This is a glorious film to watch on a big screen. It depicts the end of empire and the birth of new ones - and it does it in a spectacularly colourful and stylish fashion. The death of the Empress Dowager sees the toddler Pu Yi ascend the Dragon Throne of China, and live amidst concubines and eunuchs in the Forbidden City. He grows up believing his is a divine right to rule, and it is only upon the arrival of his tutor RJ (Peter O'Toole) and his procurement of spectacles that his eyes begin to be opened to the reality that his kingdom is entirely enclosed within a wall of golden yellow tiles. When this idyll is disrupted by warring events outside, the Emperor (now John Lone) sone finds himself a playboy, married to an opium addict (Joan Chen) and a useful puppet of the manipulative Japanese who have invaded much of his erstwhile realm. WWII arrives, power struggles ensue and the story of his eventual - and rather brutal - reintegration into the newly established Chinese communist society is depicted sensitively and without recourse to too much melodrama or sentiment. The score adds a wonderful richness to what is undoubtedly the star of this - the cinematography. Set inside the splendour of the actual Imperial Palace complex in Peking, we get a wonderful sense of the grandeur, isolation and luxury of life inside this sumptuously decorated collection of marble and brightly painted villas whilst outside, poverty and mysticism reigned more surely than did the occupant of the throne. The costume design is also remarkable - a perfect eye for the detail of the period from the start to the middle of the 20th Century. To be honest, the acting - aside from an engaging performance from the inquisitive and mischievous three year old (Richard Vuu) is all pretty routine. O'Toole features sparingly and doesn't quite fit the bill as the learned and worldly scholar. Lone and Chen are competent but they really only shine a light on the rather stilted dialogue. This isn't really a film about words - it's a film about visuals. It's about history, politics, corruption, betrayal - and even a little bit of love - all encased in a shell of creative elegance. It's wasted on the television - but is certainly one of the best examples of "epic" cinema yet made and Bertolucci has clearly invested a great deal of himself in this beautiful piece of drama. A must see, I'd say.

Recently re-released in glorious 4K (nope, I couldn't tell the difference, either) but, hey - any excuse to see this wonderful crime noir on a big screen again is OK with me. When "Brigid" (Mary Astor) approaches PI "Sam Spade" (Humphrey Bogart) and his partner "Archer" (Jerome Cowan) with a dodgy sounding story about her sister being kidnapped by her older lover, they don't believe a word of it - but $200 (and a bit of a shine to the lady from "Archer") gets them to go through the motions. Well: they were right about one thing - her story was riddled with holes, but not so many as "Archer" becomes, and soon "Spade" and the police are trying to track down/avoid the murderer whilst trying to establish some sort of motive. Enter the stars of the film, for me, anyway - the uber-sleazy "Joel Cairo" (Peter Lorre) and "Gutman" (Sydney Greenstreet), the avuncular gentleman who has most of the pieces of the puzzle and who is as dangerous and devious as he is charming and disarming... Will "Spade" get to the bottom of the mystery before he ends up brown bread? That's where the film falls down a bit - there is precious little jeopardy to the plot; indeed the last fifteen or twenty minutes are just a little disappointing - rushed even. Bogey is superb in the part, though - his portrayal reeks of a wonderful cynic, a seen-it-all-before ground down sort of man who takes his first drink of the day from the same glass he took his last from the day before and Astor is efficient, though not terribly engaging, as the lynchpin upon which much of the film depends. It's 80 years old now - and I still think the use of a strong score from Adolph Deutsch, some wonderfully evocative lighting and effects (it rains quite a lot!) and, of course, a strong cast with a good story, takes some beating.

This is a pretty good movie that ages fairly well, but I do not feel compelled to pour superlatives down over as most reviews do, both critics and regular viewers. The actors look like they are having fun with it and this classic movie is worth watching just because of that. The dialogue, which I like to think is a specialty in my own otherwise unremarkable novels, is excellent.
I had trouble with how blasé Sam Spade seems to be with the bad news he received near the beginning, and how he reacted to it. (He redeemed himself a bit at the end in a passionate little speech about partners). And all the patter about love between Sam Spade and Miss O’Shaughnessey seemed silly to me, as there was never any sign they were connecting and getting closer: never mind they were also plotting each other’s downfall. Personally, Sam, I think your own assistant Effie was cuter, sweeter and a better catch.
But the movie is fun to watch and the mystery solving ending by Mr. Spade is top-notch stuff. The supporting cast is fine. See if you can pick out the guy who played Bert the cabdriver in Its A Wonderful Life (“My mouth’s bleeding, Bert! My mouth’s bleeding!”). And if you look closely, you can see Humphrey Bogart curl his mouth in that way the comic impressionists always exaggerate when they impersonate him.
There is only one Humphrey Bogart.

The cheaper the crook, the gaudier the patter.
Sam Spade is a tough private detective who gets involved in a murderous hunt for The Maltese Falcon, a legendary statuette thought to contain diamonds.
What can I possibly say about this version of The Maltese Falcon that hasn't been said, written and studied by the greatest film critics and industry members before? Well nothing by way of new stuff or a differing slant on the plot, I can merely concur and hopefully jolt prospective first time viewers into believing the reputation afforded this stunning piece of cinema.
First off I have to let it be known that this is far from being my favourite Bogart movie, in fact it's not even my favourite Bogart movie from 1941!, it's well trumped in my affections by "High Sierra", but few films ever get as close to being perfect as "The Maltese Falcon" clearly is. The source from Dashiell Hammett is first rate, and yet it took someone like John Huston (director and screenwriter) to bring it triumphantly together. It had been adapted for the screen twice before with less than favourable results, but Huston, working tightly from Hammett's dialogue driven astuteness, crafts a claustrophobic, shadowy classic amongst classics, that in the process laid the cornerstone for what became known as essential film noir.
You will search in vain for faults here, every scene is as tight as a duck's bottom, not one filler scene is in this picture. The cast are across the board perfect in performances, Bogart (Spade) is peerless, Mary Astor, Peter Lorre, Sydney Greenstreet (film debut) and Elisha Cook Jr. stand out, but every other member of this cast also add something worthwhile. The plot (of which I'm "so" not going to summarise for you) is complex to a degree, but really it all makes sense, you do not need to be Albert Einstein to knit the twisters nicely together. Also don't be fooled into thinking this is a film devoid of humour either, it has deadly wry smirks popping up all over the place, ok so they may be the sort of smirks brought about by devilish unease of admiration, but rest assured they are valid and integral to the pic's classic standing.
I could go on fawning but I really don't need too, The Academy may well have saw fit to not award this picture any awards for 1941, but time is an immeasurable force sometimes, and time now shows that The Maltese Falcon stands proud as not only a titan of cinematic entertainment, but also of technical movie brilliance. 10/10

This is one of the rare and shining examples of film-making at its absolute finest. As close to perfect as you can get in movies, it's a masterpiece not only of its genre, but of all genres, for all time. The ensemble cast headed by the great Humphrey Bogart is spectacular, as is the flawless direction by John Huston. If you're a classic film fanatic, or just a person who enjoys a good movie, then shame on you if you haven't seen this yet.

There is wonderful scene in this film where "Fr. Flynn" (Philip Seymour Hoffman) tries to explain, using feathers, just how wicked gossip can be. He is the victim of such nefarious chatter - but is he guilty? Well "Sister Aloysius" (Meryl Streep) believes so. She sees the father with a student on the street outside the school, then her colleague "Sister James" (Amy Adams) mentions that another, their first young black child "Donald" (Joseph Foster), looked a bit distressed after meeting with the priest in is vestry. She is determined to get to the truth and to be rid of this man. Streep is very convincing here. She portrays a woman who, based on the thinnest of actual evidence, relies on the certainty of her belief to level accusations against the man. Using that certainly, she confronts him imploring confession but is there anything to confess? Hoffman is also effective as a man that I initially had sympathies for - he was, after all, being victimised by his colleague with no evidence from the supposed victims and the first lad - "London" (Mike Roukis) was a distinctly untrustworthy boy. Viola Davis offers just the one principal scene as the affected boy's stoic mother, and that is a potent rationalisation of not just where she felt a young black kid sat on the ladder of society at the time, but also of where she felt the church sat on her own. She is a loving mother conflicted, and this is portrayed with intensity. I wasn't sold on the ending, either way it was unsatisfactory but this is still a well crafted and thought provoking assembly of strong acting talent and a solid story.

Knee-deep in the throes of my first love, I was quite surprised to hear that my lady's favourite movie was 'Joe Versus the Volcano'. (I still haven't seen the film). It dawned on me, when I wanted to check out an American film which, to my knowledge, had a plethora of fine acting, that this was written and directed by the same guy who made that film much earlier. Being raised Christian and hearing in the press over the past few years about misdeeds, especially involving leaders of the Catholic church (represented in films as diverse as 'The Boys of St. Vincent' (John N. Smith, 1992) and 'In Bruges' (Martin McDonagh, 2008), I was especially intrigued by this, his work of more recent vintage.
The ambiguity at the core of the film (and hence the 'doubt') really acts in the movie's favour. The script and direction are both tense and flawless, and the beautiful New York locations chosen to illustrate The Bronx in 1964 help air the play out, and give it more cinematic scope. It features some of the finest work I have seen from Philip Seymour Hoffman (though my favourites will always be 'Happiness' and 'The Master'), Meryl Streep (my most-esteemed works of hers are 'The Deer Hunter' and 'The Devil Wears Prada') and Amy Adams (this is her finest performance IMHO) as well as a breakthrough role for Viola Davis, who steals every scene she's in. This easily holds up well even with Shanley's Oscar-winning screenplay for 'Moonstruck', and, though dark and depressing, is thoroughly recommended for those who can stomach its subject matter, and peer into that abyss without flinching, as these fine exemplars of 21st-century American cinema so easily do here.
That it didn't win any of its five Oscar nominations is almost as ghastly, to the cinephile, as the misdeeds insinuated here are to the community at large. Must have been a strong year for film, methinks.

Underwhelming watch, probably won't watch again, and can't honestly recommend.
I think my biggest problems with this are that I can't honestly appreciate Matthew McConaughey or Bridgette Wilson-Sampras despite the quality of their acting: it's like a really well made pie in a flavor you don't like. As much as I like Jennifer Lopez as an actor, we start on the end of a movie I'd rather see with Bree Turner, and I feel like I would have rather seen Judy Greer in the lead, she seems about as Italian as Jennifer Lopez.
I understand when the meet-cute is a life-threatening situation where adrenaline causes chemical confusion, but this is sort of a head injury causes an almost "love at first sight" cliche, but mixed with an "unavailable romance" cliche.
Once we establish that she loves weddings and it's important to her for some reason, it's a lot of him (not) pursuing her because he's getting married, and her trying to be respectful, but honest.
The movie highlights more societal problems for people that can afford big weddings, or, in short, there is more dumb than funny in this.
I'm not even going to say this is a bad movie, but it's not impressive, and just not for me.

"Snatcher" is determined to get himself a white hat! Why? Well that symbolises his membership of the town's elite - and it gets him to the table for the cheese tasting, and boy does he like cheese - even if it doesn't particularly like him! The scornful "Lord Portley-Rind", though, is having none of this - until, that is, he is promised that they will be rid of the evil, menacing, baby-stealing box trolls. OK, he has a deal - and together with his three henchmen starts apprehending these curious nocturnal creatures. Are they really the danger he purports, though? After one raid, we escape with "Eggs" and "Fish" down into the subterranean cavern where they live. They are a community, looking out for one and other and living the lives of box-clad "Wombles" - recycling as they go. It turns out too that "Eggs" isn't really a troll, but maybe he is the now grown-up missing infant (and maybe also a stunt double for Nicholas Hoult, too)? What now ensues is a lively and entertaining battle of wills between the exterminators and the rapidly diminishing number of trolls who have to find a way to fight back and expose "Snatcher" who has a curious doppelgänger. Whilst the story isn't really anything new, the stop-motion animation is intricate and colourful with some really engaging characterisations extolling virtues of loyalty and friendship, a tiny hint of a romance that delivers a steadily paced and scored presentation. Good fun!

'The Boxtrolls' has parts that I like, but overall I found it slow-moving.
I enjoyed the Boxtrolls themselves, I like how they look and come across. Archibald (Ben Kingsley) and bodyguards, Messrs Trout (Nick Frost) and Pickles (Richard Ayoade), are good, as is the casting of Jared Harris as Lord Charles Portley-Rind.
With that said, I liked them individually rather than as a group. Frost and Ayoade being the key examples, despite being two of the same character I never felt a connection between them. Elsewhere, I rate Isaac Hempstead Wright and Elle Fanning as actors, but I don't feel like their voices suit the respective roles of Eggs and Winnie.
The stop-motion animation is strong, but I just feel the plot is brought to life in a sluggish manner; the ending particularly felt dragged out to me. All in all, it's an average film in my eyes.

The briefest of cameos from Tim Wilkinson informs us that due to inheritance rules, the second “Mrs. Dashwood” (Gemma Jones) and her daughters are going to be at the mercy of his son upon his demise. That fellow (James Fleet) is actually quite a kindly soul, but his rather more mercenary wife “Fanny” (Harriet Walter) reckons they can be left to get by with just their annuity of £500. With daughters “Elinor” (Emma Thompson); “Marianne” (Kate Winslet) and “Margaret” (Emilie François) to keep, that’s going to be quite a task. Luckily, widower distant cousin “Sir John” (Robert Hardy) and his lively mother-in-law (Elizabeth Spriggs) invite them to lodge in a well-appointed cottage on their estate. That’s where the family settle and each of the girls gradually becomes embroiled in romance. For “Elinor” it’s the dashing but shy “Ferrars” (Hugh Grant) who takes her fancy. Talking of dashing, there’s also the charming “Col. Brandon” (Alan Rickman) who is keen on young “Marianne” - but her attentions are divided between him and the handsome doctor “Willoughby” (Greg Wise). Meantime, whilst all this courting and counter-courting is going on, the young “Margaret” is totally besotted on “Ferrars” too! I usually found Jane Austen stories tended to follow a fairly predictable pattern, but the potpourri of characters here are aided by some really quite witty dialogue and some glorious scenery and build together engagingly. There’s an amiable degree of charm, haplessness and political incorrectness on display too as the writer takes quite a swipe at the ridiculousness of so many aspects of life for and amidst the landed gentry and it’s middle class associates. The headline roles all deliver well enough, but it’s maybe the engaging dynamic between Hardy and Spriggs that raises most smiles for me. The costumiers and designers have crafted a classy looking production and the screen adaptation does wonders for a time when the mantra was definitely more “why use one word when you can use ten”.

Juliette Binoche is on fine form here as "Julie". She is driving her composer husband and their daughter along a country road when - next thing they have an encounter with a tree. Now the audience can expect this - we are shown the leaky brake fluid at the start, but we are not necessarily prepared for what is to come as she has to reconcile her own injuries and the difficulties (and opportunities) of her new life. That involves her taking herself deep into the anonymity of Paris - but she is soon to realise that her need for much desired isolation is not reciprocated by her friend who have no intention of letting her disappear under a rock. Things truly come to an head when she re-encounters old flame "Olivier" (Benoît Régent) and there might just be light at the end of her tunnel? It is quite an observational piece of work, this, and Binoche is well capable of demonstrating just how the trauma and drama of this incident and of her subsequent choices impacts on the character - a reaction that could resonate with many, I suspect. The dialogue is sparing and the pace of this rather potent depiction of grief and it's consequences moves in a measured fashion with no obvious conclusion to draw upon. The supporting cast do exactly that, they provide brief moments for us to recalibrate and adjust as "Julie" herself has to adapt, and though I could have been doing with just a little humour to relax the plot at times, it's still a great example of a well considered story and an actor at the top of her game.

**Pain, tragedy, mourning, mental and psychological anguish, a cathartic journey towards freedom, in a film that is not for all audiences.**
It took me three tries to get through this movie in its entirety. As someone who is currently going through a very difficult grieving process, it was particularly hard for me to watch the film.
It all starts with a serious car accident where the main character, July, loses her husband and daughter. She, like myself, feels a need to escape, to isolate herself from others, and she almost annuls herself by not bearing the pain and absence of her lost family. As the film is a kind of metaphor around the concept of freedom, to what extent is it liberating to have these attitudes? I sincerely do not know. As much as we run away, our pains don't stop confronting us, we never stop being who we are.
In the midst of all this, the film also launches considerations on the hopes and paths of the European Union project through the troubled completion of a symphony, commissioned by the Union and left incomplete upon the death of July's husband, who was its composer.
I didn't know the director Krzysztof Kieslowski, and I believe that few people will. He is one of the directors who never leaves the festival circuit due to his enormous erudition. I don't believe, in fact, that he made films of a more commercial nature. This film won't please everyone, being relatively indigestible and uncomfortable, cold and depressing like the color that gives it its name. The cinematography is very talented, it is full of artistic resources, frames of great visual value and beauty, cold colors where blue predominates and is omnipresent in almost the entire work.
We cannot fail to highlight the excellent interpretive performance given here by Juliette Binoche, in one of the most intense, poignant and strong cinematographic works of her career as an actress. Benoit Regent and Charlotte Véry didn't do a bad job either, and each in their own way give a very important support to Binoche's work, but it is the main actress who, due to her enormous merit, sustains the film and really plays.
I didn't want to stop writing a few lines about the soundtrack of this film: the film is not particularly sound, as the insertion of music is quite punctual, thought out and meticulously articulated with what we are seeing. And instead of using several melodies, or ordering a vast array of incidental pieces, the film uses only one song, which is called “Song for the Unification of Europe” and was composed by Zbigniew Preisner. Made in the period after the Treaty of Maastricht, the film is very "Europeist", which is ironic given the prevailing Euroscepticism nowadays, thirty years later.

Is Neeson the new Seagal?.. can't think of any other men less suited to their profession.

Interesting story with lots of action. Not sure I would have chosen this as my first career to drive a truck on a road made of ice. But I guess the story has its merits, especially when it showed brotherly love, not by one, but by two of the actors. Suspense was there and those who enjoy action movies will not be disappointed, although I thought the the main actors took too much of a beating, but that's just me. In the end, this would be a movie I would watch again.⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Funny.
'The Night Before' makes for very amusing viewing, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Seth Rogen and Anthony Mackie are great together, I like all three actors individually and as a trio they are just as terrific - all give entertaining performances.
Rogen plays the most obvious role for him yet absolutely nails it, Gordon-Levitt is probably the weaker of the three but is still pleasant to watch - as is Mackie. The casting is top notch, with supports like Michael Shannon and Tracy Morgan. There are other noteworthy faces involved too, like Ilana Glazer and Lorraine Toussaint.
The plot isn't anything crazy or distinctive, yet still feels suitably fresh for the vast majority. I will say, though, the film does hit a bit of a wall at around the midway point, but thankfully picks up almost immediately - thanks to a great scene with a couple of fun cameos.
An enjoyable film. It's ridiculous, but they make it work. Recommended.

The skeleton of The Night Before is very clichéd, but the cast is magnificent and the requisite amount of jokes land.
Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole.

"Heathers" is almost like a jet black version of "Rebel Without A Cause" (1955) or some such as it steadfastly plumbs the complicated labyrinthine depths of teenage angst and comes up with a radical and downright homicidal anti-social solution. It is overflowing with the largely inconsequential concerns of the hierarchy which exists in all schools to a greater or lesser degree and it provides some harsh examples of this at its most cruel and unforgiving. Who would want to be a teenager again? Anyway, no matter how dark this film becomes and no matter how close Veronica is to ridding her life of the Heathers of the title, she still demurs at the last moment and stops short (she even prevents the eager J.D. from blowing the school up with explosives). The message here is a simple one: The wholesale destruction of the school and all it represents to disenfranchised teenagers everywhere is not the answer to life's innumerable problems.

This movie is a high school satire done absolutely amazingly. It's everything current high school dramas wish they were. It's dark, funny, but does not lose any of its meaning to stupid jokes. It perfectly shows the hell that is high school (and society as a whole). Just like in high school, there are Marthas and Heathers everywhere in life.
J.D. is a great villain, because even though from his very introduction, we know he's a messed up person who does bad things, yet you start to empathize with him just like Veronica. It shows that, as a society, we go to great lengths to defend white men and their actions.
Heathers is furthermore also obviously a critique on the social hierarchies that exist in the world. It shows this on a smaller scale, high school. As J.D. nicely sums up towards the end of the movie: ".. because high school IS society". The Heathers rule the school and this movie really shows as to why that is. It's a system, that puts certain people at the top, like Heathers, and other _Martha's_ at the bottom. Murdering Heather Chandler might seem like a way to disrupt this hierarchy, and restore society to a pure form, but that is not the case. Heather Chandler does not equal her power, that's just a role she filled in the bigger system around them. Her being gone doesn't remove that role, it just passes it on to the next best fit.
In this movie, colors play a significant role. Heather Chandler being red represents anger and her dominance. Heather McNamara being yellow represents her kind soul, but also her weakness. Heather Duke's green represents her jealousy of Chandler. Veronica's signature color is blue which represents intelligence, but after having murdered Heather Chandler she wears a purple outfit. As you may know, blue and red make purple. I see this as Heather Chandlers 'evilness' affecting Veronica as well. Veronica might think she's rid the world of evil, yet she's simply become evil herself.

RELEASED IN 1989 and directed by Michael Lehmann, “Heathers” stars Winona Ryder as Veronica, a high school student in Ohio who has sold herself out to join the popular clique of three girls, all coincidently named Heather (Kim Walker, Lisanne Falk & Shannen Doherty). The more she spends time with them, however, the more she discovers she can’t stand them. Enter mysterious new kid, JD (Christian Slater), who has a macabre solution to Veronica’s conundrum.
This is an oddball teen movie that tries to be edgy and amusing with its black humor and overt cussing. Future movies were influenced by it, like “Jawbreaker” (1999) and maybe even “Mean Girls” (2004). The commentary on peer pressure, teen suicide and the maiming destructiveness of cliques is potent. Teens can be misled by the “popular” students, yes, but they can also be misled by the outcasts.
Slater stands out as a sorta dark Fonz of the late 80s, easily one of his best roles ever. Ryder is surprisingly good as the protagonist. I say “surprisingly” because I was never big on her (although I didn’t dislike her either). The first act is quite good, but the story gets humdrum in the middle; thankfully, the last 20 minutes perk up. The late 80’s ambiance is to die for.
I’m not going to give it away, but the original ending was way more morbid. They had an alternative ending that they didn’t go with either. Apparently the studio pressured the writer/director to go with the theatrical ending, which I approve. It’s a story of redemption. Being misled by corrupt people for a season doesn’t define a person forever.
THE MOVIE RUNS 1 hours & 43 minutes and was shot in Los Angeles (the high school) and surrounding area (Santa Monica, Tujunga and Pasadena). WRITER: Daniel Waters.
GRADE: B-/C+

There's nothing very original about this, but it's got some likeable characters and really solid special effects. The explosions and fire of the military's offensive against the giant troll being the most impressive.

I found this movie to be entertaining. It reminded me of Trollhunter, another movie on the same subject, but which was perhaps smaller in scale as it involved a small group of troll hunters rather than the entire government of Norway and its military. When it comes to science fiction or fantasy I tend to give more slack for the writing and I found this to be fairly well written and well acted. There were a few clichés about government leaning on the military as their first and only response to a crisis, but in an odd way it is a relief that it is some country besides the United States being portrayed as doing that.
I thought the special effects of the creature and the scenes of destruction were pretty good, though I do not profess to be all that knowledgeable about the world of special effects. The ending of the movie seemed a little anticlimactic and not quite believable to me as far as the final plan to neutralize the troll went and the final scene of there being more trolls feels a slam to the earlier assertions that this was indeed the last troll in existence. But as I said at the outset, the movie held my intention and was entertaining overall. So what more could I ask for?

'Superman III' is just rubbish, isn't it? I wasn't hating what I was watching or anything, but I was just sat there continuously thinking: this is just bad, huh. Much of the movie feels like the titular character is sidelined, then even when he is onscreen he's... depressed? Odd choice.
Christopher Reeve remains good, no issues there. Margot Kidder is involved but barely features, to be fair Annette O'Toole is solid in her bit. Richard Pryor, Robert Vaughn & Co. are OK in terms of what they give, but their characters are highly uninteresting. I just didn't care at all.
That opening sequence really gives you a peek into what you're going to be watching. Of course there are signs in the prior movies that the filmmakers wanted to stray into dumbed down comedy and it might've worked as a standalone picture, but as a Superman film? Not a chance.

_**More than it first appears**_
"Superman III" (1983) gets a lot of flack because of the inclusion of slapstick, a parody tone and Richard Pryor, but it is entertaining once you get used to the tone and the presence of Pryor.
Christopher Reeve as Superman is good, of course, but you also have Robert Vaughn as the Luthor-like villain and Pamela Stephenson as his attractive female assistant a la Miss Teschmacher. The cast really excels with the inclusion of the beautiful Annette O'Toole as Lana Lang, a sort of replacement for Lois Lane, who barely appears. Annette is a pleasure to behold throughout.
Once you get used to the too-goofy approach the film really takes off in the second half with Superman fighting his dark side, an obvious type of the inner conflict of flesh & spirit within us all. Even more, there's the satisfying redemption of a certain character that illustrates how a person can make a huge mistake and still be applicable for redemption, as long as he or she is willing. The film just leaves you with a good feeling.
BOTTOM LINE: It's not great like the first two, but "Superman III" delivers if you overlook all the bashing and give it a chance. Richard Pryor is goofy, but likable while Annette O'Toole shines. Most of all, the movie is deeper than what meets the eye and effectively conveys powerful truths about the human condition and potential.
The film runs 2 hours, 4 minutes.
GRADE: B-/B

Never underestimate the power of computers.
After being caught for a money making computer scam, Gus Gorman (Richard Pryor - wonderful) is recruited by unscrupulous multimillionaire Ross Webster (Robert Vaughn). With Gorman's computer expertise, Webster plans to take complete economic control. But first there is the considerable issue of eradicating Superman first...
Richard Lester, as everyone now knows, inherited Superman 2 from the jettisoned Richard Donner. Here we have a complete Richard Lester Superman film, and from the extended slapstick opening we are aware that this is far lighter in tone than the previous two films. Lester's credits are steeped in comedy traditions, so it's no real surprise that Superman 3 is more airy comic book than troubled caped crusader. This is something that many franchise fans are completely unforgiving about. Which is a shame, because viewed as a comic book bit of nonsense it's a rather enjoyable film, certainly it's the one with the most fun approach.
The action is very well put together, with a franchise highlight as Clark Kent (Christopher Reeve) gets to fight a clearly off kilter Superman (erm, Reeve again), and the comedy, if accepted on its own terms, is very rewarding. Annette O'Toole (adorable) takes the lead love interest role for this one, with Margo Kidder only along for cameo duties. Pamela Stephenson is on hand for some sex bomb side-kick to Vaughn work, and Annie Ross gest the bitch sibling role and gets her teeth and "wires" into it.
All told, it's not a ground shaking superhero film, but it does work as entertainment if one can cast off the mythology of Superman and his fantastical complexities. To do so is not a crime against ones superhero beliefs, it's just an acceptance that this is a different approach, and that Superman 3's only real crime is not being as good as the two film's that preceded it. Hey, just think, "Quest For Peace" was around the corner... 6/10

**Great sequel!**
A funny, exciting Superman movie that includes the greatest scene in the franchise - the junkyard fight between Evil Supes and his nerdy counterpart, Clark Kent.
Richard Pryor is hilarious as the hapless Gus Gorman - the computer programming genius with a heart. Robert Vaughn makes for a great villain and the special effects are top notch.
So much more entertaining than the tedious bile that would come in later years - Superman Returns and the Henry Cavill rubbish.
I remember sitting in the packed theater in 1983 and the whole audience thoroughly enjoying this - laughing and cheering in all the right places.
And for those who claim the film is too silly - do they not remember Ned Beatty as the cretin Otis in Superman and Superman II - surely the stupidest character to grace the series.
- Charles Dance

**It took off reasonably well, but if we push it, it quickly stalls.**
I know that this movie is a spin-off from “Cars”, but do you know? I was more curious to see this film than I am to see “Cars” (I haven't seen it yet, I will see it very soon). It's just that, despite driving, I've always felt great affection and interest in the world of aviation, to the point of spending afternoons at the airport to watch planes arrive and depart when I was younger. I was also a regular spectator of the Red Bull Air Races whenever they were held here in my city. I know the film had relatively mixed reviews, with many critics hating it and others trying to see various saving qualities in just about everything. Personally, I'll be fine halfway through: the movie isn't disastrously bad, I believe that, as far as the Disney universe is concerned, I've seen far worse, but it's also far from good.
Starting with the qualities, it is impossible to deny that the animation and visuals of the film were well done and are pleasant to look at. The computer effects and digital animation are the best available, and without a doubt, Disney had the people and expertise in-house for the task at hand. The models used in the planes in the film are reasonably similar to their originals in real life, which reveals that the production was attentive to details and tried to give the film a very acceptable dose of realism. Even more impressive is the footage of the races and aerial maneuvers. The film is very well edited, it is not bulky or heavy and does not stretch too much, being very suitable for young people, and quite tolerable for everyone else, including adults.
The work of the voice actors, for me, is at a very acceptable level, but not brilliant: with the exception of John Cleese, who has an unmistakable tone and accent, and Dane Cook, who does an equally good job, the overwhelming majority of the voice actors just do what they had to do. I liked Priyanka Chopra, I think she managed to avoid the temptation to give her voice an overly heavy Indian accent that people might not have liked, and Julia Louis-Dreyfuss for her use of Canadian French. Carlos Alazraqui sounded too dense to the point where I thought he was Antonio Banderas, and the accent was too strong, but he at least knew how to be funny.
For me, one of the things I didn't like is the way the soundtrack is so dull. The only moments in which it stands out and sounds good are in the love serenades and at the moment when planes fly over the Taj Mahal. If we consider that songs have been one of the strengths of Disney animation, it's impossible not to be sad about it. But the script is where, really, the big problems of this film are: what the film brings us is the recycling of the old sports success story that we have already seen thousands of times in thousands of modalities: the outsider with no chances who, for his good heart, goes on succeeding and wins, after defeating the perverse and envious rival. And of course: there's a romance going on there, and the pretty, nice girl isn't all that innocent. It's old, it's cliché, it's not enough for what Disney has used us to, and it's sad to see the studio settle down like this. The dialogues didn't help: I can still understand and accept the aviation jargon, but the sheer amount of clichés and barbershop talk is too much for me.
Regarding the characters themselves, what I want to say is simply this: they are not really well-developed, and the poor quality of the script leaves one to guess to what extent this is true. However, and directly addressing an issue that has raised some controversy, I understand and accept the ethnic allusions and cultural “stereotypes” that were applied to each plane. I know that there are more and more people who take this badly, and I agree that yes, it is generally offensive and reductive. However, this is an animated comedy, it is not something that I feel should be taken too seriously, and if we consider that each plane represents its country, this turns out to be a way to bring a little bit of the mental imagery of that country to its representative. Thus, the English plane is very cordial, but sarcastic and has a peculiar humor; the Mexican plane is romantic and has the craze that is Zorro; the Canadian plane speaks French, the Indian plane has saffron color and elaborate designs etc. If I, who am Portuguese, were seriously offended whenever films or series show a Portuguese character as a football player, a bearded sailor or a baker with a mustache, I wouldn't have time to do anything else in this life!

There's just (and I mean just) enough there for a good time.
I like 'Planes' If I'm honest, even if it does feel like a copy of 'Cars 2' in quite a few places; the biggest one being the race around the world. I don't love Dane Cook as Dusty either, but I can't deny that after viewing this I feel fine about it.
It was always going be similar to the 'Cars' films, given this is set in the same universe as that franchise. However, they should've done more to separate it though, especially with the overall premise and the characters.
Away from Cook, who I feel sounds too wooden in the lead role, the cast is actually fairly decent. Stacy Keach (Skipper), Priyanka Chopra (Ishani) and Teri Hatcher (Dottie) are enjoyable.
Honestly, I'm not entirely sure why this leaves a positive impression - I can see why many dislike this, but I didn't. It narrowly creeps a 7 for me.

Some similarities with Terminator, still kind of a fun if not also messy sci-fi actioner, with Jean-Claude Van Damme and Dolph Lundgin going head-to-head. Oh, and forgot how much of a crush I had on Ally Walker back then. Anyway, not bad but certainly a movie that feels like it was from the 90s. **3.25/5**

I have to confess I stumbled across this, quite by chance. I don't watch a lot of US entertainment these days. I did however, grow up watching my share of Stallone action films, so a dash of nostalgia and curiosity, drew me in.
There's nothing terribly original by now about the plot of Tulsa King. Its Mafia style antics are noting new. I think it was a smart move, playing this as a dark comedy. It fits the well worn character, Stallone, inhabits.
That said, I guess the key question is, is it entertaining? I'd say "sort of". I like seeing Stallone back on the small screen. Regrettably, thus far and I appreciate its early days, the story is a little basic. Even for a comedy, it stretches credulity at times and lacks an intelligent wit and charm, that would have rendered it, more appealing.
In summary, Stallone's star power will probably draw people in but will viewers keep watching? Unless it ups the stakes, by crafting a more witty, clever tale of a long in tooth mobster, I for one, have my reservations.