Leaning hard on the number two in the title seems oddly appropriate, 'cause that's how many stars out of five it deserves.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

It is actually quite hard to find innovative ways to tell Santa stories now, but this one does do quite well on that score. It all centres on Santa's now almost entirely automated delivery process using a sleigh clearly inspired by the starship "Enterprise". Horror of horrors, though, when the youngest member of the Claus family - the eponymous "Arthur" - discovers that one young girl isn't going to get her expertly wrapped bicycle! His dad "Steve" is content to put it down to a technical glitch, and his grandad (the sitting Santa) is too tired to bother, too. It falls to "Grand Santa", "Arthur" and his old fairy-dust powered, reindeer-pulled, sled to get the bike to the little "Gwen" before the sun comes up on Christmas morning. What now ensues are a series of fun escapades as the old man (he rather reminded me of Wilfred Bramble's "Steptoe" character) and his enthusiastic young dreamer have to navigate the world - at high speed - and find a small Cornish village that shares it's name with one or two other places around the world, whilst avoiding the authorities who are rapidly concluding that space aliens are on the loose. A solid and entertaining voice cast - especially Bill Nighy and James McAvoy as our intrepid delivery boys deliver an entertainingly paced script well, with some enjoyably crafted animation and a suitably jolly score from Harry Gregson-Williams. It's fun, this - and offers plenty for younger and older alike.

A good watch.
I had a fine time watching 'Arthur Christmas'. The plot is a little light, with a fairly simple event taking a relative while to resolve itself, but it's still a pleasant festive animated film - with neat animation.
There are a number of familiar names on the voice cast, too many to name in actual fact. My personal standout is Hugh Laurie as Steven, though James McAvoy, Bill Nighy and Jim Broadbent are all enjoyable too.

The stunt work was alright but ultimately pretty forgettable, although at least the late Raul Julia seemed to be having a blast as Bison and Ming-Na Wen as Chun-Li was cute. However, the goofiness was a bit much and was more cringe than funny. **2.25/5**

**What was cutting edge in 2001...**
...now just looks like an average cut-scene from a PS2 game. Soooooo all you have to rely on is the plot, and that is thin to say the least.
Weak characters, weak plot and really jerky unnatural animation make this once ground-breaking film look awkward and uninteresting. Couple that with the facts that it bares very little resemblance to the addictive if basic games, and the script feels like it was written with google translate, the whole film ends up feeling flat, confusing and leaves you wanting more.

Our latest "_Battle Royale in an (x)_" on offer is the James Gunn/Greg McLean Project, _The Belko Experiment_. To some, wading through the splatter of ultraviolence to try and get the smatter of social commentary may be tedious, but personally, I love both aspects, so I'm on board.
_Final rating:★★★ - I personally recommend you give it a go._

This is a corking film from Bong Joon Ho with an equally super performance from Hye-ja Kim as the "Mother". Her son "Soon Do-joon" (Won Bin) is accused of murdering a young girl. The police seem convinced of his guilt and her lawyer suggests he be detained in an hospital - rather than a prison - so she sets out, determinedly, to establish his innocence. As she takes to her task, she soon becomes obsessed, her own mental stability begins to wobble and we are drawn into a dark, almost sombre, crime thriller. It has plenty of twists and turns, and by the end (which comes pretty much from the left field) I almost felt exhausted. This is as engrossing a film as I've seen in many years, with an excellent (almost Andalusian in style) accompanying score - well worth watching. (Maybe less so if you are not so keen on acupuncture needles!)

Aside from the toe-tapper that was Irene Cara's title song, the rest of this film is really only notable because it shows the sheer determination of a young woman - "Alex" (Jennifer Beals) to make it. Initially, in a man's world as a welder more than holding her own, whilst at the same time she wants to swap her night-time dancing pole for a ballet school bar and prove that she has what it takes to become a top dancer too. Fortunately, her wealthy boss is also her boyfriend, and "Nick" (Michael Nouri) is keen to help her along - sometimes a little too keen, which can lead to the odd bit of tension as she finds herself with an audition that could change everything. It is a very positive-looking film with an upbeat theme and that helps carry what is otherwise a really rather poorly acted affair with some clunky dialogue and a narrative that follows a fairly predictable pattern - before the ending that we just know is coming. Laura Branigan and Giorgio Moroder had a hand in the rest of the soundtrack, which when you watch this film again after all but forty years proves remarkably memorable (if not great). Like it or not, this was a groundbreaking piece of cinema that though it struggles to exude much punch now, certainly did quite a lot - cinematically speaking - back then. Benefits from big screen audio, and is still worth a watch if you are of a certain age.

Entertaining drama with an amazing soundtrack and great performance from Jennifer Beals. Not the strongest story at times but still was enthralled through its reasonable 90-minute running time. **3.75/5**

Bad watch, unlikely to watch again, and can't recommend unless you're just dying to see a poor version of "Home Alone" in reverse.
I've probably seen this before, but I can't remember it, and I used to read "Dennis the Menace" in the funny papers, can't say I was even that big a fan then.
And maybe I'm too much of a grumpy old man myself at this point, but this little brat is borderline evil in his stupid behavior. The old man is a jerk too, but it is largely reactionary.
I can't even remember the inevitable heart-warming resolution of the child lying to the old man at the end of the movie right before he does it again. It's like watching a serial killer documentary: this is a sociopathic character, and I'm glad we don't have modern day versions of this, at least not that I can see.

This is a great little biopic looking at the latter stages of the life of an hugely creative but flawed human being. Willem Dafoe really does offer up a convincing performance as Vincent van Gogh - he encapsulates both the creative and temperamental madness of this genius artist wonderfully; and there is even a passing resemblance. Rupert Friend also delivers well as his increasingly stretched benefactor brother Theo and Oscar Isaac is likewise strong as Paul Gauguin, with whom van Gogh has what can only be described as a turbulent and competitive relationship. Julian Schnabel has something to be proud of here with an intimate and emotional depiction that's prudent with the dialogue and the cinematography is first rate too.

Not one for me.
I will say that Willem Dafoe is terrific, undoubtedly. His performance in 'At Eternity's Gate' was honestly the only part of this 2018 release that kept my interest piqued. The support cast don't do anything wrong but don't really illuminate the film for me either. It has its heart in the right place, but as a film I didn't enjoy it.
The main thing that bothered me was the camera work all around, just absolutely needless shaky cam that adds zero to what's going on onscreen - it even distracts from the main event, for me at least. It is noted that, away from that, visibly the film does look neat.
I am admittedly not into art ('twas my least favourite subject at school, in fact), though even so I expected more from this. I am happy for Dafoe that this was positively received as his showing merits high praise, but it won't be one I'll be revisiting any time soon personally.

Okay, I will freely admit up front that I rolled my eyes around about the third or fourth time we were given a top-down angle view of Van Gogh walking, walking, walking. And some of the shots went a bit too long, though I suspect there was a point being made. I do not mind being challenged by a movie's content or style, as long as it doesn't insult my intelligence.
I found this movie to be interesting enough to stick with it, though we watched it at home and didn't swallow it in one sitting. Rather we watched a half-hour and then went back to it later that day. I didn't notice the shaky camera work that others have commented on, and even though in my own novels I take pride in creating realistic dialogue, I had no problem with the dialogue here that bugged still others. Except maybe for the episodes of repeated dialogue they use to try to highlight Van Gogh's slippery state of mind at these times. It didn't seem very effective to me, so perhaps a bit more subtlety might have been less of a distraction to the viewer.
This movie is based on a newer biography that offers an alternate description of the painter's last few years. There is probably no way to be sure if this new theory is correct, but it at least gives one pause for thought. And thought isn't a bad thing to be inflicted with, is it?

I get what _At Eternity's Gate_ was going for, visually. But that thing was not a thing i enjoyed. The framing made me rather uncomfortable, which, again, kind of the point, but not for me. Massive props to Dafoe of course, his Oscar nomination for best actor is not uncalled for, and special extra props to Mads Mikkelsen, the sequence between the two of them was far and away my absolute favourite part of _At Eternity's Gate_. But so much of the rest of the thing is just nature shots accompanied by violently jarring piano, and I cannot call myself a fan.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

So this is the bar, and this is the reason that people don't like any of the remakes... except the 2005 remake, people don't like that because it stinks.
But this shot for the moon. It promised the audience a giant ape, it gave the audience a giant ape... and a sort of love story that was really cute and relatable that brought it all together.
It reached for the stars visually, it grabbed one, and it told an amazing story along with it.
It was a win on every front.
So, now, when people watch King Kong remakes, they look at them and they don't live up to the effort that this movie put into itself. They all look better, but they don't feel as well crafted as the original, because they aren't. They are all a little lazy in comparison because it's easier to do it now.
In 11 years its going to be 100 years old and people are still going to marvel at the work put into it.

Shown recently by the BBC and wow, how fantastically this has stood the test of time. I can see why there have been so many remakes of this iconic tale of ambition, power and true love but none that shine a candle to this - even after over 80 years. Robert Armstrong and Fay Wray do their bit as the producer and the starlet, but the true stars are lighting, photography and special effects which are masterful as we visit this ancient island divided by a great wall (how on earth did the natives ever manage to build it?) that keeps the prehistoric monsters at bay. This is adventure cinema at it's absolute best; and even the writing is reasonable. If you don't feel sympathy for Kong at the end then where is your heart?

In watching this movie, and I'm talking about actually scrutinizing it intently, I was shocked at the amount and the extremity of the violence that was in the picture. Natives were being bitten, swallowed and purposely stepped upon by Kong. The sailors were chased, trampled and eaten by the dinosaurs and then we have all the New York City violence on top of it all where Kong tosses a woman to her death and bites on a bystander.
Also, for it being an 85+ year old movie, the special effects STILL stand up rather well and STILL look convincingly realistic. In fact, I believe these FX are of a better quality than the 1976 remake and even comes close to the 2005 CGI version.
If you've never seen this classic, mostly because "who would want to watch that old-style claymation" or you can't watch anything not "in Living Color," you really need to give this one a try. For those of you that have seen it, let me urge you to rewatch it, possibly with some newly-opened eyes.

**One of the best and most elegant comedies I've seen in recent times. Bravo! Bravíssimo!**
There aren't enough adjectives for someone like Florence Foster Jenkins. On the one hand, it's beautiful to see someone who doggedly pursues the dream of a lifetime. On the other hand, the technical incapacity of this well-meaning and friendly lady for the task to which she so wanted to dedicate herself is quite evident. She didn't know how to sing, she didn't really care about it, and she wouldn't allow anyone to try to advise her against. As she said before she died, no one can say she didn't sing. I don't know exactly if the film was faithful to the real Foster Jenkins… I don't know her life and her historical figure that well. However, I want to believe so.
The movie is truly funny, and the script is delicious. This movie had everything to not be very interesting, but it turned out to be a little gem and one of the funniest family comedies I've seen in a long time. Interestingly, it never addresses an issue, which is Florence's poor health, greatly affected by the syphilis she contracted from her husband, from whom she soon separated, and which she never treated properly. The dialogues were very well written and deserve to be listened to carefully.
But what makes this film truly precious is the extraordinary performance by Merryl Streep. I have no doubt that it must have been difficult for the actress, who has good vocal qualities, to sing so badly, but she is deeply committed and gives Florence Foster Jenkins an unusual and extremely pleasant sweetness. In fact, Streep even seems to have fun with this job and her character. Hugh Grant, back in the movies after a break in his career, is also in good shape and does a good job. A further note for the good support work by Simon Helberg, Rebecca Ferguson and David Haig.
Technically, the film relies heavily on the adequate and historically accurate recreation of the entire historical period in question. I really liked the cars, the sets and the costumes, particularly those designed for Streep. The cinematography is good but understated, and the effects do their job without distracting us from the humor, witty and elegant. Alexandre Desplat writes a very competent soundtrack, but the film would not work well without the priceless and hilarious performances of Streep and Helberg, in singing and piano, recreating as far as possible some of the still existing recordings of the true “diva of din”, the which can be heard over the end credits, where some authentic recordings were used.

**Nothing is greater than to have a supportive life partner by side.**
I follow closely what films are announced and what are getting released. Sometimes its common that some films comes out without my knowledge, particularly non-Hollywood English language films. This British film was about a wealthy couple from the New York, especially the husband who tries his best to fulfill his seriously ill wife's dream to be an opera singer. The problem is she's not any good. Not just him, but everybody who is close to them and once laughed at her, try to understand them and give their support. But not all the occasion seems to remain the same. So on one such a big event, the disaster strikes and how it affects the couple is the rest of the tale to disclose.
A very surprising film. I thought it was just a comedy like it brings small smiles on our face, but I laughed out loud on many occasions. This is definitely a right time, because I felt like it was a music and cinematic version of the American presidential candidate Don Trump. Yep, there not much difference, but still this film is some way inspiring, not Trump. It says you must never give up on your dream. As much as you laugh watching it, as much you realise how hard chasing a dream to be if one is very passionate about something, but does not have the talent to reach the height. The message is very similar to the film 'Eddie the Eagle'. Do you think everybody got talent in the world, so I believe you should watch this and you will know why I'm telling you to watch it.
When I read about the film's storyline, I thought it was so silly. But when I learnt it is a biographical film, that interested me to have a look at it. It is truly an unbelievable film, in a sense of humour and overall a good way. The couple was rich, so they could do anything they want just like what Donald Trump believes. But both the things are not the same, especially this one is more about the real life struggle against the odds. In some parts, it gets more emotional and I loved that final line said by the wife. It's always, the participation that counts, not how you fared it.
Oh my god, another Oscars nominee is almost certain for the record holder Meryl Streep. Hugh Grant was equally amazing and this is one of the best of him I have seen, particularly in the recent times. One of the best main roles for Simon Helberg, he was not next best after the Streep and Grant. I still feel this film is underrated. The director of 'Phenomena' was very good at handling the stuff for the film to get its best shape. I think this is one of this year's must see film and surely recommend it to all.
_8/10_

"Harry" (Robert Duvall) is quite merrily driving his tractor on his farm when his erstwhile racing partner 'Daland" (Randy Quaid) shows up telling him of a new hotshot driver that he simply has to meet. Reluctantly he goes to the track and is introduced to the stroppy and headstrong "Cole" (Tom Cruise). Let's just say that the two just don't get on at all, but hey - we all know what has to happen now and yep, that's exactly how things pan out. An injury puts "Cole" under the care of "Dr. Claire" (Nicole Kidman) and I'm not too sure what the ethics committee might have to say about what ensues on the romantic front of this entirely predictable high-octane yarn. It might almost be as if one of the stars was a petrol-head and had enough money for a vanity project? Maybe that's just cynical - but in any case there's always some decent race photography to fall back on as the narrative suggests the depth of driving skills in this sport isn't very extensive. Duvall does his best to inject a little gravitas to the proceedings, but it's essentially a quickly-paced toy for it's headliner that you can watch for the (very) occasional adrenalin rush but that's about the height of it.

It is Top Gun on wheels isn't it? Only Maverick came across as more blue collar wild and Trickle is a little more California pretentious wild.
So it's kind of Top Gun only with Cary Elwes playing Val Kilmer.
It's kind of Top Gun only Robert Duvall plays Cobra.
It's kind of Top Gun but Nicole Kidman plays Kelly McGillis.
It's kind of Top Gun only with NASCAR instead of Tomcats.
You can't really fault this as a bad film, because it makes a promise to be a certain kind of film, and it keeps it's promise... and entertains while doing it.
So, if you are coming in thinking Chinatown.... what do you think you are watching?

I'm not much a fan of any kind of racing but found this to be a relatively entertaining sports-thriller which does feature some good NASCAR racing sequences and a nice cast, though can't really say anybody stood out, even Cruise. **3.25/5**

Honestly the weakest of the series, and the most far flung. The tone is completely different and not a very serious horror movie, being very comedic.

**A disappointing REC experience**
This movie left me disappointed because I definitely had better expectations following REC1 and REC2. The recording and shaky camera won't be there for the largest part, it's full of stupid/nonsense moments and the story isn't that engaging. They also added "funny" scenes for some reasons, totally breaking the suspense, therefore it won't even feel realistic at all. Too much splatter for my taste too.
There are three positive things about REC3 though: it features great looking zombies, sounds are excellent, and fortunately it's short (only 80 minutes).
_(3 stars out of 10)_

The most poetic zombie movie I have ever seen. Zombie fans, you will like it!

Even if it is based on true events, it's all just a bit to slapstick and fa-fetched for me. The story centres around "Berendsen" (Christian Bale) who is asked by his pal "Woodman" (John David Washington) to help out the widowed "Mrs. Meekins" (Taylor Swift) whose husband - a former American general - has mysteriously died. A slightly dodgy autopsy follows and pretty soon, someone has gone under the wheels of a car and our two gents are being sought by the police and by a clandestine organisation. Can they stay free and can we discover what is truly going on? Well David O. Russell decides to tell the story by chopping and changing the timelines, and so we retrace our steps to a WWI hospital where both men find themselves in the care of the slightly enigmatic nurse "Valerie" (Margot Robbie) who collects the shrapnel she takes from their wounded bodies and makes works of art from it. The three form an immutable bond before time and circumstances drive them apart, only for them to reunite unexpectedly as their current-day dilemma reaches it's denouement. The film looks great, certainly. The attention to detail, the costumes and the score all work well. It's the narrative, though, that really struggled for me. The story is just too insubstantial to sustain the 2¼ hour running time and as ever, I found Robbie a remarkably sterile actress to watch. Nobody could ever cause Bale of not trying, but there is a distinct lack of on-screen chemistry across the board here. None of that is helped by Rami Malek's rather underwhelming contribution as "Tom" - her wealthy if eccentric and clearly manipulating brother. Oddly enough, I found myself thinking this had something of the Agatha Christie to it - and maybe it would have worked better with a much tighter cast on a stage where the humour and quirkiness of the characterisations could have been better exploited? As it is, though, this sort of meanders back and forth with little impetus and I have to say I was a bit bored half way through.

_Amsterdam_ does nothing to reinvent the wheel but does everything well enough that I had a pleasant time in the theater. The performances all around were excellent. Christian Bale was brilliant in this film, every new role Bale finds himself in he knocks out of the park, and I continually ask myself what can't he do? Margot Robbie was really great too. In many of her roles, her Harley Quinn mannerisms creep in and while I find that fun it was really refreshing to see her get away from that in Amsterdam. John David Washington was fine in his role, I never really find him to have great performances, but always does enough to get the job done, that can be said again with his performance here. The supporting roles were all fine too Raimi Malek and Anna Taylor-Joy did well and had funny chemistry together. Mike Myers and Robert De Niro did fine as well. While the story was not overly original, I had a blast following it to its finality. There are many fun twists and turns along the way and found a way to keep me gripped and entertained throughout it's near two- and half-hour runtime. While many critics are giving these harsh reviews, I think it is a good film that is fun watch despite its flaws.
**Score:** _68%_ |
**Verdict:** _Good_

**Amsterdam's uneven pacing and erratic story mishandled its amazing potential and left me wondering when it would finally end.**
Amsterdam comes roaring out of the gate with a fast-paced, quirky, charming, and unique mystery of the likes of Sherlock Holmes or Knives Out. The list of celebrities and actors continues to grow as almost every face in this movie is another a-lister making an entertaining appearance. I was so excited to see what happened next and was surprised when the story suddenly screeched to a halt for a very long slow flashback that didn't offer much to the plot. I hoped the exciting pace would return when the story returned to its original narrative, but the risk and urgency had been replaced by a scattered collection of arbitrary dialogue and scenes that lingered much longer than needed. The pacing lagged almost an hour before ramping back up in the final act. Amsterdam had so much potential but floundered in its attempts to be whimsical and unique. The film's best part was Michael Shannon and Mike Myers' quirky bird-loving spies. Every time they were on the screen, I couldn't help but laugh. Christian Bale logged another amazing performance, as expected. But even with entertaining characters, great performances, and an exciting opening and conclusion, Amsterdam fumbled all its fantastic elements and ended up making my eyes heavy and my heart yearn to go to bed early.

With a star-laden cast and acclaimed Director David O. Russell at the helm, the new film “Amsterdam” arrives and touts a story mostly based on real events.
Following injuries they sustained serving in WWI, Dr. Burt Berendsen (Christian Bale) and Harold Woodman (John David Washington) return to New York to find a world where Veterans are not as welcome as they thought and racial division remains for Harold despite fighting for his country.
Burt having lost an eye in the war finds that his uptown In-Laws and wife shipped him to the war to get him out of the way as his mixed Catholic and Jewish heritage is not ideal for their version of society nor is his insistence on helping Vets at his practice over the cream of society.
When a wealthy socialite Liz Meekins (Taylor Swift) hires Harold to investigate what she believes is the murder of her prominent father, Burt is asked for his medical verification. When an unexpected event arises, Burt and Harold find themselves the leading suspects and must seek to find a way to clear their names from an ever-deepening mystery, one that brings them back into the circle of a former associate who treated them during the war named Valerie (Margot Robbie). The fact that Harold and Valerie had a relationship in Amsterdam following the war and that Burt was the adored friend of both further complicates the matter.
With complications mounting, the three must find a way to solve the mystery and save the day before the end of either dead or being charged for crimes they are innocent of with an ever-growing cast of characters and suspects for them to contend with.
The visuals of the film are solid as they capture the look and sounds of New York in the 1930s and the cast and costumes also lead to a fantastic level of immersion. Bale is so good as his character as it is hard to believe it is him as he transforms himself completely into a new being with a distinctive look, sound, and mannerisms which underscores how he is one of the most gifted and versatile actors ever.
The entire cast is very good from the leads to the supporting players but what hampers the film from truly achieving is that it is very slow and at times self-indulgent in the pacing and story.
There is an interesting premise, great cast, great performances, and solid visuals, but the film drags on without any regard to pacing, dramatic tension, or real surprises which in the end makes watching it a long task without the payoff one would expect, especially for the time the audiences has invested.
In the end, the film delivers entertainment and great performances but lacks the pacing and payoff to make the trip fully worthwhile.
3.5 stars out of 5.

The DC Animated Universe movies have had their ups and downs, though even the lesser ones were entertaining enough, but thoroughly enjoyed this (supposed) conclusion, it's certainly the bloodiest and plenty of major deaths. The animation is mostly good as was the voice acting (funny, didn't care for Jason O'Mara's Batman early on, but over these years, come to really like it) and nice hearing Matt Ryan's return as Constantine. **4.25/5**
THIS is what the live action side should have led to if they had the patience...