Grindhouse exploits its modern B-movie experience through a bloody expressionistic tribute. Two feature films. Four fictional trailers (five if you’re lucky...). And an authentic conceptual presentation of the 70s exploitation genre, missing reels and all. Rodriguez/Tarantino’s admiration for cinema in general is tangible. Both a credible experiment in genre resurrection and a fetish for babes, blood and bolted machine gun legs. It is, at its core, a retrospective piece of entertainment. But does the double feature presentation, trailers included, work as a solid film in itself? Yes. Just about.
Two of the four fictitious trailers worked. Wright’s ‘Don’t’ replicated the essence of Hammer Film Productions perfectly with a quintessential amount of British campiness to illustrate the ghoulish plot. Not to mention the laugh out loud vagueness of the title. Roth’s (yes, this is surprising...) was another hilarious trailer with ‘Thanksgiving’, a holiday-themed slasher. Imitating existing features, such as ‘Halloween’, to deliver a barrage of nudity and decapitations. Absurd, yet sadistically amusing. These two especially suited the overall aesthetic of Grindhouse, particularly with ‘Planet Terror’. Rodriguez’ ‘Machete’, which later became a feature film’, summoned the desolate heat of the Mexploitation sub-genre. It’s fine. Occasionally becomes lost in itself when Trejo is randomly throwing machetes everywhere. Zombie’s efforts in ‘Werewolf Women of the SS’ (I know...) didn’t work for me. The concept felt like he was trying way too hard in being over-the-top and radical by merging a bunch of sets together. Intentional or not, it juxtaposed the other trailers. Cage as Fu Manchu though, I want more! Although varying in quality, these trailers do provide impressive contributions to the overall presentation and are embedded intricately before each feature film.
Speaking of features, do both ‘Planet Terror’ and ‘Death Proof’ work as a project of duality? No. The former is an absurdist’s perspective of the zombie genre, whereas the latter just resembled an ordinary Tarantino flick without the excessive exploitation. The two, together, have different paces, styles and tones which exhume varying levels of contrast, diminishing the whole feature’s flow.
There’s plenty of passion and heart being injected into this project, ultimately resulting in an enjoyable cinematic experience. Yet a prevention exists that disallows me from fully connecting to the concept. A myriad of pastiches, with varying levels of quality, as opposed to an actual presentation. I’d watch it again just for ‘Death Proof’...

***Zombies, dancing skanks, rednecks and killer stunt cars***
“Grindhouse” (2007) features two separate movies: “Planet Terror” by Robert Rodriguez and “Death Proof” by Quentin Tarantino. Together, they’re called “Grindhouse” because they’re a deliberate attempt to recreate the experience of a double feature at a B movie house in the mid/late 60s-70s with the prints intentionally marred by scratches and blemishes or, in one case, a whole reel supposedly missing. Trailers for fake movies, like “Machete,” are also part of the package.
“Planet Terror” involves a biochemical outbreak in central Texas that (big surprise) turns people into zombies and the ragtag group that teams-up to fight ’em, led by Freddy Rodríguez and Michael Biehn, the latter a sheriff. Hotties Rose McGowan and Marley Shelton are on hand, the former acquiring a machine gun implant in replace of her amputated leg. (How exactly she pulls the trigger to massacre zombies is anyone’s guess).
The movie comes across as a melding of “Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!” (1965), “Night of the Living Dead” (1968) and “Dawn of the Dead” (1978), but with the modern tone of “Slither” (2006) with its gross, deliberately offensive black humor. McGowan is a highlight throughout, especially her opening go-go sequence whereas Freddy Rodriguez is surprisingly formidable. Their romantic arc is kind of touching. Another point of interest is the quality cast, rounded out by the likes of Bruce Willis, Josh Brolin, Naveen Andrews and Fergie.
At the end of the day, though, “Planet Terror” fails to rise above the low-budget sorta-genius of Syfy schlock like “Flu Bird Horror” (2008), “Wyvern” (2009) and “Sasquatch Mountain” (2006) even though it cost literally twelve times as much. GRADE: C
“Death Proof” involves an embittered stuntman (Kurt Russell) and his psycho obsession with murdering young women of dubious character with his death proof stunt car (but only the driver’s side). The first half is very good, hindered only by the inane chatter of the girls. This kind of dull drivel goes into overdrive in the second half, particularly involving Zoe Bell, Tracie Thoms and Rosario Dawson, but is rewarded by a thrilling car chase in the country that’s supposedly Tennessee, but obviously Southern Cal.
Russell’s character is perversely charismatic and the movie perks up whenever he’s on screen. There are no less than eight female co-stars playing mostly classless types (but not all of them) and, depending on your tastes, four of them are quite alluring,: Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Rose McGowan, Vanessa Ferlito and Sydney Tamiia Poitier (yes, Sidney’s daughter). GRADE: C+/B-
The two movies and additional trailers run 3 hours, 11 minutes. Unless you have that kind of time to blow, I suggest watching the movies singularly.
OVERALL GRADE: C+

"Born on the Fourth of July" is a powerful, worthwhile, and highly recommended film which shows the real social and familial challenges Ron Kovic faced when struggling to come to terms with the devastating after effects of war and the reality of how the contentious conflict changed him as a person and redefined how he perceived the world. He became dependant on alcohol for a time, but during a sojourn in Mexico while the continuing conflict in Vietnam was becoming more protracted by the day - it eventually becomes overrun by serious lapses in judgement which results in the ongoing deaths of many more innocent people - he has an epiphany of sorts and upon his return home he joins the anti-war movement and this fact - how this initially staunch supporter of the war embarked upon an extremely personal journey and became active in attempting to bring the war to an end by becoming an incredibly vocal anti-Vietnam demonstrator - is the most startling aspect of his often deeply emotional story which is yet another in the growing collection of insightful and invaluable first hand accounts detailing the damaging long term horrors wrought by the Vietnam war.

Hurt and Costner performances are enjoyable and the idea of the movie is good but that's almost all that there is to see. Specially, Moore's story and character are quite expendable, not adding anything to the main story but noise.

‘The Angry Birds Movie 2’ is a big step up from its processor providing some great laughs, and while its huge cast is wasted amidst the empty shell of family films we’ve had this year, this proves to be an enjoyable option for families to check out.
- Chris dos Santos
Read Chris' full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-the-angry-birds-movie-2-flying-a-little-bit-higher-the-second-time-around

**_I wouldn't call it entertaining per se, but it's certainly provocative_**
>_I saw kids who are so neglected, so abused that there's nothing anymore in their eyes. These children don't laugh, don't cry, and don't play. If you put a toy in front of them, they don't touch it. They are just numb. There's no more childhood in their eyes. After seeing these kids many times, when they started to have a trusting relationship with me, I used to ask them, "are you happy to be alive?" Ninety-nine percent of the kids answered "no". They told me: "I'm not happy to be here." "Why am I here when there'__s no one to take care of me?" "Why am I here if I'm going to be hungry all the time?" They have the feeling that they're here because they are being punished for something._
- Nadine Labaki; _Capharnaüm_ Production Notes
Taking as its subject the horrific plight of guttersnipe children in the slums of Beirut, _Capharnaüm_ is the kind of film of which a superficial reading might suggest miserablism at best, and "poverty porn" at worst. Comparisons to film such as Danny Boyle's _Slumdog Millionaire_ (2008), Stephen Daldry's _Trash_ (2014), and Sean Baker's _The Florida Project_ (2017) are probably inevitable, albeit not very informative if one wishes to parse the film. Instead, it's much more useful to view _Capharnaüm_ in the tradition of classic Italian neorealist pictures such as Luchino Visconti's _Ossessione_ (1943) and _La Terra Trema_ (19548), Roberto Rossellini's _Roma città aperta_ (1945) and _Germania anno zero_ (1948), and Vittorio De Sica's _Ladri di biciclette_ (1948) and _Umberto D._ (1952), albeit far more pessimistic than any of them.
The third film from Lebanese writer/actress/director Nadine Labaki (_Caramel_; _Where Do We Go Now?_), _Capharnaüm_ is written by Labaki, Michelle Keserwany, and Labaki's regular writing partner Jihad Hojaily (Georges Khabbaz, Labaki's husband, and the film's producer and composer, Khaled Mouzanar are credited with "screenplay collaboration"). Presenting a _milieu_ in which people are utterly discardable, the film depicts children who are literally bought and sold for a few chickens; 11-year-old girls who are married off so their family can afford the rent; babies who are fed on ice cubes covered in sugar; refugees who roam the streets; mental illness which goes untreated; and people without a Lebanese identity card who don't officially exist. Uplifting it most certainly is not. In a similar tonal key to Héctor Babenco's _Pixote: a Lei do Mais Fraco_ (1981) and Walter Salles's _Central do Brasil_ (1998), the film works because it never feels like it's exploiting, patronising, or trivialising the poverty and misfortune it depicts, never attempting to manipulate the audience into feeling a preconceived emotion. On the contrary, it's matter-of-fact, and notable for just how unsentimental it is. However, it's also deeply humanist, with genuine compassion in its DNA and a quiet rage at its core, born partly from an inherent sense of authenticity; shot in the style of _cinéma vérité_, it uses non-professional actors whose lives are not dissimilar from the characters they play, with Labaki encouraging improvisation throughout. There are some problems, of course - the framing device of a trial is poorly conceived and distracts from the superior filmmaking surrounding it, the ending is disappointingly didactic, and the litany of hardships endured by the main character does get a little over-the-top. However, this is undeniably impressive filmmaking, as harrowing and angry, as it is solicitous and respectful.
Zain El Hajj (Zain Al Rafeea) is a young boy from the slums of Beirut serving a five-year prison sentence for, as he puts it, "_stabbing a son-of-a-bitch_." Neither he nor his parents, mother Souad (Kawsar Al Haddad) and father Selim (Fadi Youssef), know Zain's exact age, as he was never officially registered, and therefore has no birth cert. As the film begins, Zain is brought before a judge, as he has decided to sue his parents for bringing him into the world despite not being able to care for their already numerous children. The film then flashes back several months, with Zain working as a delivery boy for the family's landlord, Assad (Nour El Husseini). Life is harsh, but Zain and his sister, 11-year-old sister Sahar (Haita "Cedra" Izzam), look out for one another. When he sees bloodstains on her underwear, he helps her hide the fact that she has begun her period, believing their parents might try to marry her off. Making plans to escape with her, Zain returns home one day to find his parents in the process of handing Sahar over to Assad. A brutal struggle ensues, but Zain fails to save her, and that night, he runs away. Seeking refuge in a rundown amusement park, he meets Rahil (Yordanos Shiferaw), an Ethiopian refugee working as a cleaner. Taking pity on Zain, she agrees to let him stay with her in exchange for him looking after her one-year-old son Yonas (an absolutely astounding performance by Boluwatife Treasure Bankole) when she's at work. Her forged migrant documents are set to expire soon and as she doesn't have enough money to pay her forger, Aspro (Alaa Chouchnieh), for new papers, he is trying to persuade her to sell him Yonas. As time passes, Zain, Rahil, and Yonas form a tight bond, until one day, Rahil doesn't return home from work, leaving Zain and Yonas to fend for themselves.
Thoroughly uplifting stuff, am I right? Labaki first got the idea for the film when she saw a woman and a one-year-old baby on a traffic island in Beirut. In the film's production notes, Labaki writes,
> _the little boy couldn't sleep. Every time he would doze off, he would wake up again. And it hit me. The only place where this kid is going to experience life is this half a meter of concrete between two highways. It's all he knows._
When she got home, she drew a picture of a child shouting at a group of adults, with the caption,
> _I'm sorry! I quit! I don't want to be here! I don't belong in your world! I don't want to breathe, eat, play, learn, laugh or dream! I don't want to grow up to become like you! You have failed me!_
Brainstorming, she began to write down everything that bothered her about the situation;
> _where did the system fail these kids? Why do we as a society allow this sort of injustice to happen? The migrant workers' situation in Lebanon; the absurdity of the notion of frontiers; the absurdity that you need a paper to prove that you exist._
Looking at the list of topics, she thought of the French word, "_Capharnaüm_" (alternatively spelt Capernaum). The term was originally the name of a Biblical fishing village on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee, which is mentioned multiple times across all four gospels, as a place where Jesus performed several miracles. However, it's best known from Matthew 11:23, when Jesus curses the village for its lack of faith in him ("_And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day_"). Later on, however, the word came to be used in French literature to signify a state of chaos and disorder. The current dictionary definition is, "_a confused jumble; a place marked by a disorderly accumulation of objects_".
Beginning to research what life is really like for children of poverty, Labaki went to prisons for minors, refugee camps, courtrooms, and the streets themselves. Shooting with as small a crew as possible, she elected to use a non-professional cast whose lives resembled those of the character they're playing (like Rahil, Shiferaw is an illegal Ethiopian immigrant who was working as a cleaner; like Sahar, Izzam was unable to attend school in Lebanon, and was selling gum on the street; like Souad, Haddad has children for whom she has been unable to get ID). In this sense, casting director Jennifer Haddad deserves a great deal of praise, as she's done an astounding job of pulling together an authentic ensemble. During the shoot, Labaki would give the performers the basic outline of a scene, but allow them to use their own words and mannerisms, and draw upon their own experiences, without worrying too much about where the scene is supposed to go. With the film being shot in sequence, this necessitated that the script was constantly being rewritten, so as to accommodate something which somebody had improvised.
From an aesthetic perspective, Labaki wisely keeps things simple and functional, eschewing any directorial gymnastics, with the aesthetic design perfectly chosen to convey the story she wishes to tell. Adopting a documentarian sense of realism, cinematographer Christopher Aoun sticks to handheld cameras and, for the most part, natural lighting. The scenes on the streets of Beirut are especially impressive, with Labaki shooting most of the material from roughly Zain's height, or slightly lower. This allows the scenes to adopt a heavily focalised and subjective view of the world, without having to resort to less elegant POV shots. Chadi Roukoz's sound design is also superb in these exterior scenes, with the soundtrack crammed with car horns, shouting, crying, laughter, dogs barking, airplanes flying overhead, traffic on the streets. It's an aural overload, conveying how the massive city is overwhelming Zain, and again, tying us to his subjectivity.
Laure Gardette (_Jeune & Jolie_; _Frantz_) and Konstantin Bock's editing is also laudable. Even apart from the fact that they had to cull the film from over 500 hours of footage (the first cut ran 12 hours), with the complete editing process taking over two years, the editing is extremely powerful in certain scenes, with the specific cuts tied closely to the theme and tone of the film. Probably the two best examples are the scene where Zain is trying to prevent his parents from giving Sahar to Assad, and a later scene when Zain leaves Yonas on the side of the road and tries to walk away. The fight for Sahar balances, on the one hand, combinations of shots focusing on Sahar and the parents, and on the other, an equal number of shots focused solely on Zain. This places him front-and-centre in the _mise en scène_, simply by virtue of the fact that we see more of him than any of the other characters. The result is that the scene, although ostensibly concerned with the parents' choice to give Sahar away, is actually more about Zain's reaction to that choice. Similarly, in the scene where he tries to leave Yonas, the editing focuses on him rather than the baby - the shots of Zain are longer, there are more of them, and there are a combination of different framings, whereas all of the shots of Yonas are uniform. This kind of editing is as shrewd as it is subtle, giving Zain a greater sense of agency and energy, and ensuring the audience knows that he, not Yonas, should be the focus of our attention.
Labaki sets the tone for the film to come in the very first shot, as we see Zain, filthy dirty, in only his vest and underwear. It is subsequently driven home multiple times that life is almost worthless in this place - Sahar is sold for some chickens, Aspro tries to get Rahil to sell Yonas in return for forged migrant documents, Assad tells Zain, "_I can buy a human for 500_". This is a world in which people think of children in the same way as they think of commodities, with the notion of adults protecting children subservient to that of adults looking at children in a cold transactional manner. In such a place, Zain somehow manages to retain his sense of empathy, although he too is infected with the concept that everything is transactional, as his pragmatism illustrates to him that materialism is the order of the day. However, although he suppresses his sense of compassion, he does not completely extinguish it, nor would he want to. In a world where adults are reprehensible, and children their innocent victims, Zain is the story's moral compass, exhibiting a humanity far in excess of any kindness than has ever been shown to him.
Thematically, Zain's jaded disillusionment, which is far more pronounced than it should ever be in a child his age, echoes the line from _Ladri di biciclette_, when Antonio (Lamberto Maggiorani) decries, "_I curse the day I was born._" Zain himself is kind of an amalgamation of Antoine Doinel (Jean-Pierre Léaud) from François Truffaut's _Les quatre cents coups_ (1959), Huckleberry Finn, and any number of Charles Dickens youngsters (Oliver Twist, David Copperfield, Little Dorrit, Philip Pirrip, aka Pip), with his unique perspective on the world illuminating the horrors of that world in a way that would be impossible were he an adult. An important plot point in relation to Zain is his lack of an ID card. Without being registered when he was born, he can't get a state ID, meaning he is effectively a non-person; he cannot own a passport, he cannot legally work, and he is not entitled to an education or medical care, a situation that attains an almost Kafka-esque surrealism in its bureaucratic absurdity.
In terms of problems, there are a few. The framing device of the trial, for example, is awkwardly realised, and for the most part, serves only to interrupt the far more compelling story of Zain, Rahil, and Yonas. Additionally, not only do the scenes in court come across as more heavily scripted than everything else, but they also depict something that couldn't happen (as Labaki herself has acknowledged, children can't sue their parents for giving birth to them). Obviously intended as a means to dramatize how Zain wants a voice, it is nonetheless a narrative contrivance that gets in the way of the far more accomplished filmmaking seen elsewhere. Surrounded by the more naturalistic realism of the rest of the film, the court scenes stand out because they feel like a plot machination. The third act in particular, which focuses primarily on the trial, and which features the usual impassioned speeches you would get in any clichéd courtroom drama, strays into something Labaki has deftly avoid everywhere else; didacticism. Elsewhere, there is something of a sense that Labaki overloads the story, pushing just one too many hardships on Zain, as she attempts to cover a plethora of topics. For example, she touches on domestic violence, the migrant crisis, human trafficking, paedophilia, child labour, education, the justice system, and on occasion, the film feels like it's going to collapse under the weight of human suffering and thematic nihilism. This is a shame because some of the best scenes in the film are those involving Zain and Yonas just going about their day, and if Labaki had had the confidence in these quieter moments, she might have scaled back on the socio-political content.
In a strange way, _Capharnaüm_ has something of the same thematic DNA as Paul Schrader's _First Reformed_ (2017), with both films examining the morality of bringing children into a world of suffering (albeit from fundamentally different perspectives, with Schrader's examination far more existential than Labaki's practical workaday world). Never feeling exploitative, nor glorifying the poverty at its centre, the film isn't even especially sentimental, depicting scenes with a raw matter-of-factness, that were they featured in a Hollywood movie would be in slow-motion, with string music telling us to "Cry now". Zain is no saint; he's a rough, foul-mouthed thief, but he's also the most inherently honourable character in the film. Labaki could easily have used Zain to attempt to elicit unearned pity, but instead, she is far more interested in examining the day-to-day survival of children like him. One of his most salient characterises is his practical-minded solutions to the challenges he faces, and in this, we're encouraged to respect how he responds to his situation rather than pity him for being in such a situation in the first place. The film adopts something of the same manner; much like Zain, it's tough-minded and practical, and just as his hardened exterior is completely authentic, so too is the film's quiet anger. Placing us not just in Zain's world, but, crucially, in his subjective interpretation of that world, Labaki draws us to him, allowing us to view the world partly as outraged adults, but also as sharers in his experiences. The conclusion is disappointingly didactic, and the journey there harrowing and exhausting. However, in the last shot, Labaki dares to offer a very cautious bit of optimism, and ultimately, the takeaway is not despair, but compassion. Just as Zain finds a humanity within himself that should be long dead, the film finds a moment of optimism amidst the chaos, and encourages the audience to cling to it.

In theory, a more sophisticated period drama based on the true story of Georgiana (Keira Knightley), an aristocrat married off to a loveless marriage with the enormously wealthy and politically influential Duke of Devonshire (Ralph Fiennes). She is treated little better than a brood mare in fancy dress but has way to much independent spirit to settle for that and is soon having an affaire de coeur with Dominic Cooper "Earl Grey" (yes, he of the tea...). Meantime, the Duke has taken a mistress and so the film depicts how our multiple ménages-à-trois work out. It very much emphasises the (very) limited choices of women in 18th Century Britain - regardless of their status - but unfortunately, save for a few brief appearances by Charlotte Rampling - the characterisations were way too sterile for me. It is a great looking costume drama, though - some of the finest stately homes shown off to their best effect but in the end it was much more style than substance.

**A good period film, visually magnificent, but with several flaws from the point of view of accuracy and historical rigor.**
Georgiana Cavendish, born Spencer, was one of the most interesting, remarkable and charismatic personalities in British society at the end of the 18th century. She made an enviable marriage, for the period, by marrying the 5th Duke of Devonshire, one of the richest and most powerful British peers. However, they had nothing in common: the duke was a man of few words and saw marriage as a means to an end: to have a legitimate male heir. Georgiana, on the other hand, was not content to be just a decorative figure or a child-bearer. Unhappy, she found herself so lonely that she decided to accept the sexual affair that her husband started with her best friend, Lady Foster, who moves in to their house and has adulterous children with him, in a humiliating "ménage à trois" which the Duchess supports in exchange for the friendship of Lady Foster, on whom she becomes emotionally dependent. To this day, the moral attitude of both women is debatable, and also the extent to which Lady Foster didn't seek, from the beginning, to replace Georgiana, whom she envied and befriended in equal measure.
For the rest, we know that the three elements of this love triangle were not faithful, keeping, each one for himself, other affairs and sexual engagements outside this arrangement. When the Duchess became pregnant by one of her lovers, the much younger Charles Gray, she was forced to travel to France, where she gave birth, maintaining for the rest of her life a close but discreet relationship with her adulterous daughter. Upon returning to London, Georgiana changed: by accepting her conjugal situation, she began to look for a series of escapes and distractions that would make her existence bearable: her presence at parties and balls made her a fashion icon, and her support for the Whig Party influenced the course of British politics at the time. The hapless Georgiana developed a ruinous gambling addiction, perhaps depression and even an eating disorder, factors that greatly contributed to her rapid decline in health. She died early, with many debts, many admirers and some literary works published.
All this is the short story of this intriguing historical figure. The film, directed by Saul Dibb and starring Keira Knightley, takes a very light approach to her life, and sometimes fails to be faithful to historical facts (warning), even though it delights us visually. In fact, the production values are high, and the highlight is clearly the detailed and well-made costumes, and the sets, many of them handpicked from the most luxurious palatial interiors, capable of instantly transporting us to the time. And context. Also, the cinematography and filming work were well done, as well as the soundtrack, signed by Rachel Portman, is very good, making good use of various pieces of baroque music. The biggest negative criticism I feel I have to make is the editing work, which makes us waste a lot of time on minor details, causing the film to take on an uneven pace. The sense of time passing was not done properly either: we never quite understand the passage of years, since the characters don't age and nothing changes.
As for the cast, I think it's fair to congratulate Keira Knightley's work. The actress already has a long history of period films and seems to have developed a certain predilection for this type of dramatic work, so I felt quite comfortable with the role and the character. The way she played opposite and related to Ralph Fiennes is very good, and the actor is excellent in the way he assumes the reserved, distant and sometimes rude ways of the duke, whom she makes an unpleasant and morally controversial figure. Hayley Atwell was also very good in the role of Lady Foster, although she was not able to give the character the moral nuances and ambiguity that the historical character deserved to have. The film also has good minor appearances from Charlotte Rampling and Simon McBurney. Dominic Cooper did what he could in the role of Charles Gray, but I couldn't help but think the actor was too old for the character, who was several years younger than the Duchess.

**Not Statham’s typical action film and, therefore, a letdown compared to what I was hoping to see.**
Possibly the slowest and most depressing Statham movie I have seen so far. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s terrible, but it is definitely not what I want to see when I watch a Statham movie. Most of the movie is his conversations with a nun doubting her belief in God and her “goodness,” while Statham wrestles with whether or not he can ever be a good man after the things he has done. Not much action or fighting. Mostly drinking and being miserable. I would pass on this one if you are looking for a Statham action film.

An classic Jason Statham action film with quite a few unnecessary touches. Nevertheless, one of my favorites for its simplicity and feel-good story.

surprising depth and quality
Expecting yet another revenge/vigilante movie - Statham is an action guy, right? - I was disappointed, but in a very positive way. This movie has character development, good acting, and a story with more depth than to be expected. It's no psychological masterpiece, but it goes far beyond a simple action flick.
It starts out simple, though. Former soldier became drug addicted bum, living in the streets; by accident, he gets a way out. And into moral grey zones - very dark grey.
There is a love story in it, but it is a good one, I think; two complex characters each struggling with themselves, and their lives. And the most gripping part for me was where we see two people waiting, watching other people.
Fear not, it's not all artsy and emotional; there's a bit of action as well - solid quality, reliably delivered by Statham (and a good team). With a small side of humour. Violence is not the core of this movie; it's just part of the story. Which is a dark and gritty one.
I found this movie worth my time, and memorable enough to write this review. Recommended.
PS: Someone called this "a thoughtful action movie or a violent art film" - and very good in either function. I agree.

A reminder of what movies can do. That is, revitalize the soul. I usually watch movies in spurts. I won't see anything for 9-13 months, because things in my life are going for the most part smoothly, but then comes this inevitable (it would seem) slide back into not so much a depression as much a soul-level detachment from reality. Lethargy, I guess you'd call it. So I put together 40-50 new things to watch and marathon at the pace of 2 or 3 per day, until I'm finished. Every time I do this, one or two movies come along that splash water on my face and bring me back to life. The rare breed of original, endearing, honest, careful and considered filmic experiences like 2001, or Ikiru, Hannah and Her Sisters, City Lights, or Anomalisa, are, for me, the antidote to a dying spirit. This one got me shook

Reviewing this film gives me great pleasure as I thought it was very well made. It is a beautiful film about the isolation and the disembodiment of modern society. 'Anomalisa' tells the story of a man called Michael Stone played by David Thewlis on a business trip and we realise how lonely he is.The film is made using start-stop animation puppetry which had been chosen for amazing effect. Each character has the same face (seemingly like masks) and everyone has the same monotonic voice apart from the two main characters. This makes the themes of identity and loneliness so very profound and imaginative.
The repetitiveness of the main character's lifestyle comes to a halt when he overhears a guest in his hotel which is cleverly named The Fregoli which is the name of a mental condition to do with paranoia. This guest turns out to be voiced by Jennifer Jason Leigh. She is the only other voice heard and Stone is enchanted by her and instantly asks for her to go back to his room. He makes her sing and listens to her intently. There is a very graphic sex scene which would be humourous in any other circumstance but it is very moving and beautiful.
I won't talk any more about the story as it'll ruin it. 'Anomalisa' is a very clever film from the mind who brought us 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind', 'Adaptation.' and 'Being John Malkovich' and it shows. Everything about it is expertly done. It is sad that this was only up for 'Best Animated Feature' alongside two dimensional children's cartoons at the Academy Awards and it wasn't recognised for being the great film that it is.
★★★★

> Through the eyes of one who thinks everyone in the world is alike.
The film was based on the stage play. Originally it was meant for a short movie, but during in the production it was extended to a feature film length and ended up knocking the Oscars door. A R-rated stop-motion animation, which is the first in the history of the Academy Awards to get a nomination. My last stop-motion was the last year's 'Shaun the Sheep Movie', so that makes this kind of filmmaking is going extinct. For that reason alone, I just don't want to miss it out, as well as I prepared to enjoy every bit of it and so I suggest others to do the same if they find it interesting.
My expectation was quite simple which is entertainment. But usually animations are comedies, in that perspective, this is slightly a letdown. Wait, this film is for adults and of course the humours in this narration was delivered on its own style like a black comedy. It is a weird title right! But the film explains it in a simple manner. That's not it, there are more weird stuffs in it, like I was confused over the character voice tones for both the sexes and again the film had the reasons which will be revealed at a crucial segment.
It was something like 'Lost in Translation', about a middle-aged man named Michael Stone, who is on a trip to Cincinnati to promote his latest book. Slowly it unfolds what kind of person he's really and going further, his struggle in the married life comes the prime focus. So this tour opens a new door for him once again to fall in love which leads him for a tough decision to make. But at a certain extent, the reality check comes into play. About everything he's doing and all the life he left behind makes him feel he's trapped in some kind of delusion. His ultimate decision is where this tale going to conclude.
> "Sometimes there's no lesson.
> That's a lesson in itself."
The camera never takes off its lens in its throughout narration on the main character, Stone. Right from the beginning till the final scene, the film follows him like in a real time. So the entire film was like everything that happened in a 24 hour. That's the character development you would get. Besides, there are scenes, like the sex part that may stun you. Because it was not like I have ever seen one, not in animation. Even compared it to the Hentai, Hentai was 2 dimensional pictures whereas this is technically a 3 dimensional, so the effect was much more realistic and the impact on the viewers definitely will be strong.
The real problem those who saw it to end up in a disappointment is that it's not your regular animation. Which is usually aimed for children and family audience, but adults too can have a great time, whereas this film had a very matured and sensitive contents. Maybe they did not want the display of the real life experience to be narrated with a bunch of toys. But in the perspective of stop-motion animation, it is a great artistic achievement. It is not only their anticipation that killed their joy, but failing to accept the fact that we see regularly in the live-shot films to see them again in a different format.
What I liked the most in it was the message regarding the main character on his suffering. When he sits in front of the antique he bought for his son which makes him realise himself on what he's seeking in others around him. But what's his delusion is that he thinks the world is not balanced, everyone are alike. So what he actually needs is a redefined life, in which this film portrayed how close he came to one before everything shattered.
This is not just a comedy, but a very real film for the people who wants to understand the life on its different stages and threat it poses where every one of us go through in our lifetime. Surely it is no masterpiece, but there's no reason to ignore on the subject it deals. It will remain one of the best stop-motion animation, exclusively made for adults. There are grown up who simply ignore animations, because they think it is too cartoonish. Undoubtedly it will be a good film them to try.
7/10

I only watched this movie cause I have a crush on Eliza Dushku. It was a lot funnier then I could have ever imagined. Who would of thought a cheer leader movie could be this entertaining. I liked it, it was actually a good movie.

Maybe we should join the team.
Torrance is the newly appointed captain of cheerleader champions the Toros. After one of the team suffers an accident, the Toros recruit gymnastics star Missy Pantone, but upon witnessing the Toros first routine Missy is disgusted and points out that it has been stolen from another team called The East Compton Clovers. This opens up a whole can of worms that not only brings the Toros into conflict with the Clovers, but also means that they must come up with an original routine if they are to win the American championship honestly.
Spirited picture about cheer leading? Well yes it is, it's witty, smart and ever so amiable. Tho the film loses some of its sharpness in the final quarter (a brave ending would have made all the difference), Bring It On clearly touches on race and class issues whilst bringing to the fore the competitiveness of cheerleader teams. The usual formula's of bitching and back stabbing are naturally in here, and of course no film of this type would be complete without some strand of treacle plot love, but the mix is fine and the exuberance of the routines is hugely enjoyable cinema. Kirsten Dunst, Eliza Dushku, Gabrielle Union and Jesse Bradford fill out the cast and all offer something in the way of watch ability.
It could have been so much better for sure, but Bring It On is very entertaining film about a subject that until this picture came out (subsequent sequels would follow) was hardly tackled with this sort of vigour and intelligence before. 7/10

Not really a Wrestling movie so much as it is a character study that may or may not be remotely accurate. I don't feel like I walked away from _Fighting with My Family_ with a greater appreciation for the sport, but I did feel like I understood how the core cast felt about it.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a _

Never my favourites of cartoon characters, this sadly doesn't really do much better than the pretty far-fetched, slapstick, animation series from the 1970s. It starts off by way of an explanation as to how the young "Shaggy" and his eponymous canine pal initially hooked up, before jumping forwards to present day where the two, along with the rest of the "Mystery Inc." gang, must work together to thwart an evil plan to unleash the legendary guardian of the Underworld - a spectral form of Cerberus - on mankind. To be fair, it doesn't hang around and the animation quality keeps the style fairly similar to the original television series; it's just that the writing is really lacklustre and cheesy with the characters - for me, at any rate - just downright irritating, playing to just about every stereotype imaginable. The reveals at the end were always pretty silly, and here is no different - it's all just too lightweight and disappointing. I'd have backed Cerberus any day. Perhaps it is just aiming for a nostalgic audience of adults who recall it more fondly than I do? In any case, I really cannot see this resonating with the kids today and maybe this is one cinema release that lockdown did us all favour by restricting.

It was an okay Scooby-Doo movie for the kids. The animation looks great and for the most part the voice talents were good, especially Zac Efron as Fred was great, as were Gina Rodriguez and Amanda Seyfried as Velma and Daphne respectively. However, wasn't that thrilled with Will Forte's Shaggy (still think Matthew Lillard has been perfect thus far, I know they wanted a name, but doubt star power sells movies nowadays).
Anyway, it was a serviceable enough animated flick, personally I'm not a fan of the supernatural plots when it comes to the Scooby-Doo franchise, but fine for the family, so long as you're not an entrenched fan, I can see why some may hate this iteration. **3.25/5**

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
I was never the biggest fan of Scooby-Doo's animated cartoon when I was young. I enjoyed it like any other kid who enjoys almost everything, but it was never a show that made me nervously excited during the day, waiting for it to come on TV. I vividly remember getting pumped, knowing that a new episode of Dragon Ball Z or Timon & Pumba would broadcast on that particular day. I never felt that way with Scooby-Doo, and honestly, I don't know why. I was always curious about sci-fi and "what lies beyond", so maybe the fact that the goal of the show was to justify every single paranormal activity with some "guy in a mask" didn't really appeal to the kid in me...
Either way, I still liked the series, and my memory is filled with all of the show's classic signatures: the (double or even triple) un-masking of the villains, Scooby jumping to Shaggy's arms because they both got scared, the ridiculously large sandwiches, you name it. Ironically, the biggest compliment I can give the film also relates to its major flaw. For any fan of the show, these classic moments will provide high levels of nostalgia and entertainment, so anyone who comes looking for that will definitely get what they desire.
However, even though Scoob! is far from feeling like a corporate flick packed with product placement (looking at you, Sonic the Hedgehog), I can't help but feel that the studio was embarrassed by its own property. They try so hard to make this movie belong to 2020 that they completely forgot about what makes the show special for so many people. From the weirdly confusing song selection to the way too modern plot points, Scoob! 's narrative distinctly follows an Avengers-style plot (including an obvious allusion to Captain America holding his shield) focusing strongly on the superhero theme.
They didn't believe that Mystery Inc. and the (successful) formulaic story were enough to hold the target audience's attention, so they decided to borrow from one of the most entertaining and financially impactful genres of today, losing the essence of their own IP. Therefore, despite Scoob! having almost all of the cartoon's classic scenes, it still feels detached from the source material. In addition to this, if you're not a fan of Scooby-Doo and if you don't know anything about it, then don't expect this film to explain anything to you.
Fred, Velma, and Daphne get separated from Shaggy and Scooby early on (due to a hilariously dumb scene that only kids will accept), so almost no character development occurs within the first group of people. This movie focuses more on the pair's adventure and their relationship dynamics (which are explored in a cliche yet efficient manner), leaving 3/5 of the Mystery Inc. feeling left off. Actually, now that I think about it, Scoob! doesn't even have a mystery to solve!
In the cartoons, every episode is about discovering what or who's causing a specific paranormal event. This film basically follows that formula for the first fifteen minutes (which serve as an origin story of the gang) and then takes an entirely different path story-wise. I'm not going to complain about the plot's absurdity because it's undeniably a kids' movie, but these forced attempts to adapt Scooby-Doo to 2020 are what ruin the whole thing for me. The voice acting is great, though, and hearing Frank Welker interpret Scooby again is incredibly joyful.
All in all, Scoob! possesses almost all of the classic moments from the original cartoon, which will surely leave fans of the series satisfied and feeling that heartwarming nostalgia. In addition to this, the voice work is really good for the most part, especially from the legend, Frank Welker as Scooby. However, the studio hurts the film with countless attempts to adapt the formulaic yet successful screenplay that the show employed for decades into 2020. From the superhero-like plot to the lack of a central mystery, Tony Cervone finds himself in a writing mess (four screenwriters and three "story by" credits) from a company ashamed of its own product. If you're a hardcore fan of the animated show, this movie might leave you satisfied. But if you don't share a special connection with these characters and their classic adventures, or if you don't know anything about this franchise at all, Scoob! not only doesn't care to introduce or develop its characters, but it definitely isn't going to convert you.
Rating: C-

I guess I can commend Warner Bros. for attempting to revitalise their Scooby-Doo brand and give parents something to show their kids while they've been stuck at home, but when there's a plethora of new and old (much, much better) kid's films, the best thing would be to Scooby-Dooby-do your kids a favour and skip this one.
- Ashley Teresa
Read Ashley's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-scoob-mystery-swapped-for-money-hungry-mayhem

Promising plot, good cast, director and producer of renown - this movie has all the ingredients for an all-time classic.
It has just one flaw.
It is supposed to be funny,
and it isn't.

Tim Curry and Eileen Brennan are great in this dramatised game of "Cleudo". The former is butler "Wadsworth" who is to welcome a select gathering of guests to his employer's stately pile for a dinner with a difference. Once assembled, we discover that these ostensibly upstanding folks are all really miscreants and that they were all being blackmailed! Unbeknown to them, their nemesis is in their midst - but not for long, and what now ensues is a cleverly written and staged murder mystery that pits each of them against the other in an entertaining and funny ninety minutes complete with a rope and some lead piping. There are loads of quips in the pithily delivered script - some more subtle than others, and as the deductive element of the plot heats up, the characters - especially Brennan's "Mrs. Peacock" and Christopher Lloyd's eccentric, slightly sleazy, "Prof Plum" - each start to exude their own sense of chaotic, slapstick, mini-menace. By the end I wasn't quite sure who was dead, if anyone was dead, should anyone have been dead, should they all have been dead, should I have been dead? It races along just like it does on the stage, and as screen adaptations from that medium go - well, it's amongst the best. Looks great too and is really worth sitting in from of the telly with some Malbec with, and enjoying Tim Curry doing what he does best.

Randomly decided to re-watch this classic crime-comedy and still works today. Plenty of fun throughout and a great ensemble cast. **3.75/5**

Those three alternate endings were still very confusing.
But it was still humorous nonetheless.

Cluedo Chaos.
Clue is directed by Jonathan Lynn and he co-writes with John Landis and Anthony E. Pratt. It stars Eileen Brennan, Tim Curry, Christopher Lloyd, Madeline Kahn, Michael McKean, Martin Mull, Lesley Ann Warren, Colleen Camp and Lee Ving. Music is by John Morris and cinematography by Victor J. Kemper.
Based on the board game Cluedo, plot finds six guests anonymously invited to a large mansion for dinner. All of them have something in common and when their host is killed, they must work with the household staff to identify the murderer because the bodies are starting to pile up.
A sort of madcap "And Then There Were None", Clue has ebullience in spades and a cast revelling in the nutty play. The mystery element is actually secondary to the interactions of this splendid array of characters, where physical and vocal humour is the twin driving force. The shifts between pure mania and deadpannery ensure the pace, even during close quarter chattings in the group, never sags.
It's on the surface silly but taking a closer look it's rejoicing in its own humility, the class distinctions shredded for comedic worth. It's definitely a mood piece, I mean you have to be in a good move to go with its flow. For to be down and blue it's more likely to irritate than to cheer one up. The makers are on form, in front of and behind the camera, while Morris' musical score is proper perky.
A flop on release, and mauled in serious critic circles, Clue has garnered a cult fanbase over the decades. So much so it sits with a healthy rating on the main movie data base. It's hard to recommend with great confidence, for it is an acquired taste. But it's a one of a kind from the 1980s, a pic that you should try just in case you do become a fan for life. 7/10

**_An amusing take on “And Then There Were None” and “Murder by Death”_**
RELEASED IN 1985 and directed by Jonathan Lynn, "Clue" is a comedic murder mystery based on the board game featuring an “all-star” cast (Tim Curry, Madeline Kahn, Christopher Lloyd, Eileen Brennan, Lesley Ann Warren, etc.).
This is a good movie if you’re in the mood for an amusing mystery that takes place during the McCarthy era (1954) almost entirely within a vast gothic mansion on a stormy night. It combines movies like “Ten Little Indians” (1965) and “The Beast Must Die” (1974) with the goofiness of “The Private Eyes” (1980).
I was skeptical at how Lynn & the cast could pull off the challenge of making such a confined story entertaining, but I have to admit that I busted out laughing several times (e.g. the scenes of making out with corpses). And the cast is a pleasure to behold with Colleen Camp a highlight as the stereotypical (hot) French maid. The climax with its several murder scenarios is kinda tedious, however.
THE MOVIE RUNS 1 hour 34 minutes and was shot in Paramount Studios, Hollywood, and Max Busch House, Pasadena, California. WRITERS: Jonathan Lynn and John Landis.
GRADE: B-/C+

This starts out as a typical Agatha Christie vehicle - even the heroine is called Agatha - she has a romantic partner called Iris.
Her sister invites a bunch of so called friends to her yacht and faces them with all the bad stuff they had done to her.
The problem is that nothing much happens after that. Unlike the Christie vehicles where everyone is killed and there is a twist at the end - this doesn't happen. There is ridiculous explanation about the colour violet and it's meaning - totally bizarre. The policeman of course - has to ask Agatha for her help in discovering who shot one of the guests (in the shoulder) and she keeps on whispering in his ear about what to say or do.
It's beyond farcical.
The acting is awful and none of the guests seemed to be in possession of a comb or a hairbrush.
It ends with a kiss on the beach - by Agatha and Iris - box ticked - goodbye.

It’s been said that one of the most cherished hopes for a loving relationship is that its partners inevitably have someone with whom they can grow old together, a time when they can warmly look back on their time as a couple with fondness and treasured memories. But what happens when something occurs that threatens to steal those precious recollections? That’s one of the tragedies that can come with various forms of dementia, such as Alzheimer’s Disease, a condition that seriously endangered the long-term loving partnership of renowned Chilean author/journalist Augusto Góngora and his wife, actress and former Minister of Culture Paulina Urrutia. But, rather than seeking seclusion in the wake of that diagnosis, Góngora insisted on making his story public, telling the tale of his condition and the diligent, compassionate efforts of Urrutia in acting as his caregiver, particularly in helping him hold on to his memory as fully and as long as possible. Their story is sensitively recounted in writer-director Maite Alberdi’s moving documentary, a film that will simultaneously warm and break your heart. In telling their tale, this title explores the importance of preserving one’s memories as a measure of one’s identity and accomplishments, both personally and professionally. In Góngora’s case, that involves the depth of his love for his wife, family and friends, as well as the critical role he played in making the Chilean public aware of the grotesque atrocities that unfolded in the wake of the country’s 1973 coup d’etat and the restoration of the nation’s cultural and artistic heritage after its return to democracy with the ouster of the Pinochet regime in 1990. Those recollections, in his view, represent a depth of courage that’s to be preserved and not lost to the ravages of time and illness. This Oscar nominee for best documentary feature and its designation as one of 2023’s top documentaries by the National Board of Review is a striking piece of filmmaking, one that’s sure to touch virtually anyone who watches it (but be sure to keep those hankies handy). When we consider what can potentially be lost under circumstances like these, any efforts made to prevent that are truly heroic steps to be commended, and this film does an outstanding job at making that known, both in this case and as a practice to be employed whenever comparable conditions arise.

Filmed during the COVID lockdown, this really is a poignant and affecting love story. We are introduced to Augusto Gongora and his wife Paulina Urrutia. The former was an accomplished television journalist in Chile during it's frequently turbulent times, she an acclaimed actress and they have, by 2023, been married for a quarter of a century. What we discover quickly is that he is suffering from Alzheimer's and as the pair continue through the life, both dread what they know to be coming: the day when he will no longer know who she is. This is one of those rare documentaries where the actuality of the political trouble and strife actually serve to deliver us a bit of a breather from the intensity of this most human of stories as the couple wake up each morning without any idea what that day may bring. The lockdown scenario and the hand-held photography ensures that there are few other characters to divert our focus from this intimate and heart-rending depiction of their determination not to allow this disease to prevail any earlier than they have to. Their habits and routines are designed to elicit as many memories and triggers as possible to enable Augusto to hold onto his soul for just that bit longer, but he isn't a King Canute and even throughout the timeframe of this documentary we see that they cannot thwart the inevitable. It's not some melancholy affair, though. Their grandchildren enliven things and this couple are still very much up for the joys of life. There is plenty of laughter to remind us that it's life they want to live, not just an existence they wish to seek. From an observer's perspective we also get a little of the sense of the frustration felt by this man who, as a journalist, was a voracious reader but who can no longer enjoy his vast library. We also see a dedication and affection from Paulina who must also recalibrate from time to time to ensure that she doesn't succumb to the relentless pressures of living such an unpredictable life. This isn't an easy watch, but over ninety minutes we get an insight into just how spirit and a sense of humour can still make a difference.