Such a great movie. First of all it doesn't contain woke propaganda which is surpisingly good sign nowadays. Secondly movie was interesting and well done. I enjoyed watching it very much. Well done!

**_The challenges of growing up (alone) in the shoreline swamps of the Carolinas_**
In the 60s, a girl (Daisy Edgar-Jones) comes-of-age in coastal North Carolina, where she’s an outcast known as “the marsh girl.” When a local hotshot is found dead (Harris Dickinson), the community thinks she’s the culprit. Taylor John Smith plays a male friend and David Strathairn her lawyer.
Based on the 2018 novel by Delia Owens, “Where the Crawdads Sing” (2022) is a meshing of “Cross Creek” (1983) with backwoods crime mystery, such as "Undertow" (2004), "Winter's Bone" (2010) and "Mud" (2012). It’s reminiscent of Steve Gerber’s Man-Thing comics of the 70s, just with the swamp monster being replaced by human monsters.
The coastal swamp cinematography is awesome, but this wasn’t shot within 850 miles of the shores of North Carolina. It was filmed in Houma and New Orleans, Louisiana
The movie runs 2 hours, 5 minutes.
GRADE: B+/A-

**While well done and well told, it is not a movie I would return to.**
Where the Crawdads Sing is a lingering sorrowful tale of an abandoned young woman finding her purpose and strength in the isolation of nature. The story mourns the abuses and judgments the protagonist faces as nearly every relationship in her life betrays her. Yet, she remains hopeful, kind, and gentle after all that. The movie is a mixture of biography, courtroom drama, and murder mystery, and while that might sound full and active, Where the Crawdads Sing is an unhurried creeping story. Typically, slow-moving films bore me, but this one was definitely engaging. The main character is steadfast and strong even after all she had endured making the story more compelling and interesting. The mystery part of the movie almost hides in the background until the film's final moments, focusing on Kya's journey rather than devolving into a mediocre whodunit. While I was taken along on an intriguing sojourn with Where the Crawdads Sing, it was ultimately a very somber tale moving at a very melancholy pace.

MORE SPOILER-FREE REVIEWS @ https://www.msbreviews.com/
"Where the Crawdads Sing is one of the biggest surprises of the year - may the extraordinary box office result serve as proof.
A survival story - on many levels - that tackles heavy trauma, the power of nature, prejudice, hypocrisy, and many other topics in a thematically rich screenplay. Daisy Edgar-Jones ends her breakthrough year with yet another complex performance that convinces viewers to invest in the equally intricate, fully-developed protagonist over a runtime slightly affected by a short period during the second act where it loses some momentum.
A tad too melodramatic for my taste, and the divisive revelation of the final minutes will certainly generate much discourse - personally, it almost ruins the whole work.
Still, I recommend it!"
Rating: B

WHERE THE CRAWDADS SING is a movie adaptation of the novel of the same name by Delia Owens. The movie is set in the early 1950s in the fictional town of Barkley Cove, North Carolina. Kya Clark (played by Daisy Edgar-Jones) is a young girl who lives in isolation after she is abandoned by her family. She becomes friends with Tate Walker (played by Taylor John Smith), a local boy who helps her learn how to read and write. When Tate also abandons her, Kya becomes involved with Chase Andrews (played by Harris Dickinson), the town's golden boy. When Chase is found dead, Kya becomes the prime suspect.
The movie begins with the murder, unlike in the book. In the movie, Kya is arrested and put on trial at the start. The trial is the central focus of the movie, whereas in the book it is a secondary plotline. The movie does a decent job of adapting the book's complex plot and characters for the screen. However, it lacks the lyrical prose of the novel, which is one of the novel's greatest strengths.
Daisy Edgar-Jones gives a breakout performance as Kya. She conveys Kya's isolation, desperation, and hope. The movie is worth watching for her performance alone. The movie is visually stunning, with sweeping shots of the North Carolina marshes. It's a beautiful backdrop for the story. In addition to her relationships with the two men in the story, a black couple also befriends Kya – Jumpin' (played by Sterling Macer Jr) and Mabel (played by Michael Hyatt). Their relationship is one of the most complex and interesting relationships in the movie.
WHERE THE CRAWDADS SING is not perfect. The film's pacing is uneven, and it struggles to find the right tone. The murder mystery plot is too convoluted and not particularly interesting. And the relationship between Kya and Chase feels forced and unconvincing. And there is no explanation of what a crawdad is! My understanding is that a crawdad is a freshwater crustacean that resembles a small lobster. They are also known as crayfish, crawfish, and crawdaddies. They live in the swamps battling for their existence – a metaphor for Kya's own battle to survive.
The themes of love, loss, betrayal, and redemption are at the heart of this movie. Kya's story is a moving tale of human resilience in the face of great adversity. The ending is hopeful, though not without tragedy.
Overall, WHERE THE CRAWDADS SING is a beautiful but flawed adaptation of a great novel. It's worth watching for the stunning visuals and Daisy Edgar-Jones' performance. But be prepared to be disappointed if you're expecting a faithful adaptation of the book.

Split opinion on this. Overall, though, I think my thoughts regarding it are, just narrowly, positive.
'Where the Crawdads Sing' is a tad overlong and I'm not sold on the ending, though even so I think I like this enough. The acting is the big reason for that, with Daisy Edgar-Jones standing out alongside David Strathairn. Taylor John Smith and Garret Dillahunt are solid elsewhere. Away from the actors, most other elements are forgettable.
The conclusion is iffy to me. It was clear the film was holding something back in regards to the story, though the way it eventually goes isn't the most satisfying to me personally. It's a pretty straightforward film, when all is said and done.
It's close to being what I'd consider a miss, but I reckon it just about does enough right. 6/10 doesn't feel fitting to me, so 7/10 it is.

Daisy Edgar-Jones is really quite good in this adaptation of the Delia Owens story of a young girl left to her own devices in 1950s America. One by one her mother, siblings and finally her father abandon her to bring herself up. She takes to fishing for mussels in order to try to make ends meet, and is generally shunned by her community. Except, that is for her childhood friend "Tate" (a good effort too from Taylor John Smith) but when he leaves to go to college, she is exposed to the local Lothario "Chase" (Harris Dickinson). Turns out he is a bit of a wrong 'un for her, and when he is found dead at the bottom of a fire tower, she is prime suspect. What now ensues is a trial that provides us with retrospectives of the girl's childhood and her relationships whilst "Milton" (David Strathairn) organises her defence for a crime that might not even have been committed! The cinematography is gorgeous, the remoteness and intimacy of her existence is captured really well; as is the sense of isolation from her community as they look upon her as little more than an urchin. Smith portrays a decency to his character (he reminded me a lot of Joe Alwyn) and there are some touching performances from Sterling Macer Jnr. and Michael Hyatt as the closest thing the young girl has to family. Dickinson's accent is all over the shop, but he does manage to convince well enough as the rather duplicitous man who probably deserved his fate - however it actually happened. It is an interesting story, illustrating just how little by way of state infrastructure (or interference) there was in this young girl's life and how that empowered and endangered her in equal measure. DEJ delivers a strong and nuanced performance as the initially illiterate girl who was determined not be put upon and the story has a redemption that I found really fitting. The photography really does benefit from a cinema screen if you can.

By January 2022, the book had sold 12 million copies, making it one of the best-selling books of all time. Almost everyone in the theatre, yesterday afternoon, had read the book and were wondering if the movie could be as good as the book, so in my exit poll, of a dozen, or so, viewers, I asked then specifically, “Did the movie do justice to the book?” Without exception they said it had. (Although one reader thought the movie had a more definitive ending than the book.) Their ratings were 8s, 8.5s and two 10s. When I said that anything I rated over 8 would be worthy of a rewatch, it was unanimous that all of them would rewatch it, some thinking they’d like to read the book, again. So, these people, who came to see the movie, had high standards that they felt were met.
The story is simple but intriguing. There is a whole TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD vibe to it. And there is a wonderful contrast between a purity of soul living within a world of threat and danger. It was refreshing to have a film celebrate innocence. The nature shots of North Carolina are breathtaking. The casting is spot on and the performances are flawless. But the success of the film lies with the lead actor, Daisy Edgar-Jones (a very talented Brit, who earned respect for her talents in another best selling novel adaptation for television, NORMAL PEOPLE). There is a wide eyed innocence about Kya that she captures which, in turn, captivates the audience to invest in her story and her plight. (The only disconnect I had with her portrayal was not her fault but that of the production. For a swamp girl, living off the grid, her personal hygiene and wardrobe were spotless and fitted to perfection. A seemingly unlikely possibility considering her environment.) I would definitely see this film again and am tempted to buy the audible book. I give this film an enthusiastic 9 (beautiful and touching) out of 10. [Drama]

**A movie as empty as a haunted house.**
I fully understand the fascination with Winchester Mystery House, an old mansion that was born from Sarah Winchester's will and ideas: owner of a fortune linked to the firearm's industry, she thought she was being haunted by the ghosts of people killed by these weapons and was advised by a medium to live in a mansion that was always being remodeled, with rooms and divisions permanently being added or demolished in an apparently random way. Sarah Winchester truly believed that she would be killed if she stopped or finished the building, so the house was only completed (obviously unended) with her death, and then opened to the public as a tourist attraction. It's a fascinating, curious and bizarre story, but it took a long time to reach the cinema.
The movie, however, is not remarkable, being just another ghost story in a haunted house. The Spierig Brothers (directors and writers) do not bring anything new to their film, limiting themselves to using almost all the regular clichés of American horror, including static and scary images that appear out of nowhere (at quite predictable moments) for the usual jump scares. As a haunted house horror movie, I've seen better.
One of the biggest problems of the film is the poor script and the bad conception of the characters. The two brothers who wrote the script were so enamored with the mysterious house that they weren't able to create a really intriguing story around it, and its original inhabitant. Everything goes reasonably well from the point where the doctor arrives at the mansion, but the preceding story, which justifies his trip and stay at the place, is very far-fetched. On the other hand, the melodramatic twist at the end, involving the doctor and a ghost from his past, was predictable from the beginning and is very nauseating. Poorly written and almost without personality, the characters just appear, talk and disappear without our caring about them. And as if the truth were not enough to make us believe in the possible curse of the Winchester family, the script got a completely made up story for Marion Marriott, niece (and heiress) of the manor owner. She existed in real life, but her life wasn't what the movie says, and her husband didn't die as it is said. It is a pointless and unnecessary invention.
The cast has a handful of familiar names, but maybe they don't really want to be remembered for the work they've done here. In fact, the cast effort is reduced, and the prevailing feeling is that the actors were not really committed or motivated. If Helen Mirren is the most seasoned and famous actress in the cast, the truth is that she is never really there, in body and mind. She seems oblivious, or uninterested. Jason Clarke still seems to have some interest in what he's doing, and I felt the actor tried to do something positive, but he won't have had much of an opportunity to go beyond what he's done.
The film is not a technical brilliance. There have been attempts to film in the original house, but we are told that the very design of the house, with cramped spaces and low light, will not be ideal for movie shooting. Personally, I also believe that the organization that is managing the property has shown some reluctance to allow it, since they have always had, until today, great restraint in allowing the capture of images of the interior of the house. Everything that was recreated in the studio seems to me to be very well done, and I liked the sets and the house. However, the production values basically stop here… the cinematography is pretty basic and the editing is banal, but it manages to give the film a pace that isn't tiresome. The props and period details look convincing, but the CGI is poor, the digitally made images are of very poor quality, and the visual and sound effects seem cheap and elementary.

Given the cast assembled and the events it's based on, I'm sure you'll forgive me for having at least some expectations for _Winchester_. Whatever those expectations were though, I can tell you right now, they weren't met. _Winchester_ was massively disappointing, as by-the-numbers as you can get, and if it wasn't for a couple of good performances and the occasional decent effect, it would have literally nothing to offer.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

Another knock-off of well-known subjects.
Solid making, good cast, some action and brutality, big stakes; all the formula components are there.
But the big drama fails to be emotionally engaging.
OK to watch with lowered expectations, waste of time if you expect more.

**A man with the two minds!**
This is a very familiar theme, but a different format and gives a different scientific excuse to execute the story. It is kind of 'Face/off' and 'Self/less' meets the 'Hardcore Henry'. It has some decent stunt sequences, but most of the film was just running and chasing around. And then there's a youngster whose involvement was the centre of the narration.
It all begins when an American secret agent was killed before completing his mission in the London. The important data from his brain were transmitted to a prison serving convict and then after the surgery he goes loose. So the man hunt begins against the running out of the time where the original mission needs to be accomplished. How the rest of the story shapes up were a fast paced action-thriller.
Something I don't like in the todays films are the open ending keeping in mind a sequel. This was an average box office film, but they might make another film. Wonderful cast, though. There are too many big names and everybody did the brief roles, except Kevin Costner in the main character, a tough one. But I did not know it was his film till I watch. In the poster he looked like somebody else. Though he did well along with the others, particularly Gal Gadot who I saw recently as Wonder Woman and now as an ordinary wife. A swift pace, but the story was nothing, overly depended on the star value as well as the stunts and the technical quality. Overall film was okay kind, partially entertaining, because of the performances.
6/10

Delightfully sleazy and trashy 1990s erotic-thriller that has everything you want from the genre but also a pretty engaging plot underneath it all. Great performances from Kevin Bacon, Matt Dillon, Neve Campbell and Denise Richards. This is a movie I've seen several times over the years, the latest in glorious 4K, and it never gets old. **4.0/5**

Told by way of a retrospective, Meryl Streep is the elderly Baroness Thatcher who is struggling to get over the death of her husband Sir Denis (Jim Broadbent) and dealing with the onset of dementia that is distressing her daughter Carol (Olivia Colman) and is causing her to forget yesterday but vividly recall the moments from her past that led to her domination of British politics for ten years. Streep does well mimicking the style and voice of the politician, but the back and forth style of the film's timelines robs it of much of it's potency. It is hard to be critical of the woman or her style when she is largely portrayed via the image of the shell that she had become towards the end of her life. You cannot help but feel a degree of pity for her and I suspect everyone watching - and her too - would not have wanted that. The condensed nature of the narrative does little justice to her career - it's controversial highs and lows; position on the global stage, even her downfall is rushed - and the depiction of her life here leaves us with little of substance with which to judge this most polarising of women. It is worth a watch to witness a consummate professional at work, but as a review of Margaret Thatcher or her political career it falls disappointingly short.

Pearl (2022) is a visually striking psychological horror film that takes a unique approach to storytelling. Set in the 1920s, the movie immediately stands out with its vibrant, almost dreamlike cinematography that contrasts with its dark themes. The production design is meticulous, capturing the era’s aesthetic with rich colors and a polished, old-Hollywood feel. While the plot starts off slow, especially in the first act and early second, it gradually picks up, pulling you deeper into the protagonist's unsettling world. Ti West's direction is methodical, letting tension simmer rather than relying on cheap scares, which works well for the film's psychological depth.
Mia Goth carries the entire movie with an outstanding performance, making Pearl one of the most compelling horror characters in recent years. Her ability to shift between innocence and madness is captivating, and she brings an emotional weight that elevates the script. The dialogue feels natural yet eerie, adding to the film’s unease. The score is another highlight, blending classic orchestral sounds with unsettling undertones that perfectly match the film’s descent into darkness. While it may not be as fast-paced as some horror films, Pearl delivers a slow-burn psychological experience that lingers long after the credits roll.

I will be doing a combined review for the two films, "X" and "Pearl."
Upon seeing the high ratings given by both the general public and critics to these movies, I am left puzzled about what truly makes a good film.
Let's start with "X," a movie that I found to be absolutely terrible. The film revolves around pornography rather than a cohesive storyline, resulting in a disjointed and atrocious viewing experience. The cinematography, acting, storytelling, and writing were all subpar, yet critics inexplicably praised it.
The attempt to elevate the film with Jenna Ortega fell short, as she had minimal screen time amidst excessive male and adult nudity, making it unsuitable for general viewing. This is a movie best watched in private, not recommended by me at all.
Moving on to "Pearl," I was equally disappointed as it also relied heavily on sexual themes. The film took a bizarre turn, culminating in a scene that made me walk out of the theater in disbelief.
It's baffling to see these films receive acclaim, especially when performances like Mia Goth's are lacking. It seems that the current focus is on titillation rather than genuine storytelling.
As we await the verdict on the third film, it appears that the world may be more interested in gratification than meaningful narratives.

**By: Louisa Moore / www.ScreenZealots.com**
The strange and unusual “Pearl,” a prequel to writer / director Ti West‘s “X”, is a different kind of slasher film. Creating an origin story for the title villain, the film tells the history of a farm girl dreamer with a serious mean streak. It’s a horror movie that’s unlike any other, a candy-colored, nightmarish dream world of lofty ambitions, brutal violence, and bloody murder.
Pearl (Mia Goth) is trapped on her family’s isolated farm. She dutifully performs her barn chores and tends to her ailing, wheelchair-bound father (Matthew Sunderland), all under the stern eye of her overbearing mother (Tandi Wright). Pearl wants nothing more in the world than to live the glamorous life of “the girls in the pictures” that she sees on the big screen at the movies. With her husband Howard off to fight World War I, Pearl finds her ambitions at odds with the reality of the life she’s been dealt. It’s clear something isn’t right with the young woman, and her violent tendencies begin to bubble to the surface.
Things weren’t great for women in 1918, and the world certainly wasn’t a place for a fiery feminist. The film is an intriguing character study of a thoroughly disturbed woman who is a victim of her own gender. Goth is asked to do the film’s heavy lifting, and she gives a wonderfully unhinged lead performance. She screams a lot but displays an impressive range, especially as she is thrust into episodes of psychopathic ire. Her calm demeanor is frightening, and almost as disturbing as her precise, unique kills. Using farm tools, Pearl becomes a skilled murderer as she gives herself over to her homicidal desires.
The story is simple but engaging, and West creates an old-timey mood with a vintage score that fits the tone beautifully. The Technicolor aesthetic harkens back to Hollywood’s Golden Age, a time of traditional glitz and glamour. It’s a great looking film that feels fresh and different, and West directs with an assured eye. His long, unbroken takes are showy but executed with purpose, and the film features a powerful monologue that’s unforgettable.
One of my favorite parts about the movie is the chilling ending, an extended scene of a true demented breakdown that still haunts me. There’s so much that makes this film so memorable, and “Pearl” is a special kind of horror film with a refreshing style and killer instinct.

Despite quite a characterful effort from Mia Goth as the title character here, I wasn't really very impressed with this film. She lives on a farm whilst her young husband is off fighting on the Somme. She shares her life with her Germanic, rather authoritarian, mother "Ruth" (Tandi Wright) and her profoundly disabled father who cannot speak and who is entirely dependent on these two women. "Pearl" longs to escape. On one of her occasional visits to town to collect her father's laudanum, she encounters the local projectionist (David Corenswet) who shows her a (quite racy) film and suggests that maybe a new life could be her's. Meantime, her life at the farm is becoming unbearable and her options for escape lead her to realise that drastic action may be needed - a plan that is accidentally put into play after an altercation with her mother. It's perfectly watchable, this, but it's also perfectly forgettable. The story is weak and thin, and though the photography is attractive, the whole thing just doesn't catch fire for me. There's no menace. It's not an horror film - it's a film about a mentally ill girl that offers us a few mildly entertaining scenarios that peter out as quickly as the plot does before an ending that screams sequel loudly and defiantly. It certainly does not need to be seen on a cinema screen.

MORE SPOILER-FREE MINI-REVIEWS @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/mini-reviews-2022-edition/
"Pearl may be a prequel to X, but Ti West turns this slasher into an incredibly complex character study represented - and co-written (!) - by Mia Goth.
The new star of the horror genre deepens the protagonist Pearl, exploring her tremendous desire to fulfill her dream of wanting to become something more than a mere farm girl, including a mesmerizing monologue of nearly ten uninterrupted minutes, where raw, insane, wholly genuine emotion of the character comes across in a fascinating manner. Extra appreciation for the practical effects and the fact that basically the entire movie is shot during broad daylight.
Gore sequences become somewhat repetitive, and the narrative doesn't escape its predictability, being an overall less captivating film than its predecessor."
Rating: B

_Pearl_ is a great character study that dives deeper in the stakes that an individual will go to attain success. It is unquestionable that the main question people will ask is, does it live up to X? While I do think it is a good film that I thoroughly enjoyed, it does not overtake its predecessor and that is completely okay. They are two entirely different movies but achieve their goals brilliantly.
This film is the textbook definition of a slow burn. The movie drags on and continues to provide this eerie tension as the viewer knows what the end result of this tragic film will be, but still remains locked in to see how it will unfold. I really enjoyed the first act, the character introductions were fantastic, and the audience has an instant connection with Pearl. But the second act drags a little more than I would have liked, but by the minute it is getting stale the third comes to pick up the pace and deliver a satisfying conclusion.
Mia Goth is utterly fantastic in this film. There is a solid six-minute monologue of just her acting her ass off. One take, one angle, and somehow, she was able to lock me in completely. She has burst on to the scene with X and Pearl, and I cannot wait to see where her career goes from here.
Overall, this film is great, but expectations should be had going into it. It is not going to be an action-packed slasher like its predecessor, but those elements are sprinkled in and work well with the overall film. If you enjoyed X, you should definitely watch this.
**Score:** _81%_ |
**Verdict:** _Great_

This is a quite a jolly rom-com with Adam Sandler as a rather cheesy wedding singer ("Robbie") engaged to "Linda" (Angela Featherstone). When things don't quite go to plan on his wedding day, he begins to develop a friendship with "Julia" (Drew Barrymore) who is herself engaged to the rather unpleasant "Glenn Guglia" (Matthew Glave). Using a cracking soundtrack from the 1980s, the film tells the story of the ups and downs of their burgeoning romance. Sandler is the nice guy here, and from the start he has the audience rooting for him; he's one of those folks who'd step into the path of a Chieftain tank to rescue a kitten; and his singing coach scenes with the elderly Ellen Dow ("Rosie') just make you want to take him home to your mother for ice cream and cookies. Alexis Arquette steals it for me, however, as the would be Boy George and there's a fun cameo at the end from Billy Idol. Lots of big hair, shoulder pads and a gently nostalgic reminder of the days when the music was certainly much more memorable than the film!

**The Wedding Singer is a sweet rom-com overflowing with Adam Sandler's over-the-top goofiness and charm.**
Oh, the Adam Sandler mullet. What a thing of beauty 🤣. The Wedding Singer marks the first Adam Sandler/Drew Barrymore team-up, and it's a wonderfully goofy and fun film. Once again, Sandler's buddies come together to play some outrageous characters, making a simple plot all the more entertaining. Barrymore seems to innately understand how to fit into the ridiculous world of an Adam Sandler movie and slightly ground the film while bringing her charm and comedy. The Wedding Singer will put a smile on your face from start to finish as Sandler's Robbie Hart warms your heart and makes you laugh with his craziness when he flies off the handle. Like any Sandler movie, The Wedding Singer ultimately focuses on love, family, and friends above all, making it an endearing entry in the Adam Sandler catalog of wacky rom-coms.

It is an instant classic. One of my favorite movies for the holiday season.

> It gets closer to the legend's personal life.
A few movies about Yip Man were made in the past, but Donnie Yen's 2008 version rewrote the history. Because the craze about martial arts in the last two decades and of course digital world made it to reach every corner of the world. Followed by a sequel and its massive hit, then came many unofficial versions to this series that set in a different timeline of the martial art legend's life.
With this movie, the narration gets lots closer to tell the personal life of Yip Man. But in the first half, like the previous two films, focused on the social issue. Yip Man is fighting for the children's education, when a real estate tycoon plans to replace the school building to a commercial complex. That's it, later the story begins to take us to the random events like a man who's hungry for the best fighter in the town title who end up challenging Yip Man to face him. From there, it's all about Yip Man and his ill wife where the movie switches from action mode to sentimental.
That's not what we expected from a man who's famous for his martial art. Surprisingly, this different approach in storytelling was refreshing. Saving school, the clash for the title and ill wife, so the overall movie was like had three episodes and each dealt on a different motive. Being a biopic and also a martial art movie, it exploited the theme fairly.
I can't say Mike Tyson's acting was so good because it was weird him to speak Cantonese. He was in a minor role, but his presence was a big boost for the movie. If we see him in an action movie, then we all know what to expect and it did not fail to fulfill our wish.
> "There's nothing more important than the love of those by your side."
The stunts were not as good as the previous two films and they were too short as well, but technically looked so perfect, especially locking horns between Tyson and Donnie Yen was like head-to-head confrontation between Hollywood and Hong Kong. The other reason to shorten stunts in the movie was to get closer to the legend's personal life. After the survival and fighting the foreign forces, now the time to focus on his own life issues.
The first two films were breathtaking, no one can doubt that. I don't know why it took so long for this third movie, but it still worked. Yet not the best in the trilogy, but remained very close to them with unlike storyline and action sequences. I was disappointed for not continuing from where it ended in the 2nd part. I mean the story has a clean flow, but not what I expected, like, I wanted Bruce Lee and the grand-master coming together.
Actually, I never expected the third installment, I considered it was one of the best duologies you could find in world cinema. But I'm happy they made this one and I'm very much sure there will be fourth. So at least I can expect the Bruce Lee's part in the Yip Man's life story. I was waiting for that from a very long and I believe it won't let me down this time. All the above, I'm looking for the official announcement.
7½/10

This was a great or big and fantastic movie series.
i'm big fan of mr. Donnie yen.
so i like that movie series.
it's a complete Action or Biography movie.

Two Jewish brothers - "Tuvia" (Daniel Craig) and "Zus" (Liev Schreiber) are leading a ramshackle group of escapees from the Nazis into the depths of the Belorussian forest. With little food and weapons, their imperative is to try and build some sort of shelter to see them through the harsh winter whilst trying to find allies to help them survive. This is no mean feat, with hundreds of mouths to feed, and it sorely tests the faith of many and the resilience of their commander who is increasingly at odds with his more pro-active brother. It's "Zus" who finally decides to leave and join the approaching Red Army battalion and that leaves "Tuvia" and another brother "Asael" (Jamie Bell) with quite a challenge as sickness and starvation loom. This isn't a particularly well written drama, nor is Craig really that great either. What works here is the sense of desperation that Edward Zwick manage to present us with. The dense forest, the snow, the wind, the darkness and the wolves. The drudgery of these ordinary people reduced to living little better than animals facing a relentless foe that is bent on an irrational plan of slaughter. Tomas Arana does quite well, if sparingly, as the Soviet commander who is suspicious of his Jewish (traditionally non-combatant) cohort and who is also, clearly, a man who probably ought not to be trusted too far. Just to lighten the mood, the under-used Bell gets a little bit of love interest for when the meagre fires die down of a cold evening. In an environment where it really is live or die, the story touches on issues of collaboration and shows us another hugely effective method employed by their enemy to subdue - and keep subdued - a population ill-equipped to survive hand-to-mouth. It is too long - half an hour could come out without savaging the plot, but it's still worth a watch. Just keep a blanket nearby.

Historically incorrect, Jewish propaganda. Jewish guerilla were not war heros and did not fight Nazi. Instead, they collaborated with Russian underground, stole properties from the villagers and farms for their needs and reselling for Russians. During these robberies they committed unspeakable crimes, leaving them with no chances to survive. They were no heroes to tell stories about, they were war criminals.

**_Survival in the woods during WW2_**
As Nazi forces sweep through Eastern Europe in 1941 the Bielski brothers (Daniel Craig, Liev Schreiber and Jamie Bell) seek refuge in the deep forests on the border of Poland and Belorussia (Belarus). More and more desperate Jews join their ranks for common protection and to oppose the occupying Germans. How can they all survive in the woods during the next four years of war?
Released in 2008-2009, "Defiance" is a drama/war film that has a lot going for it: a story based on actual events, good actors, authentic locations (filmed in Lithuania, a mere 100 miles or so from the actual sites), effective cinematography and a quality score. I personally love survival-type films and "Defiance" fills the bill, although it's not great like, say, "The Last of the Mohicans" (1992).
The filmmakers throw in all kinds of dynamic things to maintain the viewer's attention: Numerous gun battles, an airstrike and a tank, which are all faithful Hollywood-isms. It would've been better to simply focus on the characters and their gritty survival story. How about a deeper examination of individuals reduced to basic necessities? What about a study of people stripped of all civilized influences, struggling with the animalistic side of their psyche, as depicted in the excellent "Sands of the Kalahari" (1965)? How about the immaterial yet palpable bond of love which unites and gives life even in the worst possible conditions? There's some of this, of course, but I wanted it to go deeper, like in "The Flight of the Phoenix" (1965).
One thought-provoking scene concerns a man seeking to join the ever-growing group in the woods wherein he is asked what he does in order to determine how best to utilize his skills. He ponders it a moment and replies that he's "an intellectual." There's of course little use for an intellectual in such a forest community. The region was largely agrarian and so the peasant-types were skilled in at least one practical area as farmers, craftsmen or laborers. But what use was an "intellectual"?
How many of us are intellectuals and would largely be useless in such a scenario? We'd learn new skills real quick, huh? So the picture works on a what-if level: How long will our present society endure as it is before many of us are forced to live primitively in the sticks? If that happens, I hope you're more than just "an intellectual."
"Defiance" is worthwhile if the survival-in-the-woods plot piques your interest. It's superior to the similar "Tears of the Sun" (2003), but IMHO not quite as good as "Hornet's Nest" (1970) and "Sands of the Kalahari," although it's not far off.
The movie runs 2 hours, 17 minutes.
GRADE: B/B-

Compared to the book, yeah, it stinks...but that's really only because it got lost somewhere in translation from prose to screen.
Take it as it is, take it as a movie and its not half bad, the problem is that, once you leave the book behind what you have is an old fashioned B horror movie that is trying to sell itself in an era where B horror movies need the special effects of modern super hero movies and the basic plot of a Dick and Jane novel.
And then, in many ways, it's just too expensive. It feels like a classic Drive-In horror flick, but it looks like a block buster. Tone down the budget by a few million and make it a direct to video movie and it would have cult classic status already...despite the people that actually read the source material.
The acting is good, the special effects are too good, the setting is cool, but the plot hurts a bit and the fact that Duddits is Intellectually Disabled is inevitably going to put off more that a few viewers.
Really though, what you have is a great B Movie Drive-In fair that somehow got an actual budget wot work with. And you could do a lot worse in this Post New Hollywood day and age.

This is all I have to say... Butthole-cock-monsters.