His God "is" God!
The Ten Commandments is at the top end of Hollywood historical epics. It was to be Cecil B. DeMille's last ever directing assignment and he bows out with a gargantuan epic that to this day stands as a testament to his brilliant talent as one of the masters of epic film making.
The story cribs from a number of biblical sources, some of which are hokum and not to be taken as a religio lesson, but basically it tells the tale of Moses (Charlton Heston) and how he came to lead the Israelites to their exodus from Egypt - culminating in his delivering of God's own Ten Commandments to the people.
No expense is spared, with a top line ensemble cast being joined by over 25,000 extras. The wide-screen special effects work dazzles the eyes, the direction of ginormous crowd sequences impressive, and an ebullient spectacle is never far away in what is a picture running at three hours thirty minutes (add ten for the glory of an intermission).
It would have been easy for the cast to get lost amongst such a large scale production, but the principals shine bright and make telling characteristic marks. Heston was born for the Moses role, Yul Brynner absolutely excels as Moses' silky and sulky nemesis - Rameses, Anne Baxter gives Nefretiri a beauteous and villainous twin arc, which in turn is counterpointed by Yvonne De Carlo's sultry yet homely Sephora (wife of Moses).
Elsewhere we get Debra Paget filling out a trio of gorgeous lady stars, where as Lilia she does determined and heartfelt oomph as a woman yearning to be freed from male dominance. Edward G. Robinson (Dathan) and Vincent Price (Baka) camp it up and have a good time, while Cedric Hardwicke (Sethi) turns in a heartfelt old Pharaoh and John Derek as Joshua, Moses' underling, does surprisingly well given the enormity of the character trajectory.
As the music (Elmer Bernstein) swirls and thunders we are treated to Loyal Griggs' colour photography that pings out the screen and brings to life expert costuming. John Fulton's special effects work won him the Academy Award, and even though a couple look creaky these days, they all still today hold great entertaining spectacle worth. While the sheer gusto of the performances overcomes some less than stellar dialogue.
Lavish yet vulgar, hokey yet magnificent, this maty not be the greatest historical epic ever made, but it booms loud and proud and is an utter joy for like minded fans of the genre's output. 9/10

(The King of Egypt - with his sword drawn - and his Queen, together, converse about killing Moses, servant of the Most High God) ...
Queen Nefretiri: 'Bring it back to me, stained with his blood!'
Pharoah Rameses: 'I will... to mingle with your own!'
Inspired by the Book of Exodus, this Cecil B. DeMille-directed, Academy Award-winning biblical epic, the seventh most successful film of all-time, needs no further analysis.
Among the undisputed, where exceptionally classic one-liners are concerned, The Ten Commandments is a timeless generational masterpiece, and a National Film Registry-honored landmark of the Hollywood cinema industry ... Period.
Five out of five glittering stars.

**An iconic, culturally significant film that helped immortalize James Dean.**
This is one of those classic films when the theme is teenage rebellion and generational clash. It is undoubtedly good, with a good story and good actors – it is the film that marked James Dean's short career – and continues to be a regular presence in classics cycles and specialty TV channels.
The film explores quite well the difficult relationship between parents and their children within the wealthiest families, and the way in which this tension has a decisive influence on the latter's delinquent behavior. Living in homes where there is truly no love, but rather a well-organized routine, and where parental care is limited to material goods and the act of giving things, these young people accumulate a revolt that they need to express through pranks and mischief that parents choose to ignore or consider that they are the consequences of harmful influences. The fact that they are children of rich parents only makes their devilry more elaborate: this is the case of racing with stolen cars. How many angry teenagers with rich dads continue to do similar things?
Expertly directed by Nicholas Ray, the film had a high budget that allowed for quality production values. The cinematography is excellent, the sets and costumes couldn't be better (I especially liked Dean's parents' house and the abandoned mansion where part of the final scenes take place) and the cars used are beautiful. James Dean's hair and costume were decisive in youth fashion at that time, and the soundtrack accompanies everything with distinction and discretion.
However, what decisively marks this film is the excellent quality of the cast and their work, particularly the excellent performance achieved by James Dean. He is absolutely credible in the role he was given, despite being a little older than his character. The opening scene is worthy of an anthology, but also that fight with razors that takes place near the Griffith Observatory. Natalie Wood is also not far behind: she was then more or less the right age and had the necessary talent, as well as being very beautiful and charismatic. Sal Mineo plays a highly dramatic role, and his participation in this film is one of the highlights of his career. Finally, a note of praise for Jim Backus and Marietta Canty, who made good contributions to the film in slightly less valued roles.
A curious note that I just noticed: the three main actors in this film have in common the fact that they died before the age of forty-five, and each had a mysterious and violent death. Everyone knows that James Dean saw his life taken as a result of an unfortunate car accident, a few months after this film was made. However, in 1976, Sal Mineo followed, stabbed to death during a robbery at his home. A few years later, in 1981, it was the turn of Natalie Wood, who drowned in more than strange circumstances, during a yacht trip off the Californian coast.

Freaky is a self-aware horror comedy spin on the classic film Freaky Friday (hence the name freaky). The slasher elements are extremely present, and I loved the shades of Friday the 13th with the Jason style killer and the sharp music, reminiscent of the original F13 score, playing during his scenes. The kills are incredibly brutal and really earn the R rating, some are very creative while others are the run of the mill horror kills. While watching this movie I could not help but feel bored at times. There were some definite lulls that could have been sharpened up for a tighter movie viewing experience.
I understand that the movie was self-aware and poked fun at a lot of horror tropes, bult I felt as if they went a little too overboard. There were some scenes of bullying that just felt so unbelievable and over the top that it really pulled me out of the film even though I understood it was being satirical. The acting overall was pretty good, some lines were delivered awkwardly but nothing that was too consistent to harm the experience. Vince Vaughn is fantastic in this movie, and when that switch happens, he really sells that he is a high school girl in a killer's body with his girly movements and dialect.
Overall, I had a fun time with the movie, but there were quite a few elements that really hold it back.
**Verdict:** _Decent_

Kathryn Newton deserved better.
'Freaky' is largely a (very) mixed bag, but Newton's performance is honestly superb - which makes it difficult to rate. On the one hand you have a fairly run-of-the-mill slasher, yet on the other Newton's showing is of such quality that it belongs in something far greater. She's top notch here, it's just severely unfortunate the film is nowhere near her level at all.
There are a few decent slasher-y moments and Vince Vaughn tries. Speaking of Vaughn, it's neat to see a different side to him as an actor but I found him to be 50/50 in this; he kills it (pardon the pun) in some parts, but in others it's clear he's trying to impersonate a teenage girl - which is the complete opposite to Newton, who plays two characters supremely well.
I know I'm repeating myself, but... in layman's terms: Newton good, film bad.

Fun horror-comedy akin to Happy Death Day (and would make for a good double header) with two amusing performances from Vince Vaughn and Kathryn Newton. It's a nice twist on the body-switching formula and even though has the cliches in terms of the high school aspect (such as the flamboyant gay best friend), still found it entertaining. **3.5/5**

'Freaky' succeeds when it sticks to the serial killer/swapped bodies storyline, but its need to add emotional depth to this horror-comedy and tack on an extended cheap ending weakens the whole film. Come for the deadly kills and big laughs, but maybe get up before the final 10.
- Chris dos Santos
Read Chris' full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-freaky-get-your-freak-on

Though the story isn't really very strong here the combination of beautiful visual effects and precision martial arts makes for an enjoyable depiction of Chinese mystical intrigue. "Mei" (Ziyi Zhang) is a mute dancer who attracts the attention of police captain "Jin" (Takeshi Kaneshiro) after she is very nearly raped at the "Peony Palace". She is also arrested but he helps her escape and into the dense forest they head, pursued by the police and fearful of the eponymous freedom fighters who are rumoured to dwell deep amongst the tall bamboo. Of course, as they travel they begin to fall in love but he's not quite ready for the surprise she delivers nor for his response as he must make a choice between his heart and his loyalty. Meantime, there's the jealous "Leo" (Andy Lau) on the scene who is determined to see his love stays with him or nobody! It's the stylish and vibrant look of this adventure that helps it stand out. The perfect choreography of the dances and the combat scenes couples well with some impressive imagery that tests and provokes just about all of our senses as the mystery unravels as easily as the folds in her intricately woven gown. I was slightly disappointed by the denouement which I think might be testament to the performances from the two travellers who managed to ensure I cared what happened to them as they twisted and twirled their way through the imaginatively photographed trees. It certainly benefits from a big screen and from it's big audio, too.

Dominance and submission at the office (um... no)
RELEASED IN 2002 and directed by Steven Shainberg, "Secretary" is a romantic dramedy about a young woman (Maggie Gyllenhaal) who spent some time at a mental hospital for self-harm (e.g. cutting). She apprehends a job as a secretary to a quirky, arduous lawyer (James Spader) wherein their employer-employee bond turns increasingly sexual in a dominant/submissive way.
This is the first mainline film in America to breach the difficult topic of BDSM, walking the balance beam between being either too amusing or too offensive. For those not in the know, BDSM is an overlap of acronyms: BD stands for Bondage and Discipline; DS for Dominance and Submission; and SM for Sadism and Masochism. I didn’t really know the movie tackled BDSM before viewing it; I thought it was simply a romance-in-the-office type flick with maybe some kinky elements.
The movie is polarizing, unsurprisingly. I read a few reviews by respectable critics and one was fascinated by it, giving it an incredible 10/10 Stars (Why Sure!), while another wrote it off as a film for sick people, granting it 1/10 Stars. Whilst I find the romance-at-the-office element interesting, I could care less about the BDSM angle. Regardless, the first half is amusing enough and Maggie is a winsome treat, but the second half gets a little too deviant and borders on porn.
Yet the movie ends well with a well-intentioned message: This is a story about two people who have an affinity for DS that find each other and their relationship may or may not work (no spoilers). I suppose the movie is trying to get across that pain can be therapeutic as long as it's applied by the right hand with the right intention. Thus two people with an affinity for BDSM can develop a relationship that works, for them. But not me; no thanks.
THE MOVIE RUNS 1 hour 47 minutes and was shot in Los Angeles. WRITERS: Mary Gaitskill (short story) and Erin Cressida Wilson & Shainberg (screenplay).
GRADE: C-

The story does unfold slowly, but it was far from boring (in my opinion).
I'm not sure why they started off with backstory and explaining why the two main characters were at the apartment block. It didn't help the story.
I thought the story was well presented and from a Sci-Fi perspective was plausible.
The production values were very high with excellent special effects. The feel of the movie was very real and you felt what the characters would be feeling... so I guess this means the acting was believable.
At no time did I need to suspend my disbelief.
To me, that is the mark of a good Sci-Fi movie.

***Aliens attack Earth and seek to SUCK YOUR BRAINS OUT***
A couple (Eric Balfour & Scottie Thompson) visits some friends in Los Angeles when aliens attack the city and they hold up in a posh apartment complex. The other protagonists are played by Brittany Daniel, Donald Faison, Crystal Reed and David Zayas.
"Skyline" (2010) combines elements of other Alien invasion flicks like “Independence Day” (1996), “Battle: Los Angeles” (2011), “Cloverfield” (2008) and “War of the Worlds” (1953/2005) with an ending reminiscent of the same in “Night Skies” (2007). The people-snatching aspect recalls “The Forgotten” (2004).
The director brothers are visual effects designers who were working on the blockbuster “Battle: Los Angeles” while making this indie, which only cost about $10 million. Sony Pictures sued, but the case was later dropped. It must’ve scared the directors because they haven’t returned to directing since (as of this writing) even though “Skyline” made $21 million domestically and $78 million worldwide, which led to the sequel “Beyond Skyline” (2017) by other filmmakers.
Being made by effects experts, it’s not surprising that the F/X in “Skyline” are top-of-the-line. Some of the aliens or crafts look like they were modeled after sea creatures, like octopi and jelly fish. There are also probing tentacles, as seen in “War of the Worlds.” Meanwhile the main vessels and some of the aliens are similar to those in “Independence Day.”
Unfortunately, there’s not enough human interest and the story is too one-dimensional to be overly gripping, for me anyway. Still, this is a grave, tense account of what a malevolent alien invasion might be like. It lacks the lighter side of “Independence Day” and other eye-rolling aspects (e.g. the pro-American angle), but “ID” had more human interest and a plot with a much larger scope. This one amounts to: Aliens attack earth and snatch victims, the end. Yet it’s well done for what it is.
The film runs 1 hour, 32 minutes and was shot in Los Angeles with shots of New York City, London and Hong Kong at the end.
GRADE: B-

The ending could maybe have been engaging if it made sense, but even putting the best possible spin on _Skyline_, it still repeatedly commits the cardinal sin of the entertainment industry: Being boring.
_Final rating:★½: - Boring/disappointing. Avoid where possible._

Where to start with this movie, with **Frank**? Should I start with describing the man inside the giant head, or maybe the very head itself? I could also try and describe the plot, or maybe the music, the weird wonderful nonsense that Frank sprays from inside the head? No, perhaps it would be even better to start with the actor playing the man inside the giant head, or maybe the entire cast, who tries to cope with their friend, the world and their own problems?
Actually, I think I might start here, with myself. I mean, who of us haven't felt like hiding inside a giant head? And yet, I am not sure that if I ever did hide inside a giant head, that I would be able to lifv as normally as Frank actually does. To him, the head actually helps make him more human, or maybe just... human. Thunk about it for a second, Frank is wearing a giant head, and not just while he is on the stage, singing, no this guy wears his head ALL the time, even when he is sleeping or taking a bath. And we accept it, in fact, while I watched the movie, I found myself hoping that he would never be forced to take it off. We simply don't need to know what is inside, because Frank IS the head.
OK, let me try and break the plot down for you without giving too much away. A young man (Domhnall Gleeson) wants to make his own music, but honestly, he is beyond bad, he would need a miracle to break through in the music industry. That miracle comes one day, when a band arrives at his small village, Sonorpfbrs. Apparently the keyboard player wants to kill himself, which leaves a spot open for Jon (the young man). They manage to almost play a whole song before the band breaks up, in chaos. This is not your average punk band, but something a bit more... out there.
The guy goes home, thinking that he wasted his one chance, but then one day, the manager (Scoot McNairy) calls him again. They are going to Ireland to record an album. The young man packs his back, thinking that he will be there for a day, but really, it ends up being closer to a year, and he ends up spending all his money to keep the band going. They have secluded themselves in the wilderness, and here Jon gets to learn the stories of all the bandmembers. Frank might be the one with the big fake head, but trust me, all the members have their own mental problems.
No more plot for you, but you see where this is going. Everyone needs to figure out who they are, and if they really need to hide inside giant heads, big beards or nasty and unwelcoming personalities.
Once the movie gets going, this is actually a less weird movie than I had expected, and that is not a bad thing. There is enough weirdness here for a lifetime, but there is also something very human here, and that is what drives the movie forward. Frank, of course, is the soul of the movie, and played with perfect execution by Michael Fassbender. And yet, the rest of the cast acts with the same careful precision as Frank, living their life on a knife's edge. You simply feel as if they could tip over at any moment and escape reality completely. Maybe I should also note here that no drugs are involved whatsoever, these guys are as clean as snow, they just have... issues.
Last words... original, and yet, not as original as I had thought (or maybe even feared). The story here is one we've seen in many movies, but the package is just... so much better. Don't try and overthink it, just sit back and listen. If you are lucky, you might just learn a thing or two about yourself.

A lovely movie, especially for those of us who grew up watching Mister Rogers. It inspires compassion and reminded me, and I hope other viewers, that individual actions can and do make the world kinder and more peaceful. I found it a little slow in a few parts but is an overall engaging and clever film and not overly sentimental. Highly recommend.

I have expectations when watching a Tom Hanks movie. He is one of the great actors, obviously, and he inhabits his roles. So when he plays an actual person, especially a familiar character like Mr. Rogers, there is a second level beyond nailing the character where he needs to give a nuanced performance, beyond just mimicking the traits. This is a tough role and he handles it well, I believe.
I am sure I knew at some point in the past that Mr. Rogers was a minister, but I had forgotten, so the religious aspects didn't do much for me. But I guess it is as good an explanation as any as to why he was such a relentlessly nice person. I am not a believer, but if all believers were like Mr. Rogers, I would have no issues with religion.
As a side note, and please indulge me here, our daughter is obsessive compulsive and when Queen Sara wasn't featured in an episode, she would throw a fit worthy of the Rain Man, so this was an important program in our house. (We learned to have an episode with the Queen on a vhs tape for those days when she didn't appear on the scheduled show.) so it was interesting for me to get a behind the scenes glimpse of the history and making of the show. But it doesn't overwhelm the plot either.
So I heartily recommend this movie. I also recommend the article this movie is based on. It is available online if you do a duck duck go search for it.

Not what I was expecting. Better than I was expecting. What a genuinely interesting film, I felt I was given real insight. I have no way of knowing if that's true or not of course, but I felt it, and that arguably matters more when it comes to filmmaking.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

Quirky, unique, beautiful, even dark yet moving, 'A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood' shatters all expectations and leaves you with a sense of peace and understanding. Featuring performances by the incomparable Tom Hanks who does a better Mr Rogers than Mr Rogers himself and the always transfixing Matthew Rhys, this will be a fitting and satisfactorily addition to the legacy of this adored American hero.
- Jess Fenton
Read Jess' full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-a-beautiful-day-in-the-neighbourhood-mr-rogers-healing-the-world-one-lost-soul-at-a-time

Jeez! 'Thirteen' gets deep!
I picked this one out on a whim on Prime Video, having known absolutely zilch about it... even after I checked a few minor things about it (checking to see if it has a sequel or whatever, as I do for any film I watch) I was expecting a simple, cliché teen story. I did catch a glimpse of one of Prime's images for it and it looked dramatic, but I just imagined it was the character's overreaction to getting dumped or something silly like that. It wasn't!
Even so, across the opening chunk of the movie I was still anticipating the aforementioned. Yet, from just prior to the midway point really, things get deeper by the minute - not long later, I was genuinely hooked. It's a great film. I guess that's why you don't judge a book by its cover and all that, and why I don't read about flicks before watching them - I love being surprised!
The performances are truly excellent, none more so than that of Evan Rachel Wood - superb! Nikki Reed (even though I kept seeing Charisma Carpenter...) gives a strong showing too, as does Holly Hunter (even though I kept hearing Mrs. Incredible...). Wood and Hunter particularly earn their stripes across the second half. Credit to the rest of them too, including Jeremy Sisto. Feature debutant Vanessa Hudgens is squeezed in there too.
If I hadn't had noticed in my checks beforehand that this shared the same director as 'Twilight', I'm pretty sure I would've known instantly with this - a clear style, notably at the beginning, if a tad questionable in minor moments. I'm clearly not the target of either film, yet enjoyed both - what can I say? Forza, Catherine Hardwicke!

This movie is special to me, and it probably always will be. It’s one of the first times I remember feeling “seen” in media as a young person that was starting to struggle with mental illness.
It’s not a perfect movie, and I think some of the scenes shouldn’t have really been graphically shown like they were bearing in mind that this is a movie directed at teenagers. However, that is a reality for some people, and I do understand the inclusion.
Overall though, this movie does a great job at depicting what it’s like to develop a mental illness and troubled family dynamics and how a mental illness can develop in a situation like that. Evan Rachel Wood gives such a fantastic performance as Tracy at such a young age.
I first saw this movie when I was about twelve or thirteen, and although it doesn’t hold quite the same amount of relatability for me that it did then, it still holds up for me close to ten years later. I’m glad it exists and depicts a painful reality, but being able to find something to relate to in that painful reality and that makes you feel “seen” can be something that’s helpful.

This is a good example of what a solid ensemble of strong women actors, coupled with an equally strong story and a creative style of direction (from Sarah Gavron) can do to illustrate really well an historical scenario. Inspired by the sparingly used Meryl Streep as Emmeline Pankhurst, this film depicts the tale of a group of women who decide that they have had enough of being put upon because of their sex, and who put their liberty on the line with a campaign of civil disobedience. The central character is "Maud" (Carey Mulligan) married to the nice but rather ineffective "Sonny" (Ben Whishaw). When she joins what he sees as the rabble-rousers, he chucks her out of their family home and denies her access to their son. She must now take up lodgings with other, like-minded women and take up the cudgels for their suffrage. It is very wordy, the dialogue is actually intrusive at times. We can see what is happening, and we can use our own emotions to empathise - we don't need quite the running commentary we are provided with here, but that said this is still a potent mix of drama and fact that demonstrates the multitude of factors that influenced the politics of the day. Not least that it wasn't just men who wanted to deny women the vote - there were plenty of women who also felt the activity of these "radicals" was downright un-ladylike trouble-making. The film looks good, the attention to details and the costumes add a richness (and, on occasion, quite an effective stuffiness) to the proceedings, and though I am really not a great fan of POV cinematography, it does lend an intimacy as we get into the thick of things. It's probably worth saying that this film really only deals with the start of the struggle for emancipation - not in a ball and chain sense, but of a rebellion against illiberalism of sex, faith, sexuality that is still ongoing a century after this is set. A touch melodramatic at times, but still the contributions of Anne-Marie Duff and a slightly over-cooked Helena Bonham Carter all serve to present us with an entertaining and plausible drama that is enjoyable and informative to watch.

Deeds, not words.
It's a telling point in history, that of the Suffragettes, the militant women's organisations in the early 20th century who, under the banner "Votes for Women", fought for the right to vote in public elections. So case in point that any filmic treatments are greatly anticipated - and wanted of course, so here we have Sarah Gavron's film that is written by Abi Morgan and starring Carey Mulligan, Helena Bonham Carter, Brendan Gleeson, Anne-Marie Duff, Ben Whishaw and in cameo Meryl Streep.
Right off the bat it should be noted on two crucial points, one is that this is merely a story strand involving a group of Suffragette women, this is not all encompassing, something which is emphasised by the fact that Suffragette leader Emeline Pankhurst is only cameoed here by Streep. Secondly it has to be said that this is a condensed narrative for story telling emotional gain in favour of the Suffragettes, their more serious activities for attention are very much played down. So with that in mind anyone interested in the subject are urged to seek out literary sources for story as facts.
Filthy Panks!
The gripping story here dramatizes events that builds to the death of Emily Davison at the 1913 Derby. We are privy to the harsh realities of the life of women in this era (period detail superb), the employment pay structures, the treatment at the hands of the authorities, and the home lives that could result in losing ones child on account of poverty. It's potent stuff and ensures that we at least understand the need for change and fully support the women in their ultimate goal, the arguments put forward viable and just.
Thankfully the makers are not on a one way mission to portray all men as monsters, there's a nice balance between good and bad. The implications of the women's long road to reckoning is given thought, the social distortion possibility hanging in the air alongside economic murkiness. So although the narrative often gets heavy handed in striving for dramatic impact, the point is well and truly made and begs all to delve further into a cause that ultimately needed winning.
Small in scale as regards the Suffrage Movement as a whole, but important as an historical pointer and acted with professional assuredness by the cast, this achieves its goals regardless of condensement gripes. 7/10

> A revolution that fought within a nation, within a race, within a family.
Biographical movies are always fascinating. If it is not something worthy, the movie would have not taken up the shape. It was a very good movie, and a very important historical subject. It has been 100 years since and now the world we live-in is much different and better. I think after thousands of years, now the women got their freedom.
I thought I knew this story very well, but it was 'Made in Dagenham' which is quite similar to this which is also based on the real. Both the stories take place 50 years apart, but this one was the beginning of a new era for women, not without sacrifices and sufferings.
Great actors, great actings, awesome storytelling, cinematography at its best, direction was amazing and the music was so pleasant, but the method of dealing was a bit gruesome, and sometimes brutal. I thought the terrorism is a new word, but this movie gives a different perspective and meaning to that.
You would definitely love this film if you respect women. All women cast movie, including the director, but for everyone. It might have begun in the UK, but the entire planet saw a drastic change and still taking place in some places. I don't see any reason why I should not recommend it to you.
8/10

When I first saw Another Earth several years ago I thought that, like some science fiction out there, it was light on the science and heavy on fiction. Fantasy, maybe. I was okay with that as long as the story and characters were strong. Besides, nowadays it seems like many mainstream physicists are seriously promoting the ideas around multiple universes or perhaps even an infinite number of alternate universes, perhaps science is catching up with the fiction. (Though I still think a planet popping into our galaxy so close to us would cause cataclysmic tides and whatnot.) . In any case, I recently bought and downloaded a digital version of it to watch it again.
But Another Earth isn’t about physics or science or what would become of humanity if a twin earth and moon suddenly showed up in our sky. It is about a heart-stopping event that cause a planet full of people to stop what they are doing and look up and wonder. Is that earth different than ours? Am I up there, and if so, is that version exactly like me or have they made different decisions that affect who they have become? Could I have made different decisions, or was this version of me locked into what I decided and thought? And in the case of our lead character, Rhoda, it leads her to a path to seek forgiveness and try to make up for a tragic mistake she made a couple of years earlier, actually on the day the second earth appeared.
So I will say no more about the plot, let alone the surprising little twist deep in the movie. You really feel for these characters. They seem real and you care about them. Kumamoto Pallana steals the scenes he is involved with. Because of the internal turmoil and the questions Rhoda is asking herself, even ordinary interactions with other characters feel imbued with deeper meaning. As a side note, it was written by the woman who plays Rhoda.
Try not to watch it when you are tired, but do try to watch it.

More ambitious than interesting. A story that wants to joint an epic sci-fi moment with a drama.
Not really working although seeing the Earth in the sky is quite interesting.

There's a great scene near the start of this film that sees an horse-drawn hearse get it's wheel caught between the kerb and a lamp-post. The horses persist in moving forward, the wheel comes off and we have a coffin exposed in the middle of a deserted street. A passer-by approaches the coffin only to find it's occupant still alive - and, worse still, it's him! It's "Dr. Borg" (Victor Sjöström). Is it portentous? Well it made me smile anyway, as does quite a lot of this thought-provoking drama. It centres around this learned man who is to travel to Lund next day to receive a great honour for his services to the medical profession. In the middle of the night, he disturbs his no-nonsense housekeeper "Agda" (a charming effort from Julian Kindahl) announcing plans to drive from Stockholm rather than fly. She's irked and is having none of this nonsense, but she makes his breakfast and packs his case. It's at breakfast that his pregnant daughter-in-law "Marianne" (Ingrid Thulin) decides to invite herself along. En route, it becomes clear that she despises the old man, and her bluntness rather shocks him. He readily admits he's a pedantic old grouch, but somehow this cuts him to the quick. After a stop for some petrol at the garage of "Henrik" (Max Von Sydow), they pick up some hitch-hikers. Firstly, a group of young and enthusiastic people and then a squabbling couple who seem to thrive on being unpleasant to each other. As we travel, the journey and their companions start him reminiscing about his own life, about the mother of his son and about the joys and tragedies of his own life. It's only when he arrives for his ceremony that he begins to reassess his life, his perspectives and his priorities. Sjöström is super here. He really carries off the role in almost "Scrooge"-like fashion. He has taken the emotionally easy way out for much of his life and now finds himself in an unfulfilling cul-de-sac from which it not might be possible to escape. Thulin also delivers well as the deliberately provocative and seemingly unkind woman who spares him none of the knife. There is plenty of humour - dark and mischievous, and we take quite an interesting look at just how toxic introspection can be - at any age. As ever with this director, questions of religiosity and God are never far away, but here they are delivered in a manner than the characters address rather than having us to do that work - and that makes this a far more relaxed, if that word can be used about Ingmar Bergman - and gentle rummage through his theological baggage. The plot is busy and entertaining, and there are plenty of other characters enmeshed in the narrative that give us an opportunity to come up for a breather now and again, and I think this might be one of my favourites from this man.

Bergman talks about the meaning of life and the pass of time.
Great cast, that will repeat in several of Bergman's movies and remarkable performances from Ingrid Thulin and Victor Sjöström.

***Jamie Lee Curtis returns and the franchise redeems itself from the crappy part 6***
Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) is living in Northern California under an assumed name as a dean of a remote private school. It’s Halloween season and her son (Josh Hartnett) is turning 17. Will her evil brother show-up to wreak terror once again? Of course he will. Adam Arkin, LL Cool J and Janet Leigh have side roles.
“Halloween 4” (1988) was great and IMHO even better than the original 1978 slasher while “Halloween 5” (1989) was good, although it added a little campy humor. The next film, “Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers” (1995), was surprisingly a mess with weak characters, lousy story development and stale & pedestrian jump scares. So I didn’t know what to expect with 1998’s “Halloween H2O: 20 Years Later.”
The movie starts in Illinois with a glimmer of humor and the final scene of the character played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt made me bust out laughing. From there, the tone turns dramatic as events switch to the posh boarding school in California. The characters are confidently established and we feel we know them as Michael Myers stages his assault.
I’m glad the creators decided to finally switch the setting from Haddonfield, Illinois, to a wholly different locale across the country. Haddonfield was getting tired. The plot is similar to “I Still Know What You Did Last Summer,” which was released a few months later. “H2O” is arguably the second best sequel in the series after 4 and is at least on par with 5.
It’s great to have Jamie Lee as the ‘final girl’ again. Michelle Williams also appears on the female front. She was only 17 during shooting and cute as can be. The attractive Jodi Lyn O'Keefe is also on hand.
The film runs 1 hour, 26 minutes and was shot in Southern Cal (La Puente, Silver City, Chatsworth, Calabasas, Universal City and Los Angeles).
GRADE: B/B-

Of course we all know now that _H20_ went on to have a sequel, a reboot, a sequel to the reboot, and another _Halloween_ film coming out next year, but props to _Twenty Years Later_ for at least *trying* to end the franchise. It's nice sometimes to watch a horror go out on something other than a final-scare/cliff-hanger. Also notable for being the first Michael Myers movie that's any fun. Not a great movie, but credit where credit's due.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

Brotherly love just went down another notch.
It's 20 years since Michael Myers Haddonfield, and in particular Laurie Srode, his sister. Laurie faked her death and is now a divorced mom with a teenage son. Michael is on his way to finish the job he couldn't finish two decades ago.
A true and honest Halloween/Michael Myers film this one, there's the distinct feeling that the people behind the series wanted to show that they remember what made the series popular in the first place. It's still the stalk and slash formula of course, but Jamie Lee Curtis returns and her character is nicely written. She's obviously still haunted by events passed and needs a stiff few drinks from time to time to keep the edge off. Yet she's in charge of a private school and is a stern but adoring mother to her son (Josh Hartnett). And she has a boyfriend (Adam Arkin) who cares for her.
The first half of film sets up Laurie's new world, while we jump back and forth observing Michael on his journey to final destination. Once the second half revs up, it's the scare time as Laurie's son and his friends come under great peril, which we know will lead to a final confrontation with Laurie. The kills strike hard, the suspense is ramped up, and then it's a frenetic action based finale capped off by a coup de grace of some distinction. All in all it's just a very good and proper Halloween/Myers movie. It didn't reinvent anything, it just turned the wheel full circle and arrived at a fitting closure. 7/10

**An excellent comedy, with intelligent and creative humor.**
This is an interesting comedy that shows that British cinema sometimes surprises with small gems of quality. I don't know exactly how the film was received in its country of origin (it was a time when the British were in shock due to the death of Diana Spencer, ex-wife of the current King Charles III), but, in my country, the film received little attention due to the film “Titanic”, a box office phenomenon. Still, as far as I know, the film was profitable overall, and was well reviewed by critics. At the 1998 Oscars, it was nominated for four awards, but only won Best Soundtrack for a Comedy or Musical, a category that only existed for a few years.
The story takes place in Sheffield, a British city famous for its steel industry, but which was greatly affected by the economic recession and the closure of many factories, similar to what happened in Detroit with the automobile industry and in Matosinhos, in my country, with canning factories. To try to earn money, six men join forces to become a group of male strippers. They have to overcome their own prejudices and then public ridicule, when everything becomes known. The film has lots of moments of intelligent, well-constructed humor, and the dialogue is quality. Contrary to what some professional critics said at the time, I thought the use of slang and specifically British words was good, as it added authenticity to the dialogue. There are also some touching moments of understanding and mutual help.
The film was very well directed by Peter Cattaneo, and was edited effectively, with a sense of rhythm that allows the film to be engaging and entertaining without wasting time or dispersing into subplots that would lead to nothing. On a technical level, the film has a good set of sets and the filming locations were very well selected, but what deserves the most attention, in my opinion, is the soundtrack, which is virtually a beautiful collection of memorable hits from the 70s. and 80s, including “You Sexy Thing”, “You Can Leave Your Hat On” and other well-known songs. This luxurious soundtrack was one of the aspects that I most enjoyed about the film.
Another strong point of the film is the general performance of the cast led by Robert Carlyle, a creative protagonist who gives us an inspired and spirited performance. Alongside him, we also have some great British actors such as Tom Wilkinson (in one of the best comic efforts of his career), Hugo Speer and Mark Addy. Each of them is truly good at what they do and have been given very competent material to work with.