This review does contain spoilers
Such a disappointing movie. Adam Driver is a great actor but this movie is so incredible boring. 90% of the movie are encounters to another and then another and then another dangerous blood seeking Dino. Just when you think the story might get anywhere there is another Dino to shoot. Slowly you are realizing there is no more extra story. it is just a short journey to a top of a hill fighting Dino's. And Adam is a father of a 9 year old but then on this journey he has to do the journey with another 9 year old (which looks too old) and suddenly becomes like the dumbest not able to communicate person in the world. Such a waist of actor talent and special effects money. My guess is that the makers have cgi or vision art backgrounds because the only thing well done in this movie are the special effects.

"Mills" (Adam Driver) undertakes a long space mission so he can earn enough money for his poorly daughter to have life-saving treatment. Along the route, their ship encounters an uncharted meteor storm and next thing he knows, he is marooned on a distinctly hostile planet with the only other survivor - the feisty young "Koa" (Ariana Greenblatt) for company, Their only hope is to reach a distant part of their wrecked mother ship in which there is an escape module that can propel them back into space where they might be rescued. Snag? Well they are not the only living creatures on this world - and without exception, the others all want "Mills" and "Koa" sandwiches for lunch, and - wait for it - there is a great big meteor on a collision course with the planet that is going to have an existential impact on their surroundings. What now ensues is a rather predictable series of "Jurassic Park" style adventures that offer the visual effects folks a chance to shine, but little else. Driver is completely unremarkable here, the escapades have little - or no - jeopardy and I just kept thinking this was just a sort of dinosaurs do "Degoba" style of adventure. I didn't hate it, and it will be fine on the telly at Christmas - but as a big screen experience it is weak, derivative and the star brings nothing at all to the party.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/65-review
"65 is as unimaginative and predictable as anticipated, only even less entertaining and far more bland. Adam Driver and Ariana Greenblatt try their best, but apart from the climactic ending that delivers one of the best visual executions of an asteroid colliding with a planet in recent years, there isn't a single memorable aspect in this movie that’s part of an already packed subgenre with many stories worthy of more attention. A dinosaur flick this uninteresting should be considered a cinephilic crime."
Rating: D+

**65 had so much potential but couldn’t overcome its weird story restrictions.**
65 is not the horrible movie many recited claim it to be. It’s a decent sci-fi survival thriller with a handful of fun, suspenseful sequences but a slower pace and some strange story decisions kept the film from being the stand-out it had the potential to be. Two major writing choices held the movie back:
*SPOILERS AHEAD*
1. Killing every other person on board the ship leaving only the pilot and a nine-year-old girl to survive the dangers of prehistoric Earth minimized the threat and tension of the film. The audience reasonably assumes these two characters will survive at least to the end of the film and prevents the dangers from having any real bite (literally). Allowing for more survivors would have given more characters to fall prey to the terrors around them and raised the tension and the pace of the film.
2. Why did the writers choose to make the only two characters of the film speak two different languages? It reduced the dialogue to clunky and rudimentary exchanges that were annoying and mostly irrelevant. Having the young girl in shock and not speak at the beginning but slowly say more and more as she trusts the pilot would have been a better way to show development.
65 wasn’t a great or even a good movie, but it wasn’t bad either. I wasn’t disappointed with seeing it once on $5 Tuesday at the theater. It could have been epic, but a limiting screenplay and a lack of on-screen action prevented 65 from being anything better than decent.

"65 is a taut 93 minutes of sweaty tension, appropriately scaled action and surprising tenderness..."
Read the full review here: http://www.screen-space.net/reviews/2023/3/9/65.html

An engrossing, if perhaps slightly over-acclaimed, courtroom drama that masterfully balances suspense with emotional depth. Triet delves into the ambiguities of truth, relationships, and the narratives we construct to navigate complex realities. Hüller delivers a standout performance as a woman under intense scrutiny, her nuanced portrayal adding layers to the unfolding mystery.
The courtroom scenes are riveting, weaving meticulous legal procedures with the raw tension of a marital drama. The film’s structure is sharp and deliberate, keeping you hooked as it probes the blurred lines between guilt and innocence.
Also, what an awful choice in music :O

French movie with a drama / courtroom theme that is gripping more into it's realistic tone than others movies that create unexpected and unbelievable tones, directed by Justine Triet from a screenplay she co-wrote with Arthur Harari (Onoda: 10,000 Nights in the Jungle).
Currently it is the winner of Canne's Palm D'or and nominated for five Academy awards, being those Best Motion Picture of the Year, Best Achievement in Directing, Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role, Best Original Screenplay, Best Achievement in Film Editing.
It tells the story of In an isolated mountain chalet near Grenoble, where the problematic couple French Samuel Maleski is playing music in his attic so loudly that interrupts an interview of his German wife, Sandra Voyter (played by Sandra Hüller), and son Daniel (partially blind), returns from a long walk with his guide dog Snoop to find Samuel dead below his attic window.
From there and all the theories, criminal analysis and courtroom judicial processes guide the movie and gain the midia of the country. Do not expect CSI level invention on this one - it is logical and reasonable as a movie that analyses the crisis in the couple and the impact on the son with a heavy focus on the courtroom that gabs your attention.
Sandra Hüller is the protagonist that leads with an incredible performance on her role. The direction is solid as well as the screenplay. The cinematography varies from formal takes to more active ones and the editing is perfect in joining all the takes.
I usually found courtroom movies to be boring but this wasn't the case that holds your attention till the end even with the slow moving of events and investigations from the live of protagonists to the dispute of the lawyers.
A strong contender for all the prizes but knowing the academy I am almost sure it will grab 2 to 3 prizes.
From my point of view the movie is a 8,5 out of 10,0 / A. For sure one of the movies of 2023 that must be seen, so it gets a like from me too.

It’s always disappointing when a film aspires to greatness that it never achieves. Such is the case with the latest offering from French writer-director Justine Triet, whose allegedly suspenseful thriller is about as appetizing as a plate of tepid leftovers. This crime investigation/courtroom drama about the mysterious death of a middle-aged unsuccessful writer (Samuel Theis) who falls from the second story of his mountain chalet looks into whether his demise is due to suicide or murder, with his wife (Sandra Hüller), herself a best-selling author, being the prime suspect. Despite an intriguing premise, however, the movie is overlong, needlessly talky and inherently flat, with a cold, clinical, unengaging narrative and characters who engender no connection, compassion or empathy. In essence, this is a “whodunnit” that plays like an extended “whocares.” Fault the screenplay here, which seeks to tell a tale in the same gripping vein as such great courtroom dramas as “Anatomy of a Murder” (1959) but that never achieves the level of tension, mystery and audience engagement needed to pull that off. The meticulously orchestrated script feels calculated and derivative virtually from start to finish, especially in its trial sequences, which explore an array of possible motives and explanations, including everything from infidelity to plagiarism to previous suicide attempts, that rely on often-implausible speculation and inflated conjecture to carry forward a proceeding that probably never should have ended up in court in the first place. What’s more, the double entendre that is the picture’s title is so obvious that any hopes of nuance, subtlety or profundity evaporate quickly once the failing nature of the couple’s troubled relationship surfaces. While the film admittedly features a fine performance by Hüller, it’s far from enough to rescue a picture with big aspirations that never pan out. How this release has garnered so much exaggerated awards season buzz is beyond me, especially given its intrinsically insipid, underwhelming, overstated character. There are plenty of other films of this ilk out there that are far more worth watching than this one, so grab one of those better selections instead and give this one the well-earned pass it genuinely deserves.

When young "Daniel" (Milo Machado Graner) returns from a walk in the snow with his dog ("Snoop") he discovers the body of his father lying on the snow in front of their alpine house. He shouts for his mother, writer "Sandra" (Sandra Hüller) and soon the police investigation is out to establish just what happened. What do we know? Well, not a lot really - just that before the young man left for his stroll, his mother was giving an interview in their kitchen to a journalist that was being increasingly drowned out by the intrusive music emanating from her husband upstairs, and - that young "Daniel" is blind. "Sandra" enlists the help of a friend who represents her as after many a re-enactment the authorities conclude that there is enough evidence that she lobbed him over the balcony and murdered him. A curiously relaxed courtroom drama now ensues. Those of us used to watching British or American scenarios like this might find the approach, usually entirely speculative, taken by prosecuting counsel to essentially draw his own conclusion from evidence that may or not be there is quite entertaining to watch. The President of the tribunal rarely intercedes in what becomes a frequently unsubstantiated analysis of the sometimes turbulent marriage of the two, we learn of the cause of the boy's blindness, of his mother's sexuality and by the denouement I felt that Justine Triet had worked well with a strong cast to create a whodunit where there might have been no crime at all! That denouement is a little rushed, but leaves a lovely degree of doubt in the mind of the one member of the cast who probably needed convincing the most! It's just a shade too long, a wee bit too much build up, but once it's in full swing this is a strongly performed, sometimes quite funny and dark crime drama that is well worth a watch.

INT. THE ANATOMY OF ANATOMY OF A FALL - DAY
Anatomy of a Fall is an excellent film crafted from the mind of Justine Triet. It's beautifully acted, shot, scored and edited together. So let's look at the Anatomy of Anatomy of a Fall.
Story:
The story revolves around the unconfirmed cause of death of Samuel, who has fallen out of his attic window. The only person in the house was his wife Sandra, Sandra Hüller, the prime suspect. Their son Daniel, blind from an unfortunate event, is the only witness. The story is from the perspective of Sandra, and just like any courtroom drama, details are revealed over time. Fortunately, it's at a steady pace, never announcing too much or too little, giving us the correct information at the right time. While I'm mostly positive about the story, some moments slow right down, and we come to a standstill; overall, thanks to the following few components, they considerably make up for the story's flaws.
Performance:
Its lead is Anatomy of a Fall's greatest asset, Sandra Hüller. She is tremendous, pulling no punches in the role of Sandra, the deceased's wife. For the rest of the cast, no one except the dog is ever greater than Sandra!
Cinematography:
The camera in this film is on a swivel, always moving, keeping us engaged. The camera uses Visual humour quite a bit, which is always great to see. Finally, the colour grade felt natural and, at times, warm, giving a homely vibe.
Score:
A simple piano piece plays throughout the film; it is excellent.
Finally, the editing:
This was a stand-out for me. It was cleverly cutting at points to hide us from the horrors but holding onto moments before it became too much.
There's a lot of love about this film — a highlight of the Cannes 2023 run.
FADE OUT.

Very heart-touching movie and greatly executed and most importantly it's based on a true story that shows us ugly reality of what's happening in the world. I can't believe that there would be any people who would give this movie low ratings. Only Pedophiles would dislike this movie or the minions of the political party which is for "pro open borders" we all know what political party is it.

a very noble idea, mediocrely made.

Seems like the guy combined a bunch of characters into a glorified version of himself. Unfortunately his puff-piece is boring. I know I am supposed to be disgusted by the pedos but everyone is disgusting. Below-standard revenge action/thriller movie with bloated run time. More like Sound of Boredumb.

Though at times I felt luck played a bit too much of an hand in this drama, it's still quite a potent telling of the story of dedicated real-life agent Tim Ballard (Jim Caviezel) who spent much of his time working for the US Government trying to thwart the activities of people traffickers. More specifically, of those odious and venal monsters who kidnap and trade in young children who are destined to populate the sex industry and end up drug addicts and diseased in the process. When he rescues a young boy from such a scenario, he discovers that his sister was also taken - and the youngster and his father implore Ballard to try to find her too. Impossible, you might think - but a lucky break points in the direction of a lawless area of the Colombian jungle where even the local army doesn't go. Working closely with a man with quite a murky past and now his highly useful general factotum Vampiro (Bill Camp), they head off, disguised as doctors, into the wilderness. Can he locate her? Can he rescue her and get out alive? No, there's not oodles of jeopardy about any of that - but this film really does use this seemingly impossible mission to shine a light on these disgusting practices that still thrive in ostensibly civilised, Christian societies. Cavielzel is on good form here offering us an hybrid of adventure and action coupled with a highly developed moral compass. Camp, likewise, delivers quite a charismatic effort and local copper Jorge (Javier Godino) adds an extra dimension proving that the Colombian authorities found this practice just as revolting as anyone else. It's not brutal nor particularly graphic, it just allows our own imagination to put two and two together here and is a really effective indictment of a behaviour that truly turns the stomach. From a creative perspective, the photography - especially in the jungle - is first rate and all-in-all this is a thought provoking enterprise that's well worth two hours of your time.

**_Sorta “Taken 4,” but starring Jim Caviezel and focusing on children enslaved by sex traffickers_**
A Homeland Security agent (Caviezel) in SoCal tracks down people involved in child pornography, but he decides to leave the agency to save children trapped in sex slavery, starting with a little boy from Honduras. He teams-up with a former cartel accountant (Bill Camp) to track down the kid’s sister in which he must eventually infiltrate a camp of Columbian revolutionaries in the Amazon jungle.
Made in 2018 but not released until 2023, “Sound of Freedom” is based on the real-life story of Tim Ballard, the founder of Operation Underground Railroad (O.U.R.). It features actual footage of children being captured by slavers on CCTV. Imagine a more gritty-realistic version of the “Taken” movies, with Liam being replaced by Caviezel, and that’s this film.
This is a well-done, eye-opening picture about the perverted human cockroaches amongst us, but it isn’t entertaining in the conventional sense for obvious reasons. It amusingly became anathema to Lefties, also for obvious reasons.
The flick runs 2 hours, 11 minutes, and was shot in Cartagena, Colombia with additional scenes done in Calexico, California.
GRADE: B-

As someone who was a victim of child sexual abuse myself and as someone who admittedly likes Trump (who praised this movie to no end) and also as a tiny bit of conspiracy nut and seeing all the mainstream media attack this movie and trying to smear it, I really, REALLY wanted to like and support and even praise this movie - but I just can't.
I have to admit that it's a bit difficult for me to agree with the mainstream media's warning about this movie, but they really are correct for once - sometimes they throw you curve balls like that. I mean after all, there was a time when I trusted the mainstream media and I lost trust in them not because they were mainstream, but because they just started to get a lot of things wrong. But that also means that if they get things right for once, I can't just categorically disagree with them.
And it's really not like they are just smearing this movie for no good reason. They do (for the most part) have a valid point. This movie does nothing to actually stop this crime or to help the victims or to help people recognize this crime when they see it. On the contrary, because it claims to be based on true events, it causes people to have a completely wrong impression about this and therefore makes it harder for people to detect it when it's happening, because this movie is less accurate in its depiction of the real world than a Liam Neeson action thriller. Actually, Liam Neeson's recent film "Memory" was pretty good and actually much more accurate in it's depiction of child trafficking than this movie.
Because this movie really does nothing but reinforce outdated and completely wrong stereotypes. This type of thing isn't something that mainly happens in South America or in "other" countries and children don't just get kidnapped out of the blue by complete strangers and against their will. The sad truth is that most cases don't involve a stranger at all, but someone the child trusts and the child isn't gonna come running to you begging for help, cause the truth is they are victims of years of extremely systematic and sophisticated psychological manipulation.
And the perpetrators aren't all tough guys either. Actually a lot of them are quite educated, sophisticated and female because they don't raise suspicion. And also it's not just about forcing the kids to make movies - that only plays a very, very small part, but this movie would have you believe that that's the main part - that's the smallest part by far! Most of the aspects involved are MUCH worse than "just" that.
And as much as I would love to think that there are plenty of officers (official or rogue) of government security agencies who are incorruptible and ceaselessly fight the "bad guys" in relentless sting operations, the reality sadly isn't as clear cut. Yes, sometimes SOME children do get rescued, but actually very rarely by police, much less government security agencies. Well, there was that ONE case in Bosnia where a policewoman and member of an international agency uncovered a human trafficking operation - but then again the people running it were her colleagues...

Good action movie. First one was good and this one doesn't disappoint either. Just one thing - Georgia isn't as bad as it seems in the movie. No gangs, organized crime, mafia or something like that. That part in movie is clearly fictional if not exaggerated and in fact, Georgia is one of the safest countries in the world.

This is the follow-up to the unexpected Netflix hit from 2020. Chris Hemsworth is back as the fearless mercenary, with more frantic-paced and spectacular action sequences.
Director Sam Hargrave returns for the sequel. The former stunt coordinator – similar to how Chad Stahelski progressed to the director's role for the John Wick series – increases the action another notch compared to the first movie.
The highlight is a 21-minute "long take". It has impressive choreography to make it look chaotic but it must have been very well organised, with the number of people and different weapons used throughout. There is close-quarters hand-to-hand combat, a sprawling prison-yard brawl, a decent car chase with multiple different vehicles and big crashes, and finally a sequence on a fast-moving cargo train, with helicopters and more confined fighting. Each segment would be good as a standalone action set-piece, but this is stitched together to form a high-octane breathless non-stop survival and escape sequence.
The movie boasts high production values and a storyline that humanises a lot of the characters – something a lot of "dumb" action movies ignore. Nothing quite compares to the first act. There is a rather clinical street shoot-out which is the least creative but does get interesting when they're stuck inside the building. The intimate face-off at the end goes against the grain of a typical action movie structure and provides a decent conclusion.
It's a fun movie to enjoy, with impressive and inventive sequences. If you like action movies, you'll love this. I am looking forward to what they can achieve in a third movie.

Thankfully Extraction 2 sticks to the action script.
Aside from a little of the usual woke feminist fantasy nonsense, Extraction 2 offers unrelenting, expansive action, after an initial, slow start.
This will never be a great movie but its fun, with lots of well choreographed fight scenes, gun play and more besides. The back story is basic but serviceable and the acting from the cast is competent.
In summary, this is, for the most part, what a action flick should be, diverting, thrilling and of course, fun.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://thatshelf.com/extraction-2-review-an-impressive-action-showcase/
"Extraction 2 is indeed impressive action-wise. The 21-minute oner (!) should be observed and studied as a brilliant example of how to blend stunt work, cinematography, editing, VFX, and performances - Chris Hemsworth has what it takes to become an action superstar.
If only the same care was given to the generic story and the forgettable characters... Basically, this sequel holds precisely the same attributes and issues as the original, only with bigger action moments. Those who enjoyed the first will undoubtedly enjoy this sequel and every other that will inevitably be released."
Rating: B

Extraction 2 clearly learned some lessons from its predecessor and cranked things up to eleven, making a top-shelf action film that has me demanding more!
Yes! YESsssss!!! This is what 80s action movies dreamt of being decades ago. Commando walked so Extraction 2 could soar! The action, gunplay, grittiness, and thin plotted-ness of this movie scream 80s classic but the production quality, stub work, and cinematography are at a whole other level. The prison break sequence with the 21-minute one-shot camera move is jaw-dropping and one of the most remarkable action set pieces I have ever seen. The first Extraction was a decent movie, but Extraction 2 simplified its story and maximized what made the first one successful: the brutal action. Like the later John Wick films, Extraction 2 doubles down on being a top-notch action film, not a drama with gunplay. There is hardly any story, and the scenes that do attempt to add a little character development feel generic and bland. But thankfully, those scenes are few and far between. This movie feels like The Expendables, except with one guy, fewer jokes, and even better fight choreography! If you are a fan of explosions, combat, and scattered brain matter, look no further than Extraction 2.

Another entertaining entry from this franchise.
I do enjoy these 'Rocky'/'Creed' flicks, they always tend to bring enjoyable performances and excellent fight scenes - and 'Creed III' delivers in those aspects, alongside others. It is a shame, though, that they couldn't get Sylvester Stallone involved here.
In fairness, however, I wouldn't necessarily say the film is weaker or anything without Stallone - it just would've been nice to see him reprise his role, that's all. Cast-wise, it is as strong as you would expect. Michael B. Jordan is impressive, while Tessa Thompson is good (if somewhat underused). It's a shame that Jonathan Majors has ruined his own career off reel because that guy has quite the screen presence, hey-ho!
I'm kinda interested in further installments, though at the same time it would be good if they kept this as a three-film thing. But, hey, the original titular character got 6 movies so I guess the current main man deserves a couple more, eh? Intrigued to see where they go with it, all the same.

Alright movie but it got away from what made this movie great. No Stallone in this one either. Now he's retiring already. Kind of dumb. I want to see him box more maybe more fights. It's always just one fight. Idk he's to young to retire and I don't want to watch him become a trainer now just like rocky.

When it comes to boxing movies, it can sometimes feel like there are few stories left to be told. What works so well about “Creed III” is that instead of being a laser-focused sports story, co-writers Keenan Coogler and Zach Baylin‘s script leans heavily into a sincere family drama. It’s also a solid directorial debut from actor Michael B. Jordan, who reprises his role as the title character.
Adonis Creed (Jordan) has retired from sparring in the ring. After amassing dozens of titles, he’s now a devoted husband to Bianca (Tessa Thompson) and father to Amara (Mila Davis-Kent), a loving son to Mary-Ann (Phylicia Rashad), and runs a successful boxing gym where he works with the latest and greatest talent in the sport. Things are going well until his former childhood friend Damian (Jonathan Majors) resurfaces after nearly two decades in prison, and a long-buried incident (which is eventually revealed) causes tension between them. Eager to prove himself and get the boxing career he always wanted, Damian asks Adonis if he can help get him a shot in a fight. Feeling guilty, he agrees. Damian is a skilled but dirty fighter, which creates even more problems. Things go from bad to worse, with an eventual title fight between the two men.
The fight scenes are well directed and exciting, even if they are predictable. The film expects the audience to know the general rules of boxing so if you have no idea what’s an illegal or legal hit, you may be in over your head. (I have next to zero knowledge of the sport but I still enjoyed the fight scenes).
The film’s strongest element is the robust character development, which has always been a huge part of the franchise. Learning the painful history between Adonis and Damian makes their narrative of friends turned adversaries even more compelling, and there are genuinely touching moments featuring Bianca, Amara, and Mary-Ann. The chemistry and talent of the cast are both terrific.
That being said, there is a lot of story here. A lot. It makes much of the film feel too hurried as Jordan rushes through scene after scene. It’s good that the movie isn’t draggy, but this is a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it type of project. And although the characters and their relationships are detailed, parts of the script feel hollow and of course, predictable.
For the third film in a franchise, “Creed III” is far better than reasonably expected. Despite a few stumbles, the strong performances, the compelling story, and themes of perseverance and the importance of family make this one a winner.
**
By: Louisa Moore / SCREEN ZEALOTS**

This reminded me quite a lot of "Rocky IV" (1985) only instead of a Russian auto-box doing the challenging, it's "Damian" (Jonathan Majors). Former champion "Adonis" (Michael B. Jordan) is living the life of a retired sportsman, wealthy and happy with his family whilst managing the gym with "Duke" (Wood Harris). Leaving, one afternoon, he discovers a guy sitting on his car and after a quick chat realises that it's his long-lost childhood pal who has been incarcerated for the last eighteen years. He ("Damian") is now determined to succeed in the ring and so his friend tries to sort it all out - only to discover that this lean, mean, fighting machine has an altogether different agenda and that is going to force the former champ to prove whether or not he still has what it takes. The story is an hybrid of too many others and plays out as predictably as the sun coming up. Add to the mix a degree of familial discord and melodrama and we are left with something largely forgettable that I found to be a pretty poor relation of the previous, much more charismatic and grittier efforts in this franchise. The actual boxing scenes are impressively photographed but there's just no jeopardy - and I'd largely given up. Pretty to look at, yes - but not a great watch.

Life for Adonis Creed (Michael B. Jordan), is going well. He has a loving
wife (Tessa Thompson), and daughter (Mile Davis-Kent), and has retired
from boxing after defeating an old rival and ensuring his legacy.
Creed spends his time with his family and developing young fighters at his
gym and is prepping the current champion for his next big match against
Viktor Drago.
An unexpected figure from Creed’s past arrives in the form of Damian
Anderson (Jonathan Majors), a friend of Creed’s troubled youth has
just completed eighteen years in prison.
Damian was the current Golden Gloves champion when he was arrested and
believes he is due his title shot and Creed is the one who can make it
happen.
Creed tries to teach his friend that a person without a single professional fight does not get a magical title shot and with his large
the gap from the ring he would need to grind it out to get a shot.
When an incident occurs just before a scheduled fight and without any
established fighters available to make the date of the fight, Creed gives
his friend a shot and sees that his brutal style of boxing is not what he
would endorse.
Upon winning the title Damian lets it go to his head and gloats at how Creed
had the life he should have had and blames Creed for his past issues and
for not visiting him or staying in contact.
Naturally, this puts the two former friends on a path of no return with a
climatic boxing match being the solution.
“Creed III” does not have the benefit of Sylvester Stallone but you can
still get whips of his character’s influence on Creed and Jordan does a
very solid job Directing the film. He produces strong character moments
which help define the struggles and motivations that each of them faces and
the boxing sequences are very engaging and will have you cheering along.
Majors does a great job in what could have been a routine bad guy
performance. He gives Damian a drive and purpose but also shows the path
that Creed could easily have followed had fate not gone as it did and how
watching someone get everything you dreamed of while you are in prison can
turn even the best of a man cold and bitter.
The film satisfies from start to finish and the character moments and
boxing blend to make not only a very enjoyable film but one that shows
that there is plenty of life in the franchise.
4 stars out of 5

While Creed III may not be the best in the franchise, it brings enough creativity and passion to the table to keep the series fresh.
The Rocky/Creed franchise is at its best when the villain is just as, if not more, interesting than our protagonist, and that is not more evident than in Creed III. Damien Anderson (expertly played by Jonathan Majors) is a very sympathetic antagonist that has a direct connection with Adonis Creed’s past. This connection is at the forefront of the conflict as Creed tries to reconcile with his past mistakes while also being true to his present self. This back and forth is excellently done and evolves Creed further as a boxer and a man. I really enjoyed this story overall, and while it may not be the most unique script to hit the silver screen, it does enough to differentiate itself from the rest of the Rocky universe, and I can respect that.
The acting in this film is excellent, as it has been in previous Creed films. I thought that there might be a hole left by the absence of Sylvester Stallone, but I really did not notice it at all. Michael B. Jordan is able to get the best out of the entire cast, and everyone is better than ever. Tessa Thompson is fantastic; her chemistry with Jordan is incredible. The addition of their daughter creates a very wholesome family dynamic. Jonathan Majors is superb; he is intimidating, tragic, and full of emotion that the audience can genuinely resonate with. His anger is justified, and his portrayal of this angry kid who had his life taken from him is incredibly genuine. He was one of the best parts of the film.
With Michael B. Jordan behind the camera, this film has the most unique cinematography in the entire series. Jordan takes some liberties with the material that came before to deliver a modern spin on the boxing genre. Where previous films tried to have a broadcast experience grounded in grit and realism, Creed III turns that on its head, delivering the most stunning action scenes I have ever seen. The anime inspiration is apparent, with slow motion used sparingly but effectively. The finale fight has some very creative choices that create an intimate connection between our two leads that is a great backdrop to not only the fight but the story as a whole.
Overall, I had an excellent time watching Creed III. Michael B. Jordan had a wonderful directorial debut, creating a film that left me with a huge smile on my face.
Score: 92% |
Verdict: Excellent

#MovieReview #TheCovenantMovie
"The Covenant" is a gripping war film based on true events that captivates viewers from start to finish. Clocking in at two hours, the movie succeeds in keeping audiences actively engaged, focused, and enthusiastic throughout its runtime.
Set in Afghanistan, this war movie stands out from generic war films, offering an incredible and compelling narrative that keeps viewers fixated and immersed in the story. The film delivers gut-wrenching moments, with Jake Gyllenhaal delivering a phenomenal performance in the lead role, showcasing his prowess as an actor.
"The Covenant" shines not only in its acting but also in its writing and direction, with Guy Ritchie's skillful direction deserving of potential Oscar nominations. The film's quality is evident in its ability to captivate viewers of all ages, as attested by the reviewer's experience of witnessing a young viewer's unwavering attention and subsequent praise for the film.
With its engaging storyline and stellar performances, "The Covenant" is a must-see in theaters, and for those who missed it on the big screen, it comes highly recommended for streaming viewing.

Versatile, brutal and gritty - the right movie with the right Director and main actor. Guy Ritchie is well known by his frenzied and energetic filming style and this one not escape the pattern - as with Jake Gyllenhaal that is a well suited actor for action movies (ans strange to remember him in Donnie Darko and Brokeback Mountain to show as versatile as he can be).
Gritty and realistic story (not based on a single story but in a collective of stories of true events), where a US MArine saves a Afghan interpreter life after they fall behind enemy lines. Expect a more realistic and tense movie till the end - if you like war movies this is for you.
Filmed on Spain as the real territories of Middle East are dangerous to film into (with some exceptions as Jordania).
Engaging enough to link the emotional links between war translators (usually locals, that were observed closely) and their marine squads, it shows little pieces of both protagonists life's into a long and dangerous road toward rescue.
Score: 8,0 out of 10.0 / A-, as I am a fan of war movies.

This strikes me as a "feel good movie" pitched at US audiences. It ultimately makes all the right sounds about military honour and commitment, even when confronted by stubborn bureaucracy and indifference.
That said, its only at the end, when you read the "fine print", (300+ interpreters and their families dead) you get to see the scope of the US's lack of commitment to those who collaborated with it, in Afghanistan.
I guess the obvious elephant in the living room, is should the US have invaded in the first place? Looking at the facts, the answer is, of course, "no". So much of the misery and loss we see on the ground in this film, probably could have been avoided, had the US stuck to its own borders.
The film itself is well made, well acted and directed. Its story does resonate in a humanistic context. The action is well developed too if not entirely convincing. I did a wry smile at how the so called "bad guys", as per usual, seem to be appalling shots. Even when well armed and in large numbers, at close range.
Inn summary, well acted, directed, a heartfelt story and lots of mostly engaging action. That said, the historical reality is, the US were invaders in Afghanistan. So perhaps the underlying take away from this, is the need for an end to wasteful wars, that should not be fought.