Didn't hate but didn't care for it. Acting was pretty bad save for a few scenes by Lorenza Izzo though these characters' naivety were absolutely annoying. As Eli Roth movies go, probably one of his better movies, and yet I'm only giving it a 3/5.

**Their worst fear came from outside of their protest.**
I have enjoyed the Eli Roth's films, even though in some cases I've rated them lower than average rating it had received. But this is not what I was looking for. This is a terror-horror, not actual horror with supernatural or sci-fi viruses. I've learnt the storyline before the watch, but the film was too violent. Even for most of the grown ups. Usually I won't feel a thing for film tortures, because 'fake' is the word always pops up in my mind whenever I see gore.
Anyway, these days, killings in the films are considered entertainment. There is a separate group of fans who follow this kind of theme. But for me, the cannibalism was the one most disturbed. I have no issue with killings, but cannibalism brings totally uneasy. The story was decent, but intentional. You would guess most of the parts. But this film was not about that, just to make you go off of your seat with discomfortable and it succeeds on that.
It was totally opposite to 'Embrace of the Serpent'. It was inspired by the 80s Italian film with the similar storyline. The film was about fighting for the survival of passengers after their plane got crashed in the Amazon forest who are now hunted by Amazon tribes. There's already a sequel on making titled 'Beyond the Green Inferno'. I don't think so, it is a recommendable film, but some are doing that for fun, and some to challenge their friends. Overall, a decent production, with casting, locations and visuals. But I won't favour it.
_4/10_

I wanted to see this since it began to crop up on the internet as an upcoming movie, taken me long enough to locate it and now I don’t really know how I feel. Maybe a bit visually raped.
This has such a fucking weak beginning, like what is the relevance to the blonde bimbo being around and literally has no point to the rest of the movie whatsoever. Apart from being one of those cunts who says “Hey, wait a second” as you’re about to leave then instead of giving the burning words, says “never mind.” You never find out, I doubt it was Oscar worthy or chocolate filled coins worthy but still fucking irritating.
Also I did not have any forewarning about the genital mutilation in this movie, well almost. Like if movies are going to do this to me can you PLEASE advertise it better so I can avoid at all costs because it makes me want to die.
OKAY. So freshman lady spots this activist guy and seems that he tickles her fancy as she instantly becomes a fully interested activist and thinks fuck it I’ll go risk my life in the middle of fuck knows where with all of these random people that think I’m a sheltered suburban fool. I mean she’s even on the wrong side of the leader because his girlfriend has clicked on that our lovely freshman wants to suck his dick resulting in her attendance. These people scream out virgin sacrificing cult at all times.
Really brilliant and wise idea taking these rich white kids out to a deprived area, not asking to be noticed in the slightest are we. One even shouts in clear earshot about child abuse seeing a family carting their trike on a bicycle, skills on how to not get killed are just seriously flawless guys.
Everything is just painfully obvious and this movie relies 90% on gore, which is actually done extremely well. There’s an eye scene and it’s captured perfectly as if you can watch it without looking away or squirming then maybe you should go join that tribe as you clearly belong there. I mean they just fuck off their belongings and go straight into the jungle unarmed, is anyone really shocked when the plane crashes and they end up in a bucket load of shit? Quite literally when one of them also explodes from the anus which was one of many “and the point of this scene is?” moments. I don’t need to see that in my life you trash.
I did like the nice man who looked like a bumble bee and seemed to be the go to guy if you wanted a body part hacked off for supper, he seemed like he could have moonlighted as a MUA. Had his contours down to a tee. Most of them reacted more offended by the poo scene than seeing eachother being led off one by one for torture, again I will say all of the gore scenes were fucking brutal and do give many points for those.
Some parts are just a bit fucking stupid, one guy actually has a wank after seeing one of them just being like fuck this and slicing her neck open. Really, a wank. I’m all for the activity but there’s a time and a place and that was not where I imagine I would be feeling the moment can take me. They get the tribe stoned as an escape plan, again I’m not feeling the genius in this bunch? Dare I also mention none think to ever remove their luminous yellow suits, would have thought that would have been a pretty logical thing to do during an escape attempt….
I could think of better holidays than being ditched in a jungle and eaten by demonic smurfs.

This is a gorgeously told tale from Celtic mythology that follows the adventures of the young "Ben" and his sister "Saoirse". Their mother died whilst giving birth to the girl - who is unable to speak - and they lived in an isolated lighthouse (I'd love that!) with their widowed dad "Conor" until being sent to live in the big city with the grandmother. The colourful narrative now follows the pair as they determine to get back home to their dad. Along the way, we discover that "Saoirse" is no ordinary girl, and that her powers, thanks to "Ben" and his fairytales, might enable both of them to engage in a challenge to free some magical creatures trapped in the realm of the humans. The animation is charming, the characterisations likewise - they are well developed and retain their innocence and childishness throughout. The soundtrack is also a thing to enjoy - a typically Gaelic affair with haunting melodies and jaunty themes that all add richness to this simple but intriguing story. This is a fascinating vein of legend that is really underdeveloped by cinema internationally. Here we have a delightful introduction to those stories and this really is well worth and hour and half of anyone's time.

Great watch, would watch again, and do recommend.
The animation in this beautiful, and some of it reminds me (vaguely) of "Spirited Away", but makes more sense. I'm sure the relation is the sense that "Spirited Away" is Miyazaki's display of the Japanese fey, though it is apparently in several other movies (e.g. "My Neighbor Totoro", "Ponyo").
This is a movie of great tragedy and powerful feelings, but ultimately is about appreciating your family and people while they are there. There is charm and uplifting feelings to the entire situation: you're not just going to be depressed or moved.
As the introduction of the fey start, it is very unclear what is real and what is magic, or if the magic is real. That surreal attitude to this child's adventure seemed to add to the charm of dealing with the situation.
The only problem I have with the movie is this ambiguity, there are so many parallels (that often occur in fey stories) to reality that you can't tell if this is a story of how a boy imagined an adventure, or if it's a fey story full of hidden magic.
The details they go into are amazing if you look. Even the tears shared between fey and human are different. The details go on, and while I'm not sure if the quality is better, worse, or just different to a Miyazaki film, I feel it was made with the same consideration for how the audience is supposed to feel as they watch in the same way he created.

If you ever watched 'The Secret of Kells', you will never think of skipping it. Though, people watch it in the interest of the Oscar connection. From all the nominees it is the clear winner according to me, even far better than the real winner 'Big Hero 6'. The American Academy Awards had failed to recognise the true ingenuity. That does not stop win the heart the of millions of children around the world. As for the adults, it makes you feel young again for a while. Lots of humour in it with faint emotions at the end along the kids favoured flavour throughout.
Far East and far West film industries ruling the animation production, but Tomm Moore from Ireland is trying to open the new gate from the European division. Not many people are aware of him, one more movie and its success may lead to the greater heights for sure. This animation technics are very unique, but not the first time in the use.
The character illustrations were cuter to enchant the young kids. Watching the movie is like reading a children's storybook with the large pictures everywhere and a couple of lines of words in the corner of the page. Like the anime in Japan and 3D animation in Hollywood, this would mark the Euro on the map. There are many animations are made and still making in Europe, but this one is the new perspective of hope to reach all the major and remote places of the Earth. Wish it moves in the right direction.
If you had known how all the fairy tales work, you would feel you can predict this story because, you know defeating evil, breaking curses, the happy endings are the usual part. So what matters is the storytelling, how well the stories are presented on the screen. This film excels in that point, and the music is the another highlight of the movie. Whoever the music director/composer I must praise him. Almost a year ago I saw the trailer for the first time and I felt like I already loved the movie, mainly because of the music.
''Hold this shell to your ear and listen carefully. You will hear the song of the sea.''
In his earlier movie the director told a simple and short story extraordinarily, and still I hum that beautiful 'Aisling song' sometime. This movie had a wonderful adventure story of a boy called Ben and his little sister Saoirse. In the journey of running away from an owl witch, the magical creatures and an ancient seashell guide them a path. On the right time the title song makes the way to delight next 10 minutes of the crucial segment in the narration. I love the original version, in Irish even though I don't understand. It was good and catchy, even for the grown ups as well. Feels like, want to visit those places from the movie, but sadly our only option is Disneyland, huh.
Disney and Studio Ghibli are the king and queen of fairy tale movies. No one would, but if you are mildly fed up of those, here the new dimensional fresh tales from the Ireland's folklore. Though, it sets in the modern world, but does not abandon to bring the key factors. Like the ancient meet the modern world with the same intensity. Kind of new to hear the words like Selkie, Macha etc., but, brand new for the people who live thousands of kilometers away in the different continents. Animation movie fanatics would love it, but if there are any children like niece and nephew in your home or visits you, watch it with them on that occasion and you would feel differently.
9/10

***Mysterious first half devolves into muddled half-baked horror cheese***
A man in 1905 Wales (Dan Stevens) goes undercover as a member of a weirdo cult to save his captive sister on an isolated island.
"Apostle" (2018) has a similar plot to “The Wicker Man” (1973/2006) and a setting akin to “The Village” (2004) and “The Ritual” (2017), but it’s the least of these.
The first half is a decent set-up; a little dull, but nice and mysterious with a fantastic setting and village set. Unfortunately, the second half devolves into half-baked horror cheese with a couple of random torture scenes to supposedly keep things "exciting."
I was shocked at how bad the second half was -- bad flow, no finesse, ill-conceived, lack of consistency, too ambiguous -- just lousy wannabe-horror filmmaking. It’s like the director needed 20 more minutes to properly tell the story, but was pressured to keep the movie as close to 2 hours as he could and so clumsily forced the footage in the second half together.
Nevertheless, the movie's provocative upon reflection, particularly its commentary on human-made hybrid religions and the potential for corruption and abuse thereof. Think Jeroboam's syncretic religion when the northern kingdom of Israel broke from Judah; he concocted two golden calf idols and appointed illegitimate "priests." It was influenced by Judaism and featured some of its trappings, but left out the most important part (God).
The film runs 2 hours, 10 minutes and was shot in Wales. I would like to see a "Director's Cut" that runs at least 2.5 hours with all the expository footage that was unfortunately left on the cutting room floor.
GRADE: C (First half B- / Second half D)

I think far too many movies that go for a similar vibe to _Apostle_ aren't willing to take that very important step into actually embracing your supernatural/fantasy/gothic elements. _Apostle_ on the other hand, goes full hog saying "fuck that", and in turn I'm saying "Please sir, may I have some more."
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

This movie is anti-Christian. Look at the inverted cross in the name itself. It has an agenda - it's not just a movie. Do not watch it, do not let your close ones watch it either.
There are many more other good horror flicks out there who can do it without demonising religion (and not any or all religion, it specifically targets Christians).

This film is very Japanese.If the objective of any horror movie is to scare, then Ringu succeeds with flying colours. Everything about this movie is genuinely disturbing and unsettling. From the mythology of the tale to the ghastly contorted faces of the corpses that Sada, the demon of the story leaves in her wake.

Is there any profession portrayed in cinema more likely to be an obnoxious alcoholic than an Hollywood screen writer? Well that's what "Ben" (Nicolas Cage) is and when he gets fired after one too many absences and foul-mouthed outbursts, he takes his redundancy cheque and his BMW and heads to Vegas. He doesn't have a plan, except perhaps to drink himself into a stupor from which he won't wake up. Meantime, we've met hooker "Sera" (Elisabeth Shue) who has a rather brutal relationship with her flaky pimp "Yuri" (Julian Sands) and works the Strip looking for high rollers to seduce. They meet in a casino and quickly conclude that there might be an element of safety, certainly sanity, in numbers and are soon living together platonically. What now ensues illustrates the perils for both as they continue down paths that seem destined to lead to self-destruction. "Sera" exposing herself to dangers every time she goes to work whilst "Ben" showers with two bottles of vodka to contain his increasingly dominant shakes. The soundtrack does much to help set the mood here, as these two people gradually fall in love - but it's not a sentimental love. It comes across more as a growing inter-dependency fuelled by affection and a desire to look out for each other - however doomed to failure we might anticipate that to be. Cage is on great form here, he really does carry of the role skilfully and plausibly - but I think Shue takes more of the plaudits for me. She allows her essentially quite decent character to thrive and to grow, demonstrating quite a degree of humanity even when faced with brutality and humiliation on a fairly regular basis. She also manages to give us a sense of a woman who is trying to escape but just doesn't know how. Mike Figgis keeps the pace taut and effective and with both on solid form with an actually quite emotional story, this is well worth two hours.

**A dense film, difficult to see, but one that should be seen, especially by young people who think that getting drunk is relevant to a night of fun.**
This film is based on the true story of a man who lost his will to live after a complicated divorce and the end of his personal and professional life as he gave way to alcohol addiction. With no prospects of getting back on top, he decides to go to Las Vegas, the city of all sins in the USA, and drink everything he can until he ends his own life. In the meantime of these suicidal intentions, he meets a prostitute with whom he has a very complicated relationship because, deep down, she too walks her own path of self-destruction.
The film is excellent, but it is deeply heavy, depressing, difficult to watch. In addition to taking us to the most negative and destructive side of alcoholism, it also shows us, without fear of shocking, how it can lead to death. That is, it shows us in very hard colors that drinking is an addiction, it is a serious problem and it can kill. It makes it clear that alcohol is not something that we can or should relativize, a punctual, occasional excess on Friday night. It is not something we should tolerate in the behavior of our children or family members. I say this at a time when drinking has become all too common, especially among young people, for whom getting drunk is a “sine qua non” condition for a night of fun. Anyone going to work the next morning can easily see young people, many of them women and looking as if they are not even 20 years old, sitting on the side of the sidewalk, next to nightclubs or bus stops, drunk or vomiting in scenes worthy of a pity that I refuse to feel because, after all, they wanted to stay that way. Many are Portuguese, but there are also many tourists who seem to come to my country because the law is more permissive than it should be. For me, who was brought up on the danger of addiction and only got seriously drunk once, it pains me to see how this youth considers excess fundamental in fun and I just hope, one day that I'm a father, I never have to go get one. child in such a state. I would be ashamed.
This is one of the movies that made Nicholas Cage's career. The actor does a remarkable job, and if we think about the turn that his life and career would later take, it's really a shame that he couldn't maintain this level. It's hard to see the way he gives his character all the elements to capture our sympathy as she slides down a path of no return. Elizabeth Shue, who gave life to the prostitute, also does a job full of merits, even if her character is much more conventional. After all, it is not the first time, nor the last, that the cinema has met a prostitute with feelings. There is a love story between the two characters, that is undeniable, but we can question to what extent it is really believable, since love is never used to redeem or grant the characters a path of salvation, a way out of the life of addiction and destruction they are in. And to some extent, even if this is rehearsed, such an option is largely rejected, especially by the character of Cage, who seems determined to die.
Technically, the film has several points of merit, especially with regard to cinematography and editing. The film was very well filmed, it uses light and shadow very well to thicken the whole environment of degradation in which the characters move, with the bright lights of the casinos working, almost, like the bright flame that attracts the moths to their death and perdition. It is in this environment that we see the characters live the only scenes of pleasure and relaxation, which only serve to keep pushing them to the bottom of the well. Very well edited, the film doesn't waste time with things that don't matter, it maintains a very pleasant pace and provides two hours that leave us thinking.

_**Cage terminally drunk in Las Vegas with Elisabeth Shue and lots of jazz/blues**_
An alcoholic in Los Angeles (Nicolas Cage) cashes out of the film industry and moves to Las Vegas to apparently drink himself to death. He meets a prostitute (Elisabeth Shue) with whom he has a welcome affinity and they develop a relationship of radical acceptance.
"Leaving Las Vegas" (1995) is one of those downbeat realistic dramas about lost souls in hopeless dissolution. It’s well-done for what it is and Shue’s beauty is effectively showcased despite the unappealing nature of her profession. And I understand the message of “loving” acceptance with no questions. Although it could be argued that true love refuses to enable people to destroy themselves and holds them accountable to some reasonable degree.
A guy who was my best friend 20 years ago developed an alcohol problem that became increasingly glaring. He died recently, but I didn’t see him for the last four years of his life because I refused to see someone drink themselves to death.
The film runs 1 hour, 51 minutes, and was shot in the Los Angeles area (Burbank & Santa Monica) and Nevada (Las Vegas, Laughlin & Paradise).
GRADE: B-/C+

This adaptation is a fairly faithful, if a little too abridged, version of the Orwellian story of absolute power, sedition and oppression but it's really John Hurt who makes this version stand out. His performance as the weedy "Winston" - a low level bureaucrat in the Ministry of Truth, is visceral as he depicts a character who has found his own way to rebel against the not so benevolent rule of "Big Brother". Everything they do, say - even think, is being monitored and so his life is conceivably now in considerable danger. That is only likely to increase after he encounters the like-minded "Julia" (Suzanna Hamilton) and together they begin to think the unthinkable! Richard Burton starts to make his presence felt around half way though with his perfectly pitched vocal tones and even more measured delivery creating a sense of torturous menace that you could cut with a knife, and though he features quite sparingly his contributions when the two are together put an whole new meaning on cat and mouse. It's a brutal watch, both physically and psychologically and the use of militaristic archive and the simplicity of it's own production help give this an edge that's gritty and philosophically quite savage as we head even deeper into a society controlled by machines, tyrants and indifference almost eighty years after it was written. It's bleak!

Do not watch this movie if you are feeling pessimistic or depressed, because the kind of catharsis won’t help you. Nineteen-eighty-four is a bleak movie based on a dark novel that paints a totalitarian world that really sucks. Although they don’t merely tell lies over and over until devotees believe them - instead they actually rewrite historical details in newspapers — still it bears a striking and chilling parallel to the current moment.
The acting is excellent and the sparing use of color is very effective, but I felt there were holes here and there details perhaps explained more fully in the novel. I want to read the book now for comparison, though I gather the film hovers close to its plot. It would be fascinating to know what the other societies were like, especially the ones they are alternately supposed to be at war with or allied to, but I imagine even the novel only deals with this thought-crime ridden hellhole.
It is worth watching for sure, but not at 2 a.m. after your partner has broken up with you and you have lost your job.

Based on George Orwell's dystopian novel from the 1940s, the movie was produced in the very year that Orwell had set it, 1984.
Horrified by the recent atrocities by the Germans and Russians, and fearing that England and America might take a similar turn, Orwell had painted a frightening portrait of the ultimate dictatorship, and the movie faithfully followed him. Some of the details were:
(1) Continual surveillance, in this case carried out by cameras hidden inside television sets.
(2) Decaying infrastructure and shoddy merchandise produced by the Party's monopoly of the economy.
(3) A political language, NewSpeak, full of euphemisms and code words for the government's activities.
(4) A brutal law-enforcement system in which being suspected even of disloyal THOUGHTS can bring barbaric punishment.
The movie stars John Hurt as the beaten rebel, Susanna Hamilton as his mistress, and Richard Burton as the government official on whom they pin their hopes (like Orwell himself, Burton was fatally ill during the production and died before the movie's release)

**It's not Orson Welles' best work, and there are some problems and wrong choices, but it's still a worthwhile film.**
One crime and two totally different men: this sentence almost sums up the entire film. Director Orson Welles is one of those monsters that we are used to having like a “sacred cow”, who turns everything he touches into gold. And really, he is responsible for great films and was an excellent artist, who understood cinema like few others did. However, in this film, his work was absolutely trampled on by stupid studio managers, and the result of this is that it was only very recently that it was possible to have access to a version of this film that was similar to what its director's creative vision was. . Just similar!
And what we have here is an incredibly complex film that we cannot summarize as easily as I did: the initial crime is just the incident that triggers the action, and its relevance, we found, is really insignificant. What counts here is the struggle of personalities, the battle between the conflicting egos of two police officers who decide to solve the case, each in their own way. In fact, it is not the most appealing film that the director's career has given us, but it is still valuable for that reason. And to understand Welles' vision, it's not enough to see the film once. We have to understand nuances that go unnoticed by an inattentive eye. It's an exercise for cinema experts, more than for me, who am part of the common popcorn-eating public, but even I saw that the work before me deserved to be seen in detail.
The film that has come down to us allows us to see the brilliance of Welles, who was also responsible for the dialogues and the script created, full of twists and turns that can complicate things a little for us if we are not paying attention, and, but it also gives us good actors in a decent dramatic exercise. Charlton Heston is a safe bet, but it's also a big casting mistake: he's too Anglo-Saxon to be credible as a Latino! Welles brought the other main character to life, and is effective and dominant in the role. To a certain extent, he never seems like a police officer, but just another criminal in a land where those in charge are those who impose themselves through violence. Even so, I noticed that he is a physically worn-out man, and this fragility ruins the effect he intends to achieve.
Technically, the film has many qualities, starting with the cinematography, which in Welles' films is almost always one of the director's signatures. In addition to the use of intelligent visual effects, the director dedicated himself to the camera work and the choice of each perspective, each framing, and also in the editing, which was ruined by the studio's intervention. The filming locations and sets are realistic and convince us quite well, and the soundtrack is effective.

We start with a man putting a bomb in a car on the Mexican side of the border. When it explodes on the American side flattening the occupants, the local "Capt. Quinlan" (Orson Welles) decides to make a bit of a cursory investigation - in cahoots with his opposite number "Vargas" (Charlton Heston). Whilst they are out doing their sleuthing, "Susan Vargas" (Janet Leigh) is lured to a meeting with "Uncle Joe" (Akim Tamiroff) where it becomes clear that her husband is on the prosecuting side of a family dispute that is putting everyone in danger - something her husband finds out shortly afterwards when he narrowly avoids an acid facial. Now "Quinlan" and his sidekick "Menzies" (Joseph Calleia) have a rather unique way of working - the former intimidates just with his presence and has the District Attorney in his pocket, but as this investigation starts to spread out the original crime pails into insignificance as "Susan" finds herself trapped in an out of town motel and the potential victim of a ghastly drug crime that brings the threads of the story - and the true criminality to light - fatally. There are five principal characters and the actors do justice to them all - the story moves along darkly offering plenty of interest, the odd red herring and a particularly strong effort from Welles as the increasingly unlikeable policeman. I was slightly dubious about Heston playing a Mexican policeman, but here carries of the role in one of his better screen performances (when he is not wearing leather garments) and Janet Leigh - well, she was always an actor who made it all look effortless. The ending combines the scary with the brutal but will the truth be out? Big screen must for the full potency of the last twenty minutes.

Welles/Heston B&W cult noir is great on a technical level, but meh as a viewing experience
On the Texas border a Mexican detective (Charlton Heston) assists an American investigation into a shocking murder of an American official on the border, but he soon learns that the imposing & slovenly Sheriff (Orson Welles) is shady with a penchant for framing. Janet Leigh is on hand as the detective’s new bride, an American.
“Touch of Evil” (1958) was written/directed by Welles (loosely based on a book) and has a huge reputation as a B&W noir-ish cult flick. There ARE interesting technical things going on as far as camera angles, lighting and impressive long takes (e.g. the opening sequence). It also has a notable classic cast with Leigh thoroughly stunning, not to mention Joanna Moore, Marlene Dietrich, Joi Lansing and a cameo by Zsa Zsa Gabor on the female front.
Yet I otherwise found the picture talky, nigh surreal and noticeably hokey with an unengrossing story and dubious acting, e.g. the hooligan Mexicans and the eye-rolling Shakespearean lunatic “night man” (Dennis Weaver). Seriously, viewing this film is like entering Welles’ head on an acid trip.
That said, the film offers quite a bit to digest and I could see it playing better on additional viewings, which explains its cult status, but I’m not interested. There are far more fascinating and compelling B&W dramas with noteworthy casts from that general era, like “The Misfits” (1963).
I viewed the long reconstructed version, aka the “director’s cut,” which runs about 110 minutes while the original studio-butchered version runs 93 minutes. Interestingly, the film wasn’t shot anywhere near the border, let alone the Texas border, but in freakin’ Venice, Los Angeles.
GRADE: C

After watching this movie I never looked at my plants the same.

**_Examining something rarely seen on screen_**
> _It was important for me to tell this story because I've seen other representations of motherhood, but they tend to be humorous. Mommy needs vodka. The coffee mug slogan. And I thought no one has really gotten gritty with it. Because there's a side of it that's dark. And it used to be enough to be just a good caretaker and now it's that you need to be a good caretaker, you also need to be fit, hot, successful, etc. And it's a lot._
- Diablo Cody; "Diablo Cody on how _Tully_ was inspired by her own struggles with motherhood" (E. Oliver Whitney); _ScreenCrush_ (May 2, 2018)
_Tully_ tells the story of Marlo (Charlize Theron), a New York suburbanite pregnant with her third child. Her husband, Drew (Ron Livingstone) is loving, but somewhat neglectful, showing more interest in playing video games than helping Tully maintain the house and family. Clueless about the pressures of motherhood, he fails to notice when Marlo begins to show signs of post-natal depression. However, shortly after the baby's birth, Marlo's wealthy brother, Craig (Mark Duplass) hires a night nanny named Tully (Mackenzie Davis) to help take some of the pressure off Marlo. Reluctant to embrace the idea at first, Marlo soon forms a tight bond with Tully, who introduces Marlo to a lifestyle she had never imagined.
_Tully_ is one of those films that the less you know about it before seeing it, the better. Featuring committed performances from Theron and Davis, the film is written by Diablo Cody (_Jennifer's Body_; _Ricki and the Flash_) and directed by Jason Reitman (_Thank You for Smoking_; _Juno_; _Men, Women & Children_), a partnership which also produced _Young Adult_ (2011), in which Theron also starred. There's a definite thematic uniformity between the two films, as if they exist in an almost sliding doors-like relationship to one another. My only real issue with _Tully_ is that the supporting characters are very thinly drawn - Drew, the well-meaning but ineffectual husband, is especially void of substance. But the nature of the story, to a certain extent, necessitates this. In any case, this is an excellent study of an issue very rarely put on-screen - imperfect motherhood. A word of warning though; neither the poster, nor the trailer do the film any favours whatsoever. It's funny in places, but this is not a comedy.

Not enough credit is actually given to this great piece of filmmaking.
Oliver Stone at his finest, some acting performances of the highest degree. Kilmer is supberb as Jim Morrison. Arguably Meg Ryan's best performance. Great cameo's in the movie too.Including Billy Idol. Kyle MacLachlan is great too as Ray Manzarek , Michael Madsen also appears.
I loved the show.
"IS EVERYBODY IN.."

A hypnotic film, but it emphasizes the negative side of Jim Morrison and is filled with fabrications.
RELEASED IN 1991 and directed by Oliver Stone, “The Doors” chronicles the Southern California band The Doors and their rise and fall between 1966-1971. The film focuses on charismatic singer Jim Morrison (Val Kilmer) who falls into alcoholism and drug-addiction. He flew to France in March, 1971, to join his girlfriend, Pamela Courson (Meg Ryan), and pursue a different career, but died the next summer due to his ongoing substance abuse. The other band members are played by Kyle MacLachlan (Ray Manzarek), Frank Whaley (Robby Krieger) and Kevin Dillon (John Densmore).
I'm not old enough to remember The Doors. The first time I heard of them was when my older brother asked me if I knew of them. I busted out laughing saying, "The Doors? Why don't they just call themselves The Window Sills." Yeah, I thought the name was pretty lame until I discovered Morrison's reasoning behind it:
There is what is known; And there is what is unknown; In between are the doors
Another thing that won my respect was their song that was used in the opening of “Apocalypse Now,” which is my all-time favorite film (the original version, not "Redux"). After that I bought their "Best Of" album and my impression was that their sound was horribly dated, even THEN. Over time, however, I've come to respect The Doors' music because it's so unique. They don't sound like anyone else. They have a weird, moody vibe, even their 'hits,’ augmented by a strange carnival feel. Over top of it all is Morrison's commanding and haunting vox. I prefer their more artistic songs like "Riders on the Storm" and "The End" as opposed to their 'hits,' but who can deny the catchiness of "Light My Fire" or the goofy charm of "People are Strange"?
The film focuses on Jim Morrison and leaves the viewer with the impression that he was a miserable artistic-genius type who had no sense of moderation; he sought to escape his personal struggle through loose sex, substance misuse and rock 'n' roll. His excessive self-abuse eventually spilled over to those closest to him and ultimately landed him in a premature grave. His body lies in Paris, a mecca to his fans who have spray-painted the surrounding monuments with gaudy graffiti, some of it profane. The image this leaves you with is that Jim Morrison is no fun to be around, even in death.
So “The Doors” is pretty much the ultimate story of sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll. Stone said he based his view of Morrison, as depicted in the film, on 160 transcripts of people that actually knew him or were around him and the band. From these documents emerged a central truth about Morrison's final years, an image of wild excess. Because of this, I was left with a bad impression of the man. I felt Morrison was a spaced-out, immature jerk, abusive to both himself and others, foolishly sacrificing his life and talents on the altar of alcohol & drug idolatry.
Yet this was only part of the truth. Thankfully the 37-minute documentary on the 'extras' disc, "The Road to Excess" (1997), balances things out. One of Morrison's sweethearts, wiccan Patricia Kennealy (played by Kathleen Quinlan in the movie), the guitarist and another guy offer the other side of the story. They properly point out that Stone's film only shows Jim's 'wild & crazy' side, emphasizing that the events depicted in the picture, while sometimes true, aren't "all that happened." They unanimously describe Morrison as genuine, innocent, shy, loving and gallant, an amazing person who made those around him feel important, as if he was their best friend. Robby even states that Jim was "the most influential person I've ever met."
In addition, the documentary features numerous clips of Morrison himself, clearly showing him to be a fun-loving, nice and sane person rather than the spaced-out, abuse-driven dude shown in the film. Needless to say, the documentary helps round-out one's image of the man.
BOTTOM LINE: Val Kilmer doesn't just play Jim Morrison, he IS Jim Morrison. This is no small feat and vital to the film in light of the fact that he appears in practically every frame. He should have won an award. In any case, if you're in the mood for something that captures that late-60s counter-culture vibe “The Doors” is worth checking out, but it tends to exaggerate things in the name of mythmaking, which is usually the case with movies. For instance, Jim never lit up a closet door with Pamela locked inside (rolling my eyes), the idiotic Thanksgiving dinner sequence never happened and the naked revelries at concerts (and the bonfire) are overblown fabrications. Still, the movie’s mesmerizing in a spaced-out way and highlighted by The Doors' music throughout.
Unfortunately, the first half is superior to the second half, which becomes too unpleasant, offering a very limited and unflattering impression of Morrison. That's why it's essential to also watch "The Road to Excess" on the bonus disc or, better yet, the excellent 2009 documentary “The Doors: When You’re a Stranger,” which exclusively uses footage and photos from 1966-1971. Another problem with Stone’s movie is that it loses its dramatic pull in the second half in preference for hypnotic yet chaotic visual mayhem, not to mention outright lies.
Lastly, in “The Road to Excess” Oliver Stone makes a couple of really asinine statements. Commenting on Morrison, he states: "To live life intensely and well and die young and achieve everlasting fame & glory is the greatest. It's Achilles, it's Alexander, it's... Jim Morrison." Huh? Another dubious line is: "The road to excess leads to the palace of wisdom." Is he on drugs? Jim's road of excess led straight to an early grave, not enlightenment.
THE FILM RUNS 2 hours 20 minutes.
GRADE: C (but the "The Road to Excess" documentary gets an A-/B+)

I KNOW I'm giving way too many stars for this, but I don't care; The Doors were one of my very first favourite groups. I fondly recall, when I was 11, and Elektra Records released 'The Doors' Greatest Hits', and the album-length version of 'Light My Fire' was played all the time on the radio, and I was mesmerized by the instrumental middle of the song, got the album from my parents for Christmas, and started a lifelong love affair with the band. Yes, Jim Morrison is highly overrated. Yes, the movie is an extremely self-indulgent mess and it can be quite incoherent and incohesive. But the Sixties, the L.A. rock scene back then, and especially Morrison's life, were just like that, so it is oh so fitting!
I adore the fact that it was Oliver Stone's labour of love (one of thankfully many) and that the surviving members of the band basically had full input. I would take this and 'Talk Radio' (my personal favourite Stone's throw) over a hundred of Stone's politically over-the-top movies any day!
When I was 17, I took my life savings and visited, on my own, nine European countries, including France and its capital, Paris. Did I go for the Eiffel Tower, wild romance on Richard Linklater-esque trains, or its outstanding magic and sidewalk cafes? No--train-wise I had to put up with a stupid labour strike, such that an overnight sleeper car from Berne, Switzerland to Paris had to be switched, in the middle of the night, FOUR times, just so they could prove a point. And it was just to see Morrison's grave. I met 20 fantastic people who had made the pilgrimage from all over the world, and it was my first time having red wine and smoking pot. The graffiti and the sculpture of him, in the Pere Lachaise cemetery, were fascinating, as was his life. Would I go through that again? Of course I would.
It's Val Kilmer's best work by a mile. The film just oozes charisma and breathes life--just as the band's work must have done back in the day. Worth a purchase and re-watches (I watch it each year on Jim's birthday and accidentally bought it twice), for any fan of 60's music or its culture. A bonafide classic when Stone was actually really something.

The reluctant "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" franchise gets yet another reboot/reimagining/sequel, but this time they go the Halloween/Kills/Ends route and bring back a surviving character from the original film. Things don't work out as well here as they did for the "Halloween" series.
Four idealistic, or naive?, friends purchase a ghost town in Texas. They plan on renovating the entire town, and turning it into a progressive haven where they can save the world. Sisters Melody (Sarah Yarkin) and Lila (Elsie Fisher), and couple Dante (Jacob Latimore) and Ruth (Nell Hudson) have run-ins with local law enforcement and some town hangers-on, with the film makers casting aspersions immediately- the Gen Z/millenials are portrayed as wide-eyed and woke, while the Texans encountered are a bunch of drawling, gun-toting racists. Lila was injured in a school shooting, and Melody hovers over her constantly. The group hear the tale of Leatherface from the 1974 original film, and we learn that the final surviving girl from that film, Sally (Olwen Fouere, taking the role originated by the late Marilyn Burns), became a Texas Ranger and is currently waiting for the call that her archnemesis may still be found since the murders of her friends are officially listed as "unsolved." The group arrives in the ghost town to wait for a busload of investors, and find that an old lady (Alice Krige) and her adopted son (Mark Burnham) are still living in an abandoned orphanage. The ghost town is going to get renovated by one man, Richter (Moe Dunford), who doesn't take to the group. Leatherface finally makes a questionable appearance, there's a lot of questions throughout, and the carnage begins.
The timeline for the TCM franchise is even more convoluted than the Halloween franchise. The film is barely over eighty minutes long, so there isn't a lot of character development or legacy building, although I did see director Garcia paying tribute to some other famous slasher films here and there. The script tries to inject something different into its story, addressing the influencer craze without going overboard with it. Garcia's direction works with well with the film's editing, and this is a tightly shot flick, although Bulgaria makes a lousy substitute for the Lone Star state- I'm a fourth generation born Texan, and know my birth state pretty well.
The problem here is, of course, the script. Characters not only make bad decisions, they make idiotic decisions that literally get themselves and others killed. While some of them evolve and put up a fight against Leatherface, they also open themselves up to their own demise because if they didn't, the movie would be even shorter. The gore and violence is over the top, and I was very surprised that it got an (R) rating. The special effects are very well done, but also very convincing, to the point that this isn't a "fun" horror film. "Terrifier" was also a gory slasher/horror film, but it had tension and suspense. "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" has little tension, and viewers asking aloud "why did they just do that?!" instead. One set-piece on a bus was probably set up as the be-all end-all of gruesome mass murder, but it becomes a nihilistic exercise in tedium. In this day and age, it's sad that we've become so numb, this is considered entertainment to be "enjoyed" again and again, considering that the original film, aside from one of the greatest titles of all-time, wasn't as gory as you would expect.
I think it's okay to finally put this franchise to rest, it debuted on streaming because of some disastrous pre-release screenings so don't look for it on physical media anytime soon. I didn't hate it as much as some viewers and critics did; I guess I'm old school, looking for the horror in my horror films.

Found out that Elsie Fisher and I were born exactly one year apart, weird.
Cool movie though!

The original The Texas Chainsaw Massacre actually predated the original Halloween by four years, but now it’s the former’s turn to follow in the footsteps of the latter, resulting in a case of the blind leading the blind. This new Texas Chainsaw Massacre takes its cues from the recent Halloween and Halloween Kills, going as far as dusting off the franchise’s original Final Girl – the character, that is; Marilyn Burns, the actress who played the first Sally Hardesty, died in 2014, and she certainly is in a better place now (i.e., not in this movie).
Generally speaking, though, the only thing that separates this from pretty much every slasher film ever made is that, instead of the usual Dead Teenager Movie, Massacre ‘22 may very well be the first-ever Dead Millennial Movie. Speaking of which the kills, which have the power to save even the most generic and derivative of horror sequels, are another disappointment; only the first one, involving a very creative use of the bone shard sticking out of a compound fracture, shows any ingenuity.
The best thing that can be said of this uninspired effort is that it’s short (shorter still considering that about 10 of its 81 minutes are devoted to the closing credits); then again, any movie is bound to be brief that lacks a proper conclusion – and I’m not referring to the fact that when Sally, who has been hunting Leatherface down “for more than 30, 40 years”, finally has him cornered, she apparently decides, all of a sudden, that after having waited multiple decades for this moment, she might as well wait a bit longer; after all, what’s another five more minutes between old friends? This is excruciatingly stupid, but if the movie ended there it wouldn't be any more unsatisfying than the actual ending.
And the worst that can be said of TCM ‘22 is that it has the gall to draw a parallel between the titular chainsaw massacre and a high school shooting (“Stonebrook High”, which sounds very uncomfortably like Stoneman Douglas High School), as if a dumb movie that deals in gratuitous violence and doesn’t even have the decency to provide a cathartic resolution could ever find a way to connect emotionally to the victims of a real-life massacre. This is low, even by exploitation cinema’s sub-standards.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022) is a film I was looking forward to for a while, although I wasn't sure why. I had been very disappointed in the last couple additions to the TCM franchise, so I knew it was very likely that it would not be any different with this one. I watched the film the day it came out, and received exactly what I expected, I didn't like it. I liked it more than I expected, yes, but still not enough. The acting was lacking, the premise was stupid, and it killed off the beloved legacy character in the most insulting way possible. The only redeeming aspects of the movie are the nice-looking cinematography and the amazing gore. However, I am looking forward to seeing the next one, and I have no idea why. 3.5/5.

The problem now is that the successful film formula revolves around nostalgia, rehashing familiar sequences and storylines, and bringing back survivors for one final confrontation. This has all proven to crush the box office, especially during the pandemic. This results in there being no originality or creativity anymore; it’s just a repetition of what we’ve already seen. Until Leatherface can get a fresh face to wear, the _Texas Chainsaw Massacre_ franchise is doomed to run in circles with a sputtering chainsaw on a mostly deserted road no one wants to travel down.
**Full review:** https://hubpages.com/entertainment/Texas-Chainsaw-Massacre-2022-Review-Tearing-the-Face-Off-of-a-Horror-Franchise

What's this sh*****t?
Where's the logic in this?
**I don't recommend it just waste time**.