walking into the theater i didnt know what to expect from this movie except two things one to atleast laugh a little and two to be in aww by the shocking content but however what i personally didnt expect was to attend the absolute funniest movie ive seen all year long i laughed out loud nonstop i loved the characters as well this definetly isnt for everyone kids included or anyone offended by sex humor but if you can take it i highly recommend seeing this comedy blockbuster

"Aladdin and the King of Thieves" serves as the third installment in the Aladdin franchise, predating the live-action adaptation. Despite my deep affection for Aladdin and Jasmine, this animated film falls short and undermines the franchise's outstanding qualities.
While the storyline introduces Aladdin's father, adding an interesting layer to the narrative, the animation quality leaves much to be desired. The visuals come across as subpar, reminiscent of content from the Disney Channel rather than a theatrical release. Despite this, the return of Robin Williams as the genie is a bright spot in the film.
Despite its flaws, I appreciate this chapter in Aladdin's story and the continuation of the characters' journeys. The inclusion of Aladdin's father and the development of other villains enrich the overall narrative. While I cherish the Aladdin story and its expansion, from a cinematic perspective, this particular installment falls short.
Shifting focus to the Aladdin television series, I find it remarkable that viewers were able to further explore the characters beyond the original films. The series provided an opportunity to delve into various storylines and adventures, offering a more in-depth look at the beloved characters.
As a fan of the animated series, which also stemmed from a video game, I have a deep appreciation for the entire Aladdin franchise. The series, in particular, holds a special place in my heart as it allowed for continued engagement with these beloved characters and storylines. Aladdin remains one of my favorite characters, and the series will forever hold a special significance for me.

Way better then then part 2. Also Robin Williams is back as the genie so he was funny and the movie was entertaining to watch.

**Bad in practice, ideal idea**
The second movie is boring. I like the first movie better, it has drama more quick. In this movie, you don't get the "something bad is about to happen" feeling. The movie is more focused on politics with not much violence. But it has a better plot. Watch the first movie then watch this second movie, It will make it more enjoyable

This second part has a better plot than the previous one but, other than that, more violence without much sense.

**Can a good movie be spoiled by an inadequate soundtrack? It can, and this film is proof of that.**
I like film noir a lot, and I saw this film with pleasure. It's one of those films that you can't miss: it has an excellent story, complex characters, a lot of suspense and a good dose of humor, very elegant, almost intertwined with the main story, where we have a young American writer trying to unravel the very poorly explained death. from a friend in the half-ruined city that was Vienna in the years after World War II. The local police, rather than helping, seem to be part of the problem and, as he progresses in the investigations, there are more and more indicants of a crime.
The film is very good and is very well directed by Carol Reed. The most common aspects of noir are all there: the light, the dense shadows, the tense and dark urban environment, a crime, many potential suspects and criminals, an apparently corrupt police and an elegant young woman who steals hearts, but it may not be so innocent as it looks. The film doesn't let us down for a minute and gives us exactly what we want to see and feel, and that's truly satisfying.
To make things even better, we have good sets and believable costumes, a good use of exterior scenes and a city that, even destroyed, never loses its beauty and elegance. The cinematography couldn't be better, the camera work is worthy of being studied in film schools, and the effects are used sparingly and effectively. The cast is truly competent: despite being the most resonant name, Orson Welles is not the most visible actor. Still young and relatively good-looking (he would put on more weight in the following years, as we know), the actor appears little, but steals our attention whenever he appears. Joseph Cotten is the real protagonist of the film, and he does his job equally well. He is one of those actors that is forgotten today, but he deserves a lot that his work is reviewed and revisited.
The only thing, and it's really just that, that brings this film down is its soundtrack and insistence on a mandolin theme that couldn't be more inappropriate. It could even have been used as an opening theme, during the credits, but no… the annoying music intrudes throughout the film to the point of being unbearable. It sounds like a melody made for a Marx Brothers movie, and it doesn't stop here! It's truly annoying and cuts the mood of the movie!

Joseph Cotton ("Holly") arrives in post war Vienna to meet up with his former school friend "Harry Lime" - only to discover that he was recently killed in an automobile accident. Without his promised job, he starts to chat with the friends of the dead man and swiftly spots some inconsistencies that lead him to become suspicious. He determines to try and find out just quite what happened. It becomes harder and harder for "Holly" to get straight answers - even from those whom he ought to be able to rely upon - "Maj. Calloway" (Trevor Howard) nor even "Anna" (Alida Valli), the dead man's lover - seem to be able (or willing to help). Gradually, also, he begins to suspect that he is being followed. Pinpricks of light from cigarettes in the shadows, shifting bodies hugging the dimly lit doorways - and he begins to realise that maybe his friend was not quite as scrupulous and honourable as he might have wished or appeared. Right from Anton Karas playing the distinctive zither theme at the top of the film we are treated to a wonderfully evocative adaptation of Graham Greene's mystery thriller and Carol Reed really does well with the pace of this too. We do make progress, but "Holly" has to work hard - as do we - for it, and his shady protagonists remain in the shadows, really effectively. This is a super story of trust, loyalty and greed that really is still as good now as it was 70 years ago.

Nobody thinks in terms of human beings. Governments don't. Why should we?
The Third Man is directed by Carol Reed and written by Graham Greene. It stars Joseph Cotton, Alida Valli, Trevor Howard and Orson Welles. Music is by Anton Karas and cinematography by Robert Krasker.
When writer Holly Martins (Cotton) travels to Vienna to hook up with his childhood friend Harry Lime (Welles), he is distressed to find that Harry has been killed in a road accident. After attending the funeral, Holly comes to believe that Harry's death was no accident and begins to try and clear his friend's name. But nothing is as it first seems.....
It's well over 60 years since it was released and Carol Reed's film noir thriller continues to feel fresh and hold up under the closest of critical scrutiny. A haunting tale as it is anyway, the black market racketeers and penicillin tampering bastards leaving an unsavoury taste in the mouth, but the film is still further boosted by the director's ability to craft unnerving atmosphere by way of style and clinically paced passages of play. Performances are superlative across the board, with the film producing equal amounts of iconography and mischievous myth-making. It stuns with the narrative structure unfolding amongst a post war ravaged Vienna that dovetails with the fractured nature of the human characters.
A maze of moist cobbled streets host chases involving man and long shadows, there's a fairground scene that is now steeped in folklore, which in turn is a witness to the banality of evil, and of course those cavernous sewers, home to such sullen tones. Reed brings the canted angles, with moral decay the order of the day and a side order of confusion to finally fill your noir hungry bellies. Krasker deals in expressionistic chiaroscuro as Karas plucks away at his Zither to land in your ears for eternity. A murder mystery, a pained romance and a suspense laden film noir, The Third Man is enduring in its qualities. Cuckoo clock and cat, shadowed doorway and the lone sombre walk of a female, it's still today entertaining the film purist masses and still being pored over by film makers home and abroad. The Third Man, it's a masterpiece by jove. 10/10

Holly Martens (Joseph Cotten) receives a job offer from his friend Harry Lime (Orson Welles) in postwar occupied Vienna. He arrives there only to find that Lime is dead and every witness has a different story. Being a pulp writer, Holly thinks he can solve the mystery.
But this is a Graham Greene story, and the mystery is not just a whodunit but an exploration of evil. Tangling with a nihilistic band of black marketers exploiting the corruption and ruin of a great city after the war, Holly is told that he is in way over his head.
The movie has many unusual touches. Expressionist camerawork increases the feeling of dread. The traditional orchestral accompaniment is eliminated, replaced by a single folk musician playing an eerie tune on a zither. Several scenes of the movie are in un-subtitled Austrian-German, leaving the audience feeling as bewildered as Holly as he tries to communicate with the locals. Holly's amateur sleuthing is frequently comic, in a story that is deadly serious.
One of the masterpieces of noir cinema.

I grew up watching the "Friday Western" each week on the television so am a bit steeped in the genre to which this takes an entertaining, and loving, swipe. "Hedley Lamarr" (Harvey Korman) is out to trash his own town so he can buy up the land cheaply for his railroad. What better way to drive folks away than to appoint an African-American sheriff? The shrewd "Bart" (Cleavon Little) knows full well that he has precisely no support from his community - not the sharpest tools in the box - so he signs up the mean "Waco Kid" (Gene Wilder) as his deputy. A gunslinger of ill-repute, he and his boss gradually convince the sheepish townsfolk that they can fight back against the scheming "Lamarr" and maybe even foil his not so cunning plan. My personal favourite scene has to be the wonderful imitation of Marlene Dietrich by Madeline Kahn singing "I'm Tired", but there are loads of other skits of everything from "High Noon" to "Chisum" with Slim Pickens and David Huddleston providing some genuine western credentials to the proceedings. Auteur Mel Brooks pops up once or twice, in differing guises, to add a bit of additional comedy to his already quite daft storyline that is respectful of cowboy movies but also quite potently critical of their stereotyping characters, their repetitive storylines and usually, their entirely predictable conclusions. This mixes all of that up with Little and Wilder gelling well, presenting us with a genuinely laugh out loud, occasionally slap-stick, critique of one hundred years of a theme of cinema that has probably not really evolved that much since 1874!

I'm married to a Millennial and that presents difficulties that are unique to her generation. Especially unique since I am Gen-X and there is that whole rejection of labels thing and her generation is obsessed with labels. And the not understanding satire or dark humor thing that plagues that generation. And, of course, the fact that my generation kind of raised ourselves and hers, well, I have to explain things like why you don't mix coloreds and whites when you do laundry.
Anyway, getting her and her besties to sit down and watch anything older than 4 years is an uphill battle... again a uniquely Millennial thing. This is odd to me since I was born after this came out, and, honestly, love a lot of movies even decades older than me.... it's the new ones I don't like.
So I begged, and I pleaded, and I finally got them to watch Blazing Saddles, on the basis that I actually forced my wife (at gun point, and knife point) to watch Young Frankenstein and she loved it.
Blazing Saddles lasted about 10 minutes before they got upset by the racism.
But they she and her best friend and her boyfriend sat it out anyway, and by the end of the movie they were throwing a fit about racism as if I sat them down to watch Birth of a Nation.
Mel Brooks somehow went way over their heads...
... I'm not exactly sure that has ever happened before... ever, in all the History of the World, I'm pretty sure that has never, ever, happened before.
So I found myself with an angry wife and two very angry friends all pretty much accusing me of being William Luther Pierce.
Still not sure what happened there. Something went horribly wrong. This movie kind of mocks racism doesn't it? it turns it into a joke so people can't take it seriously any longer and makes the viewer think that anyone who wears a white robe is an idiot. An absolute moron.
And yet their collective reaction kind of assumed the opposite.
So, anyway, I slept on the couch for a while as I slowly talked her down and explained that, no, in fact this movie was AGAINST racism. That Mel Brooks is far from a racist. That, in fact, it supports equality.
But I'm still very confused.
I still don't know how that happened.

The Green Knight baffled me after the first watch; perhaps watching it at 4 am, I was too tired to fully appreciate its dreamy, slow pace. But on the second viewing, I discovered all the stunning visuals and deep symbolism I apparently slept through the first time. It turns out Dev Patel’s Sir Gawain isn’t just wandering around aimlessly, getting his end away.

Dev Patel is just as wrong for Sir Gawain as he as for David Copperfield, but it's not his fault that The Green Knight is an incoherent mess; the responsibility lies entirely with writer/director/editor David Lowery.
Early on in the film, King Arthur (Sean Harris) tells Gawain, "Tell me a story about yourself so I can get to know you." Gawain replies that he has no story to tell; two hours later he still doesn't have one save for a few disjointed episodes that ultimately equal less than the sum of their parts.
Poor time management is another issue; it takes the movie a very long 15 minutes to introduce the Green Knight (voice of Ralph Ineson), but when he issues his challenge, Gawain immediately jumps the gun without giving anyone else even a chance to turn it down.
This situation, which offers great dramatic possibilities, is the one that Lowery should milk for all that it’s worth; on the other hand, maybe he’s aware of how disappointing his Green Knight is and wants to get him out of the way as soon as possible until he inevitably has to reappear at the end.
Sean Connery’s Green Knight from Sword of the Valiant looks like the bastard son of Santa Claus and Saint Patrick, but at least he’s flesh and blood and played by an exceptional actor; that is to say, a million times better than the medieval Groot that Lowery comes up with.
This Green Knight is not just ugly, but also dumb. He carries a letter explaining the reason for his visit; this missive is read by the Queen in a distorted voice, as if she was possessed or something; is the Knight, whose severed head is capable of speech, speaking through her? And if so, what exactly is the point of the letter then?
Of course, after the frustrating resolution that resolves nothing (complete with an example of It's A Wonderful Plot, specifically the kind experienced by Willem Dafoe in The Last Temptation of Christ) a better question would be, what's the point of this movie?
This film is the product of a shamelessly shifty director; Lowery not only casts a 'diverse' actor in the lead, but also resorts to queerbaiting in the form of a kiss between Patel and Joel Edgerton (something similar occurs in the original century XIVpoem, so we’re hardly breaking new ground here). The latter of which is doubly reprehensible, because the way the kiss is misrepresented only succeeds in making Gawain seem homophobic.

_The Green Knight_ is an epic character study that takes it's time following the path of a man finding worth in his life, but that slow progression is also its downfall.
This movie was really gripping at first, I was invested in the first 30 minutes but that flow slowly starts to fade during the mid-section. At this point the scenes begin to drag a bit and the story jumps from one section to the next so quickly that it can be a bit disorienting as to where you are. Despite the slight pacing issues, this film is still a treat to watch.
The visuals and the atmosphere of this film is really well done, each scene felt perfectly crafted. The mix between CGI and practical affects are a real bright spot as today so many movies rely too much on the computerized effects. The tone had me completely captivated, as adventure unfolds there are many darks turns where our protagonist has to preserver to get to his objective. This perseverance is what evolves him as a character and is what enables him to be worthy of knighthood. I bought that evolution due to the fantastic job Dev Patel does in this film.
Patel encapsulates so much of what Gawain is, a reckless and immature child who has done nothing with his life. This causes a great deal of insecurity as he feels not worthy to be in the presence of his uncle, the king, even though he has royal blood. The sense of unsureness is carried throughout the film brilliantly by Patel, and it is not until the end where he truly becomes worthy for the crown. This performance is spectacular, and Dev Patel deserves all the accolades for this film.
Overall, _The Green Knight_ was a really interesting experience. Although it does not warrant its runtime and pacing could have been done better, it is still an excellent film that I enjoyed. Even after watching, the more research I do and more I think about it, the more it gets better due to the complex symbolism and presentation that does not make itself known on the first watch.
**Grade:** _83%_
**Verdict:** _Great_

I found this movie to be mostly intriguing, and I have no qualm with the acting. I must confess that in a couple of places it dragged for me, once to the point where I nodded off for a few minutes. To be fair, I was also operating on not enough sleep lately.
I thought it odd that Essel, Sir Gawain’s girlfriend, had such short hair. Was that a thing in the Middle Ages? There are a couple of plot twists that add a little zing to the story, which I will not reveal here. Rather I will say that the ending reminded me a little of the ending of The Last Temptation of Christ. Also, you should pay attention to it s it winds down, so that you know what is going on.
So file this film with others that I probably won’t watch a second time, but which I don’t regret spending two hours on.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/the-green-knight-spoiler-free-review
"The Green Knight is a slow-burn character study with some of the best visuals and sound work I've ever witnessed. David Lowery delivers a thematically heavy, superbly structured narrative focused on the self-discovering journey of the flawed protagonist Sir Gawain. Dev Patel leads with an extraordinarily subtle, powerful performance, accompanied by an equally impressive supporting cast. Andrew Droz Palermo's stunning cinematography, Daniel Hart's atmosphere-setting score, and especially Johnny Marshall's impactful sound design deeply elevate the tremendous epic scope that this movie holds. However, some fantastical elements feel irrelevant, the lack of any sort of action deeply affects the snail-like pacing, and the execution of the ending ultimately leaves me feeling slightly underwhelmed, though admittedly caught by surprise. In the end, it's still an epic character piece that I highly recommend to any fantasy fan but beware of unrealistically high, action-based expectations."
Rating: B+

I've been pretty harsh reviewing Jean-Claude Van Damme movies, and even though he is significantly older than me, I have the feeling he can still kick my butt, so maybe I should back off a little.
Honestly though, this one is pretty watchable. Make no mistake, it is no Chinatown, but, who cares, it is a fun way to hit all the tropes of the martial arts genre and it does it in a way that you know is going to be copied, even if it was already kind of a copy of Enter the Dragon only without the art.
So, what you have is a bloody trope filled film that is fun to watch and vaguely (in the vaguest sense of the word vaguely) based kinda sorta on a true story that one guy said happened and was never really verified.
So.... sit back and pop some corn, you'll love this.

You told me to use any tactic that works, never to commit yourself to one style, to keep an open mind!
Bloodsport is directed by Newt Arnold and written by Christopher Cosby, Mel Friedman and Sheldon Lettich. It stars Jean-Claude Van Damme, Donald Gibb, Leah Ayres, Norman Burton, Forest Whitaker and Bolo Yeung. Music is by Paul Hertzog and cinematography by David Worth.
One of the earlier films that made Van Damme into a star, Bloodsport finds Van Damme as real life martial artist Frank Dux. Dux enters into the famed Kumite, a no nonsense tournament in Hong Kong and must overcome various hurdles to hopefully achieve his goals.
As is the norm for a Van Damme action movie, particularly where his late 80s and early 90s output is concerned, one has to be prepared for some at best average acting and a flimsy plot. Plot follows a familiar Van Damme trajectory, his character will yearn to overcome adversity, go through a strenuous training programme, meet and make friends and enemies, produce some outstanding martial artistry, and end up in a winner takes all fight for justice, revenge, honour...
Away from the seriously great fighting skills showcased by Van Damme and the other martial artists he comes up against, there's not a lot of artistic film making craft on show. But as fans of this sort of stuff will tell you, and I'm one of that number, it matters not, for they deliver exactly what we expect. Great fight choreography, a super Kumite montage, a vile villain who needs his ass kicked, and of course lots of Van Damage as we hurtle towards what we hope will be a triumphant finale. Hooray!
Though supposedly based on facts in Frank Dux's life, this has been called into question over the years, so best to just observe it as an energised martial arts film rather than a part biography piece. 7/10

This is terrible, poorly executed, story makes no sense. Costume design is nice but it's not enough to sanction just under 2 hours of my life. Unless you are a child or an easily impressed adult, Avoid!

_**Looks great, nice action, but needed more depth**_
Although the set-up of “Conan the Barbarian” (2011) is the same as the 1982 version (raiders destroy Conan's village in Cimmeria and thus the barbarian seeks revenge) the story is otherwise completely different. The villains here are Khalar Zym and his witchy daughter, Marique, who seek to resurrect Zym's sorcerous wife, but they need to acquire the pure blood necessary for their Acheron magic.
WHAT WORKS:
•Jason Momoa, as Conan, is excellent; far better than Arnie. It's hard to conceive of a better Conan.
•The Bulgarian locations are outstanding.
•The Costuming is more convincing than the '82 version. Conan's apparel, for instance, is more faithful to REH than Arnie's fur loincloth.
•Better acting than the '82 version, excluding James Earl Jones, of course.
•Brutal, thrilling action throughout with convincing swordplay (unlike the contrived ’82 version).
•Corsairs, highlighted by Conan's comrade Artus, effectively played by likable Nonso Anozie.
•Excellent sets/props; it definitely looks like the Hyborian Age.
•Good serious vibe, despite the cartoony, over-the-top last act.
•Rose McGowan as the witchy daughter is ee-vil and creepy.
•Ron Perlman as Conan's father.
•The whole opening sequence.
•I liked how the film stressed the closeness and love of Conan and his father. There's a correlation between true greatness and a close relationship with a strong father-figure and his example of excellence.
•You have to give credit to the filmmakers for effectively illustrating Conan's youthful days and life in a Cimmerian village in general, something Conan's creator never delved into in any detail.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
•The film deviates from Robert E. Howard, albeit not as much as the '82 version. Regardless, it certainly adhered to REH's overall pulp vibe. I'd prefer to see one of REH's originals put to film, like "A Witch Shall Be Born" or "Beyond the Black River."
•Stephan Lang as Zym makes a worthy enough villain for Conan, but he comes off too clichéd and cartoony, especially in the final act. James Earl Jones' Thulsa Doom worked better, likely because he was so unique.
•Rachel Nichols' Tamara is solid as the female protagonist, but she doesn't hold a candle to Sandahl Bergman's Valeria.
•The score is serviceable but pales in comparison with Basil Poledouris' score from the '82 version and "Conan The Destroyer" (1984). This score definitely won't be celebrated 30 years later like Basil's. Why didn't they just update Polerdouris' piece?
•There’s too much "Modern Blockbuster Syndrome" that appeals to those with ADHD.
•Especially the over-the-top final act, which is way too comic booky. It's cartoony overkill, pure and simple. But, then again, it did bring to mind REH's "Jewels of Gwahlur," so maybe it's not so far off the mark.
•The biggest flaw was that there wasn't enough depth. The film needed more 'downtime' to contrast the wall-to-wall action, like campfire scenes (which would better indicate distances), more camaraderie on the ship, more development of Conan & Tamara's relationship, etc. Although it had some of this, it wasn't enough. Action sequences naturally hold more weight when the audience cares about the characters. As it is, it's clear that the filmmakers wanted to make an action flick above all else and this weakens the film.
•Along with lack of depth was the lack of epic-ness or moving moments. The '82 film deviated from REH but at least it made up for it with depth and a sense of epic-ness. For instance, when Conan & Subotai make their stand against the riders of doom or Conan's moving victory salute, not to mention the potent love & death/funeral scenes, etc. This 2011 version had glimpses of this, like when Conan is birthed on the battlefield then raised to the sky and when Conan's father expresses his love with his final act, but, again, it needed more.
CONCLUSION: The filmmakers got a lot of things right, like Momoa as Conan and the authentic look/feel of the Hyborian Age. The film's not bad at all and pulsates with energy, but it needed more depth, epic-ness and uniqueness to pull it out of its "blockbuster" mediocrity. It's a case of violence for the sake of violence, which gets dull by the 90-minute mark, plus the last act is just comic booky overload. The focus on wall-to-wall action limits the film's effectiveness. It lacks the confidence to chill and allow the characters to breathe.
Still, it's a somewhat worthy Conan movie. It's serious and brutal; and, thankfully, lacks "cute" characters. It’s arguably on par with "Conan the Destroyer" and superior in ways, not to mention leagues better than "Red Sonja" (1985).
The film runs 1 hour, 53 minutes.
GRADE: B-/C+

I quite liked this film, more than I liked Captain America: The First Avenger that we watched a couple of days ago. It has gotten some rather disappointing ratings. I obviously disagree.
I found the film to be pretty much what I hoped for. I read some reviews on IMDb stating that Conan only said about 40 words, that he wasn’t “barbaric” enough, that the fight scenes where chopped up and that you didn’t get to see much of the fighting.
In reality the first statement is a blatant lie and the others simply not true. The film is much bloodier than Schwarzenegger’s version and sometimes in a quite “barbaric” way. I do not know what people really expected from this film but for me it was pretty much what I hoped for. Although the Schwarzenegger films are somewhat out-dated I was still afraid that I would miss good old Schwarzy but I really didn’t (that much at least).
Special effects where quite okay and the 5.1 DTS Master Audio soundtrack was done well enough. It get’s a 7 out of 10 from me.

There's some cathartically pleasant violence, particularly in the first half, but ultimately this movie didn't have to be made, and it *definitely* didn't have to be made under the name "_Conan_".
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

Everytime I hear the term "remake" I cringe a little... More often than not, the so-called "remake" does not do the original movie justice. With that being said however, I was blown away by this revisited title. Although I was not familiar with the actor cast to play Conan, I was quite pleased by his rendition of the role. Excellent action and plenty of adventure, and not too bad in the looks department either! A most enjoyable movie, that I am pleased to have in my collection.

Ally Sheedy, whatever happened to her. When I was a little kid, I mean REALLY little she was one of the few stars I could name...and then she disappeared save for a couple memorable appearances in Psych. It's a shame.
Anyway, my fiance is a Millennial and I've been trying to introduce her and her friends to some classic films. This one was a fail. They sat through it, but really only to mock the technology. Mocking things that are old for being old is kind of one of their favorite things.
So, despite that, the film made ripples in congress and the only other film that I recall doing that was JFK. It rewrote laws.
And, it was extremely entertaining in the process, despite the fact that Matthew looked like more of a push-over than a computer geek. Not that it matters, he still played the part of a teen pretty well.

Wanna play Global Thermonuclear War?
It was with much interest to me to revisit this early 80s hacker piece armed with the knowledge of just how the advent of change in the computer world had evolved. With that in mind the film could quite easily be classed as a bit clunky due to the now almost Neanderthal toys, games and computers used in the movie, but casting aside the nostalgia feelings I had with it, it still hits the spot as both a poignant piece of interest, and a damn good thriller as well.
Matthew Broderick is David Lightman, a young computer gamer geek who is something of a whizz kid on the PC. He can change his school grades and hack into various sites he shouldn't be even looking at. During one eventful sitting he hacks into a computer called Joshua and plays a game called Global Thermonuclear War, he harmlessly chooses to be The Soviet Union and proceeds to launch a nuclear attack on his own country, the U.S.A. Trouble is, is that the game is for real and the wheels are in motion for World War III!.
It helps to remember the time this film was made (for those old enough of course), for it was the time of the ever worrying cloud of the Cold War, a time when nuclear war was more than a hearsay threat. I really think that in this day and age where computers literally do run our lives, this film stands up really well not only as a warning piece about messing with technology, but also as a gentle poke in the ribs about defence systems and the people we trust to run them. Though the film is a kind of watered down and accessible 2001: A Space Odyssey for the 80s set, it impacts well and only really suffers from a pointless romantic plot strand involving the sprightly Ally Sheedy (could they not just have been pals?) and the aforementioned dated gadgets. The ending to the film is excellent as the tension builds up nicely and we are left chewing our nails watching a game of Tic-Tac-Toe, sounds simple doesn't it? Not so.
Good honest and intelligent entertainment. 7.5/10

Oh, Lordy, how close were these characters to the real people? If you want to learn how illegitimate governments use and abuse power, this is your movie. Forget Seven Days in May, Downfall, All the President's Men, etc. This black-hearted comedy is about the machinations of the Politburo (or whatever these cunning clowns called themselves) to carve up power at the end of the reign of the 2nd worst mass murderer of all time, Josef Stalin. The callous disregard for the most basic respect for human life leaves one horrified, but the machine-gun delivery of snide and snark between these murderous clowns makes you squirm on the sofa. You know who the "good guys" are which, in itself, shows that same disrespect for human life. You feel conflicted because you've picked sides, and I picked Nikita Khrushchev, and not because he was played by Steve Buscemi ("Shut up, Donnie!).
If you have no knowledge of the story of the power struggle after Uncle Joe vapor-locked and rolled to a halt, then accept that the history isn't terribly accurate, but who the hell cares? The viewer sees the mad rush to grab, grab, and grab when the megalomaniacal monster moves on to a luxury suite in Hell. These monsters seem human. I'm totally sure that a black comedy about Adolph or Mao would have the same cunning sleazeballs trying to add to the world's supply of worm food. You wouldn't shoot for a sequel. Everything you need to know is right here.
What I found so disturbing about TDOS was the casual nature of killing people. Prisoners, soldiers, doctors, lawyers, NKVD leaders die with a terrified shout of "Long live, Stalin" and a sharp crack of a pistol. Sometimes that seems to go on and on and on in the echoing background cells of the Kremlin. You get used to the background noise.
So, if you have a taste for the sort of humor you might find in "Best in Show," wherein one character exclaims how romantic it was to lock eyes on each other from their respective corner Starbucks, if you enjoy the feeling of being conflicted about picking good guys when everyone is saturated with Marxist evil, and/or if you like rolling back the video to find out if he or she really said THAT, then sit back and sip that vodka slowly.

Pretty genuinely funny, which I was not expecting. A great one for me and my roommate with a hammer and sickle tattoo to watch together.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

An interesting, but somewhat worrying docudrama look at the United Kingdom if Comrade Corbyn ever came to power.

The Jackal is the kind of Thriller that does everything by the book. Most of the movie is comprised out of well-known and established tropes, it's got a packed cast and decent action scenes. It may not reinvent the wheel or keep you on your toes, but it does offer some solid 90's entertainment for about two hours.

This is one I've seen several times over the years and while certainly not great and it is funny hearing Richard Gere with an Irish accent and the numerous hair changes with Bruce Willis, I still find it watchable and somewhat entertaining.
That said, how the Jackal was written was a problem because while for most of the movie he's a cold-blooded and calculating character, his actions of going after Isabella was strange to do in the midst of planning an assassination versus going for revenge (which itself didn't make sense) after he completed his mission and got paid, and that's not to mention giving away his true target with a line about Declan unable to protect his women, though even then not sure how Declan came to that (albeit correct) conclusion. Probably just lazy script writing.
However, there are some cool shots (in the days when they used helicopters for aerial shots compared to using drones) and the direction from Michael Caton-Jones was solid. **3.0/5**