Comfortably the best 'Descendants' movie.
'Descendants 2' is the only one of the prior three that I didn't dislike, I didn't even like that 2017 release but it is at least better than the original flick (especially!) and 'Descendants 3'. This one is a spin-off and actually loses cast members from the trilogy, which should be a negative as they were the 'best' elements of that series.
However, this cast are good. Kylie Cantrall is a positive addition as Red, as is Rita Ora as the Queen of Hearts. Other newcomers who are pluses are Brandy and Malia Baker, Jeremy Swift is decent too. It isn't just the onscreen talent that come out positively, the story and music (no cringe induced, miraculously) are too - they are much improved.
I am surprised there weren't any major twists (unless they come in a sequel, of course), but that's not a negative. I'm also a fan of how colourful the movie looks, visually it's probably an improvement too. All in all, I'm surprised at how fairly enjoyable this was to sit through - something I hadn't yet experienced with this franchise.
Based on the Letterboxd average rating that I see post-watch, it is much lower rated than the other three films. Typical! Probably explains why I liked it, perhaps what I previously found cringe is what makes 'Descendants', 'Descendants'? Each to their own and all that.

"Come on, Casey. Come on."
"Get to the house! Get to the house!"
"Body GPS."
If those snippets of dialogue don't get you to watch this movie, you'll not miss anything.

I don't mind the occasional stripped down action flick. Nor do I mind Aaron Eckhart. That said, Classified is in my estimation, simply poor.
A poorly scripted story, filled with unconvincing characters and clumsy action that's lacking in contextual unity.
In summary, its okay to produce straightforward action flicks but, as a minimum, they need a robust if uncomplicated script that tells a compelling story.

Nothing to offset Glen Powell
I was able to enjoy Set It Up, because there were characters there that offset the Glen Powell vibe, but this movie doesn't have that. I really don't know what it is about him that rubs me the wrong way, but even if he acts likeable, I can't stomach it.
Sydney Sweeney's character was ok, she played the part well, but her parents are another source of frustration. I don't know if GaTa can be called an actor, his line delivery was like reading from a paper.
The whole thing just didn't mix at all and had to drop when things got to Australia. Couldn't take it anymore.

Imperfect, though 'Anyone But You' does deliver amusing moments and works nicely as a romcom.
It usually isn't the best sign when the end credits are a film's best bit, which is the case here (s/o Natasha Bedingfield!), though thankfully that statement is only an additional positive for this Will Gluck directed movie. It does do clichés, but does at least add some freshness to the genre.
Sydney Sweeney and Glen Powell portray great chemistry, I enjoyed both performances. Sweeney's stylist killed it I gotta say, heck even Powell's too. Some of their, and others', dialogue is too manufactured at times, but that be just a minor complaint to be honest. The rest of those onscreen are satisfactory. I must say the director's father, Peter Gluck, gave me one of the film's stronger chuckles in his tiny role on the plane sat next to Sweeney - perfect line delivery!
I had fun with this. As already noted, it isn't anything all that standout but it delivered what I evidently wanted. Solid. The William Shakespeare stuff was a bit forced, mind you.

Despite myself, I actually quite enjoyed this. After (what looked like) a platonic one night stand, "Bea" (Sydney Sweeney) and "Ben" (Glen Powell) manage to part company loathing one another. Serendipity has no intention of allowing this to be the end of things though, and so arranges for her sister to marry one of his best friends. After a few uncomfortable meetings in a bar, they all head off to Australia for the nuptials. Her parents are very keen to get her back with ex "Jonathan" (Darren Barnet) whilst his ex "Margaret" (Charlee Fraser) is also there. Against their better judgment our two decide to pretend to be a couple to provoke envy from one and protect the other from the intent of the meddling parents. What now ensues does really depend on a plausible degree of chemistry between Sweeney and Powell and I thought they did quite well. A little bit more meddling from Bryan Brown, some Di Caprio-esque action at the front of a yacht and some kindly support from the Sydney harbour rescue helicopter helps keep this amiably jogging along for an admittedly twenty minutes too long 1¾ hours. It's quite pithily written and manages to avoid the worst in both American and Australian stereotypes. It also isn't shy of sex, comic nudity and a bit of practical adult humour that makes a change from the usual puerile smut we are so frequently offered nowadays. It's entirely forgettable, but is an enjoyable enough dollop of sun, sea, sex and silliness.

WOW this is awful. I remember the original Crow film with Brandon Lee (who sadly passed away making the film), which was reasonable but this so called remake, is, simply put, a cinematic train wreck.
Eric (The Crow) is, it seems, not really the main character (he's elbowed aside by his drug addict, criminally linked, ex prostitute girlfriend). Apparently Eric, not to be entirely outdone however, is also a drug addict. Both he and the upcoming love interest attend a drug rehab centre, where everyone dresses like extra's from a Pink Panther movie. Oh and poor Eric's a wuss, who's bullied until he and his lady friend escape, have a tryst and are promptly croaked by some bad guys, who are after his dodgy lady friend. At this point and for reasons that seem, to say the least, far fetched, Eric is resurrected, as a mostly inept, anti hero tasked with seeking revenge.
Suffice to say, this remake is filled with characters who are deeply unlikable and a central plot that's not only weak tea but make's little rational sense. Backed by a so called love story, that's about as appetising, as a two week old bowl of clam chowder.
In summary, the original The Crow film from way back when is a cinematic masterpiece, when compared to this dismal retake. In my opinion, one to avoid.

Closer to 'Morbius' than it is to 'The Crow'.
That is... A: not even a joke, it honestly felt similar vibe-wise to that infamous 'Sony's Spider-Man Universe' movie for large portions. B: not as big a slight as you may think, as I didn't dislike that Jared Leto flick as much as most others did (not saying it's good, mind).
Still, this version of the highly regarded 1994 picture isn't all that, I'm afraid. it almost feels like something completely different, they could've altered a few minor things and made an entirely original film to be honest. I found the pacing to be particularly off, while the antagonist(s) are extremely plain throughout.
I do have some positives. Bill Skarsgård and FKA Twigs make for a solid pairing, I sensed enough chemistry between them and both their performances are satisfactory. The music is decent, while some of the kills are creatively done and well shown onsreen.
All in all, however, it's a thumbs down from me; no copyright infringement intended, Messrs Siskel and Ebert.

I think the best plan of attack for this film is to forget all about Brandon Lee's 1994 version and treat this as a stand-alone vehicle for Bill Skarsgård to show off his ninja skills. He's "Eric" who encounters "Shellly" (FKA twigs) and is then promptly embroiled in the devilish machinations of "Roeg" (Danny Huston) who ensures that his hench-woman "Marion" (Laura Birn) kills them both. Turns out, though, that "Eric" still has enough purity of soul left to return to the land of the living and so long as he is touched by true love's kiss sort of thing, will remain immortal long enough to avenge the couple. Yes, there is a crow - the embodiment of his spirit when he goes on his murderous spree, but that whole theme isn't at all developed so let's just forget about that and revert to the whole point of the film - an excuse to pack loads of slaughter, acrobatics and dark, eerie photography into all but two hours of repetitious mediocrity. The camera likes Skarsgård well enough, and there's certainly plenty of him to see here as he takes on all comers. Why were they killed though? Who is "Roeg"? Sure, you can put your own interpretation onto the story if you can be bothered, but director Rupert Sanders has almost entirely focussed on the gloomy and very wet imagery and decided against putting any meat on the bones of the story or the characters. There's a welcome paucity of dialogue throughout and FKA clearly twigged there wasn't much for her to do here so leaves much of the film to her co-star trying his best to be an amalgam of "John Wick" and "Selene" from "Underworld" (2003). It does look good but hasn't an original feather in it's body. It's nice to see Josette Simon (remember "Blake's Seven"?) on the big screen, albeit briefly, but this is really all very disappointing.

#MovieReview #Migration #IlluminationMigration
"Illumination Migration" is a lively and captivating film that offers an exciting and entertaining experience for children. The movie presents a world where ducks have created their own unique home, making it a fun and imaginative setting for the story.
The comedy in the film strikes a perfect balance, not being overwhelming but still managing to charm viewers and make them fall in love with the characters. Meeting Dax and Gwen and following their adventures was truly enjoyable.
From start to finish, the film keeps audiences laughing and engaged. The humor throughout the movie is incredibly well-done, providing numerous opportunities for laughter and enjoyment.
Overall, "Illumination Migration" is a delightful movie that promises a fun time for both children and their families at the theaters.

It was a really cute and entertaining movie. Great for date night or a night in with your family.

"Mack" and wife "Pam" live contentedly on their pond and are preparing for winter when some migrating ducks break their journey and infect their kids "Gwen" and "Dax" with the travelling bug. "Mack" is adamant that staying home is the best strategy, but the arrival of "Uncle Dan" and his daughter's persistence soon persuade him that a trip to Jamaica wouldn't be a bad idea. Off they go and en route encounter the dangers of the big city. That's where they meet the scrawniest but meanest of pigeons "Chump" who, after a bit of tussle over a sandwich, agrees to introduce them to the only bird that might know the way to the Caribbean. Snag? Well, he's caged up in a restaurant and the terrifying master-chef keeps the key on his jacket at all times. Can they get the key, free "Delroy" the macaw, and then escape the pursuing vengeance of the tattooed, pony-tailed, man with the kitchen knives? The animation is detailed and it's quite watchable this film, but it reminded me quite a lot of "Ratatouille" (2007) meets "Chicken Run" (2000). There's plenty of colourful action and the narrative does imbue some character into the two children, particularly, but otherwise it's all just a wee bit procedural. It's at the better end of the Illumination factory production line, but it's not a film anyone will likely remember and it did rather shout sequel at me too.

Why can't the BBC make more entertainment like this?
"Wallace and Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl" felt, to me, like coming home. Its the kind of clever, down to earth, genuinely British entertainment, I'd once associated with the BBC before the woke, DEI revolution (or is that devolution?).
Once again, Wallace and Gromit are out adventuring. Wallace with his penchant for invention, gives a new meaning to the term "garden gnome". Whilst Gromit, as per usual is left to pick up the pieces when things go wrong and solve the mystery.
This is great fun from beginning to end. Yes its claymation but its witty and sophisticated enough, to be every bit as enjoyable for adults, as it is for children.
In summary, BBC why can't you knock of the politicised woke nonsense and focus on more entertainment like this?
In short, funny, lighthearted fun, for all the family. A must watch.

Oh, if only I'd thought of the "smart gnome" when I had a garden. It could have proved invaluable with the pruners, the shears and the mower. Unfortunately, though, I didn't and "Wallace" did. That's a little to the chagrin of his pal "Gromit" who, quite prophetically, worries that things will not end well for this latest in a long line of inventions that usually end up with a mind of their own. What's much more sinister here is the fact that the long incarcerated nemesis of the cheese-loving pair is out for revenge. When "Norbot" starts showing just a little too much independent spirit, might there be something more malevolent afoot? Alternatively, of course, "Gromit" could let the thing run riot in the hope that maybe it will deter his pal from any more quirky engineering? I have struggled with the thin-ness of the stories in the feature length Aardman animations in the recent past, but this is back to the high standard of the "Wrong Trousers" (1993) with characterful mischief throughout, loads of quickly paced and colourful panic and mayhem, some entertaining voice talent to accompany the story and, naturally, chaos of an epic proportion at a denouement that's really quite entertaining. The clay stop-motion figures are hugely expressive and detailed - especially the bug-eyes, but also the oversized hands and with retribution in mind, we've a marvellously, but simplistically, crafted nasty to foil too. Thirty years on, their antics are still well worth a watch as a Christmas gift that really does keep on giving.

Classic Cold War end credits.
Wow. What a great movie.
"It's not safe for you." Cute scene. Little whimper at the end. What a good boy!
Breaks some standard bullshit. The above and the lack of a triangle.
10 second apocalypse game was a great idea. Neither needs be true. Both based in reality? Something fucked happened.
Disney'd franchise this.

As a long-time fan of Nic Cage, I went into Arcadian with high expectations. The trailer was intriguing, hinting at a familiar story with potential for new and exciting directions. However, the film felt like two different movies in one. While I enjoyed both aspects separately, they didn't blend well together.
The film starts with a grounded, realistic tone that sets up an engaging story. Nic Cage delivers a solid performance, immersing himself in a character that is both relatable and compelling. However, the narrative takes a sharp turn into absurdist territory, introducing elements that feel out of place in the established world. For example, the grounded scenes where Cage's character navigates personal challenges are suddenly juxtaposed with bizarre, otherworldly events that disrupt the film's coherence.
The grounded part of the story focuses on Cage's character dealing with real-world issues, offering a nuanced exploration of his psyche. This segment is filled with strong character development and emotional depth. In contrast, the absurdist elements, featuring creatures that seem to belong in a different genre, clash with the film's initial tone.
While it's possible to successfully combine grounded and absurdist elements in a film, Arcadian struggles to achieve this balance. The creatures introduced do not fit seamlessly into the world we are shown, leaving many questions unanswered. The lack of cohesion between the two parts of the story makes it difficult for the audience to stay engaged.
The film raises intriguing questions about the nature of reality and perception but fails to provide satisfying answers or connections between the disparate elements.
Despite its narrative shortcomings, Arcadian boasts solid acting and impressive cinematography. Nic Cage's performance is a highlight, bringing intensity and authenticity to his role. The cinematography enhances the film's atmosphere, capturing both the grounded and surreal elements with skill.
Arcadian is a film with strong individual components that fail to coalesce into a unified whole. The acting and cinematography are commendable, but the disjointed narrative undermines the film's potential. To improve, a more seamless integration of the grounded and absurdist elements would be necessary, providing clearer connections and answers to the questions posed. Despite its flaws, the film offers moments of intrigue and is worth watching for fans of Nic Cage and experimental cinema.

OK, so I know I shouldn't have, but I did quite enjoy this. There are some seriously menacing beasties about and so every night dad (Nicolas Cage) has to lock his two sons "Joseph" (Jaeden Martell) and "Thomas" (Maxwell Jenkins) and himself into their home and hope their fortifications hold until morning. No, I didn't say it was original, but it's quite well paced as the loved-up "Thomas" manages to get a bit too close to these nocturnal monsters which causes his father to get injured and requires "Joseph" - the brains of the family (who reminded me the entire time of Dan Radcliffe) to come up with some clever ruses to keep the whole lot of them alive. Cage barely features which is no bad thing here as the two boys and girlfriend "Charlotte" (Sadle Soverall) make a perfectly good job of keeping the thing moving along quickly and quite entertainingly for and hour and an half. The visual effects aren't the best, but the claustrophobic settings; the regular axe-wielding; a fair bit of burrowing and a the help of a chest freezer work fine. You'll never remember it, and quite what any of it has to do with Arcadia is anyone's guess, but for light and fluffy summer cinema, it works fine.

Its nice to see Nicolas Cage in a film deserving of his talents.
Arcadian is not an exceptional horror thriller but what it does do, is done competently enough to be deserving of praise. It has a serviceable story, that reminds me a little of "A Quiet Place" from 2018. The core premise is not quite the same but the monster effects are similar, as is the rural setting.
The tension is ratcheted up nicely as the story progresses. As is always the case with what is essentially a survivalist horror, we know the creatures are going to get in but what happens next is, of course, the interesting part. Along the way we get to know the key characters, including Cages father figure. His effective absence part way through film and his return near the end, is a little disappointing but given this film has a coming of age component, its understandable.
Acting is decent throughout and you can certainly relate to the plight of Cages little ad-hoc family. The creature effects work well enough too but somehow, they are just not all that creepy or especially menacing. This tends to rob the film of a real post apocalyptic horror vibe. I think revealing exactly what they are, early on, was a mistake too that took away any reveal/jump scare potential, from the film.
All that said, Arcadian is in most respects a worthwhile watch that you should consider adding to your horror/thriller inventory. Definitely worth a look.

"_Airports turn people into such dickheads._"
You give me Bateman as a villain, and Egerton as a hero and I am sold. Airports suck so it is fun seeing all the chaos breakout and rules being broken but I wouldn't call this a masterpiece. It's a fun thriller for the holidays, and sometimes that is enough.

'Carry-On' is a movie that gave me the required entertainment, I found it all to be extremely watchable. There are one or two moments within the first hour that had me questioning how they were going to stretch interest for events onscreen for just short of two hours, but pleasantly they most certainly do.
Taron Egerton and Jason Bateman give excellent performances, I think even without just one or the other the film wouldn't work as nicely - they are the keys to its success, for me. That's not to say it's a production that only relies on its acting talent, because this felt well written; they make the predicament/actions of the characters justified.
I have no doubt that the film uses plenty of artistic licence, as per with movies, but that's something I have zero issue with - as long as it makes the plot more enjoyable, which most definitely is the case here in my opinion. Going back to the cast, nice to see Dean Norris involved; Danielle Deadwyler and Theo Rossi are positives as well.
Best way to sum this up: 'Die Hard' meets 'Toy Story 2'. I mean, come on, who doesn't wanna see that?!

Worst film in the franchise. I mean, where are Sid James’ laugh, Kenneth Williams’ innuendos, and Hattie Jacques’ stern glare?

This guy is so dumb. This movie is so long. I suppose you could take a drink every time a gotcha moment happens. That could get you quite drunk and maybe then you'd not care about how dumb it is. Strong drinks.
It's fine though. Lots of neat phone calls and shots of surveillance.

Jaume Collet-Serra’s "Carry On" is a holiday action thriller that blends sharp direction, engaging storytelling, and great performances. The movie’s attention to detail is exceptional, with every scene serving a purpose. Its tightly woven plot moves briskly, delivering compelling twists without unnecessary fluff. This refreshing approach ensures an engaging experience.
Egerton’s performance stands out, portraying a mix of vulnerability and tenacity that makes Ethan relatable. Jason Bateman excels as the chilling antagonist. The emotional depth brought by Collet-Serra’s direction ensures you’re invested in the characters. The cinematography adds to the tension, with creative shots and dynamic angles enhancing the airport setting. Memorable scenes and immersive visuals elevate the story, making the film a visual treat.
"Carry On" balances its thrills with genuine emotion, offering a gripping, high-stakes narrative about choices and resilience. It’s a smart, thrilling ride that’s well worth the time.

**Stay away, you have been warned!**
This movie was so absurd that I felt compelled to write this review to warn others.
From start to finish, it’s a series of implausible and downright ridiculous events. The portrayal of airport security in particular is laughably unrealistic. I hardly know where to begin, but here are just a few examples: there’s a gunfire incident in the airport bathroom that somehow goes unnoticed, a TSA officer is stabbed in a public area with no reaction from anyone, and a random guy drives his van around the airport like it’s his personal property. These are just a few of the endless, nonsensical scenes that will leave you shaking your head in disbelief.
To make matters worse, the protagonist makes one frustratingly foolish decision after another, leaving you more annoyed than invested. It’s almost as if the movie is determined to test your patience at every turn.
This is, without a doubt, the dumbest movie of the year. It doesn’t deserve more than 1 star, and I’m baffled that it has a rating above 6—it’s a joke. Save yourself the frustration and skip this one.

The worst movie of 2024
I know that sounds like hyperbole, but Carry-on truly is one the dumbest most asinine movies ever made. The movie is completely devoid of any logic and sense. The plot is idiotic to say the least and the same can be said for everything done by the characters.
I know movies can take artistic freedoms some times, but when you have among other equally brain dead moments scenes of gunshots in airport bathrooms, inside airplanes and stabbings in the middle of busy airport lobbies and nobody somehow magically notices this nor is at all worried about this or the TSA agent acting all erratically you are acting a bit too much of the viewer. I have to say I did have to laugh at how surreal and stupid the scene is where the lead's girlfriend is talking to him in the middle of a airport lobby and a big old red dot appears smack on her forehead and nobody notices anything.
Trust me you don't want to watch this movie. 2024 has been a terrible year for movies, but Carry-on is my nomination for the worst movie of 2024 with zero redeeming factors.

Really liked the movie UNTIL the very last minute which ruined it all.

"Morán" (Daniel Elías) concludes that his dreary drudge at the bank over the next 25 years is only going to earn him $325k so rather than slug it out, he decides to pinch double that then ask his unwitting colleague "Román" (Esteban Bigliardi) to hide the cash whilst he does his prison sentence. That way, they can both enjoy a pleasant early retirement. The theft all goes remarkably easily and before he turns himself in, our thief goes for a bit of a road trip then goes to the police to confess all and receive the anticipated jail term. After a bit of a rocky start, and the transfer of some "protection" money, his incarceration settles down into something fairly uneventful for "Morán". The same can't be said for his friend on the outside. Though he had a cast iron alibi for the time of the robbery, his bank bosses gradually begin to think he is in some way involved - and they start to make his life a bit miserable. Despondent, he travels to a remote town to hide the loot under a boulder - and that's where he meets "Norma" (Margarita Molfino). With things not going too well at home with wife, children and his anxiety, well you can guess what happens... Now we have an interval - a rather pace-sapping exercise before part two fills us in on just what happened when "Morán" went on his journey. Small world? I wondered if there might be a clue here in the names all being anagrams of each other? We have a "Morna" too! Otherwise, this is a rather nondescript drama that takes far, far too long to get anywhere - and even when it does, it sees to have no desire to conclude with anything meaningful. Right from the beginning, it takes a swipe at all things routine and regimented, and seems be offering both men an opportunity for (eventual) freedom, but the substance to the plot is just really lacking as we rather meander through an observational and not really very interesting story that just never catches fire.

Mr. Serrador establishes once again with this film, that he's perhaps one of the most excellent horror directors out there and that it is a real shame that he didn't advocate his entire career to horror films only. While I'm grateful for all the episodes of "Historias para no dormir" that he directed in Spain, "El Muñeco Maldito" in Argentina and some of his other horror movies like "La Residencia", I can't help condemning the fact that he should have taken more advantage of his gift as a horror director. I think I'm not alone when I say that his creations are one of a kind and that most horror fans are left wanting more. The man who initially became accepted in Spain, Argentina and many other countries, for being the son of another horror legend, managed to build his own remarkable merits. If anyone needs corroboration of that, "Who Can Kill a Child?" is perhaps one of the crudest ways to provide evidence of his splendor. This film portrays children in a way that honestly terrified me and even though some people are probably going to recall something similar in John Wyndham's "Village of the Damned" and Stephen King's "Children of the Corn", this film creates a more mysterious atmosphere, in which nothing seems to have a material explanation. The fact that all of a sudden and for no perceptible motive, children become evil, sadistic, merciless and way more powerful than the grown-ups, is a horrifying idea that makes us wonder what children actually think or do when they're all alone. I'd like to believe that children in real life, are not actually planning some kind of sanguinary mass execution against us, grown ups, but the idea alone, is perhaps one of the cleverest ways to inflict terror. "Who Can Kill a Child?", reminds me of Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds" in a way, because even though the alleged villains are far from being related, I see a connection in the fact that both films deal with the idea of something that seems harmless and sweet, all of a sudden becomes a terrible punishment for a group of unaided souls. Both films demonstrate the desperation that people would have to go through, if unexpectedly, something that we take for granted becomes our worst nightmare.
Written by Juan José Plans and Mr. Serrador himself, "Who Can Kill a Child?" tells the story of a couple of English tourists who take a trip to the unreal Spanish Island of Almanzora for a vacation. When they arrive to the shore, the only ones to receive them are a bunch of strange children who don't seem to show much warmness. Nevertheless, Tom and Evelyn who are actually rather nice and respectful to the locals, don't take the hostility very seriously and go to their hotel with the intention of talking to an grown person to assist them with the things they need. Unfortunately, the entire island seems to be deserted and the only ones to wander around the place, are these mischievous, creepy little children who don't even bother saying a word to them. Everything gets even worse however, when they realize that these children have slaughtered all the grown-ups for some unknown reason and they're most likely the next ones to be butchered. Vulnerable and with no one else to turn to, Tom and Evelyn find themselves harassed by these diabolical kids and the worst part is that there's nothing they can do to fight back, because no matter how dangerous they look….who can kill a child anyway?.
Like I stated before, when we take the plot independently from the movie on the whole, I guess we can make a light comparison to "Village of the Damned" or "Children of the Corn", but I think it's safe to say that "Who Can Kill a Child?" is a lot more crude and intriguing. And the best way to give an example of this crudity, would be the opening sequence, in which we see a selection of actual footage about several tragedies that occurred in the world, in which children were the ones to suffer the consequences and pay for the ruthless choices of the grown ups. For instance, the Nazi holocaust, the war in Korea and many other things. It was really appalling (and sort of uncalled for, if I have to be honest) for me to see real life images of ravenous Jewish children carrying their relatives and throwing them inside a big hole or African babies from Niger, completely malformed and skeletal with no energy to even cry. The point of these devastating images, is a way to prove that children are always the ones who suffer because of the adults and their evilness and while Mr. Serrador's method to make his point is beyond debatable, I can't deny that this opening sequence offers one of the most atrocious images I have ever seen in my whole life. Definitely an interesting way to prepare the audience for a crude and cold-blooded film about vicious Spanish children, who are somehow trying to avenge all the children who suffer in the world because of the stupid grown-ups.

'Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps' falls short of its predecessor, even though it is still satisfactory. It does have issues, for example it overruns and has some ill-fitting editing. The original had top (+ better) performances but wasn't fully reliant on the cast, this is more so.
It's cool to see Michael Douglas reprise his role, the same can be for that rather fan service-y moment in the middle of the film. Shia LaBeouf, Josh Brolin and Carey Mulligan are positive new faces and give enough, even if I've seen greater from each one of them in other productions.
This 2010 sequel isn't as much about Wall Street as the first flick, which I think is a mistake. Of course there is plenty in there about it, but to me it felt much more about Gekko and his personal life - which isn't quite as interesting to watch unfold across 120+ minutes.

Yes, but why...? Why make a sequel? It was never going to be as good, as cutting edge and raw as the first film. Is it just to prove that in the intervening 20-odd years nothing has really changed? The world is just as venal and full of greedy gits? Anyway, the newly released "Gekko" (Michael Douglas) takes the young "Jake" (Shia LaBeouf) - who is dating his estranged daughter "Winnie" (Carey Mulligan) under his wing. Ostensibly on the straight and narrow now, but soon we sense - and see - that this young man is every bit as gullible and easily led as "Gekko" sets about rebuilding something of his multi-million dollar empire. To be fair to LaBeouf, his portrayal of the young man trying to balance the needs of his relationship with his ambitions is actually quite reasonable, but sadly both Douglas and the writing have lost much of their potency and the on/off familial stuff just drags the already quite weak pace down all too often. I actually found the ending quite fitting - but for the most part this is a very, very, poor cousin of a much better story that I feel probably cinema could have done without.