I don't know which of the four (or five, by this time next year) different _Halloween_ timelines to consider the "official" one, but I guess personally I've always considered the one the includes the "_of Michael Myers_" movies to be it for me. Not necessarily the best movies, but its the longest timeline, and (not counting _Season of the Witch_) the first. _Halloween 4_ is a good lead in for the rest of this particular continuity. It's certainly not a perfect movie, but if you're looking for some background kills to accompany your October vibes, you could do worse.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

Apocalypse, End of the World, Armageddon. It's always got a face and a name.
After Halloween III veered in a new direction without Michael Myers, the indestructible killing machine of the franchise, the rights to the series changed hands and so it came to pass that part 4 (though part 3 in essence) brought Myers back. After being in a coma for ten years Myers is up for a transfer to a sanitarium, but wouldn't you know it, he wakes up and upon hearing he has a niece back in Haddonfield, he sets off on a murderous rampage back to where it all began.
It's one of the Halloween sequels that causes much debate among the series' fans, there are those who decry its lack of blood and its ordinary screenplay (both viable complaints), and those such as myself who like that it reverts back to what made the series start so brilliantly. Including a superbly devilish nod to the start of the 78 film.
Haddonfield becomes a town under siege, this the work of one monster, or as Donald Pleasence's scar faced doctor says - "evil on two legs". Myers once again is just glimpsed here and there, adding that unearthly suspense factor, until he hones in on his niece and her foster sister and the pursuit begins. Some of the interim characterisations are padding out the run time, the usual teen angst romantic flannel, but Pleasence's determined Dr. Loomis is never far away to remind us that everyone is doomed! Then of course there's the ending, which is an absolute beaut.
There's no brains on offer here, but it's a worthy sequel and a good tracer line for its iconic bogeyman. The story has moved on to another level and leaves the fans hankering for more. 7/10

More college partying and trying to bang chick's for the 1st time, is back again. The presents series is turning out not to be so sad.

Ok movie, this is probably every maids dream. To meet a handsome rich man that will sweep her off her feet.

Good watch, could watch again, and can recommend.
Jennifer Lopez pretty much carries this movie, despite all the great characters created to prod her further in the story, to include Bob Hoskins. He was good, not phenomenal, but I miss Bob Hoskins.
The overall story is actually pretty well written, and most of the character dialogue / interaction is cute, but the working vs elite battle to bridge trope is a little heavy for a romantic comedy. And then the resolution is that Jennifer Lopez is just that hot. I hope that wasn't a spoiler for someone, because it's really not.
I honestly wish we had gotten a little bit more out of the pursuit of a woman he didn't know and more action out of the bad guy, but for the stereotypical elite, "I'm going to have you fired, do you know who I am?" seems appropriate enough, right?
While I do think it is worth a watch, there are a lot of other things out there to watch, just not "Gigli" or "The Wedding Planner".

Really good watch, would watch again, and can recommend.
While the movie has the appropriate seriousness for a family reconnection, it is rather filled with humor, be it some is situational and goes quite a length to deliver a joke. It makes for a better drama than a comedy, but that sort of thing is bound to happen when the movie rides the line.
I'm not a fan of Jennifer Aniston, but the role feels more whiner-baby than her usual fair. I am a fan of Jason Bateman, and I think he nails when to be funny, absurd, neurotic, or serious.
For a movie about swapping sperm samples, it really is a powerful story. That family reconnection trope is excellent even without the absurdity of the premise.

**When a veterinarian meets a doctor.**
Not for the current generation, the film was at least 20 years late. On the other hand, I think the direction is not good. Even the casting looks so bad. There are lots of big names for the women characters. Even for the tiny roles, Maggie Grace and Alexandra Daddario appeared. And I could not find one good male actor, apart from Tom Wilkinson. Sorry to say, but the lead actor was not the perfect choice. Besides, I find Teresa Palmer was over-performed her parts. If you have seen many romance flicks, you will find it cliché in the many segments.
It was based on the book of the same name written by the 'The Notbeook' author. It is his another signature romance tale, but somewhat different from all his books those made into the films. I did not come here to write bad about it, but I could not find any good stuffs about it to give some credits. Maybe the location was great and music. The fun part is, I did not know anything about it, so when I decided to watch, I saw the poster and assumed it was a lesbian theme. Funny, but disappointed after realising the mistake.
Still, some of the dialogues were below par, not romantic when those were delivered and then there're some silly scenes like the dog finding the lost object, including its following event. Those things make it more a supernatural film than actual world romance. The film is for a selected audience, I'm sure the film will find its audience today, tomorrow or even decades to come. But there will be people like me on the corner who say the film is not good, so ignore them if you really want to try it and decide yourself.
_6/10_

**Dreaming's easy, but chasing it needs all the effort.**
Well, I praise a lot, particularly the European animations for preserving the 2D animation. That does not mean they lack behind in 3D format. The recent film 'The Little Prince' was the perfect example of a quality 3D animation outside Hollywood. Pars with Disney, Pixar standards. Technically, as well as the story contents. But the quantities are very less and also making it a bit expensive. So they usually prefer producing it in the English language for the wider/international market, keeping North America particularly in mind. This is a French English-language film that co-produced by Canada.
This is a nice film, that particularly targets little kids and mostly the girl audience to inspire Ballerina. Cute characters and scenes, but very familiar story. Shares lots of similarities with 'August Rush', except the field of interest. I am not an expert or know all about Ballet, but some of the parts involving them were turned me off. I know the gravitation force is irrelevant in animation since they're not real world to comply with science, but maybe I'm being an adult and knowing that stuff might have influenced me to think that way. It reminds me I'm really an adult, though this film should be watched as a kid despite whatever you are. However, nothing affected me from enjoying it.
It sets in the 80s of the 19th century France. At the time when Eiffel Tower and Statue of Libery were on the construction, a poor orphan girl named Felicie escapes orphanage with another boy to pursue her dream to be a ballerina. Then they arrive in Paris, and very soon they find their separate ways to achieve the goals. Not all smooth sail, especially for her. So she takes the opportunity that comes her way, even after knowing it was wrong to do.
> ❝You have something that she can only dream of: passion!❞
From there, with all the complications tailing her, how far she could go to make her dream come true. Which also includes the amount of dedication put on her undertaking to meet the expectations of her trainer, rivals and many others. And to show the world the interest is not simply based on enthusiasm, but willingness to sacrifice anything for it. Her journey from nothing to the edge of something new to define her life is the film that briefs for just short of 90 minutes.
This is not another 'Billy Elliot'. Animations are usually comedy, fantasy and musical, but recently the adventures and science fictions are surging. I don't remember I ever have seen an animated dance flick. Not the classical dance, not in the modern 3D animation format. The closest one was a decade old 'Happy Feet'. So that makes it is a unique product and comes under a must see for all the animation fans. But the storyline is predictable and many sequences were intentionally dragged to be cliché. Because it works, particularly if they're aiming for the younger generation who haven't seen many films in their lives. Only we the grownups whine.
Most of the voice-over artists are well known Americans actors which boosted the film. The character combinations are good. It brought the variety, especially slightly to ride off the main theme in a few occasions. Like the boy's interest in inventing things which were other major parts of the twist and turns in the narration. It is not a great animation if it was from Hollywood, but coming from France and the theme it focused on, the effort must be appreciated. Overall a much better film than what the average reviews and ratings around the internet says. It is a ballet film means not those who love it should watch it, but those target audience should not miss it. That means generally worth a watch, but not for everyone.
_7/10_

"Jess" (Parminder Nagra) and "Jules" (Keira Knightly) are friends drawn together by their love of football. The thing is, neither of their mother's are exactly enamoured of the idea. With her sister's marriage looming, and her mother married at fifteen, "Jess" is facing significant hostility from her mother (Shaheen Khan) whilst "Jules" is struggling to convince her own mother (Juliet Stevenson) that she's not going to end up a lesbian with tree-trunk thighs. There's little danger of the former though as both have the hots for coach "Connor" (Jonathan Rhys Meyers). As the girls' team becomes more successful both have to juggle their family's reservations, their own lives and their love of the game - which actually features very sparingly. There are a few titter moments now and again, but I found that for the most part this is just a film about stereotypes - real or imaginary - populated by some really mediocre acting and not greatly enhanced by some banal writing and the always wooden JRM. It's also quite curious that it's co-produced by BSkyB yet they used the BBC's "Match of the Day" presentation team and their legendary commentator John Motson to give the thing a bit of body. It's harmless fun, quite possibly inspiring girls to play the game and some parents to let them whilst reminding us of "Brand Beckham" at it's most potent.

I genuinely did not think I would like _Faster_ as much as I did. To be fair, I didn't think I would like it at all, but even so. This might actually be my favourite Dwayne Johnson role. It's almost entirely physical, which suits him very well, but the rare moments when it's not just that he nails too.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

I like the new look of chucky. It was a good movie. I would have liked to see more action. Should have been more victims as well.

I'm usually not a fan of remakes especially these days when it seems Hollywood is out of ideas and just goes around remaking movies for the hell of it. Childs Play is the exception to this rule. First off they remove the mystical element of what Child's Play was about ... there was no convict on the run or bad man who put his soul into the doll... the doll was reprogrammed or most of its functions were left open so that it would become violent and deadly. Mark Hamill played the perfect Chucky and the boy plays the perfect Andy. Even The Supporting Cast was better than I could have expected for a remake horror movie. If you skip this you're doing yourself a disservice especially if you're a fan of the child's play series. You can't deny that this is well put together. I wish I could say different because I don't want to like remakes but even I can't deny the fact that this was just really well done

I'm one of those kids who usually supports a horror remake, I know the online horror community is ready to crap on them at a moment's notice, but I am always happy to go in with an open mind, and often get a lot of enjoyment out of them. Hell, John Carpenter's original _Halloween_ is only my **fifth** favourite _Halloween_ movie. Plus, I absolutely **love** both Audrey Plaza and Mark Hamill. But this 2019 _Child's Play_ is worse than the original in basically every way. It honestly might be the worst movie in the franchise.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

I'm not a fan of remakes but I will say and the 1988 Child's Play is great, but this updated version actually was not at all bad. Unlike The Hustle which was almost a scene-for-scene remake of Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, just gender-swapping the main characters, this one has its own 21st century spin and honestly, it mostly worked. The dark humor and horror really blended well with director Lars Klevberg avoiding the tired jump scares.
An added bonus, Mark Hamill made for a great voice as Chucky, though certainly Brad Dourif is still the best. Also doesn't hurt to have the lovely Aubrey Plaza, but does make me feel old seeing her play a mom... **3.75/5**

Loose plot but Paul Hogan shines as Dundee and it's just an all around feel-good film that one can't help but put a smile on your face. Seen this a few times over the years but still holds up. **3.75/5**

He went walkabout.
New York reporter Sue Charlton hears of a guy in the outback of Australia who survived an attack by a crocodile. For research she meets up with "Crocodile Mick Dundee" and spends time with him out in dangerous Bush Country. Finding a rapport during their time together, Sue convinces Mick to go back with her to New York, which brings interesting results as Mick becomes a big hit by treating the Big Apple, and all that comes his way, the same as he would the Outback.
Crocodile Dundee has a standard fish out of water comedy premise, yet with a number of truly funny sequences and an appealing turn from Paul Hogan as Dundee, it became a monster smash hit that the cinema watching public lapped up with glee. In a decade that is often considered or debated to be the worst for film, it may just be that cinema goers were desperate for a pick me up movie? Possibly, but undoubtedly Crocodile Dundee most assuredly is that type of escapist piece. However, to give that credence would, I feel, be doing it a disservice, for in spite of the rickety concept and the obviousness of where we will ultimately end up, it has bundles of earthy charm, a charm that many can identify with.
As Dundee goes about his way, meeting pimps, transsexuals and muggers et al, they are not only very funny scenes, they are also points of reference to the ever changing way of the Continents. Not that the film doesn't come dangerously close to falling into a sugary rom-com mire, but with a strong performance from Linda Kozlowski as Sue, and Hogan introducing an icon to 80s cinema, Crocodile Dundee safely hits the target that it was surely aiming for. Besides, the love story here is very easy to get on side with, to support it and hanker for this opposites attract coupling to work out.
Two sequels would follow, the first one was a retread reversal and just about passable, the second one, after a gap of 13 years, was bad and evidence that the joke had long since passed. Crocodile Dundee 86 holds up well as the escapist piece of cinema that it is. A nice film to revisit every other year, for it be simple, warm, and yes, I'll say it again, damn funny. 8/10

Entertaining 1987 flick from John Hughes.
'Planes, Trains and Automobiles' is an enjoyable watch, pure and simple. The pairing of Steve Martin and John Candy is a great one, with both holding their own and bringing a lot of humour to events. Away from those two, you also have interesting bit part roles for Kevin Bacon and Michael McKean.
The plot is one that could've got repetitive, but the film keeps it interesting for the whole 93 minutes. I will say, not that it's an all that noteworthy thing, that it has more (overly?) dramatic moments than I was anticipating, especially at the end. I was expecting a flat-out comedy, but the additional heart fits in well enough.
It's a film 100% worth watching, if only for the humour of the two leads; there are some funny gags in there.

How about those Bears?
Planes, Trains and Automobiles is written, produced and directed by John Hughes. It stars Steve Martin and John Candy. Music is by Ira Newborn and cinematography by Donald Peterman.
Marketing man Neal Page (Martin) is in a last ditch dash to get from New York to Chicago in time for the family Thanksgiving dinner. Unfortunately obstacles halt his every advancement, the biggest of which is the man who fate has decreed is his companion for the trip; Del Griffith (Candy), a larger than life shower ring salesman whose outlook on life is considerably different to Neal's.
If you haven't seen it yet? Then what is your excuse? You owe it to yourself to let this wonderful film into your life. John Hughes pitches two of America's then biggest comedy stars together and puts them on a trip where everything that can go wrong, does! Cue chaos with the methods of transport in the title. Yet as funny as the mishaps are, and they are, with a number of events being things many of us can associate with, they would be nothing without the expert characterisations. Both as performed by a never better Martin and Candy, but also as written by Hughes.
Neal Page is anal retentive, snobbish and cynicism in a suit, Del Griffith appears oafish, over talkative and comes bedecked in cheapo winter wear. As time, options and sanity start to ebb away, desperation takes a hold and a surprising co-dependency starts to form. Something that beautifully sets us up for a finale that is as touching as it is genuinely surprising. It has mature comedy characterisations for the grown ups and chaotic actions for the younger crowd. Perfect and it should be prescribed at least once a year for a pick me up. 9/10

Was I disappointed? Taking in to consideration the fact that I'm being delivered _Velvet Buzzsaw_ by the same writer, director, and star as _Nightcrawler_, honestly, yes. But that is a very high bar to try and meet, falling short of it is none too heinous an offence. On its own merits, _Velvet Buzzsaw_ features some magnificent acting, cool effects, engaging plotline, despicable characters and a hefty dose of originality. It's not a perfect film, it's probably not even a great film, but I've started years off in far worse ways before.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

Really good watch, would watch again, and can recommend.
If you are in a position to do so, then you could actually watch this movie before the "Fear Street Part One 1994".
I think a large part of this is that Sadie Sink is an amazing actress and while she doesn't carry the movie, she outshines everyone else with whom she shares a screen.
This isn't even an origin story, but sort of meets all the pacing of one in a pretty excellent fashion. Introducing Ziggy and the curse of the Sarah Fear all in one horrific go.
They do go a weirdly tasteful route where they previous showed high schoolers being killed, but do not show younger children being killed. I honestly didn't expect it given the amount of blood and wounds are shown, but not really gore come to think of it, at least not in this one.
Even as a stand alone movie, if you're into camp movies and like slashers, this is well worth the watch.

"Mandy" is a surreal mind trip of a movie. Shot in reddish-neon colors with a haunting bizarre soundtrack, it starts with logger Nicolas Cage as the most grounded and mellow he's been in years as he cuddles with his girl Mandy in a bedroom with floor-to-ceiling windows in the forest somewhere. When a skeevy cult leader lusts after and kidnaps Mandy after a random drive by, the inner "Cage" beast is released.
To say this movie is bizarre is an understatement, The mood lighting, odd musical score, and half-crazed characters create an unsettling mix that provides the backdrop for a Cage when he goes completely off the rails. If you are a fan of Cage when he gets in these fits, you'll love it. If not, then skip it, although you'll miss an epic chainsaw battle for the ages.

**_Entertainingly insane_**
> **Nick Allen**: _As a viewer, you step into a movie like this and you’re excited for its genre spectacle, but then you find out that it’s really sensitive. I was wondering how important that was to you, to have that more gentle nature?_
> > **Panos Cosmatos**: _It was very important to me. I didn't want to make a purely testosterone-driven man film at all. I wanted to make a movie that everybody could connect with on some personal level. From that, I drew a little bit on my own relationship with my wife, where there are these moments where you're happy, and_ _you're alone together. Being in each other's presence. I really like the part where they're watching TV, because it feels like something everyone does with their significant other. Nobody goes horseback riding, that I know of. You eat and watch TV, or where I feel the most close to my wife._
> **Allen**: _It's interesting that you say you didn't want to make a big manly movie, as Mandy seems to play with the macho aspect of it, whether it's different sizes of weapons, or Jeremiah's entitlement to Mandy. Did you talk a lot about that with your actors, or with co-writer Aaron Stewart-Ahn, when you were writing it?_
> > **Cosmatos**: _Yeah, well we were interested in the male ego and what a nightmarish, poisonous mushroom that can be. But I wanted the audience, the last thing on earth I wanted to do was make a movie that plays directly to a sort-of frat boy audience, you know? I feel like if those people want to enjoy the movie, then they have to earn their way to that. Spending time with Red and Mandy, and connect with them on every level that you can. Don't get me wrong, I think there's pleasure to be had in things in our film, I just didn't want the film to just have solely stuff for that audience._
- "Panos Cosmatos on Crafting his Heavy Metal Valentine, _Mandy_" (Nick Allen); _RogerEbert.com_ (September 12, 2018)
Equal parts psychotropic horror and grindhouse revenge thriller, _Mandy_ is what you might get if David Lynch, Stanley Kubrick, and Andrei Tarkovsky teamed up to remake Michael Winner's _Death Wish_ (1974) in the style of a Giallo. The second feature from director and co-writer Panos Cosmatos, after the interesting, but not entirely convincing _Beyond the Black Rainbow_ (2010), _Mandy_ is a psychedelic experience in pretty much every way, and as midnight-y as a midnight B-movie could possibly be. And although it would be impossible to recommend to everyone, there is an undeniable brilliance here. An insane brilliance. But a brilliance none-the-less. Although it could (somewhat legitimately) be accused of too much style and not enough substance, Cosmatos pitch-perfectly mixes an expressionist aesthetic with horror tropes, a generic revenge narrative, and comedy beats. But let's face it, the reason most people will see the film is for Nicholas Cage, and in that sense, _Mandy_ joins the ranks of films such as Robert Bierman's _Vampire's Kiss_ (1988), Werner Herzog's _Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call – New Orleans_ (2009) and Brian Taylor's _Mom and Dad_ (2017) in giving Cage an organic, narratively justified reason to go full-Cage, digging deep into his reservoir of batshit insanity. And that's never a bad thing.
Set in "1983 A.D.", the film tells the story of Red Miller (Cage), and his girlfriend, aspiring fantasy artist Mandy Bloom (Andrea Riseborough), who live a simple secluded life in the Shadow Mountains, in a cabin on the banks of Crystal Lake. Hugely supportive of one another, it's hinted that Red may have been an alcoholic and/or drug addict in his youth, whilst Mandy has a significant facial scar, possibly the result of a troubled childhood, which she alludes to from time to time. All is calm in their life until Mandy is spotted by the Children of the New Dawn, a religious cult led by failed folk singer Jeremiah Sand (Linus Roache). Taken with Mandy's beauty, Sand tells his right-hand-man, Brother Swan (Ned Dennehy), that he wants Mandy, saying "_you know what to do_." Using the "Horn of Abraxas", Swan summons the Black Skulls, a trio of demonic bikers addicted to a highly potent form of LSD, and along with the Skulls, the Children invade Red and Mandy's cabin, tying Red up in barbed wire outside, and leaving him for dead. Meanwhile, two female Children, Mother Marlene (Olwen Fouéré) and Sister Lucy (Line Pillet), drug Mandy with LSD and venom from a giant wasp, before presenting her to Sand. Singing his own song, "Amulet of the Weeping Maze", Sand attempts to seduce Mandy, but things quickly go awry when he proves unable to get an erection. Unbeknownst to the Children, however, Red has survived and set out in pursuit of both the cult and the Skulls.
One of the things that will jump out at you as you watch _Mandy_ is that Cosmatos packs the narrative with an extraordinary amount of cultural references, some oblique, others more obvious. Prior to hearing any dialogue, there is an audio extract of President Ronald Reagan speaking about how the vast majority of Americans are disgusted by porn. Mandy's art is not dissimilar to the work of Roger Dean, whilst the film's animated sections (of which there are several) recall the kind of material found in _Heavy Metal_. Indeed, the general aesthetic of the film is equal parts _Bat Out of Hell_ and Iron Maiden. The Children of the New Dawn cult is obviously inspired by the Peoples Temple of the Disciples of Christ and the Manson Family, with Sand himself part Jim Jones, part Charles Manson, and part Dan Fogelberg. The home invasion scene bears more than a passing resemblance to similar such scenes in Wes Craven's _The Last House on the Left_ (1972) and John McNaughton's _Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer_ (1986), whilst the revenge narrative has something of George Miller's original _Mad Max_ (1979) about it. The film also recalls Nicholas Winding Refn's _Valhalla Rising_ (2009) in places. Sand's "Amulet of the Weeping Maze" is inspired by the work of The Carpenters (which he admits himself). Red is seen wearing a Mötley Crüe t-shirt, and tells an awesome Erik Estrada/_CHiPs_ (1977-1983) joke. During a discussion about which planet is their favourite, Mandy selects Jupiter, but Red argues for Galactus. The Black Skulls are obviously inspired by the Cenobites from Clive Barker's _Hellraiser_ (1987). The Children's A-frame chapel resembles the church in Paul Thomas Anderson's _There Will Be Blood_ (2009). This is as culturally-literate a film as you're likely to see all year, and as much as the narrative exists in a kind of shattered-mirror version of reality, these references do help ground it, even if many of them are purposely anachronistic.
_Mandy_ gets off to a cracking start by using the old Universal logo, complete with scratches and dirt on the celluloid. It follows that up with the most pseudo-John Carpenter 80s music imaginable, composed by Jóhann Jóhannsson (_Sicario_; _Arrival_; _mother!_), in one of his last compositions prior to his untimely death, with guitar chords played by Stephen O'Malley of Sunn 0))). To give you an idea of the type of music featured throughout the film, there's an early shot moving across the forest scored to King Crimson's "Starless". Indeed, the score is almost another character entirely, and the film simply wouldn't work half as well if the music wasn't as good.
Aside from the music, the most immediately attention-grabbing aspect of the film is the use of colour, with director of photography Benjamin Loeb's compositions bathed in deep purples, reds, indigos, yellows, greens, and oranges, with the occasional blue (primarily associated with Mandy herself). Often the colours are non-diegetic and unexplained (for example the Horn of Abraxas always appears in green light, irrespective of location). The cinematography also employs a plethora of subjective techniques, such as double lens flares, animation, slow-motion fades and dissolves, telephoto shots, what can only be described as psychedelic lighting, and a hell of a lot of dry ice.
Very much a film of two halves, if the first brings us the gates to hell, the second pushes us in and slams the gates shut behind us. The first half runs up until just prior to the beginning of Red's revenge, whilst the second depicts that revenge. The first half focuses primarily on Mandy, with Red very much a supporting character, whilst the second, obviously, focuses on him. However, it's not just in terms of narrative content in which the two halves differ, they are also aesthetically different, particularly the editing rhythms. The first is languid and dream-like, almost graceful, whilst the second is like something out of Dante Alighieri or William Blake, filtered through H.R. Giger on acid. The two halves are divided by an extraordinary single-shot 45-second scene of Red (wearing only underpants and a t-shirt) pouring vodka all over his wounds, drinking what's left, and screaming. It's a scene of extraordinarily raw emotion that works brilliantly, partly because scenes like it are so rare. You simply don't often see a male protagonist this vulnerable. This is _Mandy_'s "suit up" scene, and here is Cage crying like a starving baby. It's a brave choice by both actor and director, and it works perfectly both as a stand-alone scene and as a transition from the first to the second half of the film. Indeed, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that one could read _Mandy_, at least in part, as a meditation on the destructive nature of profound grief, and if so, that interpretation begins right here. Yes, there is more than a hint of an archetypal dualistic cosmology underpinning Red's revenge, particularly Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism, but so too is it a deeply personalised quest.
Especially in the second half of the film (and particularly in the last few minutes), Cosmatos strives to place us in Red's head, which has the effect of elevating the carnage beyond that of your standard ultra-violent revenge movie. As Red's mission progresses, and he becomes more and more unhinged, so too does the film become less and less interested in what we would refer to as reality, introducing such aspects as cannibalism, a bow named "The Reaper" and arrows which "_cut through bone like a fat kid through cake_", a chemist who can smell where the Black Skulls are, a stoned tiger, eels, a cigarette being lit via a flaming body part, choking via knife, (several) decapitations, a chainsaw duel, a church in the forest with secret underground passages, a skull crushing, hallucinations, even a cosmic event.
There are some problems, however. For starters, it's kind of disappointing when you realise that for all its technical prowess and fascinating aesthetic gymnastics, when it comes down to it, _Mandy_ is just a revenge flick, and at just over two hours, it tends to drag a little in places. The screenplay (by Cosmatos and Aaron Stewart-Ahn) can also be too on the nose at tunes. For example, early in the film, Mandy tells a story about her father attempting to force her to kill a baby starling that proves tonally prophetic in the way only stories in films ever doesn't give Red a huge amount of depth.
Is there an element of the emperor's new clothes about the entire endeavour? Yes, to a certain extent there is. And, yes, most of the best bits are in the trailer (or at least are spoiled by the trailer – the chainsaw duel would have been much funnier if I hadn't known it was coming). And yes, it's all kind of pointless. However, love it or loathe it, there's no denying it's brilliantly assembled. As an audio-visual experience, it's unlike anything I've seen in a long time, and it's almost certainly destined for cult status.

This is one weird movie. I have to confess that I am quite a fan of Nicholas Cage. I know he has made more than his share of really crappy movies but I can not help myself. When I see a movie with him in the lead role I still have to watch it. This movie is one of those.
There are definitely some interesting cinematic aspects to this movie. As a piece of cinematic art I would say that it is not bad at all. However, it is definitely weird and whoever wrote this script, well he was on drugs when he wrote it, there is no doubt in my mind about that.
It is part a grindhouse movie in the spirit of Tarantino and Rodriguez and part a far out psychedelic visual experience. I do not regret watching it. It was a experience if nothing else. Was it a good movie in general? No, not really. The 3 out of 5 score from me is barely and it is largely due to the cinematics, a few cool (and violent) scenes and Nicholas Cage.
The movie seems to focus on delivering one weird scene after another. There is not really any explanation to most things. I especially would have liked to know more about and get more of a conclusion on this (supernatural?) bike gang. But they just show up and then they kind of disappear from the story.
The main bad-guy is an absolute nut-case but we never really get to understand what drives this weirdo. He has created some cult with a few followers but that is about it. His demise, although satisfactory, is just a show of insanity.
In short the movie is a mix of heavy metal, horror, violence and psychedelic weirdness and I would say that the audience for this movie is a quite small group of people. I’m not really sure that I am in that group.

Ok, I can see what Panos Cosmatos is going for; riding the 80s vibe but going for heavy metal instead of synthwave. Set in the eighties, there are plenty of references to the cultural conglomerate of the era with glam/speed/heavy metal and fantasy art, b-action machoismo, outsiderness and self-imposed isolation. It is even haunted by the counter culture seventies with the vicious religious hippie cult and their LSD fueled motorcycle gang lackeys.
Though anachronistic, I can see Mandy as an attempt of a drone or sludge metal album in a movie format or concert experience, as said were more a nineties evolution. The key elements are there for all senses; excessive slow tempo, cross processed colors, heavy distortions, huge delays and massive reverbs.
Unfortunately it loses itself in this gloss and ends up superficial and pretty with more tiresome slow motion that an entire season of sport of your choice. The story churns from A to B with little character or evolution. The raw expositions become flat and pretentious. The violence that should be shocking becomes a tedious grind without any build up or tension.
Honestly, I wanted to like this movie. I tried to watch it as a art flick by an auteur director, as a hommage to an era and even as a deadpan pastiche. I don't know what I'm missing, because for me it ends up not a denim and studs speedball but rather a pubescent fever dream through an instagram filter.
Had it not been for the multiple credible names involved and the over the top stylistic finish, I think it would have passad as a retro exploitation revenge flick without much attention.

_By JD Phillips, geekr.org_
I think this is the strangest review I might ever write. Mostly because the film in question is a strange experience, unlike most others. It's simultaneously a brilliant piece of 80’s horror art and an overindulgent mess that never figures itself out outside its influences. Basically, it’s a film where it makes perfect sense for Nicolas Cage to scream, cry, laugh menacingly, and chug a whole bottle of vodka while on the toilet, wearing a tiger t-shirt and his tighty whities.
If that sounds horrible to you or if it sounds brilliant to you, you’re right.
You can tell within seconds that this movie is going to be a trippy arthouse ride like you’ve never seen before. Anyone familiar with director Panos Cosmatos knows his films are basically like falling through a portal on the side of a heavy metal album cover. It’s a dark 80’s grindhouse fantasy horror fest that is powerfully immersive in ways that most films don’t come close to.
Whether you are watching scenes that take place within the Charles Mansonesque Jesus Freak cult, the animated tripfests, or Nicolas Cage chainsaw fighting (yes, you read that right) with a Mad Max style BDSM demon, you will find it nearly impossible to take your eyes off the screen.
That’s not to say that what you are watching will entirely be worth that attention. In the end, the film definitely feels like it’s more style over substance. It never feels like it ever reaches the heights that it sets up. It relies too much on cliches from the genre it loves to ever truly be more than a beautiful homage. If you don’t have a special place in your heart for heavy metal music and grindhouse action, there just won’t be much here for you.
That’s not to say that the cast doesn’t give their all to prove themselves. Nicolas Cage gives his most insane performance to date. Fans of his from films like “Raising Arizona” or “Adaptation” won’t find that actor here. Fans who love to watch clips of him being a mad-eyed psycho in “The Wicker Man” or “Face/Off” will want to watch this film immediately. The man forges a battle axe and takes on the forces of evil with bloody rage as you’ve never seen before.
The film drives into the actor’s wackiness and this time it really works. This is definitely a film that needed Nicolas Cage. Maybe if “Ghost Rider” would’ve embraced the B-movie potential of its star, that film would be more memorable.
The rest of the cast is pretty excellent too. Andrea Riseborough shines as the titular Mandy. She brings a unique but grounded style to the character that makes you understand why these men fall in love with her so heavily. Speaking of, Linus Roache’s cult leader Jeremiah Sand might be the best part of the whole movie.
Fans of “Vikings” will be pleased to hear that Roache once again throws himself into a creepily sexual role with both feet. It’s hard to match the level of weird Nicolas Cage can bring, but Roache gives him a run for his money. It doesn’t hurt that Jeremiah Sand is the best-written character of the bunch.
The rest of the cult members are pitch perfect in their roles. They all look like the director went to a bunch of real-life cults and picked his favorites. Each one brings a different kind of creep factor that really elevates the film.
In the end, “Mandy” is a wonderfully made love letter to its genre even if it fails to redefine said genre as much as it potentially could have. Its particular brand of artful bloody wackiness may not be for everyone, but those that love that sort of thing will have one hell of a good ride.
**6.0 OR 9.0**
_(DEPENDING ON WHICH WAY YOUR BREAD IS BUTTERED)_

Being very intrigued and in parts fascinated with Beyond the Black Rainbow from a pure cinephile perspective, I was quite eager to see a new film by Panos Cosmatos. After learning about Mandy and what it was about, and seeing it being a bigger budget and more thought-out endeavour, I was of course very eager to see it. After finally watching Mandy it feels to me that Panos Cosmatos failed to deliver on the promise of his first film's virtues, and actually re-established his weaknesses as a director. Not that this is a negative opinion on this film overall. Just explaining how and why Mandy failed my high expectations. Take those sentiments as you will. Besides elements familiar from his first film, with very carefully stylized and mostly beautiful shots and scenes overall, a dreamlike, menacing and off-worldly setting, slow and meditative pace, Mandy also managed to surprise me on several levels. I really appreciated how Mandy, the character, was written and performed, like sort of a person who naturally dislikes and distrusts people. I think Andrea Riseborough did a brilliant job here, although physically, she appeared a bit anorexic to me. I don’t know if she had weight issues that year, and I usually don’t care about those things, but in this particular case her appearance felt a bit jarring to me. But I digress. Other things that majorly surprised me is how the cult was realistically portrayed (if we ignore the biker gang), for better or worse. It's like they were very purposely demystified, in every possible opportunity. And all that in the setting of mystification and stylistic painting of the world as fantastical, which confused the hell out of me. And nothing in this regard changes toward the end. The director, I feel, even chooses to emphasize on this more and more as the movie goes on. It's worth mentioning that Cage's performance, while excellent, was not "baroque", how he calls some of his wild performances, but very controlled, adding little to film’s unearthly atmosphere. Most importantly, Mandy felt like a film with huge problems in both pace and elements that are tonally very disjointed, while each of these elements separately is excellent (faux fantastical setting versus the ugly reality of cult members' character and actions). Also, the part with the chemist really breaks down the narrative, in my opinion. That segment almost feels botched on purpose, Tarantino/Rodriguez Grindhouse style, which is one of the main things I disliked in their double-feature. Still, Mandy contains plenty of fascinating parts for the film to be worthy of re-watching, and is not dull or tedious in anyway. There is some point to Mandy’s fascination with pulp fantasy novels, and Red’s subsequent revenge portrayed as a fantastical quest, but this curious idea alone doesn’t help to liven up the film. Like I said earlier, this approach just doesn’t chafe well with the cult remaining a group of barely threatening and very flawed individuals. Especially given the fact Red managed to overpower a much more dangerous and menacing group earlier in the film. The movie simply fails to ramp up in any manner toward the end, while the story and style demands that. Finally, it’s just not the cult film I expected to see, and I think a lot of people felt the same, given the lukewarm scores. A kinetic, relentless, wild film, what it should have been. At least in its last third. It's just too...stilted. And sadly, I sense this is more a limitation of Cosmatos, than a strong, firm decision on his part. I am now much less excited after seeing Mandy about Cosmatos’ next film, and I think he failed to put himself on the map with Mandy. The future will show.

This is "style over substance" done to the extreme. While visually stunning, even hauntingly beautiful at times, there's utterly no point to any of it. Add to that the ridiculous and sometimes painful dialogue and extremely slow pacing, and you got quite a mess in my book. Now, that is not to say it does not have any redeeming qualities - the visual aspect is one, so is the soundtrack. And, well, Nick Cage is .. well, Nick Cage. (YOU RIPPED MY SHIRT?!)
I have to assume it is an inspired watch if --and only if-- you're watching it while higher than high. That must also have been the state of those who made it, let alone greenlit and financed it, because despite having so very little to offer in terms of storytelling, it must have cost an arm and a leg to film and produce.
Anyway. Unless you are extremely into artsy, pretentious, drawn-out gore-fests, give this a wide berth.

_Mandy_ is very much my sort of movie. but it's still not perfect to me. Every trope that makes up _Mandy_, the neon, the synth, the gore, whatever gimmick nonsense, safe to assume I loved it. But _Mandy_ takes **so long** to get going. Normally that's not a mark against a movie in my book, but here's my problem: The entire first half of the movie that's all set-up, gave me absolutely no feel for the relationship between the two leads. It should be the most important part of the movie, it's the impetus for every worthwhile even that happened, but I honestly don't even know if they like each other. There was so much time to explore that dynamic, and they basically never did.
But then the real movie kicks in and that wasted time is sort of forgotten and you just enjoy that great, dumb, aesthetic shit.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

Definitely not for everyone, this is a niche-of-a-niche type of film: psychedelic-art-horror with a dash of comedy. And I loved it. Some incredible shots and scenes with tons of mind bending crap. So much going on. After a first watch, I think a few of the scenes could probably have been cut a little shorter but I don't know... I need to watch again. And I *want* to watch it again.
I felt Nic Cage's particular brand of acting fit perfectly...
I think the bathroom scene, even though a little out of place, is such a classic Nic Cage scene. Jarring, the acting in that scenes was... not good, but so Nic Cage.
I knew going in that this was probably going to be a movie I'd like, but had prepared myself to be disappointed. I wasn't disappointed at all. I think this is destined to be a cult classic.

Saw this movie last week and disliked it at first. Without going into spoilers, I was probably in the wrong mindset to enjoy it properly.
But, it stuck with me for days later and I couldn't stop thinking about it. I ended up liking it a lot and will re-watch it as soon as I get the chance.
It's visually stunning and the soundtrack complements the visuals perfectly. Soundtrack is getting released in September and I will definitely get it.
Not an easy movie to digest, even though there are some scenes that will definitely leave you wondering if they were meant as comedy or if they were just done wrong.
This mostly comes down to Cage's somewhat uneven performance - but it's nothing like Wicker Man and it only comes down to a couple of individual shots.
Highly recommended!