Cam is a psychological thriller directed by Daniel Goldhaber and stars Madeline Brewer of the Black Mirror fame. It’s brought to us by Blumhouse Productions. Cam is the story of Alice, an online cam girl, who live-streams from her home studio. Just when things are looking good, her account is hijacked by her doppelganger. While the film is pretty interesting to start with, it loses some steam in the middle and leaves the audience with a whole bunch of unanswered questions, especially around the characters in the movie. It's a good one time watch that feels like a longish Black Mirror episode.

The only area in which _The Dark Knight Returns, Part 2_ suffers, is foretold in the title: This is just part two. You watch those two parts combined back to back? You've got the best superhero movie ever made.
_Final rating:★★★★½ - Ridiculously strong appeal. I can’t stop thinking about it._

The "I Know What You Did Last Summer" franchise has left a lasting impact on audiences, with the first film being particularly noteworthy for its thrilling and grounded portrayal of a vengeful antagonist. Ben Willis stands out as a compelling and underrated character, bringing a sense of realism to the story without delving into the supernatural realm. Jennifer Love Hewitt and Freddie Prinze Jr. deliver captivating performances, drawing viewers in with their charisma and acting prowess.
The sequel, "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer," takes the characters on a harrowing adventure to an island, adding another layer of suspense and terror to the franchise. While some may overlook this installment as a credible sequel, the addition of Brandy Norwood as Carla contributes to the film's appeal and intensity.
However, the franchise takes a misstep with "I'll Always Know What You Did Last Summer," introducing supernatural elements that detract from the grounded nature of the original films. This departure from reality diminishes the impact of the storyline and characters, leading to a disappointing third installment that lacks the involvement of the main cast.
The television series based on the franchise offers a different but enjoyable take on the story, adding credibility and entertainment value to the overall franchise. While the series was cut short, fans are eager for a reboot that promises to bring fresh energy to the familiar tale. It is hoped that the original cast will return, providing a seamless continuation of the beloved saga akin to the success of the "Scream" franchise.

Just as good as the first in my opinion. Might be slightly better because this one has a lot more killings then the 1st.

Why can't we all have a dog as smart, lovable, and resourceful as this film's old trooper, named Enzo, after the founder of Ferrari...
Plot in a nutshell: As he nears the end of his life, a wise Golden Retriever who is exceptionally human in soul reflects on the lessons he learned throughout his long life, and all the things he's experienced, and what will come after death.
Comments: I think this must be my favorite modern movie. I'm usually writing reviews on the old classics, or the old obscure films, so this is unusual for me. But I was astounded after viewing this little treasure, to discover a modern movie that I would enjoy and give a high rating.
Kevin Costner provides the voice of Enzo, and does it perfectly, giving the character warmth, intelligence, confidence, and a touch of humor.
This is a great family movie, or for those who just like a good, warmhearted dog story. While I don't personally agree with the reincarnation theology presented here, it's a work of fiction anyways. And no movie ever ended with a better song for the end credits, so totally in keeping with the themes inherent in the film, Creedence Clearwater Revival's "Have You Ever Seen the Rain".

**United 93 is not an easy film to watch, but it honors the unprecedented circumstances of United 93 on September 11.**
United 93 is the sobering story of the bravery of the hostages that fought to retake United 93 on September 11, 2001. Paul Greengrass masterfully captured the chaos and panic of September 11 as the military, government, FAA, and airlines all scrambled to respond to the terrorist crisis. The movie takes a few minutes before the frenzy is unleashed, but once it does, the tension and heart-pounding don’t stop until the credits roll. This film is not a feel-good or heartwarming movie because it perfectly depicts the terror the passenger experienced and the power of their courage in such extraordinary circumstances. It’s significant to see, understand, and experience that day through the perspectives of so many trying to protect the lives of those in danger.

A remarkable film that I didn't want to watch but felt compelled to and felt numb at the very end.
Stunningly stark in its portrayal of the events of that day, Paul Greengrass produced a film that one can never forget.

Immer dann, wenn Auto gefahren wird ist The Transporter Refueled richtig gut. In allen anderen Szenen leider nicht. Die Kampfszenen wirken undynamisch, die Story ist dünn und langweilig erzählt. Am stärksten fällt allerdings ins Gewicht, dass Ed Skrein eben nicht Jason Statham ist. Statham hat die Rolle von Frank Martin in den Vorgängerfilmen einfach zu stark geprägt und das Reboot kommt nun einfach vielleicht einfach 10 Jahre zu früh, als dass man eine neue Figure in der Rolle bereits akzeptiert. Zumindest einen Lichtblick gibt es neben den Autoszenen noch Ray Stevenson als Franks Vater macht eine gute Figur und sorgt für manch unterhaltsame Szene. Unter dem Strich braucht man The Transporter Refueled nicht zu schauen, es reicht wenn man die ersten beiden Filme geschaut hat. Nun bin ich gespannt, ob die Serie meine Meinung hierzu ändern kann. [Sneakfilm.de]

Ed Skrein doesn't hold a candle to Jason Statham in this role, try though he might. The actual plot is not too bad, with I wouldn't say twists and turns, but maybe the odd curved ball. Some of the acting, though, is attrocious.

> It's a women's revenge movie, definitely not a 'Transporter'.
There are hundreds of reasons to say it did not look like a fourth film in the 'Transporter' series. One such was the cast, especially the title role that replaced Jason Statham and the rest as well not very convincing. The stunts were just good, but sometimes it was annoying. The overall movie is even worse than the 'Agent 47'.
From now on, this franchise will downgrade if they fail to bring back Statham. Recently plenty of franchise rebooted than ever, so I thought the fever hit for this one as well. But no, it is simply a next installment and worst part in the series from a far distance.
I'm not against bringing a bunch of fresh faces and crew on board, but the structured planning was not good. The storytelling and especially it is missing the originality, the stylish tone that set by Mr Statham. That's how everyone remembers this franchise. All I wanted was to upgrade to a higher level by carrying the original legacy.
I think, 'Transporter' is a trilogy. The following ones are simply the B films from the tier-two filmmakers to experiment with their skill under the limited budget. The announcement of the cast and crew for the next film will reveal whether it climb back to its glory or keep falling. But for now, to the 'Transporter' fans, it is done.
4/10

Its Not Jason Statham, Why Reboot a movie from last week that was already great. Statham is the Transporter, this is just a WOFTAM.

The outwardly successful "Andy" (Philip Seymour Hoffman) needs to raise some cash before his business gets an IRS audit. His weaker brother "Hank" (Ethan Hawke) needs cash to settle some childcare costs with his divorced wife. The two concoct a plan to rob their parents' jewellery store to solve both of their problems whilst, they hope, harming nobody but the insurers. A staffing alteration changes all of that, though, and as it turns out, mom is no pushover so the raid goes quite spectacularly wrong leaving her and one of the robbers in the ground. "Hank" is emotionally struggling, "Andy" still faces his problems and now they have their father (Albert Finney) determined to track down just who these attackers are! Now, to add to this already quite toxic mix, we discover that "Hank" has also been having an affair rather too close to home for his sibling and so the tension is soon building to a point where something is going to have to give - and lethally too. Finney features sparingly here, but he does steal the show as the Hoffman/Hawke dynamic builds to an effective and powerful conclusion that does rather powerfully portray just how family's are not always sweetness and light. It's a solid story well cast and written, with Sidney Lumet letting his talent do the heavy lifting with minimal interference from him or from any extended dialogue. I did like the ending, too!

The world is an evil place Charlie. Some of us make money off that and others get destroyed.
Before the Devil Knows You're Dead is directed by Sidney Lumet and written by Kelly Masterson. It stars Philip Seymour Hoffman, Ethan Hawke, Marisa Tomei, Albert Finney, Rosemary Harris and Amy Ryan. Music is scored by Carter Burwell and cinematography by Ron Fortunato.
Two brothers with differing financial problems plan to rob their parents' jewellery store. But when all does not go to plan and tragedy strikes, it sends them, and those close to them, into a world of fear, shame and violence...
It opens with a raunchy sex scene, man and wife in the throes of committed passion, for these brief moments there is pleasure. Once over, though, it proves to be a false dawn, the last time anyone on screen will taste pleasure in Lumet's biting morality tale. From here on in the film unfolds in a dizzying array of multi-perspectives and over lapping of narrative structure, a three pronged assault on the senses as a family implodes in a haze of greed, lies and inadequacies. A botched robbery underpins the plotting, the aftermath of which is what is most cutting, we zip around learning the wherewithal and whys of the key players, learning exactly what we need to know to fully immerse in this bleak world. This is a world populated by love cheats, drug abuse, embezzling, bad parenting and blackmail, a world where the brothers Hanson (Hoffman & Hawke) now dwell, either ill equipped (Hawke's Hank) or stuck between idiocy and smug evil (Hoffman's Andy). Their folly, their greed, impacting with a juddering severity on the family circle.
My life, it doesn't add up. Nothing connects to anything else. I'm not the sum of my parts. All my parts don't add up to one...me.
It would be Lumet's last film (he passed away in 2011), thankfully it is a fitting final offering from the talented Philadelphian. He's aided considerably, mind, by a razor sharp script from debut screenplay writer Masterton. It's full of nastiness and tension, but still observational as a family tragedy, with major bonus' being that it never resorts to stereotypes or cops out come the crushing denouement. Where Lumet excels is in drawing near faultless performances from his cast. Youthful and downtrodden haplessness portrayed by Hawke, Hoffman's powerhouse manipulator with emotional issues, Tomei proving that over 40 is still sexy while dialling into a very touching performance. Finney, a cracker-jack of grief from the wily old fox, Ryan's hard edged ex-wife and Michael Shannon strolling into the picture late in the day exuding notable menace. All splendidly guided by the great director who asks them to portray characters convincing in going deeper for motivations and means.
Bleak, brutal and near brilliant across the board. 9/10

> Lost in one world, found in another.
My last anime movie was 'Giovanni Island' and I did not end up liking much. I thought that was a decent movie with an intense WWII story told through the Japanese children's perspective. Since then almost half a year passed and now I saw this from the director of 'Wolf Children'. That was his career best movie, so I think the director wanted to follow the same footstep. Thus he ended up making this one which was quite similar theme, except the sketches were not as cute as that.
Like one of the discussion topics on this title, it almost connects with the director's previous movie. Maybe something like Tarantino, who tried to connect 'The Hateful Eight' with 'Django Unchained', later dropped the idea for the characters that failed to merge. But here the reason might be the drawings which were somewhat different styles. And this one seems for teenagers and adults for having a little mature content when the narration reaches the second half.
It opened by a brief telling about the monsters and its world. Came back to the human society to focus on a 8-year-old runaway boy named Ren. While tailing a couple of strange creatures, he accidentally enters the monster world through a secret portal. Soon he meets a beast called Kumatetsu who is one of two candidates for 'the great master' title, decides to take him as his protege.
So the quarrelling begins between them for having difference in everything, but as the time passes, they bond well. Then comes a time for Kumatetsu to compete in what he was preparing for, and the boy who finds his own path. But somewhere when they were getting apart, an evil force brings them together to fight against it.
> "People who work hard sincerely will master it quickly."
Felt like I was watching a comedy, that was until the first half. All the character intros were kind of normal, nothing grand, but later found a strong connection to each other and each were very unique in nature to remember. This part is where that suits better for children and what comes next was kind of opposite. Feels fun parts are over, introduces a few new characters as the narration takes as big leap as 8 years forward.
This middle section was like a re-launch, like a new story to begin. As a child character turns into a teenager, the movie attempted to fit with adultish stuffs. So there was a semi romance, but feels like the quite friendship track. This is where you think the movie lets you down, a time kill section. Due to the theme that designed to take place between the two worlds, this is very important for moving forward to the 3rd act. I think shortening around 5 minutes would have done good for the pace of the movie.
The final act is even more unlike to the earlier episodes that adds a wonderful special effects to bring the action sequence. Sadly the stunts were not as dynamic as I hoped, I mean it was too short especially if you love fights. The kid and the beast combo were like from 'Ernest & Celestine'. Whenever these two are seen together, that bring so much fun.
Basically the movie outlines how humans are obsessed for power, who can go any lengths to clinch it and one of the ways is to let the darkness consume him. I already saw it twice. For the second time view it was even better and I liked it very much. Still, it is not the director's best work, as well as not a bad movie to just ignore.
After Miyazaki announced his retirement, many anime fans, including me were heartbroken. I never found anyone who can replace him, but a very few names came closer that includes this film director. He already gave some hits, but right now all he needs is to carry on his consistency, and definitely his name would appear beside that legend. I need not to tell you that anime movies are becoming rare these days, so when one make its way and people who watched it says it is a good movie, then must grab it.
8½/10

**A “gay friendly” film that manages to be minimally neutral to also please those who are out of political and ideological struggles.**
The troubled causes have never been so popular as they are today: from abortion to euthanasia, from the historical question between colonizing and colonized countries to the return of looted artworks by European museums, passing through the causes of the Gay Movement, whose acronym grows every year, to embrace any new definition invented for each way of feeling and living sexuality, reflecting a need for affirmation that is felt more strongly than the convenience of presenting a certain union in the ranks. This “gay friendly” film fits perfectly into a growing list of cinema works dedicated to scrutinizing the dynamics of these new families. The advantage of this film is that it is not overly militant.
The script introduces us to two mature women, who live in a stable lesbian relationship and who decided to get pregnant, by artificial insemination (obviously the more traditional method was discarded for obvious reasons), the semen donor was the same and the children who were born are, therefore, half-siblings on the part of the father (whom they do not know). It is precisely the search for her biological father and the creation of a closer relationship with him that takes the plot forward, with the introduction of this friendly and uncomplicated man totally destabilizing the life of that house.
I liked the movie in general. At the same time that it tries to deny that idea, much replicated, that two lesbians would instill their own sexual orientation in their children, the film seeks to create a question around the inviolability of the anonymity of the donors of seminal material… I cannot speak for everyone, but I would never donate semen if I suspected that, years later, someone might have knocked on my door and said he was my son. Anonymity is something that should be inviolable and sacred here, regardless of the will of those involved. It was the point in the script that bothered me the most, but there were a few more.
For me, the strongest point of the film ends up being the cast and its very good performance, strongly supported by a duo of veterans: Julianne Moore and Annette Bening. Both are amazing in their characters, and they establish an excellent working dynamic and good chemistry. Mia Wasilowska and Josh Hutcherson, both still quite young, are a nice and refreshing addition to the cast, both of whom seem to be really enjoying what they're doing. Besides, we all know them nowadays, because they are two young stars. Although it's not that interesting, I have to admit that I liked Mark Ruffalo's work. I think his character was poorly thought out, and poorly written, but the actor manages himself very well and knows how to get around the obstacles that appear.
It's not a technically remarkable film, it's notable that it didn't have a superb budget, and that it was a job done thanks, in part, to the extreme dedication of everyone involved. It doesn't have amazing cinematography and editing, but what it's done works well and is effective. The film has a pleasant, light pace, and a humorous and uncomplicated atmosphere.

Morgan is a great Science Fiction movie. Horror... not so much. The acting is believable and even though this movie will not blow your mind, it is very enjoyable. The first half drags a bit, but as things get going, the movie shows its stronger side. I found myself not being bored of it at all and Luke Scott, the son of Ridley Scott, directed this one very well. The movie looks great, the sound is top notch and Morgan is the ideal movie to just lean back, relax and open a pack of chips.

While critically reviled, I found this to be a taut, tense genre exercise driven by a superb performance from Anya Taylor-Joy.

**Knowing it's a research, the mistake is emotionally attached to the subject!**
A nicely made sci-fi-thriller, but the entire storyline was built on a very familiar plot. You can find it similarities with 'Splice', 'Uncanny' and 'Ex Machina', but I think overall not a bad attempt. I did not get impressed, so do most of the people who saw those films, especially the end scene. Though it is entertaining, particularly when it turns into an action mode.
The corporate that invested in a research sends an investigator named Lee after the project was met with a small accident. During an interview, the chaos unleashes and the lab started to fall apart. The survivours does not know who to trust, but decides to save their subject. What really follows after that will be totally unexpected and another twist before the final credits.
Knowing it's a research, the mistake is emotionally attached to the subject. That's what all the similar topic films reveal. Then what's the point of doing such test, being doctor, studied psychology. For a film plot, they wanted to use the human sentiments and errors. Otherwise, science does not really deal like what was shown in this film.
From a new director, with the decent actors, particularly Kate Mara's best in an action avatar. I liked the Anya in the film 'The Witch' and this is another good performance by her in the title role. Felt like it is a short film, because the pace was so good, even though the story was a one-liner. Minimal cast film and takes place in a remote place secret research lab. A film not for everyone, but not bad for once viewing.
_5/10_

"Alex Garland’s 2015 cult hit Ex Machina, with Alicia Vikander as the robo-girl, trod similar ground; it proved more intellectually ambitious, though Morgan is a dash more fun..."
Read the full review here: http://screen-space.squarespace.com/reviews/2016/11/16/morgan.html

Following in your film-making father’s footsteps can be perceived either as a credible career choice or an inevitable curse. So the question is put forth to **Morgan** first-time director Luke Scott as he oversees this kinetic but overly familiar choppy and saggy sci-fi horror-thriller. Of course Luke is the son of famed _Alien_ and _Blade Runner_ movie mastermind Ridley Scott–the co-producer of his offspring’s muddled and mediocre futuristic feature.
Sure, the young Scott incorporates some of the elder Scott’s cinematic flourishes but for the most part **Morgan** toys around with interesting philosophical concepts and perceptions but fails to make any of these adventurous ingredients gel with any lingering forethought beyond the identity of a probing and generic genetics-oriented melodrama.
Indeed, **Morgan** has its moments of energetic lapses but the tension is telegraphed from miles away. There is something superficial about the manufactured dilemma in **Morgan** that simply misses the mark in mustering any legitimate skepticism about artificial intelligent ingenues gone roguish. The continued genre of artificial human beings–male or female–seems like a fascinating fable to tap into the mind of humanistic arrogance and progression. With past showcases as Michael Crichton’s _Westworld_ or Steven Spielberg’s _A.I._ one can see the preoccupation with revisiting this film phenom topic especially in the age of millennium movie-making. Unfortunately, the arrival of the mediocre **Morgan** does not quite follow a glorious path in this cinematic tradition.
The center of attention in this lucrative experimentation of artificial life forms involves a “girl” named Morgan (Anya Taylor-Joy). The construction of Morgan is quite ambitious as she is composed of synthetic DNA while placed physically in the body of a wild-child acting teenager. Morgan has the mentality (and physicality) of 5-year old lab-grown specimen kid and we get to check out her so-called psychological malfunctioning when she aggressively attacks Dr. Kathy Grieff (Academy Award nominee Jennifer Jason Leigh, “The Hateful Eight”) in her claustrophobic room. When Morgan tragically stabs Dr. Grieff in the eyeball we are bluntly hit over the head with the brutal hinting that this little hoodie-wearing dangerous diva is a walking disastrous time-bomb waiting to happen among the opportunistic human lab technician capitalists that invented her caustic existence.
Enter Lee Weathers (Kate Mara). Corporate risk analyst consultant Lee is sent by her profitable employer to the remote testing lab where Morgan was conceived to obviously oversee their expensive investment in the artificially crafted feminine pet project that now is showing telling signs of defiance and disobedience. The uncontrollable Morgan is an unhinged handful to contain and the lab staff at the facility are scattering about to contain the selective damage done by her destructive hands. In general, the massive and deep-wooded compound that houses Morgan and the various doctors, lab techs, researchers and business associates that come in unison for the sake of human technological tampering is a sinister setting to say the least.
Morgan is downright deadly and not a techno-tart to tangle with at will. As Dr. Kathy continues to nurse her severe eye-related wounds inflicted by the haunting human-like honeybun with indescribable speed and strength the other facility caretakers realize that the brooding Morgan may in fact be too much to handle for the self-appointed brilliant scientific minds that gave her questionable life. Among the brainy bunch that are trying to lasso the unpredictable tiny terror is Morgan’s main creator in the Nervous Ned-like persona of geeky Dr. Simon Ziegler (Toby Jones). Dr. Lui Cheng (Michelle Yeoh from “Mechanic: Resurrection”) is not new to the controversial rodeo where humanoid experimentation is concerned (resulting in Lui’s former colleague’s tragic fates). Married doctors in Brenda and Darren Finch (Vinette Robinson and Chris Sullivan) hold some glossy parental fondness for the hostile teen-experiment-in-turmoil. Dr. Amy Menser (“Game of Thrones” star Rose Leslie) has eerily taken some head-scratching “fancy” to the youthful Morgan that goes beyond inappropriate means. Rounding out the colorful group that cater to the facility functioning (and Morgan’s every step of chaos) is Lee’s tour guide Ted (Michael Yare) and cooking guru Skip Vronsky (Boyd Holbrook).
**Morgan** has some tension-filled wallop that resonates occasionally but the draggy drama never quite stimulates to the point of presenting Taylor-Joy’s lab-table vixen as nothing more that a brutish brat with a temper. The thought of Taylor-Joy’s minor-aged monster being unleashed on an unsuspecting world must have looked intriguing on the creative drawing board. However, being a pesky thorn in the side of misguided scientific minds does not exactly spell tasty devastation on society as a whole. In fact, we find ourselves cheering for the maligned Morgan to knock off these myopic medical duds to get some guilty pleasure relief from this lethal but lumbering horror sideshow.
Owens’s labored script is never challenging enough to buy into the cynicism of the profitable propaganda involving artificial intelligence at the expense of human curiosities.** Morgan** routinely dips into the blank coldness of hollow despair with only Taylor-Joy’s random naughtiness as the reliant stimulant. Mara’s Lee Weathers is surprisingly effective as the truth-seeking corporate drone out to uncover the mysteries of Morgan and the pricey lab compound that needs to prove its usefulness to her inquiring organization. Paul Giamatti pops up as the only sensible soul diagnosing the unwound Morgan as a potential toxic teen to the world environment.
There is some slickness and saucy sentiments to the uneven **Morgan** but it channels nothing dynamically distinctive from other considerable fare that competently tapped into this theme with more profoundly in-depth pizzazz and promise. Morgan may be a super-powered enigma and the hard-nosed Lee Weathers wants this frenzied freak show deactivated and put out of her misery. This is rather funny because the true troubleshooters that need deactivation are the **Morgan**-made manipulators (both on screen and off screen) that should return to the lukewarm lab room.
**Morgan** (2016)
Scott Free Films
1 hr. 32 mins.
Starring: Kate Mara, Anya Taylor-Joy, Toby Jones, Rose Leslie, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Paul Giamatti, Michelle Yeoh, Rose Leslie, Vinette Robinson, Chris Sullivan, Boyd Holbrook, Michael Yare
Directed by: Luke Scott
MPAA Rating: R
Genre: Horror & Science Fiction/Fantasy & Technology/Artificial Intelligence Drama
Critic’s rating: ** stars (out of 4 stars)
(c) **Frank Ochieng** 2016

Decent watch, could watch again, and can recommend.
It definitely doesn't stand alone, you've got to see the first movie for this one to have enough context for the situation.
It is nice that they shuffled the structure around a little, giving Kumar the love interest instead of Harold, but he's still the "problem causer" in the pair. This turns into more abuse humor focused on Harold, even more than the first movie.
Where the first movie had a much more passive antagonist and it was more of situational adversity, this has the U.S. Government as an active antagonist. This makes it political and a little less fun, but more importantly it about them running FROM something as opposed to running TO something.
While this formula is a little less fun by structure, they managed to up the ridiculousness of the situations from the first movie. I honestly think they just did everything they thought they couldn't get away with in the original.
I can easily say this is just as good as the original, which feels rare in movies.

Words like "Literary work" and "Clive Cussler" really shouldn't be in the same sentence.
Hey...chill...I love Clive Cussler, I honestly do. In fact I'll put him in the same league as Elmore Leonard and Louis L'Amour and I will put them in the same league as Dumas and Doyle.
They all write pulp fiction, adventure, crime, mystery, horror, whatever, they all fall under the title "pulp" and I can admit that I eat them whole, without swallowing...
...and without the need to call them "Literary" in an effort to save face.
I have the academic degrees somewhere in a box, the intellectual prowess, and a library with enough classics and heady works of history and philosophy to be able to openly display writers like Chris Claremont, Marv Wolfman, and Timothy Zane to not have to call his work "Literature." I will however call it "Adventure" I will call it "Fun" and what should be most important to any writer or film maker..."Entertaining." It doesn't have to follow the book. Jackie Brown was a far cry from Rum punch and they were both a lot of fun to watch and read.
So Sahara isn't like the novel.
It is an Action-Adventure-Comedy. That means it is everything that pulp should be, it is everything that movies should be...
In fact it is the kind of film that the critics would have loved in the Golden Age of Hollywood.

Decent watch, might watch again, but can't recommend unless you're running out of things to watch or are an action archaeology fan.
This was a weird attempt created a 2005 version of Indiana Jones, or, since this is in Africa, Alex Quartermaine with Matthew McConaughey, of all people. I'm not aware of Matthew McConaughey or Steve Zahn being big action stars, but they surprisingly manage to handle their own, even if it isn't always believeable. Rainn Wilson and Penelope Cruz get in on the action as well....if that helps.
The premise is a little interesting: they're looking for a U.S. Confederate boat in Africa. Because it's not interesting enough on it's own, Penelope Cruz is a doctor trying to stop a plague coming from a war-torn country. It all feels a like ridiculously improbable things happening in a world that is far too realistic rather than a world created of fiction that houses an incredible story.
The movie is heavy with plot armor, despite any cleverness the characters have.
It's fine to watch, but there has to be something else that you can watch that is likely going to be better.

Holly Hunter is on good form here as "Ada", a mute who is adept with her piano. Soon to be married to a Kiwi farmer, she sails with her daughter to his remote home where he "Alisdair" (Sam Neill) seems to be rather indifferent to her presence. The same cannot be said for their neighbour "Baines" (Harvey Keitel) though, and he engineers a land for piano swap with her husband as a prelude to inviting her round to his home to play. After a few meetings they work out a peculiarly unique bartering system that might see both get what they ultimately want from the arrangement. It's at this stage that "Alisdair" feels frustratingly cuckolded and things take a turn for the violent and the brutal. It's a beautiful film to look at, the cinematography and the costumes are perfect for the period and despite a fairly sparse dialogue, the performances - especially from Keitel and the young Anna Paquin ("Flora") are quite compelling to watch. To be honest, Neill adds very little of value and I did get a little fed up with the repetitious refrain of Michael Nyman's theme but as the story develops, we are introduced to some thought-provoking issues of ownership - and not just of the piano. A big screen does this better justice, but it is a good watch on the television too.

**A great movie.**
For me, this is one of the great films of 1993. The story is not pretty, and we could almost call it “love in times of mud”, not only because of the continuous rain and the amount of mud on the set, but mainly because of the rudeness and brutality of the male characters. However, the film is very good, it's engaging, captivating and really deserves to be brought back these days. Winner of three Oscars (Best Actress, Best Supporting Actress and Best Original Screenplay), I believe it just didn't win more due to fierce competition from "Schindler's List". The film also won the prestigious Palme d'Or for Jane Campion in Cannes.
Set in the mid-19th century, the film begins with the marriage by proxy of Ada, a young, single mother, to a middle-class farmer settled in New Zealand. The British colony was still developing, there is a tense relationship between the whites and the native Maori, and Ada's new husband is trying to buy more land on the island. We never understand what he does or what he intends to use them for, and the film ignores these details and focuses on the couple's relationship. Ada is mute, but she has a special affection for her piano and plays very well. However, the new husband is not happy about it: the piano is large, it is heavy and the journey to his house is long, which is why he leaves the piano on the beach and ends up selling it to George Baines, an illiterate who, in a rather indecent proposal, allows Ada to play it on the condition that they become sexually involved, under the guise of alleged piano lessons. However, they end up falling in love and this will shake up Ada's marriage.
This film is really the most beautiful work of Jane Campion, who brilliantly assures the direction and the script. Ada is a character we easily sympathize with, and Flora, her daughter (the name is never mentioned in the film), is endearingly tender and naive. It's the way they hold us that supports the entire film. The melodrama, for me, is like the weakest part of the film: in addition to Ada marrying a brutal and indigestible husband, she ends up falling in love with a man who is equally unpleasant and who starts by taking advantage of a situation to satisfy his own sex needs and an unbelievable passion. Today, I think it would be very difficult for Campion to present a story like that without being shot in the public square by the most wary feminists.
The cast deserves an applause. Holly Hunter gives us the performance of her career playing Ada. Moving, suffering and unhappy, the actress managed to give her a strong personality and a great deal of obstinacy. Anna Paquin, still extremely young, is beautiful in her role and the way she plays with Hunter is truly touching. Due to her innocence and innate sense of justice, her character protects her mother, but, at the right moments, condemns her for her untimely and thoughtless attitudes. Sam Neill is effective and very good in the role of Ada's husband. The actor manages to make his character detestable. Harvey Keitel is also very good in the role of Baines, and it was a surprise for me, since I tend to associate him more with action or thriller roles.
Technically, the film has an epic, melodramatic feel that instills depth, which was nice to feel. There are certain moments where it feels like the film is doing some self-importance, but I handled that well. The cinematography is truly excellent, and is beautifully shot. The filming locations were well-chosen, and shows us a wild and inhospitable side of New Zealand, a place that, for many of us, is unknown and arouses curiosity. I didn't know, for example, that it was such a rainy place, but that makes sense, considering the location and the mountainous topography. A word of praise, also, for the costumes, very historically accurate. Finally, a word for the grandiose soundtrack, based naturally on piano, and composed by Michael Nyman.

Jane Campion's third feature film, THE PIANO is a historical drama that tells of a Scottish woman, Ada McGrath (Holly Hunter), who is married off to a colonist in New Zealand that she has never met. Ada is mute, a development that mysteriously came upon her in childhood, but she is a virtuoso pianist and her cherished instrument is one way she communicates her feelings to the world. As Ada and her illegitimate daughter Flora (Anna Paquin) land on the shores of New Zealand's South Island sometime in the mid-19th century, her new husband Stewart (Sam Neill) ignores her sign-language entreaties to carry her piano inland along with their other belongings. Feeling no love for this man she has been forced to marry, Ada is drawn into sexual bargaining with another colonist, Baines (Harvey Keitel) who offers to get her the piano back if she does what he wants.
The first half of this film is an interesting study in sexual power and the tragedy of a woman's lot during this historical era. Neither Stewart or Baines are admirable men; Stewart is uncaring of Ada's true passion for the piano, but Baines exploits her distress and powerlessness to get what he wants and he doesn't respect consent. Unfortunately, as the film develops, Campion decides to ultimately turn this into a straight-up romance novel, where the heroine willingly gives in to the roguish bad-boy. I realize that Campion might go for the common desire of a woman to feel desired, but that shouldn't come at the expense of glorifying a creep as she does here.
To better serve as a foil for Baines, Stewart's squareness is played up, and the two characters are reduced to crude cutouts of a "good guy" and "bad guy". This extends to a critique of 19th-century colonialism and racism: naturally, as the man who audiences are supposed to feel is disgusting and unattractive, Stewart is keen on stealing land from the indigenous Maori people. Baines, on the other hand, as the cool heartthrob, hangs out with the Maori and respects their culture even to the point of learning their language and tattooing his face.
Well, even if the actual plot is a ridiculous pulp fantasy, the production values are fine. New Zealand's wild shore and rainforests are memorably captured by cinematographer Stuart Dryburgh. The film has a distinctive blue cast that unites the thick cover of the forest and the depths of the sea. While some controversy remains about the depiction of the Maori people here, they are still given a great deal of screen time and the ability to speak their own language on film. The piano-heavy soundtrack by English composer Michael Nyman is deservedly celebrated: deliberately anachronistic, its saccharine, minimalist feel of the 20th century represents Ada's innermost thoughts.
There is good acting as well. Anna Paquin, of course, won an Oscar for her depiction of Flora, and one wouldn't expect such mature composure and convincing emotions from a child of this age. Holly Hunter has to convey everything through gestures and facial expressions and she does this marvelously. One of the delights of Campion's feature debut SWEETIE was Genevieve Lemon, and here in a supporting role she turns in here a mildly comedic performance that adds some levity to the severe sexual drama.
Seeing it again some two decades after it came out, THE PIANO feels like a rather slighter film than I remembered it, and it is difficult to understand what drew critics to the time to rave about it. I would really only recommend this to people with a specific interest in New Zealand or Michael Nyman's soundtrack, but I don't see this as an all-time classic.

Good watch, probably won't watch again, but can recommend.
I'm not the biggest fan of Vince Vaughn, but this is not the typical Vince Vaughn movie.
He usually plays some immature, selfish man-child, and...that's true here, but this is somehow positioned after his other roles where he wants to turn over a new leaf, for his 500+ kids.
The concept alone is enough to make the movie work, it's heavy in a charming and heart-felt way, and definitely makes the movie the experience it is.
I honestly think almost any decent actor could have filled the role, and probably better. It's a barely redeemable character, and having it be Vince Vaughn doesn't help me.
I honestly think this would be better done as a series where we get more interaction with the different kids, which is by far the most interesting part.
Worth a watch, but I don't see a lot of people re-watching this one.

Back to the old school. Love this movie. This is when cop movies started to have some comedy in it.

Entertaining buddy action-comedy that features a good antagonistic relationship between Nolte and Murphy. The plot isn't the strongest but the action/fight scenes were alright. **3.25/5**

You switch from an armed robber to a pimp, you're all set.
A hard as nails cop reluctantly teams up with a wise-cracking criminal temporarily paroled to him, in order to track down an escaped convict cop killer.
The mismatched buddy buddy formula exploded onto the screen here in a ball of violence, profanity and pin sharp one liners. It also launched Eddie Murphy into 1980s stardom. Directed by Walter Hill and starring Nick Nolte alongside Murphy as part of an electrifying black and white double act, it's unrelenting in pace and bad attitude. It could have been so different though, with the likes of Stallone, Reynolds, Pryor and Hines attached at various times for lead parts, it now is written in folklore that Murphy got the break and grasped it with both hands (he was actually fired at one point mind!). Thankfully the problems behind the scenes were resolved to give us a classic of its type.
A big success for Paramount it paved the way for more choice same formula pictures in the decade, but few were able to be so course and daring with the racial divide explosions. Murphy is outstanding, quick as an A.K. 47 in vocal delivery and with visual comedic ticks in full effect, he plays off of the also excellent gruff rough and tough Nolte superbly. Unsurprisingly the plot trajectory is simple enough, but such is the writing and performances (James Remar, Sonny Landham and David Patrick Kelly in support) it's one hell of a live wire ride from start to finish.
In amongst the verbal and action carnage you find plenty of 80s pop culture, with a blunderbuss sound track and a score from James Horner that pings around the Los Angeles locales (he would rework it for Arnie starrer Commando in 1985). This points to a time where now it is perceived as being tactless and a relic, and yet it instils realism as it captures the zeitgeist of the era. So not one for the easily offended then, but for nostalgics and those interested in the expansion of the action comedy formula, then this is a must see that still delivers high octane entertainment. 8/10