**_A solid adaptation, albeit with a bit too much alpaca-based comedy_**
>_This was no fruit of such worlds and suns as shine on the telescopes and photographic plates of our observatories. This was no breath from the skies whose motions and dimensions our astronomers measure or deem too vast to measure. It was just a colour out of space – a frightful messenger from unformed realms of infinity beyond all Nature as we know it; from realms whose mere existence stuns the brain and numbs us with the black extra-cosmic gulfs it throws open before our frenzied eyes._
- H.P. Lovecraft; "The Colour Out of Space"; _Amazing Stories_ (September, 1927)
Much of the work of H.P. Lovecraft takes place in a vast shared universe, which would, by its very nature, seem to lend itself to the current vogue for cinematic long-form narratives. However, considering the size of his _oeuvre_, very little of it has been adapted for the screen, and Lovecraft in general has proved a difficult author to film (although Stuart Gordon and Brian Yuzna would probably beg to differ). And so we have _Colour Out of Space_, written and directed by Richard Stanley (his first film in 25 years, after he was famously fired three days into the disastrous shoot of his long-gestating dream project, _The Island of Dr. Moreau_). A modernisation but otherwise surprisingly faithful adaptation of Lovecraft's 1927 short story "The Colour Out of Space", _Colour_ takes a good stab at depicting one of Lovecraft's most oblique entities (essentially it exists as an indescribable colour). Mixing humour and body horror (perhaps weighed a little too much towards humour), the film gives Nicholas Cage another opportunity to go full-Cage after he recently cut loose in Brian Taylor's _Mom and Dad_ (2017) and Panos Cosmatos's _Mandy_ (2018). And boy does he lean into it – this is the most ludicrous, histrionic, and borderline farcical performance he's given since Robert Bierman's _Vampire's Kiss_ (1989), screaming about the importance of alpacas one minute (they're "_the animal of the future_"), calmly playing the dutiful father the next. And how you respond to this will largely dictate how you respond to the film – ridiculously camp, over the top, and vapid or ridiculously camp, over the top, and darkly compelling.
Just outside the city of Arkham, MA (the fictitious setting of many Lovecraftian stories), Nathan Gardner (Cage), and his wife Theresa (Joely Richardson), teenage children Benny (Brendan Meyer) and Lavinia (Madeleine Arthur), and young son Jack (Julian Hilliard) have moved into Nathan's deceased father's property. Theresa has recently been given the all-clear after battling breast cancer, and is gradually returning to work as a commodities trader, working from home via the internet (albeit with an unreliable connection). Lavinia, a practising Wiccan, spends her time riding the family horse and performing rituals she hopes will keep her mother cancer-free. Nathan, for his part, has embraced rural life by raising alpacas on the property's farm. As the film begins, hydrologist Ward (Eliot Knight) arrives in the area to survey the water table. That night, the sky fills with pulsating light and a rock crashes onto the Gardners' land. The following day, Ward says it's probably just a meteorite, although Ezra (Tommy Chong, essentially playing himself), an ageing hippie who lives in the forest completely off the grid, believes it's a sign that something has gone wrong with the natural order of things. As time passes, the Gardners start to experience ever-more bizarre events – unnaturally localised lightning storms that seem to come from nowhere; huge fuchsia-like plants that seem to grow overnight; a horrific odour coming from the meteorite that only Nathan can smell; a gigantic purple mantis flying around; radios and the internet cutting out more than normal; the water turning strange colours; the meteorite itself mysteriously turning to dust; the family's dog, Lavinia's horse, and Nathan's alpacas starting to acting strangely; the family's produce (such as tomatoes) growing at exponential speeds; even time itself appears to be corrupted. Soon enough, the family members begin to show signs of change – Jack starts talking to someone in the well; Nathan discovers his arm is developing scales; Theresa accidentally cuts off two of her fingers and barely notices; Benny goes in and out of fugues, Lavinia becomes violently nauseous. And as the whole family finds itself in mortal danger, are any of them unaffected to the point where they're capable of saving the others?
The original "The Colour out of Space" tells the story of a surveyor from Boston who learns a meteorite crashed just outside Arkham several years previously in an area now known as the "Blasted Heath", apparently poisoning everything and causing anybody with whom it came into contact to go insane. Hoping to get more specific information, the unnamed surveyor seeks out Ammi Pierce, a hermit living in the nearby woods, who tells him the story of Nahum Gardner, on whose property the meteorite landed. As it started to shrink, the meteorite left behind globules of a colour that fell outside the visible spectrum and could only be described by analogy. Over the following year, the Gardner family experience a series of increasingly devastating traumas before eventually turning on one another.
Lovecraft felt that the depiction of alien species in fiction was too familiar, too defined by the range of human comprehension, and he believed that if we were ever to encounter real cosmic beings, they could be so unlike anything in our experience as to be impossible to describe, or even process in our minds. One of his aims with "Colour" was to create an entity that didn't fulfil the rubric of conforming to human understanding – hence the only description is by analogy, and even then, it's described only in relation to colour. In fact, it's never even determined if the entity is conscious or not, at least not in the sense that humans recognise consciousness. It may be aware, but it's just as possible that it isn't, and the negative effects experienced by the Gardners aren't a sign of aggressiveness but simply the result of two vastly different existences interacting with one another. The story has been adapted for the screen four main times – Daniel Haller's _Die, Monster, Die!_ (1965), David Keith's _The Curse_ (1987), Ivan Zuccon's _Colour from the Dark_, and Huan Vu's rather enjoyable _Die farbe_ (2010), which is in black and white, except for the colours emitted by the meteorite.
This latest version opens with Ward speaking in a contemplative sub-Malick style voiceover that's fairly unnecessary, but which doesn't distract too much (it's only used a couple of times). After some basic introductory preamble to show us the family dynamic and establish important plot points such as Theresa's cancer, Lavinia's Wiccan rituals, Nathan and his alpacas, the film then features one of the most inorganic expositionary scenes I've ever seen, as Nathan and Theresa stand on the porch, admiring the woods and spend a good five minutes telling each other things that they both already know – the property used to belong to Nathan's father, Nathan is afraid of turning into his father, Nathan used to be a painter but hasn't worked in a while, Theresa is starting to get back into work, Lavinia and Benny are finding it hard to adapt to rural life, Jack not so much. It really is a ridiculous scene, to the point where it would have been no more on-the-nose to feature captions with character info.
Where Stanley is much more successful is in how he depicts the entity itself, or rather, how he doesn't. Obviously, by choosing to adapt this story, he knew he would have to give some kind of visual representation to something that exists, to human eyes at least, only as a colour beyond the visible spectrum. Lovecraft gets around this problem by way of analogy – the entity is never explicitly described other than by comparison – but this is not a technique available to a filmmaker. With this in mind, Stanley wisely keeps everything as vague as possible – vibrant, modulating pulses of light that seem to be emanating from somewhere just outside the frame, sounds originating from something just out of sight, vaguely-defined spatial distortions, colour manipulations with no obvious source, personality changes with no obvious reasoning behind them. It's rare you see such restraint in what is, ostensibly at least, a horror story, and Stanley is to be commended for it.
Important here is the actual colour itself. Again, in the novel, Lovecraft never says, for example, that the colour is "mainly purple", or words to that effect, because it isn't describable in those terms, and, once again, this poses a unique problem for a filmmaker – if something on-screen has a colour, then that colour has to be shown. However, instead of attempting to create an indescribable colour, director of photography Steve Annis (_Kissing Candice_; _I Am Mother_) chooses to go the route of not settling for any one stable colour – every time we see the effects of the meteorite, the hue appears to be in a state of flux, modulating through purple, magenta, mauve, fuchsia, lavender – so although we can say the colours are recognisable, they are never identifiable as any one specific colour, which, it has to be said, is probably the best choice the filmmakers could have made.
As we get into the third act, the film abandons all sense of restraint and goes completely batshit insane, with about five different things happening at any one moment, and the body horror which has threatened to break through from the earliest moments finally unleashed, foregrounding the exceptional work of special effects supervisor/creature designer Dan Martin (_The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence)_; _ABCs of Death 2_; _High Rise_). These scenes are heavily indebted to David Cronenberg, especially his earlier work such as _Shivers_ (1975), _Rabid_ (1977), and _The Brood_ (1979), although the most obvious touchstone is Chris Walas's work on Cronenberg's masterpiece, _The Fly_ (1986), where it's not so much body horror, as body mincemeat. A lot of Martin's creature design seems inspired by the legendary work of Rob Bottin, and there's a direct visual quote of one of the best moments in John Carpenter's _The Thing_ (1982). Some of the more grotesque human-related effects also reminded me a little of Screaming Mad George's work on Brian Yuzna's _Society_ (1989), especially the orgy scene.
It's also in the last act where Cage is turned loose, signalled by an epic meltdown when he discovers Benny hasn't closed the barn door and the alpacas have gotten out. From there, it's Nicholas Cage unrestrained, figuratively amped up on amphetamines, cocaine, and coffee. There is a problem with this, however. Full-Cage has been seen in films such as _Vampire's Kiss_, John Woo's _Face/Off_ (1997), Werner Herzog's _Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call – New Orleans_ (2009), _Mom and Dad_, and _Mandy_, but each performance has felt fairly organic, never becoming self-conscious; each performance feels like a legitimate interpretation on the part of the actor, with the character feeling like a psychologically-real person, to one degree or another. In _Colour_, however, to an even greater extent than he did in Neil LaBute's virtually unwatchable _The Wicker Man_ (2006), Cage crosses into self-parody, with his performance having as much to do with people's preconceived notions of a Nicholas Cage performance as it does with finding the character. There are a couple of scenes here were he suddenly goes full-Cage out of nowhere, with very little narrative justification, only to revert to relative normality the next scene, and these alterations don't feel like organic character development, they feel like Cage winking at the audience.
Which might be entertaining and all, but which serves neither the character nor the film especially well. For all its insanity, this is a relatively serious movie, but Cage's performance is so manically uneven and unpredictable, that it affects everything around it. Example – after the aforementioned meltdown ("_Don't you know how expensive those alpacas were_"), which just about fits in what we know of the character, as Nathan is walking away from Benny and Lavinia, he stops, turns, pauses, shouts, "_ALPACAS_", pauses again, and then walks away. This got a huge laugh at the screening I attended, and it was undoubtedly funny. But does self-reflexive humour by the leading man really serve the story well at this point? No, not in the slightest. In essence, this scene marks the point where the character ceases to be Nathan Gardner and becomes a version of Nicholas Cage. And this is driven home in the very next scene, where Cage once again portrays Gardner as a kind and caring father.
The other characters all have a kind of internal logic to their crumbling sanity; the meteorite affects each of them differently, with their minds disintegrating in different, but consistent ways. With Cage, however, it's there one minute, absent the next, and Stanley seems unwilling, or unable, to establish the parameters by which Nathan's mind is disintegrating, seemingly going for laughs rather than something more cogent.
This issue notwithstanding, I enjoyed _Colour Out of Space_ a great deal. Stanley's return to the director's chair is to be admired for its restraint and how faithful it remains to the very tricky Lovecraftian original. The body-horror in the film's last act will appeal to fans of the grotesque, whilst others will take great pleasure from Cage's insanity, as narratively unjustified as it is. The film is ridiculous on many levels, but it's extremely well realised and well made, and is to be applauded for not trying to attach an explicit meaning to a story which avoids any kind of thematic specificity.

It’s been a while since I’ve seen this and maybe my tastes may have evolved but I recall liking it a lot and watching it a second time at one point. I was pleasantly surprised by James Gandolfini’s brave choice of his small role, after the tough gangster roles. I would watch it again just for that. I would recommend this move to anyone looking for a nice early 2000’s romantic comedy.

Silly entertainment!
'The Mexican' works as a comedy and works as an adventure road trip flick, so it evidently achieved what it set out to do. This 2001 release features a strong cast, as we get Brad Pitt and Julia Roberts together alongside James Gandolfini, J. K. Simmons and Gene Hackman. I enjoyed all five, especially the first three.
It's not a film to be taken overly serious, it's one to enjoy and I got a lot of enjoyment from it - credit to Gore Verbinski & Co. Recommended? Definitely!

The thing about this play is that it is almost impossible to distil it down to two hours. Like most of Shakespeare's tragedies, there is immense richness in the language; in the pace the story develops; in the nuanced characterisations and in the imagery. Sure, the medium can reduce the need for much of the more descriptive narrative but it still takes time for the plotting and scheming; the menace and the power lust to percolate through. Now this isn't a terrible interpretation. Michael Fassbender is reasonable as the ambitious Thane of Glamis. He is informed by three witches after a battle that his accession to King Duncan's throne is assured, and together with his equally determined wife (Marion Cotillard) he sets about expediting that process. Not everyone believes his feigned innocence though, and that means he has to start removing his detractors - not least Banquo (Paddy Considine) and the late king's son Malcolm (an oddly cast Jack Raynor), and it's at this point that their cunning plan begins to unravel. The film looks great, the soundtrack is eerie and effective and the costumes, scenery and lighting really do help to convey something of the real Scottish environment; but again the absence of many significant plot lines - the caveats with the witches' initial prophecy, for example, rob the storyline of much of it's complex potency. The character of Lady Macbeth is underused as an underpinning motivation for her husband's actions and essentially we are just left with a rather straightforward story of power-hungry murder. It is worth watching, but it is also underwhelming.

The directing and the photography are very good. The use of the color, the smoke and fog and the speed of the camera are very well chosen.
Fassbender gives a very good performance, but it swallows everybody else in the movie.
What I don't like that much of this version is that Lady Macbeth almost fades away. Her character is not as important as it should be and, in the end, everything is expected and everything becomes a bit boring.

A better cast, worst scripted _Bruce Almighty_. The execution is severely lacking, and as much as I adore seeing Simon Pegg and Kate Beckinsale ham up the screen, it seems obvious how much better this could (and should) have gone. What we are left with in _Absolutely Anything_ is a movie that was engaging, yet glaringly bad, the sort of thing I didn't hate watching, but will never watch again.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

Well... this was fun.
I don't think you can say anything better about a movie. Conspiracy Theory was fun. You sit down and watch it, and you are going to have a fun time, you are going to be entertained.
It's a great blend of moderate action and comedic suspense. The plot twists are deep enough to be interesting and light enough to be entertaining in the darker aspects of comedy.
The characters, well, the characters are the very definition of the phrase, "he's a real character isn't he?"
Mel Gibson is fun to watch in this, he plays a character that is tormented, broken, and still endlessly amusing.
You really can't get better than a movie that is fun to watch.

Overly long but amiable suspense-thriller thanks to the charms of Mel Gibson (re-teaming with Lethal Weapon franchise director Richard Donner) and Julia Roberts with Patrick Stewart making for an okay villain. This is one I've seen a couple times and each viewing has pretty much been the same: entertaining but also unremarkable. **3.0/5**

**Good CGI, good action scenes, good sound, Moscow is an interesting place, but everything else is so weak and stupid that it's not worth watching this movie twice.**
I decided to watch this film yesterday, when it was shown on TV, but curiously I was waiting to see another film with a similar title made in 2017. Even so, I didn't give up my time: even though I didn't have much predilection for alien invasion films, the film is quite dynamic, has good action scenes and a good amount of high quality CGI, and so it is, at least, a piece of entertainment that we don't regret watching... once. Just once.
Let's start with the good stuff: the scenes take place in Moscow, the Russian megalopolis, long before we ostracized the country due to aggression against neighboring Ukraine, when Russians seemed to want to have more contact with Westerners. This was a real breath of fresh air because in sci-fi films we almost only see US cities. I also believe that filming in Russia was a strategic option for the production to be able to film at lower costs. In addition to the clever use of the filming locations (which include Red Square and the GUM Shopping Center), the film offers us a massive dose of high-quality CGI, which we see in greater glory when the aliens appear. But the whole film is a feast of CGI and visual effects. The sound effects are also very good, and the action and running scenes are fun enough to keep the film moving.
And unfortunately, good things end here. Everything else is so full of flaws and problems that make the film unworthy of a second chance. This is just my opinion, but I think we can all agree on one point: there are a lot of films about alien invasions, and it doesn't take much thinking to remember two or three that make this film a total joke.
The film is directed by Chris Gorak, but it seems like he was more fascinated with CGI and action than trying to direct. Thus, we have a very young cast who are left to their own devices and who interpret the characters according to what seems most appropriate to them. Emile Hirsch did an excellent work in “Into the Wild” just before this, but he had a solid character and was well directed. Here, he has none: the result is a tepid, vague, lifeless interpretation without any personality. His partner Max Minghella, who had just done “The Social Network”, was not a good choice for his character. He is one of those actors who is “always the bridesmaid and never the bride”, so to speak: his lack of presence and charisma put him far from the main roles, although he is an option for supporting cast. Joel Kinnaman is stupidly weak as the villain: he behaves like a high school bully, and his character is as thin as paper. Olivia Thirlby also does little for the film, with a character who merely looks sexy, and who we expect to see kissing one of the boys at some point. Worse luck was Rachael Taylor, who is irritating to the point that we say hallelujah when her character finally dies. And the Russian cast? I don't know any of the actors, but I even liked Veronika Vernadskaya a little. Unfortunately, the Russian cast seems to be there only for us to see the Russians as perpetual badasses, a "Rambo nation" on horseback with machine guns. Putin certainly enjoyed seeing this in a Western film.
As bad as the cast and their performance, the script copies moments and elements from several sci-fi films (“Cloverfield”, for example) to create a story where there is no logical sense or real threat. It's truly unfortunate that, with such good CGI and such well-chosen filming locations, the film is unable to cause a single shiver of tension in the audience. In addition to a rather weak story, there are several moments in which the film seems to be mocking our intelligence: Moscow is one of the most densely populated places in the world: it makes sense that, even after the city is devastated in the first attack, there are only five or six people wandering the streets? Seeing a commercial plane crashed in a shopping center is sensational, but where did its wings end up? And why is there no fire, debris or explosions resulting from the collision? The film ends with a nuclear submarine setting sail from the Moscow River. However, you don't need to be a Muscovite or even a Russian to see that this watercourse doesn't have the depth or width to maneuver such a big thing! To think that the public will believe this things is insulting.

**When the electric mist from the sky struck down.**
This film came five years ago, but I watched it now. A US-Russian collaboration product that's entirely takes place in Moscow. This is an alien invasion theme, but slightly different than those similar films. It never gives the reason, just the destructions like apocalypse on its way. That means it is about the survival. A group of Americans who are in the Moscow for different reasons joins the hands after people started to turn into ashes with the contact of the strange electric mist that came from the sky. So what's their plan now and whether they get out of it safely or not focused on the remaining film.
Surely some people would enjoy it. It's not all bad if you are not expecting a masterpiece. I should have seen it in digital 3D for a better experience, even the normal watch is not that bad. The turns in the story were unpredictable, particularly the film characters, but the twist wasn't. They kept the open ending, and you know why is that. I liked the performances, not individually, but the overall everyone, including the Russians.
The film was also shorter, which means fast moving tale. The graphics were okay, especially those electric mist thing, but disappointed for not show the aliens other than for fractions of seconds during the fightbacks. Despite enjoyed watching it, I'm not in favour of it, because it's just one of those films that falls in the average category where the majority of those who watched it not happy for not detailing everything in the film.
_4/10_

In the very first scene on the ship when Jacob and others began talking, I was waiting for somebody to say "Stop, Cut!" revealing that it was all just part of a movie set.
But unfortunately, it didn't happen, and they continue talking in such a pretentious manner of speech 🥲
The main idea of this movie is quite common known, and even, to some extent, hackneyed in our time, as it has been used in many other pictures.
The animation is of good quality. But comparing to Disney, Pixar, and other studios, it doesn't stand out. Therefore, I wouldn't emphasize anything in this one.
My main complaint about this movie goes to screenwriters. So many dialogues, logical conclusions, and the overall flow of the entire movie felt like it was written by AI (like GPT).
It was so boring, so predictable, lacked originality, and the characters seemed as shallow as the relationships between them.
It was hard to believe that it was written by human writers. Which coincidentally aligned with the strike of screenwriters happening during that time.
I wouldn't recommend anyone to watch it, and I am not going to watch it again, otherwise, I will fall asleep.
My score is 5 (1-10)

Wow! This is right up there with the Spider-Verse films as some of the best animation I've ever seen! I didn't want to look away from the screen lest I miss some of the amazing visuals. Absolutely beautiful animation.
Water is notoriously one of the most difficult things to animate well, and the animators of this film make it look easy, like a cakewalk.
Right from the get-go I was swept up into the world, and I absolutely loved the pirate-esque adventure the film starts with.
Great world-building, and great characters – especially of the three leads. Jared Harris absolutely knocks it out of the park as Captain Crow, Karl Urban is excellent as Jacob, and Zaris-Angel Hator does an incredible job as the young Maisie.
I've seen some comparisons being made to other films, and while that's warranted, I look at it as a compliment. _The Sea Beast_ combines some of the best elements of those films and yet still manages to have a fresh and engaging tale.
This film is a whole lot of fun, it's visually beautiful, has likeable characters, and it's got humor to boot. – And, it has a great score by Mark Mancina. I definitely recommend this film.
Also, I can tell you from experience that this is great chaser to Netflix's _One Piece_ 😊
⚠️ It's a "blink and you'll miss it" line of dialogue, but a crewmember tells a child that it would be better to fall on the knife the child was just given than to disobey an order from the captain.
If it was an adult talking to an adult, it would have been fine. It was just that the adult was telling a child this that it felt odd and like, "Uh, wait a minute." Now, in context, it's a pirate-y threat, which blankets it a little. But it's still problematic and something someone should not be talking to a child about.
Find more reviews on my Letterboxd, as well as more movie-related content here: https://solo.to/mustachedmovieman

MORE REVIEWS @ https://www.msbreviews.com/
"The Sea Beast may follow familiar story beats, but Chris Williams still delivers one of the best animated movies of the year. The genuinely impressive animation stands out from the other technical elements, especially considering that virtually every scene includes water.
Accompanied by an adventurous epic score, characters receive efficient, thought-provoking arcs, conveying essential life lessons about understanding other perspectives and shamelessly accepting changes in our personal opinion, in addition to the evident premise of not judging a book by its cover.
Excellent voice work by the entire cast, namely Zaris-Angel Hator. Monster action is immensely entertaining for all types of viewers.
Couldn't recommend it more for a family watch."
Rating: B+

**_Strange goings-on and dark secrets in a lush hamlet of the Buckeye State_**
As boys go missing in a northeast Ohio town, the detective on the case (Jon Tenney) struggles with his marriage while their son (Judah Lewis) blames his mother (Helen Hunt). Meanwhile unexplainable things mount up. What’s going on?
“I See You” (2019) is a mystery/drama with horror/thriller bits. The first 38 minutes are rather mundane, but they’re merely a set-up for the final hour in which several hidden things are revealed. I don’t want to say more because the surprising revelations are part of the fun of a movie like this.
Helen was 55 when during. Critics complained that she was too old for the role, but she wasn’t. Her son in the story is about 17, which means that Jacke (Helen) would’ve given birth at the age of 38 and this isn’t exactly extraordinary. After all, my mother had me when she was 39.
“I See You” is rather obscure, but it shouldn’t be. It delivers the goods for a crime thriller/horror. I shouldn’t close without mentioning petite Libe Barer in the role of Mindy.
The movie runs 1 hours, 38 minutes, and was shot in the greater Cleveland area, including Chagrin Falls, Lakewood (the Harper abode on Lake Erie), Solon, Linwood Park and Sirna's Farm in Auburn.
GRADE: B+

I See You is a gripping tale that brings together a family of three, the law enforcement, and some strange beings that first gives you a feeling of horror but then later takes a virulent turn to shock and impress you as you stay invested in the plot till the very end, only supported by the arresting background score. Best watched in a home theatre. Also, I learned about a new concept here.

Click here for a video version of this review: https://youtu.be/YhEhAndmxxM
I don't know if it was the bad acting, its inability to settle on a genre, or Helen Hunt's facelift, but _I See You_ is a mixed bag of a movie. Never heard of this one? Consider yourself lucky. Regardless, here is the official description:
_When a 12-year-old boy goes missing, lead investigator Greg Harper struggles to balance the pressure of the investigation and troubles with his wife, Jackie. Facing a recent affair, great strain is put on the family that slowly gnaws away at Jackie's grip on reality. But after a malicious presence manifests itself in their home and puts their son, Connor, in mortal danger, the cold, hard truth about evil in the Harper household is finally uncovered._
This is one of those movies where there are no heroes or anyone to cheer for, because everyone is an asshole. Helen Hunt fails to fire, the rest of the family are bland, and some characters that turn up later are so lame that they elicited many laughs out of me - in a movie that is most certainly not a comedy. The film takes what should be a horrifying situation but muddies it with an unneeded side plot about the father. Which is a shame because the movie overall has a good concept but would have been so much better with a stronger cast who could really sell it, a stronger score to punch up the tension, and a stronger commitment to sticking to one main storyline so it remains focused.
This is, in my opinion, very much a Friday-night-after-a-few-drinks type of movie.

I have been reading more and more about this film on the internet as more and more people watch it. While I didn’t take much notice of the reviews at first, the more I see its name mentioned, the more I became curious about it.
When the film started, I thought it is going to be one of those mystery films which an unknown entity starts troubling people and you get to find who or what it is towards the end of the film. Well, this film is also like this but with a big, unexpected twist halfway through. And for that, the film gets a positive rating from me. A well-deserved 7/10.
Would I watch it again? Probably not. Would I make my friends watch it? Sure.

Parts of this were pretty slow but the mystery elements were good and I liked the leads even though their romance was really forced and unnecessary (I know those scenes were removed in the Export Version, along with some of the gore). Dario Argento's visuals were on display once more with some great close-up shots and the gore effects were wonderfully gnarly. Not great but still found it entertaining. **3.75/5**

A remarkable and breathtaking horror work, easily my favourite of a distinguished, exciting run Argento made at the peak of his career. Films like THIS provided stunning proof to people's assertion the world over that he was the Italian Hitchcock. The soundtrack by Goblin is to be treasured. For both horror and thriller aficionados, well worth getting in the very best edition possible, and well worth rewatching. A master craftsman at the pinnacle of his artistry.

Ocular Bonanza.
When a psychic is murdered after picking up the thoughts of a psychotic killer, Marcus Day is the only witness to the crime and sets about trying to figure out who is responsible. But he then finds that the killer is shadowing him and targeting anyone who files in to help his investigation.
Dario Argento’s Deep Red (AKA: Profundo Rosso/The Hatchet Murders) is rightly regarded as one of the leading lights of Giallo. Argento pitches Marcus Day (David Hemmings working from a splinter of Blow Up) into a rousing and visceral world of murder and mystery – and takes the viewers along as well! It doesn’t matter what time of day or night it is, Argento always has a sinister edge pulsing through his movie. The mystery element is also strong, including for first time viewers a cheeky opportunity to solve it very early on.
Painting it all in vivid coloured strokes, Argento unleashes a myriad of stylish sequences, adding in children’s toys and mannequins to further up the creep factor. Musically not all of it works, but the running children’s thematic motif works strikingly well. Negatively the dubbing is often iffy at best and some of the now infamous murder sequences veer close to comedy because the director allows them to be protracted.
Uncompromising, thrilling and striking, some quibbles aside, Deep Red is a very positive experience. 7.5/10

It’s frustrating to watch a film that’s ostensibly headed along a particular trajectory but that continually stumbles on the path it takes to get there. That’s precisely what happens in this period piece coming out/coming of age story set in 1938 Italy. Writer-director Laura Luchetti’s adaptation of Cesare Pavese’s 1949 novel about an impressionable 17-year-old dressmaker (Yile Yara Vianello) who becomes romantically infatuated with an artist’s model (Deva Cassel) takes its own sweet time (and plenty of overlong detours) in making its way toward a seemingly foregone conclusion. But, even when this offering apparently approaches that destination, it takes yet another unexpected left-field turn and subsequently leads to what the filmmaker herself admits is a deliberately ambiguous conclusion. Consequently, this is the kind of movie that’s likely to leave many viewers scratching their head and asking, “What’s the point of all this?” The picture is allegedly intended to address a subject that was considered taboo at the time of the story’s setting and of the book’s writing, but that objective isn’t fulfilled nearly as clearly as it might have been. As a result, whatever lofty intentions might have been behind the initiation of this production, they’re decidedly obscured in the final cut. There are also some passing references to the fascist sociopolitical conditions of the time (elements not included in the source material), but they’re never developed much, making their inclusion look like throwaway afterthoughts. To its credit, “The Beautiful Summer” has some fine cinematography, well-chosen location settings showcasing the beauty of Turin and a stirring soundtrack, but, if these attributes are the best that one can say about the film, that’s not saying much about the picture overall. Luchetti’s third feature outing truly needs ample retooling to make it work, because, as it stands, it doesn’t.

This is actually quite a good thriller. Colin Farrell works well as "Victor", a roguish character who has ingratiated himself into the heart of a criminal empire with a view to avenging himself on the boss, Terrence Howard, for ordering an attack that caused fatal consequences for his long term, though ignorant of this, sidekick Dominic Cooper. Unbeknown to him, he is being observed by a woman who lives opposite - Naomi Rapace - who cottons on to his grand design and demands that he help her carry out her own particular retribution or face exposure. The script isn't at all bad, and the direction keeps the plot twists coming thick and fast, but not so thick as DC's rather daft accent - and indeed, his whole really wooden performance. The action scenes are way too long and as usual in these latter day shoot 'em ups; one person is always more than a match for 25 well armed, dug in, henchmen - and as such the ending is really rather predictably weak.

Watched this after it was recommended on a Podcast I listen to. One of the episodes was about Robert Hansen and all his victims. Watching the movie after listening o the podcast makes you realize all the things they left out and the horrific way that he killed all these women. Its a pretty standard police movie only you do know the criminal from the beginning the problem is trying to make the evidence stick to him. Seems like the local cops are on his side in the beginning. Its a pretty good movie to watch. Don't really need to pay attention one hundred percent but you will still under what is going on.
It would have been better if they focused more on Cindy Paulson and what she went through rather than the cop and his home life which really added nothing to the story. Even focusing more on the cop would have been fine but they barely showed anything and you really didn't need that small glimpse you got into his life. Exploring Hansen's family life would have added more to the story too. You don't see much except one interaction but you don't really understand how he could be hiding this big secret from the world. Seeing more of his wife and family might have clarified it.
The acting was amazing in this. Nicolas Cage bought his best and so did John Cusack and Vanessa Hudgens. Cusack went from being soft spoken and stuttering to losing his mind and being angry. I think he did that well and actually looked a bit like the actual killer. Vanessa Hudgens really made you feel for her character but also understand her fright and her situation.
Overall, great movie to watch but not if you want something more than recounting of the events. Doesn't really go deep into anything. And you probably want to avoid this if you are sensitive to violence and sexual assault.

Very poorly edited and features some of the worst examples of Vanessa Hudgens acting to date (if there are good examples, I haven't seen them, but in _The Frozen Ground_ she is especially egregious.
No spoilers but I wonder if the real case this was based on wrapped up in the same way/for the same reason that this movie did, because if so... Jesus. What a tit.
_Final rating:★½: - Boring/disappointing. Avoid where possible._

RELEASED IN 2013 and written & directed by Scott Walker, "The Frozen Ground" is a crime thriller based on the true story of Alaskan serial killer Robert Hansen, who raped, tortured and killed numerous young women from 1971-1983. Vanessa Hudgens plays a 17 year-old prostitute who successfully escaped from Hansen (John Cusack). Nicolas Cage plays the trooper who establishes a relationship with her as he zeroes-in on Hansen.
This has elements like “Kiss the Girls” (1997), “The Flock” (2007) and “Hardcore” (1979). If you like those crime thrillers, you’ll appreciate this one. The Anchorage locations are perpetually overcast, but breathtaking and foreboding. Cusack is notable as the average-looking killer and Cage is stalwart as usual. The events take place in 1983 when anchorage was booming due to the pipeline and the ensuing sex industry. The scenes depicting the sleazy underbelly of the city (at that time) are well done and convincing.
THE MOVIE RUNS 1 hour 45 minutes and was shot entirely in Alaska.
GRADE: B

Six Days, Seven Nights is an easygoing adventure rom-com that benefits from its tropical setting, solid production, and the natural charm of Harrison Ford and Anne Heche. Their chemistry keeps things entertaining, and the film has a breezy, energetic feel that makes it watchable. The cinematography captures the island beautifully, and the music complements the lighthearted tone. It is the kind of movie that is easy to sit through, with enough fun moments to keep it from feeling dull.
The biggest drawback is the predictability of the story. The plot follows a formula so closely that there is little room for surprises or creativity. Comedy and serious moments don’t always blend well, making some scenes feel unintentionally awkward. It never fully commits to being an adventure, romance, or comedy, which leaves it feeling a bit weightless. That said, if you go in just looking for a simple, visually appealing adventure with likable leads, it does the job well enough.

_**Harrison Ford and Anne Heche as castaways on a paradisal island**_
A small-plane pilot (Harrison Ford) is stranded on a remote Pacific island with a New York magazine editor (Anne Heche). Not only do they have to survive and find a way back to civilization, but they encounter other mortal dangers. David Schwimmer plays the woman's fiancé while Jacqueline Obradors is on hand as the dalliance of the pilot.
"Six Days Seven Nights" (1998) is a lost-on-a-deserted-island adventure/romance sometimes compared to "The African Queen" (1951) for obvious reasons, but "Six Days" seems more farcical. There's also a little "Flight of the Phoenix" (1965) added to the mix.
Harrison is charismatic as the stalwart, but slightly alcoholic loner/pilot while Heche is intelligent and likable. Unfortunately, some of their bickering comes across forced in an eye-rolling way, but the movie makes up for it with a surprisingly potent dramatic scene near the end. Beyond that, the movie is quick-paced comic book fluff that never gets boring, but also never goes deep or realistic enough for my tastes. Nevertheless, I'm a sucker for stranded-on-deserted-island flicks.
The contrast between Heche and Obradors' characters is interesting: Robin (Heche) is attractive in an intelligent plain-Jane kind of way while Angelica (Obradors) is alluring in a bodacious cutie manner. The fact that the latter is air-headed and morally dubious removes her from the realm of possibilities, as far as a lifelong soulmate goes. She's babelicious, though, and the movie tastefully shows it.
The film is short and sweet at 1 hour, 38 minutes, and was shot at Kaua'i, Hawaii. The locations are spectacular.
GRADE: B

In 1985 I was 15, and already a big horror movie fan. With Evil Dead, Halloween, Friday 13th, Italian horror ... the genre was dynamic. Then, reading Mad Movies, I see this very gore movie inspired by a short Lovecraft tale, coming soon.
I go there at 2pm, watch the movie and end up seeing it 7 times in 3 days.
The cast gives an insane (!!!) performance, especially Jeffrey Combs of course, but having Bruce Abbott try to keep his sanity and stay alive in the horrific events. Barbara Crampton will be mainly remembered by being licked by a severed head, but she does a nice "normal" character. The couple try to save what they can (sanity and life) and are quite a counterpoint to West and his madness of overcoming death, whatever consequences there may be.
Most scenes are in the Arkham faculty, some at Dan's apartment. This also enhances the madness of it all, with a regular setting where usually nothing wrong could happen.
The "gore" SFX still are vivid in my mind. So OK more modern SFX are done now, but those rubber body parts with liters of blood were really efficient, and I'll add "physical". Those computer generated very often lack the practical physicality of holding a severed hand or head they do now (must be a challenge for the actors to interact with nothing beside a green sceen.
Overall these elements create a powerfully entertaining movie.

I don't feel as strongly about _Re-Animator_ as much of the horror community does. I absolutely enjoy it, recommend it, even. Just in more of a Watch-Enjoy-Done sort of way.
Very different from your typical Lovecraft fare.
_Final rating:★★★ - I personally recommend you give it a go._

Pretty decent movie. So little to be angry about. The scenes were delightful, the story it's interesting and well delivered. Not a masterpiece but there are so much "great movies" out there for which you get angry about and lose interest that you appreciate when a low pupularity movie catch your attention and keeps throughout the entire film.