'Back in Action' is one I found to be a real mixed bag. I think I narrowly didn't like it, though it isn't one I'd explicitly say that I disliked either. Everything about it just kinda levels out at underwhelming. The respective returns of Jamie Foxx and Cameron Diaz are its selling point.
Both Foxx and Diaz are fairly good, the latter minorly the better of the two. McKenna Roberts and Rylan Jackson are decent as the youngsters, while the supporting cast of Glenn Close, Kyle Chandler, Andrew Scott and Jamie Demetriou (his character is particularly on/off) are OK (if ill-fitting?).
I think what lets this down most is story and pacing, which are the two weak elements of this 2025 release. I believe you could've told this plot much more concisely, it goes around the houses a little bit. The humour is also more miss than hit, I rate the Manchester United shoutout though!

"Back in Action" feels like a bargain basement "True Lies".
Unlike the 1994 action, comedy, spy mash up it shallowly imitates. "Back in Action" offer up nothing fresh or original. That's not to say its unwatchable. As a basic action flick its mildly diverting but, that said, you very quickly come to feel like you have seen it all before, because in one form or another, you have.
In summary, yet another "by the numbers", mass produced, action flick, from the USA. An alright but also instantly forgettable, watch.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://fandomwire.com/back-in-action-review/
"Back in Action would have been more appropriately titled Out of Action. Seth Gordon fails to strike the necessary balance between action, humor, and emotion to stand out in the genre, delivering a highly forgettable, formulaic piece.
Cameron Diaz's return is squandered in a movie that fails to showcase her talent or that of the star-studded cast. The film not only struggles to justify its runtime but also leaves viewers feeling like having watched something generic and devoid of identity, where only the stunt department earns praise.
For the start of a new cinematic year, this is a misstep I sincerely hope doesn't set the tone for what's to come."
Rating: D-

The Gorge (2025) is a movie that gets a lot of things right, blending action, romance, and a bit of suspense into a well-paced story. The plot is simple yet clever, unfolding naturally without unnecessary complexity. It keeps things engaging with steady character development, making you feel connected to the leads as their situation evolves. While some critics seem to take the romance out of context, it actually makes perfect sense within the story. It’s not just there for the sake of it but develops realistically based on their circumstances. Sure, there are some plot holes, but unless you're watching just to nitpick, they don’t take away from the experience.
Visually, the movie stands out with dramatic lighting and smart camera work that keeps you immersed. Even daytime scenes carry a certain mood that adds to the film’s atmosphere. The cinematography is well thought out, with the right angles capturing the emotional depth of the characters while also making the action sequences hit hard. Speaking of action, while there’s plenty of it, the movie does lean more into its emotional core rather than being a full-on action spectacle. The CGI is solid, blending in naturally without feeling overdone, and while some moments might remind you of other films, it never feels like a cheap copy.
The performances are strong, with both leads carrying the entire movie effortlessly. Their chemistry feels real, and their dialogue doesn’t come off as forced or unnatural. The script is well executed, moving the story forward at the right pace without dragging things out. The music and sound design complement the film nicely, enhancing key moments without overpowering them. Overall, The Gorge has a high rewatch factor, the kind of movie you'd want to show a friend just to experience it again. If Apple gives it a sequel, there's a lot of potential to expand on what made this one work so well.

The woman is hot. It's a cool setup. Kind of but...why do the automatic guns not work the first attack and why are the mines set to explode the fence (defence) as well as the Ents? Seems just kind of dumb. Are these the first two to bridge the gap? None of the romance matters. They are both just horny and no build up before he goes over there.
This movie is long, boring and pointless. Wait, Corporations are evil. All they care about is money. They don't value human life. They don't value the environment and LOOK AT THE HORRORS WE HAVE CREATED!!!!!

## Story: 9
**A gorge shrouded in mystery**
At first it appears as a typical adventure or action story but as the film progress, it is slowly revealed to be about a place shrouded in mystery. The flow kept the audience guessing but only to find out it's totally something unexpected.
## Visuals: 9
**It gave me the feels of Guild Wars 2 and World of Warcraft**
It was awesome. I kept wondering where the location was, if it even exists. The special effects and design, most especially at the critical part of the story, were beautifully done. As a gamer, it gave me a sense of the places from Guild Wars 2 and World of Warcraft.
## Sound: 8
**It was immersive**
The sound effects were great and perfectly timed. It helped in building the mystery and suspense. It was immersive.
## Character: 8
**Done perfectly**
The main characters were fit for the story. Ordinary people, or snipers, who only wanted to survive and serve their country. People with special skills but at the end of the day, are no different than everyone else. The character backgrounds were not lacking nor it took too much time, and the rest of the character development brought out the basic need of human beings.
## Enjoyment: 10
**Kept me on my seat**
I truly enjoyed watching this movie. Being able to bring me into the story, ensuring I don't spend time analyzing the plot, was an experience I rarely have these days. This movie was did that and kept me on my seat.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://talkingfilms.net/the-gorge-review-a-well-crafted-genre-blend-with-strong-performances/
"The Gorge may not be a revolution in this genre blend, but it stands out for its stylish execution, imaginative creature design, and the engaging chemistry between its leads.
Scott Derrickson once again proves his talent for balancing action, suspense, and emotion, crafting a highly entertaining home blockbuster that, despite lacking deeper development in some of its most fascinating narrative elements, keeps audiences invested from start to finish.
In the end, it's a film that thrives on captivating performances, well-orchestrated tension, and the way it transforms a simple premise into a visually striking experience."
Rating: B+

There are myriad movies about World War II, but never have I encountered one able to generate such sympathy for German soldiers and contempt for non-Teutonic Europeans as Under Sandet does.
The film tells the story of German POWs who were ordered to clear landmines in Denmark after the war. These are not your stereotypically evil Nazi officers, but pubescent foot soldiers — if they seem like scared little children, it’s because they pretty much are.
The locals, military and civilian alike, treat the Germans like a bunch of red-headed stepsons — completely disposable, forced to 'practice' with real, active mines, and sent to a beach under whose sands there are 45,000 buried explosive devices.
"Assuming you deactivate six mines an hour and don't blow yourselves to bits, you'll be home in three months," tells them Sergeant Rasmussen (Roland Møller), whom we first meet when he’s bashing a surrendering German soldier’s skull in for carrying a Danish flag in his hand.
Under Sandet’s premise explores an overlooked aspect of World War II, but the film's power lies not in what it reveals, but in what it doesn't. At a certain point, one of the boys is unlucky enough to find a mine right on top of another mine; the poor wretch doesn’t live long enough to realize this fact, but his ignorance of the situation does not in the least lessen its impact.
Similarly, writer/director Martin Zandvliet has crafted a figuratively equally explosive palimpsest. Depending on how steeped the viewer is in the historical context, the Danes' attitude is petty at best and hypocritical at worst.
In addition to irony so subtle it’s almost subliminal, Under Sandet is a rather literal illustration of Hitchcock’s notions on suspense. This suspense remains effective even if we can predict some of the characters’ fates (for instances, one would have to be exceedingly naïve to see a pair of brothers — and twins, no less — in a story like this and expect them both to survive).

> Teen POWs in the post WWII Denmark.
A Danish war-drama that was inspired by the historical account, but all the characters were fictional. Remember this title for another six month, because I am confident this film will make a journey to the west coast of the USA to compete at the 89th Academy Awards in the coming February. I have seen many foreign films, but I'm not this much positive for any others. If this film fails to make, then that would be a great disappointment despite having no idea of what are the other four films. So this is just for now, my stance may change later.
Anyway, the film was heartbreakingly amazing. The WWII stories I had seen those told from the perspectives of the Australian, Japanese, Korean, Russian to African and European to the American western sea, Hawaii. And this is a Danish story, sets in just after the end of the war where prisoners of the war were used to clean up the mess. In the opening the teen German POWs were trained to defuse the land mine explosives and then later the unit was handed over to the Danish sergeant Carl Rasmussen where they are all going to work in one of the west coast landmines that was used to defend the Scandinavia by the Nazi. That is the story told how it all ends in the remaining parts.
This was like another 'Kajaki', but not actually a war film. Using of the prisoners as the labourers is a violation, according to the Geneva rule. That's the point of the film, focused to reveal the inhume act. But it was not anything like 'The Railway Man' 'Unbroken' or the 'The Bridge on the River Kwai'. Watching a film about the brave soldiers inspires us and bring patriotism, but in this those teen kid screaming whenever something goes wrong really brings heartache. So not everybody feels comfortable with it, especially the family audience. But there were lots of edgy moments and you would never know what events follows.
"If they are old enough to go to war, they are old enough to clean up."
It was shot is the real location, and I think that part contributed to depicting the actual atmosphere where most of the POWs lost their arms and legs and some exploded into many pieces in the air. It was a simple narration, but the visuals talked itself more than anything else. All the actors were outstanding, especially those 4-5 German teens and of course the Danish sergeant Carl. I think the Carl's influence had more impact, after seeing the opening scene where he went outrage and beat up those German soldiers returning home.
There are a couple of small twists, but there are some scenes which are not easy to get over. Even though we know those were just fake, but that does not work once you totally into the story deeply. This is a different kind of emotional film, something you rarely experience. The director who is also the writer must be appreciated for handling it perfectly. Especially keeping the screenplay uncomplicated and between the two nations, where in the real event involves the British officials. I have never seen his other films, but this one will define him forth and the people are going to recognise him. So I hope he'll keep up doing such level films in the future.
I have never seen such film, I mean seen some where the kids were tortured, but this was very unique and totally a different perspective for that takes place in the backdrop of the WWII. Especially the Germans perspective is the very rare kind. So I'm kind of thinking if Germany picks 'Look Who's Back' for the Oscars, the contest between these two would bring two different moods. At this point I don't remember any Danish film I have seen so far in my life other than this one which I feel is the best Danish film ever. I mean, come on, who would do such film where your own nation, if not the whole nation, the one who represent was shown in the negative shade over the Nazi Germans. This is definitely one of the best films of the year. Highly recommended.
8/10

Wow, the bottom of the barrel for this film is Casey Affleck and Tom Waits, that's the cinematic equivalent of Washington's cabinet where the weakest among them was John Jay. And even here, Casey probably (while playing himself) played the absolute best depiction of himself that he's ever done. He pulls off the burned out, fed up, hates his job detective i a way that is both totally entertaining and totally believable.
Danny Glover is the only down side and, honestly it's not because he didn't do a good job, he was lovable, believable, realistic, and maddeningly under-utilized. He leaves you wanting to see more, and unfortunately you never get it.
But, of course, the best of the best are Robert Redford and Sissy Spacek who manage to take a film about elderly bank robbers and turn it into a charming love story.
It all comes together in a slow burn of a film, punctuated by a pretty hysterical Tom Waits story, that seems to get by exclusively on the charm and characters that are so well developed and so brilliantly acted that you lose track of time.

**_A well-made, old-fashioned yarn, but the laid-back ballad-like tone will be too insubstantial for some_**
> _In the old days, the stickup men were like cowboys. They would just go in shooting, yelling for everyone to lie down. But to me violence is the first sign of an amateur. There is an art to robbing a bank if you do it right._
> [...]
> _Once you've got your cool car parked nearby, you've got your radio, your hands are covered with gloves or superglue, you walk in. Go right up to the manager. Say, "Sit down." Never pull the gun - just flash it. Tell him calmly you're here to r__ob the bank and it better go off without a hitch. Don't run from the bank unless you're being shot at, 'cause it only shows something is going on. Just walk to the hot car, real calm, then drive to the cool car. Rev it up, and you're gone._
- David Grann quoting Forrest Tucker; "The Old Man and the Gun"; _The New Yorker_ (January 27, 2003)
Of all the young American writer/directors to break through in the last few years, for me, Jeff Nichols and David Lowery stand tall; in particular, Nichols's _Take Shelter_ (2011), and Lowery's _Ain't Them Bodies Saints_ (2013) and the existential masterpiece that was _A Ghost Story_ (2017). Both filmmakers are five-for-five thus far, with even Lowery's 2016 mainstream Disney remake _Pete's Dragon_ managing to impress in all sorts of ways I wasn't expecting. Apart from being enjoyable in its own right, it also showed us that Lowery is as comfortable making personal small-scale character dramas as he is big-budget special effects blockbusters. With _The Old Man & the Gun_, he stands somewhere between – it's not as intimate as _St. Nick_ (2009), _Ain't Them Bodies Saints_, or _A Ghost Story_, but neither is it as mainstream as _Pete's Dragon_. Originally touted as Robert Redford's final performance, although he has walked that claim back somewhat, _The Old Man & the Gun_ is a laid-back ballad-like elegy to both the character Redford is playing _and_ to Redford himself. Filmed in the style of a 1970's indie, _Old Man_ is so tied to Redford as a performer as to be virtually self-referential. In short, if you're not a fan of the actor, you will get absolutely nothing from this film.
Telling the "mostly true" story of Forrest Tucker (the career criminal, not the prolific actor), Lowery's script is based primarily on David Grann's 2003 _New Yorker_ article of the same name, which was later collected in his book, _The Devil & Sherlock Holmes: Tales of Murder, Madness & Obsession_ (2010). By the time of the article, the 83-year-old Tucker, who had been robbing banks since his early 20s, had amassed at least 80 successful jobs and escaped from prison 18 times. Usually described by the tellers from whom he stole as "gentlemanly" and "charming", his M.O. never changed – he would walk into a bank and ask if he could open an account. When asked what kind, he would pull back his coat, showing his gun (which was often unloaded, and which he never fired), assure the teller that he didn't want any trouble, and quietly talk them through the process of emptying their till. He would then wish them the best, tell them they'd done well, and walk out. The story takes place in 1981, when Tucker was 61 (although in the film, he's 76), and had recently escaped from San Quentin. Although he usually works alone, he does have two colleagues, Teddy (Danny Glover) and Waller (Tom Waits), in what the press later dubs the "Over-the-Hill Gang". Fleeing from police pursuit after pulling off his first job since escaping, Tucker pulls over to help Jewel (Sissy Spacek), a widow whose car has broken down on the highway. He doesn't do it out of gallantry, but as a way to hide in plain sight; what kind of person being chased by police would stop to help someone fix their car? Heading to a nearby diner for a bite, Tucker and Jewel strike up a tentative romance. Initially, he tells her he is in sales, but shortly thereafter tells her what he really does, something she's not sure whether to believe. Meanwhile, when he pulls off a job in a bank where Det. John Hunt (Casey Affleck, playing, for a change, Casey Affleck) is queuing, completely unaware of what is happening right behind him, Tucker finds himself closely pursued by Hunt who, having just turned 40, is going through a mid-life crisis, which his wife Maureen (Tika Sumpter) can do little to dispel. The longer Hunt chases Tucker, however, the more he comes to respect him.
Redford himself brought Grann's article and Tucker's story to Lowery's attention, who subsequently wrote the script specifically for Redford (who also produces). In 1986, whilst imprisoned in San Quentin, Tucker underwent a quadruple bypass, and subsequently began documenting his exploits. Initially writing _Alcatraz: The True Story_, a two-hundred-and-sixty-one page manuscript about how he had escaped from Alcatraz in the 50s (actually, although he was an inmate of Alcatraz, he escaped from an LA hospital whilst having a kidney operation), he then wrote an autobiography called _The Can Opener_, in which he described himself as a "_highly intelligent, nonviolent type of criminal in the Willie Sutton mould_." He was released in 1993 and settled with his wife in Pompano Beach, Florida, where he earned a living giving saxophone and clarinet lessons, and occasionally playing the local jazz clubs. Turning _The Can Opener_ into a script, he tried to recruit Clint Eastwood to direct and star, but was told by Eastwood's secretary, "_unless you have an agent, he won't read it_." Tucker was re-arrested in 1999 after carrying out at least four robberies, and in 2000, he was sentenced to thirteen years. He died of natural causes in 2004 whilst imprisoned at Federal Correctional Institution, Fort Worth. In terms of the film, most of the details of Tucker's life are reasonably accurate, although Jewel is a fictional character. She is, however, loosely based on Tucker's third wife, Jewell Centers, whom he married in 1982. Hunt is also a real person, although, he was a sergeant in Austin, not a detective in Dallas, and he was unmarried and childless (in the film, Hunt and Maureen have two children).
The first thing you'll notice about _Old Man_ is its pace, which is measured, to say the least. Ostensibly, this is a heist film, but the crime narrative is very much secondary to tone and character beats. Lowery is relatively uninterested in excitement, suspense, plot twists, or any of the usual generic tropes. Instead, approaching the material casually, he focuses on a year of Tucker's life. You learn pretty quickly, however, what kind of film this will be. Opening with Tucker in mid-robbery, instead of concentrating on his escape, as you would expect, Lowery instead cuts from the robbery to Tucker meeting Jewel, and from that, to a lengthy dialogue scene in a diner as Tucker and Jewel get to know one another. Just as you expect important plot details and character-illustrative moments to be front and centre in a bombastic opening salvo, Lowery gives us two people sitting in a diner talking to one another. And this establishes the tone for the rest of the film, which is as mellow as a film can be; rather than a shot of absinthe, it's a fine Irish malt drunk at a fireplace.
Indeed, even within this structure, there's not a huge amount of character development, nor is there much of a dramatic arc. And that's not a criticism. Rather, the meditative, quasi-somnolent pace is very much one of the film's charms. To give you an example, about three-quarters of the way through, there's a scene where Jewel fills a kettle as she stares out the window. We are literally watching her thinking. Then she puts the kettle on the stove and thinks some more. The scene lasts a couple of minutes, and is reminiscent of Rooney Mara's four-minute pie-eating scene in _A Ghost Story_, which a lot of people disliked, but which I thought was very much the essence of the film rendered in pure visual form. Here, the kettle scene doesn't forward the narrative one iota. It's precisely the kind of scene that a young filmmaker would be told to avoid in film school. However, it's a key scene for the character, and although the film is only 93 minutes long, Lowery is in absolutely no rush to get through such scenes. Indeed, the heist scenes are very much the background noise against which the more interesting character beats happen. Additionally, Lowery almost completely ignores what, for many, would be the most interesting part of Tucker's story – his 18 escapes. Instead, Lowery puts them all together into one superb montage.
However, for all that, Lowery's primary goal is not to tell the story of Tucker, or even to introduce the character to the audience. It's to create an ode to an icon, and that icon is Robert Redford. Tucker's story is basically a vehicle which Lowery uses to celebrate Redford; the character is always there, but he exists behind the actor, rather than the other way around. What I mean by this is perhaps best explained by citing its inverse – an actor disappearing into a character; think Daniel Day-Lewis in Paul Thomas Anderson's _Phantom Thread_ (2017). In _Old Man_, the audience is never allowed to forget that this is Robert Redford on screen, to the point where the performance is self-referential. Indeed, during the escape montage, there's even a clip of Redford from another film, Arthur Penn's _The Chase_ (1966). There's an obvious correlation between Tucker and Redford of which Lowery wants the audience to be very aware – they are both elderly, and still doing what they do best, reluctant to stop, with a massive CV to prove it. We can never look past the fact that Tucker is played by Redford, and for the most part, Redford is playing Redford, with the film existing in large part only because it explicitly leans on his back catalogue and real-life legacy. Essentially, the whole thing is an extended metatextual allegory for Redford's own impending retirement, not to mention his reluctance to let go.
As one would expect from Lowery, aesthetically, the film is fascinating. Lowery is very unusual in the sense that, thus far, he has never used the same cinematographer twice – _St. Nick_ was shot by Clay Liford; _Ain't Them Bodies Saints_ by Bradford Young; _Pete's Dragon_ by Bojan Bazelli; _A Ghost Story_ by Andrew Droz Palermo; and _Old Man_ by Joe Anderson. Stylistically, the film is most similar to _A Ghost Story_, which was shot 1.33:1. _The Old Man & the Gun_ is 2.39:1, but the cinematography is extremely unique, with the celluloid having a gritty, grainy quality, almost as if it were an amateur project. This is because Lowery shot on Super 16, doing so because he wanted it to look like it had been made in the period in which it was set. This is in direct contrast to, say, how Michael Mann shot _Public Enemies_ (2009), which was 2.35:1, shot on Kodak Vision3 500T 5219 film with modern Arriflex 235s, Arriflex 435s, Sony CineAlta F23s, Sony CineAlta HDC-F950s, and Sony PMW-EX1s, with the use of fast, seemingly anachronistic, digital photography creating a sense that what was happening on screen wasn't necessarily taking place in the past, but could easily have been taking place right now. Lowery, in contrast, tries to suture the viewer into the past _milieu_.
In relation to this, Anderson tells _Filmmaker Magazine_,
> _when making a period piece, I think to really do it well and transport the audience back in time you have to acknowledge the way movies were made in the period that the story is set in._
He also tells _Deadline_,
> _we didn't take an overly technical approach to the cinematography. Sometimes there's little bumps in camera moves, and a pan isn't necessarily perfectly controlled, and it has a lot of personality._
Additionally, the news broadcasts were shot using period-accurate video equipment. Initially, the producers wanted to shoot on cheaper digital and then degrade the images, but Anderson insisted on using '80s-era video cameras.
Another important aesthetic point is how much Lowery has obviously been influenced by the aforementioned Mann, to whom there are several homages – the diner scene recalls a similarly shot scene between James Caan and Tuesday Weld in _Thief_ (1981); the scene in the toilet where Hunt approaches Tucker is an obvious nod to Al Pacino confronting Robert De Niro in _Heat_ (1995); and the scene of Tucker gaining inspiration whilst sitting in a cinema recalls a scene where Dillinger (Johnny Depp) does the same thing in _Public Enemies_. In relation to this scene, the movie Tucker is watching is Monte Hellman's _Two-Lane Blacktop_ (1971), a film depicting the openness and freedom of the American highway. Of this choice, Lowery tells _SlashFilm_,
> _I didn't intend for that movie to be in the movie. We paid homage to_ Blacktop _already when we shot the chase scene with the '55 Chevy, but when I was trying to figure out what movie they'd be watching at the movie theatre, so I just decided one day to try that clip from_ Two-Lane Blacktop _and the resonance it had was just perfect._
In terms of problems, there are a few. Indeed, we've covered one of them already – for many, the film will depend far too much on Redford, specifically the self-referential allusions to his career and legacy. If you're not a fan of his, you will get zero from this, absolutely nothing. Similarly, if you aren't familiar with at least some of his previous work, and his status in Hollywood, the whole thing will probably seem inconsequential. Another problem I have concerns Affleck. I know he's a celebrated actor and so forth, but for me, he plays himself in every single movie. There is virtually nothing to distinguish Hunt from Robert Ford in Andrew Dominik's _The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford_ (2007) or Les Chandler from Kenneth Lonergan's _Manchester by the Sea_ (2016) or either of his performances in previous Lowery films. Every performance he gives, he plays a character with the weight of the world on his shoulders, shuffling around, speaking in a low-key hang-dog voice, reluctant to make eye contact, shifting on his feet. The exact same thing in every film, with the exception of Scott Cooper's underrated _Out of the Furnace_ (2013), where he showed some fire.
Lowery also has a strange habit of introducing themes which seem to be setting something up, only to completely abandon them without any kind of engagement. This is most obvious in relation to Hunt's inter-racial marriage and their two mixed-race children. This is a fictional element added by Lowery, so one assumes there was some thought behind it. But this is Texas in 1981; there wouldn't have been a huge amount of mixed marriages. Yet Lowery seems to portray it as if it's the most normal thing in the world. Indeed, for the wife and children, life is fairly idyllic, with not a hint of any kind of societal disapproval. My point is why would you introduce a mixed-race marriage into this _milieu_ without commenting on it. Lowery obviously has little interest in exploring the social reality of race relations in Texas in the early 1980s, which is fair enough, but if that's the case, why bother raising the issue at all? I'm also mystified as to what we're supposed to make of the scene where one of Hunt's daughters writes a get-well card to Ronald Reagan after he was shot by John Hinckley Jr..
These issues aside, however, _The Old Man & the Gun_ is a fine film. As much about Robert Redford as it is Forrest Tucker, although that won't appeal to everyone, there is much to praise. Made in a key so low, it's practically subterranean, Lowery hinges everything on Redford's presence, and, for the most part, it works well. There's little in here to get overly excited about, but neither is there much to criticise. Yes, the film is somewhat insubstantial, and there's virtually nothing here beyond the Redford/Tucker character, but it's still beautifully made, and, honestly, there's nothing wrong with spending 93 minutes hanging out with Redford, whether he's playing Forrest Tucker or Robert Redford. Whether or not this is actually his last performance remains to be seen, but if it is, it's as fine a send-off as any Hollywood icon could hope for.

Cinderella is a jukebox musical, based on a classic fairy tale, with CGI animals, and the now obligatory ethnically diverse cast (though oddly relegated to the extras; all of the main characters, with one exception that we'll get to later — and that's certainly not Camila Cabello —, are of the Caucasian persuasion.
It's like, how much more lazy could this writing be? And the answer is none. None more lazy. To put it in perspective, Lin-Manuel Miranda's so-called songs from Hamilton or In the Heights are all over the place, but at least he sat down and committed them to paper himself (and you can tell from the result that he did without any help at all).
Conversely, what we have here is the worst of two worlds: on the one hand, covers so watered down they constitute sonic homeopathy, and on the other, original songs so bland that they make the covers sound good in comparison.
As bad as, say, Rocketman is, at least it's a jukebox musical that makes sense; after all, one expects to hear Elton John songs in an Elton John biopic. This of course doesn't change the fact that, should I want to listen to John's version of “Pinball Wizard”, I'm going to watch Tommy, not Rocketman.
By the same token, if I want to see a Cinderella musical, the gold standard is still the 1950 Disney version, which contains original, plot-relevant songs that they were written expressly for the film — as opposed to a glorified playlist that fails miserably at the two most important functions a song has in a musical: moving the story forward and developing the characters (how exactly a medley of “Whatta Man” and “Seven Nation Army” is going to accomplish either of those things, I haven’t the foggiest) — especially considering that YouTube, iTunes, Spotify, etc. allow me to easily enjoy the superior, genuine article performed by the artists who wrote and/or recorded it in the first place.
As for the exception to the 'inclusive' cast that I mentioned above, it's the Fabulous Godmother; played with overflowing exuberance by Billy Porter; this is the only character endowed with a life of its own, something for which the actor, and not the script or the director, deserves exclusive credit. The rest — even (sigh) Pierce Brosnan and Minnie Driver — are so opaque and forgettable that they might as well have been as computer generated as the animals

I tried, I really did! I hoped that the fairly decent, experienced, ensemble cast coupled with state of the art visual effects and a collection of modern-day pop lyrics would breathe new life into this timeless story. Well, sadly, that was all just a triumph for optimism over, well, just about anything... It's terrible. Good looking, well produced, but terrible. Am I the only person left alive who is fed up being shouted at by Edina Menzel? Pierce Brosnan demonstrated in "Mamma Mia" (2008) that he is happy to play parts with his tongue in his cheek, but here I fear he must have cringed when he saw; likewise Minnie Driver and a whole host of British comedians led by the ubiquitously un-talented James Corden. Billy Porter tries a different take on the fairy godmother character but features all to sparingly to make much impact on an otherwise extremely pedestrian interpretation that reached it's nadir with the cute but totally wooden pairing of Nicholas Galitzine (Freddie Mercury would spin in his grave) and Camila Cabello. Sorry, maybe if I were 6 years old and had nothing to compare this with, I'd not be so harsh - but I'm not and this is poor, really poor...

I might be asking for trouble here, but did Charles Laughton ever actually make a bad film? He leads this one as the brilliant but curmudgeonly barrister "Sir Wildred Robarts" with oodles of charisma and style. Marlene Dietrich portrays the evil, manipulative "Christine Vole" marvellously and even Tyrone Power, more the matinée idol than the serious actor, delivers as required in Billy Wilder's outstanding rendition of the Agatha Christie story about a man accused of murdering an elderly lady who has just happened to leave him a great deal of money in her will. Elsa Lanchester is suitably annoying/scary/lovable as the nurse trying to keep her ailing charge from keeling over mid-trial and a slew of other capable British actors - including a wonderfully charismatic turn from Una O'Connor in the witness box - fill in the supporting roles well. It is one of those very rare occasions where everything just gels perfectly and it really is fun to watch. Some of Laughton's wry asides and put-down lines are genuinely laugh out loud too. Had it not come up against "Bridge on the River Kwai" then I'm sure it would have garnered at least one Oscar!

I'm constantly surprised that women's hats don't provoke more murders.
Leonard Steven Vole finds himself on trial for the murder of a wealthy widow from whom he has inherited a fortune. Top barrister Sir Wilfrid Robarts takes up the defendants case, but he, along with everyone else, is stunned when Vole's seemingly loving wife Christine turns up to testify against the defendant.
Based on Agatha Christie's successful 1953 play, "Witness For The Prosecution" benefited from fine tuning from master director Billy Wilder and writing partner Harry Kurnitz. Here the dialogue becomes razor sharp and the characters are fully realised with quite wonderful results, but chiefly the masterstroke here is not letting a court room drama become just that, a court room drama. The film plays out with no wasted scenes, no moments of boredom, and it has such vim and vigour you sometimes forget that there actually is drama in the story.
The cast here are on fine form, Wilder had wanted to work with Charles Laughton for some time, and it's obvious that both parties here are getting the best out of each other. Laughton is a pure delight as Robarts, a sharp tongue, all bluster and cheeky into the bargain, his interplay with Miss Plimsoll (Laughton's real life wife Elsa Lanchester) is quality, and it's another testament to Wilder's genius for putting them together. Tyrone Power, in what would be his last completed film before sadly passing away, is devilishly smart as Vole, whilst Torin Thatcher is great as the gruff prosecution barrister Myers. Yet as good as they all are, they all sit in the shadow of Marlene Dietrich and her turn as Christine Vole, sultry and femme fatalistic, it's a sizzling performance that crowns this delightful film.
It occurred to me overnight that it's probably the closest film that Wilder got to being Hitchcockian, and I'm pretty sure the big master of suspense himself would have enjoyed this one. It's a mystery that is dramatic, it's a thriller that is also funny, it's pretty much a multi genre classic. 9/10

**Why don't they make THESE movies anymore?**
Apart from being a **GREAT** courtroom drama_(which some people don't think this movie is)_, this movie is so much **FUN** and **ENTERTAINING** to watch.Especially because of the characters of _Charles Laughton_ and _Elsa Lanchester_. But _Tyrone Power_ and _Marlene Dietrich_ were convincing too in their portrayal of an _innocent, afraid for his life man and a disloyal, unloving, poker faced wife_ respectively.
Some people might say that they predicted the ending half way down the movie but i am not quite sure as to how they predicted the **ACTUAL ENDING** before it really unfolded before their eyes?
This movie is great not only in the part played in court but also in the scenes shot in _Sir Wilfrid Robarts's_ office(also due to _Miss Plimsoll's caringly lovably irritating character!_).
Perhaps the people(the minority I'd like to believe) who don't think this movie deserves the high ranking and rating that it's got saw this brilliant piece of art as more of a suspense thriller.But I loved this movie as a delightfully ENTERTAINING, MYSTERIOUS, DRAMA !
I rate this 10 just because I haven't seen any other CLASSIC courtroom drama that was intense throughout(barring some light hearted scenes with Sir Wilfrid Robarts) and yet in the end I somehow felt light-hearted and had a smile on my face rather than a thought provoking look on it.
The commentary in the ending credits was innocently adorable for our times of social networking _"The management of this theater suggests that for the greater entertainment of your friends who have not yet seen the picture you will not divulge to anyone the secret of the ending of Witness for the Prosecution!"_
And mind you I am a _big fan of 12 Angry Men and How to Kill a Mockingbird!_ But this movie too is equally good in a different way altogether!

Great thriller with superb classical interpretations. The plot moves sometimes too lazily.

Right from the poor rooster trying to stay in shot at the start, this comedy adventure is riddled with subtle and detailed humour to complement the entertaining story that sees the eponymous sheep decide he needs a day off from the farm. He and his flock-mates go a-frolicking in the field and that's when disaster strikes. The farmer's caravan becomes unstuck and is soon a lethal missile travelling at great speed towards the big city - and there's nothing "Shaun" can do about it! Desperate, he concludes that he must board a bus and follow it. He sneaks aboard and makes it to the bus station, only to find the animal/pest control fella "Trumper" on alert! He might just be able to avoid him by himself, but when the next bus arrives replete with all his pals, it now becomes just as imperative that they avoid capture as it does that they find the farmer. Meantime, that poor gent is languishing in an hospital ward without the faintest clue whom or where he is! Now they must use all of their guile and a slew of disguises - even quite a provocative one - to get everyone back home safely. What ensues now is a series of genuinely quite funny scenarios with "Bitzer' the dog helping out as they must reunite with their erstwhile master and see if they can't jog his memory - ideally before his haircut craze takes off too completely. The standard of animation from Aardman is always great but they sometime struggle with full length screenplays. Not so here. This is a cleverly constructed piece of cinema with loads going on, a bit of slap-stick and an almost familial message of looking out for each other. There's not a great deal of dialogue, most of this is just left to the characters and our imagination and I think that worked well. I'm not sure "Shaun" will be taking any more days off anytime soon, though!

'Shaun the Sheep Movie' is pretty good.
The stop-motion animation side of things is expectedly brilliant, though it's the humour that is most impressive about this film - it's nothing hilarious, but a lot of the gags are amusing. It also has a fairly endearing feel to it. I watched some episodes of the television series growing up and do recall enjoying them, so I had a feeling I'd like this too.

'Shaun the Sheep Movie' is the spin-off feature film of a spin-off television series of 'Wallace and Gromit: The Wrong Trousers'. Boasting the same crew that brought us 'Chicken Run' and 'Wallace and Gromit', it promised a lot.
The film is made by the Aardman production company and so boasts a pleasant stop-start animation style. This "old-school" way of creating a cartoon is refreshing in the modern world of overused computer imagery and 3D effects.
There is no dialogue whatsoever in this film and so it feels like watching an old cartoon such as 'Tom and Jerry'. There are subtle nods to other television shows and films such as 'Breaking Bad', 'Hannibal' and 'Taxi Driver' so the parents are kept amused at times.
The story is very easy to follow due to the characters very expressive faces and directions which, being a children's film, make it a lot more simple and universal.
Overall, 'Shaun the Sheep Movie' is a good film for children. It has very cute characters and the animation is very fun. However, it doesn't have much for any other demographic unlike the company's previous work. But, saying that, it is an inoffensive and enjoyable film.
★★★

I was never really into Shaun the Sheep when I was kid and I also didn't enjoy this movie as much as I would if I was. I probably had the same problem with this film as I had with Minions. It isn't bad idea but it's too much minutes for too little words.
Shaun the Sheep is great idea but much more enjoyable when it's in seven minutes instead of 85. I think that story had too slow tempo for how long it was and I also felt like I already saw it because the story wasn't really original when it comes to it and also gags in this movie weren't really that funny. I think that even 5-years-old are already full of this same kind of jokes.
I personally enjoyed "emotional part" of this movie more, than I enjoyed the "funny part".
On the other hand I really loved animation and soundtrack of this film which was truly briliant and one of the factors why I had energy to finish this movie because without it I wouldn't do that and for me, the last 15 minutes of this movie was the best part.
The idea was great but they should have worked on it more.

> Losing that you love makes you realise its value.
The only reason to I go to Nick is to watch 'Shaun the Sheep'. This show was watched by many adults as well, a popular one among all the ages. As the fan of this series, we have been waiting very long to get a movie version. I was excited to see it and of course enjoyed it completely. Its impossible one to get disappointed with the movie/show when the narration is led by one of the awesome characters, Shaun. The promotional posters were also created some extra curiosity that imitated the famous Hollywood films like 'Boyhood', 'Wild', 'Birdman' and many others.
Stop-motion is a very-very hard and outdated concept of the animation format, but still loved by many. Every year only one or two get released, sometimes none. The technical sides were upgraded, including bluescreens for backgrounds and other special effects. Still the hard work remains, but qualities are improved. It made significant contributions to the live-shot movies in the old days when there was no CGI. So when we see a movie like this, the product reveals in each and every frames the real vision from the artist and writer's perspective. Every detail, every corner of the screen tells the story.
It was so good as a television show, because of short and sweetness. The filmmaker intended to create the same magic, except the credits its just a below 80 minute movie. Had a good storyline and a couple of new characters were introduced. Because the new adventure extended its area volume and so the antagonist was needed. Shaun and his buddies set foot outside their barn to find their lost farmer. The journey begins towards the big city and the movie discloses their risky and dangerous undertaking. They go pass lots of stages to accomplish their quest and only the last quarter reveals result with a thrilling chase scene.
Unlike the series, it was not completely a fun movie. There are some emotions involved, and I was amazed by those exhibitions. Because of some kind of childhood connection between Shaun and Co and their owner. That was unexpected, but was really very nice to see the other side of them. We know Shaun is a curious character, he always wants to learn and try new things. So when he has to make an unexpected decision, it does not go as planned and the fun begins with their mischievous adventure in an unfamiliar territory.
As usual without the dialogues, that can be understandable by everyone without a language barrier. A true family movie, from grandparents to grandchildren together watchable flick. Almost a masterpiece, offers a lot of great moments to give ourselves to it. And for the fans its a celebration time for sure. Definitely this movie would get into the final shortlist for the upcoming (2016) Oscars, if not, that would be a shame for the entire ceremony. But for winning, we have to wait till how good 'The Good Dinosaur' going to be. In the meantime, don't miss this little cute flick.
8½/10

**A reminder that the society is made up of all kinds of people and some of them need gentle assistance.**
There was an Oscar buzz for this. Many film experts thought it would sail through, but that did not happen. Now I saw it and I think it should have made into. If the priests' dirty secrets were recognised to condemn on such a big platform, then this film deserves as well. Because it reveals the cruelty against the economically weaker families and computer illiterate old men.
It is only this much short to be called a documentary film. I mean it was very realistic with cinematic dialogues, otherwise a documentary. This is a message film, highlights what's wrong with our system and who are all suffering from it. The actors were great and the 80 years- old director had done a magnificent job. You could watch as many films you want, but if you fail to watch a film like this often, there no meaning getting into film watching business.
The story follows a 60 year old widower whose name mentioned in the title. As he is recovering from heart attack and as advise given by his doctor, now he's out of the job and support allowance. Whenever he approaches the officials to look his issue, they always come up with different reasons to send him back disappointing. Especially not being into the computers, he struggles to fill forms on the internet platform.
He's very patience and following everything they have told him to do. One day he comes to aid to a single mother with two kids who recently moved to the city from London, when she is too struggling in the employment agency to get a job. So their relationship grows as they lend hands to one another in tough times. Following, how they recover from the issues they are facing is what the film to cover in the remaining parts.
> "Listen, you know, you give me a plot of land, I can build you a house. But I've never been anywhere near a computer."
I liked this the film, but I think it was too realistic for my kind of taste. Because I like emotional parts and in this film those parts were highly effective, but not sentimentally striking way. Maybe you can say, less music with more dramatisation changed the storytelling style. Though the focus given on economically lower class and their way of life, not intentionally, but lack of support in society, all these were well detailed. I have always supported films that point outs flaws in basic establishment in society.
Almost all the major struggling juncture one goes through in the employment agency, particularly if the person was old is uncovered. Like the telephone calls responding to the recorded message, online applications, as well as meeting them in person. What we're facing right now in the world is or to know is, not everybody is a computer literate. It'll be in the future, but not now. They are not getting proper help, particularly agency treating them like the illegal immigrants.
In addition the film gets more interesting when a single mother was introduced. On the other side, different issues faced by poverty ridden small family, particularly her desperate attempt to fulfill the basic needs of her children is heartbreaking. This is not just the English problem, but everywhere else in the world. It had won several awards, particularly one BAFTA award. A good film for everyone, only if you understand the notion of the film or else will be a boring film.
While I was watching it, I thought it was a regular kind drama, so I kept expecting that things would turn this and that way. For almost the entire film, but it's only in the final stage something it came up with to surprise me. So my advice is keep low expectation and be patience. More importantly accept what it reveals than what you want from it. If you fail on that, then its not your film and to know that the only way is to watch it.
_7½/10_

They don't make 'em like this anymore!
_Brawl in Cell Block 99_ is not just the best of Vince Vaughn's career, it's also one of the best movies of the year. Not for the faint of heart, but something that will stay with me for a long time to come.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

JCVD is not a good actor, but he is a fantastic martial artist, and he has shown that in a lot of movies. While there are moments here that demonstrated his skills, I can't help but feel a little disappointed. Some of the build-up I actually quite liked. Tong Po looked menacing and while the Winston Taylor character was a bit cheesy, he grew on me. I was not a fan of Eric Sloanes arrogance. I guess you need to have a bit of that when your champion, but he just did not feel real. Most of the film plays out more like a training montage before the big fight at the end. There were some fun training moments, but a lot of it felt quite boring to me and the added romance did not really work, especially when the acting is not great. I wish the final fight played out differently, it was extremely predictable and there was not much of a fight considering they tried to fix it. I just hoped for more than what I got.
5/10.

Just listen. With your mind, your heart, your whole being.
Jean-Claude Van Damme stars as Kurt Sloane, who after witnessing his brother getting crippled in a Muay Thai fight in Thailand, sets about learning the art himself so as to enact revenge on the sinister Tiger Tong Po who illegally put his brother in the wheel chair.
Ah look, I don't see any point in writing about the market that Van Damme movies sit in, I think everyone knows that there isn't going to be great acting in these movies, the plotting will be straight and simple and the resolution will be prescribed to get a whoop and yee-haw response. I would think that as much as some highbrow film fans roll their eyes and look down their noses at these type of action movies, they do at least acknowledge the fighting artistry and choreography on show. They, you hope, stay away and leave the ass kicking fans and nostalgists to wallow in their cheese and beaten body pulp kingdoms. I mean why would an arty film lover seek out an early Van Damme movie anyway?
I love Kickboxer, I really do, when I first caught it on release I could be found trying to do some of those wonderful Van Damme moves, rewatching the key moments over and over again, enjoying immensely the adrenalin rush that comes as we go slow-mo and Jean-Claude goes about dismantling uber bastard villain Tiger Tong Po (Michel Qissi). Now, well over twenty years later, I still get that rush, I can't do the moves, mind, I nearly put my shoulder out just punching the air in triumph as a mullet headed Dennis Alexio sticks his thumb up from his wheelchair, but all the thrills are still there, the skills on show still amazing. Hell, there's even a pet thread of substance, damn those animal threads, that cool dog better not get killed! Grrrrrrrr.
Of course now, viewing with older and wiser eyes, you can see the clunkiness of the script, the lame-brained plotting and excuses for Van Damme to flash the flesh and show his dexterity. There's even one of the worst dance sequences ever put down on film, so bad I can't believe I never laughed out loud at the cinema all those years ago. Yet it's still a wonderful movie, often exhilarating, the thematics of second chances (Haskell V. Anderson III having a great old time of it as Winston Taylor), revenge and different cultures, these impact greatly on the picture. Then there's Dennis Chan as Xian Chow, giving Pat Morita a run for his money as the most fun cinematic Martial Arts trainer, the real location photography in Thailand, the training sequences and of course we get to learn about the ancient sport of Muay Thai. There's a lot of good here to off set the saggy cheese.
There are some truly awful Van Damme movies out there, case in point Cyborg which was released the same year as Kickboxer, and without doubt the quality of Van Damme movies improved in the 90s as his stock began to rise and the budgets went higher. But this is a goody for his fans to lap up, a film to sit alongside Bloodsport as one of the two best action movies from his early body of work. And I love it so. 8/10

There's no place on earth people understand loneliness better than here.
The Awakening is directed by Nick Murphy and Murphy co-writes the screenplay with Stephen Volk. It stars Rebecca Hall, Dominic West, Imelda Staunton, Isaac Hempstead Wright, Shaun Dooley and Joseph Mawle. Music is by Daniel Pemberton and cinematography by Eduard Grau.
Britain, post World War 1, and Florence Cathcart (Hall) makes a living as an exposer of charlatan spiritualists, a debunker of ghost sightings. When she receives a request from school master Robert Mallory (West) to investigate the supernatural events at a remote boarding school for boys, she is suitably intrigued to take on the assignment...
It comes as no surprise to find that numerous reviews for The Awakening make reference to ghost story films that were made previously. The Woman in Black released a year later would suffer the same fate, charges of it not bringing nothing new to the table etc. A ghost story set in a big mansion or remote educational/correctional establishment is what it is, and will continue to be so, all fans of such spooky fare ask is that it does it well and maybe add some adult themes into the bargain. The Awakening does these in spades.
The concept of a disbeliever in ghosts having their belief system tested to the full is not new, but it's a great concept and one with longevity assured. Here, boosted by a terrific performance from Hall, the screenplay consistently keeps you guessing. The possibilities of real or faked are constant as the director pumps up the creep factor, whilst he simultaneously crafts a number of genuine shock sequences - including one of the best doll house scenes put to film! This really has all the requisite jolts and atmospheric creeps for a period spooker.
It's not until the final quarter when the screenplay begins to unravel its mystery, a finale that has proved both ambiguous and divisive. The ambiguity factor is a little baffling since everything is made clear in a nicely staged scene, and this is something which the director has gone on record to state as well. As for the divisive side of things? That's a blight for this sub-genre of horror. It's convoluted! Contrived! It has been done before they cry! These are true to be sure, and without doubt there's a leap of faith required to not get annoyed, but it garners a reaction and has done its ghost story essence very well indeed.
Beautifully photographed, scored and performed by the leads to boot, this is for sure one for fans of period spookers with brains. 7.5/10

I did not know anything about the story before I watched the movie. As a life-long Dolly Parton fan, I would have been eager to see it if I had known several characters would idolize her and that Dolly's life and career would serve as an inspiration to all. The movie is a feel-good gem. Danielle MacDonald is a future favorite, and Jennifer Aniston shows real talent in making her cliched character something more. I recommend it to all.

There are many films about parenthood, but Fatherhood caught my attention due to the main actor and the director. Kevin Hart (Jumanji: The Next Level) is one of the most recognizable, famous faces in comedy, so seeing him bring it down to portray a more grounded character dealing with an emotionally devastating moment in life is captivating, to say the least. In addition to this, Paul Weitz, one of the directors of American Pie, is directing this Netflix flick. How can someone not feel remotely interested in watching the final result?
Fatherhood may go through the usual plot developments and character building of the genre, but Hart offers a brilliant performance as the compelling protagonist who will grab every viewer's attention. The actor proves yet again that he isn't a one-trick pony, seamlessly incorporating the complex feelings of his character. From losing the woman he loves to raising a child on his own, the accumulated emotions keep the movie worth investing in. Alfre Woodard (The Lion King) is terrific as always, but Lil Rel Howery (Judas and the Black Messiah) isn't really able to overcome the script issues when it comes to the comedic bits.
The jokes themselves are acceptable, but they're often inserted at the wrong moment. There are many scenes where a joke could have helped lighten the heavy, depressing atmosphere, but they're saved for dialogues that don't require them. Howery is usually hilarious, but in this film, his character genuinely feels a bit irritating. Despite the overlong stay, it's a movie I can see helping a lot of parents in similar situations while being entertaining and enlightening at the same time for other viewers.
Rating: B-

The theme of the movie is pulling the family feeling out of you. The acting of kevin is nice as always, but there is few details the director miss to include. Kevin hair style always goood!! **where is the busy father raising his daughter**. Few moments of his wife is not enough i never felt attached to his wife dead rather then what will happen with his relationship about arguments and struggling.. overall is nice to watch, it can be boring few minutes.