It is far from a bad film...unless you are the kind of person that just can't stand a fun, pulp adventure story.
Basically all this movie is is a pulp novel turned into a movie.
Had it been made in the Golden Age of Hollywood right up to the 1980s it would have been a hit. Had it been made in the 1990s it would have been a modest success...
But it was made in 2008 and the tastes of the world had changed. 9-11 had come and gone and people lost that childlike innocence that is needed to enjoy films like this. The Computer Age dawned and everyone wanted nothing but over-the-top special effects.
So fun adventures were shoved to the side and the critics--that still claim to love fun adventures like Captain Blood--turned their noses up at anyone that even hinted towards enjoying them.
What you have is a treasure standing in for the MacGuffin, a roguish hero, a little bit of a love triangle, and the open seas.
It is classic Hollywood. It is also, unfortunately, they kind of movie we need today and the kind that Hollywood is most reluctant to make.

***Fun island thriller, but a little too long***
Released in 2008, "Fool's Gold" stars Matthew McConaughey & Kate Hudson as a couple on the verge of divorce in the Bahamas, the former a treasure-seeker. Donald Sutherland plays Hudson's new rich boss and Alexis Dziena his bimbo-ish daughter. Ray Winstone and Kevin Hart also factor in as potential villains.
If you can imagine serious island-thrillers like "The Deep" and the two "Into the Blue" flicks mixed with a heavy dose of comedy and cartoonish action you'd have a good idea of "Fool's Gold." It's basically "The Goonies" as adults in the Bahamas.
Kate and McConaughey look great and are great together, and everyone else is likable, even the villains (sort of). The problem is the movie is too long at 1 hour, 52 minutes. A silly, fun film like should limit the runtime to around 85-100 minutes.
The story takes place in (or near) the Bahamas, but the film was shot on the east coast of Queensland, and you can tell. The coast of Queensland is gorgeous but it lacks the lushness of the Caribbean. Regardless, the film is worth watching just for the locations, especially on a cloudy fall day or a cold winter night.
So this is a fun island flick with romance, treasure-hunting and adventure, but it’s a little too long for such goofy antics. For the real deal in oceanic thrillers check out 2009's "Into the Blue 2: The Reef," which IMHO is way better than the original "Into the Blue" from 2005.
GRADE: B-/C+

As a wise man once said: "Anything you'd expect from a Christmas movie, no more, no less"

With what little I knew about _Grave Encounters_, I knew it had ticked enough of my "Generally Avoid" boxes that I never really had any interest in watching it. In fact the only reason I saw it at all was because of a recommendation I got online when I posed the question "Where there any good movies in 2011"?
I didn't love _Grave Encounters_. But I am, to my surprise, super glad that I watched it. If more Found Footage Horror films were like this one, maybe I wouldn't detest the genre. Seriously, although I had a number of problems with the movie, I'd still put this one up closer to _The Last Exorcism_ and _The Blair Witch Project_ than to the usual dreck the genre offers.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

This has got to be the perfect antidote to the Hollywood treatment of a war film. It's bleak, grim and repulsive - and all in a great, intentional, cinematographic fashion. The thread centres around the young "Flyora" (a superb effort from Aleksey Kravchenko) who is taken from his Belorussian family farm at gunpoint (along with anything it's possible to eat) by the invading Nazi troops. What now ensues follows this young man as he escapes his captors, finds an old rifle and determines to join up with the communists who are fighting almost insurmountable odds to thwart their encroaching, heavily armed, foe. What really resonates here is the simplicity of the production. There are no specials effects, no CGI to create many when there are few - it tells the simplest of stories in a manner that is truly brutal at times, then truly evocative at others. Man's inhumanity to man and all that - but writ large and depicting an invading army devoid of any semblance of humanity on just about every level. The experiences of this young man are truly horrific, but the presentation here is not especially graphic - though it's not for the faint hearted. We are shown what is happening, but Elem Klimov leaves plenty of scope for our own imagination to augment, if that is actually possible, the true grotesqueness of war, of random killings and destruction and all quite possibly exacerbated by the fact that the conquerors had no real idea what they were doing, or why - the film almost imbues them with the characteristics of the wildest of animals who enjoy their regime of torture and malevolence for the sake of it. The ending has a certain degree of vindication about it - but oddly enough it's not especially satisfying. The emotional exhaustion of the viewer has long since set in, and the true fate of what I can only really call these uniformed bullies is just, yet somehow inadequate. The film is gently paced, it could almost be a video diary as young "Flyora" meets and hides from those he encounters and we share his fears and risks en route. This is really well worth a watch but it's not an easy one.

I'm not one to shy away from any spy thriller, but the one ingredient they must all have is continuity...without it a spy film will simply plod on. Some good acting by Brosnan, and a movie-goer can never go wrong with Olga Kurylenko (The Ring Finger). November Man had its moments, but it just got weighted down a bit where it should have kept pace.

Great works of art hold great power.
I love this movie. The CGI scene we could do without but this was clever in story and main character.
This is quite rape issue heavily since dealing with a serial rapist in the movie and being raped. The twist and turn are so worth seeing developed and become what becomes an ending that I could see happen.

A rather scruffy looking Josh O'Connor is "Arthur" who has found a way to make a living in rural Italy where he uses his unique gift with a divining rod - well a big twig, really - to uncover ancient artefacts from deep beneath the surface. He's not averse to a bit of grave robbing either - for which he has recently been imprisoned, and now he and his cohorts sell their stuff to "Spartaco" (Alba Rohrwacher) and via a rather unique technique, too! What's clear is that "Arthur" is getting over something fairly monumental in his life, and we get a clue to that when he visits the rather doting but blissfully ignorant and elderly "Flora" (Isabella Rossellini) at her increasingly dilapidated mansion house where the furniture is destined for the furnace and her family all know the secret, but dare not speak it. He, himself, inhabits a shanty-town style shed abutting the old city wall, his once proud linen suit now grubby and filthy and he is rarely without a cigarette. As the plot unfolds - aided by an agreeably sparing amount of dialogue - we start to get a sense that "Arthur" is actually coming to his senses after something akin to a concussion. The pieces of his life are slowly coming together again as he and his pals make the discovery of a lifetime, only for... It's a slowly paced film, but that works well - as do the infrequent but quite punchy comedic elements of the drama. There can be a comparison drawn between the gradual unearthing of the long lost relics and with his own re-realisation but it's all delivered with a brightness that keeps it from becoming downbeat or depressing. Director Alice Rohrwacher offers us a personal story tempered with a bit of mythology and a fair degree of ill-defined humanity that is compellingly incomplete in many ways. I reckon it might merit a second watch, there's plenty of nuanced writing here.

When an English tomb raider (Josh O’Connor) skilled at dowsing uses his skills to hunt down buried Etruscan artifacts, he achieves success at his craft but suffers setbacks when he falls in with the wrong crowd. As a consequence, he drifts through life, trying to find his way (and, ironically enough, a moral footing), an odyssey filled with quirky people and events, a would-be romantic interest (Carol Duarte) with two carefully concealed children, an aging operatic instructor (Isabella Rossellini) skilled at fleecing her “students,” and, of course, his coterie of comical criminal cronies. Writer-director Alice Rohrwacher’s latest tells a delightful fable full of wit, whimsy, colorful characters, high intrigue and its share of surreal moments, all set against the Italian landscape. The film admittedly takes a little time to find its stride, so getting through the opening act will require some patience (editing here would have helped). But, once the picture finds its way, it becomes a fun-filled ride, peppered with absurdist humor and filmed with Fellini-esque cinematography and a production design reminiscent of the famed auteur. With a runtime of 2:10:00, it could stand some trimming (most notably at the outset, as noted above), but this cinematic charmer is a modestly pleasant diversion to watch while stretched out on the couch while casually savoring a demitasse of espresso and a plate of biscotti. Godere!

"Vanished in the Night" is a captivating new foreign film available on Netflix. Unlike many foreign films, the dubbing in this one is surprisingly good, with voices that don't betray the characters. It was a pleasant surprise.
However, the film itself feels like a chaotic mess, as if a novice writer penned the story without any feedback or editing. The direction and production also seem amateurish, giving off a first-time filmmaker vibe.
The lead actor seems miscast, lacking the presence of an action or suspense star, and the family dynamic feels off. The storyline is erratic, leading to a twist that falls flat, followed by a disappointing ending that leaves viewers feeling cheated.
The film's lack of resolution and characters' passive acceptance of events make it a frustrating watch, like a rollercoaster that abruptly crashes and burns.

This was hilarious and part of my three-film Tinto Brass Sex Comedies boxed set I received from my best friend Earl last year for my 46th birthday. I was moderately interested and enthused about the idea of this boxed set after adoring his hugely controversial swords-and-sandals epic, 'Caligula'. I watched this with my lady Tammy on a fine evening with two exceptional craft beers, which we split. Heartily recommended for adventurous couples to watch together! =)

Wicked by Jon M. Chu is an ambitious adaptation that largely delivers on its promise to bring the magic of the beloved musical to the big screen. Visually, the movie is stunning, with vibrant set pieces and a cinematic take on Oz that feels both familiar and fresh. Cynthia Erivo as Elphaba brings an emotional depth that truly captures the character’s struggles, while Ariana Grande’s Glinda adds a balance of charm and humor. Together, their performances anchor the film and make the story’s core themes, friendship, identity, and societal perception, shine.
The musical numbers are undeniably the movie’s highlight. Songs like "Defying Gravity" are powerful and beautifully staged, though I couldn’t help but feel the choreography, while good, could have been taken a step further to truly elevate the experience. The pacing is a mixed bag, with the first act taking its time to set the stage, which may feel slow for some. That said, once the story finds its rhythm, it balances the emotional beats with grandeur fairly well, though the shifts in tone could have been smoothed out more.
Overall, Wicked succeeds as a visually impressive and emotionally resonant adaptation, even if it stumbles in a few places. It’s a solid film for fans of the musical and newcomers alike. While there’s room for improvement, particularly in pacing and choreography, it’s hard to deny that the performances and visual storytelling make it a worthwhile watch.

I so wanted to hate it.
I didn't like the decision to split the musical into two films. I didn't like the casting. I HATED the trailer, where it made the film look like it was baked with plastic, glossy CGI, or even worse Gen-AI.
And I was wrong.
Erivo and Grande are stellar. The co-stars aren't who I'd have picked, but they're quite excellent themselves. (Particularly the folks playing Bok and Nessa.)
It's a glorious, beautiful, and joyful film in many ways. When Elphaba finally soars, my heart soared as well and I found myself tearing up.
I also appreciated how it gives a nod to the much, much darker book, especially with the propaganda posters and effigy in the opening, and the various references to Oz's takeover. (Like when the stone edifice falls off the side of the school building revealing the animals beneath.)
My only complaint is, as with any two or three-parter, lots of the filler is garbage. This is especially true of the Dancing Through Life number, which becomes unbearably long and significantly less magical because of the added content.
Still, highly recommended. 8/10 Stars.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://movieswetextedabout.com/wicked-review-cynthia-erivo-and-ariana-grande-butera-shine-in-a-riveting-musical-experience/
"Despite a few technical and narrative missteps, Wicked shines brightly with its compelling story, outstanding performances, and astonishing musical sequences.
Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande-Butera deliver truly remarkable, award-worthy performances, grounding the film with unparalleled chemistry and elevating their characters to incredible heights, all while demonstrating phenomenal vocal talent. Jon M. Chu crafts an ambitious, visually stunning adaptation that captivates both long-time fans of the musical and newcomers alike.
With timeless messages conveyed through poignant themes and well-crafted character arcs, Wicked not only lives up to its initial hype but leaves audiences eagerly awaiting the next chapter of this magical story."
Rating: A-

https://good.film/guide/haters-will-tell-you-wicked-sucks-heres-why-theyre-wrong
Broadway hits rely on a suspension of disbelief. With the right ingredients, even the oddest of ideas can take flight on stage… but in the delicate translation to screen, they crash-land. Take Cats: something about that core premise of humans playing felines – which theatre audiences lapped up (sorry) for decades – just didn’t work at the movies.
From the outside, it’s easy to paint Wicked with the same brush. Isn’t it all a bit… silly? There’s a blonde Godiva who floats in a bubble. A green woman who was raised by a bear (and whose father may or may not be a wizard). And when they meet at a Hogwarts-style university, we find out their professor, Dr. Dillamond, is a talking goat. These aren’t exactly the trappings of a thoughtful, award-winning piece of drama. But peel back the colours of any GOOD fantasy and you’ll usually find the allegories are rich and meaningful. With its themes of parental guilt, absent fatherhood, disability, discrimination and class supremacy, Wicked is no exception.
Look, we’re not saying Wicked’s perfect. At 2 hours 40 minutes, it’s knocking HARD on the “too long, wrap it up!” door. And there’s characters that either overdo it a bit (Governor Thropp) or arguably, don’t add much at all (oh Pfannee, do you even go to this school?).
But that’s a bit like complaining about a scratch on a speedboat. A sleek, wondrous craft that can whiz you somewhere thrilling, and change you along the way. We didn’t have crazy high expectations – hey, the everyday moviegoer isn’t a hardcore Broadway fan – but honestly? You don’t need to be. Wicked is a movie for anyone. And maybe that’s why it feels so GOOD.

Very good! I enjoyed 'Wicked'.
Always impressive when a long run time flashes by - no doubt a sign of a sturdy movie. 2hr 40mins is how long this one lasts, I thought I might have felt that whilst watching but, honestly, I didn't. Since sharing my reviews online I have appreciated musicals much more, to the point that when I learn a film is from this genre it barely registers.
I have never seen the stage musical, in fact the only detail I knew for certain was that it was from the world of 'The Wizard of Oz' - which, in turn, I only know from the 1939 and 2013 movies, as well as one or two other flicks. As such, I wasn't actually sure where they were heading with the Wicked Witch of the West - but I approve.
Cynthia Erivo impresses as the aforementioned. I have to say, mind, that Ariana Grande is the person onscreen that stood out most. She does an excellent job at making her character's self-centered quirks so convincing, while also producing a few amusing moments too. Jonathan Bailey and Peter Dinklage are good, while Jeff Goldblum certainly fits his role.
The ending, whilst perfectly fine and pleasing, is possibly a bit rushed/abrupt, though that's to be expected given it's only part one. The same can be said for most films that are split into multiple productions, to be fair. I am intrigued to see where part two goes, bring on this time next year.
The music is, as one would expect, also a positive. Granted I don't think I'll be adding any of the tracks to my playlist, but I still had a pleasant time hearing all the songs come and go - not one sticks out like a sore thumb, so that's good. Elsewhere, visually and plot-wise I have no real complaints.

It’s quite a rare occurrence these days when a much-anticipated film actually lives up to all of its pre-release hype, but this screen adaptation of the hit Broadway musical truly does so in every regard. Director Jon M. Chu has brilliantly brought to life the back story behind the lives and relationship of the two witches from the original L. Frank Baum novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1900) and its 1939 classic screen adaptation, as well as Gregory Maguire’s 1995 prequel novel, Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West. In this stunningly beautiful and delightful big-screen production, viewers learn how the supposedly evil Elphaba (Cynthia Erivo) came to know the purportedly Glinda the Good (Ariana Grande-Butera), sorcery students and college roommates whose relationship initially went through a series of changes from unabashed contempt to solid friendship. However, as high-level political intrigue unfolds in their homeland of the magical land of Oz – efforts clandestinely spearheaded by the supposedly all-powerful Wizard (Jeff Goldblum) and university headmistress Mme. Morrible (Michelle Yeoh) – Elphaba and Glinda become unwittingly caught up in the high-stakes subterfuge playing out around them, a development that jeopardizes the future of their friendship and the stability of Oz itself. The filmmaker thus subtly but effectively presents audiences with a fable on the nature of good and evil, particularly in terms of what actually constitutes wickedness, especially when it’s skillfully veiled. The result is a thoughtful and thoroughly entertaining tale replete with stunning musical numbers, excellent choreography, ample humor, gorgeous cinematography, an inspired production design and superb performances by the four principals, all of whom are certain to be strong awards season candidates (quite a recommendation coming from someone who unapologetically makes no claim to being a fan of musicals). More than that, though, “Wicked” is an insightful treatise on the quest for power and learning how to make judicious use of it, both in personal dealings and in matters of wider consequence, a fitting cautionary tale for our times (or any time, for that matter). If I had any complaint here, it would be my concern that this is yet another example of a story that’s been divided up into two installments, a growing trend that I don’t believe will ultimately serve the movie industry well. According to the director, this was seen as a necessary step to do justice to the source material, given that it would have been nearly impossible to cram everything into one picture without doing major damage to the content. And, to give the filmmaker the benefit of the doubt, perhaps that will ultimately prove true with the release of part 2 in 2025 (but I’ll reserve judgment on that for the time being). In the meantime, though, this first part comes through as promised, and, in this day and age, that’s a cinematic miracle in itself.

OK, so I'm going to be swimming against the tide a bit with this, but I didn't love it. We start where the "Wizard of Oz" story finishes off, only without the catchy "Ding Dong the Witch is...". Instead we get an ensemble dance number that is energetically performed, colourful and expertly choreographed but instantly forgettable. Then we meet "Galinda" (Ariana Grande) who arrives in her pink bubble to confirm the news and enjoy the celebrations. Turns out, though, that she and the erstwhile "Wicked Witch of the West" were once friends and so back in time we go to the birth of a little green baby who may (or may not) have been conceived within the bounds of happily married wedlock. Scoot on many years more and we discover that said green person - "Elphaba" (Cynthia Erivo) is accompanying her wheelchair bound sister "Nessarose" (Marissa Bode) to the "Ozian" equivalent of "Hogwarts" where she encounters the snobbish "Galinda" and a fairly comprehensive degree of hostility. Luckily for her, the legendary sorceress "Madame Morrible" (Michelle Yeoh) spots some hidden talent in this young woman and soon she is sharing rooms with her new nemesis and finding herself the butt of school jokes. Then enter the mischievous prince "Fiyero" (Jonathan Bailey) who tends to treat everyone the same and who's been kicked out of more schools that he can shake a sceptre at. He does, however, manage to create an environment in which everyone can get along and that's when things begin to change for an "Elphaba" who is to be made likeable by her now pally roomie. When a letter arrives from the all-powerful Wizard (Jeff Goldblum) summoning her to the "Emerald City", then they set off hoping to find answers to all of their questions, only to find that nothing there is as it seems... I have to admit that JB has been a friend of mine for many years, so I ain't going to be saying anything bad about the man who might just be the next "007", and both Erivo and Grande do well enough with the set piece musical numbers - especially the lively and cleverly written "Populer/lar", but the rest of this just struck me as "Harry Potter" goes to the musicals where it meets "Mean Girls". Goldblum makes his presence felt, but in the same slightly affected fashion that he aways does, and though the visual effects are all fantastic, somehow they are all just so much more sterile to watch than when you see them within the confines of a theatrical stage - where this works so much better, and without the need for the commercially exploitative part 1 and part 2 released months apart. To be fair, everyone looks like they are enjoying themselves, there's a fun number from Idina Menzel and Kristin Chenoweth and Bailey brings some much needed charm to the proceedings but I'd probably just prefer a director's cut that offered us the whole story in one three hour chunk so we can get that mediocre "Defying Gravity" power ballad out of the way (repeatedly) in one fell swoop. It's a very polished production, and maybe the hype has just got to me, but I can't pretend I wasn't disappointed by this. Wilted more than wicked, sorry.

*THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS*
I've been a Wicked fan since 2010. My expectations for this film were extremely high! And I was blown away by how Jon M. Chu was able to bring this story a new life. Everyone involved did an excellent job! The choice to sing live paid off! Not one note was out of tune! Bowen Yang & Bronwyn James were absolutely hilarious as Phannee & Shen Shen. Marissa Bode was fantastic as Nessarose. Can't wait to see her story continue in Part 2. I hope they include "Wicked Witch of the East" in the Part 2 Soundtrack. Ethan Slater was great as Boq. I'm excited to see how he becomes the Tin Man in Part 2 because that's not shown on stage. He transforms behind the cabinet but I hope we actually see it in Part 2. Michelle Yeoh was great in every scene as Madam Morrible. She was very Wicked! Jeff Goldblum was amazing as The Wizard! I loved the new version of The Grimmerie! The way it opened was very cool! Jonathan Bailey was incredibly charming as Fiyero! Dancing Through Life was very well choreographed and his singing was great! Loved the way he met Elphaba in this version. I'm very intrigued to see him become The Scarecrow in Part 2. Ariana Grande was absolutely phenomenal as Glinda! She embodied everything about Glinda! Loved her homages to past Glindas in Popular. Her voice was very Angelic. You can tell that she studied a lot for this role. Can't wait to hear her "I'm Not That Girl (Reprise)". Cynthia Erivo stole the show as Elphaba Thropp. She poured her heart into this character! I'm so excited to hear "No Good Deed" in Part 2! She was incredible! As for the Cameos in One Short Day, Loved seeing Stephen Schwartz as The Guard & Winnie Holtzman as an Emerald City Resident. Love the expansion of the Wizomania show to include Kristin & Idina telling the story of The Grimmerie. Loved that Idina did her Elphie Battle Cry. It didn't take away from Cynthia's at the End. The Film was meant to happen in 2024. Had it come out in 2016 or 2019, I don't think it would've been as well done as it was! I can't wait to see Part 2 and how much of The Wizard of Oz they include. I hope we get to see Dorothy's Face. 10/10 No Notes.

The film adaptation of Wicked is based on the Broadway musical, which is a loose adaptation of the 1995 novel Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West by Gregory Maguire. Both Maguire’s novel and the musical are expansions of L. Frank Baum’s original The Wizard of Oz novel was published in 1900 and its film adaptation in 1939. The musical is one of the longest-running and financially successful Broadway musicals of all time.
With a screenplay by Winnie Holzman (writer of the book of the Wicked musical) and Dana Fox (Cruella) and directed by Jon M. Chu (Now You See Me 2, Crazy Rich Asians), Wicked begins around the time The Wizard of Oz ends. The Wicked Witch of the West has died and Glinda the Good Witch is breaking the news to Munchkinland. As the munchkins celebrate and burn a giant, Wicker Man-style witch in celebration of the witch’s death, Glinda is asked by one of the munchkins if she knew the witch.
What follows is nearly three hours of how a green-skinned, outcast girl named Elphaba (Cynthia Erivo) whose emotions spark wondrous fits of unbelievable magic interacts with the spoiled, entitled, and pink-infatuated Galinda (Ariana Grande) as they enroll in a magic school known as Shiz University.
Visually, Wicked is jaw-dropping and beautiful. All of the talking animals look extraordinary and every sequence with the flying monkeys is a visual highlight. Peter Dinklage voices a goat teacher named Dr. Dillamond and he has one of the most emotional arcs in the film. The bear nurse and dog doctor in the opening moments of the film look so good for what little amount of screen time they have.
Given how many VFX teams are credited in the film, it’s no wonder the CGI looks intricately gorgeous. The three VFX teams with the most credits in Wicked include OPSIS (The Fall Guy, Rescue Rangers), Framestore (Gladiator II, Beetlejuice Beetlejuice), and ILM (Venom: The Last Dance, Alien: Romulus). Then there’s various work from about a dozen different other VFX teams/houses, but the most intriguing one is one called FoyProAI.
FoyProAI doesn’t have an accessible official website, but some digging around on an executive producer’s LinkedIn page gives some background. Foy stands for Fountains of Youth and FoyProAI specializes in de-aging, up-aging, and beauty work in film. They’ve worked on Smile 2, John Woo’s The Killer for Peacock, and 400 shots on Wicked.
There are moments of greatness in Wicked that mostly stem from the chemistry between Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande. Grande’s comedic roots, specifically her time and experience on SNL, really come into play here. Grande is essentially the comedic relief as Galinda as her outgoing personality carries most sequences while Erivo has more of a straightforward performance that has more of a dry delivery.
But the generic musical formula is infuriating. Story beats pause and go out of their way to cater to multiple songs at times and it logically hurts your brain. Yes, it’s a musical and yes people are going to sing. But when the main characters are trying to get away on a flying broom as guards are pounding at the door and they spend another ten minutes dancing, crying, and bellowing about their broken friendship it becomes a nuisance. Get on the damn broom and sing on the way to your destination. It doesn’t seem that hard.
Some sequences are thrown in solely because they’ll make a big song more appealing (the whole rotating library straight out of Inception thing) or side stories that don’t go anywhere because two characters need to seem closer than they are (Elphaba and Fiyero’s awkward ten-minute excursion into the forest to free a lion cub). These are both roundabout executions that take the long way to showcase that Fiyero thinks reading is dumb and that he’s actually in love with Elphaba over Galinda.
The film adaptation seems like it’s quite faithful to its source material, but the Hollywood concept of transforming nasty and recognizable villains into sad, relatable characters that the audience roots for is a dumpster fire of a concept. Pure asshole villains can be fantastic too and often make protagonists more interesting if done right.
But the musical fantasy film treats Elphaba like dirt for the first hour and a half. Everyone looks down on her because of the color of her skin. Then when she finally becomes friends with Galinda, she develops a soft spot for mistreated animals. It’s the main reason she turns against The Wizard of Oz (Jeff Goldblum) apart from being one of the only characters who can read magic spells.
Wicked is Mean Girls at Hogwarts as everybody sucks and is superficial apart from a character that is supposed to be evil. Elphaba mostly accepts the role of wicked witch because her beliefs don’t match anyone else’s and she’s unwilling to adapt to their ways solely to keep the peace.
Wicked features some unreal VFX and even touches on some incredible ideas from time to time, but the ideas that work seem to stem from capitalizing on a fantasy world that was established over a century ago. As a film, Wicked conjures song after song and drags on and on solely because it’s a bloated musical that wants you to die a rhythmic, sometimes undecipherable, high-pitched death.

> A quadrangular high school love story!
The first mistake we all make is to expect it to match with the type of films what Isao Takahata, Hayao Miyazaki, Mamoru Hosada and few others direct. I meant thematically; either sci-fi, fantasy or the drama with the teen or the tween characters in the lead. Because technically this was a wonderful animation, but I was not impressed with the story, otherwise as usual, my writing would have been very long with the film quotes and other discussions.
For the beautifully sketched characters like this, the film totally wasted an opportunity. Should have been a beautiful love story or a pure fantasy, but it was a bit of uninspiring school drama that I kind frequently lost interest while watching.
I remind who wanted to watch it that it was a simple story which was like some kind of a television episode. The fantasy parts were too small to notice and the love story was very boring to emotionally feel it. It might suit for those who're seeking matured contents in an anime fantasy-romance than a cute and quirky narration. My point is it is for adults than children.
Overall, it failed to reach my expectations, but the online film rating says many has liked it. So don't mind me if you're considering it, but my review causing confusion. Because you should not have to feel what I felt, everything I said in the review is from my personal viewpoint. So I believe your opinion might differ from mine.
5/10

I wont be ignored Dan!
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Seemingly happily married man, Dan Gallagher, gives in to the seductive charm of Alex Forrest and partakes in a night of wild sexual passion with her. Trouble is, is that Alex is a tad unhinged and a woman scorned can be the ultimate nightmare.
I have just revisited this monster smash hit from the 80s (highest grossing film of 1987), and it still packs the same punch as it did back in the late 80s when it not only became a big hit, it also became a cultural phenomenon and one of the most talked about films of the decade. I'm saddened by the relatively average rating here because its significance and bravery should always be highlighted instead of pointless allegations about it being only of its time. Just how many imitations did Fatal Attraction spawn I wonder? Fatal Attraction was a monster hit because it gave the audience something different, a monster flip flop of having the man stalked by an uncontrollable female loony. Much credit goes to screenwriter James Dearden for laying it on like a slowly tightening spring waiting to explode, for as the plot unfolds and Alex Forrest's Madame Butterfly fuelled revenge gathers apace, the audience starts to realise it has been doubly conflicted on the emotional character attachment front.
Dan has done the dirty on his beautiful wife and child, the bastard deserves what is coming to him for sure? Alex is right in that he's had his fun and now she can basically go and whistle at the moon, but the cheeky saver here from the makers is that Alex did the chasing knowing that Dan was happily married, she led the way fully armed with the facts. This makes for a wonderfully constructed thriller that ups the suspense quota to positively seal the deal with a heart stopping finale. I'm mightily relieved that American test audiences gave the thumbs down to the rather downbeat original ending that saw Alex committing suicide and thus framing Dan for her murder, the ending that stands may lose impact on repeat viewings, but boy it has still got a kick to it.
Glenn Close is fantastic as Alex, playing against type she manages to convince as a disturbed individual, a perfect blend of sadness and soul destroying stupidness. Michael Douglas is also giving a performance of depth, firmly in the shadow of Glen Close's film stealing show, he none the less plays it perfectly and is believable in all aspects of the character, and I'm sure the ladies watching were pleased to see no sign of the saggy bottom that scared them in Basic Instinct five years later! This film coupled with Wall Street in the same year would propel Douglas to major A list status, and he rightly deserved it in my opinion. Anne Archer is Beth Gallagher, the hurt wife of the piece, she looks stunning and sexy, but thoughts of her looks are quickly erased with a special two layered performance of note. Containing a great script and directed astutely by Adrian Lyne, Fatal Attraction remains one of the best thrillers of the 80s, it was talked about profusely back then, and here and now it should not be forgotten. 9/10

**A good movie to watch with the family.**
In this film, a man who has just moved to a small country house, in order to have a quieter life, begins to be disturbed by a mysterious voice that invites him to build a baseball field on a large part of his land. cultivation. That's a bad idea, because he depends on the sale of production to pay off a bank loan taken out to buy the house. However, he decides to believe his instinct. Immediately, he begins to receive visits from former players who are now dead and who, while still alive, had been removed from the competition following harsh accusations of sporting misconduct.
No, the film is not a horror film and, although the souls of the other world are very present, it is one of those delicious films to watch with the family. Here, the spiritual entities are, in fact, the nicest and kindest there can be. The script is quite good and hides a very pertinent message about the importance of family, following dreams and maintaining a good relationship with our family members.
Kevin Costner plays a sympathetic role that easily captivates our affection, acting very lightly in one of the most interesting cinematographic works of his life as an actor (up to the present moment). He acts with a small group of good actors, all of them committed and leaving a very positive note: Ray Liotta deserves a special mention for the way he resurrected the now dead “Shoeless Joe Jackson”, but I also really liked James Earl Jones, in a more grumpy character. Amy Madigan does what she can, but her character is downright sidelined, while Burt Lancaster makes an honorable but brief appearance.
The film has excellent cinematography, is very colorful, is very well shot and is very light, with touches of nostalgic ambience throughout. The pace is even, and the scenes are very well inserted, so the film does not waste unnecessary time and is effective in presenting its story. The soundtrack helps a lot to build the whole atmosphere and, overall, it's another one of those discreet, quality films that is worth resurrecting for the present day.

Field of Dreams is yet another movie that I originally watched a hundred years ago and recently had the chance to watch again. In my mind it was a fairly realistic story tinged with the large fantasy built into the plot involving what happens at the ball field. But that recollection was faulty; this movie is pure fantasy. That is not a criticism; I was just surprised I remembered it wrong that way.
It is an entertaining movie that effectively plays upon the heartstrings. Not just with the plot involving Kinsella’s father and their fractured relationship; and with Shoeless Joe Jackson, who is perceived as a victim for accepting money for the plot that caused the Black Sox scandal and got him banished from the game, even though he didn’t follow through by purposely playing poorly. What he should have done was try to talk his teammates out of it. And in a way, the presentation of pro baseball itself is a bit of a fantasy. It was obviously less mercenary a sport than it is today, but owners ruled with an iron fist, paid the players as little as possible, and traded them to other teams at will. All we see in this film is a magical fairlyland where man/children fulfill their dreams on the ball fields.
I had a little trouble suspending my disbelief at the outset. Not sure why his wife after a bit of teasing swallowed his story so easily. Her support was critical, obviously, for him to continue his plan to plow his cornfield under and build a ball park. Once we accept that unlikely support, however, the rest of the fantasy elements fall into place nicely.
But it is entertaining, as I said above, and harmless fun. I am glad I watched it again, though it won’t make any list of favorite movies for me.

_**Entertaining enough, but hampered by its fanciful premise**_
A family moves to an Iowa farm where the husband (Kevin Costner) hears a voice instructing him to guild a baseball diamond in the cornfield, promising “he” will come. Incredibly, “Shoeless” Joe Jackson (Ray Liotta) shows up, along with seven other members of the 1919 Chicago White Sox who were banned from the game for throwing the World Series. Ray then pursues a reclusive author (James Earl Jones) to assist him with his fantastical situation.
I know respectable people who cite “Field of Dreams” (1989) as their favorite movie and it does have some magic, along with some welcome humor and a fun road movie section, but it’s burdened by the thoroughly unreal set-up, which likely would appeal to hardcore baseball fans. Still, I appreciate the message on spiritual guidance, dreams and the insouciant diligence to act on them.
The film runs 1 hour, 46 minutes, and was shot in Iowa (Dyersville, Farley & Dubuque), Illinois (Galena), and Boston, Massachusetts.
GRADE: B-/C+

Capra meets Serling for 1980's joyously multi genre hankie wetter.
Coming back to Field Of Dreams over 20 years after its release finds this particular viewer beaming with happiness that the warmth I felt way back when still washes over me in the same way. Director Phil Alden Robinson (All of Me/Fletch) manages to turn W.P. Kinsella's novel, Shoeless Joe, into a multi genre film with deep emotional heart for both sexes to latch on to. It has a beautiful mix of mythology and family values that come together to realise a dream that ultimately rewards those viewers who are prepared to open themselves up to pure fantasy with a deep emotional core.
It was nominated for best picture in 1989 because it struck a cord with so many people, it's not just the thematic heart of the film that delivers, it's also the actors on show who perfectly realise this delightful tale. Kevin Costner is surrounded by great workers in Ray Liotta, James Earl Jones, Amy Madigan and Burt Lancaster, and he wisely lets these actors dominate the scenes that he shares with them, it's something that is an often forgotten good point of Costner's performances; that he is comfortable to let his co-stars dominate important narrative snatches. However, he is the glue that binds the whole film together, it's quite a naturally engaging performance that rightly gave him the star status he would achieve post release of the film.
As a born and bred Englishman I don't profess to appreciate just how much a way of life Baseball is to Americans, but I do have my own sports in England that I'm happy to dream the dream with in equal measure, and with that I understand all the themes in Field Of Dreams big time. Most of all, though, I can involve myself with its family values, the dream of dreams, and because it's undeniably pure escapist cinema for those who aren't afraid to let their respective guards down for a wee short while, the rewards are many. With a lush James Horner score evocatively layered over the top of it and John Lindley's photography almost ethereal at times, production is suitably in the fantasy realm.
Never twee or over sweet, Field of Dreams is a magical movie in more ways than one. A film that manages to have its cake and eat it and then closes down with one of the most beautiful endings of the 80's. Field of Dreams, still hitting Home Runs after all these years. 9/10

**_Aesthetically perfect, narratively frustrating_**
>_It's very much to do with my parents - the world they lived in that kind of shaped them, tripped them up. But it's also about two people who are very strong individuals, and very attractive. My father was an old-fashioned guy who said a woman has to fit in, and my mother just didn't at all. Their story had betrayal, and separations, getting together again, having a baby, then divorcing and really falling out horribly, then leaving the country separately. My father escaped. My mom married an English guy in order to leave Poland, with me_ _in tow, when I was 14. But then my parents met abroad again a couple of years later and fell in love, and decided they wanted to be together. They dumped their spouses and got married, and ended up living together in Germany, in exile. Then they quarrelled, and she had an affair with some other guy, much younger. But they ended up together because they were both tired, too tired to fight after 40 years of this stuff._
>_My mother was a ballerina in the first half of her life and she screwed up her back. She had scoliosis, which she didn't look after, and then she had three operations that went wrong. She was in corsets, and there was morphine. My father had three heart attacks; he was a heavy smoker and drinker. They were quite young when they died, 57 and 67, but they died together in a not dissimilar fashion to what you see in the film. Just before they died they were, for two or three years, the happiest couple. They came to realise they had nothing but each other. The countries change. The boyfriends, girlfriends, wives change. Politics change. But they realized that the only thing in the world is her, is him._
>_It's the mother of all love stories in a way. But it didn't seem like a love story throughout. It felt like a really bad marriage. God forbid you have such a love story. You'd rather have just a normal relationship. In this stable place. In one country, ideally._
- Paweł Pawlikowski; ""I wanted to make it a beautiful disaster": Paweł Pawlikowski on his new film _Cold War_" (Alissa Wilkinson); _Vox_ (December 21, 2018)
Reading around some of the reviews of _Zimna wojna_ [_Cold War_], I recognise that this should have been a film I liked, loved even, as so much of what these critics are praising are exactly the kinds of things I myself often look for in a film, and I genuinely wish I had been able to get what people like _The Guardian_'s Peter Bradshaw or the _Los Angeles Times_'s Justin Cheng have gotten from it. It's one of the best-reviewed films of the year (94% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes at the time of writing), and I freely acknowledge there's a huge amount to praise here, with elements of the visual design borderline genius. However, all the aesthetic brilliance in the world doesn't hide what, for me, is its single greatest flaw - it just left me utterly cold; I didn't care about the two main characters, and I didn't buy their relationship. Yes, I'm aware that emotional detachment is exactly what it was going for, and it's probably unfair to criticise a film for successfully doing what it intended to do, but when it ended, all I could think was "meh." Now, I know what you're thinking, because I've thought it myself in relation to any number of user reviews for any number of films – you're probably already formulating your "_go back to Michael Bay_" comments, and I can't say I blame you. But, whilst I can certainly appreciate much of what is on offer, and understand why critics have loved it, the end result for me was one of indifference. Although, to be fair, that may say more about myself than the film.
Written by Paweł Pawlikowski (_My Summer of Love_; _The Woman in the Fifth_; _Ida_), Janusz Głowacki (_Wałęsa. Człowiek z nadziei_), and Piotr Borkowski (_Lek wysokosci_), and directed by Pawlikowski, who loosely based the story on events in his parents' lives, to whom the film is also dedicated, the plot of Zimna wojna is simplicity itself. The film begins in 1949, two years since a communist government came to power and the country was provisionally renamed _Rzeczpospolita ludowa_ [Polish People's Republic]. It opens with composer and pianist Wiktor (Tomasz Kot), his ethnomusicologist producer Irena (Agata Kulesza), and rigid state-sponsored overseer Kaczmarek (Borys Szyc) travelling through the isolated rural communities of the Polish countryside, recording folk songs and attempting to find recruits for a folk music school, with the aim of putting together an ensemble to perform nationally, and hopefully, internationally. Wiktor is bored out of his mind with the repetitive nature of the work, until a young woman named Zula (an extraordinary Joanna Kulig) comes to the school to audition. Although she doesn't fit the profile of what they are looking for – she's from the city rather than the countryside, is rumoured to have spent time in prison for killing her father, and performs not a folk song at her audition, but a piece from a Soviet film – and although Irena points out there are better singers, Wiktor argues that she has "_something different_." Irena, who may or may not be in love with Wiktor, immediately recognises that he's enamoured with Zula, but he assures her he's acting out of pure professionalism. Of course, he isn't, and soon enough, he and Zula are in the midst of a passionate relationship. And that's pretty much it as far as the plot goes. The rest of the film takes place over 20 years and four countries (Poland, France, Yugoslavia, and East Germany), but it never branches out from the central relationship. There are no subplots or significant supporting characters; the narrative is pared down to within an inch of its life, with every scene, every line of dialogue, every action, existing only in relation to this focal driving force.
So, to look first at some aspects of the film which I liked. The aesthetic is absolutely unparalleled, as Pawlikowski and director of photography Łukasz Żal (_Ida_; _Loving Vincent_) allow the visual design to both originate from and convey thematic points, a truly extraordinary example of form and content blending into one another. As an example, the film is exquisitely shot in Academy ratio (1.37:1), which has the effect of confining the characters within the frame. The nature of the film lends itself to sweeping vistas and cityscapes captured in anamorphic (2.39:1), but, instead, Pawlikowski and Żal use the box-like nature of the Academy frame to trap the characters, meaning they don't seem free even when standing in the vast open countryside or in Paris at night. The epic nature of the narrative and the confined frame work in a kind of ironic symbiosis to visually convey the important theme of the tensions within and between the characters; freedom and confinement constantly working against one another.
Another example of the synergy between form and content is the use of focus. For example, in the opening scene, the shallow focus creates a depth of field so small that the village just behind the in-focus singers is completely flattened. This renders it visually inaccessible, and thus compels the audience to concentrate fully on nothing except the foreground singers. Compare this with the scene where Kaczmarek is giving a speech extolling the glory of the state and the prestige of the school to a collection of bored students, all the while a cow is wandering around in the mud behind him. The use of a deeper focus here than in the opening means that the cow falls within the larger depth of field, and can be clearly seen, once again directing the audience's attention, only this time that attention is directed away from the foreground character as opposed towards him. The cow, obviously enough, serves as a commentary, telling us exactly what Pawlikowski thinks of Kaczmarek's speech, and the ideologies underpinning it.
Another scene of this ilk is when a worker is attempting to hang a "_We welcome tomorrow_" banner on the front of the music school, under directions from Kaczmarek. However, falling from his ladder (and by the sounds of it, falling to his death), the banner is never hung, hanging limply across one side of the building. Again, as with the cow, this is Pawlikowski criticising the state-sanctioned machinery introduced by the _Polska Zjednoczona Partia Robotnicza_ [Polish United Workers' Party] since 1948. Of course, the communists are not "welcoming tomorrow" – they are far more interested in the past, which is why they are collecting folk songs; in an effort to create a Politburo-approved musical tradition designed to instil both national pride and political conformity, by rejecting the "western" rock & roll music of tomorrow in favour of a musical past.
Speaking of music, in relation to the way the opening scene is shot, it instantly becomes clear how vital a part of the story music and singing are. As the narrative develops, music becomes Wiktor and Zula's everything – they derive hope from it, they imbue it with their feelings, it brings them together, it drives them apart, it even comes to symbolise the strange bond between them, never moreso than when Wiktor refers to an album on which they have been collaborating as "_our child_."
Another structural aspect that is exceptionally well handled is how Pawlikowski designs the time jumps, as the film skips forward to the next instalment in the story. When a sequence is finished, the film cuts to black, and then, using a variation of a J cut, the sound from the next scene can be heard a few seconds prior to the image being seen. Furthermore, that sound is usually music, reemphasising just how important music is to these characters. Interestingly however, the last few time jumps don't use music to introduce the incoming scene, perhaps referring to the changes in the characters' circumstances at this stage of the film, the darker ideological underpinnings of their psyches. In relation to this, it's also worth pointing out that once we get to the second half of the film, the two leads almost never smile (not that they smiled that much in the first half). Ironically enough, the character who smiles the most is probably Kaczmarek.
So, having spent all this time waxing lyrical about aspects of the film which impressed me, why did I not enjoy it? As I said above, there's a huge amount to admire here, the craft is exceptional, but, at the end of the day, this is a romance. And it doesn't work as a romance. Yes, it's not what you would call a standard romance by any means, the character motivations and justifications that you'd see in other narratives of this ilk (not just filmic texts) are absent here, and maybe because of that, although there was undeniable chemistry between the leads, I just didn't buy their seemingly insatiable compulsion to seek one another out, sleep together, hurt one another, and then split up. The problem is, this exact template happens about five times – they meet, have a great time for a while, argue over something, and one runs off. Wash, rinse, repeat. And even at only 85 minutes, this kind of structural repetition becomes, well, repetitive, as I increasingly found myself asking "why are these two even together?"
To give you an example of what I'm talking about, during one particular argument, after Zula finds out Wiktor has been lying to people about her background, he explains, "_I wanted to give you more colour_". Seriously? These are two people who have precious little respect for one another; beneath all the eroticism and physical attraction, they are simply two irreparably damaged people trying to save one another, living with a co-dependency, but instead hastening each other towards destruction. And as I couldn't buy into the believability of the romance, the entire enterprise floundered; it never achieves the status it seems to be aiming for, that of cathartic high-tragedy. And although the end is very well done, and the last line is spectacular, it left me unmoved, because, by that stage, I just didn't care. True, the structure of the film and the insanely tight editing means that events in their lives are glanced at rather than lingered over, so the kind of nuances and character beats you'd often expect are absent, with the audience being allocated no time to become enveloped by the emotions on screen. As the narrative is built on ellipses and omissions, many (in fact, almost all) of the standard romantic tropes simply aren't present. By design, the film is barren and emotionally impenetrable, and in that sense, Pawlikowski seems to have been attempting to construct as detached a narrative as he possibly could. If anything, he succeeds too well.

Cam by Daniel Goldhaber feels like a blend of entertainment and a cautionary tale, something that manages to be relevant yet unsettlingly ahead of its time. The movie dives into themes of identity, privacy, and exploitation in the digital age, which are even more important today than they were in 2018. It’s a story that sticks with you because of its implications, but it doesn’t quite hit the mark in execution.
Madeline Brewer carries the movie as Alice. Her performance is believable and layered, giving the character a vulnerability and determination that keep you invested in her journey. Unfortunately, I can’t say the same for the rest of the cast. While Melora Walters brought something intriguing to her brief appearance, the supporting performances fell flat, failing to add much depth to the story.
Visually, the film does a good job establishing its unsettling tone, with vivid neon colors and a chilling atmosphere. Some of the camera choices during Alice’s interactions with her family felt awkward and could have been more polished, though. That said, the chilling score in key moments worked well to heighten the tension, pulling you deeper into Alice’s growing paranoia.
The structure and pacing of the movie were solid. The transitions between acts were well-executed, building up to a tense and satisfying third-act climax. However, while the direction was consistent, the film didn’t fully explore the depth of its themes. It introduced big ideas but seemed to pull back from diving into the darker implications of its story, leaving some aspects feeling undercooked.
In the end, Cam is a movie with an important message and some strong elements, but it doesn’t quite stick the landing. It’s worth watching, especially for its relevance to our tech-driven world, but you might find yourself wishing it had done a little more with its bold premise. For me, the highlights were Madeline Brewer’s performance and the themes it tackled, even if the delivery could have been stronger. I’d say it’s a movie that balances on the edge of being a warning and pure entertainment, and that’s probably why it lingers in your mind after the credits roll.

What _Cam_ did, it did very well, I just wish it had done a little more.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

Cam thrillingly records commentary on social media before glitching out at the climax. If ever there was a relatable topic in my life right now, or atleast for the past few years, it’s this one. The ever-growing addiction to social media, thirsting on the superficial requirement of “popularity”. That unnecessary attentive praise for the detailed work I’ve produced. Followers and likes on Instagram. Helpful votes on other review sites. It doesn’t matter. It is a regressive byproduct of artificial socialisation. Cam, for it’s introductory act, depicts the fundamental issue with modern reality perfectly. A young woman, who performs live shows on an adult entertainment website, rapidly escalates her controversial performances in an attempt to become the most watched entertainer.
In a society where individuals can get paid to showcase nudity online, with anonymous users tipping the entertainer, the addiction and lust for exploiting one’s self to earn a few hundred dollars has never been easier. Yet still within the guidelines of the law. Whilst it may sound monetarily heavenly to earn a living from the comfort of your own bedroom, it comes with potential consequences. Stalkers attempting to locate your abode. Anonymity running the risk of friends and family members discovering your explicit content.
However, it’s the psychological impact that Cam explores, in particular “Lola” and her manifestation of envy. She wants to be the best. The top girl. And she’s willing to do anything and everything to get that position. A modern issue for the youth of today who become addicted to technological entertainment such as gaming and adult content. Brewer’s engrossing performance enabled a subtle layer of sympathy to come through. It’s a relatable issue. Naturally, we resent her actions through a shocked expression, but empathise due to relatability. Obese old white men pleasuring themselves behind the security of their webcams. It’s gross, to say the least, yet a trend that does occur and is exploited. ChatRoulette is just one of many websites that harness the power of anonymity for sexual exploitation.
Then the direction changes as the plot progresses. Another entity is pretending to be “Lola” and locking the real “Lola” out of her account. This second act shifts the focus from thirsting popularity to conspicuous mystery. Who or what is pretending to be “Lola”? Old videos that have been downloaded and re-uploaded? A doppelgänger? Regardless, the story’s believability diminishes as the plot unfolds, but still remains captivating throughout due to the subject matter that is depicted. “Lola” as a character loses her dimensionality in order to focus on this imposter, detrimental to the thrilling nature of the narrative. Simply, it becomes more convoluted as it nears its climax. Then the third act commenced, and the mysterious reveal was exactly as I feared. Non-sensical. Illogical. Essentially, stupid. Initially what started out as a realistic subject study, concluded as a surrealistic mess. A dire shame considering how engaged I was throughout.
Nevertheless, Cam exceeded my expectations (although fairly low to begin with...). Illustrating a topic that should be discussed more frequently in today’s Internet environment. Unfortunately though, this live show was losing viewers with every minute that ticked by.