Right, if Great White sharks have their equivalent of Equity, I'd be formulating a law suit against the producers of this nonsense for gross misrepresentation. For the most part, despite having this rather ripe collection of noisy young divers on their plates, the so-called monsters of the sea seem quite incapable of polishing them off. Initially they are isolated in the ruins of an underwater temple, then a beautiful lagoon that is nigh on impossible for them to escape from, then finally the open sea where a visiting tourist boat is pounding the blue waters with shark-tempting chum - and yet, yes - you've guessed... There is no point singling out any of the acting talent here, luckily they wear scuba-masks most of the time so the performances really only require a moderate ability to win (and, of course, to scream). There is some fine underwater photography, but the rest of this is really formulaic and so incredibly far-fetched as to be just plain daft and not in the least scary.

Less scares than the first one but still a good popcorn entertainer with the trademark emotional element (two step sisters here) and if you don't think about the details too much. 90 minutes of laid-back entertaining material to watch with your family and learn again why exploring abandoned lakes and underwater caves isn't a safe thing to do. TN.

Rare is the shark movie that actually tries, and for that, _47 Meters Down: Uncaged_ deserves ample credit. The shark effect quality varies wildly, but when it's good, it's really good (shame one of the not good times was the first time you see one). About as much originality as you can get out of this genre, but even with all that said, _Uncaged_ still can't manage to cross that threshold into "good". It fails to suspend disbelief, doesn't have characters you can care about, and isn't very well acted. It rises above a lot of modern-day shark movies, but it doesn't rise above many movies in a more general sense.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

Has a few moments going for it, but this is pretty much paint-by-numbers survival-thriller with some pretty bad acting (or at least poor dialogue). The first movie wasn't very good either, but at least the characters in that one didn't get into their predicament due to their stupidity like they had here (seriously all of this got started because one of the girls got startled by a fish and knocked into a pillar).
Only notable thing about this cast is two of them are children of a famous parent actor (Jamie Foxx/Corinne Foxx, Sylvester Stallone/Sistine Stallone).
Not terrible and passably watchable, but kind of feels dated even though the obsession with sharks was only a few years back. **2.0/5**

‘47 Metres Down: Uncaged’ doesn’t have the inventiveness of ‘The Shallows’, the intensity and drive of ‘Crawl’, the fun of ‘The Meg’ or the gore of ‘Piranha 3D’ but, for a few fleeting moments, it does feel vaguely like an underwater version of ‘The Descent’. If only the film would have let the characters shut the fuck up a little more and let me enjoy those aspects.
- Jake Watt
Read Jake's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-47-metres-down-uncaged-fails-to-surface

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)
Sometimes, people ask me if I feel less motivated to write about a movie I didn’t like or even simply hated. Not even close. Matter of fact, it might be the exact opposite. The only films which I find hard to write a review on are those who don’t have a single aspect that is either outstanding or horrible. Those who are so “in the middle” that you forget about them less than 24h after you’ve seen it. 47 Meters Down: Uncaged could very well be this type of flick, but its ludicrous logical issues story-wise are impossible to ignore. Even the title is just a marketing scheme to attract people who liked the 2017’s original since it is entirely unrelated to it (the water depth at which the characters are is never addressed).
This is one of the worst movies of the year. It still doesn’t beat Serenity, but it made me rethink about the latter’s grade because I find it so incredibly difficult to acknowledge one single good thing about this terrible sequel. Had I scored Matthew McConaughey’s film an F, this one would probably belong there as well. However, in the same way that a film without flaws isn’t necessarily an A+, a movie with no redeeming quality isn’t instantly an F. If there’s one compliment I can give Uncaged is that there are two or three short sequences where a jump scare is effective, or the suspenseful vibe was accomplished … Nevertheless, these are still just a couple of minutes in an almost 90-min runtime.
The characters have no development whatsoever. The story follows the most pathetic path possible. The sharks (which are the reason people actually went to the theater) are not as visually realistic as in the original, reaching a point where the CGI was pretty awful. A fish screams … I mean, really?! Who the hell supervised this mess? Characters talk underwater seamlessly with no explanation on how they are effectively talking. I could sit here and write dozens of questions that defy the film’s logic, but I’ll stop here. Not because I don’t want to (if this wasn’t a spoiler-free review, I’d go crazy), but due to the fact that the main issue with the movie isn’t the atrociously illogical plot points, but the lack of entertainment.
Fast and Furious, Pirates of the Caribbean, Transformers … All of these are (financially) successful franchises. Audiences all over the world fill theaters and enjoy these series for what they are: popcorn entertainment. No one goes for the complex plots or layered characters. People go for the action, the explosions, the epic scores, the visual effects, and all of that stuff. Uncaged doesn’t have any of that to compensate its other problems. One or two scenes here and there aren’t enough to warrant the price of admission. Even the acting is mediocre.
All in all, 47 Meters Down: Uncaged is nothing more than a silly attempt at the start of a new franchise. Don’t be fooled by its title since it has nothing to do with the original flick. It doesn’t try to introduce compelling characters, the shark sequences fall flat for the most part, and the screenplay is filled with laughable plot points. There’s no sense of logic. For an 89-minute runtime, it astounds me how it can’t be slightly entertaining, to say the least. Undoubtedly, one of the worst films of the year. Skip it, so they don’t have enough money to try and do a third one. Who knows?! Maybe they’ll bet on original, smaller flicks from genuinely talented filmmakers who want to work hard and deliver a good movie.
Rating: D-

Brian De Palma's Mission to Mars (2000) delivers an engaging space exploration adventure that still holds up as a fascinating depiction of outer space, especially given the limited technical knowledge available at the time. While it may not be flawless in its execution, the film does a commendable job of portraying the challenges and mysteries of space travel.
The performances, particularly from Gary Sinise and Don Cheadle, are standout elements. Their characters bring depth and emotion to the story, grounding the film's high-concept premise with human connection. The storyline is another highlight, offering a plot that’s unpredictable in true De Palma fashion. The layers of mystery and the well-written underlying message keep the audience invested throughout.
The script may not be perfect, with some moments feeling a bit thin, but it works well in service of the overall narrative. Combined with De Palma’s direction, the dialogue and pacing help to maintain the film’s emotional and intellectual impact.
Mission to Mars is a movie for those who appreciate science fiction with a thoughtful touch. Its visuals, strong performances, and engaging plot make it a memorable exploration of both outer space and the human spirit. Even after all these years, it’s a film that remains enjoyable to revisit

When a mission to explore the red planet goes wrong, stranding "Luke" (Don Cheadle) alone on this hostile world, his colleagues "Woody" (Tim Robbins), "Jim" (Gary Sinese), "Terri" (Connie Nielsen) and "Phil" (Jerry O'Connell) put huge pressure on their boss to let them take the spare rocket ship and head to the rescue. After a minimum of persuasion, off they go and are soon in sight of the planet and of an anomaly that is defying their instruments and their instincts. They land, discover their friend is alive and well and that there is a strange construction on the planet that needs investigating. Sense might dictate they go home and return to proceed in greater numbers but there's no taming the inquisitiveness of mankind and, well, the action starts to heat up. To be fair, this film looks very good and the use of visual effects and the spaceship interiors are complementary rather than overwhelming. The dialogue, well that's another story - it's pretty poor from start to finish and the plot itself is fairly derivative (and a bit repetitive, too). The acting is really only adequate, but Brian De Palma does manage to engender a sense of camaraderie amongst his astronauts and a workable sense of menace as the plot develops. Jeopardy? No, not really. Of course some of the crew are going to end up Martian toast and I found the science a little bit implausible as we advance. As a throw-away sci-fi adventure film this works fine and passes two hours effortlessly. If you are looking for anything more cerebral and/or original then perhaps not...

Some couples dance, others go to Mars.
It was the year of two Mars based movies, with the other being Red Planet, of Pitch Black and the chaotic history that produced the Supernova. Plenty of sci-fi around but sadly few decent offerings.
Mission to Mars is a film you can see had good ideas on the page, some brainy and emotion based narrative threads. Effects work is OK for the era, while there's a very impressive cast put together to tell the story. Yet the script stinks to high heaven, the surprises are as absent as Martians are, while the steals from previous sci-fi movies grate on the nerves. The odd sequence has quality about it (dancing in space, woo-hoo, storm attack, yay), while the finale - all be it still a steal - is well constructed and further proof that someone somewhere had the kernel of a good story idea, but it's laborious trite and devoid of the basic film principals - to entertain and engage.
So many things wrong here, so much so the names of all involved have been spared. Join this Mission to Mars at your own peril. 4/10

I generally have a distaste for movies where Denzel plays the smart cop/government agent/detective because he does it far too often, he seems to be typecast, and it's a waste of pro talent. He's above playing the same sort of role over and over again.
But this is one of the exceptions. He does an excellent job, but despite this, it's not Washington you remember. You remember Elias Koteas and he's only in the film for a few short minutes. It's remarkable that in a Denzel Washington movie, someone else steals the most memorable role, and it's even more rare that the role you remember has nearly the least amount of screen time.
So... it's already off to a good start, or at least a memorable one. Those are two things that tend not to happen.
But then you have a William Holden noir style character monologue that is actually done right and adds more to the story's atmosphere than it really should. You have a spooky plot, and on top of that you have some extremely well done and downright spooky scenes.
From start to finish it's just a well executed movie, a well acted movie, and one that deserves to be remembered a bit more than it is.
It's one of the movies that I always recommend to people.

I must have watched this film three or four times now, and each time it takes me the first half hour to recall. It's an intriguing story rooted in Aramaic mythology but applied to 20th century Philadelphia. "Hobbes" (Denzel Washington) is a detective who worked on the case of serial killer "Edgar Reese" that saw him captured and executed. Not long after this supposed closure, however, other - very similar - crimes start to occur and he and his partner "Jonesy" (John Goodman) are perplexed. He keeps hearing a song - the same song the deceased sang as he died, but the people singing it are different. There is something mysterious afoot that can inhabit a body, move effortlessly and invisibly from one to another - and it seems to have "Hobbes" in it's sights. Desperate to shield his family from this evil, he must try to find a way to destroy it before it destroys him. It all takes too long to get going, and Goodman is not particularly well cast, but once we have the gist of the plot then Washington and director Gregory Hoblit turn in quite a well put together story, using the photography well to give us a perspective from our menace whilst effectively conveying the sense of nimble mobility this creature possesses as the resourceful "Hobbes" tries to combat it. Donald Sutherland pops up now and again, to no real purpose, indeed much of the supporting cast sort of blend into the wallpaper of this exercise that really plays to the strengths of an on-form Washington delivering a solid and interesting theme. It's too long, but still worth watching.

This time it's the "Next Generation" who take to the silver screen in what I found to be a passable adventure film. Even for a "Star Trek" film, it starts of implausibly though with "Riker" and "Troi" getting married and having their first dance - but there was no "Lady in Red" or "I Will Always Love You"... we didn't even get Tammy Wynette singing "DIVORCE"... Cleary this film was going to be lacking in realism then... Anyway, shortly afterwards "Capt. Picard" (Patrick Stewart) and the crew head to "Romulus" for a summit only to find that Alan Dale and the entire senate have been assassinated and that Praetor "Shinzon" (Tom Hardy) is in charge of a very heavily armed warship. The two men meet and it is quite clear that the former has megalomaniacal tendencies that involve a personal relationship with our brave Captain. The story is not so hot, the plot - as ever with this strand of ST couldn't just have a straightforward action theme - phasers and photon torpedos at the ready. No, we had to have some dull familial sub-plots and the always annoying "Data" (Brent Spiner) finds himself a brother (think "C3PO" on the Cloud City above "Bespin"). Anyway, trust wains, tempers flare and the last twenty minutes are genuinely at the better end of ST moviedom - loads of pyrotechnics and hammy acting. Hardy does fine as the baddie (he was only 25) and the rest of the established cast turn up and go through the motions as usual. It benefits from less moralising and more action, and is perfectly watchable - if entirely forgettable afterwards.

_**Solid Trek Film**_
So many people inexplicably love to hate "Star Trek: Nemesis" (2002), but it's actually a solid Trek film featuring the Next Generation cast. The lengthy space battle in the final act is second to none in the Star Trek franchise. But that's not the main reason I like it.
I like the whole exploration of the conflict of flesh (Shinzon) and spirit (Picard) and the debate over nature (Picard) vs. Nurture (Shinzon), or is it nature (Shinzon) vs. Nurture (Picard)? Like "Star Trek VII: Generations" (1994), it entertains while delving into deeper themes, although "Generations" is better (a near masterpiece, in fact; see my review for details).
Data's course of action at the end is way more compelling and moving than a similar scene in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" (1982). Think about it, Data becomes the Christ figure by making the ultimate gesture of love and loyalty; an android, no less.
Speaking of TWOK, "Nemesis" is often said to be a quasi-remake of that film. It shares some plot elements of the trilogy (TWOK, TSFS and TVH), but that's it (more specifically, the space stand-off, Data's sacrifice and the "resurrection" of a blank-version of himself). It's an homage, not a remake, and better than the overrated TWOK.
While NEMESIS may not rank with the greatest of Trek films, it's certainly a solid Trek movie, along the lines of "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country" (1991). It has the most beautiful space sequences in the series and the score by Jerry Goldsmith is superlative as usual, not to mention welcomely familiar.
Concerning the incredible ire the dune buggy sequence has provoked, I'm at a loss. The landing party had to cover a lot of terrain, how else would they do it without something to travel in? Why walk miles on end when you don't have to? Besides, it's a fun scene and gives the austere proceedings a much-needed jolt at that particular point.
Be sure to check out the deleted scenes; there are a couple that shouldn't have been cut, like the one involving Riker's joke on Picard's new First Officer and an amusing one involving Picard and Data having a discussion over wine.
The film runs 1 hour, 55 minutes.
GRADE: B+

Good watch, could watch again and can recommend (at least for dedicated "Star Trek" fans).
I feel like I just enjoy "Star Trek" TNG just enough that I just like that we have movies. I thought this was good, but I completely understand if other people didn't appreciate it.
While the core of the concept is a little wonky, the look into the Romulan Empire and it's caste system is somewhat interesting on its own. It does create a lot of questions though, such as why the "untouchable" caste would be given enough resources to create such an impressive warship.
We get another look into the significance of Data's character, particularly that he isn't an easy creation and cannot be copied simply.
It's not the best movie, but it is fun to see some more of "Star Trek" TNG.

Decent watch, probably won't watch again, and can't recommend.
It's not that it's a bad movie: I'm not a big Elizabeth Banks fan, and you get a lot of her, like 90% of the movie is just her being abused by the world, with very little triumph along the way. The rest of the movie is basically everyone else in the world forcing, manipulating, and validating her, and it would have been a better experience if she was a stronger character.
I get (and it's very obvious, very early) that the point is that she's a weak character that is forced to grow through the adversity of this adventure. I just would have rather seen someone stronger (think American Lara Croft for a moment) run a similar formula of problem, attempt resolution, extraordinary circumstance, new problem, etc. Hell make it a parkour movie where a free runner had a blackout night, basically "The Hangover" meets "Mirror's Edge" (video game).
My point is, that when you see something and want something else, you don't like what you have in front of you, even if it's a decent (but different) movie that you were expecting. It an awful part of being human.
While the humor is decent, the repetitive formula creates fulfilled expectation, which dulls the comedy. It's also not very uplifting.
I think it's fair to say that Elizabeth Banks is statistically attractive, in a cute dress, and is playing a character who is a local celebrity. I've also been informed being a white woman is advantageous. She's basically an ideal candidate to get charity help, except from people that are just as likely to kill her, but it pushes my suspension of disbelief that she isn't able to get people to talk to her, let alone actually help her.
I'm just realizing that, having been stranded before, on multiple occasions, I may be being a little harsh, but it just doesn't make it as enjoyable for me.

Director Steven Brill’s last film was my least favorite movie of 2013 (Movie 43), so expectations were not exactly sky high for Walk of Shame. At first glance, the comedy starring Elizabeth Banks appears to be a mix between The Hangover and Anchorman. Unfortunately, it lacks the jokes or the charm that the former two films had.
After having her boyfriend leave and thinking she lost a once-in-a-lifetime job opportunity as an anchor in a major station, Meghan reacts as any young adult would, by getting sloppy drunk and engaging in a one night stand. After a successful night, she wakes to find out that she’s now the top candidate for the anchor job, she just needs to get to work on time.
Forgetting her wallet and phone, Meghan proceeds to embark on the longest walk of shame ever.. On the way, she makes unlikely friends and goes through zany adventures to make it to the newsroom in time for evening news. That was the intention. Instead, Walk of Shame is a misogynistic, racist, unfunny escapade that fails to bring anything new to the comedy genre.
The issue with the film is that the derivation of humor stems from how different Meghan is from everyone else. Early on, Meghan encounters three black men, and sure enough she’s scared that they’re drug dealers evading the cops. Not only is her character racist, Brill’s perspective encourages the audience to be racist. It turns out that these guys, Scrilla, Pookie, and Hulk, are nice gentlemen that’s willing to help Meghan. This is suppose to be funny. The contrast from the expectation of how these gangbangers would act towards an attractive white woman and how the it plays out in the movie is suppose to be hilarious. These presumptions just come off senselessly offensive.
It’s not an isolated incident either. Meghan encounters an angry foreign taxi driver, a bunch of incompetent cops, and most damaging, the film paints Elizabeth Banks’ character as a bumbling idiot. Foreigners can’t be trusted, minorities are stereotypes and women are useless, Walk of Shame is an embarrassing concept built on damaging assumptions.
Poor writing, unoriginal jokes and predictable characters are just icing on the cake for this crude attempt at humor. Steven Brill will have the audience leaving the theaters in a walk of shame with this one.
Read more reviews at artisticritique.com

Agora is a well-crafted film that manages to be both entertaining and educational. While the movie takes some creative liberties with the historical events, which is understandable given the gaps in recorded history, it does a great job of capturing the essence of the time. The writing feels solid, and despite some moments that might stretch historical accuracy, the story remains compelling and thought-provoking.
The acting is another highlight. Rachel Weisz shines as Hypatia, bringing intelligence and grace to the role. Her portrayal makes Hypatia’s struggle with philosophy, reason, and the changing world around her deeply engaging. Most of the main cast delivered strong performances that added depth to the characters and their relationships.
The directing is to the point, keeping the narrative focused on the tension between reason and dogma. The production design deserves credit too. It successfully recreates the feel of ancient Alexandria, immersing you in the historical setting. From the bustling streets to the grandeur of the Serapeum, it pulls you into the world of the film.
Overall, Agora is a beautifully executed movie that is as educational as it is entertaining. It offers a glimpse into an important and tumultuous period of history while exploring timeless themes about knowledge, power, and humanity. Despite its fictionalized elements, it is a powerful film that is worth watching.

Agora represents a rather chaotic and completely inaccurate historical biopic.
Despite the commendable acting by Rachel Weisz and Oscar Isaac, the movie, which was created with a significant budget, strangely exudes an air of thriftiness typically associated with lower-budget productions.
The storyline itself verges on the absurd, taking considerable liberties with historical facts by reshaping them and even conjuring entirely new occurrences. This departure from reality transforms the work from a scholarly biopic into a realm of pure fantasy.
The library of Alexandria no longer existed during the time of Hypatia. Furthermore, the circumstances surrounding the destruction or closure of the Library of Alexandria remain shrouded in mystery. The precise cause, whether through fire or deliberate demolition, eludes us. Yet the film decides to come up with its own narrative as to how the library was destroyed. Additionally, the depiction of Christian riots in the film does not align with historical accuracy, a complete falsehood just to add drama and tension to an otherwise boring feature film.
For a historical biopic, accuracy is important and this film fales miserably. Definitely do not watch this as an accurate representation of historical events.

horrible film!!!!!

It's 1962. '50s cool cars, killer music and an all-star cast from before they were stars. The story doesn't really mean anything here, it's all about the ambience of the period. So put on a white T-shirt, slick back your hair and feel young again.

**When a film becomes a manifesto of political discontent.**
Usually, we are used to seeing extremely virile western films, full of masculine strength and American pride. And in fact the “cowboy” is a symbol of American strength and persistence: he is a loner, individualist, independent, who faces the most arduous situations with tenacity and ingenuity. However, this film is much sadder and even darker: faced with the arrival of a fearsome bandit, willing to take revenge for having been arrested, the sheriff of a Wild West village, who is about to be relieved of his post after a few years of very good and selfless service to the community, asks everyone for help and everyone leaves him to his fate, they even laugh at him! At a certain point, even his wife, the person he cares the most, seems willing to leave him alone in the face of danger. Is it somber enough?
To understand this bitter vision, we need to go back in time and revisit the entire creative process that led to the film's conception. In 1952, the USA was far from being a calm country: while most people feared the expansion of the Soviet threat in the world, Senator McCarthy led a true “commie hunt” in the State apparatus and in cultural and social life because of alleged anti-American activities by members and supporters of the Communist Party. Public inquiries and cleanups gave this period the appearance of an authentic fascist dictatorship and ruined the lives and careers of people who, sometimes, had little or nothing to do with communism. It is no coincidence that Carl Foreman, the film's screenwriter and one of those targeted in this purge, imbued this film with so much disenchantment. Through the abandonment of a fair and honest man, he expressed the resentment and dismay of a large amount of actors and film professionals who, suddenly, found themselves interrogated, humiliated and sometimes ostracized. From this perspective, this film is a true manifesto, deserving its place on the list of relevant films in American history.
The film is short, concise and quite pragmatic in its production. The sets and costumes, the effects and the period recreation, everything follows practical and functional criteria that make it work without trying to surprise. The cinematography, in black and white, is very good and the train arrival, as well as the final fight scene, are particularly memorable. The soundtrack is marked by a sung theme that has become very famous, but which I couldn't help but consider excessively intrusive and annoying after a certain point. In addition to this, we have an effective direction by Fred Zinnemann and a very strong cast, with solid names such as the veteran Gary Cooper, the elegant Grace Kelly and the competent Lloyd Bridges. Each does their job with care, but Cooper deserves a special praise for the way he brought to life a hero who is as human, vulnerable and ordinary as any man. I also enjoyed seeing the dignified Katy Jurado in a very strong role.

Gary Cooper is great in this tightly-packed revenge western. Newly married to "Amy" (the sparingly used but effective Grace Kelly) he has decided to stop being the town marshal and live a more peaceful life. It's on that very day, however, that he discovers that the outlaw "Miller" (Ian MacDonald), whom he sent to jail years earlier has been released and is heading back on the noon train to settle some old scores. "Kane" initially concludes that discretion is the better side of valour and decides to skedaddle, but a change of heart sets up a potential conflict that he soon discovers his cowardly townsfolk have little stomach to support him through. Fred Zinnemann allows Cooper and the very effective Thomas Mitchell as the spineless mayor "Henderson" to work well in building up a toxic mix of double-standards and fear whilst always fuelling the anticipation of the inevitable duel that's got to happen at the denouement. Dimitri Tiomkin's score and the Carl Foreman adaptation of the original short story help to keep this taut, exciting and puts this up there amongst the best of the genre. A classic example of concise and engaging storytelling with a strong cast and a solid story.

I am guessing that High Noon is one of those seminal films that influenced the western genre immensely for a long time. The fifties? That is back when we wanted our heroes to be heroic. No greed or cruelty or inconsistent morals were allowed. Marshall Will Kane states near the beginning that he has to stick around for the evil Frank Miller to show up. Then he admittedly has a bit of a wobble when it seems the whole town, including his new Quaker wife, is telling him to leave. It is his time in the wilderness fighting the devil of easy-ways-out, But in the end he is Marshall Will Kane sticking around because it was the right thing to do. Hero time, and it works.
It is not all that works. This movie uses a can’t miss formula to build up suspense. We are told early on that the bad guys will be sauntering into town after the noon train arrives, and then the rest of the way we catch glimpses of clocks to keep us informed about how much longer it will be for the payoff scenes. Tick, tick, tick. The back story of several of the characters is laid out for us while it slowly becomes clear that the Marshall is on his own. I will say no more abut the plot.
You must not watch this with a jaundiced eye. If you find yourself thinking, man, I have seen this or that in so many westerns, remember that those other westerns likely came after this one. Watch it for its craftsmanship in how it tells a simple story expertly, and keep an eye on that clock. Tick, tick, tick.

This is just a dirty little village in the middle of nowhere. Nothing that happens here is really important.
Will Kane (Gary Cooper) is a retiring lawman all set to leave the town of Hadleyville with his new bride Amy (Grace Kelly). But word comes that a notorious gunslinger he put in prison has been released and is heading to town with his gang intent on bloody revenge. With a sense of fearless duty Kane decides to stay and sets about enlisting a posse, however, he finds that nobody in the town that he made safe for everyone will aid him in his mission.
The 1950s saw a big shift in styles for the American Western. After the yee-haw Cowboy Vs Indians excess of the 40s, the decade was ushered in by such films as Broken Arrow. Showing the Native Americans in a sympathetic light, Broken Arrow also showed that clearly Westerns had much more to offer than frothy shoot them up entertainment. Which brings us to High Noon, a black and white Oater that landed in 1952 and is still today revered as a quintessential classic Western. Which is not bad considering there's no gun-play here until the last five minutes of the 85 minute running time.
What makes High Noon so significant is that it's not a big movie in terms of production. There's no reams of extras dashing around in glorious Technicolor, no sprawling vistas inhabited by colourful characters, this is pretty understated stuff. Yet thematically it's as big as it gets, a lesson in character drama where not a frame is wasted. From the unforgettable opening of three bad men (Lee Van Cleef, Robert Wilkie, Sheb Wooley) waiting at the station while Tex Ritter's ballad explains the plot, to the now legendary and iconic ending, High Noon simmers with suspense and intensity as the story unravels - all told in real time too.
Based on a short story called The Tin Star written by John W. Cunningham, High Noon is directed metronomically by Fred Zinnermann and is shot in high contrast by cinematographer Floyd Crosby. Thus the film has a documentary feel to it, giving it an authentic edge so rarely seen in the Western genre. The piece is further boosted by the performance of Cooper. Winning the Oscar for best male performance, Cooper was 50 years old and into his third decade as a movie star. His prancing around in Western days were reducing by the month, yet High Noon shows it to be one of the finest casting decisions made in the 50s. In agony from a back injury and other ailments during the shoot, Cooper carries the movie with brilliant sincerity, conveying the pain of a man now alone as he trundles towards doom. The realisation is that all his heroism and graft that made Hadleyville a safe place for women and children to live, now counts for nothing, it's a heavy weight on Kane's shoulders. It's here where Cooper excels, there's no histrionics or drawn out speeches, it's through expressions and body movements that the story gains its emotional momentum. A remarkable turn from a remarkable actor, proof positive that you didn't need a dashing leading man to propel your movie.
The film notoriously angered Howard Hawks & John Wayne, the themes and the perceived allegory for blacklisting a bone of contention that led to them making Rio Bravo as a riposte in 1959. There's many an essay on High Noon and the links to Senator Joe McCarthy, HUAC etc etc, so really I have no interest in going there. Instead I think it's just fitting to say that Zinnermann himself always resisted talking in terms of allegorical interpretations for his film. He, rightly so, felt to do that would be unfair and dampen the huge significance of his wonderful movie.
Amen to that. 10/10

A masterpiece of tightly plotted drama/suspense in what would become The Adult Western. Normally, one is happiest on your wedding day, but former lawman Will Kane is troubled.
An old nemesis is due on the noon train, and his gang is in town to meet him. He's sworn to kill the man who sent him to prison, so the expected action is to flee.
But weighed down with a new bride and traveling in a buckboard, there's no chance of escape.
Seeking help to at least face down the gang, Will Kane returns to town, and finds that everybody either won't or can't Do The Right Thing. The inaction of the town is a thinly disguised parable of The Cold War, with the U.S. standing alone against the Red Menace
As Will Kane walks through the silent town, which he "served and protected" for years, we are left to wonder if we would do the same. 8/10

**The Lazarus Effect showed some promise but couldn’t decide what to do once the horror began.**
The Lazarus Effect had a decent premise - scientists attempting to discover a method to resurrect the recently deceased are forced to test their new experimental treatment on one of their team after she dies in an accident. Only she doesn’t come back the same. She returns sinister, malevolent, and murderous. That concept with a production company like Blumhouse and a cast boasting Olivia Wilde, Donald Glover, and Evan Peters made me think this had to be a solid horror flick. Unfortunately, it didn’t live up to my hopes. The writers of Lazarus Effect couldn’t decide the rules for their own movie. Is evil Zoe battling with the darkness trying to take over, or just evil? Is she superpowered? Is she demonic? Is she preying on the others or just twisted? The script never seemed to figure out what they wanted the character to be. With Zoe being the central focus and character, the failure to solidify and develop her character sunk the rest of the film. Still not the worst. I liked the open ending with the terror multiplying for a potential sequel, but with a mediocre response to this film, a sequel will never happen. The Lazarus Effect doomed itself never to be resurrected.

**The stimulated brain terrorising!**
Actually, this film was made before 'Lucy', but released after that. So I first saw that and now this. Basically, these two films are similar thematic, except the genres are different. I liked Scarlett's film, a very much enjoyable. This film too looked nice, and watching it after that makes to understand it better. I meant scientifically, rather than a supernatural way. So what's extra in this was the usual horror film style jumpy scenes, with loud and sudden sounds.
Limited cast, and one day event based film. Not a bad writing or the direction and performances. The settings were perfect, and the film did not require strong graphics. The story followed a small medical researcher team who is working on a serum that brings the dead back to life. When their entire work was ceased by the company they were working for, they decide to recreate everything to prove its theirs. Then something goes wrong, following a series of destruction before it all ends.
Like I said, it was more a science-fictional thriller than your regular horror film. But it borrowed the same style to present on the screen. The events are simple to understand, except that scientific thing. Because there won't be any difference for those who are weak in basic science. It'll be another normal boring horror flick. For me, it's an average film, watchable for once being short and well paced narration.
_6/10_

Well, it's not terribly original with some obvious connections with Frankenstein and other horror films of that type but I enjoyed it overall. It was quite scary in places and even though the scares were quite contrived for the most part, it did make me jump at times. The special effects were quite well done but could have been expanded a bit more. I gave it 3 1/2 stars.

So Los Angeles has become a glorified open-air prison (who'd have thought?) and "Snake" (Kurt Russell) is invited to do his "Mad Max" thing and go in, at considerable peril to himself, and fetch a gadget that could enable the US President (Cliff Robertson) - or anyone else with the codes, for that matter - to use a satellite in the best traditions of "Diamonds are Forever" (1971) and destroy parts or all of the world. The twist, well it turns out that it's "Utopia" (A.J. Langer), who just happens to be the president's disgruntled daughter, who is the one who took the device into the lawless wasteland in the first place and enforcer "Malloy" (Stacey Keach) is determined to get it back, regardless of whether or not she comes back with it. It's a derivative mess, this film. It's rooted in so many other stories that are much better executed; there is simply no menace or jeopardy at all, and John Carpenter seems unsure whether he wants an all-out action film or a semi-comedy. Russell is always at his more entertaining with the latter, here he just comes across as a man with a mission who is no more interested in the plot than I was. Steve Buscemi doesn't really add much either as the duplicitous "Eddie" and I am sure I spotted Peter Fonda in here too - a payday for a few actors who ought to have known better. The effects and pyrotechnics are adequate but the nadir in a basketball court surrounded by gun-toting assassins who could't hit a cow on the tit with a tin cup just put the icing on this really undercooked muffin.

90s cheese not quite as good as 80s cheese, but still an entertaining enough action-thriller, though some moments were laughable and not in a good way (Snake riding surfing a wave isn't all that bad ass), plus the effects work was rather poor. I don't have a great fondness for Escape from New York, however it was far superior. **3.0/5**