> A tale of a father who stood by his daughter till the final.
The zombie apocalyptic drama that centres around a father-daughter relationship. When the daughter is infected by the necroa virus which turns humans into the cannibalistic, the loving father stands by her side, but how long is the remaining film.
One of the blacklisted screenplay and a low budget film that surprised me for having Arnie on-board. Chloe Grace Moretz was supposed to play the title character, would have been definitely a perfect fit. Because I've seen her excellence in the 'Carrie' remake, anyway her replace Abigail Breslin did perform well.
I had seen many movies of Arnold Schwarzenegger, but as I remember this is the first time seen him in a casual, realistic and emotional outfit. Maybe his age is restricting him from taking up the tough roles to play as what he was known for, but still I'm happy that he's doing movies that fits him right now.
For the one reason it is called a horror and you know why, but it was not horrifying. A slow paced simplest zombie movie. Enjoyable film for the sake of the cast, yet forgettable and move on kind of flick.
6½/10

The sequence of events was the reason for repeating the movie and watching it more than once. Never mind if you are not following the history of Hollywood, you will feel weary and bored.

This features another quite impressive, powerful, performance from Gary Oldman as David Fincher uses his stylish and authentic portrayal of the borderline iconoclast Herman J. Mankiewicz to take us on a tour of Hollywood in the 1930s. It's told by way of flashback, as the bed-ridden Oldman is working on his screenplay for "Citizen Kane" and through his frequently drunken hazes we experience much of the politics, bigotry, misogyny, and pretty blatant corruption that prevailed in the upper echelons of the studio system as espoused by the likes of Louis B. Meyer (Arliss Howard); Irving Thalberg (Ferdinand Kingsley) and most especially the king of the hill - WR Hearst (Charles Dance). The monochrome photography adds much to the rich look of the film, and Jack Fincher provided the star with some wonderfully eloquent (often wittily loquacious) monologues - particularly towards the end as his battle against the booze starts to become more of an effort for him to fight and his friends begin to redefine their relationship with him. I was less impressed with the supporting cast - Dance dressed like a circus ringmaster for much of the time and Amanda Seyfried and Lily Collins struggled to make much of an impact, even though both roles are significant in the lives of Mankiewicz and Hearst respectively. It's a considered work, this - it doesn't dwell on the salaciousness of the scenarios; indeed it seems hell bent on avoiding dirtying it's hands with any of the concomitant scandal that accompanied the era, and that is quite odd. It robs the storyline of the oxygen of the underling politics and power-broking that created the ambience Mankiewicz so resented - even loathed. I saw it on the big screen about a day before Netflix rolled it out, and on balance I think a television viewing is all this needs. It's good - but not great.

A fascinating look about what supposedly went into 'Citizen Kane'.
'Mank', a biopic about screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz, is a very good watch. A lot goes on and it's pretty much all interesting to see, admittedly you'd need to have seen the 1941 film. I like that they done this in a non-linear format and in black-and-white, à la in '41.
Kudos to the cast. Gary Oldman (Herman) is impressive, I did feel he was overacting - likewise with Amanda Seyfried (Marion) - just a little bit in parts but for the vast, vast majority he (and she) is top notch. Arliss Howard (Mayer), Lily Collins (Rita) and a few others are also pleasing to watch.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
This last week of mine has been one of the most challenging I've ever had since I started this project. Not only due to the number of David Fincher's films (Se7en, Fight Club, Zodiac, The Social Network, Gone Girl) I (re)watched in preparation for Mank (plus Citizen Kane), but also because these aren't exactly movies I usually review this quick. Since Zodiac was the only first-watch of this bunch, I was able to surprise myself and fly through the writing process, actually managing to deliver each article daily as I idealized. Finally, the time for one of Netflix's biggest baits for the upcoming awards season had arrived, so I watched Fincher's latest yesterday night.
Clearly, I'm a fan of Fincher's style, as my opinions about his filmography prove, so I always expect one of the best films of the respective year to come out of his work. However, having in mind the biographical premise, I know that this type of movie heavily relies on its storytelling. In my case, if a film like this isn't able to offer me new relevant information about a subject I already possess some knowledge of, then inevitably I'll end up disappointed. Even if I still receive these new story details, the transmission must be performed in a compelling manner, which usually these movies fail to do, basing their scripts too much on lazy exposition. So, I tried to keep my expectations moderately high yet realistic and hopeful.
Before I share my thoughts, a quick disclaimer. Mank will undoubtedly generate quite a divisive response from the general public. Why? From something as simple as the fact that the film is on black-and-white to the crime that is people not knowing a single thing about Citizen Kane (including never seeing it) but still choosing to watch Mank, there will be countless examples of viewers who will watch the latter with terribly unrealistic expectations. Audiences all around the world will find this movie "boring, uneventful", and say stuff like, "I fell asleep five minutes in", "another artsy B&W uninteresting film for critics to blindly love". Some of these comments will unavoidably come from people who just sat on their couch and clicked a random flick that they saw on Netflix.
The marketing campaign could never place a pre-requirement to watch Mank, but I can, and I will. As straightforward and honest as I possibly can: if you've never watched Citizen Kane in your life, then either you do it before even opening your streaming service, or please, skip Mank because you'll probably not enjoy it at all. I firmly believe only 1/1000 viewers will like the latter if they have zero knowledge about Orson Welles' iconic movie. Ideally, (re)watch it, and research a bit about its background: what lead to the creation of the film, who was involved, what controversies surrounded the movie… I know what you're thinking: isn't that what Mank is supposed to tell me about? This takes me to one of my issues with the film.
There are basically two options in this genre: either the director and/or the screenwriter choose to help the audience follow the story by introducing them to what they will witness, or they jump straight into the narrative itself. Fincher doesn't waste a second helping the audience understand what's happening or, in some cases, who even are the characters. Either the viewers know what they're getting themselves into (like I advise above) or prepare yourself for an incredibly intricate narrative, wholly packed with flashbacks, side stories, and many, many characters.
This will be a significant reason why some people will definitely dislike this movie. I researched and studied Citizen Kane to exhaustion, and I still felt lost during some periods due to the overwhelming amount of subplots and its characters. Then, even though the following is connected to one of the aspects I love the most about Mank, there are at least a couple of other characters besides Herman J. Mankiewicz who I wish I could have learned more about, mainly Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried) and Joseph L. Mankiewicz (Tom Pelphrey), the protagonist's brother. On the other hand, this also means that despite the high number of characters, most are indeed quite interesting, possessing emotionally compelling arcs.
I just noticed I started my review stating my issues with the film, but don't be mistaken: I really, really like it. However, since I'm already here, I might as well let out my remaining problem. So, this isn't close to anything Fincher has done before. It genuinely feels like a remarkably personal project that he surely would have loved to share with his late father, Mank's posthumously screenwriter, Jack Fincher (I'll refer to him as Jack from now on, keeping Fincher related to David). If there's one thing I expected from this movie was Fincher paying homage to Citizen Kane through the technical aspects, including the narrative structure profoundly based on flashbacks to justify a particular opinion, conversation, or event happening in the present.
Evidently, Mank follows the exact same storytelling method as Citizen Kane, and despite it being a brilliant decision from David and/or Jack Fincher, the former lets it take over the story instead of elevating it. The flashbacks are mostly earned and well-placed in the narrative, but sometimes it comes across as a mere technical feature exclusively to make that comparison with Citizen Kane, instead of its execution improving the story both Fincher want to tell. Nevertheless, these issues of mine are far from ruining the entire viewing, much on the contrary.
When it comes to my number one requirement, Fincher nails it perfectly. I loved getting to know the real-life inspirations that led Mankiewicz to create one of the greatest screenplays of all-time, as well as the shocking (and unknown to me) conditions he had to work on. It's truly a filmmaking miracle to be able to write a masterpiece in the space of two months, being physically and mentally debilitated. Despite the imperfect efficiency of the flashbacks, most develop impactful characters in Mankiewicz's life, and I can't deny that it's a joy for any film lover to see or even hear the mention of some famous filmmakers from that time. Nevertheless, a character is only as great as the actor who portrays it (and vice-versa).
Gary Oldman is undoubtedly a contender for this year's Best Actor awards. It would be a major snub for him not to be exhaustingly nominated on every single ceremony. I believe his performance in Darkest Hour as Winston Churchill is more visibly riveting (I've never been so captivated during a war drama before), but his phenomenal display in Mank is hard to deny. From his hilarious yet grounded portrayal of a drunk Mankiewicz to his more sober, sincere attitude, Oldman demonstrates mind-blowing variation, with his physical performance having a notable influence on the overall result. There's no doubt that he carries the entire narrative on his shoulders, and he does it effortlessly.
However, Oldman is far from being the only bright spot. Amanda Seyfried can very well get her first serious awards season as the extremely captivating Marion Davies. Seyfried manages to deliver an exquisite balance between the purposefully exaggerated voice mannerisms and Marion's real personality. Tom Pelphrey is also extraordinary as Mankiewicz's brother, whom I immediately researched about as soon as I finished the movie. The intensity with which Pelphrey expresses some sentences is becoming one of his trademark characteristics.
I've seen many people talking about these two actors, but Lily Collins (Rita Alexander) portrays my favorite character besides the protagonist. As Mankiewicz's secretary, Lily explores her character in such a heartfelt, authentic manner that, at times, I wished to go back to the present not because of learning more about Citizen Kane's screenplay actually being written, but due to Rita Alexander's interactions with her "boss". Their conversations are some of the most satisfying moments of the entire film, and I genuinely cared for both of them.
I know that most of my readers probably don't care about technicalities, but if you've been following me for enough time, you know I value the technical aspects when they significantly impact the movie. Well, I dare state that a massive reason why I enjoy Mank so much is the near-perfect technical homage that Fincher pays to Orson Welles' precedent-setting film. From tiny little details like a "cigarette burn" here and there (I counted eight, and if you don't know what this means, then you clearly didn't watch Citizen Kane) to similar shot composition, Fincher creates flawless resemblances to the "greatest movie of all-time" in almost every scene, including his own version of a "Rosebud" moment.
This obviously means that Erik Messerschmidt's cinematography is absolutely stunning. Erik previously worked with Fincher on Mindhunter, proving now that his film career still has a lot of ground to cover. Kirk Baxter could very well be nominated for Best Film Editing, and I can easily picture the exact scene the ceremony would show to demonstrate the seamless, clean cuts which make dialogues easier to follow. Donald Graham Burt, who has worked with Fincher since Zodiac, offers an exceptional production design, but it's Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross' score that steals the show for me. Using only period-authentic instruments, Reznor and Ross deliver a rich, unique, memorable tribute to Bernard Herrmann's work.
All in all, Netflix releases another massive contender for the awards season, Mank. With the perfectionist, dedicated David Fincher at the helm, his late father's screenplay ends up being Fincher's most personal project so far. It's a wonderful homage not only to Citizen Kane but also to the 30s/40s decades. Technically, every single component is award-worthy: cinematography, editing, production design, and especially the score. Fincher works with his team to deliver impressively similar iconic scenes and precedent-setting technical characteristics from Orson Welles' impactful movie. Outstanding performances across the board, but expect nominations flying the way of Gary Oldman, Amanda Seyfried, and Lily Collins. However, Fincher's identical narrative structure to the 1941's flick sometimes feels just like a clever tribute instead of actually elevating the story. Jack Fincher's screenplay is overwhelmingly crowded with side stories and characters, making it challenging to follow comprehensibly, especially for viewers without any knowledge about the respective matter. Fortunately, the primary mission of representing Herman J. Mankiewicz's real-life inspirations that led to arguably one of the best screenplays ever written is flawlessly accomplished, making Mank a must-see for any film lover, as long as the viewer has at least watched the so-called "greatest movie of all-time".
Rating: A-

Rather than a burst of cinematic energy, 'Mank' is a considered, meticulous, subtle and ultimately furious film, one that continues to grow in your mind hours after seeing it. Even after two viewings, I can still hear my mind chewing over every second, my heart quietly racing as I consider its individual moments of genius. This isn't some nostalgic elegy to a great film or a great artist, but a damning portrait of how systems of power can be misused, and how good men find themselves complicit. It speaks ferociously to our contemporary world, and reminds us of the important role of art in a functioning society. In that sense, 'Mank' isn't a film about cinema; it's a film that asks what the point of cinema even is. It's a powerful, rebellious question to ask, and the kind of question only a filmmaker as skilled as David Fincher would dare to, and the imagination to find the answer. In the process, he may have just delivered the best film of the year.
- Daniel Lammin
Read Daniel's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-mank-a-dazzling-damnation-of-the-hypocrisy-of-power

"Relatable" is a word that I see bandied about as praise of various mediums. Well let me tell you, _Mid90s_ was relatable, and it made me very uncomfortable. I like Slice of Life stuff, and I **love** Coming of Age movies, but I guess _Mid90s_ was not what I needed today. That said, it set out to do a particular thing and it totally did it. And well, you gotta respect that.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

“Palmer” is the type of conventional, formulaic movie that’s designed for audiences who don’t appreciate surprises. This redemption story about an ex-con who bonds with a misfit kid follows a tried-and-true blueprint that’s predictable and saccharine sweet, but the film has an honorable message of understanding and acceptance that celebrates unity — even if it does so on the most basic level.
Former high school football star Eddie Palmer (Justin Timberlake) had his whole life ahead of him until a violent mistake turned the All-American boy into a convicted felon. After spending 12 years in prison, Palmer returns home to Louisiana and moves in with his grandmother Vivian (June Squibb). Grandma has taken a liking to the unusual 7-year-old boy named Sam (Ryder Allen) who is living next door with his deadbeat druggie mother, Shelly (Juno Temple). When the boy’s mom runs off for a much longer time than usual, Sam temporarily moves in with his neighbors.
Circumstances change for everyone in the weeks that follow, and Palmer begins to notice that he and the eccentric young boy have more in common than either of them first thought. These two outcasts form a strong bond, each of them making a fresh start with their lives.
The idea of a child who doesn’t conform to gender norms isn’t exactly a challenging topic for most of us in 2021, but the film is so charming that it could break through to the very people who need to be given a gentle nudge and lesson in acceptance. In fact, at first I thought this was a faith-based movie (until the sex scenes and swearing started).
Timberlake and Allen have a sweet chemistry that is essential for a buddy movie like this to work. There are a lot of emotional bits that border on corny, but the film still doesn’t seem too artificial. The narrative falls into place as expected, and the uplifting story about being yourself and doing the best you can to make a difference in a child’s life will tug on many heartstrings.
“Palmer” is hokey, but heartfelt.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
Streaming services have been growing exponentially, and with the current global pandemic deeply affecting the film industry, studios all around the world started to accept their movies’ fate. Controversy became a banal word in this debate, especially regarding the decision of exclusively distributing blockbusters and highly-anticipated films through Netflix, HBO, Disney+, Apple TV+, and more. Concerning this matter, I will always defend the theater experience as something unique and incomparable with home viewing, at least in a general way. Nevertheless, I think the most comprehensible path to accommodate everyone is to give the viewer both choices, and I firmly believe that would be the new norm, sooner or later.
Why this apparently unrelated prologue? Well, Palmer is exclusively premiering on Apple TV+, which is probably the most underrated streaming service out there. Both their original movies (Wolfwalkers, On the Rocks) and TV shows (Servant) have become more and more successful, and their production quality unquestionably makes dozens of studios jealous. With that in mind, I believe an indie flick with a narrative like Palmer’s would always suffer at the box-office in a standard theatrical distribution, so I’m genuinely glad Apple caught it because I wouldn’t be surprised if it ends up as one of my favorite films of the year.
I’ve seen Fisher Stevens before, but never in the director’s chair. I’m surprised at how much this movie positively impacted me. Cheryl Guerriero’s screenplay might not be groundbreaking or incredibly innovative, but it follows an extremely efficient formula that, when written and directed in the right manner, hits most viewers’ hearts. Boasting well-written, captivating dialogues that feel real, Palmer tells a cliche yet fascinating story featuring two exceptionally inspiring characters who can undoubtedly serve as a beautiful influence to many viewers going through similar life issues.
Ryder Allen interprets Sam, a bullied kid with a remarkable amount of self-confidence and pride, even though he lives in a trailer with terrible parents and is made fun of by his school colleagues. He doesn’t let other people control his choices or what he likes, independently of what happens. His will and ultimate happiness in dressing up as a princess, having tea parties, or simply being “different” from everyone else (as described in the film) can have an extraordinary result in the audience, mainly kids. Regarding Ryder’s performance, I have no doubt he will be a heavy contender in categories concerning young actors since he delivers a heartfelt display that made me tear up by the end of the movie.
When it comes to his adult counterpart, Justin Timberlake portrays Eddie Palmer, an ex-convict trying to get back on track after losing over a decade of his life due to an admittedly grave crime. However, as the character is presented and developed throughout the runtime, it becomes relatively easy to emotionally connect with Palmer. Even though his imprisonment was more than fair, Palmer demonstrates to be an altruistic, loving person who truly wants to redeem himself while admitting that he’s far from being considered “normal”, consequently creating an unbreakable bond with Sam. Timberlake genuinely surprised me with a grounded, experienced performance.
In the end, it’s the astonishingly honest connection between Palmer and Sam that elevate the screenplay into such an inspirational narrative. There are other impactful and interesting relationships, namely between Palmer and Maggie Hayes (Alisha Wainwright), as well as between Palmer and his grandmother, Vivian (June Squibb). These characters significantly impact Palmer’s life, and the actresses were up to the task. However, Shelly (Juno Temple) is a terrible parent who I couldn’t feel sorry for, not even after certain acts of compassion that are meant for the viewers to forgive the character. Technically, just a quick praise to Tamar-kali’s subtle score that hit me in the right moments.
I sincerely hope that this Fisher Stevens’ indie flick finds its audience at home because it’s a heartwarming, enlightening, emotionally compelling story of redemption and self-acceptance. Palmer might follow a generic formula that any viewer has seen at least a few dozen times, but Cheryl Guerriero’s well-written, efficient screenplay is brought to life in an incredibly authentic, genuine manner. The wonderful bond between Justin Timberlake and Ryder Allen’s characters is the film’s heart and soul. Both actors deliver outstanding performances, as well as the rest of the cast, but it’s the cliche yet heartfelt narrative packed with meaningful messages that ultimately brings up tears to the eyes. Despite the failed attempt to make the viewer feel compassion for Juno Temple’s character, Apple TV+ offers another highly commendable movie to watch with your family.
Rating: A-

I totally forgot about this one until someone at work made an obscure reference about it... and suddenly I was faced with memories I'd rather forget. Honestly, when you remember The Next Karate kid and not Part III, it should tell you something.
Anyway, he was right, it did have Robyn Lively in it and I think this is one of her early roles... and this and Teen Witch are kind of a shame because she can do a good job, a Twin Peaks quality job here and there but otherwise lingers in obscurity and really only surfaces for people like me who see her here and there in television roles and have fond memories of some of her better roles.
Anyway, it also has Ralph Macchio doing a job that kind of makes sure to tell the audience that he does not want to be there, he does not think III is a good idea, and otherwise convinces the audience not to like it.
And he was right, the script wasn't there. It was nice that he had a platonic interest and not a love interest, it was unique, it fit his character, it worked with the story... but the story otherwise wasn't there.
It's kind of a revenge tale that you have seen a thousand times over and this one doesn't say anything more than low budget Canon Pictures quality film.

**The weakest of them all in the Karate Kid franchise.**
After an excellent initial film and a sufficiently honorable sequel, this film comes to us… and there is no way to hide that the quality of the material presented is substantially lower and that the film works badly.
The biggest problem with this film is the script, quite weak, poorly written and full of holes in which the lack of logic and credibility are closely associated with a dose of predictability that makes the film tiresome. The characters were also frankly poorly developed, the villains are stereotyped and loaded (the movie does everything it can to not like them) and the material given to the actors wasn't enough to guarantee a good job.
Even so, it is necessary to recognize that Pat Morita and Ralph Macchio did everything possible to rise to the challenge, and to live up to what the audience expected from their respective characters. Morita remains a sympathetic presence and Macchio is not as immature and stubborn as in previous films, which shows some maturity in the character (although I don't know if this was intentional). The disappearance of Macchio's character's mother from the scene is justified in the most stupid way possible, and the place that was supposedly leased for the bonsai shop looks more like a warehouse than a commercial space.
In the midst of these problems, the film compensates us with regular cinematography, good editing, a pleasant pace and no room for dead moments. Filming locations are satisfying enough. This being an action movie, a fight movie, karate, I expected to have seen some more fights, it has a lot less fights than the previous movies, and the tension is not as palpable, but what was done is quite well done, and the fight choreographies were well rehearsed and carried out.

Decent watch, probably won't watch again, but can recommend, especially for younger audiences.
The big problem I have with is this is that the protagonist is irredeemable until he's basically a broken person in the 3rd act, and even then he's not a better person, he's just punished for his shallow attempts of social power advancement so much that accidentally chooses the correct political move to stumble into a happy ending.
The rest of the movie is surprisingly good, and reminds me of a younger "Mean Girls" where the social environment of the social is dissected as if it a "natural environment" and there is a metaphoric pecking order of life or death.
There are actually a number of great characters and fun events that happen in this story with a good mix of abuse and absurdity humor.
It's not that it's a bad movie, but I just didn't enjoy the main character, so it's this weird dip in a well made movie.

I didn't know anything about this movie so I entered the theater with no expectations. It was actually a pretty good movie. I liked it. It was funny. Rowley was the best. I wish I had a best friend like him...well except for the silly outfits. All in all, I really liked this movie. Good for kids and adults.

Angelina Jolie does her best here and Ethan Hawke injects just a touch of menace but otherwise it's a rather far-fetched crime thriller set in Montreal. "Martin Asher" leaves his home and by systematically killing men as he ages - and assuming their identities - has left quite a trail of corpses over almost twenty years before FBI profiler Jolie is drafted in to try and help them get to the bottom of it all. The acting is ok, by and large, but a few "guest appearances" from Kiefer Sutherland, Gena Rowlands and probably the briefest of roles in his career for Justin Chatwin, can't really develop the rather dreary writing nor give it much sparkle as we lumber towards an ending that is just plain daft. In theory, the story is complex and has enough about it to keep us guessing, but the overall execution is flat and proves pretty uninteresting after about ten minutes. Pity - had potential.

Continuing with my quest to establish where or not Charles Laughton ever made a bad movie, I recently came, again, to this - one of my all time favourite films. I remember cowering behind the sofa as a child when this film came on television late in the evening. It all centres around a robber who has hidden $10,000 somewhere. His jailbird pal "Powell" (Robert Mitchum) is out, masquerading as a puritanical preacher, and determined to befriend the man's family and to scoop the loot. Shelley Winters is the naive, now widow, "Willa" who falls hook, line and sinker for the wiles and charms of this shrewd and duplicitous man - and that does not go at all well for her! Soon the children "John" (Billy Chapin) and his sister "Pearl" (Sally Jane Bruce) are in mortal peril. Can they escape his clutches? Where is the cash? Is there any cash? For me, this is easily the best effort on screen from Mitchum, he just oozes a malevolence that is palpable. The two kids, too, are on great form - managing to deliver performances that stay on the right side of petrified hysteria as we all begin to appreciate the accumulating sense of menace. A big screen on a rainy night with a drop of red wine and this is as good as cinema gets. The pacing of the story is accomplished, the audio editing is effective, the use of a gently potent script and a cast that enthral make it all captivating. It wasn't even nominated for an Oscar. Outrageous.

Laughton crafts a nightmarish fairytale that stands up now as a true masterpiece.
A religious maniac marries an idiotic widow and mother of two children in the hope of finding out where the $10,000 is hidden that the now executed husband and father garnered from a robbery.
Upon release back in 1955, the critics of the time kicked this first directorial effort from Charles Laughton to such a degree he never directed again. Watching the film now and observing the tide of praise for it as each year goes by, one can only hope that those critics were rounded up and sent to a faraway island to learn about how to view with open heart.
The Night Of The Hunter is to me quite simply one of the greatest films ever laid down on the screen. Firstly you have to ask yourself exactly what genre the film belongs to? That alone should lead you to find out that the film is something different, even unique, because it covers so many bases. Perhaps that is what the critics back then couldn't quite fathom? Is it Crime? Is it a Thriller? Horror, Drama, Noir, even a terrifying mother goose fairytale (that last one was Laughton's terming of his masterpiece), truth is, is that it's a multitude of earthly traits masquerading as a good versus evil parable.
The work on the film is as good as it gets, the direction from Laughton is sublime, his visual style alone makes the film a feast for the sharp eye connoisseur. Observe some of the cutaway sets, take in the expressionist use of shadows, an underwater sequence that is gorgeous yet terrifying at the same time. I dare you to stop the hairs on your neck standing up on end as the silhouette of Mitchum's evil preacher Harry Powell looms large over the children at bedtime. The film is full of striking images that in themselves are telling the story, witness the pursuit of the children by Powell, the children's river journey is all dreamy and calm, rabbits, frogs and spiders all are prominent to give the feeling that the kids are safe, cut to Powell all in black, cloaked in evil, always one step away from his prey, perhaps a devil in priests attire?
The acting is top draw, Mitchum (in a career making role) plays it perfect, evil personified mixed with gentle panto fusion at just the right times. Lilian Gish, in what surely has to be one of the great feminine roles of all time, is precious, quite simply precious, while the children are a believable delight because Laughton has got us viewing this uncertain world through such untainted eyes. Crowning it off is the cinematography from Stanley Cortez, I can only describe it as bleakly beautiful, it impacts on the eyes as much as the head as this truly majestic piece of work unfolds.
If you don't see this as a masterpiece then I urge you to watch it every year until you do. Because when it hits you, that bit that you just didn't get, it's the point when you realise why you love cinema after all. 10/10 in every respect.

The only film directed by the great English actor Charles Laughton, "The Night of the Hunter" is a brilliant allegory about the battle between good and evil. The film failed upon its release but is now considered a classic. Robert Mitchum has never been better as the malevolent "preacher" who marries the hapless Shelley Winters. Mitchum had been in prison with Winters husband and knows there is money to be had from a robbery the deceased husband committed, but where is it? Though Shelley falls under Mitchum"s twisted religious zeal, her children a little boy and girl instinctively know this man is bad, bad, bad. Spoiler alert: Shelley Comes to a watery end and the children must flee from Mitchum who has discovered the money is hidden in little Pearl's doll. After an arduous journey mainly by boat (the Ohio river?) John and Pearl come to rest in the saintly arms of the magnificent Lillian Gish. But Mitchum is relentless in his pursuit and that is when the eternal battle between good and evil is fought one more time. I will not reveal which side prevails but let's just say for an old broad Lillian is a formidable opponent. A film I saw as a young boy it left an impression on me that was powerful. A deeply disturbing yet uplifting movie "Night of the Hunter" is not to be missed. This is Gummshoe signing off with two fists up for "Night of the Hunter."

Frances Ha worked really well for me. The performance from Greta Gerwig was brilliant, she carried the film. There is a perfect balance of quirky comedy and heartbreaking drama. I was giggling and tearing up constantly at the journey of Frances. But the overall story was a great ride that ends with such a satisfying conclusion. It is a fantastic feel-good story about self-discovery and perseverance. Noah Baumbach is not one of my favorite directors, but this was definitely a hit for me.
Score: 75%
Verdict: Good

I sometimes equate this movie to waking up from a satisfactory sleep with the perfect amount of alcohol in the good ol' intestines, slowly coming to the realization that you have shit to do, responsibilities to attend, new lies to create, new truths to discover. We find Frances in a similar state at the beginning of the film, though she has yet realized the consequences of her actions.
When her best friend, Sophie, decides to move out and pursue other goals, Frances initially ruminates in their apartment alone. Having broken-up with a boyfriend over her refusal to live with him, Frances bounces between living arrangements. For most of this film, all of Frances' decisions seem terminal, as she can never settle in one place - whether it be at Benji and Miles' bachelor pad, France, her parents' house in California, or a dorm at her old university; this coupled with her unfulfilling job as an extra dancer in her company. She soon abandons everything in the interim of Sophie's engagement and move to Japan.
For a comedy, the movie has a sadness to it that is inescapable, sadness due to the fact that throughout much of the movie, Frances is alone. The friends she makes come and go, not because she lacks the ability to keep them, but because of the turnstile nature of life. The paths she takes lack a certain introspection and responsibility. Benji's date even points out the superficial economic implications of using a credit card to travel to Paris for the weekend, whereas Frances is more concerned with reading Proust. She ultimately has to face the question of identity in a nomadic lifestyle, and decide between instability and control. It is this viewer's opinion that _Frances Ha_ reaches a conclusion located somewhere in the middle - in that gray area on a drunken night where the room spins around the bed, and the only reprieve is a foot placed on the floor.

Just came across this one (2023] and although I am a big fan of the lead actors, I consider this movie to be as cheesy as they come. I didn't see it in the theater, but at this point, I didn't miss anything. Wasted time on this, needless to say, it was disappointing. 3/10

**The comedy about a second chance.**
I'm reviewing a decade old film. This kind of themes is very much done for the current era, particularly in Hollywood. You can't believe this guy did a film like this back then. I'm obviously talking about Ryan Reynolds. It was just for fun, other than that there's nothing to expect from it. Clearly we know how the story begins and ends, but we're only going to see the middle parts, how they developed it, especially the comedies.
All the actors were decent, particularly Amy Smart was much preferred actress than what she's now. Ryan Reynolds with those dual getups was not bad either and Anna Faris was excellent in the comedy parts. Maybe it is a chick film, or close to that category, but the perspective of the story was from a man.
Being a geek in the high school, how he transformed into a handsome man is the film. When he visits his hometown, all the old memories comes back to the life, particularly after seeing his old close friend who he had a crush on her, but never revealed it. So it is like his second and probably final chance to express his feeling. How it all develops and ends was the remaining story.
Being a comedy, it has not delivered anything big. It might have effected good way, if I had watched when it came out. So not everyone who watches it would end up happily. It is not easy to suggest this film for everybody, but if you're looking for a comedy, some comedy, it will work okay. And again, don't take it seriously, even some of the jokes are too ordinary, but tried its best. An average comedy, but a good time pass film.
_5/10_

Despite the fact that it's minus 10° high up on the snowy mountain pass, the "Lone Prospector" (Charlie Chaplin) bedecked in his ill-fitting suit and bowler hat is determined to go make his fortune. Luckily, starving and cold, he stumbles upon the log cabin of "Larsen" (Tom Murray) and getting warm and fed becomes the order of the day - even if it's owner isn't so keen on sharing his long solid fish. Enter "Big Jim" (Mack Swain) and the three engage in the start of the antics that keep this classic piece of cinema rolling along entertainingly. After loads of to-ing and fro-ing, near death experiences and a near-miss with a big black bear, our wanderer finds himself in town at the glamorously titled "Monte Carlo" dance hall where he takes a shine to the dancer "Georgie" (Georgia Hale) but sadly he is still broke! Meantime, "Larsen" turns out to be a wanted felon with designs on their amnesiac big pal's claim - and it falls to our lovestruck tramp to sort things out and maybe even get the gal too! The chilly setting works well, supporting the set-piece comedy that uses a tight ensemble cast to keep a story of perseverance, loyalty and romance ticking along with loads of activity, dancing, tripping and sliding about. Chaplin was a master at this - his facial expressions are just great and even when provoked by the unkindly townsfolk who think him a bit of a wimp, he retains his dignified, hat-tipping, demeanour. Sparing inter-titles keep us informed but we don't rally need them - it is all very self explanatory and good fun.

Really crazy and weird movie. Their kid was nothing like them. It would have been better with the kid being a killer too. It was pretty hilarious though.

Chucky has gone to seed!
It would be pure folly to have expected Seed of Chucky to be a brilliant entry in the Chucky franchise, the big-wigs pulling the financial strings behind the scenes clearly had no idea what had made the series popular in horror circles in the first place.
Bride of Chucky (part 4 for anyone counting) was bold and it worked, it managed to be that rare old thing of a horror film able to marry up horror and comedy for good entertainment purpose. Unfortunately everything about Seed of Chucky is lazy and weak. There is no story of substance here, it is neither funny or scary, the parody and self awareness the makers go for runs out of steam after 15 minutes! When the writers are reduced to a masturbation sequence to get their meta kicks then you know there's problems. 3/10, and that is purely for Jennifer Tilly and her delightful way of not taking herself seriously.

A couple of the _Child's Play_ movies delve into the comedy genre, but _Seed of Chucky_ is the only one that leans into it fully. It's not a funny horror film, it's a comedy with some blood in it. Where the past two movies dip their toe into comedy, _Seed of Chucky_ **is** a comedy, and that complete dedication to a genre pays off. It's not great, but it works.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

Seemed like they tried to hard to make this one good. They tried to be more cute with part 2, it seemed like to me. Plus there's so many penguins that it's hard to know who's who.

Who would've predicted that Brad Pitt and Matt Damon would be the stars of a 'Happy Feet' sequel?!
Those two are the only real positives of 'Happy Feet Two'. It's a better film than the original, so it deserves credit for that. However, both productions are just super uninteresting to me. The plot to this one is an improvement, even if it doesn't massively change it up. I do like, as in the first film, how the real life humans are merged in with the animation though.
Pitt (Will the Krill) and Damon (Bill the Krill) are the only ones who stand out, even if their characters are entirely pointless - they are basically this series' Scrat ('Ice Age'). Robin Williams and Hank Azaria are good too, here.
It is all very forgettable though, even if it does emulate the 2006 production.

I liked the first movie better than this one. The songs were better too. Eric was really cute but I guess I'm just too biased for not liking him because of how he was with Mumble.

**Style, blood, guts and hard rock, without any decent script to back it up.**
Rob Zombie has devoted his life to music and horror movies, but so far I haven't seen a single movie of his that's really worthwhile. The director's style is that very low-budget and low-quality horror that made school in the 70s and 80s. In truth, I must say that there is some coherence here, if we consider the musical style of Zombie's projects. However, it is a film that disgusts us, and that causes more strangeness and repudiation than fear.
In this film, we follow four teenagers who accidentally stumble into a village of abnormal people and end up intrigued by a local legend about a mad doctor who cut people up, was executed and disappeared, leaving in doubt whether he had really died. Of course, they end up in an even crazier, morbid and dysfunctional house of people, who are behind an endless series of crimes.
By my standards, this movie is so bad that it doesn't even work as a comedy. There is not a scary moment, based on a strangely bizarre script, without content. The film shows the influences of slash horror, with lots of gore, blood running everywhere and bodies torn to pieces. Cannibalism, necrophilia, sadism, if we think of depravity this film will probably have some scene associated with what we think. That, on the one hand, has a vantage point: the film is gritty enough to pull it off, in an era when horror movies are so bland that even underage kids can see them.
The cast brings together a series of actors who have become famous precisely in slash cinema: Sid Haig, Bill Moseley, Karen Black, Tom Towles, Dennis Fimple. Each one of them did their job well, they are the right actors for this type of material, they are perfectly comfortable doing this. However, Haig and Moseley are particularly effective and work very well, stealing the audience's attention whenever they appear. Sheri Moon, an actress who has a certain relevance in the film, is however an amateur, Rob Zombie's girlfriend, who entered the film at his request. Love has these things, it makes us do crazy things. Unfortunately, and as it is routine in these films, the teenage victims of the carnage are simply talking meat that we can't care less about for a minute.
The film does some pretty competent visual effects work, with gallons of fake blood and other effects designed to make the killing realistic and "fun" enough. The sets and costumes were also very well thought out and create a decadent environment, in which rurality is distorted and transformed into the perfect environment for a Halloween massacre. That is, the film has style, it has an extremely worked and complex look, but that's about it. It does not present us with content, substance that makes the film worthwhile.

Heavy throwback elements make up most of _House of 1000 Corpses_' runtime, from an era when Zombie was still finding his footing. It maybe leans too heavily on a nostalgia that I simply don't have, but personally I found this to be one of Zombie's weaker entries. Great song! But I don't totally love the movie. I like it. I wish that some of the parts I found more interesting, like Doctor Satan, got a bit more play, and both the acting and video quality often leave something to be desired, but still, I like it.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._