**Pink Floyd's music works on its own. As a film, it's a waste of time.**
I don't know if Pink Floyd were aware of the impact that “The Wall” would have when they released it. Today, there is some consensus in considering it one of the best rock albums ever and “Another Brick in the Wall” has become an anthem for teenage rebellion, which does not conform to the rules, dictates and conventions. And I feel free to say all this because rock is not, by any stretch of the imagination, one of my personal preference styles of music. I listen, casually, but I wouldn't pay for a ticket.
What this film does, essentially, is to take the concept of the album – which was designed and released as if it were a kind of opera-rock – and give it a look to match in an absolutely dreamlike, hallucinated style. There is no plot other than the one that goes on in the head of the protagonist, the rock vocalist Pink, who seems to be experiencing a very deep depression, as his social and emotional isolation increases, caused by an absent father (he died in the war when he was a child), an overprotective mother, a series of abusive teachers and a recent divorce.
Watching the film is like watching a musical nightmare. It's not an optimistic film, and it's not easy to watch, especially because the plot isn't very obvious and there are no explanations. There are several impactful scenes, so I don't know if it's the most suitable film for impressionable audiences. There are many fantasies about war, about power and using power to control others. There are also some good animated scenes, although they are just as disturbing as all the others. However, the film is just that... and Pink Floyd's music. The film will certainly please fans of the band, and rock lovers in general, but other audiences may think it doesn't justify their time.

If I were in the mood to watch adult content, Netflix would definitely not be my first choice. The movie I stumbled upon was a total disaster, making me extremely uncomfortable, especially when children unexpectedly walked into the room. It was a messy experience that I strongly advise against.
"365 Days" seems to be all about sex and trying to engage the audience solely on that basis. The sequel follows the same pattern, and both films are filled with excessive plot holes, acting issues, and seem to lack a meaningful storyline. It feels like they are veering towards the wrong direction, almost resembling pornography rather than a film with substance.
Despite being somewhat enjoyable, these movies left me questioning why they were even made. I only watched the sequel because I had seen the first one and felt compelled to review both at the same time, even though I found them both to be quite terrible.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://leakedcinema.com/en/movie/829557/365DaysThisDay
Oh, that's beautiful: two people (?) sitting in the sunset, both beautiful, the guy has a tattoo on his palm, nowhere else (Redflag!!), she stares deeply in love at his quivering lips. The male lead looks as if the coke delivery from the wholesaler hasn't arrived, she's naked again. And then, wow, that look - like someone fell asleep on Instagram's sepia filter slider. Everything looks so beautifully even.
In addition, the lovely sounds of the best that the German charts have to offer jingle from positions 58 to 72. Is it always the same song? Or lots of them that always sound the same? Is it even music or has someone kicked the neighbor's cat in the shin again? I don't know it. But no time to think. One of the mega hot soft sex games is just beginning, which is always really nasty and unpleasant.
It's sooo romantic. She says “Fuck me”, he says nothing as usual, but his look has now changed from a coke hit to a stroke. And then he licks it. Oh, great. With the whole tongue, once across the face and the adjacent table leg. Luckily, the endless banter is filmed in super slow motion, so the torture...cinematic ecstasy lasts much, much longer.
Suddenly he says... no, that's not true, he doesn't say anything. We only speak here in emergencies. Even if there's probably some kind of mafia plot being told, which I overlooked in all the constant fucking around. Unfortunately, I didn't understand who all these people were until the end. Well, of course it's stupid that I didn't see the first part, but it's also a little bit unusual that this sequel doesn't make any effort to give these characters any depth. Or to explain what is actually going on here. Is anything even going on? Well, it doesn't matter. The guys are supposed to be cute and the women are supposed to be persistent and stupid. And oh - they start slobbering on each other again 😍😍😍
————
“365 Days - This Day” is like “Fifty Shades of Gray” for sexually frustrated amoebas like Dr. RTL2's summer question page is filmed as if the Netflix executive suite was personally shitting in your brain, in slow motion. Infuriatingly misogynistic, absurdly badly acted and of course at number 1 on the Netflix charts. When is there a power outage when you need one?

Oh hell naw!

Undoubtedly still awful viewing, but... I found it a tiny bit more watchable than its predecessor.
'365 Days: This Day' still has nothing that even closely resembles a plot, still has extremely limited actors and still shouldn't even exist. However, I'd be lying if I said I disliked it as much as the 2020 original. It's almost like taking out the sexual violence actually makes it more digestable, who'd a thunk it?!
Unlike that other release, this falls into the more common category of just simply being rubbish. I will say, though, the music kinda slaps. The film is pretty much comprised of a series of sexual music videos placed back-to-back-to-back. Some of music used is well chosen I can't deny, I Shazam'd a couple... admittedly that probably says more about my taste in music than anything else! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
There's even some minor neat cinematography, too. The positives I note are minimal, though, and don't overly help this 2022 production. I have more negatives, which also include an overlong run time and that shoddy ending. At least it marginally improves upon the film it follows, I wonder if its own sequel will do likewise? I plan to find out!

Luckily, this final outing for Harrison Ford's "Jack Ryan" is far more entertaining that his previous "Patriot Games" shenanigans from 1992 - so the Queen Mother's other cousins can relax. This time, he is promoted into the shoes of his terminally ill mentor "Greer" (James Earl Jones) as Deputy Director of Intelligence at the CIA. Everyone is working on plans to shut down the infamous Cali drug cartel in Colombia, but it soon becomes clear that there are wheels within wheels in the US administration, traitors all over the shop, and "Ryan" looks certain to take the fall when the dominoes start to tumble. This is a solid espionage thriller, with a complex plot peppered with a few extended action scenes and some decent performances from Ford, Willem Dafoe as the betrayed enforcer "Clark" and the combination of Messrs. "Ritter" (Henry Czerny) and "Cutter" (Harris Yulin) make poor old "Jack" realise that he might well be safer on the side of the drug lords! It's a bit too long, and certainly it takes maybe thirty minutes of plot development to get going, but once it does it's a quality adaptation of a more cerebral story of corruption, deceit and ass-covering that still holds up thirty years later.

These drug cartels represent a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States.
The third outing for Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan - and the second with Harrison Ford in the lead - is a tightly constructed political thriller. Condensing Clancy's door stoppers is no easy task, but the makers here, headed by director Phillip Noyce, have manged to keep the pic brisk and intelligent for entertainment worth.
Plot essentially boils down to America's war on drugs and the Colombian cartel at the helm of such operations. Naturally all is a bit suspect in the American corridors of power, leading to corruption and abuse of power that puts Jack Ryan firmly at the front to sift and destroy the bad eggs staining the American Star Spangled Banner.
This very much plays out for those who like a bit of politico subterfuge, whist being ok with long passages of like minded chatter is also a requisite. That we have a fine cast playing out the screenplay (Donald E. Stewart, Steven Zaillian and John Milius) is a big plus that gives credibility to the shifty machinations.
There's a nagging annoyance throughout that this still should be a better film, especially given the overstretched run time of 2 hours 20 minutes, and the computer sections are dubious and the finale is something of a damp squib. However, we are in the company of great pros, both in front of and behind the camera - and also on the page (Clancy's brain superlative). With that in mind it's reasons to seek this out and enjoy if this splinter of political thriller is your bag. 7/10

Great watch, will likely watch again, and do recommend.
It's got a lot of sexual based humor, but if you're okay with that, then you're going to have a great time with this one.
It's supposed to be Dane Cook's juvenile adventure through love, sex, and....dentistry(?), arguably calamity, but Jessica Alba is really the one that makes this shine.
Not only is she a lovely looking lady, but she's an awesome actor and nails the clumsy girl role down to every micro expression.
Like everything thing, this movie has its low points, mostly with the best friend character, but it's the idiot's mirror. You let a character say everything wrong.
I've seen this movie several times and expect to watch it several more times.

Genuinely one of the most bizarre films I have ever seen in my entire life. I am at such a complete and total loss on _Practical Magic_. I might have genuinely thought I'd fallen asleep and dreamt half a different movie if it wasn't for the fact that I watched it with my roommate and she had the exact same nonsensical experience as I.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

Well I think the poster says it all, and if it's eye candy you are looking for then for the first hour or so neither Paul Walker nor Jessica Alba are going to disappoint. That comes later when they have to put their clothes on and do some acting with this far-fetched hybrid of drug smuggling and wreck-diving. It's the latter activity that convinces these two along with "Bryce" (Scott Caan) and "Amanda" (Ashley Scott) that their fortunes could be made. Snag is, you can't just raise tons of ancient booty from the sea bed and sail into harbour with it. What's this to do with drugs? Well we know from the preamble that a plane has crashed, and that it contains a great deal of cocaine. Guess what? Yep, they find it. Initially wanting nothing to do with it, they later conclude that they ought to try and sell it - and that brings them into conflict with "Bates" (Josh Brolin) who wants to have his cake and eat it! As the pace quickens, there now ensues loads of action-packed shenanigans in and out of the water. It's not the worst, indeed the last twenty minutes (allowing for some fairly obvious CGI) is actually quite an exciting sequence that allows everyone to get wet and bothered - and you'd better be able to tell the difference between a Tiger shark and a tuna fish. Brolin makes for quite a decent baddy, Caan - well he probably ought to be called Caan't, and the two on the poster show us that beautiful people still have a place on the small screen.

**Into the Blue doesn't break new ground, but it's a solid thriller with a fun cast, a suspenseful story, and worth a watch.**
Into the Blue is best known for capitalizing on the popularity of its attractive stars to promote this low-budget movie. Still, if you actually take the time to watch the film, you will find a solid thriller complete with treasure hunting, shark attacks, plot twists, drug lords, and more. Paul Walker and Jessica Alba excel as a young couple in love living off of small jobs in the Bahamas with dreams of running their own salvage rig one day. But their hunt for treasure intertwines with a drug runner's efforts to recover a lost shipment. The stakes keep rising higher and higher as sharks attack and trusted colleagues turn out to be not so trustworthy. Into the Blue's exciting and suspenseful treasure hunt might just be a hidden treasure of its own with the right expectations.

‘A Dog’s Journey’ is just like the other films that preceded it - if you want cute dogs, you’ll get cute dogs and that’s about it. Sure, it’s manipulative at times, but three films in, the audience and filmmakers know the dog film checklist like the back of their hand.
- Chris dos Santos
Read Chris' full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-a-dogs-journey-barking-up-the-same-tree-for-a-third-time

Bad watch, won't watch again, and can't recommend. (Maybe for younger audiences)
I understand that this is supposed to be a "power of imagination" kids story, but there is just a lot of garbage in this.
The kids seem to do some fairly good acting for what they're asked to do, but I'm not sure why George Lopez was cast, but the writing is weak enough that it could easily just be the writing.
The story is designed to look like it's just literally written haphazardly as they go, so it's hard to tell what's badly written, and what's correctly written to make it look like bad kid writing.
While the characters of Sharkboy (especially) and Lavagirl are quite ridiculous, there are some fun things that they include throughout the movie, so its not like the movie is completely without quality, but piled together it was not an experience I'd want to do again.

While recently watching "Blue Is the Warmest Color," I was reminded of this film, and like "Blue," I was drawn to how the film's central relationship between Tenoch and Julio felt both astoundingly ecstatic and yet isolating, especially when it ends. It's as if the passions from their road trip to Heaven's Mouth burned too brightly to be sustained once they returned to their normal lives. I first looked at this film as a coming-of-age film, albeit one that happened to include sex scenes much more graphic than others of its genre. That opinion helps me find a reflective starting point for this film, but every time I watch it, I think more and more about the socioeconomic points Cuarón interjects throughout. I think more about how little I know about other countries, especially the one just south of my own. (I suppose Tenoch and Julio don't know that much either.) After this last viewing, I thought more about whether the the two actually learned something positive from the experience. We're told they never meet again after the film ends. What happens next? And how does this trip I witnessed mean to that answer?

"Scrooged" has been suggested by "A Christmas Carol" by Charles Dickens and the familiar themes this film tackles are becoming increasingly relevant with the passing of each year as the human race becomes even more isolated and jaded than ever before by the unceasing and repetitive grinds and demands of daily life where considerations such as kindness and a generosity of spirit are fading fast and in danger of never being recovered after they have been lost. This film attempts to address the malaise and remind people that life is only worth living when it is done with a genuine sense of charity towards other people and this shouldn't be restricted to just one day of the year. The Christmas spirit can and should be adopted as a lifestyle choice and the repeated attempts to attain this goal ought to be the only insatiable greed in the world today.

Not this time Bill, not this time.
This time, Bill's signature antics worked against him.
I don't know what happened, maybe Bill just didn't want to play in this movie, but he overacted too much in all scenes, whether comic scenes or dramatic ones, it doesn't matter.
There was only one scene where he showed us all his skills in the end. And that scene was the only one within the whole movie that brings us a Christmas attitude. What should be an essential part of any Christmas movie.
Ghosts of the Past and Present were good enough. But the FUTURE?
Who wouldn't be scared to death in his place when your death is shown in such a manner?
It's a dirty hack for the Future, it's impossible not to change his mind about everything they ask.
He would eat his nails or a maggot if they would ask after that.
Worth to watch once, but I doubt I will be watching this again.
Rate: 7

Does Bill break the 4th wall or is he talking to the TV audience? I mean, this movie and the argument my parents had after it was how I learned what the 4th wall was... and for the record, I side with Mom, he was clearly breaking it.
You already know the plot, which is nice about these movies, you know what is going to happen, it's all about how they are going to present it, and the presentation was pretty hysterical.
It is very 80s, very 80s comedy, playing with the offensive and the inoffensive in a family friendly way, and at the end of the day, you get a good laugh over a Christmas tale.
There isn't that much to say, you already know everything about it without actually needing to watch it, just that this presentation is funny and heart warming... heart warming like all the others, save for the remake made for "Modern Audiences" that ends on a note of spite and hate.

Surprisingly, I didn't enjoy 'Scrooged' all that much.
I never really clicked with this 1988 release whilst I was watching it. Bill Murray is fine, the Ghost of Christmas Past is good and the bits of the plot involving Alfre Woodard's character are decent. That's all I have for noteworthy positives, though. The vibe of the film felt off to me. I didn't connect with Murray's Frank at any point, whether it be the past, the present or the future version of him.
I get, as Scrooge, you're supposed to dislike him, but I've seen a fair few versions of 'A Christmas Carol' and I feel like the Scrooge character is usually moreso cowardly bad, as in he'll be horrid to people behind their back or under his breath - as opposed to Frank Cross, who is in your face, over the top, overtly mean. Perhaps I'm misremembering or it just stuck out to me more here as I didn't like much else from the 100 or so minutes.
For an Xmas flick, also, it doesn't hit the Christmassy spot either. It could've done with more warmth, or at least some entertaining and/or funny moments; I did minorly chuckle a few times, I will say, but not nearly enough. I still wouldn't describe this as a 'bad' film, but it is quite far adrift of being a positive in my books.
I thought this would've be a good'un, many think it is which is fair, but for me I unfortunately didn't particularly like it.

Put a little love in your heart.
This is a perfect vehicle for Bill Murray, his brand of sarcastic and caustic delivery is nailed on perfect for Frank Cross, the modern day scrooge in this tale. I have often found him to be an acquired taste, I mean don't get me wrong here, I'm a big fan and can repeatedly watch his best offerings, but it's not hard to understand why his style is not universally loved. Scrooged is pure and simply the modern spin of the story we all have grown up with, that isn't to say that the film loses anything as regards Christmas spirit, because it doesn't, the message is still the same, and in this ever changing world of ours the core essence of the story is one the world should heed.
This version is a blast, it's loud, it's brash, but boy is it damn funny, and I personally watch it every Christmas without fail. And yes, I watch it alongside the glorious Alistair Sim version, for although they are poles apart in class, they both entertain for very different reasons.
Joining Murray in this festive romp is the delightful Karen Allen, while luminaries such as former New York Dolls front man David Johansen and Mr. Laconic himself, Robert Mitchum, add some weight to the cast list. It all works really rather well with the exception of Carol Kane's Ghost Of Christmas Present, where to me she comes off as being more annoying than funny, but that of course is a personal opinion and I know as fact that many others adore her energetic performance. With quips aplenty and of course with a simple heartfelt message at the core, Scrooged is truly a sharp and enjoyable film to be enjoyed at the festive period.
Thanks boys, get the nurse! 8/10

Not the same actors. The actors that are in it aren't good actors. At least the scary monsters were good. If it weren't for Jack Black saving the movie. I would have given this a 1 rating.

The original Jack Black _Goosebumps_ movie did not really impress me, and _Haunted Halloween_ is actually fractionally worse. But I still stand by the idea of taking your kids to see monster movies.
_Final rating:★★ - Definitely not for me, but I sort of get the appeal._

**Very friendly and well done, it's pure entertainment.**
Along with the world of Walt Disney's ducks, "The Muppets" and the various productions of Hanna and Barbera, the "Looney Tunes" and "Merry Melodies" are the largest and most popular sets of North American animation cartoons. And when it comes to the Tunes, we know what's going to happen: there's going to be a lot of crazy animation, explosions and funny effects.
This film will please Tunes fans, putting the most adorable and iconic characters on the big screen, and giving the spotlight, of course, to Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck, the duo that is inseparable, even if they are always at odds. It all begins with the dismissal of Daffy and a human employee of the Warner studio, and will end in a kind of fight against evil, in support of the father of that employee who, in fact, is a secret agent in the image of James Bond. A seemingly crazy mix, but one that works thanks to the skill and irreverence of the Tunes.
I won't waste time talking about voice actors. The studio intelligently took advantage of those who usually voice these characters, so we are dealing with professionals who know very well what they do and what the characters ask of them. We have, however, an excellent comic performance by Brendan Fraser, who seems completely comfortable with what was asked of him and even seems to have fun with it all. Jenna Elfman isn't bad either, but she can't keep up with Fraser.
The movie is very good. It's pure entertainment, with classic touches that we're used to seeing in Tunes material. It's the case with that chase in the Louvre, or the various fights between Duffy and Bugs. Being a more humble and sympathetic film than Space Jam, I felt that it doesn't have the weight of excessive publicity against it, besides having a true comic actor in the main human role, and not an amateur trying to act it out.

**Reborn to face even bigger troubles.**
It's true that Sandler had lost his Midas touch, but last few films suggest he's back. Still, he's not the same old what he used to be. The time has changed, so he has to adapt to it and I think he's doing okay. Only haters/film critics keep hating him. This is a Netflix production and Sandler in a mysterious role. He teams up with his old school friend and they fake their deaths to begin a new life. But the identities they have borrowed ones are even in the bigger troubles which begins to haunt them as well. So coming out of it is the remaining film to tell.
The storyline seems just okay. Since it is not fresh enough, they did not even overuse the concept to build plot with clichés. Kind of guessable twists, but it will work for most of the people. Better stunt sequences for such a comedy flick. Good performances and it was a smooth sail according to the film's pace. The director and Sandler had given a few good comedies back then, and this fresh collaboration was decent. So don't believe the film critics (Rotten Tomatoes & Metacritic), elsewhere it is rated much better, but still somewhat underrated. If you are seeking a decent action-comedy, this is worth a try.
_7/10_

Adam Sandler is back? Read my full review here.
http://www.hweird1reviews.com/allreviews/the-do-over-review

Action films with long, uncut, well-choreographed fighting sequences starring a couple of well-known actors seem to be one of the newest Hollywood trends. Kate is yet another entry in the exponentially growing list of action flicks boasting extraordinary stunt work but lacking compelling character work and an original story.
Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Birds of Prey) proves her worth in the combat department, carrying the otherwise dull movie on her shoulders. Unfortunately, the remarkable actress isn't strong enough to elevate what's just another female assassin derivative narrative that viewers have witnessed countless times before.
Rating: C+

The keywords already tell you the story outline, so I skip that.
Most of this movie is fan service - a lot of (female) Max Payne (the real one, not the awkward 2008 dud); of Agent 47, a bit of John Wick, a nod to Leon ("all of them")... not too a complicated story, well-choreographed and filmed violence, nice modern Japanese atmosphere:
I got what I expected, a satisfying action flick. And that's probably what Netflix ordered for us, "Because You Watched".
But what made it really worth seeing this movie for me were a couple of minutes of actual acting.
Winstead is great at her Terminator/MaxPayne/Leon/Wick/McClane-Show, and when she's allowed to act, she proves worth being the lead.
But when Jun Kunimura turns up, he expresses so much in a little time, that was what really sold this movie to me.
(Also, solid supporting performances. Kudos.)
Overall: not as bad as critics say. Stylish Entertainment.

I found this to be an incredibly fun and beautifully shot film. Who cares if it’s John Wick-esque? It’s not like he invented the genre. Mary Elizabeth Winsted was freakin’ awesome and I totally wanted to be her. The colors, the lights, the fight scenes? Excellent. Sometimes a movie is just supposed to be entertaining…it doesn’t have to change the course of cinema history to be good. I mean, people give this 2-stars and then rave over Malignant? Take that with a grain of salt. On second thought, just take the shaker.

Just as Victor Hugo's novel is considered one of the most important books of all time, this movie may be one of the most important films of the of the 21st century. If you're expecting the musical - forget it - it's not. It's dirty and gritty and honest.
There is no satisfying ending to the movie. The outcome of a single, individual story is not important. Published in 1862, Victor Hugo wrote in his preface: "So long as there shall exist, by reason of law and custom, a social condemnation, which, in the face of civilization, artificially creates hells on earth ... so long as ignorance and misery remain on earth, books like this cannot be useless." It's 2023. Nothing has really changed in 200 years.
The story here is great, and relevant. The film is fabulously well-made.

There was surprise when France chose to submit 'Les Misérables' as their entry for Best International Film at the upcoming Academy Awards rather than Céline Sciamma's beloved 'Portrait of a Lady on Fire', but the decision makes a certain degree of sense. Where 'Portrait' is a timeless instant classic that speaks to the ongoing human condition, Ladj Jay's debut film is so immediate and vital for where France, and indeed Europe, find themselves now. Just as in Victor Hugo's novel, they are on the brink of a massive cultural and political collapse, a crisis that will define their future as a multicultural and economic society. Its mostly conventional structure and approach make it far more accessible than you expect, but this is never at the expense of its intelligence or intention. 'Les Misérables' is a remarkable, electrifying and ultimately shattering film, a stellar debut for Ladj Jay, and most importantly, a work that feels necessary - not just for France, but for those that created it and those who see it. It's a thrilling act of cinematic protest.
- Daniel Lammin
Read Daniel's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-les-miserables-a-remarkably-thrilling-act-of-cinematic-protest

Every time Claire Foy is not on the screen, the calibre of acting in _Unsane_ drops to laughable. I'm glad that Soderbergh is able to put together films for the seven-figure price range, but the fact of the matter is that the camera on an iPhone just isn't that good. It's decent enough to (in most scenes) get the visuals across, but never decent enough to not be a distraction. _Unsane's_ tale is relatively well told, but also something that's been done before, and considering the man in the director's chair, something that probably should have been done better too.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._