Pretty good paranormal thriller with a nice, and strangely normal, performance from Christopher Walken. Kept my attention throughout even if the finale felt a bit rushed and, the final scene, pretty laughable. Still found it entertaining though not sure how much desire I have to re-watch, although I may give the TV series a shot down the line. **3.25/5**

This was outstanding, and ranks right up there for me, both in terms of Stephen King adaptations in general and Cronenberg's work in particular. It also houses one of my very favourite Christopher Walken performances. When I see Martin Sheen be such a jerk here, it both makes me realize where his son Charlie gets that side of his personality from and makes me fear, even though I'm Canadian, the fact that Donald Trump actually has a chance of being the next president of the United States. It also reaffirms in my heart the great adoration I have for Brooke Adams.

Love sports movies. Especially when there's a lot of football in it. This goes through a whole seasons worth. Love it!

That's what a leader's about: sacrifice. The times he's gotta sacrifice because he's gotta lead, by example. Not by fear and not by self-pity.
Any Given Sunday is directed by Oliver Stone and Stone co-writes the screenplay with Daniel Pyne and John Logan. It stars Al Pacino, Cameron Diaz, Jamie Foxx, Dennis Quaid, James Woods, LL Cool J, Matthew Modine, Aaron Eckhart and Jim Brown. Music is by Richard Horowitz and Paul Kelly and cinematography by Salvatore Totino.
A star quarterback gets knocked out of the game and an unknown third stringer is called in to replace him. The unknown gives a stunning performance and forces the aging coach to re-evaluate his game plans and his life. A new female co-owner/president adds to the pressure of the team winning. The new owner must prove her self in a male dominated world while old coach and old quarterback equally have much to prove...
Stone, the perennial poo stirrer that he is, shifted gear this time around to bring us his take on the brutal world on and off the pitch of American Gridiron. Though without doubt this is far too long in run time (2hrs 40), given that it isn't actually multifaceted in characterisation terms (Diaz underwritten), there's no denying that visually this finds Stone at his best. The quickfire editing might not be to everyone's taste, but it really puts you right in every play out there on the field. So much so you can hear and feel every spit, vomit, blood spill and vociferous grunt.
No faults in the acting performances either, with Pacino thankfully doing his thing and Foxx superb as egotist QB Willie Beamen taking the honours and holding court. The narrative strains to make a point about the roles of black and whites in the game, and this being Stone there is no "stone" (sorry) left unturned into behaviour of the game's stars behind the scenes. Is this a movie none American Football fans can enjoy?, yes of course if one is interested in the various skill strands of the art, but really it's one for fans of the sport to see and feel the harsh realities of the game back in the previous decades. 8/10

Full review: https://www.tinakakadelis.com/beyond-the-cinerama-dome/2021/12/28/you-owe-kristen-stewart-an-apology-spencer-review
It’s crazy to think that Kristen Stewart is the only American actress to ever receive a César Award, and yet when I say her name, most people will only remember her in _Twilight_.

Kristin Stewart could certainly not be accused of being half-hearted here. She immerses herself completely in this depiction of a rather unstable woman dealing with the pressures of her fame and her family. The extent of any authenticity as to the feelings and experiences by the real life Princess is anyone's guess, so though I did appreciate her effort, I felt the rest of the film took a rather uncompromising view on other people who are either dead, or unable to retaliate against this somewhat one-sided portrayal of a scenario that all concerned have subsequently admitted was way more nuanced and complex than presented in this overly-simplistic depiction. It doesn't help that the opening scenes purport to be Queen Elizabeth's Sandringham estate in Norfolk, but look nothing remotely like that distinctive building - and from there on in, the story speculates wildly on real life events in a fashion that I just found irritating, implausible - hysterical, even. Her ability to randomly roam the countryside (with or without her children) without any security beggars belief somewhat, and the somewhat curious references to "currency" alluding to the double edged swords of a privileged no pain no gain existence is all just too contrived. This portrayal of an emotionally struggling lady is to be commended, but it has little to do with reality and as a man who lived in the UK throughout the rise and fall of this flawed individual, much of this comes across as little more than a clumsy attempt to capitalise on a tragic story with scant regard to anyone else who actually had to endure at that time - or, indeed, to fact.

Full Analysis at Spotamovie.com - **Intro** - With one Oscar Nominee and 33 Awards won, Spencer is a must-watch. It's the time when Lady D. changed her story and our one. - **The Story** - It’s December 1991, and the location is the Sandringham Estate in Norfolk. The Royal family meets to celebrate the three days of Christmas, strictly according to tradition. However, the peace and perfection of the residence are in contrast with the tumultuous mind of Diana and the delusions of the family. Rumours about infidelity and divorce on her marriage increase, as well as her mental health troubles. What is going to happen? How is Diana going to deal with the Royals and her mind? And why is this one a fable? - **Watch the trailer** and find out with us at https://www.spotamovie.com/spencer-2021-movie-review/

If I were a royalty groupie, I might have enoyed this film. But I'm not. And I did not enoy this film at all. It's only saving grace is that it's technically well done.

An enigmatic actress full of baggage plays one of the most enigmatic people of the 20th century who had a bit of acting to do herself.
Diana’s stories are far too plentiful for one film - or even a series of them - so the film wisely keeps to only one chapter.
It’s a slow meditation with lots of time spent on expansive and beautiful shots of an ugly situation.
The big question for this film is the choice of the lead: How on earth did such as American actress like Stewart play someone dealing with the successors of the House of Stewart? Stewart shows the skills to pull it off with lots of breathlessness. Stewart spends the time being on the verge of cracking for the whole of the film and it's an impressive sight.
Stewart's Diana stands out just like the way the colour of her outfits provides a pop of colour to the mostly drab setting. Performances from the support cast are minimal with dialogue between the royal family are few and far between.
Music is classical and restrained with discordant jazz matching the discordant feelings going on in the rural estate
The clash of tradition and the new is at a the fore here like a flower beating against an armoured tank. It's where the new of Diana tries to prepare to enter an institution of centuries of tradition. This Diana is shown to completely and utterly not belong. The family is forever waiting for her and is even have here kept within barb wire fences like a prisoner. She desperately wants to cut these wires.
Parallels with Anne Boelyn are drawn - a woman who didn’t fair too well herself. The symbolism of Diana’s home reflects her past - something that is now gone for her, but she wants to desperately get back to it.
There’s a distinct lack of love portrayed in the royal family.
Even the staff are models of military precision and tradition with Spall taking up the role of rules enforcer. The family and staff spend most of their time criticising Diana or ordering her about. They are always distant - Diana is mostly shown alone and needs a fantasy to get out of it.
The film is ultimately very sympathetic to Diana - the royal family aren’t much above the level of monsters.

I knew absolutely nothing about this movie beforehand. I heard/read extraordinarily positive reactions that definitely elevated my expectations. And my actual knowledge about Princess Diana and her life was and still is extremely basic. Spencer is one of those rare examples where going into it completely blind didn't work in my favor at all. I found myself trying to look for something to grab on to, and despite some genuinely outstanding technical attributes, Steven Knight's (Locked Down) screenplay doesn't offer me enough to hold my attention.
Spencer is undoubtedly a fictional character piece that only stands on its feet due to one of the year's most mesmerizing lead performances. Kristen Stewart (Underwater), an actress who still gets a lot of unfair hate despite her clear evolution to one of the most underrated actors working today, delivers a career-defining portrayal of Princess Diana that viewers will hardly forget about. I can't recall the last time I witnessed an actor completely disappearing into their role. A true masterclass worthy of every single award. The rest of the cast is also superb.
Technically, I also have little to complain about. Pablo Larraín's (Jackie) distinct direction adequately fits the frustrating, claustrophobic story, and I love how Claire Mathon's (Portrait of a Lady on Fire) moves between the intimate close-ups and gorgeous wide shots. As expected, costume and production design look fabulous, but Jonny Greenwood's (You Were Never Really Here) score didn't work for me. The mix of jazz with high-tension sequences becomes too uncanny, distracting the viewers from the narrative, which leads me to my main issue.
For someone with my knowledge and expectations, Spencer becomes one of those "nothing happens" films that usually surprises viewers with its unique storytelling approach. I'm all-in for this type of work, but outside of Stewart's display, I struggled to feel captivated by whatever was going on. A supposedly consistently interesting character study transformed into an overlong, repetitive one-woman show, where I couldn't figure out what it was aiming for. I understand the purpose of making the audience feel how Diana felt during her marriage and living within British Royalty, but Larraín's execution somehow fails to leave me emotionally satisfied.
A second viewing will probably improve and strengthen my opinion about the movie. For now, I feel very mixed about Spencer, but I'll leave this as a positive review trusting that I'll gradually enjoy it more after each viewing.
Rating: B-

Told largely from the perspective of the young "Fabietto" (Filippo Scotti), this is a charming tale of this youth who lives with elder brother "Marchino" (Marlon Joubert) and his parents "Saverio" (Toni Servillo) and "Maria" (Teresa Saponangelo). Both teenagers are frequently tempted by their somewhat exhibitionist aunt "Patricia" (Luisa Ranieri) a temptation only matched by their (and the entire city of Naples') desire to see Diego Maradona come and play at Napoli. Director Paolo Sorrentino packs quite a lot into this story. Sex, fun, friendship, betrayal, tragedy, beautiful scenery and a sense of family that is usually quite difficult to encapsulate without becoming too sentimental. The young Scotti (who reminded me a lot of Timothée Chalamet) plays well as an archetypal boy - he likes football and girls, but has no idea about the latter; and the engaging character development from boy to man is told quite imaginatively, I felt. No, it doesn't need a big screen - indeed maybe that compromises some of the intimacy of the story, but if you want to see a well crafted, enjoyable to look at story then I'd recommend this.

Calling this a "coming-of-age" film is like calling Bud Lite a beer. They're not in the same class. I compare this film to my other favorite re-telling of a seminal childhood memory - Joanna Hogg's Souvenir.
The great Austrian poet, Rainer Maria Rilke, once wrote "For it is not yet the memories themselves. Not till they have turned to blood within us, to glance and gesture, nameless and no longer to be distinguished from ourselves - not till then can it happen that in a most rare hour the first word of a verse arises in their midst and goes forth from them." And that is visible here. Sorrentino writes this film in his own nameless, demential blood. I laughed. I cried. This film is one of those rare captures of the human condition. This is a brilliant piece of storytelling with masterful direction and top-notch acting.
That's all I have to say.

"If hellholes like this didn't exist, I'm sure you would invent one"
This film is almost, but not quite, exactly what the lurid title would suggest. It's definitely going for shocks as its primary source of horror, with a lot of this being truly hard to watch (I saw the uncut version, with animal cruelty intact, and I can see why they're cut from most versions, although there is a certain level of hypocrisy in condemning those scenes if you eat meat - and I doubt everyone who has ever criticised it were all vegetarian or vegan - unless you think that what goes on in slaughterhouses is any kinder that the animal slaughter depicted in this film, or that recording it somehow makes a moral difference), and has well earned its reputation for brutality. However, there's a deeper element to the horror. All the violence and cannibalism and rape is truly gruelling to sit through, but the scenes between those are, in their own way, just as grotesque.
As strange as it may sound, one film that this strongly reminded me of was The Searchers, reminding us of the fact that so-called "primitive" peoples are separated from us only by circumstance, that there is nothing making the "civilised" world inherently better, that the wilderness is always right next door.
Of course, this is rather problematic in itself. Because, in case the title didn't clue you in, this film has no interest in being sensitive. It is still exploitative. The question this film poses is more along the lines of "are we truly any better than nasty primitive violent cannibalistic tribes?", and certainly has far more in the way of contempt for civilisation than compassion for the supposedly "uncivilised". It's a common refrain by now; "Cannibal Holocaust claims to be satirising exploration while also being itself exploitative". This criticism... I understand it, but I feel it relies on a verbal sleight of hand. An "exploitation film" may contain the word "exploitation", but it is not the same as exploiting people.
That said, we mustn't forget that the native actors in the film genuinely were mistreated. They weren't treated all that much better by the real film crew than by the in-movie one. Some of the stuff that happened on the set of this makes Kubrick-making-The-Shining look like the Buddha. There's no real way around it, the set of this movie was an abusive environment. The director of this movie, Ruggero Deodato, is an abusive arsehole who was particularly nasty to women and native actors. Fuck him.
And yet, I still can't help but be fascinated by the film, even if I don't necessarily want to ever see it again. There is certainly some craft to this. From Riz Ortolani's beautiful score providing an actually effective counterpoint to the incredibly brutal scenes of horror to the raw documentary style that strips everything down to the most naked barbarism, this is a film that has an aesthetic you won't see in many others, at the very least. Even now "found footage" is as family a horror subgenre as "monster movie" or "slasher", this, along with Blair Witch, still holds up as something special. Sure, the framing device may be unorthodox in modern examples of the genre, but the bits that are in that style genuinely do feel like we're watching somebody's last moments on film. The acting is... variable, which sometimes breaks the illusion, but, perversely, it helps in a way that a lot of the cast seem genuinely uncomfortable, so don't HAVE to act for a lot of it.
And yes, this is very influential. You can see all the familiar tropes of the found footage genre, right down to the cast being massive arseholes that you kinda want to see eaten by the end. Yes, as I say, the framing device is unorthodox, but it's not like there's no reason for it to be in the film or anything. It goes without saying that it would be a very different film without it, and probably wouldn't have nearly as many reviews on here. The footage story is of course where most of the scenes that fans of "extreme cinema" remember are from, but the frame story is part of the reason why this still an independent cult following outside of people who will simply watch anything with enough mutilation in it. The most targeted part, in my mind, comes when we see the footage of the in-film documentary "The Last Road to Hell", and the opening credits are in the same style as the actual opening credits to this film.
But there comes a point if we have to ask how genuine this is? Is this film truly a critique of colonialism and exploitation, or is it just trying to make pretensions to something more than a schlocky cannibal flick? Is it just trying to make you feel less guilty for watching it, or more guilty?
I don't think there are any easy answers. This is a wholly unattractive film, and knows it. The cruelty is both a means to and end and an end in itself simultaneously.
All in all, Cannibal Holocaust isn't necessarily a film I can in any good concience recommend, because my God is it hard to watch, nor can I really say I'm even glad it exists, knowing what went on behind the scenes, but I can say the world of cinema would lose something tangible if this film were deleted from history. For better or for worse.
OK, so today I've been writing various quick reviews-from-memory of various randomly selected movies I've seen before, and this was meant to be one of those, but ultimately this review turned out way longer than expected, so I hope I actually said anything worthwhile in that whole length rather than just rambling. Not sure why this of all films got the extended review for today, but I guess it is a film that sticks in your mind, and due to its nature it's not something many people are willing to see so it's easier to say things that haven't been said ten billion times already, so I guess the combination of those two factors resulted in me feeling I had the most to say about this one. Whatever the case, I hope I actually DID say something worthwhile lol.

Utterly superb! I wasn't expecting such greatness.
'The Dressmaker', to put it bluntly, is quality! It has a pulse and then some, I love the feel of the film throughout - with all its quirkiness, silliness and straight up brilliantness. It all starts off very strongly, though I did then feel a (very minor) plateau. However, to my surprise, it shoots straight back up as it culminates with a super ending.
Kate Winslet is top notch from beginning to end with an excellent performance, though isn't alone as the support cast all give very good performances - from Judy Davis to Hugo Weaving. I also note Liam Hemsworth, Alison Whyte and, at a certain point, Geneviève Lemon.
What a great film, full of twists n turns and it has a fantastic score. Loved it!

> Home is where the vengeance is.
A stylish Aussie revenge-comedy that is adapted from a novel of the same name. Just superbly built screenplay on a tragedy that occurred some time back, but the movie reveals it only in the third act. About a woman who arrives in a small town where she was born and slowly gains popularity among the young women who seeks her stunning costumes to impress their counterparts. The town divides over her return, but why all the hate is the mystery that the movie going to solve for us in its entire narration.
The location and the settings were fantastic and it brought a western feel because of the Australians hot and humid weather. Kate Winslate was very good, her role simply reminded me Juliette Binoche from 'Chocolat'. I have heard people saying it was emotional, but I did not find it like that. Instead, I had fun watching it, not like I had the open laughs, but felt joy and satisfaction for the time I spent for it. My initial thought was it could be overrated, but after watching it proved I was wrong. This is one of the best Aussie movie I have seen in the recent years.
8/10

f course we've been anticipating this movie. From the success of the HBO series to the success of the first movie, we can't help but expect more from this movie. It was a big mistake. There should be no expectations.
The movie all in all was okay. Just okay. It was 2 and a half hours. The clothes were awesome of course. But then sometimes I can't help but think, it's too awesome for the place you're in to be wearing it. My favorite part was the wedding. It was fun and so gay which was awesome. The plane and the hotel was amazing. There were several "WOWs" in the theater and I'm sure we're all thinking of the same thing: "I wish I have a friend like Samantha" or "I wish I can also do that for free". But then after a while, you can't help but think: this is too much for this movie. It's like not sex and the city anymore. I mean they're not having sex (or they can't because they're in Abu Dabi) and they're not even in the city. The title should've been "Sex and the City goes to Abu Dabi" or "Carrie and the Girls Goes to Middle East". It doesn't make sense anymore.
But I don't really mind watching it again. The clothes, the purses and especially the shoes are the only things that I love looking at in this movie.

A simply OK film, though the last 20/30 minutes or so does drag a tad.
Matthew McConaughey is good, Sarah Jessica Parker is good, the support cast (which includes an early role of Bradley Cooper's) are good. I didn't overly enjoy what I was watching, but I wasn't particularly bored with it either. I don't really have much to say about it in truth.
At around 90 minutes, it doesn't overstay its welcome. That makes it a watchable, if slightly forgettable, flick from 2006 in my books.

I have always liked Mel Gibson and I really do not care how drunk or politically incorrect he might be. I still like to see him in movies and this is a surprisingly good movie. The movie had a proper theatrical premier in most countries except USA where it went straight to VOD which I find a bit surprising. It is a lot better movie than much of the stuff that are shown in theaters. I suspect the politically correct hypocrites had something to do with that.
Personally, I found this movie surprisingly good. Mel Gibson fit the role very well and made a quite good performance. The settings with the bizarre prison which looked like a cross between Alcatraz and Freetown Christiania in Copenhagen was quite cool. It was the kind of setting that I would not have been surprised to find in a Tarantino-movie. I also liked the cynical and somewhat ironical voice-over by Gibson.
The story was okay. Perhaps not the most believable one but good enough for this kind of action movie. Speaking of action, there were indeed some decent action in the movie but it is not like the movie is overloaded with it. It is nicely spread out and once the action starts it is pretty good. It is also true that some scenes are a wee bit gruesome but I am not sure that I agree with the R-rating. Most of the time that rating felt a bit over the top. Still, I rather have a R-rated movie with cuts than a PG-13 with lots of silly cuts in it.
There were some silly bits of course, like how easy Mel could evade the prison and make a “business-trip” to the states when he finally felt like it and the entire business of performing transplantation surgery in a filthy prison. Mel might have found that “put it back” statement funny when he wrote it but it came out rather silly to me.
Bottom line is that this was a quite enjoyable movie. A perfect after-work movie when you feel like parking your brain somewhere in the garage with your car and just sit down and watch something requiring a minimum of concentration.

This is the very 1st Adam Sandler movie I ever seen. I was dying with laughter throughout this movie. Now I'm a hugh Adam Sandler fan. Stop looking at me swan.

***Enjoyable mystery/comedy with Scarlett Johansson***
"Scoop" (2006) is a mystery/dramedy/romance written and directed by Woody Allen. Scarlett Johansson stars as Sondra Pransky, a geeky college journalist vacationing in England. She gets a tip from the ghost of a dead newsman (Ian McShane) on the identity of a local serial killer and proceeds to partner with bumbling magician Sid Waterman (Woody Allen); the tip leads them to the rich son of a prominent lord, Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman), whom Sondra starts to date to acquire information. Is Lyman the notorious killer or isn't he?
Although fantastical and somewhat goofy, "Scoop" is first and foremost a mystery and I did enjoy trying to figure out if Peter Lyman is the "Tarot Card killer." In the story we perceive Peter Lyman largely through the lens of Sondra, who is falling for the guy; hence, the viewer warms up to him.
"Scoop" is a comedy but not in the laugh-out-loud sense of, say, "Ace Ventura: Pet Detective"; it's mildly amusing, witty and fun but not knee-slapping funny. So if you're looking for the latter don't bother.
The three stars and their chemistry are a highlight. I enjoyed the team-up of Woody (Sid) & Scarlett (Sondra) and their surrogate father/daughter relationship. I knew when I saw "The Horse Whisperer" that Scarlett would grow up to be one of cinema's leading beauties, and so she is! Scarlett was 21 while filming "Scoop" and the film is worth catching solely for her; just don't expect any raunch or t&a exploitation (although she does have a one-piece bathing suit scene and a nightie sequence, which are rather modest).
Hugh Jackman is a great modern masculine actor, of course, and he does fine here, although I couldn't help wondering if long metal claws would suddenly shoot out of his knuckles!
"Scoop" is an enjoyable mystery/dramedy highlighted by refreshing originality, a quality cast with good chemistry and English locations. I admit that I didn't think I'd like the film during the first 25 minutes or so, but then I caught on to the movie’s vibe. The interactions between the three main characters, their story and the mounting mystery pulled me in and glued me until the end. I also enjoyed the creative zany elements (e.g. crossing the River Styx with the Grim Reaper and the reappearing ghost reporter) and the film's overall refreshing air.
The movie runs 96 minutes and was shot in London & the English countryside.
GRADE: B+

Solid Hong Kong action-thriller with good performances and fine direction. I do think The Departed did better with connecting the plot and character development (particularly between the undercover cop and psychiatrist). Also thought The Departed was more suspenseful. But that said, Infernal Affairs is a fine film. **3.75/5**

Clearly, these scientists had not heeded Jeff Goldblum in "Jurassic Park" (1993) when he warned about stopping to think that just because we can do something, it doesn't mean that we should. If they had, then perhaps we could have avoided the mayhem and brutality caused when they create "Sil" (Natasha Henstridge). She is the product of alien and human DNA and can morph between a beautiful woman and a savage killer in the blink of an eye. Of course she escapes from the high security facility that couldn't keep a cow out, and is soon on the search for a man. Not any particular man, just one who can help her make a baby - and believe me, that's not a good plan! The scientists - led by "Lennox" (a rather charmless Michael Madson) and "Baker" (Marg Helgenberger) are on her trail but can they stop her before she finds a willing partner? To be fair, the visual effects - very "Terminator" (1984) style - are actually quite effective but the acting, especially from the always hammy Ben Kingsley, and the scripting are very bottom drawer. There's some imagination with the look of the film, but the delivery is pedestrian across the board before an ending that has an inevitability to it that I found a bit predictable. Not terrible, but a real missed opportunity that had it been cast better and just spent a little more time on the a more substantial story, could have created a better sense of menace and even a little (dark) humour.

_**Wiping out the "galactic weed**_"
Released in 1995, "Species" chronicles events after SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) receives a transmission from outer space detailing alien DNA structure, along with instructions on how to splice it with human DNA. This gives birth to Sil, a girl (Michele Williams) who escapes and rapidly grows into a statuesque blonde (Natasha Henstridge). Government agent Xavier Fitch (Ben Kingsley) assembles a team to locate and destroy Sil before she finds a mate and breeds. The team includes a tough mercenary (Michael Madsen), an anthropologist (Alfred Molina), a molecular biologist (Marg Helgenberger) and an empath (Forest Whitaker).
I developed a bad attitude toward "Species" for years due to Roger Ebert's scathing review, but changed my mind upon giving it an openminded viewing. This is a top-of-the-line sci-fi/adventure/horror flick. People look down on it because of the nudity and mild sex scenes, which prompts them to disdain it as exploitive and trashy. While Natasha Henstridge is a good-lookin' woman, she doesn't do anything for me (she's not my type) so I was able to totally overlook this element and focus on the film's other attributes.
For one, the score by Christopher Young is excellent. Secondly, the A-list cast is a highlight and their characters are increasingly fleshed-out in the story. Lastly, while people understandably write-off the movie as a Grade B plot with Grade A production, there's more here than meets the eye. For instance, Sil is the innocent pawn of the extraterrestrials who sent the DNA. Another example is the excellent character of Dan (Whitaker) whom whiners complain about as "always pointing out the obvious" when the movie shows over and over that he DOES know things the others don't and they ignore him to their own peril. Dan is necessary so that the team knows what direction the creature takes on repeated occasions; without Dan we'd see them pursue one boring dead-end after another.
While snobby film critics love to hate "Species" it's a thoroughly entertaining sci-fi adventure with an interesting moral and a great cast of characters. If you like films like "Alien," "Aliens," "Terminator," "Terminator 2" and "Predator" you'll probably appreciate it. It may not be as good as "Aliens," "Terminator" and "Terminator 2," but it's on par with "Alien" (and marginally better IMHO) and superior to "Predator." Then again, it depends on what you want in a sci-fi blockbuster. As far as I'm concerned, "Species" delivers the goods.
The film runs 108 minutes and was shot in the areas of Los Angeles and Brigham City, Utah.
GRADE: A-
***SPOILER ALERT*** (Don't read further unless you've seen the movie)
The theory is postulated by the mercenary and biologist that the alien DNA was sent as a biological weapon, a "weed killer" from outer space to wipe out the galactic weed of earth or, more accurately, the human race that inhabits it. It's a fascinating concept and the film compellingly realizes it.

Good watch, would watch again, and can recommend.
This was a hit movie at the time, and other than the Xenos design, I'd say it is still a pretty good movie. The "anti-Jaws" approach of showing the monster off is really cool as the premise is largely how detailed and dangerous the xenos is, but the approach removes a lot of the suspense in the hunting and subterfuge, almost humanizing her as "hunted by the evil government entity".
While it would be a much different, and arguably better, movie to do something more like "The Thing", that she only has one human mask sorts of outs her, making it more like a spy movie, and I think they did really well with that in mind.
It just lacks the level of nuance and hidden information that spy and thriller movies tend to have.
It's much closer to "Aliens" than "Alien".

Gabriel Byrne is "Reagan", the enforcer for the pretty ruthless mob kingpin "Leo" (Albert Finney). He is caught in the middle of a battle between his boss and the man who would take his place "Caspar" (John Polito) over the antics of a rogue bookie "Bernie" (the scene-stealing John Turturro) who also happens to be the brother of "Verna" (Marcia Gay Harden) - the girlfriend of Leo, oh - and the mistress of "Reagan" too. "Reagan" tries to be a bit of an honest broker between them all, but when his efforts fail, he is cast aside by his former boss and left to fend for himself... On the face of it, this is just a run-of-the-mill gangster film. People are killed and the vicious circle of revenge continues. Quite cleverly, though, the Coen brothers have done quite a bit to present more complex characters and to give the plot a little more quirkiness - and that makes this an interesting two hours to watch. Finney's accent is a bit hit or miss, and I'm afraid Byrne just isn't a strong enough actor to carry his substantial part so well - he is no Edward G. Robinson or George Raft, but this is still a superior delve into the murky world of organised crime that does bear watching.

The answer my friend is a hat blowing in the wind.
The Coen brothers craft a loving homage to gangster pictures of yore with splendid results. Essentially the plot has Gabriel Byrne as a good - bad guy caught between two rival gangster factions. It's a standard story line that is still providing cinematic water for many a film maker these days, but shot through the Coen prism, with literary astuteness holding court, it's a genre piece of considerable class. A picture in fact that gets better and better with further viewings.
When the Coen's are on form they have the skills to make a grade "A" thriller and blend it with a sort of dry irony. It's like they bite the hand that feeds whilst praising said genre influences to the rafters, but it works as damn fine entertainment. On a narrative level Miller's Crossing molds the byzantine with the labyrinthine, keeping the complexities just on the right side of the street from that of art for arts sake.
Visually the film is superb, the hard working sweat of the city dovetails impudently with the mother nature beauty of Miller's Crossing the place, a place home to misery, a witness to the dark side of man. All the while Byrne, Albert Finney, John Turturro and Jon Polito bring an array of characterisations to the party, each one his own man but each craftily proving the folly of man. Marcia Gay Harden, in one of her first mainstream roles, slinks about making the two main boys sweaty, and wonderful she is as well. While Carter Burwell provides a musical score that has a smug (in a good way) self awareness about it.
Style over substance? Yes, on formative viewings it is. But go back, look again, see and sample what is not being said. Pulpers and noirers will I'm sure get the gist. 8/10

You'd have thought that after the antics of "Jason" first time around, the last thing anyone with a brain would want to do is open a new camp next door to that site! Well, yes - a mere five years later that's precisely what happens. A camp for trainee counsellors is established and it isn't long before there are a few too many meals going begging at the end of the day. Could "Jason" have survived? Is he back on his murderous trail again? Well sadly, that is the extent of the jeopardy here as the story now falls rather neatly into some rather predictable tram lines with a before, middle and ending - except the latter is clearly just a comma, rather than a full stop. The jump moments might have been more effective had the cast been more convincing, but all the yelling and hysteria - even in the dark and eerie woods - fails to engender any sense of peril, It's just annoying and the score from Harry Manfredi doesn't really help much either. Betsy Palmer reprises her role as "Mrs Voorhees" as does Adrienne King as "Alice" but they don't really add much and by the midpoint I was bored. This is just a sequel nobody really needed.

Since I already watched the first film last month, decided in celebration of the day, re-watched Part 2 and still highly entertaining though pretty tame by today's standards. Thought the cast was also a bit better than the first. Still has scenes that make little sense (how exactly did Jason find Alice?) but was fun nevertheless. **3.75/5**

***Serious retread of the first film with some differences***
I'm fan of the "Friday the 13th" franchise even though I’m not a gorehound and only occasionally watch slasher flicks. It has nothing to do with nostalgia since I didn't become a fan until I I saw 1985's "Friday the 13th Part V: A New Beginning" on TV one night. I think I like these movies because they typically involve young people in a fun camp-type environment in the woods; the presence of an unstoppable killer, who increasingly becomes a hideous monster over the course of the series, adds an air of danger and suspense. Include scores of gorgeous females and various filming locations around North America and you have a fabulously entertaining franchise.
Released in 1981, one year after the first film, "Part II" is basically a retread with different characters, a different killer and a different camp on the same lake, not far from "Camp Blood," i.e. Camp Crystal lake. In reality, the film was shot on an entirely different location; specifically Kent, Connecticut.
It's interesting how none of the films were shot at the same location even though, typically, the location in the story is the general vicinity of Camp Crystal Lake. The locations of the films in the series include northern New Jersey (I), Connecticut (II), Southern Cal (III, IV, V & IX), Georgia (VI), Alabama (VII), British Columbia (VIII & XI), New York City (VIII), Toronto (X & XI) and Texas (XII).
It's the camp-like settings of most of the franchise and the unrelenting monster that is Jason Voorhees that especially sets "Friday the 13th" apart from similar franchises.
Concerning the tone, the first two films are serious in nature with the expected antics of youths on vacation in the woods, but the series introduced a campy element in Part III, which plagued several subsequent entries (V, VI, IX & X) until the reboot in 2009. Not that I'm complaining much, as these films are only quasi-believable anyway; still, I prefer the serious tone. Speaking of which, the only thing questionable about the first film, as far as realism goes, is how the killer is able to throw an adult corpse through a window or hang a body from a door, etc. But I suppose these things can be attributed to the powerful psycho Voorhees gene (or the demon thing disclosed in 1993’s “Jason Goes to Hell”).
Many people find these films scary and shocking and the first two movies have some chilling atmospherics, some of the others as well, but, with the exception of the 2009 reboot, I don't find these movies particularly scary. They're sometimes creepy, sometimes suspenseful, sometimes exciting and always fun & entertaining, but not scary. In fact, I usually bust out laughing at the inevitable death scenes. There are numerous jump-scares, of course, but that's not what I'm talking about.
Part II doesn't overstay its welcome at a mere 87 minutes. It introduces the adult Jason Voorhees, but he's noticeably smaller in stature and more human than in later sequels. A couple of times the main protagonist, Ginny (Amy Steel), is able to deter him fairly easily (like opening a car door or kicking him in the groin). Speaking of Ginny, she's a fine heroine in the manner of Alice in the first film and Pam in Part V. Kirsten Baker plays the requisite hottie, Terry, and the filmmakers don’t fail to highlight her beauty. Unfortunately, the ambiguity of the ending is inexplicable.
GRADE: A-
(If you wonder why I rate a film like this so highly, I'm grading it according to what it is: a slasher flick. No genre is beyond redemption or above contempt and this one delivers the goods).

_Friday the 13th_ creators couldn't have known what they were about to unleash in the now-infamous Jason Voorhees, and even though _Part 2_ is certainly not the strongest example of the character, it was the first time we got to really see him do his thing, and that's huge.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._