Liam Neeson is back in “The Marksman” and despite some flaws; the film provides what his fans want and is an engaging and topical film.
Neeson plays Jim; a widower who spends his time on a tiny and struggling ranch in Arizona near the border. Jim is facing foreclosure from the bank after dealing with devastating medical bills for his late wife and feels that as a former Marine he has been given a bad deal by the system.
Jim often drives along the border fence and radios in suspected crossings but is willing to provide aid to those who finds in distress.
When Jim encounters a young woman and her son Miguel (Jacob Perez); he is drawn into conflict when they are pursued by some dangerous people which forces Jim to shoot when weapons are drawn killing one of the group in the process as well as the boy’s mother.
Jim turns the boy over to the Border Patrol where his daughter Sarah (Katheryn Winnick), is in charge of the local office and is concerned when he learns the boy is to be sent back to family. Seeing the individuals he had previously had a gunfight with waiting for Miguel to cross; Jim decides to honor the dying wish of Miguel’s mother to take him to family in Chicago; even when that means abducting Miguel from custody.
The trip not only puts Jim at odds with his daughter but as well as Miguel who wants to return home and causes the dangerous individuals to cross into the U.S. to ruthlessly track Jim and Miguel to exact their revenge.
The film moves at a steady and deliberate pace until the finale gives fans a taste of the action that they would come to expect. It does take some patience as I saw numerous opportunities for a person of Jim’s skill to attempt to set an ambush, trap, or counter the dangers facing them but the final resolutions are enjoyable and satisfying.
While the film does not have the action and intensity of some of Neeson’s recent works; it does provide enough entertainment to make it worth a watch and does contain content based on some very volatile and controversial topics which would spur intense debate.
3 stars out of 5

**Disconnect your brain and embrace the insanity. You will thank me.**
Sharknado is terrible in every way, and the result is pure joy! Sharknado has some of the worst CGI, acting, and plot, but it's a blast from start to finish. I never knew how much I needed to see sharks raining from the sky getting chainsawed by B-list actors until I saw this movie. Trust me, this movie is best watched with friends ready to laugh at the ridiculousness of a tornado of sharks.

I love corny shark flicks... I mean sharktopus is one of my faves. But what the ever living hell is this? It had promise... They made lots of sequels so somebody liked it.

It's kind of odd that _Sharknado_ is the movie that brought ridiculous Creature Feature B-movies into the public awareness. Especially seeing as it's been going on since like... The '50s, minimum... Wish it had have been a better movie that hit the zeitgeist though...
_Final rating:★½: - Boring/disappointing. Avoid where possible._

“For a b-grade movie this is an OK one”
At the beginning concept of a city getting filled with water due to heavy flood and the sharks getting us thru there is believable and a very good concept, imagine that really happens what are we going to do, but sharks in tornado I don’t dig that cause that is impossible. I thought before seeing this movie that it was a spoof movie of all those shark movies like JAWS, Deep blue sea etc., but it turned out to be a serious shark movie with some parts in the movie that are not believable. Tornado itself can be made as a tragic movie so imagine we top it up with sharks and call it Sharknado.
It’s an ok movie for a one time watch but don’t expect to be all wowed by it
Notable Acting
Cassandra Scerbo famous for her movie such as Bring it on
Ian Ziering
My Rating 6/10

Good watch, could watch again, and can recommend.
This is certainly something different. It's a different approach to vampires (hemophages), it's a different approach to sci-fi, and it's a different approach to corporate dystopia. Oddly, the Umbrella Corporation from "Resident Evil" is the closest of which I can think.
Milla Jovovich is entirely capable of performing high action sequences, and carrying the movie, which she does wonderfully. I don't doubt that she has some pull in the production process, but the problems in this are mostly the weak character work and the "I have this really cool idea I'd like to do on screen, it'll be totally different than anything else out there." of it all.
Some of it (nose plugs) are actively distracting, and other things are just odd choices (squared off sword), while there are cool concepts (dimensionally printed weapons), and scenes that just look cool even if they're not especially practical or sensisble (swords on fire in the dark).
My only personal gripes are day walking vampires, weird foley sounds for the guns (most are right, but it is hard to tell on made up guns), and why in the hell people with guns would charge someone instead of firing.
I think this movie holds up as good as it did when it was released, and I have a good time re-watching it.

I enjoyed 'Trouble with the Curve'.
There are a few too many moments of cringe for my liking, renditions of 'You Are My Sunshine' included, but as a whole it's a solidly entertaining sports flick - with added love drama.
The cast are the film's major plus, with Clint Eastwood - in his first strictly acting role since the early 1990s and last to date of review - and Amy Adams naturally sticking out most. Other cast members include Justin Timberlake, Matthew Lillard, John Goodman and Scott Eastwood - the latter shares a scene with his father, which is nice.
A few different choices by the filmmakers and I'd be rating this a tad higher, but as is it's a good film - one that is worth a watch.

Acclaimed psychologist "Kelvin" (Donates Banionis) is despatched to a space station to investigate the mysterious death of one of the three remaining scientists who are working on the surface of a remote moon. Upon arrival he discovers that there are now just the two of the original eighty-plus crew left aboard the rather ramshackle facility. "Snaut" (Jüri Järvet) and "Sartorius" (Anatoliy Solonitsyn). Their welcome is, to put it mildly, bizarre and before long he starts to dream. His apparitions become more vivid, more realistic, and they feature his deceased wife "Khari" (Natalya Bondarenchuk). Are these just hallucinations or are they more. Might they be real? Might they exist in an alternate reality? Is it something in the water? Andrei Tarkovsky uses his dialogue sparingly as he tautly directs this mystery. We are drip fed information - sometimes contradictory, sometimes speculative - just as "Kelvin" receives it - and we are left in the same quandary as he finds himself in. It's a sort of groundhog day scenario that plays out time and time again - but he cannot decide if he wants to break it, amend it or sustain it, and his colleagues are little help as they have long suffered from the same symptoms. I won't lie - it can be slow progress at times. It's not always helped by the rather soporific Artemyev score, and the pace is a little wobbly as we get to grips with the scenario, but once there this is a considered look at just how the human mind may/can/will work when tested and it's well illustrative of the fact that there is way more out there that we don't understand than we do. It does benefit from a big screen, if only to add a scope to the broadness of the production and the concept.

The only area in which _The Dark Knight Returns, Part 1_ suffers, is foretold in the title: This is just part one. You watch those two parts combined back to back? You've got the best superhero movie ever made.
_Final rating:★★★★½ - Ridiculously strong appeal. I can’t stop thinking about it._

Ingrid Bergman and Cary Grant just ooze charisma in this classic Hitchcock story of espionage and romance. She ("Alicia") has taken to the bottle following the conviction of her Nazi father and is heading down the slippery slope when she is approached by "Devlin" (Grant) who offers her a chance to redeem herself. She is to ingratiate herself with a group of her father's cohorts in Rio and feed back her intelligence to the CIA. Once in Rio, she is reunited with her arch-Nazi admirer "Alexander" (Claude Rains) and, at the insistence of her new boss (Louis Calhern) she marries him. What now ensues is a cleverly developing tale of treachery and betrayal tempered with plenty of humour and a little romance (of course she and "Devlin" fall for each other). The photography is both grand and intimate, Roy Webb has scored this perfectly and Hitchcock uses Ben Hecht's story to full effect. This is a classic piece of cinema that I saw quite recently on a big screen - and it is well worth watching again!

Good thriller from Alfred Hitschcock.

> A comedy about to pull off the first ever Golden Tux.
In any movie if you see a sidekick rule, that has to be the Kevin Hart. He can handle the whole movie by himself and this film is a great example. It totally surprised me, I expected it to be an average film, but it was an awesome comedy. We have seen plenty of bride and groom and marriage related comedies, but this was a slightly different yet a fantastic treat.
I don't think it was wonderful because of the jokes alone, but unique characters and actors who performed them were brought the fine outcome. I felt like I know what's coming, but the ending was simple and smart. Like always when I like a movie a lot I hope for a sequel to come and they should make one for this as well.
It's a Kevin Hart's time as a comedian, his top box office films are all from the recent time, so he must make use of it and I am expecting his upcoming projects. This is a perfect weekend movie to have some laughs. Middle finger to the film critics. I definitely recommended it not only for the film fanatics but all. Who knows you might find it much better than the recent 'Get Hard'.
7½/10

Burning singes its psychological character study with a thrillingly igneous mystery. The cosmic fires of the sun. Its radiance encapsulating our world with warmth and tenderness. The perfect distance for sustainability. Equilibrium. Its rich beating rays corrupting the impressionable youth, granting life in the most deciduous souls. The Sun sets. And much like its vanishing point, the resonance of its warmth dissipates, only leaving numbing bitterness.
Chang-Dong’s adaptation of Murakami’s ‘Barn Burning’ is an arresting piece of psychology. An ambiguous analysis perceiving the wealthy to emotionally manipulate the aspiring, culminating into a study on the human condition. A complex aura of social anatomisation that defies the genres that are seamlessly blended. A story not entirely based on the perspective of the naive Jongsu, who faces solitude due to his mother abandoning him and father incarcerated. Neither does it revolve around the suggestible Haemi and her eternal yearning for disappearance as she travels to Kenya. Nor the ominous Ben, arriving back with Haemi after her trip, confessing his hobby for frequently burning down greenhouses.
The enigmatic exploration comes from the gaps in between these surreptitious characters. The bonds they develop. Thematically, Burning is an endeavour in illustrating envy. The young envious of the rich. The lonely desirous of relationships. The insatiable hunger for perishing one’s soul. A contemporary strand of human nature that is derived from Chang-Dong’s acute screenplay. Substituting elongated conversations for hypnotising scenes of visual splendour, exercising his artistic flair for storytelling. Haemi, whilst enthused by marijuana, joyously dancing against the backdrop of the twilight sky in a one-take sequence. Not only does this depict her thirst for vanishment, as she sways to her claimed “Great Hunger” dance, but her eternal solidarity as the Sun sets in front of her darkened silhouette.
In fact, Chang-Dong references the Sun throughout this ethereal piece, notably when Haemi invited Jongsu to her apartment. Its rays provide solace for her, but a shining memory for him. For the split second that the Sun reflects off Seoul Tower and through her quaint window, Jongsu habitually alters his psychology. The sheer power of its beauty has the ability to emotionally change the mind, and Chang-Dong poetically conveys that through showcasing the diamond sky. The cold pale blues complementing the warm pastel yellows, with much gratification for Kyung-pyo’s cinematography. A battle for luminescence that likens itself to the internal conflict of subduing envy.
Chang-Dong alters the slow-burning pace for the second half, introducing elements of mystery that makes this feature his most thrilling yet. Questionable plot points become answered through perceptible descriptions that offer an open-ended interpretation. What actually happened to Haemi? Chang-Dong purposefully refuses to literarily conclude that question, invoking your mind to fill in the blanks. A simple yet captivating device that opens its arms to the audience, bringing them closer to the characters than ever before.
Occasionally, this seamless transition offers several plot points concluding in a quick manner, in particular the final ten minutes. Chang-Dong had a tendency for continuing the story which should’ve been finalised minutes beforehand, further losing the arresting power of Burning’s thematic presence. Arguably, the conclusion offers a morality in fatherhood and how upbringing can alter justice, yet his insistence in clearly concluding the mystery was underwhelming. Offering a one-note ending. Juxtaposing the dimensionality of Ah-in, Jong-seo and Yeun’s sensational performances throughout the runtime, and Mowg’s multi-faceted score.
Burning may not be the fiery inferno that viewers of traditional thrillers have come to expect. Far from it, in fact. Its purposeful slow-pace and meditative approach forces the audience to appreciate the finer details within the characters and environment. Offering allegories on classism and egalitarianism through an ambiguously visualised narrative that shines brightly amongst modern Korean cinema. Burning has its embers glowingly ferociously.

_**A slow-burning mystery about economics, class, and sexual jealousy. And cats.**_
> _For a long time, I've wanted to tell a story about young people, and in particular, the young people of this generation. Some of my past projects were named Project Rage. That was because it seems that today, people all over the world, regardless of their nationality, religion, and social status, are angry for different reasons. The rage of young people is a particularly pressing problem. The millennials living in Korea today will be the first generation that are worse off than their parents' generation._ _They feel that the future will not change significantly. Not able to find the object to direct their rage at, they feel a sense of debilitation. This film is about young people who feel impotent, with rage bottled up inside them._
- Lee Chang-dong; "_Burning_ Director Lee Chang-dong: Still Angry After All These Years" (Patrick Frater); _Variety_ (December 3, 2018)
A thriller about a missing person. An allegory of class division. A study of generational alienation. A fable about modern consumerism. A dramatisation of psychological breakdown and genetically inherited rage. An analysis of socio-economic disenfranchisement. A critique of toxic masculinity and its concomitant misogyny. A condemnation of middle-class gentrification. A threnody for a traditional Korea that's slowly being replaced by faceless cosmopolitanism. An extended rib on Schrödinger's cat. The story of an impoverished novelist-wannabe, a yuppie pyromaniac, and the strange woman that brings them together, then tears them apart. _Beoning_ [_Burning_] is all of these. And none of them. This is a narrative fundamentally built on questions, very few of which are answered definitively.
In his first film in eight years, writer/director Lee Chang-dong (_Oasis_; _Secret Sunshine_; _Poetry_) begins this protean narrative as an almost John Hughes-esque teen romance, before shifting gears into a story of sexual and economic jealousy, then morphing into the tale of a pseudo-film noir amateur sleuth, before finally allowing itself to visit the thriller territory that has lurked just outside the frame since the opening few scenes. Essentially, it's a psychological drama about three people. Although, it's possible that only one of those people is real. There are also two cats. Or maybe only one cat. It's a long journey (148 minutes), and, for some, the payoff will not be worth the length of time taken to get there. Others, more used to concrete black-and-white yes-and-no narratives, will be unimpressed with how steadfastly the film refuses to yield its secrets. For myself, it's a two-and-a-half-hour movie with only three characters of which to speak (real or not) that is intimately tied to a _milieu_ I'm completely unfamiliar with, yet it managed to hold my attention for almost the entire time. It has an undeniable ability to burrow under your skin very early on, so even though in the first two hours, there are literally only two major plot points, I was fully invested. And, man alive, is it tense. Lee's mastery of tone is quite something, keeping the viewer off-balance from the get-go, bestowing portentous significance upon the most inanimate and innocent of objects, only to later reveal that whilst we were trying to figure out the importance of item a, we missed the significance of item b. And although in the last half-hour, I did start to fidget a little, I thought the ending was wonderfully ambiguous (albeit, just a tad predictable). The acting is terrific, the cinematography superb, and you could certainly do worse than invest your time in this tantalising filmic Rorschach test.
Set in contemporary South Korea, the film tells the story of Lee Jong-su (Yoo Ah-in), a shy and taciturn man in his late teens whose family home in Paju lies so close to the DMZ, that when the wind is blowing south, Communist propaganda can be heard. Having studied creative writing in college, Jong-su has aspirations to be a novelist but is having a hard time writing anything. In the meantime, he's trying to hold together the family's single-cow dairy farm, as his mother left with his sister many years previously, and his father, Lee Yong-seok (Choi Seung-ho), is currently standing trial for an unspecified altercation with a neighbour. Whilst working as a part-time delivery man in Seoul, Jong-su encounters Shin Hae-mi (an extraordinary debut performance from Jun Jong-seo). She claims they went to school together, although he doesn't remember her, which she attributes to the plastic surgery she has had in the intervening years. Developing a friendship, she invites him back to her apartment a few days later, explaining she will shortly be travelling to Africa, and asking him to feed her cat, Boil. He agrees, and the two have sex. Captivated, Jong-su happily feeds Boil, and even though every time he comes to the apartment, the cat is nowhere to be seen, the food and water are disappearing, so Jong-su thinks little of it, spending his time there masturbating and thinking of Hae-mi. A few weeks later, she calls and asks if he can pick her up at the airport. However, to his confusion, she brings with her Ben (Steven Yeun, performing under his birth-name, Yeun Sang-yeop), a confidant, irritatingly polite, and extremely wealthy young man whose swanky Gangnam District pad is everything Jong-su's ramshackle farm is not. When asked what he does for a living, Ben cryptically responds,
> _to put it simply, I play. Nowadays, there is no distinction between working and playing._
The trio develop an odd relationship, with Hae-mi at times appearing to be dating both men, and at others, neither; Ben doesn't seem to regard their set-up as unusual, and Jong-su is too withdrawn and lacking in confidence to seek clarification. One evening, as the trio smoke weed at Jong-su's farm, Hae-mi recalls falling into a nearby well. However, not only does Jong-su not remember the incident, but is also unaware of any wells in the area. When Hae-mi falls asleep, Jong-su admits to Ben that he loves her, and Ben tells him about his strange hobby of burning greenhouses. Despite himself, Jong-su is fascinated. A few days later, however, Hae-mi is nowhere to be found; her apartment cleaned and emptied, her phone disconnected. Jong-su, suspecting Ben to be involved, sets out to find her.
Adapted from Haruki Murakami's (very) short story "Barn Burning", published in _The New Yorker_ in 1983, and later collected in the 1993 anthology, _Zō no shōmets_u [_The Elephant Vanishes_], _Beoning_ (the first Korean film to make it onto the shortlist for Best Foreign Language Film at the Oscars, although it failed to secure one of the final five nominations) was written for the screen by the director and Oh Jung-mi (in her feature debut). The film differs from Murakami's story in a number of important ways. For example, the setting is transposed from Japan to South Korea, and the targets of Ben's pyromania changed from barns to greenhouses. In the story, Jong-su is in his late-twenties and married, and his relationship with Hae-mi is chaste. He is also less developed as a character; for example, his parents aren't referenced. The most significant difference, however, is that Murakami's story ends almost immediately upon Hae-mi going missing, something which happens with over 60 minutes left in the film. The story itself was loosely inspired by William Faulkner's 1939 short story of the same name, something obliquely referenced in the film insofar as Faulkner is Lee's favourite author, and Ben is seen reading a Faulkner anthology. This literary provenance is important, as all three texts deal with class division, economic jealousy, and vengeance; a common thread is a male "have-not" growing envious of a "have", and deciding to take action against what he perceives as an unfair distribution of wealth.
_Beoning_ is masterfully constructed upon a foundation of questions, only a very few of which are answered. If you accept this from the get-go, you'll be much more predisposed to enjoying the film on its own terms. Indeed, ambiguity is not solely reserved for the big questions, such as why does Jong-su not remember Hae-mi from school; what happens to Hae-mi; what does Ben do for a living; is his admission that he has never cried evidence of sociopathy; does he really burn down greenhouses. There's a whole host of smaller mysteries running alongside them - why does Hae-mi seem to rig a raffle so that Jong-su wins; what exactly did Jong-su's father do; who is calling his home in the middle of the night and hanging up; why does he stare at his father's knives the way he does; where is his sister; does Boil exist; is Ben's rescue cat the same cat as the never-seen Boil; did Hae-mi really fall down a well? Although some (or more) of these questions remain unanswered, there are certainly clues scattered throughout (I'd imagine it's a film that'd reward a second look), but your interpretation of those clues may very well differ entirely from mine (looking around online, I've seen at least five different readings of the final scene alone).
Thematically, the film covers a plethora of issues; toxic masculinity, alpha and beta males, economics and consumerism, class, the place of women in Korean society, sexual jealousy, the death of a bucolical way of life, working-class privations, faceless capitalism, the price of success, hope, writer's block. Of course, some are more foregrounded than others, with economics in particular emphasised. For example, the film cuts from a scene of the trio at a swanky nightclub (into which Ben has ensured they could go) to a scene of Jong-su alone, mucking out the cow stable. The contrast between the lifestyles of the two men couldn't be clearer; the casual comfort of the playboy and the stressful privations of the farmer, with Lee making a generalised point about the disenfranchisement of Korea's working-class youth. Jong-su belongs to a generation of working-class people who will be economically worse off than their parents were at the same age, whilst the gap between the middle-class and the working class has grown wider than ever. The Korea of the film is very much a place of castes, hierarchies of privilege and social standing, with Jong-su and Ben on the opposite end of every spectrum; when Ben is compared to Jay Gatsby, Jong-su sullenly opines, "_there are so many Gatsbys in Korea_". In another scene, a clip is shown of Donald Trump rallying his blue-collar base, and again, the point is clear; Trump, a member of the elite, born into wealth and privilege, exploiting for his own gain the fears and insecurities of the people who, economically speaking, are completely divorced from his world-view.
The film also engages significantly with gender politics. One of the things that so captivates Jong-su about Hae-mi is her provocative behaviour. Yet later, when she dances topless outside his house, he is disgusted, telling Ben, "_only a whore acts like that_." It's a succinct summary of a societal double-standard; men can behave how they wish, but women must conform to arbitrary expectations. It could be argued that because the film fails the Bechdel test, Hae-mi functions primarily to further Jong-su and Ben's arcs, and is devoid of any real agency herself. An alternative reading, however, is that she is poorly sketched as a character so as to represent a patriarchal society in which women are seen as less complex than men. For the most part, _Beoning_ avoids didacticism on this issue, but to suggest that Hae-mi is simply a badly written character seems to me to be a very superficial interpretation of a film with great depth.
However, there is also the possibility that Hae-mi doesn't actually exist, and in this sense, the fact that she is presented in such sexualised terms is because she is literally a male's fantasy, a sexual obsession born in the disturbed mind of an unreliable narrator. The film is told exclusively from Jong-su's perspective, he is in every scene, and the narrative never shifts to another focal character or to an omniscient viewpoint. With this in mind, everything we see is filtered through his ideological outlook; if he attaches significance to an object, the audience is invited to do likewise. Lee masterfully handles this tricky structural device, placing the audience directly into the same (possibly paranoid) headspace as the character. So, for example, when Jong-su sees Ben yawning as Hae-mi is recreating a dance she learned in Kenya, the yawn becomes immensely sinister, because that's how Jong-su interprets it. In this sense, if one theorises that Hae-mi is, in fact, a figment of Jong-su's imagination - an idealisation of a beautiful woman who wants him - then Ben must also originate in Jong-su's mind, functioning as the inverse to Hae-mi; a personification of everything to which Jong-su aspires but is unable to attain. The fact that Lee leaves this tantalising possibility on the table whilst still managing to analyse social-realist topics such as economics and class, is a testament to his extraordinary control over the material. Indeed, the natural light, shallow focus, and handheld nature of the cinematography by Hong Kyung-Pyo (_Taegukgi Hwinallimyeo_; _Gokseong_; _Snowpiercer_) initially suggests a gritty realism, whereas the narrative operates on a far more esoteric level.
One of the most salient motifs, if not necessarily a theme unto itself, is that of disappearance, with references scattered throughout the film - Hae-mi notes that her house in Paju is gone, as is the well she fell into; Jong-su recollects how after his mother left, his father burnt her clothes; when Ben tells Jong-su about his greenhouse hobby, he states, "_you can make it disappear as if it never even existed_"; Hae-mi literally says she wants to disappear; when Jong-su asks Ben if it's possible Hae-mi has gone on another trip, Ben says, "_maybe she disappeared like a puff of smoke_". The most important scene in this sense is an early one. Explaining that she's learning pantomime, Hae-mi proceeds to mime peeling and eating a tangerine, telling Jong-su the trick isn't to pretend the tangerine is really there, but to
> _forget it doesn't exist. You forget that the tangerine is not there. That's all. The important thing is that you have to really want it._
This challenge to perception is crucial not just in how Jong-su becomes convinced Hae-mi has met foul play despite the lack of evidence, it also provides a clue for the audience as to how best to parse the film itself.
From an aesthetic point of view, especially notable is the production design by Lee's regular designer Shin Jeon-hee, with the residences of each of the main characters nicely mirroring their standing - Jung-su's farm is dilapidated, dark, dreary, just like the sullen young man himself; Hae-mi's digs are tiny, cramped, packed to the ceiling with trinkets and books, personalised in every way, just like Hae-mi herself, bursting with personality; Ben's huge apartment is spacious, full of light, vibrant, with minimalist furniture, not dissimilar to Patrick Bateman's apartment in _American Psycho_ (book and film). The use of Miles Davis's jazz score from Louise Malle's _Ascenseur pour l'échafaud_ [_Elevator to the Gallows_] (1958) is also very telling. Used during a key scene that functions as a bifurcation between the two halves of the film (before and after Hae-Mi disappears), the fatalistic nature of Malle's film is subtly referenced, indicating that the narrative is about to take a dark turn. It's a brilliant choice by Lee and his composer, Lee Sung-hyun (aka. Mowg), and further evidence of Lee's extraordinary control of the material.
Of course, for all that praise, there are a few problems. For one, it's a little too long, and there are occasions when the narrative seems somewhat desultory. I would imagine that a lot of people will dislike the ambiguity and lack of concrete answers. Personally, I loved this aspect of the film and thought Lee handled it magnificently, but it certainly isn't for everyone. A minor issue is that as protagonists go, Jong-su is extremely passive, a character to whom things happen rather than the narrative's driving force. Again, some people will dislike this aspect, but I think it's important that Jong-su is seen as passive, especially in relation to the final scene. Of that scene, several colleagues of mine found it disappointingly familiar, something seen in any number of standard genre pieces. I disagree with that, and I think the scene benefits from a comparison with how Michael Haneke often ends his films, which slowly build from a whisper before suddenly releasing a raging scream; think the murder of the family in _Funny Games_ (1997), Madij's (Maurice Bénichou) suicide in _Caché_ (2005), or Georges (Jean-Louis Trintignant) wheeling himself into the ocean in _Happy End_ (2017). Nevertheless, I can see where the criticism is coming from, as the final scene does conform fairly neatly to the rubric for a quotidian thriller.
All in all, I found _Beoning_ to be a haunting film, one which I couldn't get out of head for days, and I'm keen to see it again. Lee's masterful control of tone is extraordinary, balancing a plethora of themes within a half-social-realist/half-magic-realist _milieu_. As good an exercise in cinematic suggestiveness as you're likely to see outside the likes of David Lynch, Terrence Malick, or Guy Maddin, Lee subtly alters mood so as to manipulate, push, prod, guide, and fool the audience, playing us as if he were a puppet master and we his playthings. The film is such that everything on screen, every word spoken, every background detail could be important. Or not. Fiercely intelligent, deeply nuanced, complexly layered, it's a film that rewards concentration. The three leads are superb, the aesthetics laudable, the script excellent. It is, simply put, the finely crafted work of a distinct and relevant _auteur_, the kind of film that could no longer be made in mainstream Hollywood.

This documentary thinks it's real cute. You may learn a thing or two, but a lot of the time it feels manipulative and self-righteous.
I wish that, instead of portraying the mechanisms of ad-targeting as some kind of sci-fi super villain, they would have shown what truly goes on in the offices of google, facebook, and the like. The evils of manipulating human attention do not need to be sensationalized to look like something out of Tron or Blade Runner. Why not film the actual computer screens that are spitting back data about users of these platforms? Perhaps internet giants would not let cameras behind the scenes.
Anyhow, this film has a noble goal but comes across as more dime-a-dozen infotainment that Netflix has pumped out many times before. Maybe if it did not treat its viewers as though they were brain dead I would have enjoyed it more. Show it to your tik tok friends who could lose a staring contest with a squirrel, as that is likely who this documentary is targeted for.

I think Robert Zemeckis was maybe trying to get closer to the original Disney version of this film from 1940, but it doesn't really work. Tom Hanks sparingly takes on the human role of the carpenter "Geppetto" who longs for a son. He crafts this wooden replica and magic takes an hand with the benevolent "Blue Fairy" turning him into the young "Pinocchio". This youngster's is a bit spoiled and is soon bored with the routine of his life at home and at school and before long is tempted by a visiting (and well paying) theatrical show who take him from the safety of "Geppetto" and, accompanied by narrator/conscience "Jiminy Cricket" we now see the boy experience adventures that demonstrate the venality, cruelty and selfishness of humanity as he gradually starts to yearn for the safety of his home and his father. This perilous journey does, however, help him grow. He begins to mature and discover the difference between right and wrong, truth and lie whilst meantime the old man is despairing and sets off to find him. Can they ever meet again? The animation is really enjoyable here, but the characterisations are all a bit feeble. The gist of this story has a darkness to it and that is lacking here. Granted, this isn't the easies of stories to Disneyfy with much more substance to the malevolence of the plot, but here we seem to have something that falls between two stools. It's not menacing, nor is it a "cartoon", it's just a bit soulless. Still, it's not unwatchable and if it encourages youngsters to read the book or check out a few of the grittier adaptations of the Collodi novel, then all's good.

**By: Louisa Moore / www.ScreenZealots.com**
For some reason (we all know it’s the money), Disney is determined to mine their vault for material to remake, update, or “reimagine.” The studio’s latest abomination is the live action and animated musical “Pinocchio,” a massive misfire that tarnishes the beloved 1940s classic. Director and co-writer Robert Zemeckis‘ film is unimaginative, unwelcome, and uninspired.
Geppetto (Tom Hanks) is a lonely Italian woodcarver who builds a marionette named Pinocchio (voice of Benjamin Evan Ainsworth) and treats him like his real son. With the help of a little magic from the Blue Fairy (Cynthia Erivo), the puppet comes to life and dreams of becoming a real boy. The film follows Pinocchio’s adventures and missteps on his quest to make this fantasy a reality, including being duped by Honest John (voice of Keegan-Michael Key), being kidnapped by a circus, getting turned into a donkey, and being swallowed by a whale. He does all of this with his conscience, Jiminy Cricket (voice of Joseph Gordon-Levitt), by his side.
The story stays mostly true to the original 1883 book and Disney animated film. It’s updated a bit with new characters and some very off-putting (and unfunny) one-liners about Hollywood and the movie industry, and the screenplay feels old fashioned as it attempts to modernize the messaging. Pinocchio exclaims, “I don’t need school!” when he decides that he wants to be famous instead of getting an education. That may be relevant to today’s social climate, yet it still feels like a reach.
Things get worse from there. The animation is ugly and disturbing, with plastic looking characters and equally ghastly voice performances. Gordon-Levitt is terrible as Jiminy Cricket, giving a whiny, strained turn as one of the story’s most cherished characters. Everyone seems to be trying too hard, although it’s puzzling as to the reason why. At least Hanks makes an excellent Geppetto.
The film includes a few original tunes that are forgettable, as well as new versions of classic songs “When You Wish Upon A Star,” “Hi-Diddle-Dee-Dee,” and “I’ve Got No Strings,” which do not sound much better than nails dragging across a chalkboard. The singing is atrocious, and that’s putting it politely.
The Pleasure Island scenes are fully realized and a visual delight (let’s try to ignore that the “bad” boys do such horrific things like drinking root beer), but that’s where the praise begins and ends. The best part of the film is also its most ominous, and parents should note that the film is rated PG for a reasons. It features scary scenarios that may spook young kids, especially if they have abandonment issues or are afraid of the dark.
Almost everything about “Pinocchio” is cringe-worthy, and it’s simply not a good film. Why do this to a Disney classic?

Terrible remake of the original “When you wish upon a star” classic we’ve grown to love!!! Lack of creativity and Disney entertainment you’d expect to see in this woke made version!!! So I say we only scale it to only an hour at best if this remake is going to try to distort the original film’s true morals about believing in your dreams!!

> amazing movie

_Pinocchio_ has been begrudgingly transformed from a flawed animated masterpiece into this shiny, superfluous turd of a live-action film. The majority of the classic characters have been mangled in some capacity while new characters are lame fluff serving as more of insurmountable obstacles you’re forced to endure rather than offering any sort of entertainment value or overall purpose to the actual story. With tangled strings and meandering storytelling, _Pinocchio_ is a musical misfire that attempts to annihilate everything that made its animated counterpart so enjoyable.
**Full review:** https://boundingintocomics.com/2022/09/09/pinocchio-review-a-bloated-beached-whale-of-a-live-action-remake/

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/pinocchio-spoiler-free-review
"Pinocchio boasts a more thematically impactful ending than the original but fails to deliver a new version of the famous childhood tale with the same magic and allure of the past.
Tom Hanks and most of the voice cast embody the spirit of the 1940's flick perfectly, but the characters lack further development and imaginative modifications. The blend between animation and CGI components with real humans and sets is awkwardly inconsistent, leaving the viewers with a weird sensation throughout the whole runtime.
The cast's musical prowess and memorable songs help with the entertainment aspect, but overall, it's a somewhat disappointing new take."
Rating: C

5 years after the death of 2nd Robin, Jason Todd(Alexander Martella), we find Batman(Bruce Greenwood) in Gotham reunited with an old protege and first Robin Dick Grayson, now under the guise of Nightwing(Neil Patrick Harris). During a battle with Blackmasks thugs Batman and Nightwing run into the new,yet somewhat familiar face of the Red Hood(Jensen Ackles). Leading Batman to relive some old and hurtful memories of one of the darkest periods in his career, the question is who is under the Red Hood....and is he friend or foe?
The story as a whole is very compelling with a much darker tone than most other animated features, it shows a level of brutality from the beginning with life and death playing a major role in the story. We also get some flash backs, a small but interesting glimpse into Batman and the Jokers first ever meet, to the early days of Batman and Jason Todd, showing the relationship until the young Robins death. There are good action scenes as well as some dark humor, the animation is great, with a feel similar to the Animated Series but different enough to stand on its own.
Many actors have played the character of Batman on tv and film, and at least to me, it is easier to adjust and accept the different portrayals of the characters involved when we see them in live action.
When it comes to animated versions of these characters it seems hard not to compare the casting to the amazing voice acting in Batman: The Animated Series. Although it may take a while to get over the initial change you come to hear some great acting from all the cast here. John DiMaggio gets top marks here for his version of the Joker, much darker and with slightly more menace than his Animated series counterpart, he presents a Joker to be afraid of who early on shows a level of brutality not regularly seen in the cartoon version of the character.
Bruce Greenwood gives a good performance as Batman but i couldn't help but feel he was imitating Kevin Conroy, rather than making the character his own.
Jensen Ackles is great as the Red Hood giving the character energy and emotion, which helps you sympathize and understand why he is the way he is.
Neil Patrick Harris gives a great performance as Nightwing just a shame he wasn't present in the second half of the film but memorable none the less. All other voice acting was top notch coming together to create a dark and gloomy Gotham.
This is a great animated Batman feature and i strongly suggest that all Batman fans should check it out, its darker and more violent than some other Batman animations but this shouldn't put you off it all plays a part in the story and an interesting story it is. From start to finish the story will grab you, plenty of action and some great voice acting makes this one of the best Batman movies around.
9 out of 10

There are some films that ought never to be remade, and many of the charming "Ealing Comedies" are amongst them. This one - originally from 1955 - was maybe not my favourite of these classic stories, but it still in no way deserved this imbecilic remake from the Coen brothers. Tom Hanks ("Prof. Dorr") is a typical Southern gentleman who inveigles his way into the home of elderly Christian lady "Marva Munson" (Irma P. Hall) and under the guise of practising their musical numbers, he and his gang set about committing a daring robbery of a casino located next door. What really wrecks this for me in the constant use of expletives. The original story is simple, slapstick even, with subtly paced humour that allows the story to develop in a gently menacing fashion. This is just a charm-free, in-your-face, frontal attack on your senses that rarely raises a smile, has nothing even remotely touching about it and even the old lady isn't averse to a little bit of angry behaviour that would have had Katie Johnson spinning in her grave. These original films are a crucial piece of the jigsaw puzzle that depicts the evolution of cinema comedy, and this is just a shockingly poor travesty of an adaptation.

"Live Die Repeat" with less sense and more beheadings. The movie had us, lost us, had me, lost me... but I stuck it out till the end. The name of the Big Bad company is DYNOW Industries. If that makes you snort, you know what type of movie this is.
I did break my "No-Mel Gibson Movie" streak. On the plus side, you get to watch Mel Gibson die more than once.
Much prefer the Joe Carnahan Frank Grillo film "Cop Shop" - see that instead.

What simultaneously saves and sinks Boss Level is that co-writer/director Joe Carnahan handles the material as if it were a video game, so that the conventions of the time loop genre suddenly make perfect sense; for example, whenever the hero dies, he respawns at the previous checkpoint while retaining the knowledge gained from previous attempts (any gamer will tell you that sometimes the only way to beat a level is knowing beforehand what’s coming).
Thus, when Roy (Frank Grillo) needs a vehicle, he simply procures himself one à la Grand Theft Auto. And every time Guan-Yin (Selina Lo) kills him, she says her catchphrase “I am Guan-Yin, and Guan-Yin has done this”.
She repeats this phrase so much it’s infuriating, but that’s precisely the point – to recreate the experience of having a Boss kick your ass so bad (and taunt you mercilessly in the process) that you just have to keep coming back for more, relishing in advance the moment when you finally get the best of him/her.
The problem with this is that once Roy figures out where he has to go and what he has to do, and that he has unlimited opportunities to go there and do that, the film is drained of all sense of urgency, becoming as engaging as watching someone else play a video game for hours on end. Even the end of the world is no big deal when there is literally one every day; after all, Roy will always wake up in his bed and the world will always be there for him to save.
Grillo’s cocky neanderthal schtick is an acquired taste, but considering that his character suffers what essentially is a Rasputinian Death in increments, it’s safe to say that Roy pays his dues. Moreover, Roy shares some genuinely emotional scenes with his preteen son – who happens to be Grillo’s real-life son as well. And then there’s Mel Gibson as the sinister and menacing main villain (Will Sasso, as his lackey, is also surprisingly effective). This is the second time in as many years, following Force of Nature, that Gibson’s presence alone is enough to elevate what would otherwise be little more than a collection of clichés.

Didn’t really know what this movie was when I got it but I have to say that it was a quite fun action romp and although I am usually very much against time travel stories this one worked for me.
As the name implies the movie kind of plays out like a first person shooter game. Start, run and shoot, die, rinse, restart and repeat. I know, it sound rather boring but it actually works. There’s enough variation in each run to make it interesting and each iteration advances the story and adds another piece to the puzzle.
Obviously there is a lot of action in this movie and it is good and fun action. Luckily they didn’t try to go for some silly PG-13 or TV-PG rating. This is a mature audience movie and both the language and the action is for adults and not the whining easily offended variety of adults. Heads fly, people explode and bullet wholes appear in all kinds of places.
At the same time it is fun, over the top and sometimes quite comical action. The background voice from the main protagonist and his matter of fact but also “I’m tired of this bullshit” attitude is adding nicely to the fun-factor.
There is a story underneath all of this, believe it or not, and it’s actually not that bad. Sure there are holes in it large enough to drive a battleship through but it doesn’t really matter. The story is good enough to drive the movie and the action forward and the movie makes no pretense of having any form of science or such logic in it anyway. It’s kind of a over the top action version of Groundhog Day with first person shooter elements.
Frank Grillo is doing a good job of being the bored, violent main protagonist and it was rather fun seeing Mel Gibson again even though he, unfortunately, was one of the bad guys. The rest of the actors, well they are more or less as forgettable as they are expendable (over and over again).
It is a fun movie clearly meant to entertain by showering the audience in outrageous (violent) action stunts and some snarky dialogue and it succeeds quite well in achieving this.

At its core, the model is still the Phil Connors self-improvement plan. In trying to finally make it to tomorrow, will Roy become a better father, a better ex-husband, a better version of himself? 28 years ago, Murray and writer/director Harold Ramis wrung this ingenious conceit for everything it was worth. All a diverting riff like 'Boss Level' can do is throw a few sword fights and bazookas in with the recycled pleasures and hope they look like its own. It's inchoate, but mostly fun.
- Jake Watt
Read Jake's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-boss-level-nostalgic-action-and-quirky-foes

***Pedestrian, but competent, sequel to “The Fugitive”***
Released in 1998, “U.S. Marshals” is the sequel to the 1993 hit “The Fugitive.” Tommy Lee Jones returns as Federal Marshal Samuel Gerard. He & his team hunt down an escaped prisoner named Sheridan (Wesley Snipes) from wilderness regions to the streets of New York City. Robert Downey Jr. is on hand as a Defense Security Service agent who assists the marshals.
This sequel makes you realize just how well-done “The Fugitive” is. It features the same basic plot, but without most of the magic. The first act with the plane crash & swamp sequence is decent but it doesn’t hold a candle to bus crash/train wreck & dam sequence of the prior flick. Snipes is effective, but his character doesn’t evoke the sympathy of Kimble (Ford) because for most of the movie we don’t know if he’s innocent or not.
Nevertheless, if you’re in the mood for a movie cut from the same cloth as “The Fugitive,” “Enemy of the State” (1998) and “Con Air” (1997) then “U.S. Marshals” should fill the bill, but it’s the least of these. I’d put it on par with “Patriot Games” (1992) and “Money Train” (1995).
The film runs 2 hours, 11 minutes and was shot in Tennessee (Reelfoot Lake), Kentucky (Benton), Illinois (Chicago, Bay City, West Vienna, Metropolis & Shawneetown) and New York City.
GRADE: B-/C+

From the moment I slapped eyes on this hombre, I smelled trouble. And re-fried beans.
Maverick is directed by Richard Donner and written by William Goldman. It stars Mel Gibson, Jodie Foster and James Garner, with support coming from Alfred Molina, Graham Greene and James Coburn. The music is scored by Randy Newman and Vilmos Zsigmond is on photography. It's based on the 1950s television series of the same name and the plot finds Gibson as Maverick and follows his attempt to take his place in a major five-card draw poker tournament. With Foster and Garner in tow, there's plenty of adventures and misadventures along the way.
After Costner's Dances With Wolves and Eastwood's Unforgiven had reignited interest in the Western genre in the 90s, Richard Donner and his team felt the time was right to unleash a light hearted Western on the mainstream audience. Timing was important, as was the casting, but Maverick is the sort of family friendly fun that could in truth be released at any time in any decade and still be a hit at the box office. It's not particularly clever in narrative or themes, but with its blending of action, romance and comedy seamlessly coming together as a whole, Maverick is practically hard to dislike. Even the cast seem to be having a real good time, with Gibson smooth and roguish, Foster dainty yet spunky and Garner (the original Maverick from the TV show) offering up a sort of stoic maturity over proceedings; with all three playing the comedy with ease (how great it is to see Foster in such a role). Donner and Goldman have also shown respect to both the TV show and the Western in general (check out those lovely landscapes), while it's always fun to play spot the numerous stars in the cameos.
Harmless fluff, then, but always watchable and never once over reaching itself by trying to be something it's not. 7.5/10

Does it's thing pretty fine, and Jeffrey Dean Morgan is perfectly capable, but God I am so over this exact formula cropping up in the genre over and over and over. _The Possession_ doesn't have a single thing that makes it noteworthy.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._