of them Latino and give it a vague 'Spanglish' remake feel in the process. Oh. Yeah, and of course we are going to make it absolutely horrible to keep with the remake tradition."
Like all remakes lately, this one lacks any real heart or chemistry. I am fairly certain that the actors were told "listen we've already done that so why don't you just phone it all on, even when you're going the vague 'Spanglish' remake in the remake."
With the exception of Ghostbusters, I don't think a single one of these has actually made any money and even then, the only reason why people pretended to like Ghostbusters was because they were bullied and threatened to.
This trend really needs to end. Not because they are destroying childhood favorites, but because they are awful movies.

**_Just like Mulholland Drive. Except really, really, really awful_**
>_I got sent the script for_ Under The Silver Lake _and it was as mind-bending in word, as it was, in deed, as it were. It was 160-odd pages, which is about 30 or 40 pages more than the usual script, and it was like as if Sean Astin's character, Mikey, from_ The Goonies _is far too old to still be going on adventures, but he still wants to. But now he's in a David Lynch film that's set in a Los Angeles that's like the antithesis of the_ La La Land _Los Angeles. The deep, dark underbelly of L.A. And I read it and I just th__ought, this is totally marvellous and totally unique, and it's very, very rare that you get a unique piece of cinema in this day and age. I thought, well, I love_ The Goonies_, and I love David Lynch, and I love Los Angeles._
>_Also I loved it because it was quite skewering of Hollywood and a kind of patriarchal abusive system. I think Sam sees himself as a Travis Bickle. He sees himself as this liberator, he's fully deluded in this self-assessment. He sees himself as this vigilante liberator of the divine, sacred feminine in Hollywood. But actually he has a tendency to perpetuate the same abuse in an unconscious way perhaps. I just found it really, really interesting, and it's a mystery, within a mystery, within a mystery, and there's no getting to the centre of it. I think that's maybe the point - we're on a constant quest towards the centre of things. And perhaps that's enough, just being on the quest is enough._
- Andrew Garfield; "Andrew Garfield Interview: _Under the Silver Lake_, Pop Culture Obsessions, and Spider-Verse" (Ben Travis); _Empire_ (March 19, 2019)
In 2001, an unknown 26-year-old filmmaker named Richard Kelly released a film called _Donnie Darko_. Filmed on a tight budget over a few weeks, it made little impact at the box-office, but was critically championed as heralding a genuinely unique and exciting voice in genre filmmaking. The following year, the film was released on VHS and DVD, earning twice as much as it did at the cinema, and giving Kelly virtual _carte blanche_ for his next project. In 2006, that hotly-anticipated project was premièred in a rough-cut form at Cannes. The 160-minute _Southland Tales_ was savaged by critics, and went through multiple re-edits before a 144-minute version was released theatrically in North America in 2007. Grossing less than $1 million against a $7 million budget, the film was released straight-to-DVD in most international territories. Kelly's career has yet to recover, and he has made only one film since. In 2014, David Robert Mitchell released his second feature, _It Follows_, which he shot on a tight budget over a few weeks. A box office and critical success, the film was championed as heralding a genuinely unique and exciting voice in genre filmmaking, giving Mitchell virtual _carte blanche_ for his next project. In 2018, that hotly-anticipated project was premièred at Cannes, where it was savaged by critics.
Okay, the analogy isn't perfect – _Southland Tales_ was Kelly's second film, whereas _Under the Silver Lake_ is Mitchell's third; _It Follows_ was nowhere near as good or as celebrated as _Donnie Darko_; and _Under the Silver Lake_ isn't quite as bad as _Southland Tales_, nor have the negative reviews from Cannes been quite as damning or universal. However, the sequence of events is undeniably similar - a young filmmaker riding high on an unexpected success dusts off an ambitious older project he had been unable to make at the time, and is given far too much autonomy and leeway, resulting in a pretentious, self-indulgent, convoluted, overlong mess. It's like no one has learnt from the hubris of Michael Cimino!
Positioning itself as equal parts neo-noir and genre subversion, _Under the Silver Lake_ is essentially a cross between David Lynch's _Mulholland Drive_ (2001) and Thomas Pynchon's _Inherent Vice_ (2009). With the major difference being that it's absolutely, unrelentingly terrible. As with Mitchell's previous films, _Silver Lake_ works as both an example and a subversion of genre - _The Myth of the American Sleepover_ (2010) was a homage to films such as Peter Bogdanovich's _The Last Picture Show_ (1971), George Lucas's _American Graffiti_ (1973) and the work of John Hughes, whilst also deconstructing the coming-of-age subgenre; and _It Follows_ recalls films such as William Friedkin's _The Exorcist_ (1973), Wes Craven's _A Nightmare on Elm Street_ (1984) and the work of John Carpenter, whilst also satirising the tropes of such films. _Silver Lake_ is no different - a mystery noir à la Robert Aldrich's _Kiss Me Deadly_ (1955), Robert Altman's _The Long Goodbye_ (1973), and Roman Polański's _Chinatown_ (1974), the film is also at pains to undermine and critique many of the generic markers found in such films. A 140-minute labyrinthine, paranoia-laden shaggy-dog story full of MacGuffins, false leads, narrative dead ends, and unexplained details, the film relocates the detective stories of Raymond Chandler and Dashiell Hammett to the chaotic postmodern era of cognitive semiotics where the relationship between signifier and signified is now so arbitrary that meaning-making itself has become a protean commodity. However, it is easily the most self-important piece of garbage I've seen in a long time; a philosophically juvenile rumination thoroughly convinced of its own portentousness. Fundamentally misogynistic (it's not misogyny, apparently, because Mitchell is being super-ironic when he presents no less than six female characters as literal sex toys for the protagonist), it's at least 45 minutes too long, with an unfocused narrative, poorly thought-out metaphors, an insipid protagonist, about 377 themes, and a laughable screenplay. The cinematography is pretty though.
Set in contemporary LA, _Under the Silver Lake_ follows Sam (Andrew Garfield), a 33-year-old man-child with no job, no ambition, and no direction, whose day consists of sitting on his balcony watching his neighbour (Wendy Vanden Heuvel) parade around topless, having unfulfilling NSA sex with a friend-with-benefits (Riki Lindhome), and visiting his drinking buddy (Topher Grace) to use a drone to spy on women (it should tell you a bunch about the film that none of these three characters are even assigned a name). Out of the blue, he meets and instantly falls in love with Sarah (an admittedly radiant Riley Keough), but when he visits her apartment the day after meeting her, he finds her gone and the apartment empty, apart from a shoebox with a photograph and a few trinkets, and a strange symbol painted on the wall. Although he later identifies Sarah as one of three women killed in a car crash alongside billionaire media mogul (and professional stuntman) Jefferson Sevence (Chris Gann), having recognised a hat found at the scene to be hers, he refuses to believe she's dead. And so begins an odyssey to track her down that ultimately involves, amongst other things, a parrot who keeps repeating the same meaningless phrase, a hipster pirate, secret codes hidden in everyday objects such as statues, song lyrics, _Nintendo Power_ magazines, and cereal boxes, a glam rock band named Jesus and the Brides of Dracula, the July 1970 issue of _Playboy_, a dog murderer, a conspiracy theorist comic book writer (Patrick Fischler), the Hobo Code, a vast network of underground tunnels, an actual literal homeless king (David Yow), a helpful coyote, an unhelpful skunk, an escort agency staffed by former child-stars, a balloon dancer (Grace Van Patten), a walled-off Xanadu-like mansion, a mysterious songwriter (Jeremy Bobb) with a strange claim, a female serial killer who enters men's apartments wearing nothing but an owl mask, and a New Age cult lead by super-wealthy men.
And if this makes it sound convoluted, unwieldly, and overly plotted, believe me, you don't know the half of it.
Perhaps the most immediately obvious aspects of _Silver Lake_ is the sheer range of homages that Mitchell includes at both plot and formal levels. Some of these homages are impressively handled, some not so much. The music by Rich Vreeland, for example, and the cinematography by Mike Gioulakis are both extremely retro, serving to situate the film firmly in the formal styles of yesterday. Vreeland's score (although I didn't like it in and of itself) is a solid imitation of the work of composers such as Franz Waxman (_Sunset Boulevard_; _A Place in the Sun_; _Rear Window_) and Bernard Herrmann (_Citizen Kane_; _Vertigo_; _Psycho_), whilst Gioulakis's photography, with its overly dramatic camera movements and crash zooms that seem to come out of nowhere, recalls the work of Robert Burks (_Rear Window_; _To Catch a Thief_; _Vertigo_) and Sam Leavitt (_The Defiant Ones_; _Anatomy of a Murder_; _Cape Fear_).
Most of the other homages come at plot level, and although some are well integrated into the narrative, many feel shoehorned in, as if Mitchell is showing off his range of reference, so much so that the film essentially becomes pastiche. Examples include Sam's mother's obsession with Janet Gaynor, particularly Frank Borzage's _7th Heaven_ (1927); Sam sitting on his balcony using binoculars to spy on people, á la L.B. Jefferies (James Stewart) in Alfred Hitchcock's _Rear Window_ (1954); Sam's fascination with Don Ornitz's picture of Janet Wolf from the cover of the July 1970 issue of _Playboy_; a Nirvana poster above Sam's bed; Sam and Sarah watching Jean Negulesco's _How to Marry a Millionaire_ (1953); a brief glimpse of an _Amazing Spider-Man_ comic (intertextual and self-reflexive, given Garfield's appearance as the titular character in two films); a visual quotation of Marilyn Monroe in a swimming pool from George Cukor's unfinished _Something's Got to Give_ (1962); the Brides of Dracula doing a cover of Lulu's "To Sir with Love" (1967) from James Clavell's film of the same name; R.E.M.'s "Strange Currencies" (1994) playing at a party; a visit to Griffith Observatory from Nicholas Ray's _Rebel Without a Cause_ (1955); references to the original _Legend of Zelda_ (1986); a very on-the-nose shot of a gravestone with the word "Hitchcock" on it; and a scene that references songs as varied as The Arrows' "I Love Rock 'n' Roll" (1975), Gary Portnoy's "Where Everybody Knows Your Name" (1982) from the TV show _Cheers_, Foreigner's "I Want to Know What Love Is" (1984), Harold Faltermeyer's "Axel F" (1985) from the film _Beverly Hills Cop_, Pixies' "Where is my Mind?" (1988), Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit" (1991), and Backstreet Boys' "I Want it That Way" (1999). The most consistent referential touchstone, however, is David Lynch, particularly _Mulholland Drive_, an infinitely superior mystery thriller also set in the darker environs of LA involving a sprawling cast of strange characters.
Thematically, the film is all over the place, never settling on any one issue (or even a few issues), instead jumping around like a hyperactive puppy trying to be in eight different places at once. Characters say things such as "_who isn't being followed these days?_" and "_the ideology you thought you adopted through free will was actually subliminal messaging_", but it's all meaningless in a narrative chaos where nothing is ever examined for more than a couple of minutes before the film leaps onto something new. Positing that pop culture has profound hidden meaning (in direct contrast to most cultural-anthropological thinking), the film is so imprecise and scattered that it's impossible to tell if Mitchell actually buys into the notion that schizophrenic conspiracies are all around us or if he's being facetious.
And yes, I understand what he's doing here - presenting the film from the point of view of a pop culture-saturated Millennial who's easily distracted and hence keeps losing the run of his own story. However, just because it's apparent what the director is trying to do doesn't mean he has succeeded. Oliver Stone did a far better job of depicting a similarly media-soaked shortened-attention span over 20 years ago with _Natural Born Killers_ (1994). Easily the most interesting issue touched on is the concept that much of what has defined generations and been the artistic impetus behind and symbol of cultural revolutions throughout the 20th century all comes from the same corrupted and cynical place; the music that has most embodied rebellion and freedom is actually even more manufactured than the worst boy band could ever be. This is a fascinating and fundamentally postmodernist way of thinking, but mere moments after introducing it, Mitchell abandons the theme entirely in favour of a piece of absolutely gratuitous violence which says nothing of interest about anything.
The most troubling thing about the film from a thematic point of view, however, is how it depicts women. Yes, it's partly about the male gaze and how Hollywood has a track record of objectifying women, especially in films of this nature, so a degree of objectification is necessary. But Mitchell does it to the point where critique simply becomes content - he doesn't need six women (only two of whom are even given names, and none of whom receive much in the way of characterisation) to throw themselves at Sam to adequately deconstruct the trope. Granted, his intentions may be noble; he is obviously side-lining the female characters with the goal of satirising male entitlement, but he is unable to distinguish between replication and repudiation. All the best intentions in the world don't alter the fact that the women in the film are wallpaper, and his attempt to critique Hollywood's tendency to depict women as such ends up as simply another example of the very trope he is setting out to critique. So all the unnecessarily topless shots aren't exploitative you see, because irony!! Additionally, it's worth mentioning that Sam doesn't initiate a single sexual encounter; every one of them is initiated by the woman. How does that fit into Mitchell's deconstruction of Hollywood's depiction of men using women, if the women are essentially allowing themselves to be used? If his critique was in any way consistent, Sam would be seducing them, not the other way around, thus allowing Mitchell to directly engage with the notion that men look at women as playthings. It's a facile attempt to critique a theme that cries out this is a filmmaker attempting something that he simply doesn't have the requisite ability to pull off.
And if only these thematic issues were the film's only problems, it mightn't be so bad. Unfortunately, there is so, so much else wrong here. This is a (supposed) satire, yet there is practically no humour. There are a couple of funny scenes (such as when Sam beats up two children for egging his car), but they are few and far between. Additionally, Mitchell completely fails to make us care about Sam or his quest to find Sarah; there is no emotional connection whatsoever. As for the quest itself, it soon becomes obvious that we're following Sam down a rabbit-hole which Mitchell has filled to the brim with pointless digressions, meaningless distractions, and derivative clichés. Whereas in _Mulholland Drive_, Lynch creates a beautiful and complex tapestry where everything has precise meaning, with no wasted motion, no weirdness simply for weirdness sake, in _Silver Lake_, Mitchell just lobs anything and everything at the viewer whether it's ultimately significant or not. A pirate? Sure. A female serial killer? Why not. A dog murderer? Of course. A story that makes sense and deals with its themes coherently? Don't be ridiculous. It's like the worst type of student film where the filmmaker has been allowed to shoot whatever he wants, and ends up making something so convoluted that any meaning it may have becomes subsumed amongst self-important pretension. And the more needlessly complex and bloated the plot becomes, the less interesting it is. The whole thing smacks of Mitchell shouting "_look at me. Look how wacky I am._"
_Under the Silver Lake_ is a tiresome, self-important, overlong, intellectually juvenile mess. If Mitchell actually has anything to say about subliminal messaging, the commodification of women, wealth buying privileges even in the afterlife, the pervasiveness of pop culture, or conspiracy theories, it's lost within a painfully dull and self-indulgent plot. With _It Follows_, Mitchell was constricted by a tight budget. With _Silver Lake_, he has been allowed to play relatively unsupervised in the sandbox, and the results are disastrous; a swollen, self-admiring film that can't follow through on anything, thematically or narratively, a film that is totally and completely in love with itself.

I loved It Follows and I'm loving this.
The collaboration between Mitchell and Disasterpeace is fantastic once again. (This is what an impressionistic soundtrack sounds like Mr Nolan). Visually it is very stimulating without smacking you about the face with technique.
Might not be for everybody. I imagine it might hit too close to home for a lot of young men aged between 22 and 35.
If it appears that the movie concerns itself with a flimsy predicament enhanced by arguably shallow pop culture aspects then that's because it's precisely what a significant proportion of the male population, like the main character,(played by Andrew Garfield who is superb too) preoccupy themselves with. "It's as common as tits and hamburgers."
"Your art. Your writing. Your culture, is the shell of other men's ambitions. Ambitions beyond what you will ever understand."
Time will tell on this. I'm sure of it.

Relatable? Hell no. But a little bit of weirdness helps the medicine go down and _Under the Silver Lake_ is a fine sort of movie to just let happen. The performances are decent, and sure, there's a lot of wank happening here, but some originality too, and that goes a long way.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

**It's not a bad movie, there are much worse out there, and it's good to watch as a family, but it's not as good and as fresh as its predecessor.**
After the success of the initial film, it was difficult that there wasn't a follow-up that would somehow try to extract some more money for the benefit of the studios. And as is often the case, the quality of this film is not as good as the original film.
In this film, Mollie and James, now married, are expecting a second child, who will be a girl, who they call Julie, and who is born by cesarean section. The film follows the beginning of the relationship between the two brothers, Julie and Mikey, with all the natural conflicts between the two. At the same time, we accompany the adult couple in the midst of a relationship crisis, caused in part by James' bad relationship with his in-laws and by the need to increase the family income, now that there are two babies at home. As in any romantic comedy, everything is bound to end well, between several twists where the comedy, by the way, is predictable and much of what we saw in the first film is recycled and returns, without the initial glow.
This is not to say that the film is totally bad. In fact, it's a satisfying comedy that gives us enough to not give up our time for wasted. It's the comparison with what we saw earlier, in the original film, that knocks her down. The humor is still present, and it is not a tiresome film (the proof is in the fact that, thirty years later, it is still present on the TV channel grid, occasionally). And there's no doubt that it's an enjoyable movie to watch as a family.
The cast can once again count on the pleasant and well-executed appearances of John Travolta and Kirstie Alley. They also don't seem as committed as they did in the first film, Alley in particular, but they give a pretty satisfying performance. Bruce Willis and Roseane Barr give voice to the two babies and do it in a fun and believable way.
Technically, it's as bland and uninteresting as the first film: the cinematography doesn't bring anything new or particularly notable, and the sets and costumes are pretty much what we'd expect to find. The soundtrack is good enough.

A very good looking depiction of the early reign of England's Queen Elizabeth I with Oscar-nominated Cate Blanchett in the title role. Initially, she struggles to stay alive during the reign of her devoutly Catholic (a superbly cast Kathy Burke) half-sister Mary, with the help of her childhood friend Robert Dudley (Joseph Fiennes). These risks do not diminish at all once she succeeds to the throne and faces conspiracies and plots from all around. It's not the most historically accurate version of her early reign, but Richard Attenborough, Geoffrey Rush and a devious, unscrupulous schemer in Christopher Eccleston as the Duke of Norfolk keep this intrigue of treachery, betrayal and power moving along tautly. Michael Hirst has a definite penchant for writing of the Tudor times and Shekhar Kapur brings the costumes and palaces alive with some creative direction.

Even The Footballer did a decent job
Forget about historical records and accuracy or Henry VIII architecture, their buildings look like they are in the BC XI. I wont give it 10 because is full of historical inaccuracies, if this was a Russian film they would say it is disinformation and propaganda..., as a work of fiction it works, the cast is great every one here does great acting i can´t say who was better, if it was Ecclestone or Kate Blanchet; like most of the movies before the XXI century a cast full of stars was a guarantee of a good movie.

"_You're born as a man with the nerves of a soldier, the apprehension of an angel._"
This movie works in some parts, and is messy in others. It's like a car crash I can't seem to avoid watching. I enjoy the gambling parts but have a hard time understanding the reason for his lunacy.

As for me, that one-time film. It is interesting, it shows a great picture but that's all. I think that this film could be better if producer read more gold casino reviews and understand who are the true gamblers and how they think. But it is a good movie and if you don`t have what to watch in the evening you could watch that film.

Marky Mark try'na sell a watch to a stereotype made me kinda shame-laugh, and the last act was an improvement on the first two, but _The Gambler_ is not something I would recommend to, realistically, anyone at all.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

A decent space exploration movie. Worth a watch.
The story is quite run of the mill - nothing very original here. A group of astronauts are sent on a mission to explore one of Jupiter's moons. The plot follows the mission and the issues that arise during the mission. Although the premise is one we've seen before, it is told well in a solid manner, without frills or exaggeration.
The actors do their job well. Their characters are, again, solid and credible. No-one suddenly goes crazy and starts killing or sabotaging the mission. They are just a group of astronauts doing their job, with good and bad decisions taken along the way. There is not much character development or back story, which means one tends to care less about what happens to them in moments of crisis.
The filming is interesting - the audience is watching through cameras set up as communication feeds for Earth. This allows for some interesting shots and editing, and gives the movie an intimate feel. One can actually sense the space and limitations of the craft. Some scenes are really quite beautiful to watch.
Overall this is a decent movie and worth a watch. The director and actors do very well with the relatively low budget and a simple story. It was a bit slow at times, but never too much. Fans of space exploration movies will like this. Watch it at least once.