A sizeable improvement on the first film.
'Terrifier 2' features a very good lead performance from Lauren LaVera, who is the major plus point for this movie. David Howard Thornton merits praise, of course, as Art the Clown too. I noted in my review of the original that I wanted more from Art and this certainly gives more. Everything does feel stepped up a notch.
I must say, though, that the run time is too long. I did lose interest towards the conclusion, a length similar to its predecessor would've been perfect; two hours plus really isn't necessary for a film like this, with respect. At least we get some good ol' gory violence throughout.

I didn't love the first of these (2016) but I thought that maybe after a few years they could improve on the formula. Sadly, not to be. It's more or less the same as the last one, only this time our menacingly rampaging clown "Art" is targeting would be trick-or-treaters on Halloween. Personally, I'm with him all the way as that's an habit that deserves all it gets with irritating spoilt kids marauding the streets demanding candy. Utilising to best effect his natural disguise, "Art" alights on "Sienna" (Lauren Silva) and her geeky brother "Jonathan" (Elliott Fulham) and a-slashing we all go. Unfortunately, the acting and writing aren't up to much but that's not so bad as the repetitively procedural nature of the gory violence. From one implausible scenario to another and with characters who make the most stupid of decisions when facing a crisis, we plod along relentlessly with loads of screaming and histrionics. It's just like one of those video games where the dead never stay dead for long, and so with this immortality comes a sense of ennui as the plot struggles to engage or innovate and ends up like an extended edition of "Scooby Do". The sinister characterisation of the baddie has long since lost any sort of impact and I"m afraid that I just found this an exceptionally long and dreary old watch that was yelling franchise at us from fairly early on. Terrifying? Well no, not remotely.

David Howard Thornton is back as Art the Clown in Damien Leone’s Terrifier 2. Art is resurrected and sets his sights on a brother and sister on Halloween. I couldn’t wait to watch this!
Positives:
The kills. Very brutal and gory. I would say bloodier than the first.
I think there is more of a story than in the first Terrifier. More character development with the brother and sister.
Negatives
I think 2 hrs 18 mins is way too long. I feel that in the middle it was a little slow and could have been cut.
I was hoping for more of a backstory of Art the Clown but they spent more time on the brother and sister than him.
Does Terrifier 2 fit into the Terrifier franchise? Yes. If you enjoyed the first movie you should watch Terrifier 2. If you were on the fence about the first one, check this one out. If you don’t like blood and gore, pass on this movie.
Rating: 3/5

I liked the first Terrifier movie better. This one just seemed to be an excuse to show blood and gore and there was a lot of wasted time on dream sequences (or, rather, nightmares).
Art the Clown is as creepy and vicious as ever but there's just not enough story to support the very long running time (it's over two hours!).
Not recommended.

_Terrifier 2_ is a massive improvement over its parent film but doesn't quite do enough to move the needle for me. From the get-go, this films tone and quality is drastically superior to the previous entry. The writing gives characters room to develop, and audiences can actually grow attached to characters in way that was blatantly absent from the first film. I enjoyed the added lore for Art that was sprinkled throughout, adds a level of depth to the newly founded horror icon. The writing allows for much more creative kills and set pieces, with the story taking place across an entire town rather than one claustrophobic apartment building. But with all those improvements, there are still lingering problems that carried over from the first film. Actor performances were all over the board. Some actresses were really compelling and honestly shocked me for the indie type feel of the film. Some notable highlights for me were the lead actress _Lauren LaVera_, _Kailey Hyman_, and _Elliott Fullam_. But other performances were legitimately bad, it felt like I was watching a high school drama production. There are some major pacing problems, for starters this movie is almost 2.5 hours long. There is no need for a runtime this long, there is so much fluff in here that it really bogs down the flow of the film. This movie does a better job of adding suspense to its scenes but is too reliant on blood and gore to get its gasps from the audience. I normally am one to appreciate when a movie goes above and beyond in the gore department, but this movie went overboard. So many scenes had be physically ill due to the graphic content. Sometimes less is more and that is for sure the case here. Despite its flaws, this is a great next step for this small-time studio and with the success at the box office there will surely be a sequel where Dameon Leone has the opportunity to craft a real top notch horror film.
**Score:** _63%_ |
**Verdict:** _Decent_

My mother loved this film back when I was a kid, actually took me to see it three times in the theater... when I was about 6.
As a kid, it was another fun action movie with a lot of fun violence and just scary enough where I could boast about it at school. And, as an adult it's a fun action movie with a lot of fun violence and a plot that doesn't completely make sense, but who cares because the point is fun.
It's one of those movies that you don't expect a lot going into and you are rewarded with, well, mindless popcorn munching action that is delivered in a way that only the 80s could do.
So what's not to like?

Short and sweet.
'Cobra' is a straightforward, by the numbers action film with Sylvester Stallone. It doesn't really do much to drift you away from the obvious, but the action itself is entertaining and some of the deaths are quite cool to watch. The songs are passable, if not entirely well chosen.
Stallone, as you'd likely expect, is the only performer worth noting. He does his usual stuff and it comes across strong enough, one thing I didn't like about his character is his speech - the dialogue is kinda poor, they attempt to make Cobra a smooth, cool badass but it doesn't really work in that way.
I'd almost considering this a disappointing film, but the watchable action and Stallone himself carry this over the line for a good film in my opinion.

This is where the law stops and I start, sucker!
Cobra is directed by George P. Cosmatos and written by Paula Gosling (novel Fair game) and Sylvester Stallone. It stars Stallone, Brigitte Nielsen, Brian Thompson, Reni Santoni, Andrew Robinson, John Herzfeld and Lee Garlington. Music is by Sylvester Levay and cinematography by Ric Waite.
A tough-on-crime street cop must protect the only surviving witness to a strange murderous cult with far-reaching plans.
Cobra is a tantalising peek as to just what Stallone's "Beverley Hills Cop" would have looked like. He had turned in a gritty and ballsy action screenplay but the studio balked at the cost and thus went with the comedic Eddie Murphy route (which worked great as it happens).
This truncated 1hour and 20 minute Cobra just hints at what a dark edgy action film we should have had before the scissor suits at the studio got panicky and cut out a third of the pic.
What we have left though is still good fun, Stallone is on cocky and cool bad dude mode, the villain is OTT (Brian Thompson actually looks like Arnie in some facial shots), Nielsen is in her natural bodily state... while the action we do get is high octane. It's hardly a stinker, if a little frustrating with a "what might have been hanging" over it, and of course the editing is shoddy. 6.5/10

It's hard to find a single aspect of _Cobra _that hadn't been done before, or hasn't been done better since. It's hoakey and way too self-serious given the content. But if you're hankering for some of that Sly action of yore, you shouldn't go past _Cobra_... Unless its for any number of the nearly-identical-but-better movies he did in the same era.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

> High quality narration, low standard production! Yet wins fairly.
I'm shocked, this is not a Disney's or the Pixer's, not even DreamWorks' or the Sony's, but a very good film. I meant only the story, though the animation was outdated, even for a film from the 2005. I had trouble watching it in the initial parts, because of the poor technical quality. Once the flashback began, I totally hooked to it and forgot the production standard. The film was saved because of the very good story.
You know retelling the same old tale is so old fashioned, telling a tale in the different angles and adding more flavour to it is the new thing. Like for example the recent 'Maleficent'. So other than those all the awesome qualities, the film is more a television type. But very enjoyable by all.
It has been a decade since it came out and I never tried it because someone told me that it's very bad, but I regret for believing that and ditching it. So believe me it is a wonderful film, except it's not a top notch presentation. It is too short and well worth spending your 80 minutes for it. There's a sequel to it, so I want to try it as well and let you know how it is in another review under that title.
6/10

My favorite out of the entire series. Nothing like going after a bunch of teens who are locked up in a psychiatric hospital for bad nightmares. Freddy has a field day with this one. Welcome to prime time bitch!

**One of the greatest films of Hitchcock's career.**
Alfred Hitchcock was truly a master, and there are not many directors who can present a CV so vast, so rich and so deserving of acclaim. Ironically, he did not win a single Oscar for his work as a director and even this film, which was one of the most awarded in his work, only won two Oscars (Best Film and Best Black-and-White Cinematography) at the 1941 ceremony.
The film was produced by David O. Selznick through his own studio, which was then busy completing and releasing “Gone With the Wind”. He had acquired the film rights to the original novel, by Daphne du Maurier, and hoped that Hitchcock would be faithful to the material. He reluctantly agreed, but imposed his deeply detailed working methods, significantly delaying filming, which was just one of the points of friction between producer and director. Things got to the point where Hitchcock banned Selznick from “his” studio and prevented his interference, filming only what he thought he was going to use in order to restrict the final cut.
It goes without saying, I believe, that Hitchcock gave us another memorable work worthy of every cinephile's bookshelf. The cinematography, in black and white, is modeled with great care and beauty, using some very innovative techniques for the time. The soundtrack also works wonderfully and is very atmospheric. The mansion's sets and costumes were also points in which the production invested a lot and applied itself, in order to provide greater realism. It appears that the exterior of the house was, in fact, a scale model.
The script is impressively effective: after a quick courtship, a very rich man marries a young woman from modest origins and takes her to his impressive mansion. However, he was a recent widower, and the house is filled with disturbing memories of his previous marriage, as if his first wife still roams around, and could become a palpable presence that threatens to tear the couple apart. There are more elements in between, such as the housekeeper's strange obsession with her previous boss, to whom she devoted a bizarre loyalty, and the deepening of the mysteries leads to a surprising ending, so it's worth not reading anything about the film before watching see it in its entirety. Of course, if we think about it, it becomes incomprehensible that, with a new wife, that man kept the housekeeper in his house, along with all the objects that belonged to the deceased...
Joan Fontaine was chosen for the main character, giving us a quality, very convincing performance. She seems to be on the verge of a nervous breakdown for a huge period of time and that is what certainly earned her the Oscar for Best Actress for this work, one of the best in her career. Laurence Olivier also does a good job and, despite hating Fontaine's choice (he pressured the production to give the role to his real-life partner, Vivien Leigh) and not having a good, friendly relationship with her colleague, he is extraordinarily competent when they are on stage together. Judith Anderson also deserves praise for her work.

We saw this quite recently on the big screen at Somerset House in London. One of those outdoor screenings - and the fact that it poured with rain on hundreds of us didn't matter one jot (though the hampers got quite sodden). Olivier and the eerily stupendous Judith Anderson provide the ultimate in sophisticated horror partnerships and make this by far my favourite Hitchcock film. Joan Fontaine is an expert at conveying the naive, adoring vulnerability of the second "Mrs. de Winter", combatting a foe she cannot hope to defeat and George Sanders is almost as sinister as he makes up the quartet in this bleak, frightening and totally enthralling two hours of cinema.

Do you think the dead come back and watch the living?
Rebecca is directed by Alfred Hitchcock and adapted to screen play from the Daphne du Maurier novel of the same name. It stars Laurence Olvier, Joan Fontaine and Judith Anderson. Cinematography is by George Barnes and music scored by Franz Waxman.
After meeting and marrying 'Maxim' de Winter (Olivier), the Second Mrs. de Winter (Fontaine), finds life at his English estate, Manderley, far from comfortable because the servants and the house serve to remind her of the first Mrs. de Winter, whose death remains a source of mystery. What did happen to the first lady of the house? Can this newly married couple survive the oppressive cloud that looms large over the mansion?
A Gothic emotional near masterpiece, Alfred Hitchcock's first American film may seem a bit too serviceable at times, something he was also aware of himself, but the production values are high and the story is played out supremely well. Within the story we can find Hitchcock's now famous trait of mistrusting Women, but in the main it stays the tragic tale of one young woman living in the ominous shadow of the previous Mrs. De Winter. Mood is often set as foreboding, with the director understanding the psychological pangs of the source material once the action switches to the de Winter home of Manderley. It arguably is a touch too long, and the restraint of Hitchcock, down to producer David O. Selznick overseeing things, stops it being a bit more unnerving than it should be.
For Manderley the mansion here is one of the finest put on the screen, this is because Hitchcock and brilliant cinematographer George Barnes manage to make it bold & beautiful one minute, and then the next scene it comes off as a monolithic nightmare. It's wonderful case of the surroundings playing the extra character for maximum effect. Laurence Olivier is impressive, even if we would learn later on that this is the sort of performance he could do in his sleep. The supporting cast do great work as well, especially as regards the cold and terrifying turn from Judith Anderson as Mrs. Danvers. However, to me this will always be Joan Fontaine's show, she nails it perfectly, the new Mrs. De Winter wants to do right but can't seem to so for doing wrong, she infuriates at times, yet the next minute you just want to hold her, for she's so vulnerable, but beautifully so, it's a brilliant performance in a brilliant film.
The ending is a switheroo from the novel, and it almost derails the success the film has achieved up to that point. And looking at it now it's hard not to curse the Production Code for enforcing a big change to what was revealed in du Maurier's wonderful novel. But the film has survived the "appeasing" ending to stand the test of time for all the ages. It won the Academy Award for Best Picture, and Barnes also won for Best Black & White Cinematography, it was nominated for a further nine awards, including Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress. No nomination for Waxman, sadly, but his score is worthy of a mention for the evocative strains that sit nicely with the tone of the story. Rebecca, a hauntingly beautiful picture that's acted and produced with consummate skill. 9.5/10

Absolutely perfect Gothic Thriller that has many imitators but few of equal quality.
With "Rebecca" about to hit the Broadway stage (as a musical!), I thought it was time to write my review of perhaps my favorite Hitchcock film. I recall the first time I saw this on TV almost 30 years ago on the late show, I had set my VCR to tape it, but woke up to start watching a bit of it, and stayed up all night to watch it all. That's how good a film it is. Daphne Du Maurier's tale of a shy companion who shocks her employer by winning the most desired wealthy widow in England is gripping, suspenseful, and filled with innuendo. Joan Fontaine never gave a more lovely performance as the awkward bride who leaves her hysterically selfish employer (Florence Bates) to marry the brooding Maxim De Winter (Laurence Olivier) and finds animosity from the darkly dressed Mrs. Danver (Judith Anderson) who resents her intrusion because of her devotion to Maxim's late wife, Rebecca. The mystery of how Rebecca died and what kind of woman she really was is explored, and with the intrusion of scoundrel George Sanders and some well-meaning advice from Maxim's toothy sister (Gladys Cooper), the new Mrs. De Winter (her first name is never revealed) finds out more than she bargained for.
If you thought Olivier's Heathcliff in "Wuthering Heights" was dark and somewhat depressing, wait until you meet his more civilized Maxim. Joan Fontaine's bride is as far from Merle Oberon's "wild and sweet" Cathy as you can find, but as far as Gothic tales of brooding men and their lost souls go, the two movies make a perfect double feature. Samuel Goldwyn and David Selznick were Hollywood's most famous independent producers, so sometimes their careers are compared. They share many of the same players, and in the case of these two films, the same photographer (Gregg Toland). Fontaine and Olivier work well on screen together, even though they apparently did not share a close working relationship. It is, however, the supporting players who are the shining stars.
Anderson's Mrs. Danvers is a role we've already seen on screen (usually played by Gale Sondergaard), but being Anderson's second film (and first in 7 years), there was a lot of curiosity surrounding her considering her reputation as one of Broadway's hottest dramatic actresses. Mrs. Danvers isn't a one dimensional evil housekeeper; You understand her affection for the late Rebecca from the very beginning, and in every movement Anderson makes, you cannot take your eyes off of her. I can't praise her highly enough. Sanders' suave villain (who playfully calls Mrs. Danvers "Danny") is extremely likable and almost equal in stealing away the attention of the leads. Gladys Cooper and Nigel Bruce add on a delightful "pip pip" quality to their eccentric characters, while in her brief time on screen, Florence Bates is hysterically funny, putting out a cigarette in her cold cream, and coolly telling Fontaine how she can never truly be a "great lady".
Every moment here is a classic movie memory, from the opening narration to Fontaine's first vision of De Winter, and then, the rainy ride down to where Fontaine sees Mandalay for the first time. The light first quarter darkens the moment we see Anderson pop into view as Mrs. Danvers. A cold pause, then "How Do You Do" reveals the tension, and from there, everything is set. Anderson explodes in two scenes-the first where she finds the hiding Fontaine in Rebecca's old room, and later, when Fontaine confronts Anderson after discovering her treachery. The film sags just a bit with the discovery of a body that might be Rebecca's, but that is minor. C. Aubrey Smith is memorable in his small role as Maxim's attorney. The final shot will live on in your memory, just as Mandalay lived on in the second Mrs. De Winter's.
While "Rebecca" won Best Film at that year's Academy Awards, many film historians prefer the message drama "The Grapes of Wrath" as the better film. I find the two rank very close, and also quibble over between the choice of Jane Darwell for Supporting Actress over Anderson's Mrs. Danvers. A big mistake was not nominating Sanders. A BBC version years later is also very good, a bit more faithful to the novel, and benefits from Diana Rigg as a more approachable Mrs. Danvers and a very diva-ish performance by Faye Dunaway in the Florence Bates role.

A poor "lady's companion", so self-effacing that we are never given her name (Joan Fontaine), suddenly finds her life changed when a moody widower, Maxim de Winter (Laurence Olivier), proposes to marry her and take her to his splendid estate of Manderley.
It seems like a fairy-tale turned true, but it is not. On reaching Manderley, the new Mrs. de Winter (still unnamed) finds herself out of place, as Maxim seems to drift away and the hostile housekeeper Mrs. Danvers (Judith Anderson) repeatedly tells her that she will never live up to the standard set by Maxim's first wife Rebecca.
What was Rebecca really like? The perfect English lady, or a hypocrite who dazzled the people around her? Where do Maxim's affections really lie? The questions not only create a great movie mystery, but a portrait of an unequal marriage between an arrogant aristocrat and a neurotically dependent young wife.

A good movie and interesting plot but the characters are a little bit exaggerated and the outcome is quite expectable.

I do love slow-paced thriller films and this is exactly that. Having said that, there is something that makes me uneasy about the ending. It is up to so many interpretations that the writer / director of the film didn’t know himself how to end otherwise a close-to-brilliant story with a decent acting.
Would I watch it again? Possibly. Would I make my friends watch it? I guess so.

Whilst there can be no doubt of the potency of the theme here, I thought the nature of the story telling was all over the place and angry. With temperatures rising, literally and metaphorically, the bored youth of an area of Brooklyn are becoming more and more frustrated. The thrust of these frustrations is epitomised by a battle of wills between Italian American pizzeria owner "Sal" (Danny Aiello) and his growing number of African American clientele. His walls are covered with famous faces - Al Pacino, Frank Sinatra, etc. from his heritage but his new customers feel that they are under represented. "Sal" isn't about to be bullied into anything, and to be fair to Spike Lee he does cleverly use this slow burning fuse to illustrate an whole slew of racial attitudes amongst a diverse community where change was coming - like it or not. As the heat shows no sign of abating, tempers finally flare and a denouement results in quite some eye-opening tragedy that though effective, I found completely anachronistic. It's told very much from one perspective but not puritanically. I think that might actually exacerbate my dislike of the proceedings because what appears to be happening to a decent and hard working American citizen is that he is being bullied, coerced and ultimately violated because he won't abandon his own traditions in favour of someone else's. It's cunningly depicting a change of identity for this community in a survival of the fittest fashion that I found quite intimidating. This isn't really about the characters themselves, more about the politics of a situation that became more and toxic as people left their conciliation hat at the door of reason on their way in. The dialogue struggled to get past the fu section of the dictionary and that just compounded the sense that it was more of a not so subtle rant than a story of respect offering any decent form societal evolution and equality. Maybe Lee would do it differently now? As it is, it's raw - but not in a good way.

_**When someone does the wrong thing and others react the wrong way**_
On a hot summer day in a predominantly black neighborhood in Brooklyn, one person makes the wrong decision and sets off a chain of events that results in havoc. Rosie Perez is a highlight on the feminine front.
“Do the Right Thing” was Spike Lee’s breakthrough film that he made when he was 31. It’s a stylish and spirited account of a mostly black community in New York City that’s well-rounded with drama, humor, entertainment, honesty and tragedy.
On the one hand, this neighborhood seems like a pleasant enough place to live, if you don’t mind the big city. The characters are not painted as one-dimensional, generally speaking; they have both attributes and faults. Yet it’s a relatively peaceable environment with the various races/ethnicities getting along just fine with only minor (and amusing) altercations. Nevertheless, it’s a tinderbox that doesn’t take much to set aflame.
The last act leaves a bad taste. I can’t believe Lee had the gonads to be this honest, but he shows why most people don’t want to live or do business in black neighborhoods, including many blacks.
While people debate who’s right and who’s wrong, it’s simple to figure out: Buggin Out taking offense about something immaterial at Sal’s pizzeria is unjustified. If he thinks it’s that big of a deal he doesn’t have to dine there, plus he can start his own restaurant and decorate it however he wishes. At the same time, it could be argued that Sal should’ve reacted in a wiser way that turned away Buggin Out’s curious anger, rather than augment it. Meanwhile Radio Raheem makes a foolish decision by allowing Buggin Out to negatively influence him. Why can’t they just do the right thing? It’s frustrating.
This is a well-made classic and worthy of its iconic status, it’s just not exactly my cup of tea due to the exasperating last act that’s too brutally honest. How about doing the right thing by making art that inspires hope, unity and healing for inner city communities? This piece points to the problem, inspires questions & debates, but offers no solutions except… move away from black neighborhoods.
The film runs 2 hours and was shot in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn.
GRADE: B-

Interesting how this film divides opinion like no other from this franchise. It is my least favourite (except perhaps "The Final Frontier") as it does attempt to impose a morality that is well beyond the scope of the talent involved - both on screen and at the typewriter. The effects are certainly special, but even with the quirky contribution of James Cromwell I'm struggling to think of this as anything better than a longer episode of "Next Generation" with all of it's pseudo-intellectual idealism. Like so many films directed by and starring their stars; objectivity is sometimes first under the bus - I fear that is the case here.

Really solid and suspense-filled Star Trek film. Seen this one once before and still holds up along with the visual effects which were decent for its time. This is also the first complete TNG feature and unlike Generations, did feel like a movie rather than two-part episode. 4.0/5

Good watch, could watch again, and can recommend (at least for dedicated "Star Trek" fans).
My favorites aspects of all of "Star Trek" are The Borg, and the artificial entities like Data. This movie potentially ruins both of them, depending on who you ask. Also, time travel is the worst.
I would have been much happier if we hadn't bothered with time travel as that creates a lot of other questions about why The Borg haven't utilized it before if they had such technology.
The investigation of humanity in The Borg and Data are pretty interesting though, seeing Data find what it is to FEEL is a great, but seeing The Borg personified into a single entity to which one can converse is odd, at best.
Seeing the Enterprise defend against Borg assault was fun, but none of the "First Contact" stuff was compelling at all.

_**Solid Next Generation Trek film with The Borg**_
Released in 1996 and directed by Jonathan Frakes, "Star Trek: First Contact" features The Next Generation characters taking on the Borg, a collection of species that have been turned into cybernetic organisms functioning as drones in a hive-mind called the Collective. In order to escape imminent destruction by the Federation, a Borg mini-ship flees back in time to 2063 to prevent the renowned Zefram Cochrane (James Cromwell) from accomplishing the initial warp drive and the subsequent first contact with an alien race, which later paved the way for the Federation of Planets. Alfre Woodard has a key role as a colleague of Cochrane.
The Borg are an excellent villain and one of the greatest contributions of The Next Generation TV series, along with all its elaboration on Klingon culture. Here the Borg are augmented by the introduction of a Queen (Alice Krige), which some feel detracted from the impersonal and eerie race while others think enhanced them. It makes no difference to me personally, but it fits the parallel of a queen bee in a honey bee colony. Besides, why wouldn’t there be a central intelligence?
There are some gems to mine from the proceedings, like Cochrane's revelation of his carnal motivations for developing warp drive and Picard's hell-bent desire to annihilate the Borg. Speaking of Picard, Patrick Stewart carries the film with his unique star power, which is very different from Shatner, but just as effective.
Interestingly, The Next Generation TV series never developed a prominent triumvirate like Kirk/Spock/McCoy, but rather a dyad, Picard and Data. Whereas this duo was core to the previous TNG film, "Generations" (1994) and the last one, "Nemesis" (2002), it's not as evident here until the last act when Picard attempts to rescue the charismatic android, but that's only because they get separated early on and Data ends up hanging out with the Borg Queen. By the way, Picard's self-sacrificial desire to save Data reveals a weakness in the script: After the Enterprise is set to self-destruct, Picard only has 15 MINUTES to rescue Data and escape the ship, but Picard is shown having a meaningful discussion with Lily (Woodard). _Why sure!_
Another gem of the film is the revelation of the alien race at the end, which prompts a "Wow" reaction to fans of Star Trek (although erudite Trekkers undoubtedly knew what was coming).
There are other flaws, like the jarring, contrived excuse for going back in time and the questionable fiery confrontation between Picard and Lily. I say "questionable" because something about the sequence renders it somewhat shaky; it may be the acting, the writing or some combination, but they needed to work out the kinks. Still, that scene has some good aspects, like Picard's line: "The line must be drawn HERE!" and the build-up to it.
While I favor 1994's "Generations" to "First Contact" because of the fascinating story elements, e.g. the Nexus, and the potent subtext (see my review), and even marginally prefer the underrated "Nemesis" (2002), this doesn't take away from the fact that "First Contact" is a quality installment in the series, which gets better with repeat viewings despite its weaknesses.
The movie runs almost 111 minutes and was shot in the studio with location shooting at Angeles National Forest and Green Valley, Arizona (substituting for Montana).
GRADE: B

Reminiscence is a movie where people buy the cow even though the milk is free. In an indeterminate future where Miami has become a Venice of the New World, Nick Bannister (Hugh Jackman) runs a business that uses technology to access the memories of people who want to relive their past.
These people, mind you, do not suffer from amnesia; they're just too lazy and/or stupid to use their own brains — not even to remember something as pedestrian as playing with a dog (here’s an idea: buy another dog).
We see the memories of Nick's clients as if they were home movies, which is very convenient but makes zero sense, considering that people don't remember things from a third person perspective; for example, if I wanted to remember watching Reminiscence (fat chance), I wouldn't see myself watching the film.
Writer/director Lisa Joy tries, and fails miserably, to explain why we don't see her characters' memories from their own point of view with a "demonstration" by Nick that proves absolutely nothing except that you can throw as much shit at the wall as you like, but that doesn’t mean it will stick.
This is a less than auspicious debut for Joy, who settles for projecting the usual fixations of her husband and his brother, Jonathan and Christopher Nolan.
At least in Memento, as the name implies, the hero relied on reminders rather than memories per se, which are subjective and unreliable; in contrast, the memories in Reminiscence are as pristine as the dreams in Inception. Ever hear of photographic memory? This is more like photogenic memory.

Less than I would have expected from the cast but I don't see it as a failure on their part. I guess I expected something more, although I am not sure what. This is slow entertainment with a few interesting segments but not enough to keep you awake if your only goal was to watch the movie. For me it was the story that failed because it was unbelievable, although I am sure there is an audience that would eat this up.⭐⭐⭐

Kind of a hollow grounded sci-fi film noir mystery yarn that features decent performances from Hugh Jackman, Rebecca Ferguson and Thandiwe Newton but the story wasn't terribly compelling and never quite believed the relationship between Jackman and Ferguson. Kind of ran out of steam early on and spent the remainder of the time not exactly interested in the mystery elements. I don't know, wanted to like it but highly doubtful I'd ever want to revisit. **2.75/5**

An interesting combination of science fiction and film noir.
Not a perfect film - it drags in spots - but it is enjoyable if you're a sci-fi or noir fan.
The performances were solid. Rebecca Ferguson pulls off a very good femme fatale but the whole cast deserves a slow clap.
Lisa Joy, director/writer, shows that she certainly has talent even though the movie is not a home run. Call it a solid double. She's definitely worth keeping an eye out for. Don't go in expecting a perfect movie and you will enjoy what it does have to offer as there are some very good scenes, some less so. Overall it's a 3.5 to 4.0 star effort depending on your taste.

Good watch, could watch again, and can recommend, especially for a bad movie night.
For such a horrible premise, this actually holds up pretty well. It's a bad movie, but it's still pretty entertaining. The snakes almost have the same behavior / pacing as a "blob", slowly seeping through the plane and over taking people bit by bit.
Without a veteran actors like Samuel L. Jackson or Kenan Thompson to hold things together this could have easily fallen apart in a much worse way.
The "realism" is certainly not a concern. While pheromones are a thing that can incite some behaviors, snakes aren't loyal to each other, especially different species. Once you accept the initial scenario, every ridiculous thing that happens is funny, and the tension is up just because you have no idea where the snakes are coming from at any time, and the knowledge that the entire setting could just fall out of the sky, even if enough people survive the snakes it could all end with a crash.
There is likely a truly good version of this movie we could get, but for now, making fun of this one should be a good time.

Better than _Snakes on a Train_.
_Final rating:★½: - Boring/disappointing. Avoid if possible._