The latest film in the G.I. Joe cinematic universe has arrived with “Snake Eyes: GI Joe Origins”. The film was originally planned to arrive in March of 2020 but faced delays due to cinematic closures during the Pandemic.
The film opens with a young boy being orphaned after a group of thugs kills his father. Years later the man is still obsessed with finding out who killed his father and earns a living in underground fighting known as Snake Eyes (Henry Golding)
His exploits get the attention of Kenta (Takehiro Hira); who hires him into his organization with a promise to help him find the man who killed his father.
Snake Eyes soon finds himself working on the docks where he smuggles guns into fish bound for Japan. Despite his misgivings working for criminals, he befriends a man named Tommy (Andrew Koji); who teases him about his demeaning work by calling him “Fish Boy”.
When Kenta forces Snake Eyes to kill Tommy for being a spy; Snake Eyes refuses and the two make a daring escape to Japan. It is learned that Tommy is next in line to run his clan and that Kenta was banished years prior and plans revenge.
Despite mistrust from a trusted associate named Akiko (Hakura Abe); Snake Eyes begins his training in the Ninja Arts which should he survive will make him a valued part of the Clan which Tommy believes is correct thanks to his Blood Debt to Snake Eyes.
The film focuses on various aspects of training before branching into the larger story of divided loyalties and honors which results in a few battles and chases along the way.
While the film does space the action out; it does provide some great cinematography and the action is entertaining even if it lacks much tension.
The biggest issue is that the G.I. Joe/COBRA connection seems a bit forced as The Baroness (Ursula Corbero) arrives to move things along but it is mainly for the purpose of getting characters to do this and get that so the film can move towards the climactic action.
Samara Weaving does show up as Scarlett but she does not have a very large part in the story and aside from a few limited action moments; she seems to be more of the token G.I.Joe representation.
Golding and Hira are very good and their intertwined and complicated relationship is giving plenty of time to develop as their past is a large part of their futures and the film does a good job in explaining their past and future motivations.
The film blends Asian and Western film styles and in doing so creates an enjoyable film that for me was more enjoyable than the prior films in the series. To me those films focused mainly on action and this one was focused on developing characters.
While it remains to be seen what direction future films in the franchise will take; it would be interesting to see more of Snake Eyes story down the line.
3 stars out of 5

Stop for a minute and contemplate the fact that Joel Schumacher made this when he was channeling Joel Schumacher and it actually turned out to be a good, compelling, and frightening film.
How the heck did that happen?
I mean, sure, the story was good for a horror flick and it was pretty compelling. And, to be fair, it did have a great case and the acting was beyond par.
So you know, there was a lot working for it despite it being Joel Schumacher in the 90s being Joel Schumacher in the 90s.
I guess what I am saying is that you should give it a shot, despite the director.

The arrogance of medicinally inclined youth!
I remember coming out the theatre after having seen Flatliners in 1990 and being really annoyed. The premise of the story is so superb and was ripe for a terrifying horror film, but Flatliners then, and now, is not terrifying, but that actually doesn't matter.
In 1990 some of the more bright young acting prospects were off making Memphis Belle, the other half that was made up of potential Brat Packers like Kiefer Sutherland, Julia Roberts, William Baldwin, Oliver Platt and Kevin Bacon, were joining director Joel Schumacher for this delve into life after death experiments.
The tyro medical students, led by a darkly egotistical Sutherland, begin inducing their own deaths to see what awaits once the flatline has been reached. Seems great at first, but as the students push the time limits of being dead still further, what comes into their real worlds is actually not welcome.
Pic is never close to being frightening, but the thematics involved are chilling and the big message at its heart is loud and clear. At times it's an uneasy blend of supernatural dalliances and medical science, but the breezy cast hold engagement, while cinematographer Jan de Bont's misty lenses are perfectly in the realm of the ethereal. 7/10

This is a very good Colin Firth flick.
It's a nicely put together film, with a meaningful story portrayed strongly. Firth gives a big performance in the lead role, with him being the only standout performer - though the supporting trio of Julianne Moore, Nicholas Hoult and Matthew Goode are all solid co-stars. Jon Hamm, meanwhile, has a cameo; when I heard it, I actually thought it was Armie Hammer.
My only criticism is the (intentional, of course) colour saturation, which kinda made a few of the scenes look cheap (if still minorly effective) in my opinion. That's nothing major though, as I enjoyed watching this 2009 release.

Interesting and well edited story with great performances from Firth and Moore.

Not a bad movie. The movie would've sucked if it weren't for Will Ferrell. He made the movie funny and decent.

Jack Wyatt (Will Ferrell), a Hollywood star recovering from a couple of box office bombs, is talked into starring in a reboot of the 1964 television series, Bewitched. Desperate to regain his fame, he insists on hiring an unknown actress to play Samantha as not to be overshadowed. When he finds Isabel, she seems perfect for the part. Little does he know, Isabel is a real witch.
I have not seen this movie since watching it in the theaters in 2005, so I didn’t remember much about it. Written and directed by Nora Ephron, there’s a certain amount of expectation when watching it. This is the woman who wrote When Harry Met Sally and You’ve Got Mail, after all. Unfortunately, Bewitched doesn’t really live up to those expectations, despite its potential.
Nicole Kidman seems like the obvious choice to replace Elizabeth Montgomery as the witchy Samantha (Isabel). Isabel is looking to put her witchy ways behind her, live a normal life and find love. She seems pretty naïve of the real world but she’s instantly smitten with Jack and agrees to become the Samantha to his Darren. Kidman is wide-eyed and breathy and Will Ferrell is… well, Will Ferrell at the peak of his own comedic career. They work perfectly fine on screen together, but the romantic chemistry is practically non-existent.
Bewitched seems to be missing that Ephron magic that made her previous romantic comedies so enchanting. It could be the miscasting of Will Ferrell, or the overly formulaic plot. It never seems to truly commit to the idea that the love story between Isabel and Jack is the real remake of Bewitched and instead of relies on special effects and some minor, silly spell casting/shenanigans to try and make the movie work. Michael Caine’s talent is completely wasted and Steve Carrell, whom I usually adore, shows up briefly as the obnoxious Uncle Arthur… and he really commits to the obnoxious part.
That being said, there were some parts of the movie that I found to be entertaining. Shirley MacLaine makes the most of her under-developed role as Iris/Endora and some of the sight gags are amusing. As usual, the Ephron soundtrack is full of cozy nostalgia, but it’s just not enough to make Bewitched worthy of its material source. I don’t regret watching it (again), but it’s unlikely I’ll return for another repeated viewing. (https://theromcomcatalog.com/review-bewitched-2005/)

This movie had no business being this funny... I have not laughed this consistently in a long time. Good watch filled with great visuals and fun action set pieces, and a surprising amount of heart. One scene brought tears to my eyes, which I was not expecting coming into the film. I do have a few complaints, the movie felt a little long even at an hour and forty-five minutes, pacing was a bit off towards the end of the second and beginning of the third act. Also, some performances could have used some work, they felt... uninspired.
Score: 72%
Verdict: Good

As the young son of the last remaining Kryptonians is put into his fleeing spaceship, his faithful puppy leaps from his father's arms and joins him in the capsule. In the nick of time too, as the planet is soon toast! Spin on and a few years later the boy is now doing his best Henry Cavill impersonations as "Superman" aided and abetted by his equally super-strong pooch "Krypto". It turns out that these are just two of a plethora of heroes from the "Justice League" who try to keep the evil "Lex Luthor" from achieving world domination. What nobody expects here though, is that a meteor that "Luthor" had hoped would give him the power to finally defeat his nemesis ends up in the hands of a loved-up guinea pig ("Lulu") - and a clever and scheming guinea pig at that. She rather adeptly uses her new-found powers to embolden an army of other, now ninja, guinea pigs to capture and imprison the "Justice League" so she can get prove her worth to the love of her life - the ruthless "Luthor". There is a glimmer of hope! The meteorite that enhanced the rodents has also fallen the way of a few others, and together with "Krypto" they band together, learn to harness their powers and the scene is set for a final showdown. The animation is perfectly adequate, but the story is weak and far too thinly strung out. The turtle has a few quite witty lines of dialogue but the rest of it mixes cheese and sentiment in an almost cringe-making fashion. There are far too many characters and by the end it has a sort of chaotic "Avengers Endgame" (2019) scenario that was as devoid of jeopardy as it was dull and repetitive to watch. At times, indeed, it was almost as if DC wanted to make a film to remind us that not all super-heroes were developed by Marvel. Maybe I am just too old - but I struggled to stay the course with this.

An over the top Ninja action film with visceral bloody scenes. Humdrum story but goofily entertaining.
Raizo has been trained by the Ozunu clan to be a Ninja assassin since childhood but has turned his back on them.
Raizo teams up with a Europol investigator Mika to go after his former master to get revenge for the killing of his friend.

Wow, Hopkins directed this and, honestly, at best he's directed a lot of guilty pleasure movies. You know, the movies that you know are bad but you like them anyway. This one is actually, well, good.
It's a legit good film and that is odd for Hopkins.
Anyway, the failing is the Nazi thing. The discrimination in America plays, because that was really the principal challenge that Owens needed to overcome to even make it to the Olympics in the first place. That was a struggle in and of itself.
But, when it came to Germany it should have been more of a focus on him, and how he beat the "master race" and, instead, it was a little too focused on the Nazis. And, honestly, everyone knows who the Nazis are and what they did. We aren't watching the movie because of that, we are watching the movie because of what Owens did.
However, despite that, the movie works with a strong opening act that dealt in an albeit heavy-handed but still absolutely dramatically compelling story about Owens. The only fault is that it loses focus in Germany.

By and large, when there's no battle taking place, Outlaw King is not a rousing success, but those fight scenes are spectacular, and recurring.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

***A superior and realistic medieval film***
“Outlaw King” (2018) is the sequel to the events shown in “Braveheart” (1995). The story begins in 1304 during the last year of William Wallace’s life. After Wallace is drawn-and-quartered, Robert the Bruce (Chris Pine) takes up the torch for Scotland’s war of independence over England. Disregarding the excellent epilogue, the movie ends with the Battle of Loudoun Hill in 1307 where Robert the Bruce takes on a 3000-man English force with only 600 Scots.
"Outlaw King" is actually better than the overrated “Braveheart”: Chris Pine is an all-around superior protagonist to Gibson; Florence Pugh is more beautiful compared to Sophie Marceau (or Catherine McCormack) in a petite, curvy way; not to mention she’s a more interesting character; the locations are better (even though the locations in "Braveheart" are excellent); the music edges out the score to "Braveheart"; the movie's more streamlined and consistent; and the film's all-around more compelling and realistic.
True, "Outlaw King" doesn't top Patrick McGoohan's delightfully diabolic portrayal of the pompous Longshanks nor does it have the superb defenestration sequence. But it lacks the sluggish start of "Braveheart" (the opening 25 minutes); the eye-rolling betrayal scene; the equally eye-rolling episode where Wallace rides into a noble's bed chamber on a freakin' horse and easily escapes (Why Sure!); and, lastly, the overlong and dull execution sequence in “Braveheart” wherein the Christ symbolism is laid on too thick.
It’s also more historically accurate in that it doesn't have the Scots wearing kilts or painting their faces, nor does it wrongly have Robert the Bruce betraying Wallace, which never happened (although he initially disowned him publicly, obviously for political reasons, he secretly supported his war effort and openly admitted it later).
While “Outlaw King” is more historically accurate, it has its own less significant inaccuracies: Elizabeth & Majorie actually escaped Kildrummy Castle, along with Robert’s sisters, but were found by Edward’s men shortly later; Edward II (Billy Howle) wasn't even at the Battle of Loudoun Hill so, naturally, the duel with Edward II never happened; actually, Edward I (Stephen Dillane) was not yet dead when this battle was fought in 1307 so his son was not yet crowned; Queen Elizabeth wasn't put in a cage, but Robert’s sister was; the English were already familiar with the Scottish hedgehog formation by the time of Loudoun Hill and, in fact, destroyed this formation with arrows nine years earlier at Falkirk; Elizabeth was held in captivity for over seven years before Robert could negotiate her return in 1314 after his great victory at the Battle of Bannockburn (the movie makes it seem much shorter).
Closing word: If you like realistic medieval flicks like the excellent “Tristan + Isolde” (2006) be sure to check out “Outlaw King.”
The film runs 2 hours, 1 minute and was shot mostly in Scotland, but also England. Whilst this is a Netflix movie, it cost a whopping $120 million and looks it.
GRADE: B+/A-

**_A sharp satire that runs a little too long and takes a bizarre left-turn that will alienate many_**
> _In my view, corporations are illegitimate institutions of tyrannical power, with intellectual roots not unlike those of fascism and Bolshevism._
> [...]
> _We can - and should - certainly begin pointing out that corporations are fundamentally illegitimate, and that they don't have to exist at all in their modern form. Just as other oppressive institutions - slavery, say, or royalty - have been changed or eliminated, so corporate power can be changed or eliminated. What are the lim__its? There aren't any. Everything is ultimately under public control._
- Noam Chomsky; _The Common Good_ (1998)
A paean to the proletariat. A pro-union battle cry. An ideological evisceration of late capitalism. A deconstruction of corporate greed and the concomitant commercialisation of self-worth necessary to succeed. A critique of identity politics. An allegory of institutional racism in big business. A lampooning of Silicon Valley bro culture. _Sorry to Bother You_, the debut feature of writer/director Boots Riley, is all this, and more. Very much in the key of absurdist fiction such as Dino Buzzati's _Il deserto dei Tartari_ (1940) and Ralph Ellison's _Invisible Man_ (1952), as well as race-conscious satirical cinema such as Robert Downey Sr.'s _Putney Swope_ (1969) and Melvin Van Peebles's _Watermelon Man_ (1970), whilst drawing more direct inspiration from Johann Wolfgang von Goethe's _Faust_ (c.1806-1831), Alex Cox's _Repo Man_ (1984), and the work of Spike Jonze, Michel Gondry, and, bizarrely, Ken Loach, _Sorry to Bother You_ is a black comedy/Juvenalian satire/science fiction/horror/magic realist/allegorical character study. In short, it's impossible to classify. Dealing with the obstacles facing African Americans in a white-dominated corporate _milieu_, and positing that the experience of workers is determined by both labour conditions and race, the film examines labour relations, wage issues, worker solidarity, unionism, mass media, and the dangers of betraying oneself and choosing corporate advancement over friendships, relationships, and personal integrity. Although it's a beat or two too long, and although the spectacularly bizarre left-turn at the end of the second act will surely alienate a lot of viewers, the deconstruction and comic appropriation of code-switching results in a film that is constantly inventive, highly confrontational, and extremely funny.
Set in Oakland, California in an "alternate present", the company WorryFree offers food and lodging in exchange for a lifetime labour contract with no wages, a practice which the Supreme Court has deemed legal and not equivalent to slavery. Standing against WorryFree is the radical group "Left Eye", who organise protests and vandalise WorryFree's billboards. Unconcerned with any of this is Cassius "Cash" Green (LaKeith Stanfield), who lives in his uncle Sergio's (Terry Crews) garage with his girlfriend, Detroit (Tessa Thompson), a performance artist and, unbeknownst to Cash, a member of Left Eye. Struggling to pay rent, and with Sergio close to losing the house, Cash gets a job at the telemarketing firm RegalView, selling encyclopaedia sets. Initially finding it difficult to make any sales, Cash's luck changes when an older co-worker, Langston (Danny Glover), explains that he must use his "_white voice_" to be in any way successful. Proving adept at doing so, Cash quickly rises to become one of RegalView's elite "Power Callers." Meanwhile, a co-worker, Squeeze (Steven Yeun), forms a union and recruits Cash, Detroit, and their friend Salvador (Jermaine Fowler). Despite participating in an organised protest, Cash is surprised to get promoted. Now working in the luxurious upstairs suite, where he's mentored by Mr. _______ (a hilarious Omari Hardwick), Cash learns that RegalView is secretly selling human labour to WorryFree. Despite his misgivings, he is earning a substantial wage, and soon finds himself torn between his career and the labour movement. This is exacerbated when WorryFree CEO Steve Lift (a spectacular Armie Hammer) offers him a salary of $1 million a year to work directly for WorryFree. However, Cash then makes a discovery that changes everything, not just for himself, but potentially for all of humanity.
Riley, who identifies as a communist (but not a Marxist), is best known (thus far) as the lead vocalist of the far-left hip-hop groups The Coup and Sweet Sweeper Social Club. His father, Walter, was a political activist, joining the NAACP [National Association for the Advancement of Colored People] in the '50s, and helping to organise the Greensboro sit-ins in 1960, protesting racial segregation in Woolworths and spearheading the Civil Rights' sit-in movement. Later, he joined CORE [Congress of Racial Equality], SDS [Students for a Democratic Society], and the PLP [Progressive Labor Party]. Riley himself joined the PLP when he was 14, but left when he was 20, subsequently becoming a prominent member of the Occupy Movement in Oakland, and playing a key role in the 15 October 2011 global protests. The screenplay for _Sorry to Bother You_ was inspired by Riley's time working as a telemarketer, and the necessity of altering his voice so as to hide his ethnicity. The script was completed in 2012, but he had no means to make it. Instead, The Coup recorded an album of the same name, based on the script. Of the album, Riley told _The Chicago Tribune_, it talks
> _about the same stuff I'm always talking about. Capital and labour; racial inequality; organising the masses against a caste system of privilege; that sort of thing._
Words which are very applicable to the film. The script was then published in Timothy McSweeney's _Quarterly Concern_ in 2014, and Riley was subsequently invited to the Sundance Institute development labs to hone it further.
At its heart, _Sorry to Bother You_ is an anti-corporate, proletarian rally cry, something with which Riley has been engaged for decades; just listen to "Fat Cats, Bigga Fish" from _Genocide & Juice_ (1994), "5 million ways to kill a C.E.O." from _Party Music_ (2001), or "My Favorite Mutiny" from _Pick a Bigger Weapon_ (2006). In relation to this, Riley tells DemocracyNow,
> _the Taft-Hartely make it so you can't do solidarity strikes. And the reason why they make it so you can't do solidarity strikes is because they're effective. And so, we need a labour movement that's going to break those laws, because the laws that exist make the current ways of organising unions much harder. So, [the film] is almost also a call out to folks that consider theirself radicals._
Similarly, he explains to Hot97,
> _we need to have movements that can actually shut down industries in order to get what we want._
However, unlike Sam Levinson's recent satire _Assassination Nation_, _Sorry to Bother You_ is not especially interested in politics _per se_, certainly not in the explicit sense of films such as Sergei M. Eisenstein's _Stachka_ (1925), Haskell Wexler's _Medium Cool_ (1969), or Warren Beatty's _Bulworth_ (1998). This is not to say that the film ignores politics completely, rather it approaches the subject obliquely. For example, the country's most popular TV show, _I Got the Shit Kicked Out of Me_, involves people being violently assaulted by family and friends and then dunked in a vat of faeces, with Riley providing little to no contextualisation (think _It's Not My Problem!_ from Paul Verhoeven's _Robocop_ (1987), where Bixby Snyder's (S.D. Nemeth) catchphrase, "I'd buy that for a dollar", is used as a one-size-fits-all response to every situation). This mindless consumption of meaningless and morally questionable content indicates the passivity of the masses, their critical faculties either dormant or absent entirely (an inverse _verfremdungseffekt_, if you will). Clips of the show feature prominently throughout the film, allowing Riley to depict a _milieu_ where popular entertainment has reached an unimaginable low. Another example of a pseudo-political aspect of the film are the ubiquitous billboards and TV commercials advertising WorryFree, suggesting the corruption or co-opting of mass media. Additionally, Left Eye clearly recalls Antifa.
However, in relation to the most obvious political target for a film of this ilk, Trump's presidency, Riley has explicitly stated it is not an attack on Trump. Indeed, he wrote the script during the Obama administration, before Trump had even announced his candidacy. To ensure that the audience wouldn't think the film's invective was aimed at Trump, Riley made some changes after the election, such as removing a line where Mr. _______ says, "_WorryFree is making America great again_". On this pseudo-prescience, Riley tells the _LA Times_,
> _there are so many things in this movie that, when I wrote them, hadn't happened yet [...] The reason that these things are becoming more and more clear to us now is because it's connected to our economic system, not just connected to who's in elected office._
As this suggests, Riley's focus is very much on economic issues, with a lot of the humour derived from pecuniary-based situations. One of the easiest ways to parse the film is to approach it as a parable about selling out, equal parts polemic and acknowledgement that it's next to impossible _not_ to sell out in some way. Indeed, the last act of the film explicitly deals with the literal dehumanisation of the workforce (and I do mean "literal" – to say any more would be a spoiler). RegalView and WorryFree exist in an economic system built upon impoverishing the many for the benefit of the few, with Riley attempting to expose the importance of a poverty line for the continued functioning of late capitalism. Within such a system, he suggests, it is exceptionally difficult for African Americans to succeed unless they are willing to code-switch. In this sense, although the concept of "_white voice_" does have a practical function within the narrative, its most salient characteristic is as an object of allegorical satire, a hyperbolic caricature of what African Americans need to do to survive in the Caucasian bro-culture corporate ranks of Silicon Valley; they must literally relinquish part of the self and pretend to be something Other. Speaking to DemocracyNow, Riley explains,
> _the new capitalism is "there is no capitalism here. What are you talking about?" It's like, this is not a workplace, this is a bean bag room. And I'm not your boss, I'm your friend who tells you what to do." And so, as opposed to the oil baron idea, these are the cool people that everyone loves._
This is represented most clearly in the film by Steve Lift.
Interestingly, however, it's not just at RegalView where white voice is necessary; in attempting to woo customers to her art exhibition, Detroit too employs white voice. However, unlike Cash or Mr. _______'s white voices (provided by David Cross and Patton Oswalt, respectively), Detroit's is not only white, it's also British (voiced by Lily James), a distortion not only of her ethnicity, but so too of her nationality. She uses this voice to convince customers to take her art seriously, suggesting that she feels if she spoke in her real voice, they would not do so.
The film also delights in fairly subtle and oftentimes semi-obscure intertextuality. For example, a pair of earrings worn by Detroit declares, "Bury the rag deep in your face". This is from the Bob Dylan song, "The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carrol" (1963), which is about a black barmaid who died after being assaulted by the 24-year-old William Zanzinger, from the wealthy Zanzinger tobacco farming family. Zanzinger was initially charged with murder, but this was later reduced to manslaughter and assault. He was found guilty by a three judge panel and sentenced to six months in prison, as well as a fine of $500. Elsewhere in _Sorry to Bother You_, during a piece of performance art in which she encourages the audience to throw mobile phones and balloons filled with lamb's blood at her, Detroit quotes from Michael Schultz's _The Last Dragon_ (1985), a martial arts movie produced by Motown founder Berry Gordy. Another example of intertextuality is that Mr. _______ dresses like King George (Robert DoQui) from Jack Hill's blaxploitation classic _Coffy_ (1973).
Aesthetically, the film adopts a visual style obviously influenced by Michel Gondry, and, to a lesser extent, Terry Gilliam. An especially interesting aesthetic device, as anyone who has seen the trailer can attest, is how white voice is handled – rather than having the actors simply speak in a different voice, Riley instead has the white actors' voices overdubbed; when Salvador first hears Cash's white voice, he literally tells him "_you sound overdubbed_". However, the lip syncing is, presumably intentionally, far from perfect, with the voice not quite aligning with the actors' mouth movements. This throws the scenes "off" ever so slightly, creating an extra layer of surreality, and highlighting just how absurd the whole thing is, drawing attention to the lengths these people have to go to achieve real success. The fact that our culture places such value on "correct" intonation is, in and of itself, absurd, like an extreme version of the phone voice that pretty much everyone has, and by failing to perfectly sync white voice to black actor, Riley is able to deconstruct and draw attention to this absurdity.
The film's other big aesthetic innovation is having Cash plunge (not especially gracefully) into the living room of the people he calls, desk and all. Obviously, this draws attention to the level of intrusion with which most people greet telemarketers, but, at least in the early stages, it also highlights Cash's own discomfit at being the intruder, seen most clearly when he drops in on a couple having sex. This is an excellently-handled piece of visual shorthand, conveying Cash's internal process, without having him verbalise it at any point.
Also impressive is the acting. While the standout performances are definitely Hammer and Hardwick, Stanfield certainly holds his own, with his body-language providing a clinic of wordless performing. Early on in the film, he's hunched over and put-upon, his every movement seemingly uncomfortable, as if ill at ease in his own skin. Later on, however, after his promotion at RegalView, his physicality acquires a more easy nature, he carries himself more confidently, as if high-powered telemarketing has helped him to find himself, something which is, in the context of the whole, doubly ironic. And no matter how surreal things get (and trust me, they get very, _very_ surreal), the cast keep everything grounded, as if what they're experiencing at any given moment is the most natural thing in the world.
Of course, it isn't all perfect. The wildly unexpected plot twist at the end of the second act will be too much for some people (there were multiple walk-outs at the screening I attended). The film is also just a beat or two too long, and the bottom does fall out to an extent before it reaches its madcap _dénouement_. There's also a mid-credit scene that serves as a kind of epilogue that I'm led to believe was a re-shoot when test audiences found the initial ending too abrupt. For me, however, it doesn't entirely work, and I would have much preferred the original, somewhat darker, ending. Also, with so much satire and humour floating about, almost by definition, not every joke lands, However, the flip side to this is that when Riley's humour does hit the target, it's sublime – Mr. _______ literally beep-denied a name, for example, or Cash's two-word rap being gleefully cheered by Lift's assembled yuppies.
_Sorry to Bother You_ is as timely and relevant as it is funny and irreverent, as progressive as it is radical, and as inventive as it is confident. Exploring the intersection between race and economics from a wholly satirical point-of-view, the film both condemns and sympathises with those who choose to sell-out in some way so as to climb the ladder of success. Now in his late-40s, Riley is a veteran political protestor, a Chomsky-literate agitator, who is here positing that the most significant divide in the US isn't between white and black, it's between those with money and those without. Suggesting that the desire to cross this divide can lead to a herd mentality, the film argues that the labour force must never forget their collective strength, and must never turn on one another, as in such a situation, management will use workers like horses. A hugely impressive debut, and it will be interesting to see what Riley tackles next.

Such a great level of surrealism. I love when the setting is completely believeable, normal people, who could easily be from our world, but their's is totally weird. One criticism I will give is the imperfections in the dubbing, normally not a big deal, but dubbing is so absolutely **vital** to the story of _Sorry to Bother You_ that it is hard to get past. It was still a very pleasant surprise though, one I recommend, and one I particularly commend the core cast's performance in.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

_Sorry To Bother You is “unapollogetic”, “unafraid”, “imaginative”._
These are the reviews of audiences, and critics; it’s hard to find someone that didn’t like this movie (unless you’re going to burrow through the Rotten Tomatoes audience reviews, in which case I’m sorry.)
The cast is packed with familiar faces: Lakeith Stanfield (as Cassius) who also happened to be in _Get Out_, Jermaine Fowler who had just finished work on CBS’ _Superior Donuts_, Danny Glover from the _Lethal Weapon_ films, and Terry Crews.
This movie had stunningly beautiful cinematography, and colors inspired by Bruce Block. Which is quite impressive considering the director (and writer) is a rapper with no background in film. But that story, what in the hell did I watch?
If you had seen the trailer and decided you want to go see this movie, maybe see it, but be prepared when that trailer just goes out the window. There isn’t some shocker twist at the end, this is an entirely different story.
Don’t go in thinking this is going to be funny, know that it’s a horror film and it will scar you. Think _Get Out_, but much, much worse (in a good way).

Julia Roberts and Denzel Washington team-up in this crime thriller
RELEASED IN 1993 and directed by Alan J. Pakula from John Grisham’s novel, "The Pelican Brief” is a political drama/thriller about a law student (Julia Roberts) who researches the murders of two supreme court justices and shares her theory with her college professor (Sam Shepard) who, in turn, gives it to an FBI friend on a lark. The brief hits a nerve because people start dying one-by-one. Denzel Washington plays a DC reporter who teams-up with the student while Robert Culp appears as the president.
While I prefer “The Firm” (1993), which was also written by Grisham, this one is along the same lines, albeit with a totally different story (naturally). “Pelican” has more action, but the plot/characters aren’t quite as interesting IMHO. Still, if you liked one, you’ll probably appreciate the other.
THE MOVIE RUNS 2 hours, 21 minutes and was shot in New Orleans and Washington DC/Maryland. ADDITIONAL CAST: John Heard plays an FBI agent, Stanley Tucci a hitman and John Lithgow an editor.
GRADE: B/B-

A not great movie, but one that it's hard to pinpoint exact ways in which it could easily have been improved. A Stallone/Banderas as cat and mouse assassins sounds promising, but in reality this technoir thriller is... Actually kind of boring. Seems like it needs a ground-up re-working to get a story up to the concept of that team, which sounds exhausting.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

Check Mate?
Sly Stallone stars as an ageing assassin who gets embroiled in a cat and mouse game with a younger assassin who wants to be number one of the trade. Teaming up with a computer hacker, Stallone battles not only his pursuer but also an event from his past that troubles him so.
With Antonio Banderas and Julianne Moore in starry support, Richard Donner in the director's chair and the Wachowski brothers on writing duties, Assassins held the promise of a top line actioner. Sadly that promise is not met.
There's clear signs of the makers trying to make something more deep and cerebral, what ultimately transpires is a overly complicated - and way over long - picture. Punctured with great action scenes, none more so than an outrageous taxi ride that John Woo would be proud of, it's in the middle section where pic drags itself into needless slumber. By this mid-point, one has had enough of Banderas, who comes off more like a deranged excitable kid than someone to be feared. Donner really falters there, but conversely he gets an interestingly engaging tune out of Stallone. Moore is very good, and gets some good dialogue to spout, which is a rarity, though, since much of the chatter is mumbled or said in such agitated or broody manner that the sound mix strains for aural clarification.
It's not a stinker, and in its own way it's a diverting time waster, but too many holes and too many poor production desicions leave it knocking at the averageville door. 5/10

The only people who'll enjoy this Attention-Deficit-Disorder nightmare are those who've never seen an episode of the original anime in their lives. In other words, children.
Sure, there's some fun to be had for adults in seeing how all of the well-known characterisations from your own childhood have been lobotomised by their modern, live action counterparts.
Ultimately, though, you'll come to the conclusion that "Speed" was what the director(s) were on when they spliced together 120 minutes worth of 3-second zoom/pan/sensory-overload scenes.
Your eyes, and very probably your brain, will be dissolving by the end of this acid trip, so exhausting are the visuals. It's _almost_ as if they wanted to go the **complete opposite** of the original series' sparsely-detailed animation by packing every single frame as full of colour & movement & distraction & pointlessness as they possibly could.
No, not _almost_... it's what they actually did! Adults should press their "A" button and leap over this drivel.

Pathetic, they cursed the original. The plot is not the same and the couple is now mixed-raced. Not only many positive white characters were replaced with black, but also the remaining white characters were given additional negative traits, so we got a movie with stupid whites and smart blacks - that's how it should be in post BLM US production. They used real humans and computer generated images but somehow they managed to make the plot less real than the original. It's ridiculous to see some of the first cars ever made and mixed-raced marriage in the same movie, did they forget that these were times of segregation? Obviously they realized this movie is bad and boring, that's why they used the same title as the successful production to get attention and sell. Waste of time, don't watch unless you are black and want to see your discriminated race finally appreciated in classic movie. The only reason it doesn't deserve the lowest rating is the fact that people who don't know the correct version of the title may be able to finish it.

Needless? Yes. Enjoyable? Also, yes.
I'm not entirely sure 'Lady and the Tramp' was a film that needed remaking but here we are. This 2019 production is solid. I like the way it is shot and brought to life. It's rewritten in a few parts, to mostly positive effect - though the original film is still, by a fair distance, best.
I wouldn't say the cast are anything exceptional but they do what's needed. Tessa Thompson and Justin Theroux give good performances as Lady and Tramp respectively, while Adrian Martinez's Elliot is probably the character I'll remember most - away from the two dogs, of course. Janelle Monáe, Sam Elliott and Yvette Nicole Brown are decent too; even if it is difficult to picture the latter as a baddie.
They get rid of the "The Siamese Cat Song", though the replacement tune is actually fairly good. The other songs, like "La La Lu", remain but are obviously tinkered. The run time is longer, which I don't think was nessacary but they fill it well enough.
Solid attempt.

I maybe just wasn't in the right mood for this, but after about half an hour I really didn't much care what happened to "Christian" (Claes Bang), or pretty much anyone else. He runs one of those galleries that puts a glass of water on a dusty shelf and calls it art. You know, emperor's new clothes kind of stuff. His latest "exhibition" is designed to remind the public of their responsibilities to each other but his focus is diverted when he is the victim of a pickpocket. No phone. No wallet. He devises an unique way to get them back by putting a note through all of his neighbours' letter boxes delivering an accusatory ultimatum. Curiously enough, that's not the only stupid idea he has as this rather plodding drama meanders it's way from one bad decision to another for 2½ hours. It reaches it's most bizarrely surreal when the entertainment - "Oleg" (Terry Notary) - at a very fancy fund-raising dinner goes quite spectacularly wrong, but there are plenty other daft scenarios as he tries to sort out a marketing campaign, manage a curiously sterile relationship with "Anne" (a dreadfully wooden Elizabeth Moss) and deal with an increasingly exasperating kid (Elijandro Edouard) who seems to think his own family think he nicked the stuff! To be fair to Bang, he does manage to imbue quite a decent degree of insufferable arrogance as his pompous character finds all of his comfort blankets taken away and himself exposed to a society that couldn't care less, indeed is even openly critical, of his obvious double standards. I did like the premiss, but auteur Ruben Östlund indulges himself too completely for me, and I was frankly bored by the end. Maybe a tightening edit could help refocus the humour and the moral of the story? Sorry - not for me.

I'm not a great fan of dramas, but this was an entertaining film. I gave this 4 stars just for the ape scene.

I like Kevin James. I watched every episode of "The King of Queens," and his special "Kevin James: Sweat the Small Stuff" is one of my favorite stand-up comedy concerts of all-time. He's a big guy with a flawless delivery, and he can be very funny. He can also be very unfunny. Paul Blart (Kevin James) is a mall cop living in New Jersey with his daughter Maya (Raini Rodriguez). His wife (Jayma Mays, with a few seconds of screen time) from the first film has left him after six days of marriage, and his mother (Shirley Knight, also with a few seconds of screen time) is killed by a milk truck, so he is feeling pretty low. Maya has been accepted to UCLA, and finds out on the same day that Paul is invited to a security officer convention at the Wynn Resort in Las Vegas. He is still basking in the glory of his exploits in the first film, and he and Maya head west. Maya is smitten right away with resort employee Lane (David Henrie, given nothing to do), and Paul deals with a supporting cast of freakish security officers from around the country, as well as a team of art thieves led by Sofel (Neal McDonough, slumming and wasted). This sets up a long, dry series of pratfalls and lame action sequences as Paul battles the baddies after Maya and Lane are kidnapped.
As they did in the first film, James co-wrote the screenplay with comedian Nick Bakay, so the laughs should be here. It's weird that James doesn't seem to have a handle on his own creation. Is Paul a stupid oaf, or a genius detective trying to break out of his boring job? Here, we get both characteristics. His arrival in Vegas and dealings with the casino staff is supposed to be fish-out-of-water funny, but fall flat because James plays Paul as a sociopathic jerk. I could not stand this guy. The only scenes I smiled at were when hotel manager Divina (Daniella Alonso) kept finding herself attracted to Paul, and even that running gag didn't get going until after their first awkward encounter; and Muhrtelle (Bob Clendenin), the casino employee with the banana. The film is rated (PG) and family friendly, so the violence here are guns with silencers that never hit their target, and Paul falling down a lot. A supporting roster of familiar faces and character actors- look at that cast list!- stand around and watch Paul fall down a lot. Paul falling down a lot isn't that funny. The Wynn Resort is nice to look at and makes for a great action film setting, but this is not that action film. I don't see another "Paul Blart" film on the horizon, this one did poorly at the box office, but since it was released six years after the mediocre first film, you never know.

**Destination Las Vegas!**
One of the worst week for me as most of the of films I've seen were not up to any good. Okay, fine, the first part was decent. I thought a little refresher, somewhat funny too, so on such scenario, anticipating a sequel is common, but this is not what I wanted. After seeing this, I come to realise that the sequel was a bad idea. Seems funny, but no impact. In fact a little boring to see the same old comedy tricks again. Especially mocking a fat man is too offensive at the present era. So the hashtag on body shaming would go viral on social media.
They did not get a decent story. Even the film characters, including the villains were too old fashioned. Even this film had made in the 90s, might have not received well too. The concept of going vacation-come-convention, we had seen this before, are not we! Yeah, Paul after his short marriage and losing mother, he and his daughter heads to Las Vegas. Being watchful father and meeting his old friends, the adventure begins, when some criminal activity is going on behind the conference. His plan to save his daughter, as well as thwart the crime are the remaining focus of the film.
I felt for a character like Paul Blart, casting Raini Rodriguez as his daughter was a little too much intentional. Yeah, the film was full of television guys every corner. Its not just direction, or performance failed, it was the writing. This kind of comedies is now considered ancient, that's why Rowan Atkinson stopped doing his routine comedies. But now it's certain that there won't be a third. If you had seen the first and not sure about this, believe me, you won't miss anything. Instead, I would suggest you to re-watch the original. That ain't a masterpiece, though a much better one.
_3/10_

**A very welcome remake.**
I must be one of the few iconoclasts who has not declared here his undying love for “West Side Story”, one of the most successful and acclaimed musicals of all time, and which continues, to this day, to seduce crowds of spectators. As I already had occasion to say then, I expected something else. The story is based on the ethnic conflict between a band of young Anglo-Saxons from New York and another band of immigrants from Puerto Rico, and the unlikely love between the leader of the American gang and the sister of the leader of the Puerto Rican gang. I know that, at the time, the issue was not as delicate as it is today, but I couldn't help but feel that there was a certain prejudice against Latinos. Just think that the main actress was not a Latina, but an Anglo-Saxon whose face was painted and who didn't even sing in the film.
Blessed be Steven Spielberg when he had the idea to make this remake. The film honors the source material and respects the older film, but corrects the biggest errors I had pointed out, presenting us with a more enjoyable view. It is not a work without problems, but they are different types of problems than those I had pointed out for the 1961 version.
The director's attentive and meticulous eye is manifested in the careful design of the sets and costumes, in the very complete and profound development of the characters, and in the extraordinary dance choreographies, metrically designed and executed with the greatest professionalism. I also really liked the design of the locations, and the insertion of the entire story in a New York neighborhood that was about to disappear to make way for a modern office space. The soundtrack and songs are, essentially, those that we all expected to find, and are very well performed by the actors, sometimes during filming, instead of in a recording studio.
One of the aspects that I liked most about this version was the extreme brutality of the rival groups. This time, they don't look like bored choirboys who decided to fight after Sunday mass. Knives, guns, sticks, everything they can use to fight, they use, and they seem more threatening and fearsome, just as you would expect from a gang of authentic juvenile delinquents. I was also pleased to see some of the actors still alive from the 1961 film again, in other characters and roles, especially Rita Moreno, who played a friendly merchant this time. I think it was a good way to honor them and honor their work.
Rachel Zegler is a young Latina, daughter of a Colombian mother, and extremely talented. She is an actress tailor-made for the role of Maria, and made the most of the opportunity to advance her professional career. In fact, she is excellent, sings very well and is quite competent as an actress. Ariana DeBose and David Alvarez are also very good choices and enrich the film with commitment, competence and charisma, especially DeBose, who seems to have a huge personality and enormous personal brilliance. Mike Faist is excellent in his role. As for Ansel Elgort... he tries, he tries to adjust and struggles with the character and the material, but I think he never fully found himself on stage. Something is missing there. But this is my personal opinion.

Full review: https://www.tinakakadelis.com/beyond-the-cinerama-dome/2021/12/28/it-all-begins-tonight-west-side-story-review
This film is a still (sadly) all-too-relevant story about how hatred infiltrates communities and the struggle to find a place to belong. West Side Story is about creating a home, however, you choose to define the word. Unfortunately, the miscasting of Tony brings down what could have been a near-perfect movie. His role is simply too large to be ignored and impossible to compare to his co-stars’ formidable, sublime performances.

Good production. I liked the performers, except Ansel Elgort as the lead male, Tony, who I found to be uninteresting. I never got into the story or the songs.
A couple of other thoughts:
* Carefully choreographed Broadway-style dance routines severely diminish the menace of street gangs.
* Love at first sight is a myth and is a very bad reason to kill or be killed. (Intense attraction, curiosity, and lust at first sight, sure, but love takes longer.)

West Side story: Gritty morality tale with an emotional punch. 85%
Not having seen the stage production of "West Side story" or its first film version, which I understand is regarded as a classic, I really don't have a point of comparison for this new film version of the long-running musical theatre staple. Of course, with the US being so effective at exporting its pop culture around the world, I was aware of songs and scenes from the original Hollywood film, which had positive associations for me, even though I live in Australia.
The story was inspired by a much earlier tale, which I won't mention here because...spoilers. In any case, the second film version (presumably...at least as far as US film versions go) of this story is set in a slum in New York in the 1950s (the "West Side" of the title). The setting is very nicely established, with an opening shot of some partially destroyed buildings which a sign states are being demolished to make way for the gentrification of the area. The flats in the high-rise buildings nearby have a suitably "slummy" look without the aesthetic being overdone. From out of this no man's land emerges what turns out be a gang of Anglo background, known as "The Jets". You can tell that they they are bad because they soon terrorise the neighbourhood with dancing and singing, with no one daring to stop them. It has to be said, at this point, the realisation of a musical in the modern era hasn't lost my interest. Fit young blokes dancing and singing and clicking their fingers in time in the streets of a big city doesn't seem all that ridiculous now.
We soon learn that The Jets have a rival group which they want to remove from 'their turf', a gang known as "The Sharks", which are of Puerto Rican ethnicity. The basis of The Jets' animosity to The Sharks is basically an issue of race (and that is also the basis of the police department's animosity towards The Sharks as well). The Sharks do not 'belong' in the US and they should 'go back to where they came from'. The first encounter we see between these two rival gangs is a violent one and it's pretty clear that things will escalate from here between them.
If you're thinking that nothing thrown into this tinderbox could make it any more flammable, well...enter Tony (played by Ansel Elgort) and Maria (Rachel Zegler). Tony is the co-founder of The Jets but after a stint in prison for a shocking beating he gave to an Eyptian man, he is trying to be a better person, now holding down a steady job and no longer involved in his gang's activities. Maria is the sister of Bernardo (David Alvarez), a man who is trying to fight his way out of the slum (literally). Bernardo has a chip on his shoulder about the Anglos, who make life difficult for his community. He plays the father-figure at the flat that he shares with his girlfriend and Maria. The prospect of Maria dating a "gringo" is unacceptable to him, as we later find out when...Tony and Maria meet at a dance event and...instantly fall in love. He is also the leader of The Sharks.
That moment when Tony and Maria fall in love at first sight is very sweetly done. Maria, as played by Zegler, seems like an old-fashioned Disney princess at first, being very timid but then being quite forward...perhaps like a (modern day?) Disney princess? (Since I'm not well-versed in Disney films about princesses, I'll have to defer to the judgement of people more informed than me on this subject.) The lyric from the song "Hurts so good" by John Cougar comes to mind about her: "you ain't as green as you are young". Zegler/Maria is very attractive in a winsome way. Director Steven Spielberg has really captured a winning performance from her. It occurred to me after writing down my initial thoughts on this film that Zegler would be a worthy nominee for "Best actress" at awards time. Even though I haven't really seen many 'quality' films this year, I think I know a quality performance when I see one and I don't think that a best actress award for her would be undeserved.
If you think that Maria couldn't be any more adorable, well, you should hear her sing. She has a lovely voice, in my view. To me, she's the standout voice of the musical. Elgort tends towards falsetto at times. On the subject of the music, I'd say that I'm pretty sure that if you just wanted to listen to the musical on CD or whatever, then there would be better versions of that from previous productions of this story, whether on stage or screen. By that I mean perhaps the music elsewhere is bolder, brassier or arranged more pleasingly (to my ears, at least) and that would apply to the vocal performances as well. However, since I haven't heard other versions, I can't recommend one for you.
It also later occurred to me how similar Tony and Bernardo are (which I've retrospectively alluded to in my earlier comments about how both of them plan to get out of the slum). Another point of comparison with Bernardo would be The Jets' new leader, "Riff" (Mike Faist). They both mirror each other as far as attitudes to "the other" goes.
In any case, just when Tony thought he was out, Riff pulls him back in again, as far as gang activities go.
I liked this film and had moments of recognition with it, with regards to clicking fingers and many songs. One event which did jar with me was how Maria reacted to Tony when she heard some fateful news about him. It just didn't ring true to me. Maybe with a greater passage of time it could have worked. Later, when the police officer goes over the whole timeline, the short duration was a shock too.
The film was on track for a score of 80% from me but since the drama near the end of the film elicited emotion from me, I added another 5% to my score to reflect that.
Random notes:
*Is the ending different to previous versions of this story? If it is, you can either read it as a return to sanity as far as character motivation goes or as a Steven Spielberg tendency.
*There is some realism to the violence, so not suitable for very young children, I don't think.
*I couldn't quite tell if there was some strong swearing at times or if it was toned down.
*Curios: 5c for a Milky Way chocolate bar, $15 for a fashionable store scarf, I think.