Globetrotting pursuit of a master-of-disguise assassin
RELEASED IN 1997 and directed by Michael Caton-Jones, "The Jackal” is an international crime thriller about a joint FBI/MVD mission (led by Sidney Poitier and Diane Venora) that enlists the aid of an imprisoned IRA combatant (Richard Gere) to stop a brutal master-of-disguise assassin known as The Jackal (Bruce Willis) from completing a big hit in Washington DC. This was a loose remake of the film “The Day of the Jackal” (1973), which was based on the 1971 novel by Frederick Forsyth.
The first act is too convoluted for my tastes as the story globetrots from Moscow to Helsinki to Canada to the USA. But the movie finds its footing and settles into an entertaining political action flick not far removed from the tone of “The Saint” with Val Kilmer, released the same year. Both films are from the same genre, have the same tone, were made for the same amount ($60 million), feature an antagonist who’s a master-of-disguise and are named after that person. While both movies made roughly the same in North America ($55-60 million), “The Jackal” proved more popular worldwide, making almost $160 million, which was $50 million more than “The Saint.” IMHO “The Jackal” is the more all-around entertaining picture.
Critics love to lambaste this movie because (1.) it deviates too much from the original film and (2.) because of the mounting nonsensical elements. But (1.) “The Jackal” was made to stand on its own in late 90’s cinema and (2.) why do other action thrillers like James Bond get a pass when it comes to ridiculous plot holes? Besides, many of the supposed nonsensical moments can easily be cleared up if you pay attention to the details; not all of them, of course, but many of them.
What I don’t like is the disingenuousness of many of the criticisms. For instance, Roger Ebert’s opening criticism of the film was to mock the way The Jackal sneaks into the USA from Canada by purchasing a sailboat and entering a race from Mackinaw to Chicago. Ebert reasoned that there are easier ways to enter the US inconspicuously along the 3000-mile border, but he left out an important detail: The Jackal was smuggling a huge computerized machine gun and its formidable mount. THAT is why he bought the yacht and used the race as a means to enter the country unnoticeably amidst a crowd of other crafts. Aduh.
One of the best aspects of this flick is the great cast and seeing them work together. Poitier was 69 during filming and looks very distinguished; this was incidentally his last theatrical release (although he appeared in four TV movies in the ensuing four years). Jack Black is effective in a peripheral role tailor-made for him.
But it’s Gere and Willis who steal the show, naturally. The latter is particularly entertaining in an almost shocking departure from his typical easy-going, friendly persona. As The Jackal, Willis is relaxed, carefree, cold, malicious, cunning, calculating, smart, icy and ruthless; a charming psychopath.
I shouldn't close without mentioning the excellent score by Carter Burwell mixed with an edgy alternative rock soundtrack, featuring cuts by Massive Attack ("Superpredators" and "Dissolved Girl") and the like.
THE MOVIE RUNS 2 hour, 4 minutes and was shot in Moscow, Finland, Montreal, London, the Carolinas, Virginia and Chicago. SCREENPLAY: Chuck Pfarrer.
GRADE: B-/C+

> The famous English detective at his old age.
Ian McKellen as Sherlock Holmes, totally loved it. Directed by an Oscar winning filmmaker, the film was based on the novel 'A Slight Trick of the Mind'. It focused the long retired Sherlock Holmes, who now lives in the English countryside where he meets a boy. He tries to recall one of his old cases, but struggles as he's very old to remember. So with the help of the boy, he undertakes to correct the book version of the story and besides, they together establish beekeeping as a hobby.
It was not that great, though an enjoyable small drama. Having a greatest detective character in it, you just can't expect a boring regular drama of the life. The narration had a multiple layer, in each how much Mr. Holmes dedicates himself to solves the case was nicely told. And of course, all of them had its own twist. After all, that's what everybody seeks from a film with Sherlock Holmes.
I'm sure you would have seen several films and/or series based on this character, but this film was something unique and only one kind, except if there's a sequel planned for this. Some people might be disappointed in this for being somewhat simple, but for a 93 year old man this storyline looked very appropriate and Ian did a fantastic job. I anticipated someone young actor for those flashback parts, but in the end, I'm happy that it was a one man show as it should be. It is a must see for his fans.
7/10

Emma Stone and Steve Carell are terrific.
'Battle of the Sexes' is an interesting look on the famous tennis match from 1973 between Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs. I'm sure it takes all the usual creative license that biopics tend to do, but that's doesn't bother me - especially with this type of event.
Stone (King) and Carell (Riggs) are definitely what hold this film together, without those two I don't believe it would've been as enjoyable. Sarah Silverman (Gladys) and Andrea Riseborough (Marilyn) are alright, though the main attraction here are the two leads.
Talking of Marilyn, I didn't really care for the love stories on show - with Marilyn, but also those involving Larry (Austin Stowell) and Priscilla (Elisabeth Shue). The rest is sufficiently entertaining, though.
It's sometimes a little too on the nose with the (obviously positive) message it's portraying, but that's just a small thing to note. Overall, this is a production I'd recommend you watch - tennis/sports fan or not.

I'm not saying women are better. I've never said that. I'm saying we deserve some respect.
Battle of the sexes is directed by Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris and written by Simon Beaufoy. It stars Emma Stone, Steve Carell, Andrea Riseborough, Natalie Morales, Sarah Silverman, Bill Pullman, Eric Christian Olsen, Alan Cumming and Elisabeth Shue. Music is by Nicholas Britell and cinematography by Linus Sandgren.
Back in 1973 there was a tennis match - a show event - where self proclaimed media hustler Booby Riggs (Carrel) took on supreme ladies champion of the era Billie Jean King (Stone). It would be tagged as The Battle Of The Sexes and the importance of such has echoed through time to still be relevant today.
Here we have a film running at two hours in length that actually plays more as a King biography than it does a piece about the tennis match at pic's closure. Why not just call your film Billie Jean King? That would still have worked and been more closer to the themes playing out. On the King biography terms it's a fascinating and engrossing film, her battle with her sexuality issues - and the media threats that such a thing of the era would produce - and her wonderfully stoic stance for women's acceptance rights in sport. Unfortunately since the focus is more in this area the film becomes repetitive and over stuffed, and crucially it sadly puts the Bobby Riggs story firmly into the background.
However, there's a lot to like on show here if one can forgive it its ill thought out unbalancing act. The cast performances across the board are top line. Stone and Carell are kind of a given, the latter really nailing the characterisation, but key turns by Riseborough, Olsen, Silverman and a wonderfully flamboyant Cumming light up the period play. The last third as we head towards the match of the title is excellent, characterisations have been set up for maximum impact, while the writers do not pander to gloating or PC banner waving to leave us on a positive and thought provoking note. If only the Riggs axis had been given more meaty substance, and the mid-section not practically slow to a snails pace, then we would have had a better movie more befitting the title - and historical event - than the one we get. 6/10

FULL DISCLOSURE: I saw this while I was working my ass off in a foodtruck at an outdoor cinema. I missed whole chunks of it, and it certainly didn't have my full focus. I'll give it a proper chance at a later date, and alongside that, another review. However, of what I saw, _Battle of the Sexes_ seemed to be little more than a collection of stereotypes played for comedy in a movie that not only wasn't funny, but probably shouldn't have even tried to be.
_Final rating:★★ - Definitely not for me, but I sort of get the appeal._

Unlike others, I would say it was a nice movie from Ridley Scott. Certainly not a masterpiece, but I truly enjoyed it. For his capability this movie was a below par, that's what everyone meant. As for the theme of the story, it was a phenomenal, but the screenplay is what failed very badly. To me, some of the scenes in the movie were impressive, enough to stick around the end. As has been a gangster related subject, Midas touch lacks and surprises how a great director make it slip away.
Handling a tough situation, following the instinct and the facing outcome of the final result is what the movie to say in a one liner. Obviously, roles were perfectly distributed to the respective cast by the filmmakers and they had given their best as well. So no blame game for the movie's fall in that matter. In my perception it was the dull moments in the movie that acquire more than the best parts. When it was overhauled to build the story and develop characters, never showed signs of recovery.
As I am a movie maniac, after seeing a movie, I always think of a sequel to follow only if it was a good one, or I pray for no sequel if it was terrible. I thought the same about this movie as well, after seeing the way it ended. I am now curious what if a sequel makes the way and impacts better than this. Because in the history, so many sequels had excelled than the previous movies. Whatever, I respect this film, not because of the director or actors, but like everyone says it should have been little better in a few areas, that's all. A movie fanatic sees the effort and appreciate it even it was not that good, but a critic sees only flaws and criticise as usual.
6/10

Original, unique, bizarre, hilarious!
* I love all the whacky and authentic and heartwarming characters from this movie.
* I think it has a kind of bedroom pop vibe to it. Alot of bedroom pop music videos look and feel similar with the fashion and ideas they riff on.
* I love the environment they're in. Wide open, sparse midwestern town. The American landscape is big and cool.
* This movie is a brilliant example that art doesn't need a huge budget to transcend mediocrity.

Jon Heder is the eponymous high school student who lives with his brother "Kip" (Aaron Ruell) at the home of his grandmother (Sandy Martin). Now she's a bit of a game girl and manages to come off her buggy whilst racing in the sand dunes and so their womanising tupperware salesman uncle "Rico" (Jon Gries) turns up to provide them with steak and keep them in check. "Kip" has fallen madly in love with a girl he met on the internet; his sibling - a bit of a geeky loner - alights on school newbie "Pedro" (Efren Ramirez) whom he decides to help defeat the school sweetheart "Summer" (Haylie Duff) to the prestigious class presidency. This is a little bit on the edgier side of the frequently saccharine-filled MTV movies, and Heder is actually quite good as the drippy but quite switched-on young man increasingly infatuated with "Deb" (Tina Majorino) - whose hair appears to grow at right angles from her skull! There are a few titters to be had, but I fear this hasn't aged especially well and for those non-Americans amongst us, the humour has pretty much evaporated into a series of predicable skits and characterisations that possibly challenged convention twenty years ago, but fall pretty flat in 2024. It passes ninety minutes easily enough with a soundtrack to elicit a nice dose of nostalgia for Alphaville, Cyndi Lauper and even the "A-Team" but I doubt I'd watch it again.

The first thing anyone can say about this movie, and should say, is that it isn't RoboCop. But that should be said for all reviews for all movies always. Yet, this is still one of the best sequels ever put together to any movie anywhere at any time. Weller is outstanding again. How can stuffing a man into a foam latex suit and have him clip clop around in front of a camera work so well? Its mind blowing.

I wasn't the biggest fan of the first of these, but this a far cry from even that! "Robocop" (Peter Weller) is doing his best, but Detroit has become even more lawless with half the population addicted to a potent drug, and it now also faces a bankruptcy that will allow the all consuming OCP to take over the city from the enthusiastic, but out of his depth "Mayor Kuzak" (Willard Pugh). Just to make certain of success, the big boss, Dan O'Herlihy, develops a "Robocop 2" - this time using the dastardly criminal brain of arch criminal "Cain" - the man behind the drug - as the human template. Can the prototype take on and defeat his much more sophisticated rival and save the city? Perhaps Irvin Kershner wanted to take a pop at corporate greed, or megalomania, or bad government or maybe even the inane human nature of the empowered mob, but whatever his plan was, we end up with a sort of faintly comedic hybrid of "Terminator" (1984) by way of "Bugsy Malone" (1976) with some metallic action routines that could easily have been formulated better in clay by Ray Harryhausen. The story is all over the place, indeed Weller hardly features at all for much of it and by the time it does start to liven up I really wasn't sure if this was a spoof! The highly-pitched "Robocop" signature tune said it all - this is just, well, not very good!

It's not so much that it's terrible, it's just that it's disappointing after the immeasurable success of the original movie.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

Ass-wiping-piece-of-crap-movie glamorizing rape, violence, mutilation, stalking... It is not doing any good for anybody! NO woman (with brains) would ever find this movie sexy! The first and the last 10 minutes was the only thing realistic in this movie.... YUCK! The director and the whole movie team should be ashamed to encourage violence against women! There are some sick twisted fucks out there, who is totally going to misunderstand this movie...

**Sometimes the crime decides its own fate.**
I had no thought before the watch, but while watching it, I felt it was overrated. That's for a moment, once I finished watching it, realised it's a better film. I mean I changed my stance, after over and over thinking about the film. So its the patience you need, wait till the film to end to decide how much you liked it. It was too long, but every space was filled up with the best parts. It took time to understand the characters, and with multiple angle events in one woman's life. Isabelle Huppert was amazing. Despite so many characters in the film, she ruled it. One of her best films I have seen.
The film focused on the boss of a video game designing firm. It opens with as she's been sexually assaulted in her home by an intruder. Followed by one of her employees morphed her face to an animated character as a sexual explicit material for the game they are working in. So she begins her investigation to find both the culprit who might be the same person. This is where the suspense comes into play to develop interest in us. Besides, facing family troubles takes some extra development. Subsequently, all the mysteries will be solved and to know how it ends, you should watch it.
> "Michele to her cat: You did not have to claw his eyes out, but scratch him at least."
It is official French submission to the 89th American Academy Awards. But as per the latest news bulletin, this film is out of the Oscars race, despite made into the Golden Globes. From the director of the original 'Total Recall' and his first French film. Based on the book named 'Oh...'. But I felt it was developed from a small part of 'The Little Death'. Basically, there's an understanding being it is the story of the adults, despite the sexual violences and that's how this story was built. So you must compromise on a few things that is shown in it if you really want to enjoy it.
I did not like it all the sudden, though looking back all the film events and joining them together made me see the film was decent. Especially that final line said by a woman who was evacuating her house makes whole thing sense. Maybe that's the real twist in the tale. Initially I did not think to write a review, but surely it deserved one from me, so I wrote this short and quick. This is the film for the grown ups, but not for all the grown ups. So I hope it will meet your expectation if you decide to try, but according to me definitely it is worth.
_7/10_

I will go out a limb here (and try not to cut the branch out from under myself) and say that I feel this is nearly a perfect movie. Oh, I don’t mean that it is one of the best of all time, or even that it makes my own top ten list. But rarely does a film live up so well to what it strives to accomplish.
It is a quiet and gentle movie, full of love in nearly every scene. The two leads have great chemistry together. Laura almost comes across as a ditzy character, but the more time I spent with her, the more she seemed merely quirky, artistic and wise in small ways that matter in life. She is optimistic and confident in her marriage, so I feared something would come along to threaten or damage that confidence. But that is not what this movie is about.
Paterson could easily be a date night movie, or a “It has been a long day” movie to help you unwind. Heck, there is no violence, explicit language or sex, so you could watch it with kids and talk about some of the stuff that happens. (Not too young though; it might be too slow for real young’uns.) There is mild (and again, gentle) humor here, like from the scene-stealing dog Marvin, played by Nellie!
When I went back to school in my 30s, we studied poet William Carlos Williams in an Honors program course, so I was interested to hear some of his work here. As the film states, he was a physician by occupation, but also a respected poet who influenced those who followed him. The book we studied (Perhaps the one named for the city of Paterson) actually began with a colon, like this - : Imagine the fun we had in class discussing why he did that!
Actually, I wasn’t crazy about the poems the character Paterson wrote in this film. I think the best poetry leaves a few things out, or represent by inference thoughts with word images. These poems feel like they would work just as well slid together as a prose essay. But I write novels, not poems, so what do I know, except that I really like this movie?

Jim Jarmusch's 2016 film PATERSON is a study of everyday life in a small American city. Its title refers on one hand to its setting of Paterson, New Jersey, much less known abroad than other towns in the state but a surprising number of prominent Americans hailed from there and it was eulogized in an epic-length work by the poet William Carlos Williams. On the other hand, Paterson is coincidentally the last name of our protagonist, a thirty-something bus driver played by Adam Driver.
The film is a day-by-day account of one week in Paterson's life and in fact each day is rather the same: Paterson wakes up, kisses his wife (played by Golshifteh Farahani), goes to work driving the bus, comes home, eats dinner with his wife, takes the dog for a walk, and has a beer at the local bar. Yet Paterson also has an unusual hobby: for some time he has written poetry during each day's lunch break, and he has filled a small notebook with poems that his wife calls wonderful, but which he has never shown to anyone else.
There is a plot to Paterson, that is, an increasing of tension and a sudden and jarring climax, but overall Jarmusch is not aiming for any grand and intricate storytelling here. Instead, he is intentionally trying to capture the quiet music of one ordinary person's existence. Or should I say, two ordinary people's existence, for the film sympathetically captures this couple's marriage. Their relationship is a simple, uncomplicated one of trust and mutual understanding. Paterson is extremely fortunate to have this, as events around him show. (The script is by Sara Driver, Jarmusch's partner of decades, and one might see the film as a hymn to their own special relationship.) Many viewers are likely to find this heartwarming, while other viewers in more fraught marriages might burn with jealousy at Paterson and his wife's incredible harmony.
Those familiar with Jarmusch's earlier work know that he has always liked to show a great deal of urban blight before the camera, such as vacant lots overgrown with weeds and graffitied walls. For Jarmusch, these backdrops supposedly served as a counterweight to the typical Hollywood depictions of the USA as all glitz, and it helped to underscore the bohemian qualities of his characters. Yet this blight surprisingly absent here. Paterson, New Jersey is instead shown as a clean and fairly prosperous town. Its residents, regardless of socioeconomic status or race, are depicted as rather content people.
In fact, at regular points in the film Jarmusch depicts interactions between whites and African-Americans or between gays and straights as if celebrating our new modern era when all those old divisions don't matter any more. This is definitely the most optimistic film that Jarmusch has ever shot, but this utopian vision does come across as a little heavy-handed and one feels that Jarmusch is overlooking pressing social issues that continue to hold many people back. Watching this film, I couldn't help but protest that this gentrified setting is not all of America, just a privileged few.
Still, in spite of the film's flaws, the depiction of married life and the way that poetry is worked into the story is very moving, and I do feel this is worth watching, at least for established Jarmusch fans or those comfortable with indie cinema.

**A week with a bus driver, a part time poet.**
The time Jim Jarmusch has struck back. He does not make films often, but those he makes are not easily forgettable. I don't think people hate his films, especially the grown ups. They know how hard the real life is and contents this filmmaker use for his flicks are not much different. But the thing is, in his style, adding a slight fun, romantic, poetic, all together works so well. I still remember how I become his fan after watching 'Stranger Than Paradise'.
As usual, he wrote the story for this film. Even if he had to borrow from another source, the screenplay is generally his. For this film, it was original and that's what worked out awesomely. But he had to borrow some poems from his favourite poet, Ron Padgett. A great team work, because when their work came together, the film became a masterpiece. It was nothing less than any literature, for sure. Definitely this film should turn into a book. The readers deserve their own imagination of this tale.
This is the story of a man's life in a week's time. Starts from Monday and ends on next Monday. So, his name's Paterson, a bus driver from the city of Paterson. A happily married man, and love his profession. In the meantime, he's a poet. He has kept a book where he writes his poems, especially during his lunch time, even in the small breaks when he gets. His mind's always filled with thoughts. Chanting words, verses.
His inspirations are the places he goes through his bus and the strangers who ride in his bus. Their each others conversation about their lives and experiences is his motivation. His wife is an interesting character too. Sadly, she was not focused as much as he was. Though there are enough scenes to enjoy the role. But I think she deserves her solo film, from another angle, about her life, her hobby which her husband backs.
It's a simple, normal life. Without much trouble, a peaceful life the most people would ask for. The film is not everything about him. But he's the centre of the story. When other, one time characters enter the screen. It's because of his presence around them. Hence some interesting facts revealed. Just like our life when we ride a public transport where we come in to contact with many passengers coming and going in different stops. But all the above, what they talk, which we, everybody in the bus listen without hesitation. Paterson is a person who learns every day out of that.
> ❝Poetry in translation is like taking a shower with a raincoat on.❞
His other activity is walking his dog out at every night. It's an opportunity for him to mix with some friends at the pub he had made with frequent visits. The place which has its own story as the film progresses. So all these stuffs keeps repeating every day like what we call a mechanical life. But Paterson is neither enjoying it nor depressed over. He usually does best out of the given time and place. The difference is, not every day are same. Even a slight change in order of activity brings a new thing in. His wife insists him to publish his works. But the narration strikes with an unexpected twist before the end.
I have said many times when I liked the films I have watched that they are so poetic. But it's very rare to find a film from top to bottom being very poetic. Recently I saw one, in fact, two from Japan known as 'Little Forest' duology. And now this one. Particularly if you love poetry or if you are yourself a poet, then this is a must see. Surely you would love it. As well as a good film to gift to any such person you know in your life. Believe me, this film is like a wine bottle. As it gets older, it will turn the best. I have already changed my stance twice and rated better every time. I consider it is a bit low rated right now. But only time will answer to that.
For me, it is the director's top 3 films. I have seen Adam Driver in many films, he's not considered a solo lead actor, because of marketing purpose. But he's really good which proved in this flick. So it is his best performance I have seen so far. He really took the driving classes to learn drive the bus to perfect his character. That's the dedication the creator of the film expects from his cast. How much I loved it means, I'm eager for a sequel, despite knowing this kind of films are one-off. Otherwise, I'll be happy if the director and him join the hands once more time for a new project.
Very slow moving tale. But not a boring film. If I had watched it when I was a teenager, I don't think I would have felt similarly. From middle aged people to the older ones, they are the target audience. In order to see and feel what this film reveals, one must have experience in real life. Hence, not all the youngsters, particularly the teenagers would thumb up. In my world, this kind of films is the Oscar worthy. I would have surely nominated the film, as well as the director and the lead actor. So by now you would have learnt what my final word could be. Recommended!
_8/10_

If you appreciate the delicacies of a quiet, slice-of-life dramedy that hinges on the edginess of minimal observations of routine life as an artistic examination then you are in for a delectable treat with the skillful and witty inflections of writer/director Jim Jarmusch’s whimsical and wry offering **Paterson**. Jarmusch, known for his quirky and sedated dramas that include the highly underrated 2005 Bill Murray vehicle _Broken Flowers_ and 2009’s _The Limits of Control_, is back to add to his familiar repertoire of solemn filmmaking with an admirable character study of an Everyday man named Paterson (Adam Driver, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens”) trying to balance a structured, day-by-day existence with poetic leanings as his measurement of escapism. Remember, this is Jim Jarmusch’s isolated cinematic world where experiencing one of his big screen creations is much like living in an insulated bubble with meditation whale sounds to ease your tension…you just need to go with the slow pacing and appreciate the nuances of its resonance. In fact, the only recent radical submission from Jarmusch is this year’s documentary _Gimmie Danger_ and that is even riddled with mild-like rawness.
Consequently, **Paterson** is the type of off-kilter, contemplative and quaint motion picture that begs one to check their excitement at the door. The flashiness of Jarmusch’s creative overtones is ironically the low-key blueprint of the film’s leading protagonist Paterson (the man) and urban setting (Paterson, New Jersey–the city that shares the same name with Driver’s blue-collar characterization). Dutifully, the film allows the audience to ride the waves of the repetitive conformity of a man seemingly going through the motions in life from the perspective of a married working stiff whose occasional stimulation besides his lovely wife Laura (Iranian-born actress Golshifteh Farahani) and four-legged adorable bulldog Marvin is his need to write poetry in his trusted notebook of eloquent thoughts. It certainly helps that the hometown bearing his moniker that surrounds him as he regularly drives the bus each day carrying the familiar and not-so-familiar faces as they are carted off to their various destinations acts as a steady stream for inspiration.
Some will relate to Paterson’s stillborn existence of repeating his daily agenda for work and leisurely downtime while others may dread the tedious notion of being so predictable and practical as this disciplined city bus driver has mastered so effortlessly. The scheduled outline never deviates for Paterson as he gets up early at the same time, goes to work while cruising the same bus routes, returns home to his fetching spouse Laura for dinnertime then walks Marvin to the local bar for his taste of a mug of beer to ease the tensions of the work day. It does need repeating that Paterson must engage in his passages of poetry–something that he does not miss a beat on for sure.
Interestingly, Laura is also an odd duck whose own sense of head-scratching regimen actually rivals that of her husband’s day-by-day customs. Laura has dreams and does not hesitate in throwing herself into random activities that give her a sense of anticipated rush and reason to follow with faithful conviction. With the obsessive black-and-white coloring schemes in clothing, food and furniture that perversely pleases her Laura longs for the personal satisfaction that feels as therapeutic for her as the reliable quirks does for Paterson as well. Together, they march to the bizarre beat of their own drums. However, the dichotomy in their philosophical lives clash as Paterson is a creature that does not cozy of to change whereas Laura embraces her urges for different challenges whenever they come into fruition.
One may find it quite difficult to celebrate **Paterson** because it is an intimate film with a small-scale mentality that dares to look at the lives of ordinary, married people as they shift through their livelihood tainted with tiny triumphs and trying times. Nevertheless, at the box office office where superheroes, zombies and continuous _Star Wars_ installments reign supreme there can be something said for cheeky melodramas such as **Paterson** that draws its imaginative scope on solid storytelling with the concentration on hard-working, flawed people just trying to take on the day for the moment.
In a sentimental and subtly sharp performance, Driver is effectively potent as Paterson, a poetic pariah that translates the rhythms of his beloved city and people into a notebook that speaks his lyrical language. He is who he is and is unapologetic about his mission to adhere to anything different than what he is already used to that persists. Also, the beautiful Farahani is a revelation in her own right as the free-spirit with various whims that entail baking cupcakes one minute or arranging drapes the very next minute. The supporting characters are refreshingly realized especially when the spotlight settles in on the small tavern where Paterson systematically nurses his one beer all week long. And even the gruff but treasured Marvin (as played by the late canine actor Nellie) fits so handsomely into the saga of these ordinary folks relaxing in their own arbitrary skin. As simplistic as the poet Paterson is at heart and soul Jarmusch is shrewd to suggest that perhaps the hidden complexities of his expressive leading man is more explosive than what is let on throughout the narrative. Indeed, the mysterious nature of Driver’s devoted transit worker is a curiosity worth speculating over.
In conclusion, there is nothing wrong with worshiping car chases, alien attacks or enjoying the occasion teen sex farce. Still, whenever there is warranted shelf room for a sublime, insightful look at under-the-radar celebrations of casual lives, love and checkered eccentricities than the Jim Jarmusches and Terrence Malicks of the cinema world are welcomed to the table of film fodder that moves and grooves on its old-fashioned, unique purpose more relatable than your doomsday delight of resident space invaders.
**Paterson** (2016)
Amazon Studios/Animal Kingdom/Bleecher Street Media/Inkjet Productions
1 hr. 55 mins.
Starring: Adam Driver, Goldshifteh Farahani, Method Man
Directed and Written by: Jim Jarmusch
Genre: Comedy/Drama
MPAA Rating: R
Critic's Rating: **** stars (out of 4 stars)
(c) **Frank Ochieng** 2016

This the baby has been adopted by a good loving family. He doesn't know who he really is. He will learn though.

“My Disappointment Is Immeasurable and My Day Is Ruined.” Yeah, I’m going to use a meme to describe the film, since that’s what it is. In any case, what the hell. In my opinion, this is one of the most pointless films ever made. This doesn’t work either as a continuation or as a standalone film. It’s a massive slap in the face to the people who have supported the series throughout the years. The other films weren’t exactly masterpieces, but they all kind of worked; I’m disappointed to see that this one is just a blatant cash grab. To top it all off, it’s the least frightening of the bunch. If you plan on seeing this, prepare to be disappointed.
___
Rating: ***4.5/10*** *(More Unfavourable than Favourable)

Well, I suppose if anyone was ever going to be able to get to grips with the meaning of life, it was going to be the “Monty Python” lads but for me their brand of comedy never really worked. This starts with it’s equivalent of a B-reel: a bunch of geriatric insurance processors who react with unexpected violence when one of their number is fired. Next thing their building is a weapon of war wreaking havoc on the glittering world of a-personal commercialism! It’s quite entertaining how these folks intermingle “Spartacus” into the plot as they cannibalise everything from the ceiling fan to the filing cabinet to arm themselves. Thence to the main feature - and that starts with a stinging swing at the monetisation of life, right from the process of birth followed by a sarcastic critique on the attitudes to family planning of Roman Catholics with their sacred sperm! That sticky wicket starts us off through a cycle of education and onto the thing man does best: make war. This is maybe the funniest part as they have to cart around an officer who has a bit of a sore leg! Thereafter it begins to strain a little and descends too much into the realms of the vulgar. Perhaps songs about the penis raised a titter in the 1960s but in 1983 they are less potent, as is the sight of a large gent over-indulging then spewing all over the place. Finally, the man with the scythe turns up to herald the final chapter and convey everyone to a perpetual existence of tinsel and mince pies. It has it’s moments and at times it successfully uses exaggerated scenarios to provide quite a witty observation on just how mundanity governs pretty much all we do from cradle to grave, but it misses more than it hits for me. There’s no doubt it’s innovative and the assessment of the human condition quite apt, but the songs really do border on the puerile and for me it just all ran out of puff.

**I expected much more: this film is a shadow of what it should have been.**
I think it's redundant to say what everyone already knows: the Monty Python represents the pinnacle of British humor, and if each of those comedians is excellent alone, seeing them together is always an added bonus. This film, however, is a late work by the group, when each of them was starting to have a solo career and the group's notoriety was consolidated. There are incredible partnerships in the artistic world, and if we think about it, we will think of huge music bands, television series or troupes of actors that worked incredibly well and were successful for a certain time. The issue is that many of them did not know how to harmonize a joint existence with the growing commitments of individual agendas. And I think that's what happened with Python, and that helped complicate this project.
The film makes us laugh, it has some good moments, but it is a shadow if we try to compare it to “The Holy Grail”, for example. That's the crux of the matter: it's not bad, but it should have been much better, considering the talent of those involved! For me, a good part of the problem comes from the fact that it is a succession of humorous sketches with almost no obvious correlation between them. We can admit that in a TV comedy show, it is done routinely, and it works very well. In a film, greater cohesion, unity and homogeneity are expected. It's not an unbreakable rule, but it was an expectation I had.
Another problem with this film is the quality of the humor. We already know that the humor has more puerile moments and others that are frankly acidic, but the film resorts too much to easy laughter and simplistic and unrefined humor: a man who is condemned to death and chooses to fall off a cliff after being chased by naked women; an enormously obese man who, in a fancy restaurant, vomits everything around him and eats a regimental dose of food; a sex education class for totally naive boys (something impossible to believe, even considering the time when the film was made) and with the right to practical and very visual exemplification of the act in the classroom... what's the funny in all this?
As I said, the movie has some good moments. I loved the delivery room sketch, I think it's an absolutely delicious sarcasm and that it still works as a critique of the general state of public health services. I also liked Crimson Insurance, which is nothing more than a gigantic parody of Errol Flynn's piracy films, especially “Sea Hawk”, but which has a sympathetic touch and a critique of globalization and unbridled capitalism. Much less pleasant, but equally hilarious, was the huge musical sketch of Irish Catholics, stuffed to the bone with political incorrectness and with very accurate stings to the rejection discourse that the Catholic Church was maintaining with regard to contraceptive methods.

Doesn't hold up as well as some of Monty Python's other work, but there's enough classic moments in here to make it worthwhile watching.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

Jaden Smith is still not much of an actor, but it's "Love Story" for teens.

This is now ten years after the original and is a very poor relation. Gone are the established cast and therefore most of the chemistry as Eddie Murphy reprises his role as loud-mouthed cop "Axel Foley" just once too often. It has many of the ingredients that made this franchise successful, but somehow the seriously B-list supporting cast and the repetitive nature of the action scenes just don't really work nearly so well. "Foley" has the odd quip to deliver, but even Murphy seems to be going through the motions as his character gets drawn into a counterfeiting ring being run out of an LA theme park. That latter scenario gives ample opportunity for some lame gags and the dialogue here is much more aggressive. Anglo-Saxon creeps in where before we had wit; the film is courser, less polished and - as usual, to be fair - there is no jeopardy at all about the eventual ending. Someone doubtless made a pile of cash from this derivate effort, so hopefully we can stop now before the tarnish really sets in.

Very weak entry into the series with a more serious Murphy not exactly working as Foley. Still, can't say I hated it and was a passable time-waster. **2.5/5**

Not my type of Bond film, quite boring and way too long.

George Lazenby took on the mantle from Sean Connery for this "007" outing and I think he did quite a decent job with this, more convoluted story. He takes on the guise of an heraldry expert sent to Switzerland to investigate and validate the claims of lineage of Telly Savalas, purporting to be the "Count de Beauchamps" - defined by lack of ear lobes, don't you know - but who really has plans to use a form of hypnosis to achieve world domination. This film has a bit more class and less innuendo that it's earlier iterations - and Diana Rigg adds a bit of mischief and panache as the boisterous, independently-minded "Tracy" with whom poor old "James" has a pretty torrid time. This story isn't so good, but that isn't Lazenby's fault - indeed I felt that he, Rigg and Savalas tried hard to create a sense of suspense and menace; as did Ilse Steppat as the no-nonsense "Irma Bunt" (is that an anagram?). A great Louis Armstrong song, too - what's not to like - it's a shame that Messrs Broccoli and Saltzman didn't give George another kick at the ball with a better screenplay.

This was the worst Bond movie of the early era.
It has nothing to do with Lazenby being Bond. It's just that it was written to be just a depressing piece of trash for the Hollywood formula of the late sixties than went into the eighties.
There is little scenery, little action, little to see of the bad guys. Bond is pretty much on his own in a "spy movie" instead of a "Bond movie". Bond is in a complex in a mountain surrounded by snow. If this wasn't the lowest budget ever for a Bond movie, someone was robbed.
It is written with "hate", which was the standard of the late sixties through the eighties.
As someone born in 1956, this was about all I was exposed to in art, film, TV, theater, religion, everywhere.
It was the Hollywood formula, and to see anything else, you literally had to sneak off while everyone else was asleep and see something "not depressing" on your own.
There's just too much of this hate in Art. It isn't Art. It's trash.
It's also boring.

OHMSS, the Bond that everyone forgot.... and it's really a shame. It was also made in 1969 and I hate having to press the spoilers button... so the review is going to be hard and... really? It came out in 69, everyone had a chance to see it already... but whatever.
Lazenby, had he continued, could have carried on the Connery Era Bond into the 70s. He still had a few Moore Era tropes, a joke or two that was clearly very Roger Moore, but his delivery, his persona, his very being were far more Connery and the cold blooded assassin would have continued, with only a momentary glimpse of heart that, we know, hardened him in some ways.
It certainly sets a gold standard among 007 films and lays out some VERY important background that disproves the new "James Bond is only a title and not one person" argument that some people are making in order to rewrite the character entirely. Background that is revisited in Dalton's Era, thus cementing 007 as one person.
Connery is not 007 anymore (and they address it in a 4th wall breaking joke from the start) but his persona lives on in OHMSS. This is probably the last of the Classic Connery Era Bonds, discounted because Lazenby is in the title role. But the mood, the character, they are all still there.
This is truly the last Bond before the Era of Silly Bond started.

**Despite receiving disappointing reviews, OHMSS takes the franchise into new territory and is essential viewing for any true Bond fan.**
On Her Majesty’s Secret Service doesn’t tend to get the same love as many of the older Bond films, and that’s a shame because it boasts some significant firsts for the Bond franchise, some striking set pieces, and bold choices. Some of the friction faced by OHMSS is due to this being the first time James Bond was officially played by someone other than Sean Connery. George Lazenby played the part well but did little to make the character his own other than maybe being a little cheesier. But that wasn’t the only first in this film. James Bond fell in love and got married for the first time, broke the fourth wall for the first time, and faced a villain who escaped him from a previous film for the first time. OHMSS broke a lot of ground and had one of the best climactic finale battles of the early Bond films. And to top it all off, it’s technically a Christmas movie!