A cliche wrapped up in cliche. He's down on his luck, his wife's leaving him with his kid, he needs money....he hunts vampires in between cleaning pools...
Day Shift is an anaemic vampire flick, that has teeth, in the same way as grandad has dentures.Unoriginal, slow, cheesy (in a bad a way) with moderately watchable action, which arrives late.
In summary, a thoroughly mediocre action film with a sprinkling of vampires. Enough said.

**Overall : Day Shift is not without flaws but is a blast from start to finish with great action and fun characters.**
Did not expect to enjoy this as much as I did! Day Shift brings a fresh new vibe to the vampire hunter genre, with most of the movie taking place in the bright sunny suburbs of LA. The action and fight sequences near John Wick-level choreography (which is not surprising since Chad Stahelski is involved) and the world built by Day Shift is intriguing and worth further exploration in future films. Jamie Foxx and Dave Franco have fun buddy cop chemistry, and some of the other characters might not be well developed but are still entertaining. I would love to see more from this franchise.

MORE SPOILER-FREE REVIEWS @ https://www.msbreviews.com/
"Day Shift is one of the most pleasant surprises of the year!
As expected, it doesn't reinvent the wheel - formulaic screenplay and paper-thin characters - but the care and dedication involved in the stunt choreography, minimal use of CGI, and extraordinary camerawork (Toby Oliver) make this project packed with action - sometimes even too much - one of the most entertaining vampire movies of the last decade.
Jamie Foxx serves well enough as the badass protagonist in J. J. Perry's first feature film - the former stuntman impresses in such a way that he could easily become a well-recognized director within the action genre.
It's not a bad plan for a weekend watch with family and friends."
Rating: B-

It's one of those crap remakes, where they take an original that everyone loves, then they dumb it down to reach the Millennial Generation, and then they make it worse.
The original was more psychological and made to seem realistic. This one seemed more like a slasher film. But I guess that is what happens when you start remaking shows to appeal to people that don't want to think at all.
In the original, it was really your imagine that created the scares. In this one its made for people with no imagination to run wild and the difference is self apparent.
Stay away. The premise just doesn't work for the new generation's tastes.

**The history repeats, and so the story in some sequel films!**
This is the third film is the 'Blair Witch' film series, but the second film from the story perspective. Anyway, I haven't seen the other sequel, you do not have to be familiar with that to follow this one. So I saw it, but what I thought is, basically this film is exactly same as the first film. Just the characters and timeline changed, that's all.
They had nothing much of choice, so the story was repeated with the modern equipments. A new set of people, including a brother of one of those went missing two decades ago, heads to the same woods to investigate. But soon they all begin to witness strange, horrifying events. Now it becomes their survival game of getting out safe from there, but would they? Is what the film's end to notify us.
If you are a horror genre fan, particularly about the killing stuffs, then you might enjoy it. Other than that it was not scary, well, it was not for me. The today's generation might enjoy it better, but if you are like above 30 and already saw the original, this will be an average or trash. So young people should watch it. For me, it was okay, because I was not expecting anything from it. So I hope they end it here, no to another sequel or the reboot.
_6/10_

When _The Blair Witch Project_ burst upon the cinematic scene in 1999 it was an unspeakable breath of fresh air because it deviated away from the conventional creepers that marched to the same old boo-enhanced beat. Sure, _The Blair Witch Project_ certainly was not blessed with the most creative screenplay nor could anybody definitively state that the acting was convincing to the point of no return. Nevertheless, the genuine shocks were ideally realized due to the execution of this little indie terror tale that managed to sell a morbid mystique that translated into a gory goldmine at the box office. Hence, _The Blair Witch Project_ became an unlikely sensation trending around its distinctive flair for what has become the ubiquitous and overused found footage genre nowadays.
Indeed, _The Blair Witch Project_ sparked a creepy curiosity and gave birth to a unique movement in horror flicks where it managed to formulate a whole refreshing perspective to digesting frightfests based on the art of eerie suggestion through the power of promotion. Of course the “promotion” in this case presented a group of periled young people (the typical expendable guinea pigs in this kind of cinema) armed with cameras as they explored the Maryland-based woods that would end up creating a speculative frenzy about what remained through the lens of shaky images as these sitting ducks ran for dear life. Thus, the atmospheric vibes and presumed doom of these wandering targets in the woods captured a whole welcoming imagination to the manner in which little imaginative horror gems could rival the big-budgeted spook spectacles coming out of the Hollywood machine.
Naturally, _The Blair Witch Project_ (as most horror-based original blueprints) was enthusiastic to capitalize on its big screen impact but not without the amount of success it originally generated the first time around. Some may recall the tepid sequel in 2000’s _Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2_ that left a dull mark for those that were stimulated by the amazing first installment. Now it would take a 16-year gap to wipe off the nostalgic dust of a boorish _Blair_ outing for another entry in the pale and anemic imitation **Blair Witch**. Unfortunately, director Adam Wingard (“You’re Next”, “The Guest”) has no absolute vision or hearty energy to channel **Blair Witch** into a scary showcase worthy of its own garish identity. Wingard and screenwriter Simon Barrett merely conjure up a shadowy copycat of _The Blair Witch Project’s_ goose-bumpy reputation as **Blair Witch** is rendered a listless retread. Look, there is nothing wrong with attempting to recycle the spirit of an unassuming ground-breaking horror fable that gave considerable forethought to how movie-going fans viewed scary movies in general. Still, there is a time and place for gloom-and-doom experimentation in the heart of the wicked-minded woods that worked its magic prior to the millennium age of movie-making. However, 17-plus years later there is no excuse for **Blair Witch** to be lame and lazy in its artificial scares given its continuation to carry on _The Blair Witch Project’s_ haunting bloodline.
**Blair Witch’s** premise centers on the special bond of a brother-sister duo…or shall we say brother-missing sister duo. James (James Allen McCune) wants to look into the 20-year disappearance of his sister Heather who vanished in the Black Hills Forest. James is almost certain that Heather is alive and well. Furthermore, he contends that perhaps Heather is an instrumental part of the Blair Witch legend that exists. So James sets out to investigate his sister’s whereabouts but not without his entourage joining him.
Among James’s friends that journey into the deep woods are Lisa (Callie Hernandez), boyfriend-girlfriend team Peter and Ashley (Brandon Scott and Corbin Reid) not to mention a couple of tour guides in Lane and Talia (Wes Robinson and Valorie Curry). In particular, Lisa has another reason to go trekking through the fearsome forest with James and company–she needs to bring along her camera and record her adventures for a film school project. And so James and his crew foolishly set out to chase the notion of survivalist Heather as Lisa concentrates on her agenda to helm a documentary-style thesis for her film-making studies. Soon, the telegraphed chaos ensues for which **Blair Witch** fanatics are accustomed to by now. The serving of the repetitive shaky cam, the so-called spontaneous hysterics and nerve-racking aura of the surrounding woods comes off as a hammy, inconsequential effect. The chills and thrills are relentlessly watered-down. Plus, **Blair Witch** does not effectively utilize its low-budgeted charm to convey the mounting tension…at least to the degree that made the original edition more appealing in its small scare toxicity.
Routinely, **Blair Witch** is manufactured with all the creativity and originality of a haunted house’s creaky door searching to be lubricated. There is nary any genuine shocks or jolts that register with an impacting punch. The recipe for **Blair Witch** is a shameless by-the-dots regurgitation of the aforementioned 1999 trail-blazing woodsy terrain-terror treat. The film gets off to a rather clumsy start spotlighting lapses of silly-minded fodder to compliment the toothless scares. Sadly, the gradual build-up is relentlessly standard and morphs into typical cheesy slasher fare with an obligatory methodical pick-off of the scattering youthful prey. The only positive take that **Blair Witch** wears with a badge of honor is its advantageous usage of technological upgrading (both demonstrated on screen based on the characters’ sophisticated equipment in the storyline and the behind the scenes shoot). In being a louder and flashier production does not automatically constitute **Blair Witch** as a well-received found footage horror show. In fact, Wingard’s twitchy narrative fails despite the applied modern-day filming flourishes. In hindsight, transparent scares just does not cut it anymore in the realm of the horror universe.
Structurally redundant as it travels down the familiar wooden path, Wingard does have high regard for the reminiscences of _The Blair Witch Project’s_ legacy but it is too bad that he could not emphasize his cinematic appreciation more soundly in this woefully flaccid, forest-bound frightener.
**Blair Witch** (2016)
Vertigo Entertainment
1 hr. 29 mins.
Starring: James Allen McCune, Callie Hernandez, Brandon Scott, Valorie Curry, Wes Robinson, Corbin Reid
Directed by: Adam Wingard
MPAA Rating: R
Genre: Horror
Critic’s rating: * 1/2 stars (out of 4 stars)
(c) **Frank Ochieng** 2016

Literally the very last line of the entire movie made me laugh, that was the first time I'd laughed too.
_Final rating:★½: - Boring/disappointing. Avoid where possible._

I thought this film would be a cross between 'Superbad' and 'Zombieland'. I think I was too accurate. There is nothing original about this film. I suppose originality is not what you are looking for when sitting down to this film which is fair enough but every single character has been ripped from the pages of previous 'teen' movie scripts that have gone before it and the humour doesn't even make it stand out.
The story does move on slightly from the tiresome quest of American teenagers wanting to get laid when the zombies appear (spoiler alert!) which kept my interest slightly. The over-the-top gore was fun but only distracted me slightly from how poor the other aspects of the film were.
Overall, the screenplay and performances are nothing to write home about but it was quite well directed.
★★½

> Scouts guide to the night of the living dead.
At first I believed it was a children's horror movie, I have not even known it was rated R. In the opening scene itself convinced me that it's going to be aggressive as the progression commence. Yeah, it lived up to my last minute expectation. A fine time pass movie for the regular audience, definitely it won't suits for the critics' viewing.
When the three friends find virus outbreak in their town that turns everyone into zombies, they plan to make into a safe place along saving a few others in their attempt. Surely this is what every zombie movie you have seen dealt with. The same old adventure in zombie theme, but the characters and the scenarios were different with lots of fun. I was surprised at that part, surely a cult status will be tagged for it.
Overall movie was decent, but being a horror-comedy was its strength. Just leave the logics behind and enjoy the entertainment it offers. In the end you will be convinced for your patience. It is the movie you might like it, but can't give full marks. One of the many reasons was, it is not a mainstream actor or the filmmaker's film. But still the entire team was awesome, and delivered its purpose. It was not a box office hit, but still I expect there will be a sequel.
7/10

We certainly get the inside joke about wanting to skewer something as raucous and ridiculous as lambasting nonsensical and numbing grade B horror flicks that are worthy of such scrutiny. After all, the temptation is just too much to resist in not exposing such throwaway thrills of intentional insipidness, correct? Plus, incorporating a mixture of smarmy filth and frolic involving menacing zombies, hormonal teens, bouncy bimbos and any other fright-driven clichés that one can think immediately off-the-cuff should be enough to satisfy the creepy concoction of craziness, right? Well wrong...especially when the experimental goosebump gags fall flat and feel synthetically repetitive in the over-indulgent and inane fear farce Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse.
Sure, some will automatically gravitate to the outlandish Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse and invite the spirit of the movie's manufactured foolishness as an elaborate playful put-on. In many ways, co-writer/director Christopher Landon wants to promote the silly-coated salaciousness of his teasing teen-oriented terror tale with a sly wink and anticipates that the audience will embrace Zombie Apocalypse as an unconventional, naughty-minded tangy treat for giddy thrill-seekers. Sure, Landon's off-kilter humor horror show is meant as an escapist ruse and wears its badge of honor as a brain-dead flesh-and-blood fright fable garnering cheap chuckles. Nevertheless, Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse feels relentlessly lazy, mean-spirited and connects as a raunchy wasteland of sluggish juvenile jolts and jabs.
There is no excuse for Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse to present such a witless, misplaced macabre mess. In an age where spoofing zombie flicks in cinema can be high-minded and heralded in both creepiness and creativity in the shadows of such riotous offerings as Shaun of the Dead and Zombieland, it is inexplicable how something like the rancid and toothless Zombie Apocalypse can be so arbitrarily clueless and contemptible in its strained search for crafting off-balance laughs. Again, it is realized that zombie cinema--however serious or silly-minded--is not exactly on the food chain of being considered a viable selection for the American Film Institute anytime soon. Still, there should at least have been some sense of smartness and perception injected in the aimless zaniness that Zombie Apocalypse emits routinely in its languished lunacy. Instead, Landon and his fellow screenwriters invite a series of empty-minded shock value shrills to the proceedings and hopes that the viewers will embrace the cluttered chaos without question. Sadly, some will do just that (read: the indiscriminate teen demo in general) as they will go with the flow and bask in the baseless swamp of tasteless titillation. Consequently, Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse is about as adventurous, amusing and intriguing as a medieval stoning in a rural town square.
Undoubtedly, Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse needs the approval of its boys locker room impishness to feature such graphic and goofy-minded displays of sexual body part piercings to pad the already morose stupidity put forth in desperate vain. If your idea of horror-minded high jinks include the subjection of zombie-related severed penises and constant groping of female breasts then guess what...Zombie Apocalypse will certainly satisfy one's hormonal guilty pleasures in a heartbeat. In addition, it pays to also have some stunt casting and add to the dumb cheekiness where the likes of the once celebrated Oscar and Emmy-winning veteran actress Cloris Leachman serves as the token oldster to certify the gimmicky warped proceedings (perhaps Leachman's former Mary Tyler Moore Show co--star in the beloved pop cultural and iconic Betty White was not available to sign on the dotted line for this teen terror train-wreck?).
The premise, while highlighting the gore and boyhood gratification of wet dreams, involves a group of youngsters that belong to a scouting organization while being taught the efficiency of leadership and self-reliance. Naturally, these boys will put their merit badges to the test as they must combat the overflowing presence of threatening zombies that are infiltrating their small community. Not only must these adolescents learn to battle each other competitively and tackle their own nagging growing pains but know they must band together and slaughter the walking dead menaces that look to make some serious ominous waves within their bedroom town.
The teenage terminators that are called into action are Ben, Carter and Augie (played by Tye Sheridan, Logan Miller and Joey Morgan). Of course this trio fits into the distinctive archetype of youth labeling. Ben is the clean cut kid with some semblance of sensibility. Carter is a handful as the insufferable horndog. Lastly, Augie is the geeky hanger-on. So there you have it--the mini-sized Three Musketeers out to destroy some zombie butt and take down numbers in the process.
The feminine eye candy wrapped up in this monstrous madness includes Carter's sister Kendall (Halston Sage). Kendall also serves as the convenient object of affection for the love-struck Ben. And what would a horror flick be without the resident curvaceous gun-toting, butt-kicking beauty with the killer instinct of zombie zapping? In this case, that role would go to strip club siren Denise (Sarah Dumont) whose skill in eradicating the zombie pests as she struts around like an armed jiggly cheerleader in heat becomes increasingly distracting (or maybe not for some that might find this bombastic and busty Barbie Doll lustfully "liberating").
The boys' scout leader (former Saturday Night Live alum David Koechner) is the accident-prone wonder whose penchant for overcoming various injuries is supposedly laughable yet the joke of his clumsy confrontations quickly tires out and grows old. However, the scout leader is essential to the storyline for the tykes because he suffers the fate of becoming one of the zombies that needs to be destroyed. It certainly does not help matters any when poor Kendall's safety is jeopardized and the boys (especially Ben in particular) along with Denise's assisted brashness must rescue Carter's pretty sibling and protect the town's masses from the zombie intruders.
For the most part, Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse is a woefully tepid tease that does not care much about its sloppy execution. The scattershot script constructed by Landon and fellow scribers Carrie Evans, Emi Mochizuki and Lona Williams vacillates back and forth in complete cartoonish chaos and it is never clear as to why any of us would want to put stock in hoping that the periled protagonists of this banal roguish romp emerge victorious? The combination of humor, sentimental vibes and sketchy scare tactics overlap and is perceived as annoyingly inconsistent. The deplorable and disposable foundation for the sexual depiction of the females in Zombie Apocalypse is insulting and does not invite any sense of truth or revelation besides flashing feminine skin for the sake of giving this horror hiccup some trivial sauciness. The hoards of zombies being butchered in some imaginative selective scenes is at first kind of challenging in an offbeat, exaggerated sort of sinister way. The repetitive slaughtering gradually becomes off-putting and you are left wondering rather or not you were better off chopping off your own limbs for enduring this boisterous bomb in the first place.
Hopelessly choppy and chintzy, Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse could have been stunningly irreverent and still carried out its nuttiness with a coherent slice of clever mockery attached to its brand of mayhem. The zombies genre seems all the rage now within today's pop cultural climate. Of course with the continued disconnected gory gumption of damaged duds such as Apocalypse the future invitation of visiting the zombie zone in entertainment may become as extinct as the dinosaur.
Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse (2015)
Paramount Pictures
1 hr. 33 mins.
Starring: Tye Sheridan, Logan Miller, Joey Morgan, Sarah Dumont, David Koechner, Halston Sage, Cloris Leachman, Patrick Schwartzenegger
Directed and Co-Written by: Christopher Landon
MPAA Rating: R
Genre: Horror and Suspense
Critic's rating: * 1/2 stars (out of 4 stars)
(c) Frank Ochieng (2015)

_**Even great people have a dud on occasion**_
A British boy (Christian Bale) living with his wealthy parents in Shanghai is separated from them when Japanese forces invade in the early years of WW2. He then has to survive the war in a POW camp. John Malkovich, Miranda Richardson, Nigel Havers and Joe Pantoliano play fellow prisoners.
Based on J.G. Ballard’s semi-autobiographical novel, “Empire of the Sun” (1987) was Steven Spielberg’s first venture into ‘meaningful’ filmmaking. It’s not without historical interest. For instance, the beginning situation in China is compelling, highlighted by a potent ‘slap’ scene that wakes the pompous kid up to reality.
From there, though, the movie becomes a tedious prison camp flick with too many ambiguities and drawn-out scenes. Bale does an admirable job in a challenging role, especially considering his age, but IMHO he overdoes it and so the boy comes off hyperactive and annoying. Check out the low-key indie “I Am David” (2003) for a more effective take on similar material.
The film runs 2 hours, 33 minutes and was shot in China, England and Spain (you can fairly easily figure out which parts were shot where).
GRADE: C/C-

Empire of the Sun glaringly shines insight into the impoverished wealthy amidst war-torn China. Spielberg is one of a handful of directors that everyone acknowledges. Whether your interest lies with films or elsewhere, he is known to all for his eclectic filmography that tackles nearly every single genre available. The beauty of his directorial talents, is that he can manipulate any subject matter and transform its contents into an accessible piece of entertainment. From hard-hitting crime capers (‘The Sugarland Express’) to the depiction of African-Americans succumbing to racial/sexist abuse (‘The Color Purple’). He has the ornate ability to disassemble history and shape the remnants into his Hollywood mould. But at what cost?
Does Spielberg’s contagious requirement for accessibility downplay the severity of its subject matter? Well, Empire of the Sun may just be the most perfect example to answer the aforementioned question. It illustrates my eternal adoration for the man as an auteur, as well as his damned tendencies that bring down his historical endeavours. A young British boy living with his wealthy family in war-torn Shanghai, becomes separated from his parents where he is soon retained as a prisoner of war in an internment camp.
An epic adaptation of Ballard’s semi-autobiographical novel, that heavily relied on a fictitious narrative to convey his own vivid memories of World War Two. A story of three vital themes that power both the characters and the central narrative. Opulence, faith and humanity. Spielberg commences the first act in a worrying light of unnecessary affluence, following a white family with an abundance of possessional wealth traversing the segregated streets of Shanghai embattled by poverty. The bitter aftertaste of supremacy as “peasants” desperately fight for survival. Whilst it may harken to real events, they make for unlikeable characters due to their careless perception in the environment they are enshrouded in. The father and mother are non-characters, merely acting as fuel for Jim’s coming-of-age journey, and Spielberg paid far less attention to the surrounding chaos which consequently diminished the severity of the war’s impact. It can be argued that the entire story, including the first act, is told through Jim’s perspective. But the naive ignorance to represent the lives that were truly affected was extremely profound.
Then Jim, in the crowded streets of Shanghai, becomes separated from his parents. Mugged, abandoned and lost. His opulent lifestyle relinquished from his selflessness. Gradually, Spielberg constructs an epic that conveys the loss of innocence. This once fragile young boy, unbeknown to the horrors of the world, now utilising his intuition to survive the brutality of war independently. Spielberg definitely downplayed the brutalism of conflict, and instead opted for an endearing focus on Jim’s abrupt development from a timid boy to unsung hero. Unsurprisingly, it worked. Spielberg’s screenplay presents Jim with a plethora of challenges that tests the will of humanity in its entirety. From attempting to escape the internment camp to resuscitating the recently deceased. Jim encompasses every notion of humanity during this heightened time, naturally making him relatable. His actions slowly further his development into adulthood in such a short space of time, with much gratification aimed at Spielberg’s masterful attention to characterisation.
Initially proclaimed as an atheist, Jim experiences metaphysical moments believed to be acts of faith, likening him to a deity of some kind. “Giving life” for a brief moment to the recently passed, which was an ounce of blood pumped to the brain. Witnessing a soul be released into heaven, however counteracted by the infamous Nagasaki atomic bomb. These “acts” grant Jim the power of self-belief, fully realising his potential as the “hero” of optimism.
There’s nothing more optimistic and endearing though than watching a juvenile Christian Bale steal the entire film. Malkovich and Havers ground the enthusiasm of Bale’s performance, yet his commanding presence at such a young age cements him as a talent to behold. Tender moments were handled with delicacy, whilst the louder moments fused with his boisterous personality. Quite simply, one of the best young performances I’ve seen. Williams’ signature score, ever accompanying Spielberg’s work, elevated the grandeur of the spectacular production design yet somewhat exhumed family-friendly vibes commonly found in his previous work. Admittedly that’s a personal conflict of my own, but again did diminish the more powerful scenes. Jim’s fascination with aircraft wasn’t fully realised and felt like an afterthought to coincide with the Japanese “friend” in the final act, although not a substantial detriment to the overall story.
In the blazing heat of war camps, Empire of the Sun shines as an epic that showcases the very reason for my Spielberg idolisation and his cursed ability to lessen the severity of history. Regardless, you’ll laugh, gasp and cry during this coming-of-age tale, and that’s the true beauty of this auteur’s timeless work.

Before watching this movie, we had heard it was one of the best Star Trek movies, if not the best! Compared to the first movie and all the slow scenes for the visuals and nostalgia, this movie blew that one out of the water! We loved how it actually focused on the plot! Also, the CGI and effects were outstanding, having updated the transporter effect and the phaser effects! Along with the new effect for going to warp!! Also, to top off the plot, the dialog was excellent! Don't get me wrong, there were things that could have been better, like the fact that Saavik didn't have the eyebrows of a Vulcun or there being some scenes where it sounded like we were listening to it under water. But those very few things can be overlooked when compared to the overall quality of this movie!! If you want to hear the in-depth review and rating of this movie, come and check out Hopeful Reviews! A podcast that -surprise- reviews, and rates TV Shows and Movies!!
10/10 #blessed!!!

Oh, hey everybody, there is another review pointing out that this is the greatest Star Trek movie every made.
And, hey, there is another review saying how much they loved how it recalled an episode from the original series and turned it into a movie with such high stakes and such a great antagonist.
And, hey look, here is yet another review saying how much they loved how it set off a chain of events that lasted for the next few Star Trek movies and forever changed the lives of the Enterprise crew.
Yeah, I'm just going to say what everyone else has been saying for about 40 years now...
... but, it is all true. It really is, this movie is fantastic in its own rights, but, in the mythos of the Star Trek universe, it is EPIC, just epic.
I almost feel bad reviewing it, you have read this before, over and over again in absolutely every honest review about Khan... but that is only because it is as great as everyone says.

This is much more like it. William Shatner leads our intrepid band of intergalactic explorers on an all action adventure to save the universe for the evil super-intellect of "Khan" (a wonderfully hammy Ricardo Montalban) as he escapes from imprisonment on a desolate desert planet and seeks violent revenge on "Admiral Kirk". This has none of the philosophical pretensions of the first film, it is just a sci-fi shoot 'em up with great visual effects and the occasional chunk of Herman Melville thrown in for theatrical good measure as they strive to stop "genesis" from rearranging everyone's chronometers. Despite the intervention of some interlopers (all part of "Kirk", his past and his love life), the original crew all bond together nicely as we trek towards an exciting conclusion that leaves us well set for "Star Trek III".

After watching the film "Willow" for the first time, it was perceived as a corny yet lovable movie with entertaining moments, albeit with cheesy and lacking depth. While the film has its charm, it may not be one that warrants repeat viewings, as it falls short in terms of overall enjoyment. The storytelling and character development were deemed subpar, failing to create an enchanting or immersive experience as initially anticipated.
Despite "Willow" becoming a cult classic, it ultimately fell into the category of films that are predominantly corny and cheesy. The television series that attempted to capitalize on the movie's cult status failed to live up to expectations, leading to its cancellation after one season. The series struggled to capture the essence of the original film, resulting in a lackluster and unengaging viewing experience.
In conclusion, both the movie and the television series based on "Willow" failed to leave a lasting impact and were ultimately deemed uninspiring and difficult to follow. While the film may have its moments, it may not be enough to warrant a recommendation for viewers looking for a captivating and enjoyable cinematic or television experience.

**Warwick Davis' life movie isn't bad, but it's not really good either.**
Fantasy cinema has experienced moments of brilliance thanks to the creativity of a good number of directors and screenwriters, and also due to the possibilities brought by technology. However, in the past, things were simpler: directors and technical teams of fantasy films were those people used to improvising a lot and thinking outside the box. That skill is a talent, surely, and sometimes it's preferable to do something more traditional than to use CGI resources so absurdly fake that they don't even deserve to be there. This film, despite being far from being good or deserving a praise, is not a waste of time and there are several details where we can observe redeeming qualities.
The film's value begins with the more or less direct involvement of several prominent people in the film industry at the time: a film written by George Lucas and directed by Ron Howard cannot properly be considered a B-movie. Howard directs impeccably, but the truth is that Lucas could have made an additional effort in the script: the story that guides the film is funny, it has good moments, but it is also full of clichés and strange little peculiarities that do not fail to lift us up doubts every moment.
Despite the projection given to Val Kilmer and Joanne Whalley in advertising (it is an understandable maneuver since they are well-known actors), the real protagonist is the dwarf Warwick Davis. Yes, it's not a pristine performance worthy of an award, but he couldn't be much better: the actor was still young and inexperienced, but he managed to show talent and resoluteness, making the most of this beautiful opportunity that appeared in his life. Val Kilmer, although more famous, doesn't need to do much and has few real challenges, while the beautiful Whalley and Jean Marsh are authentic attention grabbers and do an equally satisfying job.
Technically, it is a film whose value lies in the very well-designed sets and costumes, and also in the soundtrack, skilfully composed but a little forgettable. It has several special effects, most of them quite dated, but functional. The problem is that, for a film of the fantasy genre, it ends up having a little less "magic" than would be desirable. And despite the story being a little convoluted, the film picks up a high enough pace that this ends up not being a problem.

Warwick Davis is great in this fantasy as the eponymous fellow charged with keeping a young baby from the evil clutches of the wicked queen "Bavmorda" (Jean Marsh). It has been foretold that this youngster will prove to be the undoing of the reign of terror that has permeated the land, and so this task is going to be perilous to say the least. Arriving at the crossroads, his townsfolk friends decide to abandon him and his quest but fortunately he has recourse to the trapped "Madmartigan" (Val Kilmer) who has been caged up and left to die. Pursued by the queen's battle-hardened daughter "Sorsha" (Joanne Whalley) and her henchman "Kael" (Pat Roach) what now ensues is a grand spectacle of high adventure that features some inspired special effects, a good solid story and some equally engaging characterisations that deliver a traditional good vs. evil scenario. I always support the baddies in movies, and here was no different - but I was very nearly tempted by the courage and decency of "Willow" to switch sides. Kilmer is on good form, his role allows him to flourish with some witty dialogue and plenty of swash and buckle as the denouement - and a magical one at that - looms large. Ron Howard and George Lucas have let their imagination take control here, and I felt it worked rather well. The photography and action scenes work well, and though maybe the story is a bit of an hybrid of others, it still doesn't stop this being an enjoyable David and Goliath style battle that is peppered with some strong supporting performances, some familiar faces and , I think, gets better with age.

It might be that the clever title and the fact that this is backed by an whole host of European film funds is all that makes this rather sterile Western memorable. It's all about the enigmatic "Commodore" (Rutger Hauer) employing the eponymous brothers - "Eli" (John C. Reilly) and "Charlie" (Joaquin Phoenix) to track down the mild-mannered prospector "Kermit Warm" (a rather mis-cast Riz Ahmed) whom he accuses of theft. This isn't the first time he has engaged them, and both are suspicious of the activities of their boss - but he pays well and they quite enjoy their jobs. Whatever the man stole is important enough for "Morris" (Jake Gyllenhaal) to also be employed and it's him who finds their target travelling to San Francisco. He makes all the overtures of friendship, but we quickly learn that he is in cahoots with the "Sisters". Why, though? What did he steal to cause so much effort to retrieve him. Well as that question is answered, might we see a re-alignment of the attitudes of his pursuers? It's billed as a dark comedy, but I can't say I found much humorous in it. Nor did I find much of a rapport between Reilly and an understated Phoenix as the contrived story seemed designed to meander rather than impact. There are a few decent shoot 'em up scenes and it does show just how tough the whole pioneering and prospecting wild west was, but this story seems to be trying to be a little more thoughtful rather than action-packed and for me it fell between two stools. Maybe it would have been better had it lost twenty minutes to tighten it up a bit and lose some of the seemingness endless dialogue that added little to the narrative. Disappointing.

I was looking forward to this. It has two of my favorite actors in it. Unfortunately, I had to give up on watching it. It's impossible to see what's going on. There are some shadows moving about, sometimes covering each other. A dot lights up occasionally on my 55-inch OLED. I can see subtitles, hear the sound. This is apparently one of those "someone invented HDR, that means we should put a cloth over the lens" kind of movies. Such a shame.

_**A plodding and overlong tale of violence and redemption that doesn't seem to know quite what it's trying to say**_
> _You are afraid of hell. But that's all religion is, really. Fear of a place we'd rather not be, and where there's no such a thing as suicide to steal us away._
- Patrick deWitt; _The Sisters Brothers_ (2011)
_The Sisters Brothers_ is a film set in the American Old West, based on a book by a Canadian, made by a mostly French crew, shot primarily in Spain and Romania, featuring a Brit as an American, an American as a Brit, and a British trans comedian as a ruthless American businesswoman. And I don't bring this up out of mere frivolousness; rather, a certain element of schizophrenia is built into the film's very DNA. On the surface it's a Revisionist Western with a gritty Spaghetti aesthetic focusing very much on a group of anti-heroes, but it's also a story of two brothers getting on one another's nerves, a tale of avarice and the destructive potential of progressive thinking, a chase movie, a dark comedy, a tragic fable, an examination of the days when the Old West was giving way to an ever-encroaching modernity, a look at how the sins of the father are oft repeated by the children, a study of competing types of masculinity, and even a political thesis, postulating that there was a time in American history when certain people genuinely believed they could build a harmonious society based on direct democracy and the kind of socialist attitude to capitalism that would make even Bernie Sanders blush.
The English language debut of French director Jacques Audiard, who adapted the script with his regular writing partner Thomas Bidegain from Patrick deWitt's 2011 novel of the same name, the film posits that even those who seem irredeemable may one day find a path to redemption. Very much of a piece with Audiard's more celebrated humanist work such as _De battre mon cœur s'est arrêté_ (2005), _Un prophète_ (2009), and _Dheepan_ (2015), _The Sisters Brothers_ works primarily as a character study about people trying to do what they feel is right in a world arrayed against them. Unfortunately, it did next-to-nothing for me. I wouldn't say it's a bad movie, as it clearly has a lot going for it; not the least of which is an unapologetic foregrounding of character over plot. However, its episodic rhythm, bifurcated narrative structure, and poorly-defined morality left me unengaged, frustrated, and rather bored.
1851; the height of the California Gold Rush. In Oregon, Charlie Sisters (Joaquin Phoenix) and his older brother Eli (John C. Reilly) are hired guns working for "The Commodore" (a criminally underused Rutger Hauer). Far more sensitive and thoughtful than his younger brother, Eli is growing weary of the lifestyle, wanting to retire, settle down, and open a grocery store. The more unpredictable and volatile Charlie, however, wants to keep on killing indefinitely. After a mission descends into disarray, Eli is unimpressed when The Commodore appoints Charlie as "lead man" for their next quarry; a mild-manner chemist named Hermann Kermit Warm (Riz Ahmed). Telling Eli that Warm has stolen something from The Commodore which they are to retrieve, Charlie is under orders to keep their real purpose to himself for the time being. Unsure of Warm's exact location, The Commodore has already sent highly-intelligent tracker John Morris (Jake Gyllenhaal), a man too gentile for killing, to pick up his trail and detain him until the brothers catch up. Keeping them abreast of his progress via a series of letters, it doesn't take long for Morris to find Warm, telling the brothers he will await them in Jacksonville. However, when Warm learns that The Commodore has sent men after him, he explains to Morris that he has created an elixir that when poured into a river, will illuminate any gold deposits on the river bed, with the only catch being that the potion is extremely caustic, and any sustained exposure results in severe burns. Recognising that Morris is only an advance, he guesses that whoever is still to come is under orders to torture the formula out of him and then kill him. Learning that Warm doesn't want to use the gold for himself, but to help establish "_an ideal living space, ruled by the laws of true democracy and sharing_", Morris decides to join him, and they head to San Francisco in an attempt to evade the approaching brothers.
A passion project for star and producer John C. Reilly, who purchased the rights to deWitt's novel shortly after it was published, it was he who first brought the material to Audiard's attention. One of the best-reviewed films at the 2018 Venice Film Festival, where it won Audiard his first Silver Lion for Best Director, when the film went on general release in North America later the same month, it flopped badly, earning only $3 million against a $38 million budget. That's a shame, as Audiard is immensely talented, and although I personally didn't enjoy this particular film, he deserves as much success as he can get. In terms of the novel, I don't know a huge amount about it, but I would imagine Warm's desire to build a Phalanstère in Dallas is inspired by La Réunion, a Fourierist-based utopian community founded in 1855 by Victor Prosper Considerant on the banks of the Trinity River. Wishing to make La Réunion a "communal experiment administered by a system of direct democracy", Considerant planned to allow participants to share in profits from capital investments. However, the settlement lasted only 18 months before financial insolvency, shortage of skilled participants, inadequate farming methods, and untenable maintenance costs led to its dissolution.
As one would expect from Audiard, working with his regular editor Juliette Welfling (_Le scaphandre et le papillon_; _The Hunger Games_; _Ocean's 8_) and production designer Michel Barthélémy (_Dobermann_; _Les salauds_; _Frantz_) and for the first time with cinematographer Benoît Debie (_Irréversible_; _Lost River_; _One More Time with Feeling_) and costume designer Milena Canonero (_Barry Lyndon_; _Chariots of Fire_; _The Grand Budapest Hotel_), the film looks amazing. Very much adopting the visual style of a Spaghetti Western, everything on screen looks dirty and/or dusty, whether it's the worn and lived-in costumes, the spartan and uncared for buildings, or even the perpetually unshaven characters and their rotting teeth (an historically accurate detail absent in most modern westerns). Of particular note are the shootouts, of which there are three significant examples. The first takes place at night, and is shot from a distance and without much in the way of coverage; the second is shot primarily from the point of view of two characters doing their best to hide; and the third isn't seen at all - we remain inside as the shooting can be heard on the street.
This should convey, as well as anything, just how revisionist _The Sisters Brothers_ is; the genre's tropes are all there, but they're examined from unexpected angles. A bear attack on a camp is not only not seen, it's not even heard, with our first indication of the incident being when one character wakes up to find another has shot and killed a bear during the night; men are seen riding horses, but when a horse is mortally wounded, the man to whom he belongs cries and apologises; whisky is drunk aplenty, but one character would rather sit alone thinking about home than go whoring or drinking; a film about hired guns ends on a shot of a man sitting in a bath; the anticipated climatic shootout plays out in a manner you'll never see coming. If it does nothing else, the film really drives home that to be able to truly subvert generic tropes, one must first understand and respect how those tropes work.
The film opens with an extraordinarily beautiful and striking scene. It's night on the prairie, which is so dark, we can make out only the barest outline of a house, with a smaller building nearby. After some shouted dialogue, a shootout begins between the house and the smaller building, with each booming gun blast sending out sparks and illuminating for a micro-second the surrounding area. Having vanquished their opponents, the brothers are about to leave the area, when they see a horse, its back covered in flames, galloping away, trying to outrun the fire from which it doesn't understand it can never escape. Realising the barn is on fire, Eli dashes in to try to save the trapped horses, whilst Charlie urges him to remain outside. Is the metaphor of the burning horse a little on the nose? Absolutely; try as they might, the brothers can never escape that which brings them pain, no matter how far or fast they run. But just because it's not exactly subtle doesn't mean it's ineffective, and as opening visual metaphors go, it's as striking an example as you're likely to find. The scene also immediately establishes the differences between Eli (who would risk his own life to save a group of horses) and Charlie (who sees no point in such sacrifices).
In relation to the _milieu_, yes, this is the Old West of John Ford, Anthony Mann, and Sergio Leone, but Audiard defamiliarises it as much as possible. A recurring theme, for example, is that this is a world on the brink of modernity, but whose inhabitants are still very much rooted in the past. This is depicted via a running gag about Eli's fascination with a curious modern invention (the toothbrush; so complicated a device, it comes with an instruction manual), and his childlike glee at staying in a hotel with indoor plumbing. Elsewhere, Morris remarks on how quickly the country is changing, writing, "_I have travelled through places that didn't exist three months ago. First tents, then houses, then shops, with women fiercely discussing the price of flour._" Additionally, Warm's progressive egalitarian vision for the future and his desire to use his formula to create a better society for all, allows the film to examine the belief (however short-lived) that out of the lawlessness, land thievery, and Native American genocide, a certain section of the populace hoped a more mutually beneficial society might arise.
However, Audiard, of course, is not naïve enough to suggest that the Old West was especially peaceful or safe; although on the cusp of modernity, this is still a merciless place where violence is a form of currency. But even here, he subverts the genre, using a recurring motif of either Charlie or Eli shooting an already downed opponent pleading for his life, which is certainly not what we've come to expect from the (figurative) white hat protagonists so familiar in Hollywood westerns. Coupled with this, there's the ever-present background of the Gold Rush, and the mercenary mentality it fostered. Indeed, the whole plot is set in motion by The Commodore's greed, and as the film goes on, it comes to focus more and more on the clash between a Darwinian survival of the fittest, might is right mentality (represented by Charlie) and a more esoteric and politically progressive way of thinking (represented by Warm), with Eli and Morris functioning as something of a halfway house between the two extremes.
In terms of acting, Phoenix, Gyllenhaal, and Ahmed all have moments to shine (a monologue in which Morris describes his hatred for his father is especially worth looking out for), but this is Reilly's film through-and-through, turning Eli from a possibly oafish sidekick into an achingly human emotional fulcrum. His nuanced performance allows us to see just how badly Eli's conscience is affecting him, and how much he is drifting away from the increasingly amoral Charlie. Eli has no desire to split with Charlie, but he is slowly coming to the conclusion that he may have no option but to do just that. It's an extraordinarily subtle performance by Reilly, that reminded me a lot of his work in Paul Thomas Anderson's _Magnolia_ (1999), where he played a cop in love with a drug addict who shows unexpected emotional vulnerability, and Rob Marshall's _Chicago_ (2002), in which he played the dim but loyal-to-a-fault husband who emerges as the film's only really moral character. His unexpected affection for his horse is especially poignant, and his tendency to sniff a shawl given to him by his girlfriend is beautifully played by Reilly.
However, for all this, I really disliked the movie, for a myriad of reasons. For one, I found it far too episodic, lurching from one incident to next with little in the way of connective tissue between them. I also didn't particularly like the shifts in focus from the brothers on the one hand to Morris and Warm on the other, with each strand serving only to detract from the other, making it impossible for either to fully settle. A knock-on from this is that the film lacks a strong lead character; although everything suggests that Eli is the protagonist, Phoenix is billed above Reilly, and a lot of the time, Eli seems more like Charlie's sidekick than his equal, making it difficult to figure out where one's empathy is supposed to lie. This difficulty becomes especially problematic in relation to the morally questionable _dénouement_, in which there is an incident which seems designed for the audience to roundly condemn one of the main characters, only for the film to then give us a 15-minute epilogue seemingly designed to redeem him.
This throws into relief what for me was the most egregious problem - none of what we see seems to mean anything, there are virtually no consequences for anything the brothers do (although plenty of consequences for others). This left me scratching my head as to what the film is trying to say. Is it suggesting that even the most morally repugnant of men deserve a shot at redemption? If that is the case, however, its rhetorical position is not especially cogent, as the character mentioned above in no way deserves redemption, allowing his greed and stubbornness to cause untold suffering to others whilst he gets off relatively scot-free. Furthermore, the aforementioned epilogue is hugely anticlimactic, which, I understand, is kind of the point, but it's still a very strange way to wrap things up, feeling forced and emotionally manipulative, completely out of tonal and thematic pace with the rest of the film, and also undermining what could have been a deeply affecting bittersweet final scene. The film is also far too long, and could easily have lost a half hour or more, with the meandering plot becoming interminably boring on more than one occasion.
As a kind of an aside, it's also worth mentioning an aesthetic decision that has me baffled. On occasion, the film is shot within a circular frame (think of how films often simulate POV through a telescope), often combined with racked focus and unsteady photography. I'm assuming the idea is to try to replicate the style of a Kinetograph, but given that device wouldn't be invented for another four decades, I'm not entirely sure what the point is, as the scenes which employ the style don't seem to contain anything to justify the usage. An especially strange example is a scene which sees Charlie speaking direct-to-camera, the only example of such in the whole film. Is this a break in the fourth wall, and if so, why? If it isn't a break, from whose POV is the scene shot? This kind of unjustified visual trickery pulls you right out of the film and offers next-to-nothing in the way of thematic compensation.
The four performances at the heart of _The Sisters Brothers_ earn it a great deal of leeway. But even taking that into account, I just couldn't get into it. Far too plodding and thematically unfocused, although I initially liked the characters a great deal, by the last act, I just wanted it to end already. It's certainly original in how it approaches a number of generic tropes, and that's to be commended, but the imprecise and poorly constructed episodic narrative saps away the goodwill built up by the aesthetic design and the acting. Is it a western? A comedy? A tragedy? An esoteric political piece? A realist depiction of greed trumping idealism? In the end, it doesn't seem to know itself, trying to be many things, and ending up being none of them.

Certainly the better of the two Westerns I've seen today, but I'm also not really feeling the love with _Sisters Brothers_ like everybody else seems to be.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

**One of the most striking films in Luc Besson's work.**
This is perhaps one of the most iconic films in the cinematographic work of Luc Besson, who is one of those directors who are hardly consensual or pleases everyone, but has an undeniable talent. The story revolves around a rebellious girl who becomes involved in a crime and the death of a police officer. Arrested, she seems completely out of control, is violent and seems to hate everyone who speaks to her. What happens next is perhaps the most poorly explained twist in the entire film: someone has the idea of faking her death in prison and taking her, against her will, to a spy training center run by the French government. Between a rock and a hard place, she has no option but to become a highly trained assassin.
The film is quite good, if we exclude the first half hour, which is quite surreal and in which the events are very underwritten. Luc Besson, who directed and wrote the script, is very good, but he didn't know how to put that young woman in a situation where she actually had to become a professional spy. Besides, why her? What was so special about her that she was forcibly selected for something so sensitive and where cold blood is so essential? In any case, from the moment he does this, the film runs smoothly and glides effortlessly until the end.
Anne Parillaud is good enough for the role and gives it what she needed, but she is not at all an attractive or sensual woman, as the film tries to sell, showing her with barely any clothes on whenever she can. Jean Reno does a very good job, although short, which seems like a rehearsal for what the actor will do later, in “Léon”. Marc Duret and Patrick Fontana gave life to the two main actors in a very correct and committed way. On a technical level, I would highlight the effects, discreet but effective, and the choice of sets and filming locations. Personally, I hated the soundtrack, but that was a problem in other Besson films, not just this one. It seems that the director has a particular taste for soundtracks that seem to be taken from cheap erotic films.

Upon cinematic release, being fascinated with Bridget Fonda, I watched 'Point of No Return', which I enjoyed but had no idea it was based on Besson's film. Badham's work was okay in my books, but nothing spectacular. Over the years I had loved those films of his I had seen ('Leon: The Professional', 'The Fifth Element', 'The Family' and 'Lucy'), and decided I wanted to see his earlier classic. I like the fact that Besson always has some hand in the writing, and the exquisite and graceful small part he wrote for acting legend Jeanne Moreau, virtually a microcosm of everything splendid she had ever brought to the screen. Besson has a very good feel for the genres his films represent--he plays to his strengths, and is not afraid to stick to his guns (for example, I'm glad he chose the ending that he did). The two significant extras on my DVD, remarking on the making of the film, and the sound selections by scorer Eric Serra, were both informative and entertaining, and added significant value. I highly recommend the experience to those who only think of 'The Fifth Element' when they think of Luc's work--you're in for a real treat...

Competent is the word of the day here. The acting's not great but it's **competent**. The style isn't blowing my mind but it's shot **competently**.
_Papillon_ is the sort of movie that will have its lead hit near-anorexia to express the level of torture his character has suffered, but can't have him grow a beard past sexy manicured stubble despite being isolated in a cell with nothing for two whole years. It commits hard to half-measures. A very unusual paradox that leads to a movie that's very, **very** okay.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

**A decent film, which has what it takes to entertain us minimally, but which is still far from the quality we would like to see.**
After many years dormant, the "Pink Panther" franchise was entitled to a very brief resurrection with two films starring Steve Martin. I saw the original films, from the 60s, 70s and 80s, in which Peter Sellers played the infamous Inspector Clouseau. With the death of Sellers, the franchise continued, with some absolutely bad films that dictated its end. This new film was heavily criticized by critics and was not able to give the public everything they wanted, but the truth is that it was a box office success and that, even today, it has the right to recurring exhibitions on TV channels, something that the original movies don't have it anymore.
The choice of Steve Martin for the protagonist, I believe, was quite wise, insofar as the actor knew how to do a job that respects and seeks to honor the legacy of Sellers (an actor that Martin himself admitted that he admired a lot). Martin is good at what he does, and he's a well-known comic actor, but the humor he bets on is more predictable and idiotic than Sellers' humor, and the truth is, he's not particularly funny. Jean Reno was a welcome addition, as the actor is quite comfortable with the role and the kind of humor that is reserved for him. Emily Mortimer works very well as a platonic love interest. I found her much funnier than the protagonist himself. Kevin Kline doesn't work very well as Dreyfus: the actor gave him a seriousness that takes away all the fun. In turn, Beyoncé seems to have been chosen only for her physical beauty and ability to mobilize her fans to see the film. She can't play a character, she's just being herself.
The screenplay is part of the problem with this film, with a far-fetched and rocambolesque story in which the pink diamond is stolen almost in plain sight, shortly after the death of its owner, a famous football coach. The story is simply weak and unappealing. And while the cinematography is decent, the filming locations are well-chosen and well-used, and the animated opening credits are pretty well done, the rest limps a lot: editing and visual effects work are the film's weak points, the pacing seems uneven and unbalanced and the soundtrack seems to be limited to a series of variations on top of the leitmotif given by the tone of Mancini's original music.

From the beginning I knew a prequel to the PINK PANTHER series would be an abomination. I did not, however, think it would be worse than I expected. I went to see the movie because I am a fan of Steve Martin and his writing. His attempt at either imitating or recreating the Clouseau role (whichever it was) was, in the very least, a failed accomplishment. The beauty of the Sellers "Clouseau" was the subtlety that Sellers brought to the character. He was clumsy as opposed to stupid. The real humor in the originals is that Clouseau would solve the case, more or less, by accident through his faults. Thus when he received acclaim it was that much more humorous. Martin's "Clouseau" is stupid and vain and has no likable traits. He actually has some police skills that help him in the end, but are not in the vain of Clouseau. He is NOT Clouseau. Why would anyone want to recreate a character that was perfect?

I'll be honest, I didn't fully have a clue what was happening for large portions. Yet, I still weirdly enjoyed watching 'I’m Thinking of Ending Things'.
I think the main reasons for that are the two leads: Jessie Buckley and Jesse Plemons. They kept everything feeling fresh and intriguing to me, both have their moments in this. Toni Collette and David Thewlis also do very well. I like the cast, for sure.
As for the plot, it didn't do anything for me but it did keep me thinking which I appreciated. I, personally, would've preferred a shorter run time and clearer meaning - the latter is just me though, I'm sure others will adore the way the film is portrayed.
Some other reviewers have put it perfectly in terms of matching me: not nous enough to 'get it', but it still comes across as a good film. I'm fine with that, each to their own as always.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https//www.msbreviews.com
Charlie Kaufman is undeniably one of the greatest writers of the 2000s. Being John Malkovich and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind are some of his most notable works, but it’s Synecdoche, New York that’s considered by many as one of the best films of the respective decade. Therefore, I was obviously excited about his return to live-action movies (since 2008, he’s only made the animated feature, Anomalisa). I’m Thinking of Ending Things boasts an incredibly talented cast, capable of seating me down and make me watch any film they participate in, even though Jessie Buckley (Dolittle) is sort of a new face to me. My expectations were moderately high, so how did it go?
I’m not going to lie, I found this movie so intricate that I had a really hard time figuring it all out. As soon as it ended, I knew I didn’t understand it in full, which generated an unusual yet refreshing feeling inside me. I felt the need to not only think about the film all night but since I didn’t have the time to watch it again, I returned to a few specific scenes in the next morning. I also researched a bit and talked with a fellow critic to settle some of my mind’s internal debates. I write this to imply that this is not an easy movie to decipher, which will definitely throw some people off. It’s a film that requires all of the viewer’s attention and self-questioning capability. Otherwise, things will get complicated.
As usual, I’m not sharing any spoilers, so I’ll keep my opinion about the story’s multiple interpretations to the bare minimum. Of all the numerous ways of explaining this movie, I found two: either from Jessie Buckley’s character’s perspective or from Jesse Plemons’. I like both for different reasons. In terms of logic, which every viewer will struggle to find, Plemons’ character is the key to understand the remarkably complex, multi-layered narrative. Looking at the film from his perspective, everything makes much more sense. However, it’s surprisingly from Buckley’s view that I find the movie’s message to be more interesting and likely to resonate with most people.
Making an impactful move in life requires determination, courage, decisiveness. Moving to another country, switching jobs, ending a relationship… all can be extremely demanding and psychologically painful. I’m Thinking of Ending Things brilliantly demonstrates how one can delay these actions sometimes indefinitely. From the excruciatingly long car drives (almost an hour of the runtime is spent inside the car listening to the main characters debating apparently random philosophical themes) to the enigmatic transitions of time passing by, Kaufman’s screenplay keeps transmitting a message of how people are stationary and time just keeps flowing.
This film takes ambiguousness and metaphoric filmmaking to a whole other level. Not only everything the viewer is seeing has, in some shape or form, a philosophical meaning, but the dialogues between the main characters are themselves about cultural, intellectual, sophisticated matters. Some of these conversations have an eventual impact in the narrative or in the characters, some just feel like Kaufman needed to express his thoughts on several subjects. With a runtime of slightly over two hours, this movie overstays its welcome a bit due to the insistence in delivering repetitive, similar scenes with the same goal.
The time shenanigans performed in the parents’ house is undoubtedly intriguing, but it’s more distracting than helpful story-wise. Having in mind the already puzzling narrative, the confusion associated with understanding how time works only creates even more doubts. It also deviates the viewer’s attention from the real focus, which didn’t help my first viewing. In fact, I was so concentrated trying to comprehend the purpose behind the old-young versions of the characters that I completely lost track of the runtime, ultimately thinking the film was near its ending when it still had forty minutes to go…
There’s a limit to how abstract and implicit a movie can be without becoming genuinely hard to understand, and Kaufman walks that threshold. Successful sometimes, not that much in other moments. Nevertheless, I can only share compliments from now on. Firstly, the cast. I’ve been in love with anything Toni Collette does since Hereditary, and once again, she’s weirdly captivating as an amusing yet disturbing mother. David Thewlis offers a subtler performance, as well as Jesse Plemons, even though the latter explodes with emotion in the third act.
However, Jessie Buckley steals the spotlight in impeccable fashion. Like I mentioned in the beginning, I know very little of her as an actress, but I’ll make sure to add her to the list of “actresses to follow closely”. With one of the biggest emotional ranges seen this year, she delivers an incredibly captivating display, one that should guarantee her name in future contender’s list for the awards season. From citing entire poems to fiercely debating any topic thrown at her by Plemons, her commitment to the role is palpable. An astonishing performance that I will remember for a long time. However, it’s in the technical realm that this film achieves perfection.
Without the shadow of a doubt, this is the best movie of the year when it comes to the technical attributes (until the date of this review, obviously). Almost every filmmaking element carries a tremendous impact in either the narrative or its characters. The purposefully rough editing (Robert Frazen) adds to the perplexing atmosphere. The lighting plus the production (Molly Hughes) and set design (Mattie Siegal) help identify “where” a particular event is happening. The detailed costume design (Melissa Toth) and the impressive makeup are vital to the understanding of everything that occurs in the parents’ house. The distinct cinematography (Łukasz Żal) elevates every single action performed by the characters. It’s a technically flawless film, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see it being nominated for several categories when the time comes.
I’m Thinking of Ending Things might be a Netflix original movie, but it screams A24 all the way. From the incredibly perplexing narrative told through bizarre storytelling to its distinctly unconventional technical characteristics, Charlie Kaufman offers a remarkably complex film that can take different interpretations (and may require more than one viewing). His insistence in transmitting one of the film’s messages through never-ending philosophical conversations and confusing time-bending distractions stretch the story to an unnecessary long runtime that hurts the overall piece. Nevertheless, all messages are successfully delivered through an intriguing, head-scratching, weirdly captivating story packed with cultural debates and unique characters. An absolutely outstanding Jessie Buckley elevates every single line of dialogue, showing tremendous emotional range, but the impressively talented cast also improves the multi-layered screenplay. Technically, it is and it will remain as one of the best movies of the year. Every technical aspect is close to perfection, and almost all have a massive impact on the story and how the viewer interprets it. It will undoubtedly create a gap between critics and audiences since it has all the ingredients that usually place these groups at opposite extremes. I can only recommend it to people who are able to dedicate their full attention to what they’re watching while being capable of self-questioning. It’s not your usual Netflix flick to pop during tedious home tasks to help pass the time, so make sure you know what you're getting into!
Rating: B

This movie follows a familiar subset of the thriller genre, that of the journalist investigating a story and discovering there is more involved than what meets the eye, and before he knows it there is evidence of a conspiracy stretching high into government. How high? Well, that of course varies from one conspiracy movie to the next.
I couldn’t help but notice that one of the methods of death early on here was later borrowed by the series House of Cards (U.S. version). But there are only so many ways of making possible murders look like accidents or suicides, so perhaps it was coincidental. The acting and the writing were fine, however familiar the story seemed. It just felt like it wouldn’t have taken much originality to alter the plot to separate it from all the other journalistic investigations of government corruption.