_**George Lazenby plays James Bond in the Swiss Alps**_
Agent 007 falls for a mob boss's daughter (Diana Rigg) and investigates a Swiss mountain-top lair where Blofeld (Telly Savalas) schemes to brainwash an assortment of women from around the world for his nefarious purposes.
"On Her Majesty's Secret Service" (1969) was the sixth James Bond film and the first without Sean Connery in the starring role. Australian George Lazenby took over the part for this ONE AND ONLY time.
Many Bond fans point out that this picture is the most faithful to Ian Fleming's character and book series. The story is taken from the novel of the same name.
People usually have two problems with this episode in the Bond series: (1) Lazenby as Bond and (2) After the first 20 minutes the story lacks any real action for the next hour or so wherein Bond goes undercover to investigate Blofeld's lair.
Concerning the second issue: Because the story involves at least one full hour (probably longer) of action-less spy investigation, those with ADD probably won't like this film. Personally, I enjoyed it; I can't stand when films have an explosion every two minutes to supposedly keep things "happening" and maintain the interest of the audience. Bond masquerading as Sir Hillary at the "allergy clinic" is both interesting and amusing. Besides, the last 40 minutes or so feature numerous thrilling action sequences: ski chases, a car chase, a bobsled chase and the final assault on Blofeld's mountain stronghold.
Needless to say, if you're a fan of winter sports, you'll want to see this film. By the way, George Lazenby was a very accomplished skier and had won two contests in Australia before taking on the role of Bond at the age of 29, the youngest Bond as of this writing.
Speaking of Lazenby as 007, he looks and acts like James Bond to me. Maybe he doesn't have the same charismatic flare as Connery in the 60s (Who does?), but he certainly has his own unique appeal.
Lazenby, incidentally, was a martial arts expert, which he taught during his stint in the Australian army. He even studied under Bruce Lee and later stated that it was Lee's philosophical teachings that enabled him to go on to have such a successful business career and personal life. In fact, George was actually going to have dinner with Bruce the night he died (!) and even replaced him in what was supposed to be Lee's next film "The Shrine of Ultimate Bliss" (1974).
He amusingly commented on Pierce Brosnan as the new Bond in 1995's "Goldeneye": "... this is the 90s and women want a different man, a man who shows his feminine side. Pierce definitely has that." He also reflected on the character of Bond himself: "He's a ruthless bastard, really."
As for the women in this movie, Diana Rigg is undeniably good-looking but she doesn't do anything for me personally (too tall and thin), but there are numerous other beauties to behold throughout the picture.
Because of Lazenby and the film's literary faithfulness, this is a very unique and worthwhile Bond adventure. It's also a must for those who love winter sports and spectacular Swiss winter locales.
It is the longest Bond film at 2 hours, 22 minutes, up until Daniel Craig era; and was filmed in Portugal, Switzerland and Pinewood Studios, England.
GRADE: B+

Decent enough entry, a little slow at times and while some effects weren't bad for its time, others were a bit iffy (not to mention some shoddy editing a time or two). I did like George Lazenby in the role (and at certain angles, kind of did look like Connery), as he did have some charm (although his quips didn't quite work for me), just a shame this was a one and done for him. The movie is on the lengthy side, probably 15 minutes could've been trimmed, though Lazenby and Diana Rigg shared great chemistry which does make the ending work so well. **3.5/5**

Even if we have all the time in the world, the world is not enough.
On Her Majesty's Secret Service is directed by Peter Hunt and adapted to screenplay by Richard Maibaum from the novel written by Ian Fleming. It stars George Lazenby, Diana Rigg, Telly Savalas, Ilse Steppat, Yuri Borienko and Gabriele Ferzetti. Music is by John Barry and cinematography by Michael Reed.
Bond 6 and 007 is obsessed with locating SPECTRE supremo Ernst Stavro Blofeld. After rescuing beautiful Countess Tracy di Vincenzo from suicide, this brings Bond into contact with her father, Marc Ange Draco, who agrees to help Bond find Blofeld in exchange for 007 courting Tracy. Blofeld is located in the Switzerland Alps at Piz Gloria, where he is masterminding a fiendish plot involving biological extinction of food group species'. Bond will need to use all his wits to stop the plan from being executed, he also has big matters of the heart to contend to as well...
Connery gone, but not for good as it turned out, so into the tuxedo came George Lazenby, an Australian model with no previous acting experience of note. It would be Lazenby's only stint as 007, badly advised by those around him that Bond had no future in the upcoming 70s, his head swelling with ego by the day (something he readily admits and regrets), Lazenby announced he would only be doing the one James Bond film. The legacy of OHMSS is the most interesting in the whole Bond franchise, for where once it was reviled and wrongly accused of being a flop, it now, over 40 years later, is regarded as being one of the finest entries in the whole series. Yes it is still divisive, I have seen some fearful arguments about its worth, but generations of critics and film makers have come along to laud it as essential Bond and essential Fleming's Bond at that.
Everything about OHMSS is different to what Connery's Bond had become, the gadgets are gone and heaven forbid, Bond got a heart and fell in love. He was a man, with real aggression, real emotions and forced to use brain and brawn instead of mechanical trickery. Changes in the production department, too, wasn't just about Lazenby's appearance. Peter Hunt, previously the Bond film's editor, directed his one and only Bond film, and Michael Reed on cinematography also appears for the one and only time. New Bond, new era, but reviews were mixed and in spite of making a profit of over $73 million Worldwide, this was considerably down on previous films. The reviews didn't help, with much scorn poured on Lazenby for not being Connery, but really it's hard to imagine anyone coming in and not getting beat with that particular stick! Box office take wasn't helped by the film's length, at over 2 hours 10 minutes, this restricted the number of showings in theatres, something that should be greatly noted.
Away from Bond anyway, OHMSS is a stunning action thriller in its own right. From the opening beach side fist fight, where uppercuts lift men off their feet and drop kicks propel them backwards, to helicopter attacks, bobsleigh pursuits (resplendent with punches and flinging bodies), ski chases and a car chase in the middle of a stock car race: on ice! There's enough pulse pumping action here to fill out two Bond movies. But the Bond aspects are magnificent as well. Lazenby has wonderful physicality and throws a mean punch, he cuts a fine figure of a man and he's acting inexperience isn't a problem in the hands of the astute Hunt. Lazenby is matched by Rigg as Tracy, the best Bond girl of them all, she's no bimbo, she's tough (fighting off a guy with a broken bottle), smart yet vulnerable, funny and heart achingly beautiful, her interplay with Lazenby is brilliantly executed, so much so that when the devastating finale arrives it has extra poignancy. A scene that closes the film on a downbeat note and remains the most emotional scene ever put into a Bond movie.
Savalas finally gives us a villain who can compete with Bond on a physical level, making the fight between them an evenly matched and believable one. He lacks Pleasance's sinister fizzog, though the bald pate and Grecian looks marks Savalas out as an imposing foe as well. The Swiss Alps setting is gorgeous, with Reed capturing the scope magnificently, while some of his colour lensing in the interiors soothe the eyes considerably. Barry's score is one of his best, lush romantic strains accompany Tracy and James, operatic overtures dart in and out of the Swiss scenery and the James Bond theme is deftly woven into the action sequences. Louis Armstrong's beautiful "We Have All The Time In The World" features prominently, perfectly romantic and forever to be thought of as part of the Bond Universe. Finally it's the great writing that gives us the best sequence involving the trifecta of Bond, Moneypenny (Lois Maxwell) and M (Bernard Lee). 5 minutes of class that gives Moneypenny an acknowledged importance in the relationship between the two men in her life. It's just one of a number of truly excellent scenes in the greatest Bond film of them all. 10/10

It’s good if you want to watch the same movie as previous Bonds.
So my plan is to watch the Bond movies in order from the first Bond movie to the last bond. I'm currently on “On Her Majesty's Secret Service”. One of the main things I noticed from Her Majesty's Secret Service is the fact that the new Bond doesn't seem to be as sexually assaulting as the previous bond ( Sean Connery). It did seem like the first Bond would like to force himself upon women which seemed a bit off, and was really off putting. For most of the previous Bond films this new Bond didn't seem as bad, but there was still a lot of this bond having his way with the women he wanted to have his way with. which I'm still not in total agreement with.
I think the biggest problem I have with most of the Bond movies is really that they all follow a very very specific formula. the formula itself seems to always be James Bond shows it up at some place. He assumes a new identity. He then starts snooping around. He finds the villain, has contact with the villain. The villain finds out who he is. They then put him in a room or put him in some place that easily escapable. Miraculously, James Bond figures out a way to get out of said room which no one decided to guard and no one decided to put any additional reinforcements on. specifically they put him in a room for the gondola cables. If I was a super villain I wouldn't put somebody in the room which houses the gears which are kind of the only way to get up to said Superfortress.
Well the movie is an overall bad. it's starting to really feel like I'm watching the same movie over and over again. which, if you like this same movie over and over again I could see how you would like this movie. However, I don't really like watching this same movie over and over and over again.

Ok, Before you say this is the worst of the Bond Films, just remember, The Aussie James Bond, "George Lazenby" was slated to do 7 Films, So we would have had alot more George except for the fact that the Producers of the 007 Films basically wanted him to live entirely their way for the next 10 or so years. You must do this, you musn't do that, always clean shaven in public, you will eat where we tell you, drive what we tell you, wear what we tell you. Addmitedly this came with a 25 Million price tag. However, when he asked for 35 Million, the studio went back to Connery.
Also, I think, and this is just my own opinion, but the Subject matter and story line of this Bond film made it one of the hardest Bond Roles to play.

**An old musical with some hints of ethnic prejudice, and it didn't seem as good as I thought it would be.**
This is one of those films that, honestly, I find difficult to understand. It is a production that brought to the cinema an interesting Broadway musical, which is still shown in several places today, and which tells a story similar to Romeo and Juliet in the context of youth gang wars in New York in the mid-20th century. The idea is seductive, and developing it from Shakespeare's source material is a point of quality. But sixty years have passed, and it is worth rethinking some things.
The film was directed by Jerome Robbins and Robert Wise, and makes great use of the action and music of the theatrical version, having achieved resounding box office and critical success, in addition to a plethora of awards, including ten Oscars (Best Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Director, Best Art Direction in a Color Film, Best Editing, Best Cinematography in a Color Film, Best Costume Design in a Color Film, Best Film, Best Soundtrack for a Musical Film, Best Sound). Since then, it has placed on the list of the greatest and most memorable musicals ever made. It is understandable, therefore, the film's impact at the time and its classic status.
The studios spared no expense, taking advantage of their budget to create a huge visual and sound spectacle, in a luxurious production with impeccable cinematography and magnificent light, color and filming work. Taking advantage of all the Broadway material, the film inherits Leonard Bernstein's songs accompanied by exuberant dance numbers by magnificently choreographed groups, something challenging and innovative for this time. I think it goes without saying that the melodies and songs can stand on their own and have its proper value. In addition to all this work, the film has good sets and costumes.
Although all of these are enormous qualities, I have to be honest, even though it will offend some people: while watching the film, I didn't feel empathy for the characters or enjoy the story. The steering is decent, but it doesn't go beyond that. The script is the same as the original musical play, but it is not engaging or convincing, and that romance seemed forced and far-fetched. If the two dance groups are dangerous gangs of delinquents, they are certainly harmless and only use their knives to peel fruit. But worse than all these are the Puerto Ricans: the group was represented according to unacceptable ethnic and cultural prejudices, with racist contours. This makes it even more insulting that they chose painted-faced Anglo-Saxon actors for several of the Latin roles, with Natalie Wood being the most obvious case.
This brings us to talk about the cast. As it turns out, for me, Wood was a total casting mistake. She may be the right age, the smile, but she's not even Latin, she doesn't even sing a note, she doesn't even know how to dance. She simply took the opportunity to be part of a great film. Richard Beymer, her love interest, does a better job, but is still very bland and not very interesting. Russ Tamblyn and Rita Moreno do positive work, but they don't help much.

Not one for me.
I did not enjoy 1961's 'West Side Story', unfortunately. I felt almost everything about it to be kinda crappy if I'm honest. For one I didn't feel any chemistry with the cast, with no standout performer in sight; and that's on top of the iffy casting itself. None of the music - aside from that one tiny bit of "Tonight" - hits and the story comes across as forced.
The musical numbers are also extremely staged, the whole thing feels like a stage performance rather than a film; in fact, I genuinely assumed that the actors were just Broadway performers - à la 'Jersey Boys'. New York City also doesn't feel real or, away from the main characters, lived in.
Admittedly musicals aren't my go-to, though I'm more than capable of enjoying them. This, however, just didn't work for me at all. I wouldn't class it as anything awful, it's just simply quite poor - in my eyes, of course. Many, including the Oscars apparently, disagree!
With all that said, I'm still interested in checking out the 2021 remake at some point to see what Steven Spielberg did (or didn't do) with it.

Why do you kids live like there's a war on?
West Side Story is directed by Jerome Robbins and Robert Wise. It stars Natalie Wood, Richard Beymer, Russ Tamblyn, Rita Moreno, George Chakiris, Simon Oakland and Ned Glass. Music is by Leonard Bernstein (lyrics by Stephen Sondheim) and cinematography by Daniel L. Fapp.
In the less affluent areas of the upper West Side of Manhattan, New York, a gang of Polish-American teenagers called "The Jets" are in conflict with a rival gang of immigrated Puerto Ricans called "The Sharks". They each thirst to own the neighborhood streets, but with tensions reaching peak point, two kids, one from each rival gang, fall in love...
A Multi Oscar winner, West Side Story is a musical update of Romeo & Juliet. Set in the 50s in a steamy gangland New York, pic unfurls in a blaze of booming colour and scintillating choreography (Robbins). It has very much become a film that musical lovers can rejoice in, for even though it has problems, when it soars it soars far and away.
Problems come with the crossed gang lovers played by Wood and Beymer, the actors dubbing is poor, their dialogue delivery also itchy. It doesn't help that the film's quality noticeably dips when this fall in love axis of the story (as key as it is) shows up - stretching the run time to a nearly unbearable and unjustified length.
Yet it remains a joyous experience even today, you can forgive it for its ills when you get songs like "America" (Moreno the best thing in the film by far) that transport you up there on the screen. Or that the choreography is like a ballet version of circus acrobatics in full effect. In short, if you have any kink for musicals in filmic form, this is a must see. 8/10

Really fun martial arts action-thriller with Bruce Lee doing great work as usual in his final film. Not usually a big fan of the genre but still found this thoroughly enjoyable and engaging from beginning to end. **4.0/5**

In British-administered Hong Kong, "Braithwaite" (Geoffrey Weeks) seeks to engage the services of renowned martial arts expert "Lee" (Bruce Lee) to help the authorities thwart the heroine running activities of local, gloved, kingpin "Han" (Kien Shih) - who looks like a man straight out of "Dr. No" (1962). Luckily, this villain is organising a tournament on his island and that might provide for an excellent opportunity to bring the man down. "Han" is no fool, though, and has his own henchman "Oharra" (Robert Wall) and John Saxon's accomplished fighter "Roper" and his pal "Williams" (Jim Kelly) are also there to be contended with. Now, it isn't really fair to judge this too harshly fifty years on. It was groundbreaking at the time, offering an unique look at a culture which Hollywood had done little to engage with. Now, though, it's actually quite annoying to watch. The editing is a shambles, as is the continuity and the direction isn't much to write home about either. The dialogue is stilted and though nimble as any ninja, Bruce Lee is just not an actor. To be fair to him, the rest of the acting talent isn't really up to much nor is the rather un-oriental Lalo Schifrin score - so it's all left to the acrobatics. They are grand scale, impressive at times, and showcase the undoubted skills of the star, but the whole production reminded me of an hybrid from "Fu Manchu" meets "The Man from U.N.C.L.E". Maybe it is sacrilegious to say so, but I found it vaguely amusing in it's earnestness and well past it's use by date.

Back in the good ol' days, my big brother - a HUGE fan of "Karate movies" - would take me (every other weekend) to the legendary State and Lake theater to see all of the so-called "low budget" martial arts films that many in society (during that time) were tempted to wrinkle their noses at, but which soared, nonetheless, in the urban communities of America. And it had been while I was seated in the middle row at the iconic State and Lake (on the said movie date day) that I'd been given my very first introduction to a man who would eventually stake his claim on a place in my heart forever: the great Master of Jeet Kun Do himself, Bruce Lee.
Yes, it was Enter the Dragon, a martial arts magnum opus and National Film Registry inductee (in which the handsome Lee features as the principal performer) that would cause my emotions to stretch themselves out with infatuation. Unashamedly, I love Bruce Lee...with a passion.
(Clears throat) ...
That puppy, uh, kitty love aside, I shall proceed with my review.
A thriller of respectable proportions, Enter the Dragon stars Bruce Lee as "Lee", an exceptionally-accomplished Shaolin kung fu fighter who finds himself sought out by a British government intelligence agent, who's already in the process of scrutinizing the unlawful activities of a Chinese crime boss named Han. For the British government suspect the villainous Han of being involved in drug trafficking and prostitution, not to mention a string of contract murders. And the British agent convinces "Lee" to take part in a renowned martial arts competition on Han's exclusive island, that he ("Lee") might be helpful in collecting sufficient evidence that will corroborate the British government's suspicions of Han. The offer is one that "Lee" certainly can't refuse, what considering that Han's bodyguard, Mr. O'Hara, is the same who murdered "Lee"'s sister.
From there, the plot unfolds to reveal one of the most excitingly suspenseful and action-packed film works of the Martial Arts genre to date. Indeed, its gifted director Robert Clouse would be innovated by the great visionaries who had preceded his classic epic, Enter the Dragon, with their own cinematic contributions. I speak in particular of The Shaw Brothers (Shaw Brothers Studio), who produced a stream of cult cinema classics, including: One-Armed Swordsman, The New One-Armed Swordsman, 1978's Five Deadly Venoms (the inspiration behind Tarantino's "Deadly Viper Assassination Squad" of the Kill Bill volumes), Come Drink With Me, etc.
Enter the supporting cast: John Saxon as Roper, a gambling addict with a debt owed to Han; Jim Kelly, in his unforgettable performance as Mr. Williams - Roper's fellow Vietnam war veteran; and Mei Ling, who also co-stars as Betty Chung, an undercover operative in the investigation of Han: It is at the martial arts competition where "Lee" meets Roper, Williams, and Chung.
Set in both the United States and Hong Kong, Enter the Dragon is an on-the-edge-of-your-seat, timeless cult action thriller with both flawless direction and performances. The fight choreography and stunts are quite definitive, and the sound effects of each Bruce Lee blow will have your body jerking and your face grimacing in reaction. Truly a badass ass-kicker, if there ever was one.
(Laughs) ...
A phenomenal work of motion picture fiction is the Robert Crouse-directed Enter the Dragon. I found it to be a feature tremendously enjoyable, and I would highly recommend it to anyone who is a fan of the great Martial Arts genre.
As it may be of interest, this film is English-dubbed. Its script was originally shot in the languages of Mandarin and Cantonese, respectively.

i had watched this years ago, and upon watching it again recently, I was surprised to see that it features Melissa McCarthy. I must not have been as familiar with her special comedic skills then as I am now or I would have remembered.
This is one of my favorite quiet films. It ends up as a feel good movie — one of those where a large group of people appreciate someone at the end. Like anything from the Alan King character in Memories of Me (at his funeral!) to the exceedingly less likable Al Pacino jerk in Scent of a Woman. I believe the Vin character would be less likable himself in the hands of many actors. I have been pleasantly surprised at Bill Murray’s acting curve since Saturday Night Live. He brings bits of himself into most roles, I think, but he is great at subtle gestures, tone of voice, pausing for effect, and other tools of acting. He reminds me of Mark Ryland, who also makes acting look easy. I actually feel sure that Murray’s totally improvised the final scene during the end credits where he waters a plant and everything else in his back yard.
I like that the movie doesn’t take shallow, cheap shots at people like it could. Even the cheating, divorcing dad is given a more positive spin before we are done. The four main actors are terrific here, and the two child actors who play Oliver and the bully are great also.
As a side note, I saw a statistical oddity on a certain review site name after a rotten vegetable (or fruit, depending upon who you ask), as this is the only movie I have looked up that has the exact same rating by both the critics and the audience (78). That sounds about right to me, too. And speaking of credits, I really need to try to stop wincing when I see The Weinsteins listed in the opening credits.

Great watch, would watch again, and do recommend.
Any movie that gets me to well up with tears is an automatic winner in my book.
I always wanted to see Bill Murray play a grumpy old man, and this movie is a little more "About a Boy" than "Up!", but it's a good middle ground between the two.
There is something wholesome, even when it's specifically not, about a kid being taught life lessons by someone. It's something special that I feel like I haven't see enough of, and I'd love to do myself.
It's also interesting to see a coming of age story that doesn't revolve around the character coming of age and a romance. It is possible to grow up without focusing on sex, it's like a reverse Bechdel test.
This is completely worth the watch, and the movie does a great job of embodying it's own message of being rough on the outside with goodness on the inside.

Midnight Special is an entertaining Sci-fi flick that ultimately never reaches it's full potential. The father son on the run story is griping and well played with the talent of Michael Shannon who is believable as a father who will do anything to get his gifted son to where he needs to be. Dunst and Edgerton do some fairly solid work also as Altons mother and I believe step father. The dialogue is believable, the action and Sci-fi elements are all well put together. The concept almost ET like is interesting. The CGI is acceptable if not spectacular. The music well scored if not memorable. I personally found this movie felt long at 1h52mins and for some reason I felt the movie should of been set in an earlier time period like the 70s or 80's. These are small personal gripes and you may ask why it does not achieve it's full potential. The answer is simply the way it ends, it felt small or empty. These characters had done so much, for this child and somehow the movie had left me with zero emotional connection to how the story played out. The father and son connection was the strongest element in the movie and this I felt needed a bigger part in the ending of this film, but for some reason they chose to pull back on this right at the buzzer. I would recommend this to anyone who likes Science fiction as a worthy watch. My final score 3.5 stars.

It's like _Donnie Darko_ and _Looper_ had a baby. A less talented baby, but still, pretty impressive.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I strongly recommend you make the time._

> A secret road adventure during the dark hours!
So the Jeff Nichols and Micahel Shannon saga continues. This is theirs 4th film together in the last nine years and all of them were well accepted. Now they are into sci-fi for this, which is kind of a road movie that resembles hundreds of other films. Only thematically, but in parts it looks different, especially for being too realistic as what the director is famous for. Finally, something is not a comedy or a full of CGI, yet still it is a wonderful sci-fi-drama with some thrill moments.
It opened like the midway of the story. We obviously have to wait for a proper explanation to know what's going on, who is the child and where they're taking him. So it all begins with two armed men driving a young kid on the dark hours. Only we know is that they are protecting the boy from the government people, but the film took some time to give a clear picture of the condition. In the meantime, I started my prediction game, but I expected the film to clarify how it all began. It never cared about that part, only moved forward and that's how we're going to get some answers where a few might feel its a let down.
The negative of the film is you won't fully understand it, but it is not an incomplete story, just designed that way that leaves for the viewer to add their own perspectives to where the writer left blank spaces. Like I said the people are comparing it with the similar films and I did not care about that, but I disappointed with the conclusion. It was neatly folded, I actually liked it, but it was not fresh, especially it totally mirrors 'Tomorrowland'. Now I know why Warner Bros moved it from last year to this year's release.
It might be a coincident because the director who is also the writer has a good reputation, so I believe it is definitely not a steal, just a common creative that we've already seen many films like that. Overall, this film is worth, but might not satisfy the Jeff Nichols fans, because like I said plenty of times before in my reviews, now it the sci-fi era and every filmmaker and film-star want to board on that plane. So it did not spare Jeff Nichols as well.
7/10

I just noticed another review on this site for Tall Girl, and I think it is the only 1-star review I have ever seen on TMDB (there are certainly a lot of them at that other movie data and review site that shall remain unnamed).
I have seen valid critiques about how much is made of a person being bullied because they are tall, like that is impossible. It is perhaps overdone at least. Imagine that if Jodi played basketball instead of the piano how she would be — pardon the pun — looked up to. People would be giving her low fives after every team wind instead of asking facetiously, “How’s the weather up there?” So perhaps it is unlikely that dues to her having the wrong hobby she would be treated so poorly.
On the other hand, I can also see her having some reason to feel put upon. If she managed to get to high school and basically have just two close friends, one of which always hits on her and even lies to try to get her to date him, she may not be in a great place emotionally. So maybe dial back her unhappiness and bullied state a bit.
Also, I didn’t buy the idea that Stig would be thought of as the shortest and least attractive guy in school back in Sweden. But the plot relies upon that fact to explain his total change in attitude towards Jodi. They have Jodi be a nice person despite her unhappiness and unpopularity, but Stig becomes a jerk just because he is suddenly popular? Yeah, kind of lame.
So yeah, the movie has problems and takes shortcuts. It doesn’t make it a 1-star movie to me, but it will prevent me from watching the sequel that came out later on. (Wait, don’t rom-coms have happy endings? They shouldn’t have sequels, should they?)

Tall Girl ironically belittles its message with a towering case of marginalised insolence. “You think your life is hard?” narrates the eponymous skyscraper-like girl in a condescending tone as if one was participating in a selfless therapeutic course in torture. Life really must suck for her. No, seriously. I felt her solemn sadness. Being an attractive young privileged white girl with a height totalling, and this really takes the biscuit, six foot one really must take its toll. Six. Foot. Frickin’. One. Constantly getting remarks including “how’s the weather up there?” and being titled “beanstalk” shatters the confidence and then some. I’m sure.
Unable to obtain high school love and succeed in life due to her colossal height. Could you imagine being six foot one? Might as well just lobotomise yourself, y’know? Just so abnormal and rare these days. Tall females apparently don’t succeed in life. Supermodels? Nope. Olympians? Who? Thank God this wasn’t called “Black Gay Jew”, as if it was treated with the same ill-mannered direction as Tall Girl, it may have been cited as a personal attack. Look, it’s a somewhat innocent approach to acquiring self-confidence amidst a wave of pessimism. But when the script hones in on stupidity like cosmetic products inspiring confidence and automatically uplifting exterior beauty, to the point where you become a different person, it’s just no! That’s not the message we should be sending the next generation!
More importantly though, let’s address the pressing matter here. No one, absolutely no one, gets bullied because of their height. No one! So automatically, there’s no relation to the central premise. Never mind the mundane acting, ostentatious directing style and unhumorous dialogue. Those are just rotten ingredients in a disastrous meal. Netflix has, yet again, released another diabolically insulting high school “comedy” revolving around popularity and bullying. With a non-sensical reasoning for abuse that cements this as the worst of the year. By far. Six foot one!? Size 13 Men’s Nikes!? She’s not exactly “Godzilla” with clown shoes now, come on!

Of course, it's an Almodovar, so it's already a great film. But this one - the artistic shots, the characters, the story, the humanity - all top notch. I think this film might be his best.

This film got my attention right away because of the references to 2 of my fave old Hollywood films : All About Eve and Streetcar Named Desire. Melodramatic with a lil comedy. My fave scene when all 4 ladies were at the couch just chatting and laughing. I love all the characters (maybe not Nina). Agrado…for the win! Penelope…what a beautiful nun, so sad about her situation though. Huma, at first kinda off (as she didn’t give the autograph to the son) but as the movie went on, I liked her character more and more. And Cecilia, very empowering. At first, the other characters were supposed to be helping the mother but in the end, she was the one who helped all of them, in a way. Feel good dramatic film.

Good watch, might watch again, but hard to recommend.
This almost just looks like Brendan Fraser had a list characters he wanted to try out, and Elizabeth Hurley had a list of "devilish" characters she wanted to try, and this movie just serendipitously appeared.
It really leans on the "how ridiculous can we get" button, but it is almost exactly what the premise says it is: Brendan Fraser gets 7 wishes to try to get together with the woman of his dreams, and then it goes as horribly as you might imagine.
There are lots of funny bits in this and some cringe moments. The movie finds a nice balance between being based on religion and being (not sac-)religious.
The problem is that while it is solid, it doesn't necessarily hold up to 2020 comdies.

It's only after watching this that you realise just how crucial to the success of the first film Robert Shaw was. This is not the worst sequel I've seen by any means, but without his gnarled and charismatic "Quint", we are left with a pretty mundane effort from all concerned. This time our hungry finned friend has a group of young sailors - including, of course, the Brady bunch - "Michael" (Mark Gruner) and "Sean" (Marc Gilpin) firmly in it's sights. This necessitates their sheriff father (Roy Scheider) having to defy his own loathing of the water to try and rescue them. Director Jeannot Szwarc tries to mix it up a little, but there is just too much inevitability about the ending; and the screaming hysterics of the weans - especially the truly irritating "Jackie" (Donna Wilkes) started to get under my finger nails quite quickly. The photography is good, and some effort has been made to disguise the more mechanical elements of the shark attacks, but the calamitous fire pan to fire scenarios recycle themselves once too often. John Williams' score still works well to help generate some semblance of a sense of peril, but I'm afraid this isn't remotely scary and was quite a disappointing watch.

A disappointing follow-up.
I enjoyed Roy Scheider's performance and the core action sequences near the end, but everything else is a bit boring. 'Jaws 2' puts high focus on the teenagers, though their story never possesses any intrigue. The effects for the shark, meanwhile, are a step down from the original.
It's not terribly far from being watchable, a slightly shorter run time might've helped in that regard, but I just personally found it to be an uninteresting 115 minutes or so. Perhaps initial director John D. Hancock's ideas would've came out better, though he was fired during production; speaking of which, the issues behind the scenes for this - and even the first film, really - are pretty fascinating.

just as good as the original, if not better

Adequate but still entertaining sequel has some okay practical effects with the shark though still really silly given what happened in the last one nobody in charge would listen to Brody. Nothing overly special and doubt I'd revisit this anytime soon, but an okay sequel. **3.25/5**

**Excellent sequel!**
Intense sequel directed by Jeannot Szwarc (who also directed episodes of Columbo alongside Steven Spielberg!)
Performances here are every bit as good as the original and Szwarc manages to infuse of great sense of style to the proceedings - building upon and adding even more depth to the Brody story. The camerawork is extremely stylish - some great gliding point of view shots.
John Williams outdoes his work in the original movie with his Jaws 2 score.
The film feels more brutal than the original and leads to a nerve shredding climax.
A great counterpart to Jaws (1975).
- **Ian Beale**

You know, for a dancer, he is one hell of a detective.
Written by Shane Black and directed by Tony Scott, it's not the biggest surprise in the world to find that "The Last Boy Scout" is full of high octane action and serious one liners. Plot has Bruce Willis as a private detective whose protected female witness (Halle Berry) is murdered, prompting him and the victim's boyfriend - a disgraced gridiron star (Damon Wayans) - to investigate the crime together and all roads lead to the higher echelons of American Football.
There's shades of "Die Hard" here, but really it's unfair to simply put it in the cash in on an action classic genre. Anyone who knows Shane Black's career will know that plot is secondary to action and dialogue, more so when Tony Scott is on directing duties. This may actually be Black's most under appreciated literary work (though it was a box office hit), his buddy buddy formula, that was so brilliantly realised with "Lethal Weapon", really shines here - making it Wayans' best work and Willis' most laconic.
It's all a bit blokey, meaning that unless the girls watching are in it for the stars alone, they are sure to be disappointed by the machismo washing over the female characters of the piece. But this is electrifying stuff, both visually and orally. It's fun and thrilling, so strap yourself in and enjoy the ride. 8/10

I think this classic Tony Scott actioner with Bruce Willis and Damon Wayans just gets better and better when it gets older. I mean the film is nearly 30 years old and I have seen it at least a dozen of times and yet it managed to entertain me and fully packed Cinemadrome screening!It is written by Shane Black and I have to admit that this is Shane Black at his shaneblackest. The jokes are constant and witty and Bruce Willis and Damon Wayans make a great onscreen buddy couple. Not to mention great cavalcade of bad guys. If 80's and 90's action is your cup of tea, this is definitely something you need to see!

Mediocre. But damn that ending. I mean DAMN that ending. One of the top in the annals of not only slashers, but all horror.

Better than the original; and one of the best 80’s slashers
Ten years after the events of “Halloween” and “Halloween II” (which both took place on Halloween night, 1978), Michael Myers escapes captivity a second time and again returns to his hometown in Illinois with a direly concerned Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence) hot on his trail. Myers goes after his sister’s daughter, Jamie, and is willing to take down the whole town of Haddonfield if necessary.
“Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers” (1988) ranks with the best 80’s slasher flicks and is actually superior to the somewhat overrated progenitor of the genre, “Halloween” (1978). Whereas the original “Halloween” was an effective low-key but classy slasher and deserves credit for starting the craze, it wasn’t without flaws and “Halloween 4” (1.) fixes those issues and (2.) improves upon its strengths.
For instance, while the original movie takes place during Halloween in Illinois, you certainly wouldn’t know this by the footage since it clearly looks like summer. This movie, by contrast, definitely looks like it takes place during the fall and has an all-around superior Halloween ambiance with trick-or-treaters and so forth. Another example is the original’s lack of drive and the fact that Michael only kills a few teenagers and doesn’t seem all that formidable whilst this film features a mounting build-up of suspense and potently conveys Michael’s deadly formidableness while upping the ante in the body count.
Other advances includes the lack of lame dialogue (like in the original when the girls were walking home) and Dr. Loomis has much more interesting things to do than lurk in the bushes by the Myer’s dilapidated abode speaking ridiculously ominous words. When Loomis speaks portentously in this entry there’s great reason to believe him (take, for instance, what happens to the Police Station).
Yet another (arguable) improvement is the women: Although Jamie Lee Curtis, Nancy Kyes (Loomis) and PJ Soles were fine in the original, “Halloween 4” has winsome Ellie Cornell as Rachel and hottie Kathleen Kinmont as Kelly and the movie wisely takes advantage of their presence in a classy way. Rachel may not strike you as anything special at first, but as the story progresses she emerges as an attractive and noble final girl.
The “Friday the 13th” franchise debuted two years after “Halloween” in 1980; and by October, 1988, when this film was released, the “Friday” franchise had no less than seven films under its belt. Meanwhile, “Halloween 4” was only the third Michael Myers movie (keeping in mind that “Halloween 3” was curiously disconnected from the Michael Myers mythos).
“Friday the 13th” of course ripped-off “Halloween,” but simultaneously added original components to the genre (e.g. summer camp and everything revolving around it, easily the best females in the slasher genre, as well as an increasingly devolving supernatural killing machine). “Halloween 4” sort of gets its revenge by borrowing from the “Friday” films; for instance, the character of Jamie Lloyd and what happens to her mirrors Tommy Jarvis’ story arc from 3-4 years earlier. Perhaps the greatest revenge is that “Halloween 4” is better than any of the “Friday” sequels after “Part 2” and is at least as effective as “Part 2.”
The original “Halloween” was shot in the Los Angeles area (South Pasadena & Hollywood) while this one was filmed in the Salt Lake City, Utah, region. Like the first film, it’s streamlined and doesn’t overstay its welcome.
GRADE: A