Really good watch, would watch again, and can recommend.
A modern re-telling of "Snow White" and sort of a response to "Sydney White", a story of a psuedo-princess cast out and taken in by 7 societal misfits.
It's a fun twist that's she's this vapid playboy bunny that comes in and indoctrinates the other girls into being like her.
It's a fun movie, not the best movie, but consistently good and a well done downtrodden versus the authority trope.

I wonder what drugs Rodriguez was on when he wrote this movie but he must have been under the influence of something since it is even more weird and insanely violent than his usual concoctions. What is worse it that it really is somewhat incoherent, like ideas for scenes was just strung together with no real concern for the overall picture.
I did like the movie as a two-hour distraction from reality and I had quite a few laughs at the ludicrously violent scenes. Unfortunately some of them made me squirm in my seat because the where not really funny-violent but just silly-violent.
Charlie Sheen as a president was a real really poor choice of actor. Mel Gibson as Voz was better and I have to confess that I do like Michelle Rodriguez. Lady Gaga? Well, “bof” as the French say.
Machete himself, which to me was one of the main reasons for watching the movie, was also a bit of a disappointment. He walked through the movie like he was just boored being on the set. There was never any real spark.
At the end of the movie I have to say that I felt a little disappointed. As I wrote, I did like it but it never reached the levels of enjoyment that I hoped for.

'Just My Luck' runs a little thin, but it narrowly did enough for me to enjoy it.
Lindsay Lohan and Chris Pine don't, in my opinion, share as much onscreen chemistry as is generally needed for a romcom, though they are both likeable and produce solid enough performances that I was happy to watch them act throughout. It's amusing seeing McFly - a very good band, back then at least - billed as "Introducing..." given UK audiences would've 100% known who they were at the time of release.
The movie does get a bit repetitive as the plot is, as noted, extremely simple, but again there's just about enough in there that I had a positive time watching.

This could have been so very much better if only the story had not built the entire sense of jeopardy on three or four implausibly stupid strokes of misfortune. Chris Evans is the recipient of a strange phone call from a woman (Kim Basinger) who has been kidnapped and as she is locked in an attic, she must rely on this random young man to try stop the baddies (Jason Statham etc.) from now reaching her young son and her husband on their quest for we know not what... yet! He goes to the police station but a fracas in the lobby means he cannot discuss with a detective and so must now do it all by himself... There is plenty of action, Evans has some fun in a Porsche (borrowed from Rick Hoffmann - does he ever not play a pompous ass?!) before we are on the run from a load of don't know who to trust cops of all shapes and sizes (and loyalties). Evans is good value, and William H. Macy isn't afraid to get in tough with his inner vanity; but otherwise it is a bit of a wasted opportunity for all...

If you really wanted to stare death in the eye, you shoulda gotten married.
Sylvester Stallone and Kurt Russell play polar opposite Los Angeles cops who are framed by an arch nemesis and forced to team up in order to clear their name.
Unashamedly macho and very much of its time, this is daft energetic fun that's full of octane inventive action and ever quotable one liners. Stallone is Tango, the smart dressed sophisticated policeman, Russel is Cash, the slobbish act first - ask questions later copper, both men very different but both excellent at their jobs.
Pic gets by mostly on the chemistry between Stallone and Russell, who put much zest into their respective characters bickering and bantering. Action is well put together by director Andrey Konchalovskiy, but unfortunately the final third of the piece starts to sag as our mismatched cops start to respect and befriend each other and the plot reaches the inevitable conclusion.
It doesn't help matters that Jack Palance's main villain is only a bit part player, or that his head henchman Requin (the usually ace Brion James) gives us a quite appalling British accent. Add in Teri Hatcher who is in it purely for dressage and as a cypher between the two boys, then it's a picture not without problems. Yet the script and star turns from the leading duo ensure this remains a favourite of many whom lapped it up back in the backend of the 1980s. 7/10

**A classic film with a remarkable story and great actors.**
This is a work that almost everyone remembers if the theme is films about the prison environment. It's a classic that takes us to a universe of pain, suffering, deprivation and fight against oppression, solidly based on a somewhat autobiographical book by Henri Charriere, called Papillon, a Frenchman who was imprisoned for decades in the penal colony of French Guiana and wrote a book that should be a memoir, but is so full of inventions that it deserves to be considered fiction inspired by real bases. Of course, the issue doesn't matter much to the film: let's forget the man and focus on the character, his alter-ego.
Directed by Franklin J. Schaffner and released in 1973, it was filmed in Spain and Hawaii. And taking into account that the real prison was abandoned, a faithful setting was created in Jamaica, with some shots filmed in the real location appearing in the end credits. An interesting note: needing a tropical filming location, the production thought it was a good idea to go to a poor country, famous for its soft drugs, in the 1970s. It is, therefore, not surprising that works in Jamaica were marred by robberies and plunder, and by an extraordinary abundance of good marijuana. In addition to the good design of sets, costumes and props, and an inspired and elegant cinematography, the film has a very well done soundtrack by Jerry Goldsmith, which is worth listening to and appreciating in itself.
With almost two and a half hours in length, the film focuses on portraying the poor conditions of that huge penal colony, and the mistreatment to which the inmates were subjected. I think this contributed greatly to the film's success at the box office: in the aftermath of recent protests, May '68, the Sexual Revolution and peace movements, a film where a single and persistent man faces an entire system of oppression and violence is doomed to success. Specialized critics, however, were not at all convinced, and made harsh comments about the film. Shortly afterwards, at the bizarre 1974 Oscar ceremony, the film was largely ignored, losing the only award for which it had been nominated (Best Dramatic Original Score). But considering the way it has persisted, stood the test of time and remained popular, perhaps the critics and Oscar judges were all wrong.
However, the success of this film cannot be attributed solely to a good story released at a propitious time, and convincingly told and acted. Steve McQueen is a key part of this success, thanks to an incredible dramatic interpretation, one of the best in his artistic career. The actor manages to express, in his face and mannerisms, the pain and tenacity of the character he embodies, and commits himself entirely to what he is doing. Next to him was also Dustin Hoffman, in a very interesting and elegant work that the actor fully responded to. On a much lower level, the film has positive contributions from Woodrow Parfrey, Don Gordon, Ratna Assan and Val Avery.

Steve McQueen is superb as unlucky safe-cracker Henri "Papillon" Charrière, an innocent man convicted of murder and sentenced to imprisonment in the French penal colony at French Guiana. Once there, he learns quickly to appreciate the sheer brutality of a prison where any semblance of decency and humanity has been long abandoned. He allies himself with "Dega" (Dustin Hoffman), the rather wealthy, calculating, forger who fully expects his release papers to arrive any day! McQueen agrees to keep an eye on Hoffman meantime, in return for enough funds to enable him to try to escape too. Over the course of their incarceration, they become unlikely friends combatting the harsh, at times lethal, prison regime and trying to keep safe from their equally savage colleagues - each with an axe, of some sort, to grind. I'm not Hoffman's biggest fan, he tends to mimic rather than act - but I'd say that this is McQueen's finest, grittiest, performance - and the sense of pain, deprivation and hope he elicits are captivating to watch. There are some pictures at the end of the facility as it looked in the early 1970s - evocative of just how cruel these places were.

_**The living hell of a penal colony in equatorial South America during the 30s**_
Henri Charrière’s account of his experiences from 1933-1945 involving the penal colony of Cayenne in French Guiana, South America, are chronicled, including solitary confinement, escape attempts, dwelling with Goajira Indians (in northeastern Columbia) and living on Devil's Island. Steve McQueen plays Henri, nicknamed Papillon (aka ‘Butterfly’ due to his chest tattoo), while Dustin Hoffman plays his friend Louis Dega.
"Papillon" (1973) is a realistic ‘prison film’ and probably more accurate than Charrière’s account based on his memory, which was told to a professional writer some three decades after the events. Keep in mind that Charrière had a reputation for being a great storyteller and the authenticity of a lot of the 560-page book has been seriously challenged. The movie only offers the gist of the real-life account and no doubt got it more accurate.
Whilst cinephiles generally praise the movie other respectable people criticize it, suggesting that the viewer hopes Papillon will escape so that the film will end (lol). I suspect this is mainly due to the long solitary confinement sequences in the first half, which definitely help the viewer grasp what a living hell it would be. Speaking of which, Charrière never said in his account that he ate bugs in solitary confinement or was in total darkness.
The second half is thankfully more adventuresome so, if the miserable solitary confinement sequences tempt you to quit watching, hang in there. There are similarities to McQueen’s earlier “Nevada Smith” (1966), which has a more compelling story.
The film runs 2 hours, 31 minutes, and was shot at various locations in Spain and Jamaica. For instance, the penal colony scenes were filmed in Falmouth, Jamaica. Meanwhile Steve McQueen’s famous cliff-jumping stunt near the end actually took place at cliffs in Maui, Hawaii.
GRADE: B

Although present for much of the filming, author Henri Charriere didn't live to see the release of PAPILLON (1973), which was based on his allegedly autobiographical novel. The veracity of what he recounts has been questioned virtually since the books' release in 1969, and the film takes further liberties, leaving one to wonder if this adventure picture is more fiction than fact. What one doesn't have to wonder about, however, are the results achieved by an underrated director at the top of his craft; a bracing Jerry Goldsmith score; marvelous cinematography by Fred Koenekamp; and spot-on performances by Steve McQueen, Dustin Hoffman, and a stellar supporting cast which features some of the best character actors of the period.

Grim and authentic telling of Henri "Papillon" Charrière's time at Devil's Island.
Directed by Franklin J. Schaffner (Planet Of The Apes/Patton), Papillon is adapted for the screen by Dalton Trumbo & Lorenzo Semple Jr. from notorious French felon Henri "Papillon" Charrière's own novel. It stars Steve McQueen (Papillon) & Dustin Hoffman (Louis Dega), is primarily shot in Jamaica & Spain with Fred J. Koenekamp (The Towering Inferno) on photography duties and Jerry Goldsmith provides the score.
Henri "Papillon" Charrière was a crook, a bad egg, he however was sent to the notorious, inescapable, prison fortress of Devil's Island for a murder he didn't commit. The film, as is the book, is a fictionalised account of Charrière's time at the penal colony.
The film is probably best described as being a stirring drama of friendship under duress, endurance and opportunism, all neatly blended with an adventure based heart. Schaffner directs it with great technical skill, for in a film with minimal dialogue, he manages to perfectly stifle the viewer with a hot sweaty atmosphere. Something that is crucial for us to feel the confines of this penal colony life. These men are doing hard time, lets not soft soap it Hollywood style, lets get the feel right, something, that much like Don Siegel also did in 79 with his excellent Escape From Alcatraz, Schaffner does exceptionally well. He is helped enormously by two fabulous performances from McQueen & Hoffman.
McQueen is in his element as Papillon. Always an actor whose ability for dominating scenes without using histrionic acting was undervalued, Papillon goes some way to readdressing the myth that he was more about iconography than actual talent. His solitary confinement scenes are sublime, without saying barely a word. As Papillon stave's off starvation, madness and disease, McQueen has such a powerful and believable presence, he pulls us into that five by five paces cell with him. Incredible! Once again tho the Academy ignored McQueen's excellent work and the film only received the one Oscar nomination for Goldsmith's pinging tropical score. Hoffman's great work was something of a given, meticulous as usual in his preparation {he had studied for weeks about penal colony life}, he is the perfect foil for McQueen and the relationship is tender yet never twee. Fine support also comes from Anthony Zerbe as a compassionate leader of a leper colony & Victor Jory as an Indian Chief.
The production was an expensive one, with the original budget of $4 million ballooning to $14 million, making it the most expensive film of 1973. A couple of scripts were jettisoned {money down the drain} before Schaffner enlisted Trumbo to write the screenplay. A good move because Trumbo was able to flesh out character relationships that didn't exist in the source novel. Hoffman himself was adamant that he would only play Dega if the film steered away from a buddy buddy formula and gave Dega intelligent integrity. He got it, which is credit to Trumbo since the Dega character is barely formed in the novel, in fact the film version is an amalgamation of several penal colony characters. Trumbo was rewarded with not only a considerable paycheck, but also a bit part in the movie as the colony commandant early in the piece.
Initial critical reaction to the film was harsh, but the public didn't agree since the theatres were packed and the film made almost $50 million Worldwide. Making it Allied Artists most successful film ever. It has since garnered a massive fan base and has been favourably reassessed by a new wave of critics. Those old complaints about it being too sombre and too enduring to get thru just don't add up. One only has to note the thematics and essence of the story to know this fact. 9/10

An honest cop. Who would believe that?
Serpico is directed by Sidney Lumet and adapted to screenplay by Waldo Salt and Norman Wexler from Peter Maas’ biography of NYPD officer Frank Serpico who stood up to expose rife corruption in the force. It stars Al Pacino, John Randolph, Jack Kehoe, Biff McGuire, Bernard Barrow, Nathan George and Tony Roberts. Music is by Mikis Theodorakis and Giacomo Puccini and cinematography by Arthur J. Ornitz..
Great story telling meets a first class acting performance in Lumet’s searing movie. Frank Serpico (Pacino), a legend to us mere mortals out on the street, but the most hated man on the NYPD, so much so he almost paid for his sense of what’s right and wrong with his life.
Picture follows Frank through his integration on the force and onto the build up of corruption he comes across. All the time we are also getting an insight into the man himself, his life and loves outside of work, with Lumet and Pacino making sure Frank is not painted as a saintly perfectionist, there is no halo above his head, he has flaws like everybody else. New York is expertly painted as a raw and grubby place, the hustle and bustle a nuisance, and the seamy underside where crims and dirty coppers dwell makes you feel like taking a shower. It proves to be a riveting character study and a thought provoking expose at the same time, while ultimately it proves to be a touching experience come the culmination of the drama.
Excellent. 9/10

LD was good and all but Licence to Kill is top 10.

"Licence to Kill" is unquestionably a very unusual Bond film in every conceivable way imaginable. The larger-than-life villains of the Sean Connery era with their outrageously extravagant plans to blackmail the whole world are completely gone and these elements have been replaced with a much more down to earth approach and in this instance it has resulted in the film resembling a regular crime movie, but don't fret too much. There still remains at least some instantly recognisable remnants of the beloved Bond trademarks to be found amongst all the violence and minor league swearing with some remarkably thrilling and expertly produced action sequences - especially those involving the Kenwood tankers. However, when such conventional Bond fare as this is placed alongside some of the other elements (chief bad guy Sanchez being turned into a flaming human bonfire by Bond) it does often make for extremely uncomfortable bedfellows, especially coming so soon after the long running Roger Moore era where a good deal more of the violence was a lot less graphic.

This 007 film stays true to its motif.
This begins an era of "no fun" 007 films, where the wit is very minimal and every scene is whiplash brutal.
However, unlike most later 007 films, this one stays true to its design. It doesn't try to "contrive" the story. Instead, there is a flow.
One interesting aspect is that we see something worse than "death", as is pointed out earlier, with David Hedison getting brutal treatment in his recurring Felix role.
We see the beginning of an era where evil is in charge of the world. No longer is there anyone to be trusted outside of a few men like James and Felix.
There is a "darkest before the Dawn" scenario here, but it isn't "contrived" the way later 007 movies do it.
There is a lot going for this one. Unfortunately, it set the style for "no fun in 007 films", which ultimately saw the writing and directing get worse and worse. But this one works. Bond is still a genuinely okay guy, and that's what always keeps 007 films going.

**License to Kill transformers Bond from a goofy punchline to a vengeful unstoppable force, turning the franchise from whimsical to gritty and producing one of the best films of the series.**
License to Kill marked a major shift in the franchise away from the campy, goofy, and almost family-friendly Roger Moore Bind films to something darker and more brutal. Timothy Dalton’s Bond is savage and emotional, using only his wits to track down an elusive drug lord and devising an elaborate scheme to exact revenge and cripple the entire drug enterprise. No longer are the jokes and gadgets the focus, but instead, the violence and rage of Bond and the villains he faces take center stage. Characters are eaten by sharks, crushed, exploded, and more in barbaric ways with incredible stunts and a more grounded sobering story. License to Kill finds its influence in Miami Vice and benefits from a less outrageous or fantastical story. Unfortunately, License to Kill was before its time as Brosnan’s Bond slid the franchise back to the far-fetched goofy extremes of Bond. Thankfully the Craig era returned to what Dalton began with a nuanced and volatile character in a more believable world of spies and danger. License to Kill is one of the best in the Bond franchise and shamefully underrated.

Man, del Toro was only 21 in this film and still makes a showing as one of the most lethal Bond baddies in the history of the franchise.
And for those of you who are obsessed with Bondlore, this is the 007 film that references the events in OHMSS which proves that Bond is one person and not just a "title" like the people who are trying to completely rewrite the franchise to inject modern politics over story and fun.
Anyway, moving on, this, like The Living Daylights, the closest Bond to Flemming's 007 and the closest Bond to the cold blooded assassin of the early Connery films to-date. So it has always come across as odd that so many people that love Connery 007 hate Dalton.
It's also a break away from MI6 and shows Bond going out on his own to avenge Felix, who is the US counterpart to his character.
It moves away from a lot of the 007 tropes in story alone, but it also tells a completely different story with a Bond that is far closer to the source material than anything we had seen before.
So I can certainly understand the hate, but, personally, I think it's one of the best 007 outings we have had thus far.

I was just not a fan of Timothy Dalton's "007" and so can't say I was looking forward with much enthusiasm to this. Sadly, it didn't surprise - it's a really far fetched, frankly rather unpleasant, outing for Ian Fleming's deadly agent that sees him on the trail of an evil drug lord who fed "Felix" (David Hedison) to a shark whilst doing away that man's new wife. What now ensues is just a series of unremarkable set-piece escapades that have precious little jeopardy to them. Anthony Zerbe just doesn't cut it as the supposedly menacing "Milton Krest" (surely a milk-shake?) nor does Robert Davi as baddie-in-chief "Sanchez". Not that it's unusual for a "Bond" film - but this one really does play a bit too much to stereotype without any of the fun; the tongue-in-cheekiness or any charisma at all from the star very much on the wain here. As adventure films go, it is entertaining enough - there are gadgets; but the banal dialogue grates after a while and this one somehow appears much less "British" than many of it's forebears - certainly it is grittier and more violent. Adequate, but I would not say anything for the far classier and engaging Connery or Moore to worry about.

_**A different kind of Bond**_
Released in 1989, "Licence to Kill" always struck me as the most atypical Bond film. In this one James (Timothy Dalton) goes rogue after a good friend's bride is murdered and the friend is half-eaten by a shark. Stripped of his authority, Bond vengefully goes after the responsible drug lord, Sanchez (Robert Davi).
The opening act drives home that "Licence to Kill" is a more serious and brutal Bond flick. Although there's still a lot of "yeah, right" moments, the comedic edge of past Bond films is all but gone. And the violence is so savage and merciless compared to past films that it almost comes off shocking.
In addition, the spectacular globe-trotting locations are absent in favor of a more one-dimensional setting -- the Florida Keys and Mexico (where the film was shot). Although they do fine with these limited locales, the change is noticeable.
The women are below par as well. Carey Lowell works best as the "Bond girl," but she pales in comparison to, say, Lois Chiles, Luciana Paluzzi and Claudine Auger. Talisa Soto is also on hand as Sanchez' girl and, briefly, Priscilla Barnes.
The opening stunt sequence is alright, but it's unmemorable compared to past Bond films, like "The Living Daylights," "The Spy Who Loved Me" and "Moonraker."
Furthermore, there's an under-developed subplot about a cult guru and the film seems overlong at 133 minutes.
But the movie scores points with effective villains (it wouldn't be right to say "good villains", would it?), particularly Davi and a young Benicio Del Toro, both cruel and sadistic.
FINAL SAY: The fun might be over, but at least they tried something different to stir things up. Unfortunately, it didn't quite work. "Licence to Kill" performed weakly at the box office and ranks with the lesser Bond flicks. Still, it's interesting as an atypical part of the series -- darker and grittier, albeit still comic booky. Plus Dalton is striking as the vengeful protagonist and, if you can hang around till the final act, it's totally kick-axx.
GRADE: B-

Effective immediately, your licence to kill is revoked, and I require you to hand over your weapon.
Licence to Kill is directed by John Glen and written by Richard Maibaum and Michael G. Wilson. It's an original story that uses characters and instances created by Ian Fleming. It stars Timothy Dalton, Carey Lowell, Robert Davi, Talisa Soto, Anthony Zerbe, Desmond Llewelyn, David Hedison, Benicio Del Toro, Frank McRae, Everett McGill and Wayne Newton. Music is scored by Michael Kamen and cinematography by Alec Mills.
Bond 16 and 007 goes rogue when drug baron Franz Sanchez leaves Felix Leiter mutilated and his wife dead. With licence revoked by MI6, Bond has to go it alone to enact revenge for the Leiters.
The controversial Bond for many reasons, Licence to Kill even today has been known to induce fearsome arguments in Bond fan circles. Not since On Her Majesty's Secret Service has a Bond film so polarised opinions. In one corner are the folks who determine it's not a Bond movie, in the other is those who say it's a stripped to the bone human Bond. You either love it or you hate it it seems. True to say that it is more an action thriller than a outright Bond film, no humongous sets, no megalomaniac villain (Davi's drug baron a very realistic menace) and of course there is Bond being pursued by those that have courted him previously as their number one agent. Yet there's a whole raft of scenarios that could only exist in a Bond universe, there's gadgets, too, for those that enjoy that side of Bond. Where else would you see a tanker driving on its side? Or exploding toothpaste and alarm clock, camera's that turn into weapons and a broom that is actually a transmitter? Not Bondian enough? Really?
Licence to Kill is a superior action thriller movie, the script is tight, the cast ace and the picture is crammed full of exceptional action set pieces. From the pre-credits sequence that sees Bond and Leiter enact a mid-air arrest, to the rather brilliant tanker carnage at the finale, the film rarely pauses for breath, and right there in the centre is a brilliant Dalton giving a rogue Bond plenty of layers. He's brainy and classy, fallible and driven, intense and tough, always sexy and always dangerous. Dalton's ability to convey raw emotion as each challenge comes his way is a real treat to watch. But most of all he is right there restoring Bond to being a serious action figure. What Bond fans didn't realise at the time was that it would be 17 years before Bond would be this raw again, then it would be heralded as a brave new start for Bond!
Another of the film's strengths is bringing back Hedison as Leiter, last seen playing the role in Live and Let Die, Hedison has great chemistry with Dalton and it's a joy to see Leiter play an active part in the action on screen. However, the makers do make a misstep by having Leiter be all too jovial at the end of the film, weird since he is minus a limb and his wife was raped and murdered by Sanchez's henchmen. Another big plus is Lowell's Pam Bouvier, a tough and brave Bond girl, sexy as heck, her pilot skills come in handy and she's no mug when it comes to brawling. Lowell does fine work in the role and keeps it away from being a token interest cliché. Davi keeps Sanchez as believable, a very driven drug baron who is cultured and funny, but always pulsing a vicious streak, while McRae has presence, McGill neatly keeps the cards close to his chest, Del Toro a nice line in nastiness and Soto is pretty as a picture and plays Lupe Lamora with skilled vulnerability. And of course there's Llewelyn as Q, who here gets a right old meaty role as he goes out in the field to become Bond's only aid from MI6. Again, not Bondian enough?
Licence to Kill saw the end of Dalton's tenure as Bond, legal issues between Danjaq and MGM/UA meant that no Bond movie would be made for another six years. By then Dalton had moved on to other work and was 51. It also marked the end of production duties for Cubby Broccoli, the final direction by John Glen (5 Bond films in total), Richard Maibaum's last script and the last performances by Robert Brown as M and Caroline Bliss as Moneypenney. One of the many misconceptions about the Dalton era is that Licence to Kill was a flop, it made $156 million worldwide, considerably down on The Living Daylights but more than A View to a Kill. A huge profit of over $100 million, this in spite of it being pitched against Batman and sequels to beloved American films by a studio head who had no idea how to market a film. The best actor to take on the role of Bond, Dalton's impact on the series cannot be overstated, he (rightly so) is very proud of his work in the two films and still talks very fondly of a role he respected beyond compare. 9/10

My favorite out of the series. Not only is this funny but they take turns trying to show each other up in there killings. Really love this movie.

_Bride of Chucky_ was the true turning point for the franchise, and though they hadn't 100% embraced comedy at this point like they did in the followup, there's still at least as much humour and reference in this one as there is elements of "horror". The central premise of a horror road trip, where the lead couple each believe the other party is the culprit (and are both wrong) is pretty solid, as is the final showdown, but the connective tissue is a bit wishy washy, and the inability to commit to a tone doesn't serve the movie very well, putting it at a lower point than any of its predecessors.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

I'm sorry but this low budget disaster got zero interest from me. The props were horrid. The story was ridiculous; really, it was just so "stupid". Maybe I should be using bigger words, but this movie was just awful in every way.
I rarely give up on a movie; I feel like someone shouldn't give a movie a bad review unless they've seen the entire thing. I've seen the entire thing, finally. It was almost painful to get through. It is just a cheap and dreadful production. The SyFy channel makes better quality garbage than this.

Free will is obviously not a big factor in this little world of ours.
Hee, yet another David Cronenberg picture that divides opinions, not just among the casual film watchers, but also his most ardent fans.
Plot is a little nutty in actuality, as it finds Jennifer Jason Leigh as the world's most high profile games designer. While testing her new virtual reality game out with a focus group, an assassination attempt puts her on the run with an ally of sorts, marketing man Ted Pikul (Jude Law). With the prototype of the new game in their possession, the pair must enter the game's realm to unlock the various puzzles and threats that now confounds and stalks them.
With Cronenberg back to writing something solely from his own head, eXistenZ finds the Canadian auteur happy to be back making a truer piece of work for his kinked visions. Unfortunately the advent of such virtual reality fare and various realist themes was well in filmic swing come the time eXistenZ was released, rendering it in some eyes as a band wagon jumper. That's unfair, because it's still a unique film, as Cronenberg blends body horror with visual invention to create a mind warp of gaming possibilities, a thrum thrum of futuristic verve. He gets top performances out of Leigh (great hair as well) and Law, while the narrative is constantly tricky enough to demand the viewer pays attention whilst being prepared to, perhaps, be surprised.
Not prime Cronenberg, but still smart and funky, twisty and nutty, scary and oblique. So very much a Cronenberg original, then. 8/10

"Okay, so basically, The Losers Club all get together for a rescue mission, and they head into the sewers by going through the well-house to face Pennywise, but the-"
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

What starts off feeling like a low-budget drama, How It Ends evolves into a stylistic sci-fi film with some really nice special effects that show off the feature-length’s estimated $20M budget. But the movie is not without its flaws.
Theo James seems almost lifeless as “Will” in this post-apocalyptic adventure – did he ever establish a character before getting on camera? It doesn’t feel like it. James lumbers through scenes, lacks depth, and is just never believable as a man on a mission to save his pregnant fiancé from impending doom.
Forest Whitaker is Forest Whitaker as the goateed “Tom” who sets on a journey with Will, his soon-to-be son-in-law, to find his daughter Samantha. Whitaker rescues several of the scenes from being completely devoid of expression, but there is only so much you can do when the dialogue is itself so banal.
How It Ends plays like a short film that was extended to feature length. There were scenes that simply could have been cut, or at least shortened to keep the pace quicker. With the right editing, the one-hour, fifty three-minute film would have been more effective at ninety minutes. But maybe Netflix steers for lengthier content — the longer the program the longer viewers are streaming from the service — and that must be good for stockholders.
Entire Review: ‘How It Ends’ (Netflix Original Film) https://goo.gl/4rMqpU

I was but ten years old when this was released, so never saw it at the cinema at the time - but boy was it big news. John Travolta was fêted all around the world as the white-suited hipster "Tony Manero" who almost glided around the city streets - and the dance floor. Determined to improve his lot, he enters a disco competition which he thinks will change his life and what ensues for about two hours is his story. Sadly, it's not much of a story. He's not a very engaging fellow; treats women badly, has a mouth on him that could strip paint and is constantly at loggerheads with his hard working, decent, old man. Things take a turn for the more complicated when the apple of everyone's eye - his priest brother "Frank" (Martin Shakar) returns home announcing his intention to give up the priesthood for a life that doesn't require celibacy. Luckily, "Tony" teams up on the dance floor with the spunky "Stephanie" (Karen Lynn Gorney) - a woman even more ambitious for a clean start than him - and that is where the film eventually takes off. On the dance floor, with the disco ball working it's magic and a collection of superb Bee Gees tracks that cannot fail to get your toes tapping. "Night Fever"; "Staying Alive"; If I Can't Have You" and the more slow tempo'd "How Deep Is Your Love" make the soundtrack way, way, more memorable than this otherwise tawdry, tacky look at life in New York in the mid 1970s. Travolta is the star, his walk and his cocky style stand him apart from the rest of this rather depressingly anodyne story - but in the end it's a film about aspiration, dancing and the Bee Gees, and the latter elements are well worth watching.

Great snapshot of the disco era with compelling characters and story
RELEASED IN 1977 and directed by John Badham, "Saturday Night Fever" is a drama/musical detailing events in Brooklyn where a group of Italian-American youths led by Tony Manero (John Travolta) work dead-end jobs, rumble with Hispanics and meet babes at the local discothèque where Tony is a champion dancer. Donna Pescow plays his needy wannabe girlfriend while Karen Lynn Gorney plays his dance partner for a big contest.
This was a huge hit in its day and the catalyst for disco fever throughout the world. To this day you’ll see people mimic Travolta’s iconic dance stance with one arm pointing upward and the corresponding leg out. John was in the prime of his life at 22 during shooting (a great inspiration for guys to get in shape) and already popular due to TV’s Welcome Back Kotter. “Saturday Night Fever” shot him to stardom, making him a household name.
The movie’s hit status was deserved because of its emphasis on the ordinary, but interesting protagonists and their entertaining drama, not to mention the dynamic dance sequences and popular soundtrack featuring the Bee Gees. There are several quality scenes, including one with the magnificent Brooklyn Bridge as a backdrop. Watch for 19 year-old Fran Drescher making her acting debut in a glorified cameo.
THE MOVIE RUNS 1 hour 58 minutes and was shot in Brooklyn, New York City. WRITERS: Nik Cohn (story) and Norman Wexler (screenplay).
GRADE: A-/B+

One of my all-time favorite films, Saturday Night Fever is a cult classic! It never ages. And yes, my mother took my big brother and me directly to the record store afterwards, where she purchased the Saturday Night Fever soundtrack. We played the needle through it when we got home. (Laughs) Dynamite soundtrack. Dynamite film.

**Some risk taken in romance were unimaginable.**
First of all, I did not know it was a real event based film until the texts from the film's end. But even before that I liked it very much. The film was very edgy, I have not seen such film in a quite long time. It feels like a familiar theme, but that is only the theme, the story was marginally different. Emma Watson was amazing, maybe this her best performance I have seen so far in her career. Daniel Bruhl was not bad either and so other co-stars.
The locations, the atmosphere created for narrating the tale, all were amazing, just feels like a very real. The story of a young German couple in the 70s Chile, when the military coup takes place, the supporters of the overthrown president were arrested including these two. Now they are separated and one of them was sent to a secret detention camp. The other one decides to rescue him by risking her own life by joining the same organisation. That's the film to reveal how she plans and all other troubles during her undertaking.
Despite what this film reveals, very sad to read the end text. I have been looking for such kind of thriller for some time, so really I'm happy I saw this one. The pace was moderate, but the developments at the right time gives the edge. So from the entertainment perspective to revealing facts, this film well managed. From the director of 'John Rabe', another same intensity film, the majority of those who watch it would definitely like it. The thriller film fans must not miss it.
_8/10_

I liked it. It's good weekend movie or late night flick. It's not terribly deep but it has good special effects and good quality acting. The action scenes, when there needs to be action, are good. There is a good flow from scene to scene which staves off that dreaded "grade B film" feel.
The comedy is good and not overly done or cheesy. I liked the sector chief, he was funny for being the grimey-boss. And Snoop Dogg was okay in the same laid back way he is. I still believe he fit the role of Jimmy Bones a lot better; though that movie was definitely for the $5 bin at Walmart. I believe Snoop would do very well as a Master Vamp or boss-guy-sitting-in-the chair type figure. As long as he doesn't have to emote. He does very well in line delivery which makes great comedy if you know how to write for him.
All the actors did well in their roles. The villaness was good in her role, very arrogant & dispicable (nice on the eyes). The two vamp-killing brothers were both funny and performed great in their action scenes. And the speical effects, car chase scenes, and both the Home invasion and Nest scenes were top notch. The studio got their moneies worth when they hired the stuntman company.
I do think they went a little hard with the "wimpy" sidekick thing. I didn't expect what happened to Franco's character to happen. I thought maybe he'd get his act togther when the circumstances got intense, but the writers took him in another direction that suprisingly (though not terribly original) made sense with the story.
And I'm not sure WHY, but I keep getting Dave Franco and Zac Efron confused for one another...? (maybe it's the eyebrows) Franco has been in a number of teen movies and blockbusters...sorta kinda. I liked the _Fright Night_ re-make, _Neighbors 1 & 2_,(despite Seth Rogan being poison since the Santa Inc. debacle) and the _Now You See Me 1 & 2_ movies. He's not terrible. He did well for his character (and props to his stuntman) in this movie.
As I said before, this is a good vampire movie. It's not exactly _Fright Night_, or _30 Days of Night_, but definitely holds its own. If I had to give it similarity by comparison, then I would say it leans more toward _Dusk til Dawn_, than anything else.
Good Luck in your viewing!
-- Bob --