Anon is a noirish sci-fi thriller set in the near future where the human mind records everything through its eyes. It is a society with no privacy but what if the memories can be manipulated?
Sal Frieland (Clive Owen) is a detective who solves crimes by reviewing people's memories that exist in some kind of matrix where the memories are placed and can be accessed.
When an anonymous hacker is suspected of killing some people, Sal figures it is a mysterious woman (Amanda Seyfried) who does not exist in their records as she is off the grid and who can alter the memory files.
Director Andrew Niccol pursues his interest in a futuristic society as he did in Gattaca. The film slows down when Sal and the mysterious woman hook up. Yet Sal finds himself in danger and also finds his own memories are hacked. However there is an air of predictability in the mystery aspects of the film.

Well, i like sci-fi. This was boring. A big snoozer. a 4 out of 10.

This is one of those films I remember watching as a kid and being genuinely scared! It centres around a bunch of city folks who decide to canoe down the Cahulawassee river before it is dammed to make a giant reservoir. The four men arrive at the backwater town where they are to start their journey, and meet a population that progress has largely skipped and where the gene-pool is sadly nowhere as deep as the river. "Drew" (Ronny Cox) plucks his guitar and gets a response from local lad "Lonnie" (Billy Redden) and for the next four minutes or so, "Duelling Banjos" offers quite an astonishing degree of synchronisation as the two improvise a toe-tapper that is instantly recognisable. Then off they go, and a perilous game of brutal cat-and-mouse with the locals ensues. They become the hunted, and "Ed" (Jon Voight), "Lewis" (Burt Reynolds) and especially "Bobby" (Ned Beatty) are ill-prepared for the "welcome" they are to get from a cunningly violent community that sees them as sport. With the river running fast and the terrain very much playing into the hands of their antagonists, it's a real battle for survival - and just what will these men have to do. It's a story of resilience, this one, and this quartet of actors each bring quite different aptitudes as their characters' worst fears are realised. The photography is perfect and coupled with the sparse, increasingly earthy and panic-stricken, dialogue helps keep the potency of the menace of their situation effective without the slightest certainty as to the outcome. Even now, over fifty years later, this is still a disturbing watch - but well worth it.

**It would certainly have been more interesting at the time it was released.**
When this film came out in 1972, there was something interesting about themes linked to nature and the environment. Not that environmentalism was in vogue, but it was the golden age of the hippie movement that advocated, among other things, a more harmonious connection between Man and Nature. And in fact, what we have here is a group of four men from the big city who seek to find fun, emotions and beauty in the natural environment, in a wild river full of rapids that will disappear in a few months due to the construction of a dam. However, as they begin their descent down the river, things begin to go terribly wrong after an encounter with two men.
Fitting into that type of nature thrillers where man faces the dangers of Nature or hostile people, it is one of those films that I cannot understand how it was nominated for three Oscars (Best Film, Best Director and Best Editing). It's not memorable at all, and the proof is that, outside the USA, no one remembers it. John Boorman, who directs, gives us a work full of tension and brutality, which takes away all our comfort and makes us grit our teeth. That is great! However, the director did not overcome the difficulties caused by the low budget in the best way and the film always has a cheap and “second-rate” look, whether in terms of props, sets and costumes, or in the unpleasant cinematography, with washed out colors and without glare, lack of contrast and shadows. Even the celebrated banjo soundtrack seemed ugly and tiring to me.
If there is a saving value that makes this film worthy of attention, it is the quality that we observe in the work of the main actors. Burt Reynolds, Jon Voight, Ned Beatty and Ronny Cox are excellent in their respective roles and give their all to this project. I especially liked Voight, who exudes charisma and energy. And although I can eventually talk a little about the good work of Bill McKinney and Herbert Coward, the fact is that the film completely lacks a quality secondary cast to support the four main actors. Before finishing, a note about the film's title: I was truly taken aback by the original title, in English. “Deliverance” could be the title of the original literary work on which the film is based, however, if we consider that this film never explains it and that we never clearly understand the title, perhaps it would have been a good idea to come up with a clearer title.

The Banjo scene still haunts me today!
Never mind the New Beaty scene.
Great movie.

Brutal, Beautiful and Brilliant.
Four Atlanta friends - Lewis (Burt Reynolds), Ed (John Voight), Bobby (Ned Beatty), and Drew (Ronny Cox) – decide to canoe down the Cahulawassee River out in the Georgia wilderness. They see it as a test of manliness whilst also wanting to experience this part of nature before the whole valley is flooded over to make way for the upcoming construction of a dam and lake. But the perils of nature are not the only dangerous things in their midst, unfriendly wood folk are about to bring another dimension in terror.
Deliverance is one of those films that sometimes suffers by way of reputation. Much like Straw Dogs and 70s films of that type, the hype and promise of unremitting hell often isn't delivered to an expectant modern audience. Which is a shame since Deliverance is one of the finest, glummest, brutalistic and beautiful films of the 1970s.
Adapting from James Dickey's novel (screenplay duties here also), British director John Boorman crafts a tough and powerful film of men out of their environment, thus out of their league. As each man sets off initially, it's a test of manhood, but each guy is forced to deconstruct their worth, and it soon becomes more about survival as this deadly adventure proceeds. Boorman, aided by cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond, has painted a raw and treacherous landscape, unconquered by city slickers but dwelt in by inbreds who don't take kindly to the city folk showing up with their machismo attitudes. From the first point of contact with the strange locals, where Drew goes "duelling banjos" with an odd looking child, the film doesn't let up, much like the locals themselves, the film also is remorseless. Some critics over the years have proclaimed that Deliverance is too pretty, mistaking lush physicality as something detracting from the dark thematics at work. Not so, the Chattooga River sequences are electrifying, the rapids scenes (brilliantly filmed with Voight and Reynolds doing real work, and getting real injuries) are merely setting up the unmanning of our "macho" guys just around the corner. It's a fabulous and potent piece of "beauty". With the four cast leaders absolutely brilliant in their respective roles. In fact there are few better casting decisions ever than that of Reynolds as Lewis, one can only lament that he didn't have more hard edged serious roles in his career.
Minor itches exist, metaphors are heavy (Vietnam a 70s staple it seems) while ecological concerns are hinted at without being as prominent as they are in the novel. Surveying the landscape during the opening of the piece, Lewis reflects that man is going to rape this land, rape it, it's stuff like that that is not totally formed, given way to abject horror and survival, Lewis again noting that survival is the name of the game. A game of life and death, where man's primal being means violence may indeed beget violence. Boorman clearly agreed. 10/10

This was remarkable and scared the crap out of me. I read the book eons ago, probably 1988, for a first-year university class back when I was earning my first degree. Not a Burt Reynolds fan, and having only seen two other works by Boorman (the great 'Point Blank' and the not-so-great 'Exorcist II: The Heretic'), I wasn't in a huge hurry to rush out and see the film. BIG mistake on my part, to be frank.
Probably the gifted 83-year-old, Surrey native and five-time Oscar nominee's best work--and easily the finest work ever done by Reynolds, shortly before he simply rested on his laurels and became nothing but a caricature. THIS at the very least was proof that he at one time actually had chops and could act.
The scariest aspect of all is that this goes on all the time and we just don't know about it. Hundreds of people go 'missing' every day. And, as a Canadian, it's people like the culprits in this film that are responsible for America now having the worst Presidential candidate of all time actually having a chance of being the head of the most powerful country in the world. Now THAT's scary.

***Better to die free than live under the shackles of communism***
"The Way Back" (2010) takes place circa 1940-42 and details a group's mad escape from a Siberian gulag through the cold, desolate Soviet wilderness into Mongolia, across the great Gobi desert, through mountainous Tibet and ultimately freedom in India. The film was inspired by Slavomir Rawicz' popular book "The Long Walk: The True Story of a Trek to Freedom," but not based on it.
After records of Rawicz' release from the gulag by the USSR in 1942 were unearthed the veracity of the book was called into question; others suggest that, although the circumstances of the story may not have happened to author Rawicz, they're apparently based on real events with real individuals, like Polish soldier Witold Glinski.
Moreover, in light of the millions of prisoners carted away to Siberia during that time period, isn't it likely that a handful of them successfully escaped and had experiences similar to those shown in this movie (and the book) regardless of whether or not they made it all the way to India? In any event, director Peter Weir has plainly stated that the film is largely fictional and only inspired by the book, which may or may not be a true account.
The group's natural leader is Janusz (Jim Sturgess), not because he has any leadership charisma but simply because he spent half his life in the woods and KNOWS how to survive in such an environment. As Solomon said, "A wise man has great power, and a man of knowledge increases strength."
Also along for the haul is a cynical American called Mister Smith (Ed Harris), a Russian hooligan named Valka (Colin Farrell), a comic accountant, an artistic pastry chef, a priest, a Pole with night blindness and a teen-aged girl named Irena, played by Saoirse Ronan, who incidentally celebrated her 16th birthday on the set.
This a story of survival. The group faces freezing nights, lack of food & water, bugs, death, the never-ending Gobi desert and the Himalayas, not to mention the inevitable moral questions that arise from such a life or death situation. Some have complained that the film involves too much walking, but that's the whole point: the film's about a 4000-mile escape on foot to freedom.
It drives home some powerful messages that will be pondered well after viewing:
• The government in communistic or extreme socialistic states is a cold, uncaring, demonic machine that will immediately squelch dissidents through any measure possible, including torturous coercion, slander and execution.
• Such godless governments are a vile social infection that spreads and must be escaped at all costs.
• Is this socialistic disease now spreading to America? Of course it is and it’s been obvious for quite some time (the Dems).
• Better to die free than live in a gulag (aka labor camp or reeducation camp) or under dictatorial socialistic governments.
• No matter how bad it is, at least you don't have to live in a gulag.
• Mongolians and Tibetans are people of true honor.
• Saoirse Ronan is a precious young lady.
In addition, the film features a great score and spectacular locations, shot in Bulgaria, Morocco and India.
FINAL WORD: "The Way Back" is a must if you love survival stories like "Flight of the Phoenix" (especially the original version) or "Sands of the Kalahari," as well as films like "Lawrence of Arabia," "Black Robe" and "Mongol: The Rise of Genghis Khan." It's unique but it has the same general tone. Stay away if you have ADHD or solely relish films with conventional Hollywood plotting and roll-your-eyes BS, not that there's anything wrong with that, lol.
RUNTIME: 2 hours and 13 minutes.
GRADE: A-

It is always a pleasure to watch one of Ed Harris movies.
The plot hooks you and the staging is impressive but the movie is not as thrilling as it could have been.

The more sci-fi I watch the more I pray that it isn’t the Americans who discover the potential for extraterrestrial life! This time, NASA sends a probe to collect data from something they think might bear fruit in outer space but they manage to cock up the re-entry of their spacecraft and reduce great swathes of Mexico to the status of a quarantine zone. On the wrong side of this restricted area is hardened photo-journalist “Kaulder” (Scoot McNairy) who instead of getting some snaps of the reason for this new ultra-high security, ends up saddled with “Sam” (Whitney Able) who just happens to be the stranded daughter of his US paymaster. With the infrastructure in tatters and the locals in survival mode, it’s not going to be easy to get them home - especially as the prices are going through the roof and he has a penchant for hookers and getting robbed. It’s this last activity that condemns them both into the hands of the people smugglers and the local, somewhat superstitious at times, tribespeople - but can they make it? Now, first things first, there are virtually no monsters here and it’s a very slowly paced affair - so if you are looking for a sort of alien version of “Jurassic Park” then this won’t be for you. What it does manage, though, on what’s obviously not much more of a budget than these characters had to escape, is take us through a series of effectively photographed and perilous scenarios using the jungle, the rivers, some unscrupulous characters and a solid effort from the audio department to create quite an accumulative sense of menace. There’s a decent degree of chemistry between Able and McNairy, especially as if I’d been her character I’d probably have just thrown “Kaulder” to the crocodiles on more than one occasion! There’s no denying that it does sort of peter out, and the last twenty minutes are not anything to write home about, but if you let your own imagination work alongside that of auteur Gareth Edwards and ignore some of the banal dialogue, then it’s not an half bad thriller that merits a watch.

I enjoyed this film. There, I said it. I have watched it twice and will again at a future time. I see it more as suspense rather than as an action thriller, the difference Hitchcock explained between a bomb going off and the tension of wondering if it is going to go off. A bulging muscled hero or a bulging cleavaged heroine wouldn't have improved it in my eyes.
This is a different sort of alien invasion movie. In fact, it almost feels to me like the invaders dropped in on the planet like drunken tourists and now find they aren't able to fit in or leave but are instead stuck in one bar fight after another. Hmm, okay, that metaphor doesn't quite work, but it feels to me that they aren't here to conquer but rather to try to live their lives.
I liked how the connection between the two leads gradually grew stronger after what appeared to be dislike, or at least disinterest. And I have to wonder if the title of the film shares its obvious meaning with a shadow allusion to the monsters within us.
I read somewhere that there is no way monsters built like these could walk upright as they are shown doing. But - they are. I can overlook a lapse in science when the movie is good. I am not sure I believe multiple universes Are possible, but a lot of renown physicists do, so there is a fine line between speculative friction and unrealistic plots. What I am saying is that science isn’t my first priority in science fiction. I really enjoy time travel stories, even though most of them don’t bother with making time travel seem feasible. So yes, I liked this film, and you can too if you let yourself

Story that is so down to earth in spite of talking about alien creatures that you think it could really happen ... only, it is not thrilling and gets boring at some point.
The two main characters, though, are very well played by McNairy and Able.

Less than I hoped it would be.
I went into this film spoiler free, knowing nothing more than the tag line. While it was well acted and well paced for the most part, the twist was heavy handed and obvious from early on. Maybe I would have liked this film more if there was more subtlety to it. A good film should still entertain if you know the twist or not, and for me, guessing it so early just hampered my enjoyment. The denouement was handled well, but the lead up let it down.

> If a mother isn't being one, her own child would doubt her.
The Austrian thriller-drama, is going to contend with another nearly 100 movies from the different countries for the upcoming (2016) American Academy Awards. I hope it will make into the final shortlist and my wishes to the cast and the crew. A minimal cast movie, set in an isolated lake house where the 9 years old twin boys and their mother lives. After their mother returning from the major facial surgery, the brothers doubts is she's the same person. They have no choice, but have to go for an unusual route to find out the truth.
Initially it was very slow, but keeps accelerating since the beginning of the second half and it ends strongly. You have to be an open minded, that is very important especially for this movie. Try to understand what it delivers than what you want see. I mean prediction is okay, but don't assume in a wider aspect. The narration was so simple and you may think the end is so cliche, but the movie does not bother to provide a surprise. Before going to talk about the twist, you have clear a couple of things.
The first question you have to answer yourself is what is 'horror' mean to you. The demons? The ghosts? Other creepy creatures? The zombies? Possession and exorcism? Haunted places and objects? Imposter? You know 'terror' is also called 'horror', which is a very close to the 'thriller' than being an actual 'horror'. Different movies explain in a different way, but this movie is not that distinctive from those, except being unconventional in revealing the details related to the story and characters.
> "I want you to repeat ten times
> that I'm your mother."
This film had a few diversions in the name of the genre. That is the reason why it failed to satisfy the horror fans, but so much better without mentioning that around. You have to be careful from the beginning itself, observing closely every scene. Because the storytelling commences with a hint within the first 10 minutes which is equivalent to the twist. You must get it right, or the rest of the narration won't be interesting enough.
So it is a one time shot, for the second time watch it won't be that effective. Some people deny the casual twist that comes in the first act which is too early for them and so they expects one in the final section only to get disappointed. Nothing wrong with the audience getting annoyed, but the film being atypical, just changing the order of all the three acts, that's it. The writer wanted the viewers to keep guessing throughout the their watch. That's the twist in the filmmaking, not in the actual film. Other than that it was not a smartest movie with the turnovers to amaze or confuse you.
I mean it has a proper conclusion, and you would know what it is, but should have to wait for how it's going to take place. I have seen many guys criticising that part particularly, but I felt it was good and made the movie a better product. Definitely one of the best films of the year, especially in my perception. From the posters to the trailer and teaser to the movie, it was being truthful. Never intend to cheat you, except like I said if you assume the things to happen in your way. Specially a big NO to the fancy stuffs like graphics and high pitch sudden sound/noise that's very common in horror to scare you. If you are a Hollywood fanatic, you definitely miss those doses and blame the movie.
A great directional debut as well as the twins with the real names on-screen. It got some intense scares, but limits the grossness. Had less dialogues and more in acts. Pretty rare movie and I am surprised that the critics liked this film more than the movie fanatics. But I'm happy that I'm not one of those to dislike it being a movie buff. My only disappointment is the outro scene (the exit scene) (in Hollywood it for kissing) which comes after the conclusion and before the end credit (sometimes, along the credit). I strongly recommend it, and I hope you consider some of the points I wrote in this review, otherwise I barely recommend it.
8/10

**_Popular quasi-film noir early in Brando’s career_**
A former prize-fighter (Marlon) wrestles with his conscience as a longshoreman on the Hudson River across from Manhattan and the Empire State Building. He finds himself attracted to the sister (Eva Marie Saint) of a murdered dockworker while his lawyer brother (Rod Steiger) defends the corrupt Union boss (Lee J. Cobb). Karl Malden is on hand as a concerned local minister.
"On the Waterfront" (1954) is an iconic B&W crime drama that won myriad awards when it came out. It’s a seminal socio-political noir and one of Brando’s three big hits in the early 50s, along with “A Streetcar Named Desire” and, less so, “The Wild One.” I cite those movies because this is cut from the same cloth, just with the milieu of the Hoboken docks in the shadow of the Big Apple. Why it’s not included on lists of film noir is a mystery.
Although it’s understandably old-fashioned and a little melodramatic, there’s enough human interest, especially the potential romance, and you can’t beat the authentic setting. I particularly like the rooftop perspective with skyscrapers in the distance in many scenes (reminiscent of Spider-Man comics from the 1960s-1980s).
The flick supports being a “stoolpigeon” against corruption and was director Elia Kazan’s answer to those who denounced him for identifying eight Communists in the industry before the House Committee on Un-American Activities in 1952.
Despite its renown, Brando seems pudgy and somewhat unappealing. I thought he improved in later (better) movies, like “Désirée,” “The Young Lions,” “One-Eyed Jacks” and “Mutiny on the Bounty,” even “The Fugitive Kind,” “Morituri” and “The Night of the Following Day.”
The flick runs almost 1 hour, 48 minutes, and was shot on the shores of Hoboken, New Jersey.
GRADE: B-

Although it's Marlon Brando who takes top billing here, I found it was Karl Malden's "Father Barry" who stole the story as the priest who is determined to galvanises the New York dockers to step out from under the oppressive shadow of their boss "Johnny Friendly" (Lee J. Cobb). He's standing over a corpse, that of "Doyle". The deceased had been reputedly chatting with the crime commissioner and so took an unexpected dive off his building. He was a pigeon fancier, and it was this hobby that we know "Malloy" (Brando) used to lure the man to his pen on the roof. We know, but the late man's sister "Edie" (Eva Marie Saint) doesn't. As she determines to get to the bottom of the crime, she and "Malloy" start to become closer. He even begins to fall in love - but the priest tells him that can come to nothing unless he is honest. "Malloy" knows full well that any honesty will set him on a collision course with "Johnny" and with his own, cashmere coat clad brother "Charlie" (Rod Steiger) who acts as the number two around here. A meeting at the church does motivate "Dugan" (Pat Henning) to try to do something about this increasingly unfair scenario, but when he has a little too much whisky, it falls to "Barry" to render up his soliloquy and the dial starts to shift. If you've seen Charles Frend's "The Cruel Sea" (1953) you might recall a scene where, their ship torpedoed, the men float around in the water - water covered in debris and oil. It's dark and menacing looking. The photography here is almost that dark. It's black and white with the emphasis very much not the former. The photography almost seems to magnetise the darker elements of the buildings, the water and bring them to the fore. They become claustrophobic. Cobb is impressive as the boss as is Eve Marie Saint who avoids many of the usual pitfalls for the female lead. Her character is strong and her courage palpable in the face of an increasingly dangerous and desperate scenario. The denouement is gripping, touching and entirely fitting snd if you can get a chance to see this on a big screen, then do - it is a roller-coaster of a film that imbues it's flawed characters with personality and us with a sense of having some skin in it's game.

This coulda’ been a contender in a lot of greatest movie polls if people just took a second to fully appreciate it.

You think you're God Almighty, but you know what you are? You're a cheap, lousy, dirty, stinkin' mug! And I'm glad what I done to you, ya hear that? I'm glad what I done!
On the Waterfront is directed by Elia Kazan and adapted to screenplay by Budd Schulberg from a series of Malcolm Johnson articles. It stars Marlon Brando, lee J. Cobb, Eva Marie Saint, Karl Malden, Rod Steiger and Pat Henning. Music is by Leonard Bernstein and cinematography by Boris Kaufman.
Terry Malloy (Brando) was once a boxer with potential and big dreams. Now working as a longshoreman on the docks for mob boss Johnny Friendly (Cobb), Terry witnesses the murder of a fellow dock worker and finds himself conflicted about if he should inform to the crime commission about what he knows, more so as he gets in tight with the dead man's sister.
As good as anything Kazan, Brando and Kaufman ever did, On the Waterfront strips it down to a stench filled corrupt part of New York as honest hard working men battle to make ends meet under the rule of corrupt mob led union bosses. The dialogue is almost lyrical in its simplicity, deftly at odds with the dull pallor of the environment involving barely livable housing and misty docks holding awful secrets.
Although a defence for squealing, with the finger pointed at those in the high chairs here, it's a seminal classic that deserved every Oscar win and nomination that it got. From the electric "contender" speech (watch Steiger's facial acting here), to Brando's heart aching discovery of his beloved bids being killed, and onto the unforgettable punch the air finale, thisis a s good as classic cinema gets. 10/10

Bit of an odd one, though it does end up leaving a mark.
'Driving Miss Daisy' perhaps skirts around the larger picture in regards to the discrimination it alludes to, but all in all it's a charming tale about unlikely friendships. I do like when movies follow characters across an extended amount of time, in this case we see events stretch across 25 years; seeing characters grow and develop as they age is a cool thing.
Morgan Freeman is terrific, as is Jessica Tandy. Dan Aykroyd and Esther Rolle play their part too. Hans Zimmer is on music and to be honest (as much as I rate that guy) I'm not convinced the score, which is good, fits particularly well here. By the end it probably does, though at the beginning the in-your-face nature of it feels a bit out of place.

Cool concept for a movie. It would be sweet if we could pull this off for real. Epic times.

**Accepted is an insane ridiculous and charming comedy and pure dumb escapism.**
Accepted thrives in its absolute ludicrous premise - college hopefuls create a fake college because they don't want their parents to know they didn't get accepted anywhere else. Everything about this movie is ridiculous, wacky, and insane, and it's so much fun! The cast boasts two young up-and-coming stars, Jonah Hill and Blake Lively, before their careers exploded into mega-stardom. Justin Long's Bartleby Gaines grows as the leader of this ragtag group of rejects, eventually gaining the attention of the popular girl that hardly noticed him before. At its core, Accepted is about outcasts finding their tribe and embracing their entertaining quirks. The crazy characters always constantly entertain, and the laughs never stop. No one should ever reject Accepted.

Forgettable, but mostly harmless.

Fantastic watch, will definitely watch again, and can recommend.
I've watch this movie so many times, and it's probably one of my favorite movies. With the ridiculous premise that you have to go to college, what happens to the qualified people that don't get in: they make their own way, literally.
Just the concept of doing something like this is fascinating, and with the cast, the delivery is amazing: Justin Long, Blake Lively, Maria Thayer, (fat) Jonah Hill, Lewis Black, and even a young Hannah Marx.
The jokes are paced so well, and there is some noticeable punch up, but it's usually so good I don't mind. Part of the reason I like this writing is that a lot of it is character based: just making weird and fun characters and making them live in this fun world. So many of the scenes have background action happening, which is risky, but the pay off is magnificent.
On top of that, there are sub-arcs, and a great grand arc all about inclusivity and innovation.
Watch this, I seriously doubt you'll be disappointed.

A legendary movie for a hangover-day, but one that I will never begrudge others for disliking. This is really not my usual sort of movie, but for whatever reason, _Accepted_ somehow totally works for me?
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

I connected more with the concept a lot. Though the movie is a dramatization (as films are) and therefore it is cliché-laden, colorful and hyperbolic. But it explores an idea.
We are raised to follow certain paths, categorized and rejected if we are different and take different paths. What if a place of higher education existed where that wasn't the case?
This film explores that idea. A place of informal education and personal growth.

> He's a gifted writer yet different from others around him.
I think it was a sensitive subject for a movie, especially to be made in Hollywood. Communism and United States are like two opposite poles. So portraying an American who supports it is a challenging task for any moviemakers. But the director of 'Meet the Parents' did a great job. Yep, you don't have to take sides while a watch. Of course, the movie discussed the issue of conflict over the types of ruling system, but it was only in the initial part that kind of looked strong. While the story advancing, that topic completely weakened and concentrated more on other stuffs. So don't expect it to be a fight for the constitutional, but a wonderful biography of one of the talented screenwriters in the history of Hollywood.
Communism or Democracy, whatever you support that does not matter here to choose whether you want watch it or not. Because this movie very smartly outlined how people are affected when they believe differently from the majority of others around. In the opening, I thought it could be an anti-hero tale, but later it transformed the angle of presentation and indeed in the end the main character turned into a most likeable one.
I liked Dalton Trumbo, not for what he preferred to support, but how he handled it all. The rival group is who made it a big concern, otherwise he is a neglectable for his egoist nature. Bryan Cranston was amazing in the title role. It's his best in the lead role, after only to the 'Breaking Bad'. Hope he's going to make more lead role films now after. Kind of of inspiring flick, of course, from his professional angle. Definitely one of the best films of the 2015 and deserved its Oscar nod.
8/10

**Overall : A captivating story of courage, bravery, and loyalty that will powerfully inspire and grip hearts with its incredible storytelling and character development.**
I waited to see this one because I knew the story of the Granite Mountain Hotshots but was finally convinced to watch it when I realized Joseph Kosinski directed it. To no surprise, Kosinski created another compelling and moving film. The characters were each so rich and well developed. Throughout the film, you see each grow and mature, making the stakes feel much higher because you care all the more for every character and moment. The intensity of the film makes it hard to say I enjoyed it. Still, Only The Brave is undoubtedly an incredible movie that told its powerful story through an astonishing cast, expert story and writing, and brilliant directorial vision.

An impressive, given the budget et al., feature film debut from Mr. Nolan!
Not that the aforementioned is a surprise, of course. Still, this is a great watch, no doubt about it for me. I particularly appreciated the score, which is very good. Jeremy Theobald and Alex Haw give strong performances, especially the latter; who kept reminding me of a young Kevin Durand.
As you'd expect, this has many early hallmarks of Nolan's work - the obvious being the non-linear storytelling. I really like how the story is told here, the premise is intriguing and it ends up wrapping up nicely. The 70 minute run time, although not unwelcome, is shorter than I wanted, only because I happily would've watched this flick develop further.
I still gotta tick off 'Memento', 'Insomnia' and 'The Prestige' to complete Christopher Nolan's filmography. 'Following' is now logged and I'd recommend it. On the topic of this director's movies, I'd rank this higher than (the still very good) 'Dunkirk', 'The Dark Knight Rises' and, narrowly, 'Tenet'.

_**That Hamptons episode**_
A lifelong ‘ladies man’ (Jack Nicholson) used to dating young women has a life-altering experience while staying at the manor of a playwright (Diane Keaton) in the Hamptons. Amanda Peet plays the latter’s daughter, Frances McDormand her sister and Keanu Reeves a local doctor.
Written & directed by Nancy Meyer, "Something’s Gotta Give" (2003) is an amusing romcom that addresses the theme of dating people well younger than yourself vs. dating people closer to your own age, as well as epiphanies and finding your true love or soulmate. While there’s a little nudity done for laughs, it lacks the sleazy/bathroom humor of romcoms that would’ve been superior if they didn’t stoop to that low level of non-humor, like “She’s Out of My League” (2010).
The film runs 2 hours, 8 minutes, and was shot at The Hamptons, Long Island & New York City; Warner Brothers Burbank Studios & Santa Monica, CA; and Paris, France.
GRADE: B

Liam Neeson has the magic touch that gives a boost to almost any movie he’s cast in, be it a love story or an action thriller. He makes the most mundane films palatable, so it shouldn’t be a shocker that Neeson is the best thing about “The Marksman,” a formulaic (but still entertaining) movie from director Robert Lorenz.
Neeson plays Jim Hanson, an ex-Marine turned Arizona rancher who’s lost his wife to cancer and is about to lose his home to foreclosure. The man lives a life of solitude on an isolated stretch of land that touches the Mexican border. While out tending to his cattle one afternoon with his beloved dog Jackson, Jim sees a young mother named Rosa (Teresa Ruiz) and her son Miguel (Jacob Perez) slip through the border fence and take off running. He stops to help the pair after they plead for protection from the assassins that are following them. Tempers flare and the encounter ends in a shootout, killing Rosa. Her dying wish is for Jim to deliver Miguel safely to extended family in Chicago.
A predictable road trip follows, with the bad guys hot on their trail. The body count piles up as the deadly cartel doesn’t hesitate to kill anyone and everyone who gets in their way. As they try to outrun the danger, the man and boy form an unlikely friendship and manage to stay one step ahead of the killers who remain in pursuit. Eventually their luck runs out, and Jim must do whatever it takes to fight for Miguel’s life.
Neeson spends most of the movie growling at Perez, who doesn’t have much to do himself. The two have a nice chemistry, but Neeson’s grumpy old man shtick seems more fitting for someone like Clint Eastwood. Neeson does eventually get to open up a can of whoop ass on the baddies, but this film is a slight departure from his normal action star routine.
The plot follows standard genre conventions, has plenty of gun violence, and will meet the the expectations of its target audience. Not only is the movie competently directed, but there’s more than enough to enjoy here — especially if you’re looking for mindless entertainment with a hint of a social message. The sentiment is progressive for an action movie, and the illegal immigration angle doesn’t feel forced. It actually works as a means of bringing the characters together.
“The Marksman” isn’t exactly a notable player in the action genre, but it’s a good film for those who want a well-made, solid action movie with few surprises.
By: Louisa Moore