**A war hero who turned a police officer struggles with his departmental feud.**
It is a strange title. In the narration as well it does not properly reveals, more like an approximate count of something. It is a Russian story, I mean the Russian characters and the locations. It begins after the world war two, in Moscow, a top police officer caught between the departmental politics and a case. After the his investigation ended without a result, the sacked officer gets a lifeline to begin again life in another town. But the trouble follows him when he started to investigate the children's deaths. The result of the case brings the end to the tale with a tiny small twist.
The actors were decent, not very impressive. Especially I understand since it was internationally produced, they preferred English language, but I would have liked it in the original language to get best appeal. It was too long film, the first half was very boring. Because it was most unrelated to what comes in the later part of the film. When the narration shifts its base out of the Moscow, that's where it really gets very interesting. So after first 60 minutes, the real story begins.
This where the actors got better. Noomi Rapace and Tom Hardy, both were like the kicked off with full of energy. So the second half of the film makes it watchable. Directed by a 'Easy Money' filmmaker who also brought in his Swedish actors to play the smaller roles. It was not good as I expected, but ended well. I don't think it is worth a watch, but who knows what you like. So I neither recommend nor reject it. But it was an average film to me.
_5/10_

**The flea, the flay and an offspring.**
It's shocking to find how much this film was underrated. Certainly it is not a fairytale like from the Disney production. That mean not for the children, but for the adults. Based on the collections of tales by some 17th century Italian poet. All the tales blended together so well, You won't even feel the familiarity with the original tale, because the modifications were at its best. So I appreciate the writer first, and then the director, followed by the actors.
Since the film has a multiple story narrative layer, like three, the opening and the ending was common to all. But soon after the initiative, the tales go separate ways with its own twists and turns and conclusion, till again falling back in the line to finish it off the film. First a royal couple tend to do anything to have their own child. After many years, having no luck with the pregnancy, they now follow the instruction given by a necromancer. The result is most certain, but not without a negative effect.
The desperate couple sacrifices greater to have a child. The remaining story takes place in the few years later where a royal born child and his mother have differences. A fresh complication arises that puts the mother again in a tight spot. How it is going to be solved narrated in the following parts.
In the second story, the king of a hill castle is obsessed with his new insect pet. That leads him to neglect his own daughter who is dreaming of getting married and have a great life. But the things are not going well between father and daughter with her mother's absence. When the king comes to realise that, he comes with an agenda to achieve two things in one shot. That does not please his daughter, and soon she ends up in the hands of an ogre. The remaining is to tell us what happens to her in a thrilling way.
This is the story of a father's responsibility. If his wife was alive, their daughter would have been taken care at best. Compared to the others, this tale gets more exciting and edgy, even the locations. Of course they have used blue/green screens, but still beautiful like the one from the top of the castle scene. I liked the casting for this, particularly the princess part.
> "The equilibrium of the world must be maintained."
The third tale is about a lustful king. One day when he hears a woman singing in a beautiful voice, the next minutes he lands on her home's front door, not knowing the woman is aged and has the wrinkle skin. But she and her sisters play along hiding behind the door and asks for a favour in order to win them back, I mean one of them. So how the rest of the story develops and who gets what, followed by a twist, it comes to an end.
It is a spectacular film. But not visually as the fairy tales told in the present Hollywood films. Particularly, it minimised the computer related special effects. So it was more realistic, yet you will get that fantasy feel with how the tales shape up. It's a black comedy, and that's an absolutely well done part. You know designing the dark humours are not an easy task and this film has three layers, though not all of them has them. The conclusions were so perfect, reminds us the happy and sad are the parts of our life.
Over two hours long film, there's no drag in the narration. The length is because of the three tales and each one was narrated with a pretty good pace. But still it gives the impression the film is slow and that's for being silent like less background score in the most of the parts. From Salma Hayek to Toby Jones, Vincent Cassel, all were so good. The casting was the advantage for the film to shape up well. Since it is an international project, that will help the global audience to their comfort.
The director's first English language film and I think I'm going to keep an eye on his future projects. Certainly I have not seen such film like this, not in the todays cinema. The film was like in the old days. It does not deliver a couple of quick jokes and/or breathtaking visual effects, but the depth of the tale was good. The writers, director did not hesitate to add extra minutes to get what they wanted. I would have liked it if another layer of the tale was included and extended for another 30 or more minutes. For the grown ups, I suggest it not to miss, you won' get a film like this often.
_8/10_

Click here for a video version of this review: https://youtu.be/GDnLyf2Dr18
When it first came out in 2004 _Super Size Me_ was a hit due to its simple concept and exposé of the fast food industry, specifically McDonalds. To refresh your memory about this documentary classic, here is the official description:
_Morgan Spurlock subjects himself to a diet based only on McDonald's fast food three times a day for thirty days without exercising to try to prove why so many Americans are fat or obese. He submits himself to a complete check-up by three doctors, comparing his weight along the way, resulting in a scary conclusion._
It is a pretty straightforward documentary, Spurlock films himself eating McDonald's for a month and intercuts this with doctor's visits, information on the fast food industry and McDonald's as a company, and conversations with various health professionals. One of the stand out parts for me was when he paid a visit to a school showed the rubbish the kids were being served, and the reaction of the school administrators was interesting. One tried to justify it and laugh it off, whereas one of the ladies from the kitchen was quite resigned to having to serve up this stuff to the kids. She even says something along the lines of "the kitchen tool we use here the most is a box cutter to open this stuff up". Spurlock doesn't just leave it at that, he shows another school that serves healthy lunches to its students for around the same price, to show that it can be done.
Throughout, Spurlock doesn't put his own spin on things, but relies on the information presented to speak for itself. The physical effects his diet had were quite shocking. It is by far not a scientific experiment or approach, but it does show what effect regular long term consumption of fast food can have on your body. As such it is a useful reminder of information we already know. Heck, we knew it back then, and if anything, the consumption of junk of shows no signs of slowing down.
I enjoyed watching this again, and definitely think its worth checking out if its been a while since you saw it. In fact with a sequel now out, perhaps this is a great time for a second look.

I thought Ferdia Shaw did fine as the eponymous character here. Sadly, the rest of it falls well short. He's the son of his namesake father who lives amidst the grandeur of "Fowl Manor" assisted by "Dom" (Nonso Anozie). His dad (Colin Farrell) regularly heads off on long, mysterious, trips and it is whilst on one such journey that the young man is issued with an ultimatum or face never seeing his pa again. An all-powerful gizmo must be found and it's in their house somewhere. Can he find it in time? Turns out that he isn't the only person looking for it. It was originally stolen from the fairies and so the pointy-eared, menacing, "Commander Root" (Dame Judi Dench) has despatched "Short" (an engaging effort from Lara McDonnell) to seek it out and retrieve it. Though the visual effects are lively enough, the adaptation of the story here is all a bit of a mess. The narration (Josh Gad) is little short of irritating; Dame Judi (and her seriously ropey Irish accent) just doesn't work at all well and the pace of the thing is all just too messy and rushed. We never really get to know any of the folks here, nor have much chance to explore the underlying mythology that gave the book that added spice. It's not terrible, and for younger kids might just have enough pyrotechnics and colour to divert complete boredom, but given the resources available for this film, it's really little better than a shallow CGI-fest that really doesn't do Sir Kenneth Branagh much credit at all.

Rubbish.
There's really not anything good about 'Artemis Fowl', except for the decent score perhaps. The premise is terrible and poorly told, not helped by the fact it takes itself pretty seriously for much of the 95 minute run time. The pacing is off, while the effects are meh.
The cast don't work any wonders. Nothing personal against Ferdia Shaw but he isn't good in the lead role, I thought his age-mate Lara McDonnell did alright as Holly though. I like Josh Gad but his role here is bad, his narration is particularly ropey. Judi Dench's Julius is irritating too, while Colin Farrell and Nonso Anozie are underused.
A big misfire, unfortunately. Not the worst film I've ever seen though. They openly set up a sequel at the end, which I'd imagine won't be happening given the reaction to this - a situation like 2007's 'The Golden Compass' potentially.

In today’s lecture titled “When Disney Films Go Wrong,” I present “Artemis Fowl,” a wholly unredeemable mess of a movie from director Kenneth Branagh. The studio dumped this trash heap on Disney+, and even the home streaming platform is far more than it deserves. There’s very little magic in this CGI-heavy family film, and it’s more of a yawn-fest than the engrossing adventure it obviously aspired to be.
Based on the first two books in author Eoin Colfer’s wildly popular children’s fantasy series, “Artemis Fowl” tells the ho-hum story of adolescent criminal genius Artemis (Ferdia Shaw), an annoying kid who captures vicious fairy Holly Short (Lara McDonnell) at her underground world in an attempt to harness the magical powers needed to rescue his dad (Colin Farrell). There isn’t much more to the plot than this, and the whole thing reeks of a grossly subpar “Harry Potter” rip-off. Even the story’s narrator, the oversized dwarf Mulch Diggums (Josh Gad), is a dead ringer for Hagrid.
The cast ranges from irritating and distracting (Shaw, McDonnell) to really talented actors who probably should’ve known better than to accept their roles for a Disney payday (Farrell, Gad, Judi Dench).
The movie gets progressively worse as it sputters along and, just when you think the film can’t sink any lower, a fabulously “wtf?!?” scene arrives where Diggums unhinges his jaw, scoops up dirt at a rapid pace, and poops it right on out of his rear end.
To be honest, I’d rather have watched that scene on a loop for the full 94 minutes rather than this substandard junk.

I think that maybe if I had never read any of the Artemis Fowl books, then I would merely hate this movie. But I have read them, and that makes it even worse.
There are multiple characters in this movie who are doing a bad Cookie Monster voice, and the character with the worst voice of them all (Josh Gagrid) is also the narrator somehow? A decision which was both 100% unnecessary and 1000% annoying. As I stated, I read the books, but I want to be clear that I don't believe this movie is just a bad adaptation of that series, it is, stand-alone, pure fucking nonsense. Nothing in this movie is good, obviously, but nothing in this movie is even... an event. There is no throughline or followable plot or engagement between the characters and the audience or each other. I loathed almost every single moment of _Artemis Fowl_ and I don't want to spend any more time talking about it.
_Final rating:½ - So bad it’s offensive. I may never fully recover._

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
One of the most delayed movies ever, Artemis Fowl, went through severe production issues. Its plans started in 2001 (!), and only almost twenty years later it’s being released… in a streaming service. Several directors and writers passed through this project, but Kenneth Branagh, Conor McPherson, and Hamish McColl are the poor souls that decided to stick around. I’m not going to extend this review more than what it needs to. This is one of the worst films Disney has ever released, live-action or animated!
I have no knowledge of the source material, so I can’t give my opinion about if it’s loyal to it or not. However, I can write that it’s a shocking, genuinely horrible adaptation of a book saga that I know holds an immense fandom. I’m so baffled at how bad this is that I don’t even know where to start. I absolutely despise criticizing young kids’ performances, especially when it comes to debuts like Ferdia Shaw’s. But, in this case, I can’t avoid it. I feel extremely sorry for Shaw, but his performance is truly embarrassing, not only due to his emotionless, bland expressions, but also the cinematography and editing.
Shaw spends the whole movie simply reading his line, and waiting for someone else to feed him the next one. I hate to write this, but it’s one of the worst debuts from a young actor I’ve ever seen. Nevertheless, it’s not all Shaw’s fault. The script is atrocious in every level, and for some reason, Haris Zambarloukos (DP) and Matthew Tucker (editor) keep the camera on the kid for way too long. Throughout the whole runtime, Shaw finishes his line, and the camera stays on him for extra seconds, waiting for the late cut, while Shaw’s flawed acting is vulnerable.
The screenplay and the lack of a coherent story are the worst aspects of all, though. As someone who had no idea about who Artemis Fowl was, how the worlds of humans and fairies worked, and what the rules of this fictional universe were, I ended the film confused and blown away by the messy structure. Josh Gad (Mulch Diggums) spends the entire movie narrating the events with the most awkward, growly voice, and Judi Dench (Commander Root) follows the same strategy. The amount of heavy-handed exposition brutely forced into these ninety-four minutes is absurd for a flick supposed to start a new film saga.
Every single line of dialogue resembles some sort of announcement like new information has been discovered, even when it’s not. The narrative structure is chaotic and tries to compact so much world-building that it’s impossible to care for a single storyline or character. For the first half of the movie, I had no clue what it was about. There’s a massive MacGuffin at the center of everything, a villain (?) who the film tells nothing about, and so many subplots jumbled together in a desperate attempt at making the whole movie make sense.
The editing is choppy as hell, the action sequences are hilariously bad with surprisingly dated CGI, and even the score (which might be the only decent component of this whole thing) makes a few scenes even worse. There’s also a side story featuring Lara McDonnell (Officer Short) that’s also poorly explored, but it’s far more captivating than anything remotely close to Artemis. The latter is such an uninteresting character, one who I didn’t care for a single second. I honestly can’t figure out how Disney was able to put this out.
Artemis Fowl is one of the worst feature films Disney has ever created, without a single doubt. There’s absolutely no redeeming quality about it. As much as it hurts me to write this, Ferdia Shaw delivers one of the worst young performances I’ve ever witnessed, but the embarrassment is shared by everyone involved in this atrocious mess of a movie. It’s genuinely baffling how bad it is. It holds an appalling screenplay, packed with annoyingly explicit exposition, ridiculous voice-over (sorry Josh Gad), and an excruciatingly massive amount of information that couldn’t be fit in a three-hour runtime, let alone such a short one like this. No storyline is explored nor executed properly, no character is close to being remotely interesting, every action sequence is a visual disaster, and the attempts at comedy fall incredibly flat. Technically, it’s as shameful as the rest: choppy editing, flawed cinematography, and surprisingly cheap VFX. The only minor positive might be Lara McDonnell, whose performance I think is pretty decent, but I cannot recommend this colossal misfire.
Rating: F

_"If anyone orders Merlot, I'm leaving. I am NOT drinking any fucking Merlot"_
As I get older, I have realized that this movie is written really well. Paul Giamatti and Thomas Haden Church have a hilarious chemistry and I can't help but agree with Miles a few times. I wish I loved wine like Miles does, but I do love hearing him describe each one with a passion.

**Texas Chainsaw’s big twist asked the audience to make an absurd leap that most will not be willing to make.**
I mean… it’s a Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie, so you know what you’ll get. In some ways, I liked it more than some of the others, but the twist that Leatherface is a wronged victim was just dumb. The lead character finds out she is cousins with Leatherface and sympathizes and begins to care for him as his guardian? After he brutally sawed one of her friends in half in front of her? After he tried to murder her? After he got her boyfriend killed and cut pieces from her best friend? I mean, I don’t expect much from these movies, but that is a leap I just can’t make with you. Just stick with the chainsaw maniac being a bad guy and not a misunderstood vigilante.

**Make way for Uma!**
The 103rd Disney Channel Original Movie. A sequel to the 2015 film of the same name. One of the most expected film, at least for a television film and by the Disney fans. And the children. I am not one, but ever since I was young, I loved Disney films and never stopped, yet. Especially after the massive hit song, 'Ways to be Wicked', the countdown for July 21st had began. So here we are!
The first film was unexpected. I did not think it would work, but it did. Seeing from some fresh perspective, particularly the new generation of classic villains really brought a modern day flavour for the fantasy genre. BUT, this part was not as good as the previous one. An enjoyable film, no doubt on that, it had some decent moments. Yet what's really missing was the COMEDY. The original had lots of fun, whereas this film became more serious. Obviously it's still fall under PG. So in my opinion, the children might find it fun to watch than the grownups.
From the same director, who had helmed many films for Disney Channel. A decent graphics too, which did not required in the big scale, excluding in the climax. Visually, that part was acceptable, but I expected a bit more spectacular. An average story. It is mostly about a rescue mission, that takes place equally at Auradon and Isle of the Lost. From all, Uma's big entry marks this film. So it is more like a clash of the villains, where the heroes are sidelined with a limited scope.
As always, Mal led the entire film. Apart from her education, she's now more a Auradonian by appearance with a big makeover. Though, her relationship with Ben has been tested. And following that, the heartbroken Mal returns home. The real action-adventure began when Ben got into a trouble while pursuing his love. So the gang of the good villains and the bad ones had no choice, but to battle it out with all their strength. And with a small twist, the issue was resolved, revealing who ended where.
> ❝You can stick a tiara on a villain, but you're still a villain.❞
Truly it was like watching some Indian film, mainly because of the colours. Yep, it was enchanting with those colours, as it could be costumes or the backgrounds and settings, but I loved it. It makes the teen girls envious. Only if it has a better screenplay, would have been an even better flick. The performances were wonderful. The old cast was good as always. And the new ones had granted the film to get more powerful. Especially I'm talking about Uma, the daughter of Ursala, a sea witch from 'The Little Mermaid'.
The film opened with the YouTube hit song that I mentioned earlier. There are like ten songs and all were good that nearly covered the one-third of the film. Setting in different mood and place and with the characters, really it was well done on the musical side of the film. Crucially, none of them were annoying, because of placed in the right segment of the storyline. Usually I'm not the fan of modern musicals, but this was good, especially having short and sweet tracks.
This is not simply a fantasy film that of the two decades ago. It borrowed the present world technology, like the 3D printing concept. That thing had some important role in the story segment. But when the dog could speak, it was like going back to the classic like in the animation. By the way I felt like there's some connection between Dude the dog and 'Dog with a Blog'. So there were some brief ups and downs, but the entire film rode on just over the average.
It was telecasted simultaneously in all the sub-Disney networks, as well as worldwide in other kid's networks. So it is now the second most watched DCOM of all time. This ending was not perfect, yet opened the gate for possible widening its cast even bigger if there will be a third. As to how it was received, I don't see the Disney thinking to put a brake to the potential franchise. In my opinion, it might become the longest film series for Disney Channel, which could drag for coming decades. So, dear Disney, lets us know when's the next one's due. Meantime, you keep updated with the first two if you haven't seen them yet. Who knows, it might surprise you, but surely for your kids.
_6/10_

This is a great looking film depicting the abject poverty, despite their best efforts, of a subsistence farming community in Malawi. The cinematography is glorious as we follow the Kamkwamba family's struggles to educate their children and feed themselves at the same time - in the face of some pretty brutal government corruption and a severe drought. Son "William" (Maxwell Simba) is thirteen, and he has more than an average degree of nouse to him - he concludes, after studying a few engineering books in his school's library - that by cannibalising an old bike and an old ghetto-blaster, he can create a turbine mechanism that could be used to generate electrical power to pump water and help them to improve their harvest, and their lives... Chiwitel Ejiofor is his rather sceptical father, struggling under the pressures of keeping his family alive and the two have quite a forceful battle of wills as the young man attempts to convince his father that sacrificing the family's only mode of transport is a risk worth taking! I found the establishing parts of the story a bit too slow; once I understood the extent of their predicament and what the young man was trying to do, I was itching for him to succeed - and the behaviour of the father I found irritating and incongruous, slightly, with a man so keen on educating his family. That said, once it starts to focus on the project, I was astonished by the ingenuity of "William" and his young student friends as they materially change the lives of their famines for ever. It's a good film this - a try triumph of optimism over experience that I largely enjoyed watching.

When a young Amish boy "Samuel" (Lukas Haas) and his mum "Rachel" (Kelly McGillis) take a trip from their rural, largely agrarian, community into the big city he gets a little more than he bargained for - he witnesses the brutal murder of an undercover cop. The police decide the best way to protect him is to send him home to his family, accompanied by "John Book" (Harrison Ford), whist they await the trial. The perpetrators are on the hunt for him though, and it soon becomes clear that there is someone from within the investigation working with the baddies to track down and eliminate the witness. As an introduction to the lifestyle of this community, Peter Weir offers us quite an insightful assessment of a pacifist, technology free, society trying to live cheek by jowl with the relentless march pf progress and the teasing intolerance of their occasionally provocative neighbours. That they are wholly underprepared for what is coming when the location of the young lad is discovered, is an understatement - and this adds a great deal to the edginess of this thriller, as does the cunning game of cat and mouse amongst the grain silos at the end. There's romance too - as "Book" gradually falls for "Rachel" much to the chagrin of "Daniel" (Alexander Gudunov) which keeps the narrative progressing, albeit slowly, on that front, too. The script doesn't give Ford too much latitude when it comes to charisma - indeed, his characterisation is really rather dull and coupled with the serious paucity of verbiage from McGillis does hold the pace back for quite long chunks of the film. The years have not been especially kind to this - it has become more of a curio than any sort of gripping crime drama, but is still worth watching - and the 9 year old Hass is really rather impressive.

**An action film mixed with a guided tour of an Amish community.**
Here in Portugal, there are few religions other than the Catholic Church and there are no Amish, Mennonite or similar communities. Therefore, this curious religious community is an object of fascination for me and also of renunciation: to explain further, I radically disagree with their religious conceptions, I would never be part of such a religious congregation and, however, I find it fascinating, in today's world, the idea of trying to have a simpler life, without excessive technology and in greater harmony with the natural rhythm. It would be a lifestyle that I wouldn't mind trying, even though I knew I would have difficulty adapting and living without access to the technologies that I work and entertain myself with.
In this film, we follow a police officer who, upon discovering a case of corruption in the ranks, finds himself on the verge of having to disappear to avoid being killed and to protect the only witness to a crime in which another police officer was murdered: an Amish boy who lives with his mother, a widow, and his maternal grandfather, in an isolated rural area that is not very receptive to visits from “the English” (as some of them call to the normal people in this film). In the midst of all this, the film shows us the habits, beliefs and customs of these strict religious communities who, out of appreciation for humility and simplicity, renounced everything that could be a luxury and live stoically from subsistence agriculture.
I won't go into considerations about the verisimilitude of the plot, but I believe that the script made an effort to create a convincing and reasonable story that we can believe in. It won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay, which means something. What I can say is that, although the film is engaging, there are aspects that could be improved: the identity of the killers and villains could be kept a mystery for longer and, on the other hand, their motivations don't seem clear enough for me. Another aspect that was not clear was the fate of the young Amish widow's husband. The tension created between her and the congregation's elders could have been better explored, as well as the community's acceptance/rejection of the police officer.
Directed by Peter Weir, the film had serious difficulties in finding a studio willing to commit money to the project, and did not have great support from the Amish community, which not only rejects the capture of images but also fears being invaded by crowds of curious, eager of souvenirs and photographs. Technically, the film is exceptional: in addition to the good cinematography, excellent editing (another Oscar that won) and good action scenes, we have good sets and costumes, which perfectly recreate the environment in which the Amish live, and their simple ways of living. Negative note: Kelly McGillis's nude scene, in addition to being out of place in the film, doesn't fit into the story and seems gratuitous.
After many fantastic and sci-fi films, Harrison Ford got a different work, in a style that he would invest heavily in over the following decades: the action hero, with a pistol in hand and willing to do anything to save the day. The actor seems to be completely at ease with the task and gives us excellent work, fully deserving the Oscar nomination for Best Actor. Kelly McGillis doesn't do so well, but she does what needs to be done and doesn't deserve a negative rating. Danny Glover is a convincing villain.

My Fiance is a Millennial and I've been trying to get her and her friends to watch some classic films. Some, Taxi Driver, Chinatown, The Godfather, Godfellas, The Princess Bride, Blazing Saddles were epic fails for a variety of reasons.
Witness actually stood the Millennial taste test for some reason, and this is significant because it is really hard to get them to watch or listen to anything that is older than 4 years.
That says something, I'm not sure what, but it was a film that they actually sat through.
It is also one of the tightest scripts Hollywood has produced, which is saying something since it was released in 1985 following almost a decade of the best movies that Hollywood has ever produced.
It's pure story, and that story is backed up with acting and directing making for a beautiful picture all around.

As 80s thrillers go it's pretty smart to say the least.
The formula of this thriller (Drama) is not (was) new or even flag bearing as regards action set pieces and hide behind your hands suspense, yet it is still one of a kind for the genre and the decade it came from.
The plot is a sizzler as it involves the central theme of outsiders who are considered outside of the mainstream norm. To have a thriller involving the Amish community not only brings into focus how different folks' beliefs can be, but to also hit home at just how ignorant many are to the ways of minorities and what they stand for. So many great things about the movie stand out.
Harrison Ford is perfect, yes it's a perfect performance, his John Book is gruff and rugged yet as the story moves on he nails the endearment and knowing traits that the character calls for. Kelly McGillis is an actress who I feel drags down nearly all the films she leads in, yet here I forgive her because she is marvellous as Rachael, an Amish woman fighting her inner feelings as much as she is the bad outside world that wants to hurt her son.
Peter Weir IMHO is one of the most under praised modern day directors around (yes even now), and here his deft hands put the story together adroitly, whilst John Searle's cinematography is gorgeous and out of the top draw. It's an almost perfect movie as regards acting and the process of making a film, I do however fly in the face of popular opinion as regards the score, it doesn't work for me (I'm sad to say), Maurice Jarre's drawn out synth seems to me out of place for the setting we are watching, I personally would have liked a more subtle string arrangement - but that is me...
For those looking for a first time viewing in the Drama/Thriller genre then they can do no worse than seek this one out. It delivers on a plot front, and the ending doesn't pander to studio yearnings either. 9/10
The S/E DVD has a wonderful making of feature that is crammed full of quality input, and for Ford worshippers such as I, it contains none aloof input from the legend himself, that alone was worth the 5 Euros it cost me for this cracking film.

I guess someone at Canon sat down and said "You know what, there are not enough movies about arm wrestling out there, we can pin the market on it." And they kind of did, I have never seen a movie about arm wrestling since... or before. In fact, this is the only one.
But, it also as a decent soundtrack in an 80s action flick kind of way. And, it tells a good story about a kid trying to re-connect with his father, who is a truck driver... and an arm wrestler.
And it manages to do it all in a very entertaining way, given the fact that it's about what a sport that you would think could only be boring, but the film manages to make look exciting... and I still have no idea how they did it using really nothing but a montague, and a typical 8os montage at that.
But, hey, it actually works, so take that where you will... and watch it, because it's really a lot better than anyone would think.

Listen, you moron! I am here to stay and if you don't wanna be in my life, you've got two choices. Move out or Ring out! That's it! End of File!
G.I. Jane is directed by Ridley Scott and written by David Twohy and Danielle Alexandra. It stars Demi Moore, Vigo Mortensen, Anne Bancroft, Jason Beghe, John Michael Higgins and Kevin Gage. Music is by Trevor Jones and cinematography by Hugh Johnson.
A female Senator succeeds in enrolling a woman into Combined Reconnaissance Team training (Navy Seals) where everyone expects her to fail.
Having made a telling feminist mark with his excellent Thelma and Louise in 1991, Ridley Scott picks up the lady baton once again only to drop it half way through. This is a film of confused messages, what starts out as a worthwhile story involving a woman trying to overcome extreme prejudices in one of America's elite fighting forces, ends up as a gung-ho hoorah movie with Jane having "manned" up.
Things aren't helped by the sheer ridiculousness of the treatment meted out to Jane by her superior in training, Master Chief John James Urgayle (Mortensen suitably vile), so much so you would like to think if that sort of stuff goes on then arrests should be made. Daftness also comes by way of the superior officers prancing around training camp in the world's tightest shorts, one would think they must be on their way to "The Blue Oyster Bar"...
Things are further compounded by the fact that as committed as Moore is in the title role, and she is and gives it her all, one can't buy into the characterisation because you simply are watching Demi Moore the actress. Shaved head and beefed up she may be, but this is still one of the highest paid actresses of her era, the characterisation thin on the ground with no depth. The political machinations at work barely get time to breath in fact the key mid-point tonal political shift is given short shrift.
Stylisation as one would expect from Scott, is super, as is his control of top draw action sequences. But the cock-eyed view of a woman in a man's world is hard to swallow, and although it mostly entertains, it's ultimately a shallow exercise. 5/10

I don't know what's really going on with Adam Sandler in the recent years, he was actually out of the league for a while from entertaining his fans. All he did was overdose comedies which were below par compared to his earlier movies. I said in 'Blended' review that I'm tired of his movie, but watched it only because of the director. All his films were very impressive and I believed him on this one, more than the Sandler. Otherwise, it would have been undoubtedly a skippable flick.
As expected the movie was good, but not without the flaws, I mean the major ones because there are many unanswered stuffs that leaves viewers go either way from thinking all the possibility to create their own imagination. Hope that's not the case, the writers do not want to be that smart otherwise it will be a messed up movie with having a wonderful theme idea.
Yeah, I liked the concept, but it should have been a bit detail while exploring the story and exhibiting the characters. I still feel it can be covered in the follow-up, so from that perspective, the movie was decent. Especially highlighting one of the social issue was a nice addition, but the portrayal of family affair was a disappointment. It's that kind of story demanded in a like manner, but that does not convince me at all.
From the Adam Sandler's perspective the movie was much better, because of his series of recent fails. At the same time it was a bit letdown from the perspective of the director known for his cool works. Overall, it lays on 50-50, and mostly favours on the positive side because of the narration of the dark comedy in a style. And again, I felt the end was terrible with cliche. I definitely give thumbs up to go for it, even though the loopholes the creative concept draws our attention.
6.5/10

**What is this crap??**
I was quite curious to see this film given that the 1959 version is one of my favorite films, and a film that, much more than a piece of entertainment, is a historical document, a culturally relevant piece, worthy of preservation and memory. When I finished watching it, I was seriously thinking that this could only be a joke or a parody. The 1959 film will remain the definitive version, and if anyone wants something more up-to-date, I can recommend the 2010 TV miniseries.
The film, directed by Timur Bekmambetov, is a piece of garbage. I won't waste my time talking about the script because almost everyone knows the story. What I can, however, say is that this film failed to honor the original material, nor its very noble predecessors in cinema, just for the almost vile way in which it chewed up and hid the original story. If the idea was to give us a new, more action-focused version, it failed to the fullest extent. Gave us a handful of nothing.
Despite the weakness of the material received, Jack Huston deserves a positive note for the way he committed himself and for the way he ensures the leading role. He's not a good actor, but he's the best this movie has to offer. Tobby Kebbell wasn't able to do the same because the actor couldn't stop his character from becoming a soap opera villain. There is more than one character who does not deserve relevance, starting with Ester, and her father Simonides, who is quickly removed from the plot. This couldn't be more incorrect. Morgan Freeman is the most prestigious actor in this project, but that didn't stop him from being absolutely unhappy and from being apathetic and uninterested. Rodrigo Santoro, who gave life to Jesus, is a ham.
Technically, the film has some points in its favor, namely the good settings, which even try, in some moments and situations, to emulate the 1959 film: I felt this obviously when I saw the Hur house, or the circus where the race took place. The circus even has the same fish! All the difference is in realism: the older film spared no effort in creating large-scale sets, and hiring thousands of extras, to grandiose and monumental effect. This film tried to do the same, using only CGI and the infamous green screen. If that worked in some moments, in others it gave the film the appearance of a video game. Even the chariot race, the highlight of the film, is so busy that we can't appreciate everything properly. It sounds like an excerpt from “Fast and Furious”. The cinematography is not happy, either, due to the absence of light and the haphazard way in which it seems to have been directed. The montage and editing is irregular, amateurish. The costumes are ugly, and even out of keeping with the period, most notably Freeman's dreadlocks. The soundtrack is forgettable.

**Booooooring**
As with most major productions, "Ben-Hur (2016)" gets an extra star for production value.
Bad camera, unlikable characters, ugly costumes, this film has it all.
Early on the two brothers are introduced, who will have their biblical vendetta throughout this movie. Clearly the adopted one is supposed to be the bad guy, while the viewer is encouraged to root for the Jew. But questionable decision making of the 'hero' paired with the comical anti-Semitism which permeates America is going to bring the audience over to the side of the scarred underdog, whose name is not in the title.
This movie would have been great, if it had ended with the arrest of the rich fool, who harbored a fanatic in his home and didn't even have the good sense to guard him, or the variety of weapons he kept in open display.
Unfortunately it goes on and on, and no doubt "Ben-Hur" will learn a thing or two about life, love and combat during the 2 hours ordeal. But will that count as character development, and will it sway your favor back to him when he finally mounts his cart and races his brother for the final time? I don't know, you watch this drivel, and you decide.
26 November 2016
I am migrating my reviews from a different site which has become simply garbage. TMDB looks awesome and I look forward to be a part of it.

**They've grown up together and later turned up to each other.**
I had seen the old film and I liked that. So remake means we expect nothing less than a visual spectacular and this film had them at its best, including many more great features, but the real stars are missing. It was a let down without any notable performances. Besides, the idea of upgrading the story was good, though not everyone going to like that. Particularly the one who loved the old film or the versions.
The length is justified. For the kind of story the film narrates, the pace was very good. So for me this is not a bad flick, but just some key features missing like I said the star value. For the first timers, like today's generation, this film might work, but for the others most probably not. And the end was disappointing, because it felt like watching a Disney film that made for children and families.
I think the director of 'Wanted' did his job as it required. Definitely not an unnecessary remake, but should have been careful in the historic events. Overall, it fell short of depth. You won't feel emotions and/or the character's struggle. In the end it became just an entertainment product and if you expect beyond that, you are only responsible for that. So good luck with the watch if you are yet to give it a try.
_5/10_

Last time I watched the Ben-Hur with Charlton Heston the thought did not cross my mind that perhaps the world needed another version of the story directed by the guy who brought us Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter and that weird movie where they make bullets bend.
Anyway, the Heston version is one of my favorite movies. I saw it when I was 8 and two times when I was about 20. I love it and quote it all the time.
But this is not a review of that version because (surprise!) it is not that version. This is a review of the 2016 version and I don't feel it is fair to give this movie a bad rating simply because it was an unnecessary remake. In case you are wondering, this is the sixth version of Ben-Hur.
The story follows Judah Ben-Hur, a Jewish prince in Jerusalem at the time of Christ, and his adopted Roman brother Massala. They love each other but they get in the middle of an attempted assassination on a Roman leader and wind up on opposing sides. They both feel they are in the right, get in a very sticky situation, and thus begins an 5 year journey of survival, revenge, forgiveness.
I liked the movie. The chariot race was thrilling. I was worried about it because the trailer showed a scene which an obvious CGI horse running through the stands. To my delight that was the only part that really used a CGI horse (that I could tell, anyway). The rest of the race was intense even though I already knew how it was going to end.
The movie focuses very heavily on the relationship between Massala and Judah as well as Massala and the rest of the Hur family. Massala's intentions and actions were understandable and he wasn't just some evil man who betrayed his family.
The main actors and actresses do a good (not great) job. I felt Morgan Freeman may have phoned it in a little, but he delivered one of my favorite lines of the movie. My favorite actors were the slave drivers on the galley along with the drummer. They have small roles but I loved them.
I didn't care for the Jesus scenes though. He is a hard character to portray, and I just didn't like it when he spoke. I'm probably picky, but I would have preferred to hear him speak in King James English or not at all (like in the Heston version). I just felt something was off with the scenes and they could have been more powerful.
Overall, I felt it was a pretty good movie that succeeds in many aspects chiefly with the themes of revenge/forgiveness and delivers one exciting race. It's not perfect but a good movie overall.

**In this game, there's no room for any mistake!**
An undercover theme based on the real event. In the 80s when the drug trafficking was so high in the United States that came from the Latin America through the southern border, the US customs service sent its members to infiltrate among them to bust red handed. So this is one of the events where a married man with two children takes a most challenging assignment that might end up badly if he makes a single mistake. In such a tight spot how he and his team are going to achieve the one of a biggest crack in the history revealed in the remaining.
So now we know the story, but this is not an easy game. There are many scenes that would pull you to the edge of your seat. After the wonderful performance in 'Trumbo' that got him an Academy Awards nominee last year, now he's back with another great character display. I'm talking about Bryan Cranson. Another Oscar's nod is quite possible in a second year row, but lets wait and see. This story mainly focused on him, but John Leguizamd was also impressive in an important supporting role and so the Diane Kruger.
I think it was a most realistic undercover film among others I have seen. The drugs were not shown much and so the sex and nudes, despite the plot revolved around that. Even the stunts were minimised, but those rare action sequences were so good. The majority of the film was drama with lots of thrill scenes. The two hours long film, and the story were narrated with a good pace. Not to be missed if you like cops and thieves game.
_8/10_

Tennis pro "Haines" (Farley Granger) is quietly travelling in the club car of a train when his neighbour "Bruno" (Robert Walker) strikes up a conversation. It all seems innocuous enough, the former man is an accomplished player and it seems to him that this is a fan, of sorts, who just wants some company as he drowns his journey in Scotch. What quickly becomes clear from this chat is that both have people in their lives they'd rather be without. "Haines" is married to "Miriam" (Kasey Rogers) but would far sooner be married to senator's daughter "Anne" (Ruth Roman) whilst "Bruno" desperately wants shot of his overbearing father (Jonathan Hale). How about these two complete strangers carry out a cunningly planned murder each that will solve the other's problem? The athlete is having none of this, but when "Bruno" takes matters into his own hands a bit of menacing blackmail rears it's ugly head before the suspicious police start sniffing around and "Haines" finds himself in quite a spot. This is one of Raymond Chandler's better structured stories with quite an intricate series of layers to it - each more perilous for the hapless, lovestruck and out of his depth "Haines". There develops a palpable chemistry between the on-form Walker and Granger who both manage to keep this story compelling as director Alfred Hitchcock turns the screws gently but firmly on both of these characters. It all comes to an head in a fairground where the dazzling lights, highly pitched music and accumulating sense of panic complete a tautly presented and powerfully scored (by Dimitri Tiomkin) drama that looks at human vice, betrayal and temerity. Trains always provide well as conduits for crime thrillers, and with strong, if sparing, support from the likes of Marion Lorne, Leo G. Carroll, Hitch's own daughter Patricia as the meddling "Barbara" and a short cameo from Norma Varden (before she discovered large, ugly, hats) to add some richness - and diversion - to the machinations, then it might just make you very wary of striking up any conversation with any stranger ever again!

The "strangers on a train" are Guy, a successful athlete in an unhappy marriage, and Bruno, an amoral playboy. Bruno suggests a perfect crime whereby Guy can get rid of his wife without being suspected, and he convinces himself that Guy has agreed to it.
Bruno is obviously evil, but what about Guy? Is he is respectable as he claims? Is his wife that bad, or is Guy really a social climber who wants to be rid of his unfashionable spouse in order to acquire a trophy wife? Does he send mix signals to Bruno because he really wants Bruno's plot to succeed? The notion of hidden, shadowy evil is what gives this thriller its power.

Not on the same level as the original, unfortunately.
'Ride Along 2' still isn't anything bad or overly boring, it's possibly worth a single viewing, but there is nothing to remember from the 101 minute run time - which does drag at times. The humour is average.
Kevin Hart (Ben) is probably the best performer here, not so closely followed by Ice Cube (James). Ken Jeong (A.J.) has a few mildly amusing jokes at the beginning, though soon turns into a forgettable character. Olivia Munn (Maya) is meh, while Benjamin Bratt (Pope) is a dull villain. There's a good cameo from a 'Fast & Furious' actor though.
I like 'Ride Along', though its follow-up is disappointingly uninspiring.

> They both are getting closer professionally as well as family.
When I liked the first movie, I wanted a sequel and now they made one for it that I liked even better than the original. I don't think Ice Cube's solo performance could have pulled the crowd in, the impact was because of the Kevin Hart's presence, he really rocks. He's doing some awesome movies lately, and he's the best sidekick and comedian available for now in Hollywood, just like Simon Pegg in England.
Once again a movie is totally underrated, especially by foul mouthed film critics. Trust me, this film is much better than what they say. If you liked the first, you'll surely going to enjoy it as well. I'm confident the rating will recover in the later days once the regular people rent it. A simple follow-up story, but it was the comedy that lifted this film. The two cops soon-to-be bros-in-law goes to Miami on a job, but the case they're working connects with others, so they join the local force to take down the gang behind it.
Who needs a spoof film for it, the movie mocks its own characters by saying 'a low budget Jackie Chan' for Keng Jeong. Apart from the comedies, the action sequences were very impressive. Olivia Munn was a great addition and I believe she would hangouts here for the next. Yep, I want the third movie and I'm hoping it to be even more stylish kick-ass action-comedy. So just retain the director and writers, after the first two films, I got high hope on them.
7/10

Great stuff, I love films like this.
'The Guilty' is a film that takes place at just one location, something that always has the potential to hinder a film's watchability - but when it's done right, there is nothing more engrossing to watch, and this 2018 flick is just that.
I did predict where it was going, but as I always say: predictability in itself is never a negative, for me anyway. I can still appreciate what a film attempts to do and can enjoy seeing the filmmakers pull it off. The whole 90 minutes or so of this is absorbing, it's portrayed superbly throughout - terrific dialogue, editing, sound and, of course, acting.
Jakob Cedergren makes for a top quality lead. A brilliant performance! Given how the film is told, the rest of the cast don't have much to work with so it's very much the Cedergren show - but, still, the likes of Jessica Dinnage, Katinka Evers-Jahnsen and Johan Olsen add to the film positively with their more audible contributions.
I'm fascinated to see how the American remake went of this. I'm a fan of Jake Gyllenhaal's and I think I have seen an image of him next to a red light, which I presume is in fact a shot out of the 2021 retelling. I'm hoping they did something with it similarly to Gyllenhaal's 2011 film 'Source Code', which I adore, but I shall see at some point in the future, hopefully. As for this, I'd highly recommend it!

Absolutely loved it - a "small" but great movie, and best proof that you don't need a big budget to keep an audience glued to the screen and at the edge of their seats. It's basically a room, a man and a telephone, and still manages to tell an intense story (and with a twist). Grim, but still has a few fun moments of relief. Fantastic performance by Jakob Cedergren, who also turned out to be a really nice guy (saw it Zurich Film Festival, and there was a Q&A with him). If you have a chance, go see it!