This is not a Movie. It is a television program. It is a filmed stage play that is being broadcast on television. These things do not add up to this being a film, not even a TV-movie.

I suppose this movie was behind the eight ball from the very start in a way. On the one hand, there was such a tremendous hype for it as a play, it built the expectation of being blown away, and on the other hand, it being presented in its live theater version made it lose some of the visual impact of seeing it in person. We expect a greater production value on the screen.
The story is great, and should be required viewing for children at a certain age. I confess, I wasn’t enthralled by it as a musical. I guess I am too used to musicals that have regular dialogue broken up by songs rather than continuous sung dialogue. If there had been dialogue surroundIng eight or ten lovely songs like Helpless, I would have given it top marks. It is still an impressive production.
I feel I have to comment on the diverse cast. I am white and had no problem with the cast choices. I would have cried foul if they had presented an all white cast as some seem to think was required. I had an acquaintance complain, “What if they cast a white actor as Martin Luther King? And all I can do is flip it upside down. There are only a half-dozen people of color in our history books for every hundred Caucasians, and if it reaches the point where whites stop whining when people of color play those roles, I am convinced that people of color will be totally fine with whites playing the roles of people of color. But we aren’t there yet, are we?

A Disappointment
This is a musical not made for people outside of the USA. I had to watch the thing again and wiki Hamilton to try to figure out who was who except for some of the bigger names.
Going by the poster, this is was meant to be some attempted rise to fame of Harry Potter in Hollywood.
The casting was varied, which is great generally, but not representative of history (noone looked like what they should have).
Historical themes seemed to be swapped around and added in for convenience-sake.
Some performances were good, Soo, Groff and Diggs, whilst others (MIranda - who was better in Mary Poppins Returns) just felt flat and tired.
It felt like 6 or so cameras were placed and then just recorded.
And the choreography was distracting at times, not complimentary.
And character development - the only one who shows any is Soo's character.
This might be a great musical, but it is not a great movie (despite what people are reviewing it as). It is hard to follow as a citizen of the world who does not know US political history details nor its players. Its cinematography, casting and set pieces felt lazy (this could have been turned into grand cinema).
And it was overly long...people might expect this type of thing to go for hours on West End to get their money's worth, but 2hrs 40 is overkill in this medium.
The hype behind this made me think this was brilliant. I was majorly disappointed.

The onscreen talent carry it tremendously.
'Indecent Proposal' is a film that takes itself too seriously, which is a surprise given its ludicrous plot. It could've worked better as a comedy. Anyway, while viewing I was expecting/hoping for a moment of true drama that would set things alight, but it just waltzes through its 117 minute run time with little surprise and interest.
Demi Moore, Woody Harrelson and Robert Redford do make events much more enjoyable than they ought to be, though. I liked their performances. Noteworthy, also, to see Oliver Platt and, minorly, Billy Bob Thornton.
It is pretty meh, but thanks to the main trio it's just narrowly a good watch.

Albert Finney is magnificent as Agatha Christie's "Poirot" in this murder mystery set amidst the luxury (and isolation) of the Orient Express train as it travels from Istanbul to Calais, getting stuck in a snow drift en route. A cast to make your eyes water all vie for the responsibility of murdering oriental pottery collector Richard Widmark. Why, we ask, so brutally murder a guy who collects ancient urns? Well Lauren Bacall, Sean Connery and Ingrid Bergman are just a few of the suspects under the scrutinous eye of our travelling Belgian sleuth. Sir John Gielgud plays the butler with a similar sort of reverse snobbery that won him an Oscar for "Arthur" (1981) and the imperious "Princess Dragomiroff" is played to perfection by Dame Wendy Hiller. A superbly paced and structured bit of direction from Sidney Lumet leaves you guessing for almost all of this two hour cat and mouse chase..

All star cast deliver an Agatha Christie adapted treat.
Murder on the orient Express is directed by Sidney Lumet and adapted to screenplay by Paul Dehn from the novel of the same name written by Agatha Christie. It stars Albert Finney, Lauren Bacall, Sean Connery, Ingrid Bergman, Michael York, Vanessa Redgrave, Richard Widmark, Anthony Perkins, Martin Balsam, Jacqueline Bisset and John Gielgud. Music is by Richard Rodney Bennett and photography by Geoffrey Unsworth.
1935 and the Orient Express is on route from Istanbul to London. On board is legendary Belgian detective Hercule Poirot. He is called into investigative action when a passenger is found brutally stabbed to death, just as the train is ground to a halt due to heavy snow. This will not be easy for it's a case where any number of the passengers appear to have links to the deceased.
The best of the big screen adaptations of Christie's Poirot works, "Orient Express" is given a consummate sheen by director Lumet and his all star cast. Finney's Poirot has a hard edge to him, which is perfectly in keeping with the story that unfolds. From the beginning, which brings a sad and potent piece of news to our viewing experience, right to the Poirot deconstruction of the crime-perpetrator-motive sequence, picture has dark tints framing the array of thespians gathered for the occasion. The setting is gorgeous, but the confines of the period train add credible claustrophobic tension to the plot, and the reveal, while not surprising to the observant, is still a doozy that is given added emotional heft by a neat character development.
Darker than you may expect, but still a bunch of fun to be had playing spot the star and deducing who has done the foul deed. 8/10

_A Most Violent Year_ took a long time to get me hooked, but once I was able to come around to it I was fully invested. Oscar Isaac is fantastic in this movie. He was able to balance the intimidating front of a mobster while being able to present a sense of honesty as he was trying to avoid the more barbaric business practice of his contemporaries. It was a fine line, but it was a joy to see the mobster slowly start to take over as his desperation increased. Jessica Chastain was really good as well. She was a balancing force for Isaac's character and was just as badass in my opinion. They had amazing chemistry and formed a dynamic duo that was a force to be reckoned with. There is not a lot of action in this film, but the tension was thick and when there were more chaotic sequences they felt organic and real. The cinematography was top notch, I love the haze that was in this movie. It was nice touch and made the movie feel right at home in the 80's. This movie is not going to be for everyone, but I really dug it and recommend anyone to check it out.
**Score:** _83%_ |
**Verdict:** _Great_

Not to be confused with the 2004 British slasher set in Charing Cross Underground Station, 'Creep' is an American Handheld horror movie about a film-maker who answers an advert to film a dying man to leave something for his unborn child.
The screenplay and performances are not very good but the film's over reliance on annoying jump scares make some scenes fill with tension. The film tries to bring up connections with 'The Blair Witch Project' but fails to be anywhere near as good due to the fact that it is poorly executed and has unsympathetic characters.
It has a silly ending to top it all off but it leaves quite a resonating impact.
★★

I'm pretty far from on board with Found Footage Horror, and _Creep_ hits a lot of the reasons why. It also seems like there was no reason it had to be Found Footage in the first place. But that all said, Mark Duplass' performance is enough to elevate the piece somewhat, and kudos to director Patrick Brice for trying something new with the format.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

The disturbing and mind-bending ‘Creep’ certainly startles with its sense of sophisticated salaciousness, so why should it not meet the expectations of its haunting and hallucinatory hedonism? After all ‘Creep’ was from the handlers that gave fright fans unnerving and twitchy thrills in fear-monger flicks such as ‘Paranormal Activity’ and ‘The Purge’. Granted that the found footage genre has become rather obligatory but there are moments when one can declare a sense of distinction and devilish freshness where frightfests in the realm of ‘Creep’ can compel with warped and contemptible glee. When a flinching film can muster up an erratic combination of chaos and comedy and still manage to stay on course in its horrific havoc then vehicles such as ‘Creep’ can claim bragging rights in the slight re-invention of the aforementioned and omnipresent found footage theme.
Part of ‘Creep’s unctuous appeal is steeped in the wicked and wayward imaginations of collaborators in director/co-writer Patrick ‘The Overnight’ Brice (making his directorial feature debut here), co-writer/co-star Mark Duplass and producer Jason Blum (‘Paranormal Activity’, ‘Insidious’, ‘Sinister’). These morbid masterminds effectively instill the aptly-named ‘Creep’ with bountiful black humour in this glorified goose-bump fable that proudly struts its low-budgeted, atmospheric indie chops armed with outrageous dares and scares.
Unemployed videographer Aaron (Patrick Brice) unknowingly fishes out the on-coming scrutiny when he answers a Craigslist ad requesting the secretive side of film-making. Thus, Aaron travels to an isolated cabin in the middle of the desolate mountains to meet up with Josef (Mark Duplass, from TV’s ‘The League’). The sickly Josef, proclaiming his supposedly cancer-stricken condition, wants to be filmed on video as he prepares a diary for his unborn son. Well, the gesture seems heartfelt enough under the surface and something that Aaron should handle with kid gloves, right?
Aaron’s assignment at first appears innocuous as he gathers the insights and intimate moments that Josef provides for the sake of his future offspring. In fact, the two men even become somewhat close and bond together as they wander in the mountains mixing business with a bit of pleasure tossed in for good measure. Soon, Josef steadily starts to show his true colors as his interviews become intense and erratic. The darkness of Josef’s moods shift ominously back and forth. Hence, Aaron understandably becomes quite weary of his videotaped creepy companion’s behavior. It certainly does not help that Aaron unravels some sordid secrets regarding Josef’s unsettling backstory. Just where does Josef’s degree of delusions figure in as far as Aaron’s perspective is concerned?
The shocking moments in ‘Creep’ serves its purpose effectively, especially when the cat-and-mouse titillation and tension is enveloped in a low-budget, knee-jerking production that thankfully is refreshingly taut as it is naughtily off-kilter in its serving of several jittery jump scares and, of course, the edginess of the two men, one armed with suspicion and paranoia and the other one bottled up in a hefty grip of psychosis. The constant antagonism that the creepy Josef demonstrates towards Aaron is a traumatising tease that eerily registers with numbing realization. Fittingly, the found footage fear factor angle does not overtake or drown out the psychological give-and-take anxiety between the defensive Aaron and demented Josef.
If anything, ‘Creep’ manages to not exhaust the found footage foundation as a gory gimmick that many of these kinds of fright flicks fall victim much too often. Instead, the movie is shrewdly aware to take a smirking poke at the impish concept through shaky satirical means. The real trepidation lies in the sometimes quiet yet manic motives of Josef, a live wire that can explode at any minute yet leaves one wondering as to when and where his menacing madness will filter out as it is directed toward his nearby guinea pig in the vulnerable Aaron. Both Brice and Duplass are convincingly engrossing as contributing co-writers and co-stars of an edge-of-your-seat chiller that does not necessarily need to overwhelm the audience’s nervous system with grotesque tactics of torture to bring along the bloody chase of a detached thrill.
Creep (2015)
The Orchard
1 hr. 20 mins.
Starring: Mark Duplass and Patrick Brice
Directed by: Patrick Brice
MPAA Rating: R
Genre: Horror and Suspense
Critic’s Rating: *** stars (out of 4 stars)

**Between black comedy and disgusting horror, it's not a movie that wants to be taken seriously.**
Rob Zombie is a decidedly strong stomach man. His musical curriculum could be enough to prove it, but we still have his horror films, full proof of his taste for blood and shocking scenes. Personally, I'm not a fan of excessively bloody films, I think that the blood and deaths in a horror film shouldn't be indiscriminate, it ends up being counterproductive and having a perverse effect, as if we got used to it, making this type of resource less effective.
This film is the sequel to “House of 1000 Corpses”: starting where it ends, it shows us the siege of the decrepit Firefly house to arrest or massacre that family of degenerates. They manage to escape and will spread panic in the region, while the local police try everything to catch them. To understand this film, therefore, I recommend first seeing the film that gives rise to these events (and which is just as violent and disgusting as this one). However, I felt that this film has a slightly better script than its predecessor and that it tries to at least create a good story, "Bonnie & Clyde" style, with cultural references to Ned Kelly, Ma Barker and others.
The slash subgenre, to which this film belongs, has a legion of fans and some renowned films, namely the “Saw” franchise. They are films filled with violent deaths, infamous acts, obscenities and graphic content. I already expected this here. What I really don't understand is how Zombie tries to introduce comedy into a movie like this. Even dealing with black humor, attempts to introduce humor end up cutting the atmosphere.
Back to characters they already knew, Sid Haig and Bill Moseley continue to do a great job as actors. They dominate the film and their characters are both comic (it didn't work for me but…) and brutal and sadistic. Sherry Moon Zombie, who is the director's wife, gained more prominence in this film, where she appears naked (or almost) in several scenes. The veteran and prestigious Leslie Easterbrook (who most people will remember for her performance in the comedies of the “Police Academy” franchise) replaced Karen Black, but I confess that I felt at various times that the actress did not fit into this type of material. The film also features other well-known actors such as William Forsythe, Ken Foree, Danny Trejo and Taylor Maine.
Technically, the film has some points that deserve to be highlighted, starting with the use of good special effects and good digital resources, which the director took full advantage of. We cannot fail to observe with some pleasure the richness of detail in the sets and costumes, and the good work of the camera. The soundtrack features several well-known songs, and contributes to not taking the film too seriously.

The _Empire Strikes Back_ of the Firefly Family franchise. Firstly because they're both the middle entry in their respective trilogies, and secondly because I gave them both the same rating. And I say that knowing full well how much the film community at large will look down on me for admitting it. But I don't care. This is a fantastic movie. Probably Zombie's best. Mm, second best. After _Halloween II_. Which is also the best _Halloween_ movie.
...Now they're really coming for me.
_Final rating:★★★★ - Very strong appeal. A personal favourite._

This truly is a film about everything, and everyone. It is a film about conscious existence and subconscious being, a film about love, a film about death, and the art and emotion expanding in between the longing sonder and emptiness. Synecdoche, New York is sonder as meta-cinematic expression. Life for everyone in their individualistic existence is simply their own syncretic vision of fleeting hope hurling towards inevitable death, and that’s perfectly ok, it’s just how things are. We all live in our own fiction unbeknownst to other’s fictions, so what truly matters is the genuine emotion we individually find and connect with through it all.
Emotion is the only reality humanity is capable of grasping, and we must accept and learn to appreciate and live with that fact before it’s too late and our life has passed us by. Much alike an aspect of the film, where we constantly experience time leaps multiple years into the future without preparation or warning. A reflection of the fleeting nature of existence and how we can experience the transience of time before it’s too late, and the post-humous regret we will feel as a result of our ignorance to emotion and the inevitability of being. This isn’t a hopeless or nihilistic film, in fact, it’s quite the opposite.
"Sonder — noun. (neologism) the realization that each random passerby is living a life as vivid and complex as your own."
Trying to analytically determine whether events in the film 'really happened' or not, or taking anything in this film as a literal matter of reality, is completely and utterly fruitless, and I believe goes completely against what the movie stands for. The film is intentionally crafted to defy such an undeviating analysis. It all happened, within a film! It is very much about why we make anything, why our individuality is significant. What do we hope to accomplish by creating or feeling something? How can you make anything about life if you are at that very moment?
It's a feedback loop: everything is a synecdoche; part of a greater whole.
The reality of the film is fictional because the film is aware that itself is fiction. It suggests that in some sense, every work ever made, no matter how true to life, is inescapably fiction, and that fiction is in some ways even more true to life than reality itself. We all live in our own fictional worlds, and when we task others to create or give emotion to our world, it can create a mirrored chamber of tunnel vision, a feedback loop. Caden gets lost in the mirror chamber, and the entire being of the film itself is an extension of that mirror. A masterclass of existential meta-cinema.
There are so many different subplots and aspects of this film that I could literally write a master’s thesis on it, but instead, I rather just chose to focus on the things most impactful to me in this little writeup. I could go on and on overanalyzing everything, but I think that would be counterintuitive towards the movie. This absolute masterpiece sparked lots of laughing, crying, and every emotion in between. It does what it is designed to do, force you into a metaphysical existential crisis. This is truly one of the most uniquely special films ever made, impactful in every single manner. One of the most principally powerful and important pieces of art EVER, I found myself sobbing even at parts that I didn’t even know what was going on. As the credits rolled I cried harder than I have in months, films like this are the reason I believe cinema to be the inherent soul of all artistic mediums, and the reason I find beauty in this chaotic existence. This film is going straight to my top 5 without a single fucking question or doubt in my mind.
Rest in peace, PSH. Your work continues to greatly impact millions of people, even after death. You are dearly cherished and missed.
And thank you Charlie Kaufman, for completely transcending the medium, and creating one of the single most important films in the history of cinema.

Despite some decent efforts on display here, I couldn’t help but think I’d seen it all before. It’s school friends “Enid” (Thora Birch) and “Rebecca” (Scarlet Johansson) who have just finished school and have, hitherto at any rate, been determined to live together whilst they abandon education and get jobs. It’s fair to say that these two women are a bit on the periphery of their community. “Enid”, especially, with her blue hair and punk affections fancies herself as a bit of an artist and has disdain for just about everyone else. To alleviate their boredom, they answer an ad in a lonely hearts type column and encounter the rather sad character that is “Seymour” (Steve Buscemi) to whom neither take much of an instant shine, but with whom “Enid” begins to become friends - without acknowledging that it was them who not only replied to his advert, but who also left him high and dry once they had seen what he looked like on their supposed date. With this friendship taking an unpredictable path and “Enid” gradually managing to distance herself from just about everyone else, it might be too late when she eventually realises the short-sightedness of her ways. At times this is quite a quirky and wittily written coming-of-age drama, but I couldn’t find enough from any of the characters here to care about. We were all selfish and opinionated at that age, with little respect for anything that didn’t meet our (not very exacting) standards, but that doesn’t necessarily make for engaging storytelling. The production seems overly designed to exacerbate the issues from their largely self-inflicted problems and poor life choices, and though Buscemi comes across as quite natural with his portrayal of a nerdy character I felt this film strived to make the bleeding obvious a more pedestrian tale of teen angst than create anything fresh or innovative. Maybe I am just too old, but this didn’t do much for me, sorry.

I won't get the movie plot away but I will say this ... this movie is extremely interesting from start to finish. The cast is brilliant, the story was intriguing oh, and the ending maybe even smile and laugh a little but that might be just because I have a morbid sense of humor. It's definitely worth a watch.

_Eli_ director Ciarán Foy is also the man behind 2012's _Citadel_, which I found to be drastically underappreciated. For that reason, I went into _Eli_ completely blind, expected to enjoy it of off of Foy's involvement alone. Ended up being pretty disappointed. The effects they use for the titular Eli's skin rashes appearing and disappearing are **great**, I was genuinely impressed, truly. But the quote-unquote "mysteries" of the movie ("Hm, this doesn't seem quite right, what's really going on here?") start very early on in the piece, and are drawn out for sooooo long, then only about half of those mysteries are answered in one single reveal, and even those ones are resolved in a way I was not at all satisfied by.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

Great director. Great cast. Great idea. Total cornball movie. I bought it for my wife and that's all I'm saying on the matter.

**Celebrate rebellion at a time when everything deserved to be questioned.**
The late sixties marked the rise of a culture of rebellion and challenge to the established order. Young people, university students, minorities, suddenly society goes into upheaval and begins to question and make demands. In a very specific way, I think this film fits very well into this movement, giving us the story of a man who made mistakes and paid – that's for sure – and who, between hits and misses, wanted to find his own space in the world and live life on his terms.
Luke Jackson is truly a non-conformist man and the face of a generation of people increasingly dissatisfied with the society in which they live. The film makes clear that he had everything in his hands to have other destiny, a stable and comfortable life, but that his own actions ruined everything. Why? Because that wasn't enough, and he wanted something different. Maybe he didn't know exactly what he wanted, but he knew exactly what he didn't want: to feel subjugated. This expresses what American society, particularly young people, had been feeling: no more meaningless rules, absolute dogmas, ostracism and sacred cows. In that prison where even to urinate or drink water they have to ask permission, Luke questioned all.
A good story, very well written and with magnificent dialogues, is accompanied by a good work of cinematography, sets and costumes, and an effective direction guaranteed by Stuart Rosenberg. It is in the editing work that I felt the biggest mistakes were made, giving the film an uneven rhythm, as the film was composed of a collage of episodes from Luke's time in that work camp. That is, it lacks the idea and feeling of unity and fluidity, with several situations similar to each other and a certain absence of dramatic tension, more palpable in the final half.
Paul Newman provides a strong and charismatic lead and was a safe bet to play the rebel hero. Fortunately for us, the film has the support of several other great actors in supporting roles, preventing it from being a one-man effort. George Kennedy, who won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor thanks to this film, stands out from the crowd thanks to a careful performance, the best of this actor's career. Worthy of mention are also the efforts of J. D. Cannon, Jo Van Fleet, Lou Antonio and Strother Martin.

Oh Luke you wild beautiful thing!
Luke (Paul Newman) lands himself in a Deep South prison farm for drunkenly cutting the heads off of parking meters. Once at the farm Luke refuses to be ground down by the system and its grinning warden (a brilliant Strother Martin). As things role by Luke becomes something of a hero to his fellow inmates and this is not lost on the authority in charge of the farm. Things are sure to come to a head as Luke rebels to the point of no return...
Division of Corrections. Road Prison 36.
The close examination of Cool Hand Luke over the years has rightly thrown up the fact that it's a Christ allegory. Which is just fine given that Stuart Rosenberg's film is one of the finest films that the 60s had to offer. It also boasts, arguably of course, the Paul Newman signature role (yes even better than The Hustler). As the title suggests, Cool Hand Luke, both the film and character, there is a great deal of cool here, in fact for a great deal of the first half of movie it's laced with comic touches as we warm easily to the "rebel against the system" machismo and charm that Newman provides as Lukas Jackson. Yet the film then shifts considerably at the mid-point to give us something far more potent and dramatic to alter any preconceptions the audience had of this just being a movie about a macho loner earning our sympathy.
Calling it your job don't make it right Boss.
Much in the film has been firmly ensconced in the memorable moments department, 50 eggs, tar that road quickly, the "Kick a Buck" poker game, "still shaking boss", a mountain of rice to be eaten, sneezing bloodhounds, the boxing match and one of the greatest and most iconic of tag-lines ever, "what we got here is a failure to communicate", all forming part of a truly great whole. However, revisiting the picture often brings the realisation that so much more is on offer than at first thought. Luke is a real war hero (this has been missed by both pro and amateur critics) whose crime is pretty tame for the sentence he finds himself faced with. The Dragline (George Kennedy kicking up a storm of acting quality) and Luke friendship that builds with grace and thunder, sexual frustration of the incarcerated male and a mother and son arc that attacks the soul and lets Newman show many of his acting peers just how grief should be acted out on screen...
"Well, I don't care if it rains or freezes, Long as I have my plastic Jesus, Riding on the dashboard of my car. Through all trials and tribulations, We will travel every nation, With my plastic Jesus I'll go far"
With Newman, Kennedy and Martin holding court with every scene they are in, it would be easy at first glance to ignore the supporting roles, but Rosenberg ensures that supporting players make telling marks. It's a roll call of sweaty and twitchy character actors that features the likes of Anthony Zerbe, Joe Don Baker, Clifton James, Harry Dean Stanton, Dennis Hopper, Morgan Woodward, Wayne Rogers and J.D. Cannon. Filmed in Technicolor and Panavision, Rosenberg and cinematographer Conrad Hall do an amazing job of making Stockton, California feel like the actual Deep South. Film unfolds to the backdrop of a sun drenched land inhabited by life's unfortunates and the supposed upstanding face of American officialdom...
Iconography and martyrdom unbound, Cool Hand Luke is a slow-burn classic of deep thematic worth. 10/10

This is a well-written, gentle telling of the early life of JRR Tolkien; his relationships, studies and terrifying experiences in the First World War. Nicholas Hoult plays the role sensitively and convincingly. Colm Meaney, Sir Derek Jacobi and Lily Collins all support ably. The subtle detailing of the scenes from the war are told using light and sound rather than blood and gore - and prove surprisingly effective. Insofar as there are any attempts to draw comparisons between his life and any of the Middle Earth concepts; this doesn't really address any of that and that can leave the narrative a little lacking but it's a good looking piece of cinema.

I'll admit I had some interest when I heard that a Tolkien biopic was in the works, but now that I've actually seen it, I'm very unsure about who was supposed to want this movie? It's just an unbearably clichéd biopic that makes sure it ticks all the boxes a biopic for some reason must. I don't understand how this formula gets forced in to the real-life story of every person who has ever lived a time that was put to screenplay. It's so boring, and it's so **done**. Who was crying out for a movie that examined famed author J. R. R. Tolkien when he... went from mildly unpopular at fancy pants school, to mildly popular at fancy pants school? Not when he was writing the most famous fantasy series of all time. Not when he was at war (or at least not more than about a cumulative 6 minutes of flashforwards at war). Not his relationship with C. S. Lewis. Not even about going to codebreaking school. Nope, a young Tolkien whose not very likeable and rather lofty for someone who supposedly comes from such a poor background. It does touch on some references to his future writing, adding a little bit of a fantastical element, but it's **so** afraid of this, its best element, that really only seems to imply that old mate Jirt wouldn't have come up with a single idea for Lord of the Rings unless some sort of external stimulus for it fell in his lap. Another biopic cliché.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

For the literary fans of JRR Tolkien, this film will serve as a very exciting chapter of your fandom; when you get to see a character called Sam you'll be sure to gasp with glee - and let me assure you they really emphasise his name, along with a myriad of other moments just like it. You can’t miss them. They know who this movie is for, because it sure as hell won't be appealing to anyone else.
- Jess Fenton
Read Jess' full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-tolkien-lord-of-the-rings-and-hobbit-fans-this-ones-for-you

Awful.
I love Eurovision itself, I've watched it every year for as long as I can remember. Therefore, I really did want to like this - for the aforementioned, but because I also like Will Ferrell. Unfortunately, I found 'Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga' an utter slog to sit through.
It, at least in my opinion, fails in a lot of ways. It fails as a musical, as a comedy, as a potential romcom... nothing about it works. I do like how they incorporated Graham Norton into things, but otherwise nothing else sticks out.
The comedy is severely lacking, with Ferrell (Lars) giving a forgettable - at best - performance. I will say that I didn't mind Rachel McAdams (Sigrit) in this, she's alright. Dan Stevens' Alexander is boring, while Pierce Brosnan's Erick is practically pointless. There are a number of cameos from real life Eurovision stars, not that they add anything - there's one music mash-up scene with them that's cringe to watch.
It takes itself way, way too seriously. There are some moments where I was expecting a punchline, before realising it's genuinely trying to be sombre. It needed to take the vibe of actual Eurovision: silly and fun.
A disappointment, to me anyway. There's also a lot of errors with how Eurovision works, but that's just my pedantic side kicking in so I'll allow it.

We're all mad Dr. Newgate. Some are simply not mad enough to admit it.
Stonehearst Asylum (AKA: Eliza Graves) is directed by Brad Anderson and adapted to screenplay by Joe Gangemi. It's loosely based on an Edgar Allan Poe short story. It stars Kate Beckinsale, Jim Sturgess, David Thewlis, Ben Kingsley, Michael Caine, Jason Flemyng and Brendan Gleeson. Music is by John Debney and cinematography by Thomas Yatsko.
Stonehearst Asylum - Is nothing as it seems?
For his latest foray into the horror mystery realm, director Anderson provides a film that is away from conventionality's. The horror here is the blurry lines between sanity and insanity, and it has plenty of tricks and dark humour up its sleeves as well. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out quite early on what is going on at Stonehearst, the makers leave enough clues, but as the ungodly treatments show their hands, and the caustic observations on mental health and the treatment of such are made, there's a strong mystery element booming out of the screen.
Naturally this is a tale full of weird, wonderful and scary characters, and with that comes equal helpings of brutality and tenderness. The key characters are very Poesque, all magnificently framed by the Gothic surroundings (where the design department have worked wonders), while Yatsko's photography is gorgeous or chilly as required. Cast come up trumps, the right blend of Gothic ham and emotionally driven portrayals. Savaged by many critics upon release, it has risen above that to gain a deserved fan base, the word of mouth on the street crucially preparing newcomers for the tone of the play. 7/10

Definitively better than 'Stitch! The Movie', though 'Lilo & Stitch 2: Stitch Has a Glitch' is still a pretty disappointing sequel.
The premise is uneven, everything involving Stitch and his glitch is actually quite good. However, they drag that out in order to add some stuff with Nani/David and Lilo herself, all of which isn't at all interesting; though there is, at least, a bit of heart in the way Lilo's storyline ends.
Speaking of Lilo, Dakota Fanning replaces Daveigh Chase in the role. Fanning is solid if a little more wooden, Chase's voice feels more natural. Chris Sanders gives an amusing performance as Stitch, while none of the others stand out all that much.
Still way inferior to 2002's 'Lilo & Stitch', but thankfully it doesn't turn into pure toilet viewing like many other straight-to-video sequels from this studio.

'Sabotage' is almost watchable, but it just falls short of being that in my eyes.
It does have issues. I didn't really enjoy Arnold Schwarzenegger in this, but his performance does improve slightly as the film goes on. Mireille Enos isn't the best, nor are any of her co-stars behind Arnie to be honest - Sam Worthington and Olivia Williams are alright, more miss than hit though.
This 2014 flick also feels like an all too obvious attempt to replicate 'The Expendables' from four years prior (or same year, going by TE3), at least until the ending - where I feel like it does something else. Speaking of the conclusion though, it all felt a bit rushed and not well developed. Another negative is that all the characters are unlikeable, even across the first chunk when the film seems to want them to be.
Those are numerous criticisms, evidently, and would usually equal a lower rating from myself. However, as noted at the top, it is almost something I could just sit back and watch, without thinking too much about it. I'm all for so-called 'switch off your brain' flicks, but this doesn't quite reach that level in my opinion.

**A hopeless mess from start to finish, unfortunately.**
This is not a good film, not even to watch with your buddies while drinking beer (which I did). It has some promise in its premise, and at one point we actually wanted to know how the actual betrayal was done, but that feeling soon vanished.
I personally think that Arnold does a decent job with what he has to work with, the rest of the actors are pretty atrocious though. Sam Worthington is the best of the rest but that isn't saying much. Pair this with some of the most clichéd, over-the-top, obnoxious personalities ever put on film and sprinkle some next level cringeworthy dialogue on top and you have a recipe for characters you will actively despise. We actually cheered when they got killed off.
The biggest flaw of the movie is the editing though. As I mentioned we really wanted to be invested in this movie but either the director or the editor was really hung-over - or possibly still drunk - when they cut this movie. Multiple scenes and situations made less than no sense, and the final nail in the coffin was the realization that the inciting moment, the very reason the entire movie exists, was so badly edited that none of us understood what actually had happened until it was explained by a character much later.
The final ten minutes of the movie made it painfully clear that it wouldn't have mattered if we had understood it, or anything really, as the "twist" (I wish I could use even bigger quotation marks) is both underwhelming and as twisted as metal ruler. You get no explanation of how the betrayal is done, no explanation why the events that are portrayed in the movie ever take place, nor why the characters act the way they did.
Honestly though, it's our own fault to expect any sort of arc or depth to characters that probably has fewer than two lines of description in the script. It made for some relatively entertaining moments though when all of a sudden characters acted even more erratic and confusing than usual. It became a game of sorts to try and figure out if this was because one or more scenes were cut or if the writer/director actually was that incompetent.
The one redeeming quality of this movie is that they took their blood and splatter of said blood seriously. There are a couple of almost intense moments solely due to some realistic gore. There isn't enough to entice any fans of gore and splatter to watch this though.
Give this one a pass unless you're really acing for some sub-par action with a mediocre performance from Arnold.

I cannot help but wonder if this movie would have gotten better reviews if Schwarzenegger had not been cast in the lead role. I get the feeling that people had certain expectations due to the choice of actor. In any case, the ridiculously low one and two star ratings are rubbish. They are utterly undeserved as far as I am concerned.
Personally, I quite liked the movie. Sure it is not Oscar material and it will not go on any of my top ten lists but I found it rather enjoyable to watch.
Schwarzy is not young any more so you should not expect him to play roles as he did at the height of his career before he made the unfortunate decision to wade into the dirty waters of politics. Still he performed quite alright in the various action scenes in this movie. And there are a fair amount of action in the movie as well as a fair amount of blood substitute. It is not really an all out action movie though and the story that underpins the action have a certain amount of drama in it.
I would say that the actors in general are doing a god job of their roles. The drug enforcement team looks more like a biker gang than a police team but then, to work undercover in the world of the drug cartels you really have to be part crazy. There are no young sexy chicks in this movie, unless you count a few scenes in bars and strip clubs. Actually the two female lead characters can be said to be downright ugly which may be another reason why some people of the younger audience give the movie a low rating although that is of course pure speculation on my part :-) . In any case, I think the choice of female characters fits perfectly well with the rest of the movie (as well as Schwarzy’s age).
The story is a mix of the fairly classical one of revengeful drug cartels and incompetent FBI directors with a bit of a twist from the money heist and the disappearing money. The implementation might be a wee bit imperfect at times but to me it was a good enough story. I did like the ending with the classical shoot out in the bar although I also did consider taking a star off due to the tragic last few scenes. What can I say? I am a sucker for happy endings.

Not expected this from the director. For a title called 'Sabotage' which had one of our times greatest action hero in it the story drags with lots of drama than stunts. Arnold Schwarzenegger is not young anymore and he's not capable of heavy stunts, but still he handled well those crucial parts. No doubt he was good, and also the direction, but the story was not well written. Especially the twist was so pale and the supporting characters were hyped better than the Arnie's, but failed to hold and deliver when the story needed them.
Due to create the suspense some of the assassins were kept undisplayed for the viewers and that is another let down. Because in the whole movie action sequences were the weakest except the opening scene and those murders were somehow produced expectancy. This movie was not bad, but an average. It can be watched once though it may not fulfill your thirst for fine enjoyment. You may like what I did not, so I can't put it to discardable list.
6½/10

**47 Meters Down: Uncaged sets itself apart from other shark movies with the tight quarters of its setting and the panic of quickly fading oxygen tanks. It's one of the better low-budget shark films you can find.**
47 Meters Down: Uncaged is one of the better low-budget shark films you will find. A group of friends explore the flooded passageways of a Mayan ruin only to discover there are blind bloodthirsty sharks that can track them from the sounds they make. There are some solid shark kills and scares throughout. As you would come to expect in a movie like this, the acting isn't mindblowing, but it is better than your average shark flick. The claustrophobic passages of the ruin add a new dimension to the terror and anxiety of the film as their oxygen supply dwindles rapidly as they frantically look for an escape. This movie adds several layers of danger to the girls' struggle for survival, making the movie feel more fresh than others of the genre. I enjoyed it much more than the original film. This doesn't mean 47 Meters Down: Uncaged is incredible, but it is certainly worth a single viewing.