A cult classic of "so bad that it's good" filmmaking, the story of how The Room was created has become as legendary as the film itself. Watching The Room gave me the impression I was watching a film written and directed by an extra-terrestrial being who'd never seen a movie before, nor seen real humans interact.
Tommy Wiseau's acting has to be seen to be believed. It is not what one might consider "good", to put it mildly. There are way too many boring and cringeworthy sex scenes in this, which definitely drags its rating down. Many aspects of the story and lore are truly baffling, which actually adds to the entertainment value of the film.
However, I do not find The Room as entertaining as any of Neil Breen's work (Breen is a filmmaker often mentioned for comparison when discussions of Tommy Wiseau as an artist crop up). Despite its flaws, and a harsh critic might say that there's more flaw than film here, The Room still has more entertainment value than many soulless big-budget Hollywood efforts, made with maximum cynicism as money-making machines.

I suppose that you just have to leave your brain at the door for this nonsense. Sadly, at this most recent showing in London, we were not permitted to throw spoons (nor in theory, to call out - but, hey - good luck with that!). Anyway the somewhat unattractive "Johnny" (Tommy Wiseau) is living with pretty fiancée "Lisa" (Juliette Danielle) who decides that she'd probably rather hook up with the rather handsome "Mark" (Greg Sestero)... Will they get rumbled? Will things ever be the same again? Of course, the dialogue is abysmal, the sex scenes filmed in an out of focus fashion that we can only ever be truly thankful for, and the soundtrack is so cheesy that the whole thing just engenders audience participation on quite an unprecedented scale. This is garbage; there is no other word for it - yet it is eminently watchable (after three bottles of wine and some i/v gin). Carolyn Minnott is wonderfully earnest as mother "Claudette", too. It's amateur in just about every way, but funnily enough that might just be the reason it has achieved cult status. Aim very low, and you will still be setting your sights too high!

Brought to us by Wiseau-Films working with Chloe Productions and TPW Films is probably one of the worst films I have seen recently as I have discussed the film with others in my own podcast on Inside Movies Galore and I’m still on the fence whether I actually like the film. I watched this film twice once for my podcast and once for another that is enough and I will probably never watch this film again in my life if I don’t have to.
This is Tommy Wiseau’s debut film from 2003 where he plays a man named Johnny who has a beautiful blonde hair girlfriend named Lisa played by Juliette Danielle whom is actually kind of a bitch. Johnny has a working class job as a banker, takes care of a teenager named Denny, who insists almost on being a peeping Tom on their sex life, comes home to his woman Lisa and over time finds out she is cheating on him with his best friend Mark played by Greg Sestero then offs himself… on a budget of six million how can you film something like this?
Denny a young teenager is not entirely living with Johnny but is more like a son to him is caught up in the mix and gets into trouble with a drug dealer but you also see some kind of turmoil that Mark Goes through as he does feel guilty sleeping with Lisa but he enjoys it but is probably the most annoying actor on the set with his high pitched squeals. Also the fact of Lisa’s friends whom just can’t keep from fucking, started story plots that weren’t entirely needed and felt they were an after thought.
The Music behind the film feels like it should be in one of those older 80’s Canon fairy tales or something like Masterpiece Theater, but also elicit’s the feel of soft core love scenes like that what you would see on HBO after dark when it comes to the passionate scenes between Mark and Johnny. I also feel that when Johnny taped the phone calls Lisa made on one of those old tape machine’s feels slightly dated as this was a film done in 2003. I feel like the balcony scene was the worst scene as when they were up there you could tell that there was a stage wall behind them as the cast was talking as I understand this was called a green room.
Though I love dubbed films in Martial arts type films and Toho productions I think that having the actors and actress’s including Tommy Dub their voices in was absolutely awful, mixed with his geriatrics of getting angry at Lisa, Tommy was annoyingly eccentric, there wasn’t a line in the film that was even remotely original. It’s all been said before but I do have to say are quotable. I feel like I should love this movie but I’ve decided that I do not and only mildly enjoy the film as it is just that bad and even then I’m not sure that enjoyment can be the word decribing how I feel about the film. I don’t understand the reason behind why people enjoy the film but point blank it’s terrible. Terribly edited, basically a film you can probably take to a film class and say here’s what not to do.
I didn’t enjoy watching this film. I watched it for the purpose of discussing it on podcasts. I’ll definitely not recommend it to others either but I will say it paved the way to “the Disaster Artist” which looks like it could be an even better film than this piece of trash. I’m sorry to shit on film growing a cult standing but this was not a good film at all. Sorry ladies and gentlemen. Though I own it you go ahead and enjoy it not me.
As I understand it Tommy Wiseau at least in Greg Sestero’s book had actually not been a nice person to his cast in fact he’d actually been quite abusive so those whom are actually on his side you have to wonder at their sense of morality in believing this film was remotely good. I guess I’d say this was one of those films where Tommy had the money to buy his film haters the ones that find it just that enjoyable to hate movie goers.
I understand that he, Tommy Wiseau, probably took the films he knew growing up which probably had more to do with those soft core roughies you saw at the peepshows after midnight but ladies and gentlemen I’m not into belly porn… Enjoy the film if you must just don’t lie and say it was a great film…
Three positives that I can say about the film is I loved that beginning shot of that cool looking Architecture, The part where the friends have fucked and dude comes back for his underwear and I guess the fact that all the lines are quotable in the same accent that Tommy has.
Starring Tommy Wiseau as Johnny, Greg Sestero as Mark, Juliette Danielle as Lisa, Philip Haldiman as Denny (as Phillip Haldiman), Carilyn Minnott as Claudette (as Carolyn Minnot) Robyn Paris as Michelle, Mike Holmes as Mike (as Mike Scott), Dan Janjigian as Chris-R, Kyle Vogt as Peter, Greg Ellery as Steven, Kari McDermott as Party Member #2 (as Kari Mcdermont), Jennifer Vanderbliek as Party member #3 (as Jen Vanderbliek), Daron Jennings as Barista #2, Frank Willey as Coffeshop #4, Bennett Dunn as Partygoer (as Bennet Dunn).

After seeing the Disaster Artist, I had to see this movie! HORRIBLE! Laughing my ass off but HORRIBLE! Good for you Tommy! Live thendream!!! Still laughing that I'm really watching this! Kind of like a porn movie without the porn!!!

Everybody knows _The Room_ is bad. That's like, the whole thing. But anybody who says its badness is self-aware is a liar. It's regular bad. It's regular fucking awful. Genuinely, the movies my peers in film class were making when I was **fifteen** are better than _The Room_. Before you say it, yes I did watch The Room in a group, and no I didn't enjoy it.
_Final rating:½ - So bad it’s offensive. I may never fully recover._

The remaining survivors from part 3 are no longer in the hospital. Now they have a person that can bring people into there dreams. So they all try to gang up on Freddy as a group in the dream. The dream world is Freddy's world so good luck.

I love this movie. When it first came out I never seen anything like it. It's so hilarious. The worst gigolo ever!

Decent watch at very best, probably won't watch again, and can't recommend.
I actually like Rob Schneider a bit, and the guy can certainly act, but it's like he got he's talent from a Monkey's Paw, there is usually some draw back. In this, it's where the movie systematically makes fun of people from anger management issues, to serious conditions, to amputees, and all of them lonely and possibly desperate, so it's extra sad.
Yes, it's the premise of the movie that he's an unexpected gigolo with unexpected clients, but I'm not sure anyone was asking for this movie.
All that aside, this is a alternating abuse humor / ridiculous escalation humor, and a lot of the movie is just Rob being exasperated with his own script. To top it off, it feels like there is one story line too many with the cop investigating him. The angry gigolo with WAY too many expensive things that he mistreats is plenty of antagonist.
They definitely put the work in on the production side though, even incorporating a couple of matrix references that probably cost far more than warranted for the movie.
I don't blame you if you do like this movie, but there has got to be something better to watch.

This movie is described as a comedy-drama and it is. But I didn’t have many laugh out loud moments. The humor is situational mainly: the writers work up to those moments that make you smile, either because you remember a similar moment in your life, or else because you can’t imagine a similar moment.
As happens so often, the story is based on real events. I saw where one review title said it is heartbreaking, but I didn’t see that at all. The movie is fairly uplifting in that it shows the strengths of a family that values all of its members, particularly the very old, whose wisdom and experience aren’t as well received in many American families.
When I think about it, nothing definitive seems to happen in the film: no crisis, no climax of action, but this lack of great drama didn’t detract from enjoying the movie. It is all about the journey, not the destination. Enjoy the trip.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
Lulu Wang shares an emotional part of her personal life by delivering a beautiful, heartfelt story about her grandmother. Even though The Farewell sticks the landing perfectly, not all of the second act’s storylines captivated me, especially the whole wedding narrative. However, Awkwafina offers a fantastic performance, as well as the rest of the cast. Alex Weston’s score elevates a lot of moments, and the drama-comedy balance is on-point.
Rating: B+

When a Chinese family finds out that the family’s matriarch is dying of lung cancer, complications arise. In Chinese culture, there is a saying that when you get cancer, you die. This actually boils down to the belief that it’s not the cancer that leads to the person’s death, but rather the fear of dying. As such, the family orchestrates an elaborate ruse to get everyone together for a wedding, but in reality the gathering is for everyone to be able to say goodbye to the grandmother without actually letting her know the truth.
It’s a fascinating premise and based on a true story (or based on an actual lie, as the film puts it). Showing aspects of Chinese culture we rarely get to see, the film takes us on a journey to China as we see modern life and urban development. How accurate it really is, I can’t attest to, and there are times that it feels like there should be more or that something is more complex and we’re being given the fortune cookie version, so to speak. The film does steer clear of politics, so that is not a factor here.
This is a beautiful film not just through visual aesthetics but also on a character level. We see how each character faces the impending death of the grandmother differently, such as the daughter-in-law being very matter of fact about it while her husband (the grandmother’s son) is being torn up inside, all while the wise and experienced grandmother continues to dispense advice, oblivious to her diagnosis. It details the variety of relationships we can develop in our life as no two relationships are the same, but they all still love each other despite some distance between certain relatives. There’s something that, despite the comedic premise (it’s sort of a comedy that’s not particularly funny), is very grounded and very real. I couldn’t help but see some of my own relationships reflected on the screen.
Beautiful, heartbreaking, and at the same time somewhat hopeful, “The Farewell” comes highly recommended.

The movie was alright. I mean, J.Lo looked amazing as always. And the lead guy played by Alex O'Loughlin was really hot. The story was okay. It was like Baby Mama minus the baby mama. There were some funny parts like the orgasm and the water birth. But this movie is more of a dvd kind of movie than a theater kind of movie. A feel good movie.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
As surprising (and shameful) as it might be, I didn't know the original tale of which the film is based on. Maybe I just couldn't remember because once I learned the story, it did seem familiar. Either way, not knowing anything before-hand is my favorite way of "preparing" myself to watch a movie. I was moderately interested in this horror take of Gretel & Hansel, and I was genuinely excited to see Sophia Lillis as the lead actress. I feel very divided about it. It's a super captivating film production-wise, but it lacks some emotionally compelling storytelling, especially in the last third of the narrative.
First of all, Sophia Lillis is excellent as Gretel. I really enjoyed her performances in It and It: Chapter Two, and I knew she had something special. It was a matter of time until she got the right role at the right movie, and Oz Perkins can thank her for carrying most of the story on her shoulders. With a well-balanced display, Lillis beautifully incorporates Gretel's persona, offering a good range of emotions, and proving that she has a future under horror projects.
Gretel's love for her brother is demonstrated both through affection and cold interactions, making their relationship feel less fairytale and more realistic. Sam Leakey is a pleasant surprise as Hansel, considering this is his acting debut. While it's noticeable that he's still green, he didn't annoy me at all, and he actually delivered a couple of great lines. Alice Krige offers a cliche yet weirdly captivating performance as the evil witch.
Nevertheless, it's through its beautiful visuals and addictive original score (very 80s-like) that Gretel & Hansel got me invested until the end. Its production and set design create such an immersive environment, and its score (Robin Coudert) elevates basically every single scene. Galo Olivares' cinematography features an unusual style, but one that easily generates tension and suspense. Technically, it's honestly a fantastic surprise, I was not expecting such a high-level film in these regards.
However, it all comes down to the two main components of every movie: screenplay and characters. Even if Gretel is well-developed, the other characters could have received a bit of more care. The screenplay is the main issue, though. It starts with narration and heavy exposition. Something that takes too much out of the runtime, and it seems partially unnecessary since some of the information is somewhat repeated later on. It also spoils (well, it heavily hints) the connecting dots to the second half's mystery, turning that half too predictable and, to be completely honest, a tad boring.
The ending is also underwhelming. By not being able to properly close the narrative, the feeling of disappointment is tricky to avoid. It's one of those films that will definitely divide critics and audiences all around the world. The first group still has the technical aspects that can captivate anyone until the very end. However, audiences simply want to be entertained, and the purposefully slow pacing won't help, so I do understand if this group has an adverse reaction to this adaptation.
All in all, Gretel & Hansel is a pretty uncommon horror flick. It possesses technical features worthy of the very best movies of the same genre, but its screenplay lacks creativity and overall quality. A predictable narrative with slow pacing is (almost?) never a good attribute. Nevertheless, Sophia Lillis is an outstanding lead, giving a great performance. Galo Olivares' cinematography is pretty unique, the production and set design make the whole environment very immersive, but it's the addictive score from Robin Coudert that steals the spotlight. Oz Perkins shows excellent directing skills, but a less appealing second half with a disappointing third act doesn't let this film reach its true potential.
Rating: C+

The eponymous "Quintus" (Michael Fassbender) is struggling through the snow to escape the menacing Picts who have just ambushed and destroyed his outpost. He has to get the message to "Gen. Virilus" (Dominic West) before the whole of Britain is overrun by these warlike people. That man commands the ninth legion, and en masse they head north into the perilous wilderness - guided by "Etain" (Olga Kurylenko) - to seek vengeance. Further into enemy territory they go before betrayal and disaster befalls them. Only "Quintus" and a few of his colleagues manage to escape. Can they make it to Hadrian's Wall and safety? The photography is good in this film, the Scottish scenery is shown off in all it's glory, hostility and bleakness as the men strive to outrun their enemy and reach safety. The rest of it, though, is all rather disappointing. Neither the acting nor the writing is really up to very much, and with the possible exception of rather adept with a blade "Tarak" (Riz Ahmed) and his extremely fast-acting dead cap mushrooms, the whole thing is just a bit clunky and slow with too much score. The combat effects are generally quite good, though, and at times it has an authentic brutality to it, but neither Fassbender nor West are really in their element and I felt it seemed a great deal longer than 100 minutes. I like the genre and I have seen much worse, but given this must have had a decent budget this could have been better with just a little less prattle, some better casting and a bit more action.

According to Wikipedia, Centurion “received mixed reviews and performed poorly at the box office” when it was released, but I wonder how many people picked up on its fascist undertones.
The movie is set in Britain during the Roman invasion in 43 AD. Now, unless it’s propaganda or revisionism, the long and short if it is, or should be, that in an invasion the invaders are the bad guys and the invaded the good guys – forget geopolitics; I’m talking about simple storytelling here.
But Centurion expects us to identify with the invading forces, a rapport that it slyly, yet deliberately, encourages by having the Romans speak the Queen’s English, while the native Picts – the ‘others’, as it were – speak Gaelic, a Scottish language that even Scots hardly know. In modern terms, what this movie wants from us is tantamount to asking us to cheer for Nazis or, conversely, jeer at Ukrainians.
Sure, the hero is but a soldier and, as we know from Tennyson’s Charge of the Light Brigade, a soldier’s lot is “not to reason why … but to do and die” – but precisely therein lies the problem. Quintus Dias (Michael Fassbender), and by extension writer/director Neil Marshall, never question warmongering; what does bother them, though, is “war without honor.” We are, therefore, meant to take a moral stance based on whether one side fights ‘dirty’ or not, without taking into account what each is fighting for. Thus the Picts, who are defending their home and freedom, are scorned because they “will not be drawn into open combat. Instead, they pick at the scab until we bleed, hiding in the shadows like animals, striking hard and fast then falling back into the night.” Never mind that the Romans were the ones who drew first blood.
Meanwhile, the main antagonist is a character whose “village [was] slaughtered as punishment for resisting Roman rule … they burnt out her father's eyes …. raped her mother until she was begging to die … before she too was raped … finally they cut out her tongue that she may not speak ill of the bloody Roman Empire.”
That’s your plucky, underdog hero right there — but when it comes down to Quintus and her, we’re somehow supposed to root for him. Moreover, we are required to approve of Quintus’s romantic interest, a woman called Arianne who helps the Romans out of spite because she has been ostracized by her fellow Britons (I believe the denomination for such an individual is ‘collaborator’). Quintus himself eventually turns his back on the Roman Empire – but only because they, for reasons not worth mentioning, try to kill him – in order to join Arianne as a pariah.
Did Marshall figure that, given enough time, one can look at history as if it were mythology – without the hindrance of having to make a distinction between right and wrong? After all, you can safely choose between Greeks and Trojan in the Iliad and retain a clear conscience, but I shudder to think of a future where Saving Gefreiter Reichmann would be a viable idea for a blockbuster.

As I delve into the AFI 100 films, _The Searchers_ emerges as the first that I've truly struggled to embrace. Despite its acclaim in film history, several elements made it a disturbing viewing experience.
First and foremost, it's crucial to delve into the film's historical context. Like many movies of its time, _The Searchers_ mirrors the prevailing attitudes towards Native Americans. While some may argue it's a 'product of its era,' the depiction of Native Americans now feels disturbingly insensitive. This factor alone could estrange a contemporary audience, casting a shadow over my experience and leaving me with a sense of disquiet.
John Wayne's presence looms large over the narrative. His forceful performance injects a harshness into the film that's hard to overlook. His aggressive portrayal leaves an uncomfortable imprint, making it challenging to empathize with his character's motivations and actions. Given our knowledge of Wayne, it's also difficult to disassociate him from the character he embodies.
As is often the case in classic Westerns, Native Americans are depicted as violent savages. However, a notable difference here is that the white characters are shown to be equally brutal. This balance in character portrayals is a unique aspect of the film that adds depth to the narrative.
Visually, _The Searchers_ is stunning. The cinematography by John Ford and Winton C. Hoch is remarkable, with sweeping landscapes and precise framing that beautifully capture the rugged American West. These scenes are the film's highlights, showcasing Ford's talent for composition and colour. The visuals alone leave a lasting impression.
But a film needs more than just beautiful scenery to be enjoyable. The story and character interactions fell flat for me. Beyond the aesthetics, I struggled to find much engaging over its two-hour runtime. While impressive, the film's stunning visuals did not compensate for the lack of depth in the characters and the story's slow pacing, leaving me waiting for it to end.
Should _The Searchers_ be on the AFI list? Ford has other films on the list, like _The Grapes of Wrath_, which I think are much more substantial. So, for me, it's a definite no. Although the film has its merits in terms of visuals, the discomfort it creates and its insensitive portrayal of Native Americans make it a questionable choice for such a prestigious list.

Fabulously framed against a backdrop of Monument Valley; this is a most cinematic experience. John Wayne leads in this classic story of a man whose family are murdered/kidnapped by Comanches and of his subsequent search for his family and for vengeance. Jeffery Hunter plays his nephew "Martin" with considerable skill and emotion and Ward Bond is another who knows how to get the best from Frank Nugent's screenplay. The plaudits that have since been paid to Wayne and to John Ford are well deserved. The 'Duke" does incorporate compassion and emotion into his usual swaggering macho delivery and Ford directs this adventure movie with an eye to the very distinctive humanity of the story. The days of the "Western" are well over now, but the best of them still stand tall amongst the best cinema has to offer - this is one such film.

**An interesting film, very well made, but with a weak script.**
This is one of those old Western movies where the cowboy figure is glorified as the epitome of the common American hero, the women are helpless youths waiting for a gunslinger to keep them safe, the West is a lawless land where everyone does their own thing. whatever and the natives – in this case, the Comanche – are true terrorists, whom it is lawful to persecute and kill because they commit serial atrocities.
I'm not going to get into any thoughts about the moral of the film or how it views not only Native Americans but women as well. Nowadays, there is no shortage of moral police officers to rewrite books, defend “more inclusive” neutral languages, throw statues of historical figures into the mud for having done or said something that was not to the liking of “political correctness”. I am not like that, and I condemn anyone who is like that. Therefore, I want the introduction of this text to serve as a mere prophylactic warning of what the film is: a film made in the 1950s by people with the same and natural mentality of that time. A normal film, made according to the mentality of its time, and which we have no right to arbitrarily criticize.
John Ford did an excellent job as director and gives us a very elegant film that stands out, essentially, for its artistic aspects. Cinematography is worthy of study at any school of film arts, with magnificent lighting, a palette of bright, vibrant and somewhat cheerful colors, and an exquisite use of sets, costumes and filming locations. By the way, the sets and costumes are also good and give us what we can expect in a Western film (and the best thing is not to expect great historical rigor because that was a minor concern at the time). In addition to all this, we have a heroic soundtrack that harmonizes well with the film.
In the cast, the figure of John Wayne is unavoidable. He's not even close to an artist that I really appreciate, but he has undeniable charisma, and he's in good shape here. Jeffrey Hunter also gives us an interesting job, but much inferior to that of Wayne while, when it comes to female faces, we can only positively mention the effort, almost heroic, of Vera Miles, in a film that did not consider the female characters.
Where this film really gets lost is in the Franciscan poverty of its script. The story is more than lukewarm, it never really captivates us, and it just seems like a gigantic excuse for a cavalcade full of fights between Indians and cowboys.

_**Overrated Wayne Western with a young Jeffrey Hunter**_
Released in 1956 and directed by John Ford, "The Searchers" chronicles the story of Ethan Edwards (John Wayne) who returns from the Civil War to his brother's ranch in the Southwest; and to his brother's wife, whom he secretly loves. After the ranch is raided by Comanches, Ethan and his 1/8 Indian nephew (Jeffrey Hunter) search for the band of Indians to get his captive niece back (Natalie Wood). As time passes and the niece assimilates with the Natives it's not certain if Ethan intends on rescuing the girl or killing her.
Touted as a masterpiece and one of the greatest Westerns, I've seen "The Searchers" twice now and was disappointed each time. Sure, the Monument Valley locations are breathtaking and the cast is great, but the story leaves a lot to be desired. The plot's excellent, but the way the story is told isn't interesting and so there's very little momentum. On top of this we get sequences, characters and dialogue that seem to be stabs at amusement, which (1.) aren't funny, (2.) are awkward because the main story is a serious drama/adventure in a Western context, and (3.) make some of the characters out to be dimwits (note to the writers: just because someone lives in the wilderness it doesn't automatically make them doofuses).
Give me "Stagecoach" (1939), "The Horse Soldiers" (1959), "The Alamo" (1960), "North to Alaska" (1960), "True Grit" (1969), "Chisum" (1970), "The Cowboys" (1972) and "Rooster Cogburn" (1975) any day over this mediocre Western. Heck, I'll even take "The Comancheros" (1961), "El Dorado" (1966), "The War Wagon" (1967), "Rio Lobo" (1970), "The Train Robbers" (1973) and "The Shootist" (1976).
The movie runs 119 minutes and was shot in Arizona, Utah and Colorado.
GRADE: C-

What makes a man to wander?
Upon returning from a trip out to find cattle thieves, Ethan Edwards finds his brother and sister-in-law murdered by Comanches and their two daughters missing. Driven by a hatred of Indians, and a motive of some determination, Edwards and his part Indian companion set off to find the missing girls - it's a perilous journey that will span many years.
The Searchers is one of the greatest Westerns ever made, in fact it's one of the finest pictures all told ever made. Its reputation as such is most definitely warranted, directed and photographed with almost peerless precision, The Searchers stands tall as a triumph of cinematic achievement. Plot wise the piece is really very basic, based on a novel by Alan LeMay, its revenge/hatred driven pursuit theme is one that will forever be trundled out to gather easy Hollywood coin, but with director John Ford pulling the strings on this picture, this is cloaked with a beauty that belies the bleakness of the main protagonist's driving force. As a character driven picture it's something of a flag bearing lesson for all other directors to make note of, for the thematic heart of it lays with Ethan Edwards (superbly played by John Wayne), an embittered man that incredibly, in spite of his evident bile, manages to keep the viewer from hating him due to the complexities of his make up and the surrounding sprawl of the American West.
The film is bookended by brilliant shots from open doorways, with both sequences impacting to almost steal the breath away, yet these are merely the crusts of an incredibly delicious sandwich. Many scenes here could be framed as pictures to define the classic Western, with Ford making the Monument Valley location one of the best Western characters to have ever graced the screen. Rolling hills and dusty odd shaped rocks are given impetus by scorching reds and oranges that themselves are aided by the everlasting fold of a vividly potent blue sky, all of it dwarfing the characters as Ford adroitly weaves the Civilization versus Wilderness thread. This is a film that positively begs repeat viewings, where each subsequent viewing brings further insights into character dissections and a lyrical lesson in racial indifference, all played out with almost hauntingly poignancy by Max Steiner's memorable score.
Back in the day the film never won any awards, presumably because the racist core of the film had many twitching in their beds, or maybe because the film doesn't rely on dialogue to make its points? (the body language and facial acting here is quite brilliant). Perhaps some just wanted a basic Western of shoot outs and shallow characters that barely have time to show some heart? Either way, what we do now know is that The Searchers is revered across the globe and often hits the best of lists formed by those with a very keen interest in cinema. Maybe it's only one for those willing to invest and observe it on numerous occasions? I am of course but a mere mortal film fan for sure, but really I feel this film is as good an experience as a film fan could have, technically and thematically the piece has few peers, it's a true American masterpiece. 10/10

**Interesting, remarkable for its subgenre, credible… but I didn't find it funny.**
I'm not a specific admirer of mockumentaries, but I recognize their value if they're funny. The film reports on the tour of a British rock band called Spinal Tap, and shows the enormous difficulties and crazy things they carry out on and off the stage. It's supposed to be a comedy... but, to be honest, it didn't make me laugh.
I recognize the value that this film had for the cinematographic subgenre it launched, and the interest that the film has for cinema students and others who deepen their knowledge of the seventh art in greater detail. For me, as I'm just a guy who watches films because he likes them, it's different: it's harder to convince me to watch this a second time because of the many technical arguments they might use. Being a comedy, it has to be funny. If it doesn't, it failed as a comedy (even considering the fact that I may not be the target audience, that would just be a sign that it's not a film for me).
Although it didn't make me laugh, I recognize that Rob Reiner does an interesting job and manages to give his film enormous authenticity on all levels. I wonder what fieldwork he did to prepare for the project, whether he spoke to journalists who follow the music industry, with bands or music artists, because in fact the film captures quite well the bizarre things that can happen on a rock tour. And the work of the main actors (Michael McKean, Harry Shearer, Christopher Guest) is equally worthy if we consider that much of what they say is improvised at that moment, not previously written. The film looks cheap and this is perhaps even intentional: the cinematography resembles a “found-footage” film, with the image shaky, poorly calibrated, full of grain at times. The sets are very good and the soundtrack, made for the film, is absolutely believable.

So the legendary British rockers "Spinal Tap" are on the comeback trail. After a dry spell in the USA, they determine to take their provocative new album and their film-faking fan "Marty" (Rob Reiner) and re-establish themselves as superstars. "Marty" has access to all aspects of their activities as he makes the ultimate fly-on-the-wall documentary depicting the ups and downs, warts and all, of this band of musicians who epitomise just about everything good, bad and excessive in the industry at which this film takes an entertaining swipe. Interspersed with some decently staged rock numbers that could easily have been seen on MTV, we are exposed to the extremes of venality and avarice, some completely bonkers lyrics and their gradual realisation that the grand stadium days are maybe long gone, now. The bickering always stays on the amiable side of toxic, but squabbles about their racy album cover being banned in Walmart, their shrinking appeal narrowed now to just to stoned-out students and their own peccadilloes deliver an enjoyably authentic looking and frequently quite funnily written analysis of life on the downward side of the showbiz mountain - and it's quite scathing of those who make a living out of it with little or no talent but a solid belief in what they see in the mirror. This is British sarcasm and irony at it's cinematic best, disguised in a faux environment that even now, after forty years, is still often laugh out loud.

Am I the only one getting bored or not? It's probably because I don't like that loud noise

_Killer Joe_ had the making to be a genuinely great film, but the quality control in the writing room limits the results.
So much of the story works for me on a thematic and plot progression basis. I enjoyed the premise and the stakes that this movie provides, but writer Tracy Letts wrote this like it was some subversive wet dream of his as a teenager.
This movie is vial, there is so much unnecessary nudity from creepy changing room shots to women's genitals being presented in full view, to soft-core pornography in the climax of the movie. I understand that this movie is supposed to have no redeeming characters, but the graphicness takes away from the scene more than adds to them. It is very reminiscent of my complaint about Rob Zombie films.
With that being said, the performances here are incredible. Matthew McConaughey is amazing. McConaughey is cold, calculated, and downright terrifying in almost every scene he is in. The final twenty minutes of this film are spectacular. His discovery and reveal gave me goosebumps. I loved it. Thomas Haden Church is pretty great too, he is so stupid and pointless that he adds a bit of humor in intense scenes that makes the viewer guilty for laughing. Everyone else was okay, they filled their roles well but did not necessarily impress me.
Despite my complaints, I enjoyed this film. It was an intense and thrilling experience that kept me on my toes till the credits rolled. I still think that the graphic nature and vulgarness take away from what could have been.
**Score:** _67%_ |
**Verdict:** _Good_

William Friedkin serves up Trailer Trash Neo-Noir with a side order of Fried Chicken.
Killer Joe is directed by William Friedkin and adapted to screenplay by Tracy Letts from his own play of the same name. It stars Matthew McConaughey, Emile Hirsch, Juno Temple, Thomas Haden Church and Gina Gershon. Music is scored by Tyler Bates and cinematography by Caleb Deschanel. Plot finds Hirsch as Chris Smith, who because he is in severe debt to local thugs, hatches a plan to bump off his waster of a mother and claim the life insurance. Roping in the rest of his trailer dwelling family, he hires Killer Joe (McConaughey), a cop with a sideline in murder, but the Smith's have no idea just what price they will have to pay for his services.
So pulpy, so amusingly dark, Killer Joe is one of those films that will sit at the top of many film fan's best of lists for 2012. Yet if someone came up to me and declared it one of the worst then I certainly will understand. Undeniably it has no widespread appeal, you either get it or you don't, you will either laugh along with Friedkin and his dark observations or you will feel the whole thing is just too ugly to be entertainment. Man it's good to have Friedkin back pushing peoples buttons!
Filmed in Texas in under three weeks, Killer Joe is a film that walks the fine line of misogyny and perversity for perversity's sake. But it never falls over that mark, even though these are scummy characters living in a scummy world, where there's sex and violence, and violent simulated sex and nudity; all of which is cloaked by a sweaty crime gone wrong caper. Much of the film is dialogue driven, rest assured this is very talky, but the director wrings out much tension and salaciousness from every character interaction, the slow-burn approach only heightening the sense of dread. When the finale comes, and it's a cracker-jack ending, there's an almost merciful release that it's all over. These are people you wouldn't want to hang out with ever, only there's Friedkin chuckling away to himself having made us spend an hour and forty minutes with this grime laden crew. If you feel like you need a bath afterwards, that's perfectly natural.
Friedkin has garnered terrific performances from a top line cast. Hirsch (powder-keg), Church (naievity extraordinaire), Temple (virginal piggy in the middle) and Gershon (bold and suspicious), are all giving disturbing credibility to the material, but as good as they are they are trumped considerably by McConaughey. One of the most frustrating actors working today, much like Cage, a ream of poor movies adorn his CV, but once in a while he throws in a performance of such genuine quality that it begs to be acknowledged by his peers. Here as Killer Joe he lays on a Faust like menace, delivering his lines with clinically calm precision, yet still there's a glint in his eye, we know a black heart beats there but he can charm a snake out of its basket, a girl out of her underwear...
Unflinching direction, bravura performances and neo-noir at its near best, one of the best films of 2012 so far. Well, to some of us at least.... 9/10

On the one hand, Killer Joe does get better as it progresses, but on the other, it's also the first Friedkin movie I haven't loved.
Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole.

What a load of rubbish, trying too much to be edgy it became disgusting

I guess it's a musical, and the world needs more of them, so there is that going for it. And I guess the races are swapped so... that is supposed to make it really good for reasons that aren't really clear.
But, really, it's void of wit and insight, it is completely insulting to history with the only thing that seems accurate and true to life is that Hamilton existed and was Secretary of State
And the views expressed by Hamilton are the least Hamiltonian views you're ever going to see.
If you've ever read him, you kind of wonder if this is based on the same Alexander Hamilton.
1776 got a LOT of history wrong for artistic liberties, but at least the theme was accurate and it got more right than wrong.
Hamilton doesn't even try. It's the story of Hamilton written by people that haven't even heard of his Report on Manufacturing and the economy he created.

If you didn't know going in, this isn't either a film or a TV show. It's a recording of the Broadway play of the same name.
Admittedly, this play is for Americans who already have some idea of history. That probably excludes the younger generations, since the public school systems have gone south with years of Republican under-funding. (Seriously, some teachers make less than burger flippers.)
As a stage actor and a history buff, I loved this play and am so sorry I didn't get a chance to see it on Broadway. There are multiple reasons I gave this a nine, the major of which is that I'm rating it as a play, not a film.
First, I was blown away by the creativity. There is no spoken dialogue which is unusual for a musical. Second, it's done nearly all in hip-hop/rap, with one set-piece even in slam battle. The staging is great. Kudos for creative use of a turntable. I was blown away by the amazing, seemingly complicated, "rewind" scene.
Yes, it may or may not be historically accurate. (History, or "his-story" is written by the victors, isn't it?) It's good story telling. It's political. It's fun and it's touching.

"My name is Alexander Hamilton/And there's a million things I haven't done/But just you wait, just you wait," Lin-Manuel Miranda sort of sings at the beginning of Hamilton. About three hours later we're still waiting.
Hamilton is divided into two acts. The first covers Hamilton's arrival in New York City in 1776, his work as General George Washington's aide-de-camp during the American Revolution, and how he met and married Eliza Schuyler.
The second covers Hamilton's postwar work as the first United States Secretary of the Treasury and his death in a duel with Aaron Burr. The first act is strictly hagiographic; Hamilton is so messianic that Burr (Leslie Odom Jr.) might as well be called Judas.
Watching the meteoric rise of the protagonist's military and political career unfold in song and dance form, I began to experience a revelation; if they changed the historical pe-riod and characters, this could easily become Forrest Gump: The Musical.
We never really get a sense of why Hamilton was so special, important, and essential in the lives of so many people; his success seems to be the result of a geographical-temporal accident — that is to say, Hamilton is always in the right place at the right time.
Miranda has allegedly written songs with many adjectives and very few verbs; lyrics that care more about the 'what' than the 'how' and 'why'. "How does a bastard, orphan, son of a whore/And a Scots-man, dropped in the middle of a forgotten spot/In the Caribbean by providence impoverished/In squalor, grow up to be a hero and a scholar?"
That’s a good question, deserving of a better answer than "by working a lot harder/By being a lot smarter/By being a self-starter." And, apparently, by being vague as all hell. Hamilton thus moves from one plot point to the next as in a dream, without ever conjuring up a precise image of the cha-racter's trajectory.
The second act is more specific about Hamilton's legacy; the character stops just 'being' and starts 'doing.' There is, however, another problem here.
The real Hamilton was more a man of words than actions, and his writings must surely be fascinating to the appropriate reader; on the other hand, one doesn’t read him for the sheer entertainment value.
To mention just one example, Hamilton helped ratify the United States Constitution by writing 51 of the 85 essays known as The Federalist Papers, which are still used as one of the most important
references for the interpretation of the Constitution.
This is almost as impressive as it is boring, and all the hip hop choreography in the world can't change the fact that Miranda's alleged songs, although true to the spirit of the statesman who inspired them, are devoid of all trace of showmanship.
These are long, heavily expository litanies, laden with facts and dates, as if written by a high school student who can’t remember his History otherwise. Meanwhile, King George III of England (Jona-than Groff, who steals the show in his too brief and few appearances) is depicted as a buffoon, but has the catchiest song in the entire production.
All of the above notwithstanding, Hamilton's biggest flaw is Miranda himself. As a composer he clearly favors quantity over quality, but a performer with authority and presence might have been able, with a superhuman effort, to elevate the author's pedestrian material.
Miranda is very far from being that performer; his dancing can be generously described as spastic, and his singing is more of an irritating nasal whine, as if he inhaled helium before each number — as opposed to the oxygen for which he visibly gasps as he tries to sing and dance at the same time.
Oh, and to be perfectly non-PC, his physical resemblance to the Bumblebee Man from The Simp-sons isn’t very pleasing either. All things considered, Miranda surrounds himself with a wonderful cast; so wonderful indeed that each individual member, as well as the ensemble as a whole, outshines the star, who is exposed as a black hole of charisma and talent that sucks all the joy out of singing and dancing.